Inconsistency of Christians never being sinless

[Ghada]

The sad part is that if you don't confess your sins O sinless one, you may not be forgiven.

Once again your gospel of being saved without works is gutless.

If anyone does not confess their sinning, we are not forgiven nor saved period.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I've seen Christians such as yourself, being rebuked doctrinally, who then cast aside your doctrine of salvation having no part with your works. You do in order to judge other Christian believers as being saved or not by our works. You won't ever make such a judgemnt for yourself, but you certainly will for others disagreeing with you.

A warning from you about our works judging our salvation, is as meaningless as a puff of vapor in a storm.

 

[Jack]

I know it is, but it's what you teach by saying children of the devil are saved by being nice from time to time. That's universalism.

The devil has no good side with God, nor His children sinning with him against God.

You admit lying and say you NEVER sin? Better confess. You may not be forgiven.

 

[Jack]

Once again your gospel of being saved without works is gutless.

And another lie!

If anyone does not confess their sinning, we are not forgiven nor saved period.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I've seen Christians such as yourself, being rebuked doctrinally, who then cast aside your doctrine of salvation having no part with your works.

And another lie!

You do in order to judge other Christian believers as being saved or not by our works. You won't ever make such a judgemnt for yourself, but you certainly will for others disagreeing with you.

A warning from you about our works judging our salvation, is as meaningless as a puff of vapor in a storm.

Attention O sinless one!!! It's YOU who are judging others. Not me.

 

[Grailhunter]

A nice dissertation I'm sure. But since no specific point of the my post is even mentioned and challenged. It stands uncorrected.

It is an independent argument coupled with Bible verses, that have nothing to do with literary religious style of the time.

What it plainly shows is the inconsistency of some Christians preaching against never sinning in this life, while also trying to preach only sinning some of the time.

The only consistent way of preaching against never sinning at all, is only by also preaching for sinning all the time.

Like said it the literary religious style of the times, it is hard to pick up on. You can tell it is a style because everyone back then was using it. It confuses many, so don't feel bad your part of the proud crowd. If you do not understand this literary style and the time period, it is going to look inconsistent, kinda like you cannot see the forest for the trees. When the big picture is there that would bring clarity, ya cannot see it with your nose is up against the tree.

 

[Windmillcharge]

So, you do sin all the time.

That is why you quote Bible verse having to do with all men, before being converted by Jesus Christ with newness of life, and all things are now of God.

The Christian gospel of all have sinned, and continue sinning is not that of the Bible.

Because some Christians keep doing it. And among them some Christians teach it for life, and condemning anyone not doing it like them.

It's one thing to continue sinning as Christian. It's worse to justify it by a Christian doctrine of one's own. But it's worst to then condemn the righteous, for teaching the Bible gospel of going and sinning no more.

Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.


Not. Your judgement of all Christians by your own personal sinful life, is not the judgement of the Father.


Not true. There is only one perfect and whole hearted conversion of Jesus Christ in the Bible. But there is also another partial Christian conversion of having sinned, and continuing to sin at times, that you preach.

Do you understand the Holiness of God?
Have you any comprehension of how repulsive sin is and what sin is?

The ten commandment supervised teach we are to love God with all our being body, mind and Spirit.
If we have not done that, then we have sinned.
So how do you willingly obey that command?

 

[mailmandan]

You admit lying and say you NEVER sin? Better confess. You may not be forgiven.

1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, (present tense) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, (past tense) we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. Those who claim to be sinless 100% of the time are suffering from a terminal case of self-righteousness.

 

[Ghada]

I'm a sinner and so are you.

1 John 1
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

As the old saying goes. Sinners love sinful company. And some are so doctrinally invested in their conscience for it, that they even make up imaginary simple playmates to fill in the gaps.

Your self-contradiction here shows you no longer have any concept of what you are saying from one time to another.

First you say what a sinner you are. Then you are offended at being accused of what a sinner you are. Now you say what a sinner you and I am. So If I call myself a sinner like you, will you be offended at the accusation against myself?

No need to answer. I don't care what others call me, so long as I'm not. And if I say I am, I'll not be offended for others repeating me.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

[Ghada]

I said Universalism is Satanic. Learn English.

Then stop teaching it. Learn English rebuke.

 

[Jack]

As the old saying goes. Sinners love sinful company. And some are so doctrinally invested in their conscience for it, that they even make up imaginary simple playmates to fill in the gaps.

