I ask in this way, because I believe it has 2 answers. Yes and No. Yes, because of Sin generally. If not for sin, there would not have been a fall, and thus, people will go to Hell because of sin. However, they will not be in Hell because of their sin. Christ died for the sins of the world and thus, they will specifically be in Hell because of their unbelief.
I want to quote "Grace" by Lewis Chafer for a moment (breaking or bending my own rules, but I hope it triggers some biblical discussion).
"....through the substitutinary death of Christ for all men as Sin-Bearer (John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:14,19) the ground of universal divine condemntation is now beause of the personal rejection of the Savior who bore the sin. This is set forth in His Word: "He that believeth on him is not condemnted: bue he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18); "But he that believeth not shall be damnted" Mark 16:16."
"In confirmation of the fact that men are now condemned because of unbelief, it should be note that when the Spirit of God approaches the unsaved to convince them of sin, he does not same themk or blame them conerning the sins they have committed, instead he convicts them of the one sin only." Of sin, becuase they believe not on me" (John 16:9). So also, Christians are said to be free from all condemtnaion on the sole ground that they have believed on the Savior. (John 3:18. Cf 5:24; Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 11:32; 2 Cor 5:19)"
"At this point God offers but one remedy. That remedy is Grace."
"Men are either utterly condemned under the universal decree of the Judge of all the earth, or they are perfectly saved and safe in the grace of God as it is in Jesus Christ" Quotes are from pages 41-43.
I do not agree with everything Chafer says, but he puts this well in my opinion.
I submit that Christ died for all sin, and that people will only be in Hell if they do not believe in him. But, they will be in Hell because of sin, because with out the fall, we would not need a savior. All sin was put on Christ at the Cross. If we believe in Christ, we have life in his name or "eternal life."
Christ even died for the sin of unbelief. If he had not, we would all be going to Hell. But eternal life is gained by belief in Christ.
Thus, repentance cannot be a condition of eternal life, becuase the sin is already paid for. If we had to turn from it, then it was not paid for. If I must do something to have eternal life, then it is not unmerited, nor is it grace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
543 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 543 Newer› Newest»Trent said...
good try LOL. but you are confusing what is paid for (the fertilizer) and what it is being used for, (the grass) In the case of Jesus's case, the Payment is the application as well. :)
My fertilizer is not necessarily efficacious. Neither is Christ’s payment for the sins of everyone. It was successful at making everybody able to pardoned, but it was not successful at pardoning everyone. A pardon must be accepted.
Trent said...
Please define How we accept payment for sins and show me where in the Bible it says we accept that payment?
The payment for sin comes along with accepting everlasting life. It only makes sense.
Trent said...
LB says "Is your criteria for going to Hell that you must have rejected Christ?"
No, it is Jn 3:16-18. If you have not believed in him for eternal life 1 tim 1:16, Jn 10:30-31. Revelation 20:15.
John 10
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
So, why does everyone who doesn’t believe in Christ go to Hell?
That you do not have life?
If it is, why does one not have life?
It seems you are giving the runaround so you don’t have to say that the unsaved go to Hell because of sin.
Trent said...
Where does it say that you have to pay for your sins? Again, I am not saying there are not penalties, I am saying that just like in this life, in eternity, there are consequences. With out the new life we are given that John explains that has no sin, we don't have an option. It really seems like either you are not understanding my stance, or you just can't accept it. Thats ok. but we do seem to be going in circles. Should we move to a different one or do you want to hammer this for a bit more? I know you like some of my posts. :)
Trent said...
Rom 6:23. Lets look at that. The wages of sin is death. See, its what you get for your work. you get what you sowed just like other scriptures I have quoted. But the gift of God is..?? Having those sins washed away? No? Its eternal life.
We both agree that people in the Lake of Fire pay for their sins. And they wouldn’t be in the Lake of Fire if it wasn’t for God’s righteousness. God puts them into the Lake of Fire because they are sinful and God can’t stand sin. Are you going to deny this fundamental doctrine?
Trent said...
Thats not what Jn 3:16-18 say, or 20:30-31 or any other condition where Jesus says what you need to have eternal life. thats an assumption and according to scripture, not a correct one. Where is substitutionary atonement mentioned? I was looking for it.
Trent said...
by the way, do you realize that Atonement is not even mentioned in the NT in the new american standard or NKJ? In the old KJ it is mentioned once. interesting..
Now Trent is denying the substitutionary atonement? Incredible!
How do you "accept" everlasting life and where in scripture does it say you have to accept payment or everlasting life as a condition for either? You also just stated that Christ's payment was not effective for everyone. Where does it say that in Scripture.
LB I already agreed with you, that the Lake of Fire is the natural place for those who do not have the new nature to go because of their Sin. What I am saying is IT IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR SIN. Your comments have helped me refine what I believe. Jesus Paid for the sins of the world, not believers only, right? If you do not have a new nature then yes you end up in the lake of fire. EX: IF you get in trouble with drugs, you go to court, and your father pays the fine. You go back home and find out though that you now have aids and die 6 months later. That had nothing to do with the LEGAL requirements or the law or Judge, it was a natural result from your lifestyle.
Trent said...
Rom 6:23. Lets look at that. The wages of sin is death. See, its what you get for your work. you get what you sowed just like other scriptures I have quoted. But the gift of God is..?? Having those sins washed away? No? Its eternal life.
The gift of God is not having your sins washed away? But you’re arguing that everyone’s sins were washed away at the cross. If the death needs to be dealt with, shouldn’t the sins be dealt with too?
A person does not have the capability to pay for their own sin. Read my example about the drug user and aids above and lets work from there.
LB I did not deny it, I was showing you that many of the words and phrases you are throwing about are not in the Bible. Lets try and stick to what God says, not men. Fair? Accepting? Substitutionary atonement? I bet you did not know that was not in the NT. I actually didn't know either. The Bible says Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world and that he loves the world. When we try and use men's logic to fill in blanks or make things easier for us to understand, we need to test them by scripture. Agreed?
Trent said...
LB, if I pay for a ticket, does anyone claim the ticket never existed? Jesus paid for all sin, past, present and future, including mine and yours. why do we confess them as a believer if they don't exist? Why are you arguing something you don't believe? You admit as believers we sin (our old nature at least) and you agree that Christ paid for them. Why are you not holding the same standard to unbelievers? If Christ paid for their sins, they can still sin and Rom 6:23 still applies. Our old nature will die too. Why? Jesus died for all those sins you agree.. but the wages of sin is death. we escape because of the new creation, the new man John tells us about. AMEN
You hold that the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross.
So, are there sinners any more?
Were there ever really any sinners in the first place?
If all of mankind’s are paid for in eternity, is it even possible for mankind to sin?
I admit I am somewhat baffled that we can be sinners and nonsinners at the same time, but I hold that the payment for sin is applied at saving faith, which leaves no doubt that everyone was originally a sinner.
If your position leaves important questions unanswered, it seems your position could be untenable.
LB says "The gift of God is not having your sins washed away? But you’re arguing that everyone’s sins were washed away at the cross. If the death needs to be dealt with, shouldn’t the sins be dealt with too?"
Ok. if the gift of God is having your sins washed away, please give bible reference. In Context it says Wages, not punishment. Jesus dealt with the punishment.
LB Says "You hold that the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross.
So, are there sinners any more?
Were there ever really any sinners in the first place?
If all of mankind’s are paid for in eternity, is it even possible for mankind to sin?
I admit I am somewhat baffled that we can be sinners and nonsinners at the same time, but I hold that the payment for sin is applied at saving faith, which leaves no doubt that everyone was originally a sinner.
If your position leaves important questions unanswered, it seems your position could be untenable."
