What is this thing called "sin"?

[Barrd]

I'm a bit confused, here.
I'm told that all have sinned.
I'm told that our sin has separated us from God.
I am told that it is our sin that put Our Lord, Jesus Christ up on the cross.

I believe these things.

But what is "sin"?

The Beloved Disciple has the answer:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But..how is this so? A great many people on this board seem to think that there is no more law. The law, they tell me, has been "done away". It is no more.

So, how are we transgressing the law? Where there is no law, there is no sin.

 

[Angelina]

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But..how is this so? A great many people on this board seem to think that there is no more law. The law, they tell me, has been "done away". It is no more.

Romans 8
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Be Blessed!

 

[FHII]

What Angelina said was a pretty good answer. However Barrd, I don't think I can help, other than to read the rest of the chapter (1 John 3).

 

[Barrd]

Romans 8
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Be Blessed!

Yes, Angelina, I've had that verse and several others quoted for me. It's a great verse, it really is...I like it a lot.
But it doesn't answer my question.

Here is another really good verse:


Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

But why are we confining ourselves to Paul? Hear the Lord Jesus Christ:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[StanJ]

Rom 14:23 (NIV)

 

[Barrd]

What Angelina said was a pretty good answer. However Barrd, I don't think I can help, other than to read the rest of the chapter (1 John 3).

Yes, Angelina gave me a very good answer.
Problem is, I've read the rest of Romans...

Besides, none of this bantering answers my question, does it?

What is sin?

 

[heretoeternity]

Paul in Romans "do we sin more so grace abounds? God forbid! and "do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. We establish the law"
and 1st John in numerous places defines sin, and how to tell we are God's people, by keeping His laws..for example "those who say they know Him and keep NOT His commandments are liars and the truth is not in them!

 

[Barrd]

Rom 14:23 (NIV)

You do know that Romans 14 is about eating "unclean" foods, right?
Your verse says:

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

This does not mean that I may faithfully murder my uncle...it means that I may faithfully eat my sister-in-law's cooking (you never know what might be in that stew). It doesn't mean that I may steal, or even spread lies about my neighbor.

As someone else once said to me...context, context, context.

 

[Barrd]

Paul in Romans "do we sin more so grace abounds? God forbid! and "do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. We establish the law"
and 1st John in numerous places defines sin, and how to tell we are God's people, by keeping His laws..for example "those who say they know Him and keep NOT His commandments are liars and the truth is not in them!

So, evidently, Paul is not teaching that the law has been "done away."
And neither is John.
Important information!

And Jesus says:

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

I love Him. Therefore, I will strive to keep His commandments.
And I have this promise:

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

 

[FHII]

Paul in Romans "do we sin more so grace abounds? God forbid! and "do we make void the law through faith? God forbid. We establish the law"
and 1st John in numerous places defines sin, and how to tell we are God's people, by keeping His laws..for example "those who say they know Him and keep NOT His commandments are liars and the truth is not in them!

Wrll, you quoted a little from romans 6, withoit regards to romans 5, as well as the explanation in romans 6.

Furthermore, 1 john 3 speaks about keeping his (Christ's) commandment, not the law of moses.

 

[Barrd]

Wrll, you quoted a little from romans 6, withoit regards to romans 5, as well as the explanation in romans 6.

First of all, the Bible cannot contradict itself. You absolutely must get a grip on this important point. If it says in one place "obey My commandments" any supposed teaching to the contrary is obviously being taken out of context. It all must harmonize.

Furthermore, 1 john 3 speaks about keeping his (Christ's) commandment, not the law of moses.

Yes, FHII! You are finally catching on!
Now take it the rest of the way...
Christ's commandments are the Ten Commandments!

 

[StanJ]

You do know that Romans 14 is about eating "unclean" foods, right?
Your verse says:

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

This does not mean that I may faithfully murder my uncle...it means that I may faithfully eat my sister-in-law's cooking (you never know what might be in that stew). It doesn't mean that I may steal, or even spread lies about my neighbor.

As someone else once said to me...context, context, context.

It doesn't matter what the subject is, the rule if you will, is that sin is based on doing things you don't have the faith or freedom to do.
You could add a whole bunch of scenarios before the word FOR.

Sometimes your examples are totally ludicrous Barrd. Nobody would ever have the faith to murder.

If you don't understand what context means, then you shouldn't address it. As the context here IS the end of Paul's statement, it IS in context. hat you're basically doing here is the same thing John Chrysostom did way back around 375 AD. He tried to limit it to the subject at hand, but that was not Paul's intention. He was showing that particular issue, like all issues of faith, are based on our faith.
Richard C.H. Lenski, in his commentary on Romans from 2008, points out;
Is this to be restricted to the Christian alone and to the matter of the adiaphora(issues outside of moral law)alone, namely to faith in this domain? No; it covers this domain only because it is a part of one that is much larger. (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 854)

 

[FHII]

First of all, the Bible cannot contradict itself. You absolutely must get a grip on this important point. If it says in one place "obey My commandments" any supposed teaching to the contrary is obviously being taken out of context. It all must harmonize.

Yes, FHII! You are finally catching on!
Now take it the rest of the way...
Christ's commandments are the Ten Commandments!