Your self-contradiction here shows you no longer have any concept of what you are saying from one time to another.

First you say what a sinner you are. Then you are offended at being accused of what a sinner you are. Now you say what a sinner you and I am. So If I call myself a sinner like you, will you be offended at the accusation against myself?

As you admitted, "I have sinned many times as a believer in Jesus,"

We are all sinners. Some just refuse to admit to the Truth.

 

[Jack]

Then stop teaching it. Learn English rebuke.

I have NEVER believed Universalism. Please stop lying!

 

[Ghada]

Like said it the literary religious style of the times, it is hard to pick up on. You can tell it is a style because everyone back then was using it. It confuses many, so don't feel bad your part of the proud crowd. If you do not understand this literary style and the time period, it is going to look inconsistent, kinda like you cannot see the forest for the trees. When the big picture is there that would bring clarity, ya cannot see it with your nose is up against the tree.

I see now. You are only talking about the manner of the argument, not about the argument itself. That's fine, since my training is in classical argument, I'll take it as a compliment of a classical way to prove something true. Thanks.

It's also classic argument to know the point made is true, when no one else can reasonably argue against it. It's called common sense teaching. Which also is classical and is lost on many people today, who think just because they don't want to believe something, it must mean it's can't be true.

What they do instead is talk about the style of the argument, rather than the argument itself.

 

[Grailhunter]

It's also classic argument to know the point made is true, when no one else can reasonably argue against it.

Is it true? The point is with the religious literary style of the time, in theory people would not have to debate ....just present scriptures from the same Apostle and the scriptures would appear to be debating against each other. The thousands of denominations are part of people picking which scriptures to believe and explaining away the others.

It happens all the time on this forum .....from there the people pick which scripture to believe and try to explain away the other. It is a style because they were all using it and it is all over the Bible.....things like You must honor your father and mother or you must hate your father and mother to be my disciple.

That is why it is important to keep the big picture in mind….the Spirit of Christ and Christianity.

 

[Ghada]

I see, you're concern, which is legitimate, is over Bible argument in the first place? I can show you where the Bible supports the right of every believer to prove any person's teaching by the Bible for themselves.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

We are commanded to prove our teaching to others, by their own review of what we teach vs what they read the Bible saying. We ought first therefore to study our own teaching against the Bible, to ensure it is Bible, and not just our own mind and will.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Is it true? The point is with the religious literary style of the time, in theory people would not have to debate .

So, no, this is not true. The Bereans were deemed more noble than other hearers, because they went to the Bible itself to see if what Paul was saying was true from the Bible or not. That is the source of debating the Bible.

Apollos and other apostles 'mighty in the Scriptures' disputed and debated the Bible constantly with others. Look up 'dispute' and 'disputed' in Acts.

The Bible only talks about two kinds of vain arguments about the things of God.

One is to argue about God over our own opinions, especially over beers in a bar.

The other is not to continue debating the Bible over any point of irreconcilable difference. What's the point in debating the Bible over the Godhead, with someone that denies the Word was God?

Unfortunately that can include any of us Christians at any time.

There are of course levels of disagreement. Preaching a created christ is the cursed christ of another gospel. Preaching 'oneness' vs 'trinity' I don't believe ought be a fellowship breaker, so long as we still live godly in Christ Jesus from a pure heart.

...just present scriptures from the same Apostle

This is true. it is a good ministry that has passed from pulpits today. They would receive a letter and simply read it to one another.

Another good ministry in the churches has also been done away with, which ought not to have happened. Originally we see in the Synagogues, how that individuals, including strangers in the faith like Paul of Tarsus were invited to speak. That's how Jesus was free to stand and quote Isaiah of Himself.

Later we read in 1 Cor 14, how Paul needed to make order out of chaos in the Corinthian church. The first Christian assemblies had freedom to stand and speak, and not allowing one person to hog the whole show. They would read an epistle, and then they could stand and speak on it. There were ongoing debates in the assemblies. Which is good and healthy. Paul simply needed to show how to do it decently and in order. The churches were conducted like that of democratic assemblies of the time and town halls today.

The single-speaker dominion in the churches only came later, and that is real abuse of pulpits began. Eventually they were so used to one person being in charge all the time, they made for themselves Popes. Much like the children of Israel making for themselves kings. They didn't want the Lord Himself ruling over the assemblies of free and equal brothers and sisters in the faith.