You are not making sense. You don't pay for something and then it does not exist. If you murder someone and serve your time, you have "paid" society, but the murder still happened. You still have scars from it as well. His payment of sin does not negate sin. It PAYS for it. For something to be paid for, it has to exist. Consider this. You are a believer. Your sin has been paid for. BUT if you choose to go commit adultery, you would need to confess that sin to God and he would forgive you. If you got Aids, that would be the natural result of your sin EVEN THOUGH we both know Jesus paid for that sin on the cross. His payment negated God's judgement on us for offending him, BUT does not stop the natural consequences of sin in our bodies should we live in it. Because of the new birth, we will escape the ravages of sin, BUT those who do not gain that life will not.
Trent said...
Yes, I agree with this. I thought I made that clear earlier, that your points were valid in that regard. My argument is that it is not punishment, it is natural consequences. Just like in the Garden of Eden.
Maybe you are right that Hell is natural consequences of sin instead of punishment for sin, but people go to Hell for their sins whether it is a punishment or natural consequences. Besides, even if Hell could be called the natural consequences of sin, it could also be called punishment, vengeance and wrath because God cannot overlook sin.
Trent said...
lots of topics here, but again, forgiveness is a fellowship issue. read 1 JN.
Trent said...
Now you are leaving scripture agian. where does it say to ask God to forgive you in context of eternal life? Jesus gave one condition for Life! Believe.
Trent said...
Yep. Noting here about forgivness or sins. Just belief and Life!
I’m not so sure that forgiveness is always a fellowship issue.
Middletown Bible Church
Two Aspects of Forgiveness
The FORGIVENESS
Needed For SALVATION
The FORGIVENESS
Needed For FELLOWSHIP
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/twoaspet.htm
Trent said...
IF they do not believe in Jesus then they will be in the Lake of Fire. BUT how do you know what they know? God is just and we trust in that. What we are focusing on here is what we know, not using hypothetical situations to try and argue what scripture means because of them. :)
Why does everyone who goes to Hell deserve to go to Hell?
Trent said...
How do you "accept" everlasting life and where in scripture does it say you have to accept payment or everlasting life as a condition for either? You also just stated that Christ's payment was not effective for everyone. Where does it say that in Scripture.
Now Trent is saying you don’t have to accept everlasting life? Incredible!
Now Trent is saying everyone is saved? Incredible!
Trent said...
LB I already agreed with you, that the Lake of Fire is the natural place for those who do not have the new nature to go because of their Sin. What I am saying is IT IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR SIN. Your comments have helped me refine what I believe. Jesus Paid for the sins of the world, not believers only, right? If you do not have a new nature then yes you end up in the lake of fire. EX: IF you get in trouble with drugs, you go to court, and your father pays the fine. You go back home and find out though that you now have aids and die 6 months later. That had nothing to do with the LEGAL requirements or the law or Judge, it was a natural result from your lifestyle.
finition of PUNISHMENT
1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
Definition of PUNISH
1a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : hurt
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action
Definition of VENGEANCE
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
Definition of WRATH
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement
How can being cast into the Lake of Fire not be punishment, vengeance and wrath?
Trent said...
A person does not have the capability to pay for their own sin. Read my example about the drug user and aids above and lets work from there.
Maybe that would explain why a person goes to Hell for eternity.
Trent said...
LB I did not deny it, I was showing you that many of the words and phrases you are throwing about are not in the Bible. Lets try and stick to what God says, not men. Fair? Accepting? Substitutionary atonement? I bet you did not know that was not in the NT. I actually didn't know either. The Bible says Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world and that he loves the world. When we try and use men's logic to fill in blanks or make things easier for us to understand, we need to test them by scripture. Agreed?
You ought to have heard of the substitutionary atonement.
I say it was accomplished on the cross (or at the resurrection if you insist) and applied to people at saving faith.
When was the substitutionary atonement accomplished?
When is the substitutionary atonement applied to people?
Trent said...
In Context it says Wages, not punishment. Jesus dealt with the punishment.
The wages of sin is death. And you say that Jesus paid for the punishment of sins but not the consequences of sins and not the wages of sins.
So, what good did Jesus paying for the punishment of sins do when He didn’t pay for the wages of sins and the consequences of sins?
Trent said...
Ok. if the gift of God is having your sins washed away, please give bible reference.
Trent is saying everyone’s sins were washed away at the cross.
His blood forgives the sins of all who repent and believe and by His shed blood we can now come directly before God through Jesus in order to find grace, mercy, help and salvation. Will your soul be ready for the mansions bright, and be washed in the blood of the Lamb?
http://thefirstfamilyonline.com/mannajourney/?p=3010
In fact, that is why only those cleansed by the blood of Christ are citizens of His heavenly kingdom, even though God rules over all men (Mark 1:15, Hebrews 11:13). That is also why only those cleansed by the blood of Christ are truly saints of God (Ephesians 1:1), children of Abraham (Galatians 3:6,7,29 and 4:28), and God's chosen people (Romans 2:28-29, Ephesians 1:4).
Although the Spirit of God will not dwell in sinners, once our sins have been washed away He comes into our heart and works through the gospel to nourish our faith and keep us in faith (Galatians 3:2, Romans 1:16, 1 Peter 1:5).
http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Lamb.htm
Dr. Curtis Hutson
Friends, only those who have been washed in the blood are going to Heaven.
But what does it mean to be washed in the blood?
The Bible teaches that all men are sinners. Since all men are sinners, all men owe a penalty. Sin demands a price. Ezekiel 18:4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death..." James 1:15: "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Now, here is the picture: I am a sinner. I have sinned. And being a sinner I owe a penalty. The penalty for sin is death. That death is described in the Bible as the second death, the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14: "Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." If I pay what I owe as a sinner, I must go to Hell and stay there forever and ever and ever.
The Bible also says in 2nd Corinthians 5:21, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
And Romans 8:32 says, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all..." God actually punished Jesus in our place to pay the debt we owe so that when we die we won't have to pay it.
That sounds like everyone is saved, doesn't it? It sounds like everyone will go to Heaven, because he died for everyone. But everyone is not saved/ The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those that believe.
That is what it means when it says they "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." It means they believe Jesus Christ died for them, that He suffered their death and paid their debt and they are trusting in Him as Saviour.
Now let me briefly sum up what I have said: We are sinners. We owe the sin debt. God transferred our guilt to Jesus. Jesus shed His blood. He died on a cross. He paid what we owe. That is what he meant when he cried out from the cross, "It is finished." Now for us to be washed in the blood, or to accept the payment, we must do it by faith.
http://www.dividedbytruth.org/BTP/hbatqah/hbatqah_chap8.htm
Trent said...
You are not making sense. You don't pay for something and then it does not exist. If you murder someone and serve your time, you have "paid" society, but the murder still happened. You still have scars from it as well. His payment of sin does not negate sin. It PAYS for it. For something to be paid for, it has to exist. Consider this. You are a believer. Your sin has been paid for. BUT if you choose to go commit adultery, you would need to confess that sin to God and he would forgive you. If you got Aids, that would be the natural result of your sin EVEN THOUGH we both know Jesus paid for that sin on the cross. His payment negated God's judgement on us for offending him, BUT does not stop the natural consequences of sin in our bodies should we live in it. Because of the new birth, we will escape the ravages of sin, BUT those who do not gain that life will not.
So you are saying that there are sinners today and there have always been sinners since Adam even though Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody has been applied at the cross to mankind.
Then, what good did having the payment applied do?
Mark Block
Everyone has a sin problem, it’s in our nature. There is a penalty for sinning. The wrath of God is coming upon people who sin unless they can pay for their sin.
Us sinners, who are in Christ, are justified by Jesus’ blood. We are righteous through the Blood of Jesus. The penalty for our sin has been paid for.