No they are not. John himself in that very book where you got your one-liner about sin being transgression of the law also specifically tells us what the comnandments of Christ are. I refer you to 1 John 3:23. It says his commandment is 1. Believe on Jesus; 2. Love one another. THAT'S NOT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!

Paul said the same thing, Peter said it, Jesus said it and even James did. When are you going to get on board?

 

[FHII]

I'm a bit confused, here.
I'm told that all have sinned.
I'm told that our sin has separated us from God.
I am told that it is our sin that put Our Lord, Jesus Christ up on the cross.

I believe these things.

But what is "sin"?

The Beloved Disciple has the answer:

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But..how is this so? A great many people on this board seem to think that there is no more law. The law, they tell me, has been "done away". It is no more.

So, how are we transgressing the law? Where there is no law, there is no sin.

Romans 5: ....for until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simitude of Adam's transgression....

So where ever you were going with this philosophical theory, that verse should put it to rest!

 

[Barrd]

It doesn't matter what the subject is, the rule if you will, is that sin is based on doing things you don't have the faith or freedom to do.
You could add a whole bunch of scenarios before the word FOR.

Sin is basically disobedience to God. It is transgression of the law. It is not doing what is right in the eyes of God.

Sometimes your examples are totally ludicrous Barrd. Nobody would ever have the faith to murder.

You've never heard of anyone who totally believed that God told them to do it?
Of course you have.
That isn't always just an excuse, Stan. There have truly been people who have thought that it was God's will for them to do what they did. Hitler springs to mind.

If you don't understand what context means, then you shouldn't address it. As the context here IS the end of Paul's statement, it IS in context. hat you're basically doing here is the same thing John Chrysostom did way back around 375 AD. He tried to limit it to the subject at hand, but that was not Paul's intention. He was showing that particular issue, like all issues of faith, are based on our faith.
Richard C.H. Lenski, in his commentary on Romans from 2008, points out;
Is this to be restricted to the Christian alone and to the matter of the adiaphora(issues outside of moral law)alone, namely to faith in this domain? No; it covers this domain only because it is a part of one that is much larger. (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 854)

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against scholars or scholarship. Except that they don't always agree. I've seen one pull up a scholar that said one thing, while someone else pulled up another scholar with a dissenting opinion. And so have you.
And that's fine, of course. It is how we learn.
But if you don't mind, let's stick to the Bible.

The chapter is all about whether or not to eat certain kinds of meat. The context is whether or not to eat in front of the brother who thinks it a sin to eat....iow, putting a "stumblingblock" in front of him.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Context.

 

[heretoeternity]

Romans 5: ....for until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simitude of Adam's transgression....

So where ever you were going with this philosophical theory, that verse should put it to rest!

You sure hate those Ten commandments of God don't you? Guess you think is okay to commit adultery? You think it's okay to steal? You think its okay use God's name in vain? interesting religion you are following!

 

[FHII]

Ok....
You sure hate those Ten commandments of God don't you? Guess you think is okay to commit adultery? You think it's okay to steal? You think its okay use God's name in vain? interesting religion you are following!

I'm a christian, not one under the law...

 

[heretoeternity]

I'm a christian, not one under the law...

Okay then, good luck with that..satan loves it!

 

[mjrhealth]

Okay then, good luck with that..satan loves it!

One should be wary of what one says, the only consequecne of breaking the law is death, there is no grace for those under the law. What he loves is all these "christians" fighting and bickering of what they understand, because he knows they will not take things to God. he wins so many batttles without lifting a finger all because of mans pride and arrogance. hes being laughing at mans foolishness sice Adam and Eve and will do so untill he gets thrown tino prison.

Gal_5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal_2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Seems sometimes that Jesus wasted His time, doin all He did, and having so few who really desire to know the truth.

 

[StanJ]

Sin is basically disobedience to God. It is transgression of the law. It is not doing what is right in the eyes of God.
You've never heard of anyone who totally believed that God told them to do it?
Of course you have.

Just showed you what Paul said sin is in the NT, so if you don't believe Paul we don't have much to discuss.
Using human reasoning won't cut it Barrd. A crazy/schizophrenic person does NOT have faith. You always use strawmen to try and prove your POV.

That isn't always just an excuse, Stan. There have truly been people who have thought that it was God's will for them to do what they did. Hitler springs to mind.

AGAIN, they weren't saved, and didn't have true faith.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against scholars or scholarship. Except that they don't always agree. I've seen one pull up a scholar that said one thing, while someone else pulled up another scholar with a dissenting opinion. And so have you.
And that's fine, of course. It is how we learn.
But if you don't mind, let's stick to the Bible.

You're right, they don't always agree, but they've done the work and I'm showing you the work. If you haven't done the work and don't understand it then how can you have an INFORMED opinion?

The chapter is all about whether or not to eat certain kinds of meat. The context is whether or not to eat in front of the brother who thinks it a sin to eat....iow, putting a "stumblingblock" in front of him.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

The chapter is about freedom in faith. Paul uses an example that was present. Spiritual laws are applicable in ALL scenarios, not just the one they are used in. Paul is writing about the weak and strong, the mature and immature. He starts out by saying..."Accept the one who's faith is weak..."