It takes more mature judgement among people to speak freely one at a time, rather than just sit down watch the show. But hey, at least kids can still to sit down and be polite. P.s. Paul's exhortation about women keeping silent int he churches was simply the old dumb-blode rule. I mean, women do tend to speak out and ask questions right in the middle of the action.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.

 

[Ghada]

and the scriptures would appear to be debating against each other.

This is certainly true, and is not wrong in itself to think so, since I believe God has written His words on purpose that way. Not to confuse, but to test our faith, and to show us how His own Spirit as well as other believers can guide us into all truth of the Bible.

Many unbelievers in history have tried to prove Bible contradictions, and have never succeeded. Some have even been converted by the Bible, when they were honest with themselves that these are indeed the very words of the one true God. They are too perfectly aligned with one another, for all those men over thousands of years to have written them separately from their own minds.

Some Christians make the error of treating the words of the Bible as just that of 'wise and holy' men. They think one prophet writes, and another apostle reads it, until he thinks he has it perfectly figured out, and then adds some more stuff from his own mind. And then God after the fact picks out what writings He likes most.

Moses declares that nothing the prophets write are from their own minds, which Paul and Peter confirm. All Scripture is by direct inspiration from God's own mouth, and none of it is from the mind and will of any other man on earth, than Jesus.

1 Peter goes so far as to say that the prophets didn't even understand everything they were writing from the Spirit of Christ in them.

The Bible puts it this way: all the prophets and apostles were just the ready pens in the hand of God to write his words, and not their own.

The thousands of denominations are part of people picking which scriptures to believe and explaining away the others.

Picking with Scriptures is not wrong. Picking them out of place and putting them where they don't belong is wrong.

Denominations are only because some Christians pick and choose for themselves some teachings of Bible over others, and so naturally gravitate to that. This is not destructive. It's like colors naturally migrating in the same area to congregate with each other. So long as it is not by purpose of will, then so be it.

The destructive part is only when some people think they have 'found' something special in the Bible all to themselves, so that they begin to judge other Christians by their own special little 'revealed' doctrines and rules. That's especially true with rule making. That's where separatist sects cull themselves off from the rest of the body.

It happens all the time on this forum .....from there the people pick which scripture to believe and try to explain away the other.

It's a right. No one has to believe what anyone else teaches out of the Bible. We all have the Christian Berean right to read the Bible for ourselves.. That includes only believing and following those teachings that we agree with. If we're wrong, then so be it. But I don't have to believe, and especially not obey any doctrine and rule that I do not believe is the Bible. And frankly, it's not hard. Afterall, as you say, all we have to do is read from the Bible itself.

When Paul says to obey leaders in the Churches, he is not talking about bad leaders of nonbiblic doctrine and rule. He qualifies that with only those proven elders, who are looking out for our souls and are indeed preaching exactly what the Bible says, and only that. Like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That's also why Paul says not to follow young 2x 4 wanna be ministers, that are still learning how to balance a checkbook and have never done anything successful in their own lives and homes. The Father would not let Jesus launch into full time ministry, until He had also grown in favor with men as well as God. Look at the difference between the verse of His youth and that of a man in Luke 2:39, 52.

Paul says about the Corinthian church at one time, that we are sometimes better off staying home and ministering to each other, rather than going to church and fouling everything up.

 

[Ghada]

It is a style because they were all using it and it is all over the Bible.....things like You must honor your father and mother or you must hate your father and mother to be my disciple.

This is where faith in the Bible comes in. We either believe all the words of the Bible, or we don't. And so we either wait to see how it isn't contradicting itself, but only appears to be. Once again, God has done this on purpose, not because some of it isn't true, nor to trick up His own people. He does so rather to take the crafty in their own craftiness and expose their heart of unbelief.

We can write this down as axiom: Anyone not believe any part of the Bible, and/or believes the Bible contradicts itself in any way, is only looking for fault in order not to take God's commandments serious enough to have to obey them. Remember, no one lives contrary to the will of God, just because they don't think the dry Red Sea bed was really dry.

And so with your example, most of the time it's just context. Jesus at one time rebukes for not honoring mother and father, and then at another time rebukes for loving mother and father more than Him. Hating in the Bible is not always with emotion nor evil intent. It's simply a matter of choosing what we love most.

Biblically speaking, if we love salt more than pepper, then we hate the pepper. Childish people think because one side chooses someone else over them, that means they are 'hated' emotionally and personally.

That is why it is important to keep the big picture in mind….the Spirit of Christ and Christianity.