Not everyone receives the payment for their sins. The payment is offered to everyone, but not everyone accepts. To accept the payment for our sins we must repent and believe. We must have faith in Jesus and what He did on the cross. It was on the cross where He died for us and completed the payment for our sins. We must realize that it is only by Gods grace that we have were paid for. We must repent and believe the gospel. We must trust that what Jesus the Christ did on the cross was and is enough. In no way could we pay for our sins. But He did. Jesus is enough. Trust in Jesus and let Him transform your life. Only through faith will this payment be applied to us.
http://markblock.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/the-sin-problem/
LB Said "Why does everyone who goes to Hell deserve to go to Hell?"
The same way that someone who drinks alcohol loses brain cells. Hey just curious since its pretty much you and me, you want to chat on the phone? :) might be more fun.
LB said "Now Trent is saying you don’t have to accept everlasting life? Incredible!
Now Trent is saying everyone is saved? Incredible!"
LB why when I ask where something is in Scripture, you react this way? First, I never said everyone is saved, second, I said WHERE in the Bible does it say you have to accept Jesus payment for your sins OR as a separate issue accept eternal life?
LB said "finition of PUNISHMENT
1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
Definition of PUNISH
1a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation
2a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : hurt
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action
Definition of VENGEANCE
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
Definition of WRATH
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement
How can being cast into the Lake of Fire not be punishment, vengeance and wrath?"
Wrath maybe can be included for not believing in Jesus.. not sure, but the others, did Jesus not pay the penalty for that sin? Did not his father accept it? If you feel the Lake of fire is PUNISHMENT for sins for humans, please give me a reference to discuss. maybe I am wrong, but so far you are just repeating what men have said. Like in synagogues, people have stopped studying the scripture (in many) but instead study what men have taught about it. I am trying to avoid that.
LB Said "You ought to have heard of the substitutionary atonement.
heard of it, yes. Please show me in scripture where it is stated.
I say it was accomplished on the cross (or at the resurrection if you insist) and applied to people at saving faith.
Ok. my point again is that it is not mentioned in the New Testament (once if you use the old KJ) Please biblically define the term and I will answer the next two.
When was the substitutionary atonement accomplished?
When is the substitutionary atonement applied to people?
LB Says "The wages of sin is death. And you say that Jesus paid for the punishment of sins but not the consequences of sins and not the wages of sins."
He took the punishment of God for us so that we could believe in him and recieve eternal life. Jn 3:16 and 1 JN. Yet even James agree that Sin still leads to death even for believers. How do you rationalize that with what you are saying? Obviously he did not remove the consequences or wages of sin, or we could sin with out consequences. I hope that is not what you are suggesting? That believers or unbelievers can sin with out consequence???
So, what good did Jesus paying for the punishment of sins do when He didn’t pay for the wages of sins and the consequences of sins?
clarify for me that you are actually claiming that Jesus paid for the wages or consequences of sin please as I asked above and thus we can sin with out consequences. If that is not what you are saying, then you actually agree with me.
Trent said...
LB Said "Why does everyone who goes to Hell deserve to go to Hell?"
The same way that someone who drinks alcohol loses brain cells.
You say that people go to Hell because they do not have life. But do they deserve to go to Hell just because they do not have life? People do deserve to go to Hell because they are sinners.
Trent said...
Hey just curious since its pretty much you and me, you want to chat on the phone? :) might be more fun.
If we’re discussing theology, it’s good to have a written record of it.
Trent said...
LB why when I ask where something is in Scripture, you react this way? First, I never said everyone is saved, second, I said WHERE in the Bible does it say you have to accept Jesus payment for your sins OR as a separate issue accept eternal life?
Trent said...
How do you "accept" everlasting life and where in scripture does it say you have to accept payment or everlasting life as a condition for either?
“Accept” is not in scripture, but so what?
If you don’t accept payment for your sins and everlasting life, you don’t have them. They basically go together.
Trent said...
You also just stated that Christ's payment was not effective for everyone. Where does it say that in Scripture.
Everyone isn’t saved, is he?
Trent said...
Wrath maybe can be included for not believing in Jesus.. not sure, but the others, did Jesus not pay the penalty for that sin? Did not his father accept it?
Yeah, but everyone isn’t saved.
Trent said...
If you feel the Lake of fire is PUNISHMENT for sins for humans, please give me a reference to discuss.
Definition of HELL
1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement
Trent said...
heard of it, yes. Please show me in scripture where it is stated.
Ok. my point again is that it is not mentioned in the New Testament (once if you use the old KJ) Please biblically define the term and I will answer the next two.
When was the substitutionary atonement accomplished?
When is the substitutionary atonement applied to people?
The Great Exchange
2 Corinthians 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
This verse reflects the very heart of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Many pastors and theologians call this verse the “great exchange”. God exchanges our sin for Christ’s righteousness when we by His grace and through faith receive Him.
http://www.treasuringchristonline.com/great-exchange/
The Great Exchange: My Sin for His Righteousness By Jerry Bridges, Bob Bevington
This book is first and foremost about the gospel, the good news that Jesus Christ is the sinless sin bearer of all who are united to him by faith.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/pdfs/greatexchange.pdf
2 Corinthians 5:21 The Great Exchange
The atoning sacrificial death of Christ is sufficient for every person in the world, but it is efficient only for all who believe on Him. Every individual must decide what He will do with that sacrifice. Only those who appropriate Christ's death through faith receive His forgiveness and righteousness standing before God. Christ died for all who believe on Him. Your personal faith is an essential element in your salvation. Only the individual who places His trust in Christ receives eternal life and reconciliation with God.
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/2cor5v21thegreatexchange.html
By Pastor J.D. Link
Abundant Grace Fellowship, Blanco, TX
He is our great substitute. What happened on the cross was the great exchange. A “supernatural swap”, if you will. A Life for a life; a Soul for a soul; the Just for the unjust (1Peter 3:18). Our precious, sinless Jesus became what we were, so that we would become what He is (2 Cor 5:21).
The Word of God says that the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6:23). The question is, do you want wages, or do you want the gift? You’ve earned eternity in Hell, but God offers you, free of charge, eternity in Heaven. Don’t think for a moment that Jesus didn’t need to be sacrificed for you. That would be the most foolish and arrogant assumption a person could ever make. The wages of sin is death. Have you ever sinned? Then your just payment is eternal death; you’ve earned it.
http://abundantgracefellowship-blanco.com/Washed_In_The_Blood_2Parts.html
Trent said...
He took the punishment of God for us so that we could believe in him and recieve eternal life. Jn 3:16 and 1 JN.
It’s an exchange. The exchange isn’t applied until we receive the everlasting life.
Trent said...
Yet even James agree that Sin still leads to death even for believers. How do you rationalize that with what you are saying? Obviously he did not remove the consequences or wages of sin, or we could sin with out consequences. I hope that is not what you are suggesting? That believers or unbelievers can sin with out consequence???
I say the payment for sin is applied at saving faith but sin has consequences. All things are lawful to me but not all things are expedient.
You say the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross but sin has consequences. All things are lawful to everyone but not all things are expedient. If all things are lawful to everyone, no things are sinful to anyone.
And you say that Jesus paid for the punishment of sins but not the consequences of sins and not the wages of sins.
So, what good did Jesus paying for the punishment of sins do when He didn’t pay for the wages of sins and the consequences of sins?
LB said "“Accept” is not in scripture, but so what?"
HUH? You just added a condition to gaining eternal life, AND forgiveness of sins and thats your answer?? :(
LB said "Definition of HELL
1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement"
you may want to note that biblically this is not correct. Hell is normally translated from Sheol and means the grave. When people say Hell they usually mean the Lake of Fire. But when the Bible says Hell it means the grave. Another Christian tradition I should write about.
LB said "It’s an exchange. The exchange isn’t applied until we receive the everlasting life."
Scripture reference please where it states that he is exchanging forgiveness of sin or payment after we receive life.
Trent said...
Yet even James agree that Sin still leads to death even for believers. How do you rationalize that with what you are saying? Obviously he did not remove the consequences or wages of sin, or we could sin with out consequences. I hope that is not what you are suggesting? That believers or unbelievers can sin with out consequence???
LB said "I say the payment for sin is applied at saving faith but sin has consequences. All things are lawful to me but not all things are expedient.
You say the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross but sin has consequences. All things are lawful to everyone but not all things are expedient. If all things are lawful to everyone, no things are sinful to anyone."
you seem to contradict yourself. So are you saying that believers sin or do not sin? I agree that there are consequences to sin for believers AND unbelievers. If Believers sin, when you agree that Jesus paid for our sins, why is that an issue for unbelievers to sin if he paid for theirs?
LB sais "And you say that Jesus paid for the punishment of sins but not the consequences of sins and not the wages of sins.
So, what good did Jesus paying for the punishment of sins do when He didn’t pay for the wages of sins and the consequences of sins?"
Because if he had not, we could not be saved. There may even be other issues we don't know but I won't speak where scripture does not. Again though you seem to be arguing just to argue. Do you disagree with James that believers suffer the consequences of sin or not? If you do, then why are you disagreeing with me?
Rosemary Bardsley
The phrase substitutionary atonement does not occur in the Bible, but the concept underlies the Biblical teaching about salvation from beginning to end.
So effective is this substitution that Paul teaches that the believer died with Christ: his death was our death; when he died, we died (Romans 6:1-11; 7:1-6; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 2:12,20; 3:3).
By this death Christ wiped out our debit balance. That in itself leaves us at zero. But he does not leave us there and say, 'Okay! You're on your own now. I've wiped out your sin debt, now you make good your own righteousness, you build up for yourself that one hundred percent goodness that God requires of you one hundred percent of the time. The ball's in your court.' God knows, even if we don't, that such a salvation would not last, even for an hour.
In this incredible exchange in which Jesus takes what is ours, he also gives us what is his.
http://www.godswordforyou.com/bible-studies/salvation/56-substitutionary-atonement?format=pdf
Trent said...
LB said "“Accept” is not in scripture, but so what?"
HUH? You just added a condition to gaining eternal life, AND forgiveness of sins and thats your answer?? :(
You know what people mean when they say “Accept Jesus as your Savior.”
When you receive eternal life, forgiveness of sins comes with it.
Trent said...
you may want to note that biblically this is not correct. Hell is normally translated from Sheol and means the grave. When people say Hell they usually mean the Lake of Fire. But when the Bible says Hell it means the grave. Another Christian tradition I should write about.
Definition of LAKE OF FIRE
1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
3a : disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement
Trent said...
Scripture reference please where it states that he is exchanging forgiveness of sin or payment after we receive life.
Death and sin go in, life and righteousness come out. The death and sin were handled on the cross, but the exchange doesn’t occur until saving faith. At saving faith we receive the life and righteousness AND the payment for sin and death, because that’s the exchange.
Trent said...
you seem to contradict yourself. So are you saying that believers sin or do not sin?
But instead of citing the Law to deal with prostitution and meat offered to idols, Paul responds like this.
•All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23)
•All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (I Cor. 6:12)
•All things are lawful, but not all things edify. (I Cor. 10:23)
Why Not Just Say: “No, Not Everything is Lawful!”
Or Paul could have simply refuted the statement by writing, “All things are lawful? God forbid! Some things are absolutely not lawful!” He would have then explained which laws applied and which did not, and why. (Which is what we’re left to do when we insist on preserving the fiction of the moral law/ceremonial law.) But Paul did not refute the belief that “all things are lawful.”
There is a reason why Paul did not refute the idea. Namely, he actually believed that all things are lawful. Or, to put it another way, nothing is unlawful–because the law no longer applies.
This is not an argument from silence. Elsewhere Paul made it abundantly clear why he would not invoke the Law against behavior of which he disapproved. Nothing was unlawful, because the Law was no longer in effect–except, perhaps, by choice. The Torah had been nullified, voided, abrogated. Why?
1.Apart from law, sin is dead. (Romans 7:8b)
2.Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)
3.The law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)
http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/06/28/all-things-are-lawful-three-of-pauls-torah-substitutes/
Trent said...
I agree that there are consequences to sin for believers AND unbelievers. If Believers sin, when you agree that Jesus paid for our sins, why is that an issue for unbelievers to sin if he paid for theirs?
Are all things are lawful to everyone and no things are sinful to anyone?
If no things are sinful to anyone, there are no sinners.
Trent said...
Because if he had not, we could not be saved. There may even be other issues we don't know but I won't speak where scripture does not. Again though you seem to be arguing just to argue. Do you disagree with James that believers suffer the consequences of sin or not? If you do, then why are you disagreeing with me?
You said that Christ did not pay for the wages of sin.
If we got what we deserved we would get death. The death is eternal separation from God in hell (Lk. 16:24-25). These are the wages that are earned and deserved because of sin (Rom. 5:17; 7:13).
The “free gift” (charisma), “grace gift,” is an undeserved gift, of something given to a man unearned and unmerited. It is something given to sinful man from God’s grace. It is something we could never have achieved, or attained to by our own efforts. It is unearnable. It is the opposite of “wages.”
Romans 6:23 can also be a warning for the saved because Romans was written to believers. The apostle John said, "There is a sin unto death" (1 Jn. 5:17).
http://www.abideinchrist.com/selah/jul6.html
You Deserve Hell Today
by David J. Stewart
Seriously, the Bible proclaims in Romans 3:10 that we are ALL sinners. Romans 3:23 declares that we have ALL fallen short of the glory of God. Isaiah 64:6 declares that our self righteousnesses are as filthy rags in the sight of God.
If you die in your sins, you will go to hell to burn.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Humanism/you_deserve_hell_today.htm
Sin brings the death penalty. Sinners do not obtain everlasting life and go to heaven; instead, “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). This penalty is spiritual death: “The wicked shall be turned into hell” (Psalms 9:17). Since everyone including me has sinned, and since sinners deserve hell, do we therefore have no choice but to go to hell?
So if vast quantities of good works outnumber my sins, I would still deserve hell; only with zero sins can I go to heaven.
Sin is like that: the first sin killed me spiritually and the next million did not make me any more separated from God. Since everyone has committed at least one sin, the problem is that no one deserves to go to heaven—and God would seem to be very lonely! Only if he takes away all of my sins—and yours, too—can we go to heaven!
http://www.biblekjv.com/cmt/starthvn.htm
When does a person become washed in the blood?
Ok. So Do believers sin in spite of Jesus dying for our sins or not? If you answered that question I missed it.
LB said "Romans 6:23 can also be a warning for the saved because Romans was written to believers. The apostle John said, "There is a sin unto death" (1 Jn. 5:17)."
I agree!! so you are saying that you understand that Jesus die for our sins, but we still sin and have penalties for it, correct?
LB says "Seriously, the Bible proclaims in Romans 3:10 that we are ALL sinners. Romans 3:23 declares that we have ALL fallen short of the glory of God. Isaiah 64:6 declares that our self righteousnesses are as filthy rags in the sight of God.
agreed
LB says "If you die in your sins, you will go to hell to burn."
I would say if you die with out having the new creation we gain at belief. The debate is whether it is God's punishment correct?
LB says "Sin brings the death penalty. Sinners do not obtain everlasting life and go to heaven; instead, “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). This penalty is spiritual death: “The wicked shall be turned into hell” (Psalms 9:17). "
Yes, even our old nature will die even though we are be lievers. HOWEVER this penalty is physical in DT Jews are put to death for their sins, even if they were believers. This seems to back up my point. remember, hell means what in the OT?