This is true and it's called the simplicity of Christ. And it is a fact that any refusal of fellowship is mainly from open sinning, especially in the assembly.

However, since false prophecy and teaching can and have destroyed the faith in God's people and endanger our souls, then throughout the Bible we are constantly warned against it. Check out 2 Peter 2 for that one.

With me. I love the Bible and part of that includes defending it against teachings differing with the Bible. I do it without getting personal about it, because I frankly don't care what other Christians think about the Bible, but only what we can prove. For me it's more of an instructional exercise. However, it certainly includes obligation to do the word, and not just think and talk and argue over it.

 

[Grailhunter]

So, no, this is not true. The Bereans were deemed more noble than other hearers, because they went to the Bible itself to see if what Paul was saying was true from the Bible or not. That is the source of debating the Bible.

Apollos and other apostles 'mighty in the Scriptures' disputed and debated the Bible constantly with others. Look up 'dispute' and 'disputed' in Acts.

The Bible only talks about two kinds of vain arguments about the things of God.

One is to argue about God over our own opinions, especially over beers in a bar.

The other is not to continue debating the Bible over any point of irreconcilable difference. What's the point in debating the Bible over the Godhead, with someone that denies the Word was God?

Unfortunately that can include any of us Christians at any time.

There are of course levels of disagreement. Preaching a created christ is the cursed christ of another gospel. Preaching 'oneness' vs 'trinity' I don't believe ought be a fellowship breaker, so long as we still live godly in Christ Jesus from a pure heart.

Not sure of your point here but my point is true....you see it on the forum here all the time....and it is coming from the Bible....

 

[Grailhunter]

This is where faith in the Bible comes in. We either believe all the words of the Bible, or we don't. And so we either wait to see how it isn't contradicting itself, but only appears to be. Once again, God has done this on purpose, not because some of it isn't true, nor to trick up His own people. He does so rather to take the crafty in their own craftiness and expose their heart of unbelief.

We can write this down as axiom: Anyone not believe any part of the Bible, and/or believes the Bible contradicts itself in any way, is only looking for fault in order not to take God's commandments serious enough to have to obey them. Remember, no one lives contrary to the will of God, just because they don't think the dry Red Sea bed was really dry.

And so with your example, most of the time it's just context. Jesus at one time rebukes for not honoring mother and father, and then at another time rebukes for loving mother and father more than Him. Hating in the Bible is not always with emotion nor evil intent. It's simply a matter of choosing what we love most.

Biblically speaking, if we love salt more than pepper, then we hate the pepper. Childish people think because one side chooses someone else over them, that means they are 'hated' emotionally and personally.

I think you missed my point here.
I was not addressing contradictions.
I was discussing the religious literary style of the time period.

 

[Ghada]

I think you missed my point here.
I was not addressing contradictions.
I was discussing the religious literary style of the time period.

Ok

 

[Scott Downey]

Scripture tells us we are a body, a soul, and a spirit.
Our spirit is that which is born again of God, we still have the same body after being born again and our mind has to be turned to dwell on godly things , not conformed to the ways of this world.

That new spirit that God creates in us, does not sin and indeed cannot sin as it is born of God.
It is also joined to the Lord as one spirit with God.

However, our body and our mind, or perhaps soul can and still does sin. But the new spirit is perfected in Christ and does not sin.

Like scripture clearly says right here,

1 John 3:8-10
New King James Version
8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

​

If v9 is a lie, then you could not be saved. But it is true and is no lie, so you then are saved, as your new spirit joined to the Lord God, can not sin.

Argue against scripture all you wish, but if so your doctrine is false.

 

[Jack]

Scripture tells us we are a body, a soul, and a spirit.
Our spirit is that which is born again of God, we still have the same body after being born again and our mind has to be turned to dwell on godly things , not conformed to the ways of this world.

That new spirit that God creates in us, does not sin and indeed cannot sin as it is born of God.
It is also joined to the Lord as one spirit with God.

However, our body and our mind, or perhaps soul can and still does sin. But the new spirit is perfected in Christ and does not sin.

Like scripture clearly says right here,

1 John 3:8-10
New King James Version
8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

​

If v9 is a lie, then you could not be saved. But it is true and is no lie, so you then are saved, as your new spirit joined to the Lord God, can not sin.

Argue against scripture all you wish, but if so your doctrine is false.

So, those who have been saved and later committed a sin are not saved? Have you ever sinned since you got saved?