LB says "Since everyone including me has sinned, and since sinners deserve hell, do we therefore have no choice but to go to hell?"
If we did not have our new life we would end up in the lake of fire as the natural end to our sin
LB says " So if vast quantities of good works outnumber my sins, I would still deserve hell; only with zero sins can I go to heaven."
huh? umm.. I agree with your last statement. according to 1 Jn you are correct.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
Ok. So Do believers sin in spite of Jesus dying for our sins or not? If you answered that question I missed it.
If all things are lawful, no things are sinful, right? If Paul didn’t mean that, what did he mean?
Yukerboy
I quote 1 John 3:6-9 "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
Wait a second, that can't be right! I'm a Christian and I still sin, right?
Here's the kicker: Two passages from the Bible which when looked at together show that John is absolutely correct when he states one born of God CANNOT continue to sin.
1 Corinthians 6:10-11: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
AND
1 John 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
Understand these points. Sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), All things are lawful now, though not all things are expedient (1 Corinthians 6:11), You have been washed, sanctified and justified (1 Corinthians 6:10).
So comes the most controversial statement. John says a Christian cannot sin! The word cannot implies ability. A Christian is UNABLE to sin. Why? Because all things are lawful to the Christian and sin is transgression of the law.
http://rr-bb.com/printthread.php?t=1159&pp=20&page=74
Sin can be used as a term for doing something which is not expedient or for not living up to the law of love, but a Christian cannot sin.
Ok.. so what does 1 Jn 1:9 mean. I think you are misunderstanding 1 Jn. The new creation that battles against our old nature is what cannot sin. We can still Sin, and trying to give 2 different definition of sin where one is not really sin is stretching it. so as a Believer, I can commit Adultery and you would not consider that a Sin? Interesting. We have 2 natures. 1 sinful.. IE still sins and wants to.. and the new nature, the new creation that wars against the old. We are told to Sin not because we can sin. but if we abide in Christ and act as a new creation we do not sin.. Our new creature that is born from above is what enters eternity at God's side. The old creature will pass away. Those who only have the old nature will receive their wages. Thanks for sharing!
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
I agree!! so you are saying that you understand that Jesus die for our sins, but we still sin and have penalties for it, correct?
A Christian had better not sin! God doesn't let sinners into Heaven.
Ephesians 5:5
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Trent said...
I would say if you die with out having the new creation we gain at belief.
How can anyone die in their sins when everybody’s sin payment was applied at the cross?
Trent said...
The debate is whether it is God's punishment correct?
You seem to think that Hell is not God’s punishment for sin and I think it is, if I recall.
Trent said...
Yes, even our old nature will die even though we are be lievers. HOWEVER this penalty is physical in DT Jews are put to death for their sins, even if they were believers. This seems to back up my point. remember, hell means what in the OT?
“Every man shall be put to death for his own sin”. “The wicked shall be turned into hell”.
The words are applicable today.
Trent said…
If we did not have our new life we would end up in the lake of fire as the natural end to our sin
Is that saying that people will be in Hell because of Sin?
Trent said...
Ok.. so what does 1 Jn 1:9 mean. I think you are misunderstanding 1 Jn.
1 John has long been argued about by people on the antinomian side like Bob George and people on the legalistic side like Zane Hodges.
Don Stephens Wordpress
All things are lawful…. oh really?
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything”. (1 Corinthians 6:12). This passage has astonished me for decades. How could it be that ALL things, (that’s clearly what it says in the Greek), are lawful to me, a follower of Christ? The whole idea feels so dangerously close to license that I’ve avoided it for more than thirty years.
I’m certain such a verse would never be found in the “New Pharisee Study Bible.” It constitutes seizure material to the religious mind, (which may well explain why I’ve avoided it). “Warning!” My mind would flash! “A fatal error is occurring in the religious sector.”
But now that I’m finding deeper roots in the grace of God, it’s making more sense. Grace understands that the sin issue has been so thoroughly solved at the cross, that the law no longer has jurisdiction over us. (Romans 6:14) We have been changed into something new, into sons and daughters defined not by what we do, but in who’s we are.
John was addressing the Gnostic heresy when he told them “If any man says he has no sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.” The Gnostics believed that they, being essentially spiritual, were unable to sin. They also believed that Jesus was not born in the flesh because (again) he was essentially spiritual. So John addressed both of these ideas in his letter. If they would admit that they had sinned, then they would find the forgiveness of Christ. And later on he tells them that anyone who refuses to confess that Jesus has been born “in the flesh” has the spirit of Antichrist.
The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was once, for all sins, and forever. (Hebrews 9:12). His sacrifice is so thorough that He is not counting the sins of the world against us. (2 Corinthians 5:19) That is the amazing good news of the gospel. It’s far better than religion has told us, and when we “get it”, sin becomes very much a background issue so that HE can become center stage.
At the cross Jesus eradicated the judgment of sin against the human race. And now we are free to live.
I hope we won’t get bogged down in 1 John 1:9. I believe you have it wrong, and maybe we can talk more about it one day.
I do, along with a host of others, claim to no longer be a servant to sin; to be dead to sin, to no longer have sin as my master, and to be freed from the law of sin. And there is compelling Biblical support for such claims in Romans chapters five through eight, and Galatians chapters three through five. None of this, of course has a thing to do with me, but EVERYTHING to do with the staggering completeness of the work of Christ on the cross.
I’m glad you mentioned the context of 1 Corinthians 6, regarding unrighteous behaviors in the church. I recently noticed that Paul’s handling of the situation is very much in accord with what I’m talking about. He reminded the Corinthians of who they are ARE! “You WERE such as these, but NOW you are washed, etc.” It’s almost like saying “you were commoners eating from the world’s trash, but now you are royalty, eating from my table!” (He even called these people “saints” at the beginning of the letter!)
Obviously those unrighteous behaviors are not a part of the Kingdom, which absolutely separates light from darkness. The Kingdom never bows to embrace sin, yet the King opens His doors wide to the sinner.
http://donstephens.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/all-things-are-lawful-oh-really/
LB Says "A Christian had better not sin! God doesn't let sinners into Heaven. Ephesians 5:5
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
There is a difference between inheritance and entrance, BUT I agree with you. :) thats what 1 JN is all about.
LB says "How can anyone die in their sins when everybody’s sin payment was applied at the cross? "
Because just because you paid for your car, it does not mean the car is not there anymore.
LB says "You seem to think that Hell is not God’s punishment for sin and I think it is, if I recall."
Yes, thats correct.
LB says “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin”. “The wicked shall be turned into hell”. The words are applicable today.
Agreed. Death is the natural result of sin. Remember hell is Sheol or the grave
Trent said…
If we did not have our new life we would end up in the lake of fire as the natural end to our sin
LB says "Is that saying that people will be in Hell because of Sin?"
Yes. you did help me clarify that position. The disagreement is that I do not think it is punishment from God because Jesus already received his wrath.
In your second post again, you seem to be quoting someone who is saying you can't sin as a believer.. and sin is no longer sin?? Are you saying that if I commit adultery, that it is not Sin if I am a believer? David did not sin with Bathsheba or when he committed murder? Please clarify.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
We have 2 natures. 1 sinful.. IE still sins and wants to.. and the new nature, the new creation that wars against the old. We are told to Sin not because we can sin. but if we abide in Christ and act as a new creation we do not sin.. Our new creature that is born from above is what enters eternity at God's side. The old creature will pass away. Those who only have the old nature will receive their wages.
Tony Tate
Do Christians Have Two Natures?
When I first came to Christ I was taught that I now had two natures. One being a sinful nature and, the other being the nature of Christ.
Well, after a few years of believing this I had come to be quite frustrated and confused by the teaching. Finally, through a great deal of pouring over the book of Romans, I had to come to the conclusion, I do not have two natures.
I found what I believe to be a really good teaching and explanation of our nature or identity in Christ as children of God. It comes from a website that I recently found, Christ In You Ministries. The question is being answered by Jim Fowler, owner of the site.
Christians, on the other hand, have had a spiritual exchange of spiritual nature.
I recall one teacher who explained that when a person becomes a Christian, they now have 2 natures in their spirit – the “old sin nature” and the “new Christ nature.” Can you imagine? It is inconceivable that a person could be half regenerated. Such teaching leads to a schizophrenic understanding of ones spiritual identity; to a paranoid uncertainty of what/who is prompting and motivating my behavior; and a convenient excuse for blaming that old sinful part of me for sinful behavior. Is it any wonder Christians throw up their hands, and do not concern themselves with holy behavior?
Many who espouse “two natures” within the Christian individual are failing to differentiate between the spiritual and the psychological. What they are calling “two natures” is really the admitted conflict of “spirit and flesh” within Christian behavior. NOT “two natures,” but the desires of the Spirit of Christ within our spirit, contrasted with the patterned desires within our soul that are inclined toward previous action and reaction responses of selfishness and sinfulness. There is, no doubt, a behavioral conflict within, as the satanic tempter utilizes the patterned desires that he helped develop to tempt us to quench the desires of the Spirit of Christ, and thus to allow him to energize sinful, misrepresentative character in our behavior via our desires.
The two natures theory is unscriptural, self-contradictory, and baneful.
old nature, sin nature, sinful nature, human nature, Adam nature, Adamic nature, unregenerate nature, depraved nature, corrupt nature, defiled nature, carnal nature
Not one of these phrases found in the original text of the new covenant scriptures.
http://tony-tate.com/do-christians-have-two-natures/
Trent said...
Because just because you paid for your car, it does not mean the car is not there anymore.
Trent said...
Agreed. Death is the natural result of sin. Remember hell is Sheol or the grave
True or false? Anyone who dies in his sins will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Trent said…
The disagreement is that I do not think it is punishment from God because Jesus already received his wrath.
Does a person DESERVE Hell because he doesn’t have a new nature?
Trent said…
In your second post again, you seem to be quoting someone who is saying you can't sin as a believer.. and sin is no longer sin?? Are you saying that if I commit adultery, that it is not Sin if I am a believer? David did not sin with Bathsheba or when he committed murder? Please clarify.
The Bible has two definitions of sin: things which are not lawful for the unsaved and things which are not expedient for the saved.
When does the substitutionary atonement take place?
When does a person become washed in the blood?
His argument has no biblical basis. Paul's treatise about the things he wants to do he can't, and the things he does not want to do he does. as well as 1 Jn are clear we still have our sinful nature. If we say we have not sin, we are liars.
LB says "True or false? Anyone who dies in his sins will be cast into the Lake of Fire."
Lets discuss a reference to define it. If a person dies with out a new nature then yes.
LB says "Does a person DESERVE Hell because he doesn’t have a new nature? " I would say he deserves the lake of fire because of his sin.
Trent said…
In your second post again, you seem to be quoting someone who is saying you can't sin as a believer.. and sin is no longer sin?? Are you saying that if I commit adultery, that it is not Sin if I am a believer? David did not sin with Bathsheba or when he committed murder? Please clarify.
LB says "The Bible has two definitions of sin: things which are not lawful for the unsaved and things which are not expedient for the saved".
and both are SIN right? that seems like splitting hairs. you did not answer my question.
LB says "When does the substitutionary atonement take place?
When does a person become washed in the blood?"
great questions. Please quote the verses discussing it and lets consider it.
Grace and Truth,
Trent.
Trent
Trent said...
His argument has no biblical basis. Paul's treatise about the things he wants to do he can't, and the things he does not want to do he does.
James Fowler
We are not a schizophrenic "old man" and "new man" at the same time, as popular evangelical humanism has often suggested, but the "old man" has been exchanged for the "new man," the completely new identity we have "in Christ."
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/spiritunionsoulrest.html
Trent said...
as well as 1 Jn are clear we still have our sinful nature. If we say we have not sin, we are liars.
Bob George
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (verse 8). John is now addressing the belief the Gnostics had regarding sin because they didn’t believe it was real and therefore believed they had no sin. The “we” John is using here doesn’t refer to believers. He is referring to the Gnostics, who believed they were without sin. Because they claimed to be without sin, then they were only deceiving themselves and the truth (Jesus) was not in them.
http://bobgeorge.net/blog/
Trent said...
LB says "True or false? Anyone who dies in his sins will be cast into the Lake of Fire."
Lets discuss a reference to define it. If a person dies with out a new nature then yes.
All right, then, everybody who dies without a new nature dies in his sins and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross.
Trent said...
LB says "Does a person DESERVE Hell because he doesn’t have a new nature? " I would say he deserves the lake of fire because of his sin.
All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross.
Trent said…
and both are SIN right? that seems like splitting hairs. you did not answer my question.
Then, what does 1 Corinthians 6:12 mean? All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross.
Trent said...
LB says "When does the substitutionary atonement take place?
When does a person become washed in the blood?"
great questions. Please quote the verses discussing it and lets consider it.
The payment for sin is applied when people have the substitutionary atonement applied to them and are washed in the blood. Only saved people have the substitutionary atonement applied to them and are washed in the blood. All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross.
Trent says "His argument has no biblical basis. Paul's treatise about the things he wants to do he can't, and the things he does not want to do he does. "
LB quotes James Fowler
We are not a schizophrenic "old man" and "new man" at the same time, as popular evangelical humanism has often suggested, but the "old man" has been exchanged for the "new man," the completely new identity we have "in Christ."
You did not deal with the Paul or my question on whether I am committing a sin if I or David commit adultery or murder. Is it or is it not Sin?
Trent said "as well as 1 Jn are clear we still have our sinful nature. If we say we have not sin, we are liars."
LB quotes Bob George
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (verse 8). John is now addressing the belief the Gnostics had regarding sin because they didn’t believe it was real and therefore believed they had no sin. The “we” John is using here doesn’t refer to believers. He is referring to the Gnostics, who believed they were without sin. Because they claimed to be without sin, then they were only deceiving themselves and the truth (Jesus) was not in them.
so now your argument is based on Paul not meaning We when he says We?? Paul has no problem saying they when he means they.
LB says "True or false? Anyone who dies in his sins will be cast into the Lake of Fire."
Trent said "Lets discuss a reference to define it. If a person dies with out a new nature then yes. "
LB says "All right, then, everybody who dies without a new nature dies in his sins and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross."
you are making an assumption that does not naturally follow.
LB says "Does a person DESERVE Hell because he doesn’t have a new nature? "
Trent said "I would say he deserves the lake of fire because of his sin."
LB said "All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross."
You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.
Trent said…
and both are SIN right? that seems like splitting hairs. you did not answer my question.
LB says "Then, what does 1 Corinthians 6:12 mean? All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross."
that verse does not say it is not Sin. You are still avoiding my question. Do you consider a believer who is doing pornography, murder, adultery, child abuse, or even Rape sinning, or just doing something not beneficial? Are you consistent with your stance?
LB says "When does the substitutionary atonement take place?
When does a person become washed in the blood?"
Trent said "great questions. Please quote the verses discussing it and lets consider it. "
LB said "The payment for sin is applied when people have the substitutionary atonement applied to them and are washed in the blood. Only saved people have the substitutionary atonement applied to them and are washed in the blood. All right, then, people will be in Hell because of Sin and Christ’s payment for the sins of everybody was not applied to everybody at the cross. "
I know your stance, but you again did not quote a passage to discuss that covered it. Are you consistent or is this just an interesting conversation for you?
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
You did not deal with the Paul or my question on whether I am committing a sin if I or David commit adultery or murder. Is it or is it not Sin?
Sin has been abolished to the Christian. However, a Christian can do things which are not expedient.
Love does not track sin because sin has been abolished through the finished work of Christ. How can we track something that doesn’t exist unless we allow ourselves to be deceived about the truth!
http://gracecovenantcc.sermon.tv/7927137
In his death, sin has been abolished and Satan has been defeated.
http://www.theapostlesdoctrine.com/
Sin has been abolished once and for all.
http://graceunited.net/ransomed-international-tulsaok/
In His death, sin has been abolished and Satan has been defeated. This salvation has been provided for us with one condition. The condition is that you must believe it and want it.
http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/view.php?sid=1222
Trent said...
You did not deal with the Paul.
Misconceptions About Romans The Seventh Chapter
Many people get confused when they come to the seventh chapter of the book of Romans.
In the seventh chapter of Romans Paul is explaining the difference between Law and Grace. He is pretending that he had lived in all dispensations of time.
Under the Roman Empire, when some one killed somebody, if it was not in self defense, the killer was attached to the dead corpse until the stench of the dead man killed him. This was his punishment. Paul is likening sin to this dead corpse.
Verse 22, for I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law in my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Keep in mind Paul was pretending he was still under the law.
Verse 24, Oh wretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Then in verse 25 Paul says, I thank God through Jesus Christ. So then with the mind, I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Paul is saying Oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from sin, or this corpse. He likened sin to being attached to a dead corpse. Galatians 5:16-25.
The eighth chapter of Romans answers the seventh chapter of Romans. Notice Romans 8:1-17, we have power to live a sinless life when we receive full salvation.
http://www.keytotheendtimerevival.com/misconceptionsaboutromans.html
Here is the poor man struggling under the law. He says: "The good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise... O wretched man that I am!" (Romans 7:19,24).
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/001452.html
Hopelessness under the law is described, for example, in the seventh chapter of Romans. “Oh wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” But this hopelessness is transcended by the gospel. “For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
http://www.thirstytheologian.com/2012/07/25/the_letter_and_the_spirit.php
Trent said…
so now your argument is based on Paul not meaning We when he says We?? Paul has no problem saying they when he means they.
Bill Gillham
John is very concerned about these "early Gnostics" and believes they're lost.
John says these early Gnostics needed to be saved and 1 Jn. 1:9 tells them how! Today, however, well-meaning mentors mistakenly teach that 1 Jn. 1:9 tells Christians how to deal with "unforgiven" sin. Unforgiven sin? Gang, the only folks with unforgiven sin are the non-believers! New Creations are forgiven of all sins. Look what John says thirteen verses later in the same letter, "I am writing to you4, little children, because your4 sins are forgiven you4 for His name's sake" (2:12). New Creatures' sins are forgiven!
Our sins are all present tense to God. God washed away ALL your sins in Jesus' blood! They're not covered; they're gone!
Without total forgiveness, God would constantly view our sins. He could never fellowship with us, nor could He receive us into His holy presence, let alone indwell us, were we not holy through our crucifixion and rebirth in Christ.
http://www.gmint.org/go/articles/read/21
Trent said…
you are making an assumption that does not naturally follow.
You said "I would say he deserves the lake of fire because of his sin." So I guess the assumption naturally follows.
Trent said…
You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.
Scripture does separate application and payment or else everybody would be saved automatically.
Trent said…
that verse does not say it is not Sin. You are still avoiding my question. Do you consider a believer who is doing pornography, murder, adultery, child abuse, or even Rape sinning, or just doing something not beneficial? Are you consistent with your stance?
Is the following true?
But instead of citing the Law to deal with prostitution and meat offered to idols, Paul responds like this.
•All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23)
•All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (I Cor. 6:12)
•All things are lawful, but not all things edify. (I Cor. 10:23)
Why Not Just Say: “No, Not Everything is Lawful!”
Or Paul could have simply refuted the statement by writing, “All things are lawful? God forbid! Some things are absolutely not lawful!” He would have then explained which laws applied and which did not, and why. (Which is what we’re left to do when we insist on preserving the fiction of the moral law/ceremonial law.) But Paul did not refute the belief that “all things are lawful.”
There is a reason why Paul did not refute the idea. Namely, he actually believed that all things are lawful. Or, to put it another way, nothing is unlawful–because the law no longer applies.
This is not an argument from silence. Elsewhere Paul made it abundantly clear why he would not invoke the Law against behavior of which he disapproved. Nothing was unlawful, because the Law was no longer in effect–except, perhaps, by choice. The Torah had been nullified, voided, abrogated. Why?
1.Apart from law, sin is dead. (Romans 7:8b)
2.Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)
3.The law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)
http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/06/28/all-things-are-lawful-three-of-pauls-torah-substitutes/
Trent said…
I know your stance, but you again did not quote a passage to discuss that covered it. Are you consistent or is this just an interesting conversation for you?
I have addressed the substitutionary atonement and the washing in the blood on:
May 2, 2013 at 12:03 PM
May 2, 2013 at 8:17 PM
May 3, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Discuss them.
LB Would you please come right out and say that for a Christian Murder, rape, Adultery are not Sin Please. It seems you are beating around the bush and trying not to say it directly. Once you have made that clear, I want to discuss the book of James and the sin unto death that Christians can commit.
LB says "The eighth chapter of Romans answers the seventh chapter of Romans. Notice Romans 8:1-17, we have power to live a sinless life when we receive full salvation"
full salvation rather then partial? I agree, we CAN and when we abide we do, however this does not say a believer CANNOT sin nor do I believe that any Christian avoids it completely unless they die right after they believe. I think you are trapped into this because of your stance on Christ only paying for the sin of believers.
1 John is clear that we can lose fellowship, so that seems to answer the forgiveness issue. Read the first few verses and the reason 1 JN was written.
Trent said "I would say he deserves the lake of fire because of his sin." LB said "So I guess the assumption naturally follows." But this does not designate punishment.
Trent said…
You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.
LB says. Scripture does separate application and payment or else everybody would be saved automatically
Please show me where it does? The Bible does not require's Belief in Jesus for new life, not forgiveness.
As I said, you are not coming right out and saying it is not Sin. Make your stand then lets discuss the book of James.
LB says "The Bible teaches that all men are sinners. Since all men are sinners, all men owe a penalty. Sin demands a price. Ezekiel 18:4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death..." James 1:15: "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Now show me where this means that the Lake of Fire is God's punishment because Jesus did not pay the price. These vs seem to very clearly state that it is the natural wages of Sin. Even the OLD T prior to his payment for our sins
LB says Now, here is the picture: I am a sinner. I have sinned. And being a sinner I owe a penalty. The penalty for sin is death. That death is described in the Bible as the second death, the lake of fire. Revelation 20:14: "Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." If I pay what I owe as a sinner, I must go to Hell and stay there forever and ever and ever."
I agree except with the calling it Hell.. and I prefer it wages.. it is what you are owed for your sin, not what you owe God. If you disagree, please show passage.
The Bible also says in 2nd Corinthians 5:21, "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
Yes, I agree, he had to pay that price. If he had not, then we could not gain new life by belief.
LB Says "And Romans 8:32 says, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all..." God actually punished Jesus in our place to pay the debt we owe so that when we die we won't have to pay it."
My point exactly.. for us All not just believers. They get paid for what they have done as it is their wages. These don't show that the Lake of Fire is God's punishment for unbelievers nor does it show a separate payment and application and in fact seem to support my view.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
LB Would you please come right out and say that for a Christian Murder, rape, Adultery are not Sin Please. It seems you are beating around the bush and trying not to say it directly. Once you have made that clear, I want to discuss the book of James and the sin unto death that Christians can commit.
Trent said...
full salvation rather then partial? I agree, we CAN and when we abide we do, however this does not say a believer CANNOT sin nor do I believe that any Christian avoids it completely unless they die right after they believe. I think you are trapped into this because of your stance on Christ only paying for the sin of believers.
Christ did pay for the sins of everyone. Christians have it applied to them and cannot have sin on their accounts or else they can’t get into Heaven but can do what is not expedient. Non-Christians don’t have it applied to them or else they wouldn’t be sinners. I admit I’m trapped into what I believe and you’re trapped into what you believe.
LB says "Christ did pay for the sins of everyone. Christians have it applied to them and cannot have sin on their accounts or else they can’t get into Heaven but can do what is not expedient. Non-Christians don’t have it applied to them or else they wouldn’t be sinners. I admit I’m trapped into what I believe and you’re trapped into what you believe. "
I am not trapped, but thus far your argument is not convincing. Will you please state that if I commit Rape or murder as a believer I am not sinning, or are you agreeing with me it is Sin.
Trent said...
1 John is clear that we can lose fellowship, so that seems to answer the forgiveness issue. Read the first few verses and the reason 1 JN was written.
The books of Colossians and 1 John are particularly strong in their refutation of the errors of the Gnostic heresy.
http://www.bibleone.net/print_tbs61.html
Background for understanding 1 John: Proto-Gnosticism
http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/notes-on-1-john-the-background/
The Epistle of 1 John was written (among other things) to combat the heresy of Gnosticism.
http://www.theologyinsneakers.com/2362
It is possible that I John was meant to be a cover letter for the Gospel of John. The Gnostic heresy of the first century forms the background for both books. The Gospel has an evangelistic thrust, while I John is written for believers (i.e., discipleship).
http://www.freebiblecommentary.mobi/new_testament_studies/1john/1john_intro.html
1 John 1:9 was written to believers but it was written about Gnostic teachers who had infiltrated their ranks.
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=58478
1 John is all about fake Christianity.
John wrote this letter at a time when churches were under an ever increasing threat from Gnosticism. Full blown Gnosticism had not yet developed but it was in the makings and Church after Church was falling victim to false teachers who were teaching a more “enlightened” way concerning Jesus and sin.
http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/142/-1-john---counterfeit-christianity
The verse both parties use to defend their belief is I John 1:9. Let's read the first chapter of 1 John, and keep in mind two important questions: "Who was John's audience?" and 'What was he trying to accomplish in this letter?"
http://www.watchmanscry.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10336
Consequently, John wrote this letter with two basic purposes in mind: (1) to expose false teachers (see 2:26 and note) and (2) to give believers assurance of salvation (see 5:13 and note). In keeping with his intention to combat Gnostic teachers, John specifically struck at their total lack of morality (3:8–10); and by giving eyewitness testimony to the incarnation, he sought to confirm his readers’ belief in the incarnate Christ (1:3). Success in this would give the writer joy (1:4).
http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/1-john/
The first chapter of 1 John is definitely talking to people that are lost, and not a part of the body of Christ. It was a plea and a rebuke from John to this Gnostic group to repent from this false teaching and believe the truth.
http://jesusgiveslife.blogspot.com/2007/08/1-john-19.html
So, when we read the passages of this epistle we should be aware that at points he is addressing either genuine Christians, Gnostics, or both in this very same letter.
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/dismembering_scarecrows.htm
Tell me what 1 Jn 1:9 means to you, who it was written and what it is saying please. Don't quote someone else, just explain it based on your understanding of context. Was it written to believers or unbelievers? If unbelievers, then what it is saying to them?
Then tell me that if I commit rape or murder as a believer that it is not sin please.
Trent said...
But this does not designate punishment.
How Could Normal People Deserve Eternal Punishment?
By Dan Vander Lugt
Radio Bible Class
Everyone deserves judgment. We are fallen creatures under a spiritual curse in a fallen world (Romans 8:18-23). Apart from God’s grace, hell is our natural state of being.
If we won’t acknowledge our sinfulness and the fact that we deserve punishment, we will rationalize our sins and harden our hearts against truth, grace, and spiritual rebirth.
http://questions.org/attq/how-could-normal-people-deserve-eternal-punishment/
Does sin really deserve eternal punishment in hell?
Sinners need to know this and saints need to be reminded of this: sin is so offensive, abominable and destructive in God's view, that nothing else is an appropriate penalty but eternal, conscious punishment.
http://gospelhall.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4077
Hell is the place where God punishes sin and unrepentant sinners. Everyone is a sinner and deserves to go there. They will know that they are getting exactly what they deserve. It is made to punish them by inflicting intense and eternal pain. It is a place of absolute justice. They will be legally punished for their crimes.
This is not sadistic torture or cruelty. It is just and right punishment.
Those who never heard the Gospel will be punished for their sins against Natural Revelation. Those who heard but disbelieved will be punished worse. Those who only pretended to believe will be punished still worse, then the false prophets and preachers, then Judas, and then Satan worst of all. Those with more sins will receive more punishment, and some sins deserve more punishment than others. But even the lightest punishment is extremely intense.
Each sin deserves eternal punishment, because it is committed against an infinitely holy God. People are punished infinitely in Hell - not in intensity (there are degrees of intensity) but in duration.
He will reveal the glory of His wrath, which will be echoed back to Him in the groans of those who are being rightly punished.
http://faithbibleonline.net/BasicChristianDoctrine/49.htm
We deserve Hell. Realize that there is a punishment for being a sinner, and that punishment is death. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Not only a physical death, but also a spiritual death. The place of spiritual death is called Hell. “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rom. 21:8). There is probably no person alive who can say that they never told a lie. We all have sinned and we all deserve the punishment of Hell for our sin.
http://thecomingepiphany.com/BookArticles/todie.htm
Trent said…
Please show me where it does? The Bible does not require's Belief in Jesus for new life, not forgiveness.
If people don’t receive new life until they believe in Jesus, it makes no sense that they receive forgiveness before they believe in Jesus.
Trent said...
As I said, you are not coming right out and saying it is not Sin. Make your stand then lets discuss the book of James.
The Exchanged Life
-or-
Why Do I Need To Know This?
Two Part Series
by Pastor C. Coulson
Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
The New man is:
- sinless — I John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
http://www.cbbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/PASTOR'S%20NOTES/2004/December%2004,%202004%20%20The%20Exchanged%20Life%20Part%20II.txt
Understanding the Book of Romans: Righteousness by Faith in Christ
by John Schoenheit
Christians who believe in Christ think that if they commit sin, then God will not allow them to live forever. The New Testament teaches a great message of blessing and hope that when a person has faith in Christ, he or she is righteous in the eyes of God, that is, he or she has "right standing" with God.
The Exchanged Life
by Dan Gallagher
At the time of the new birth a person's sins are charged to Christ, and in return Christ's righteousness is credited to the believer. This is what we commonly refer to as the Great Exchange.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=788
Peter Hall
Because of the new righteous identity, a believer has BECOME righteous: that is, a believer in God’s eyes cannot sin…
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. (1 John 3:9 NKJV)
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. (1 John 3:6 NKJV)
Once you are born of God, or born again, or become a new creation, you have become righteous. Therefore, you cannot sin in God’s eyes. You are sealed until the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30).
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21 NKJV)
Christians are righteous and NOT sinners.
Consider 1Peter 4:18 “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear”.
God’s definitions of sin are basically covered by the following examples:
1: Mark3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This sin will not be forgiven. Christians do not commit this sin.
2: John16:9 Unbelief in Jesus. This is the sin the world is convicted of. Christians do not commit this sin either.
3: 1John 5:17 “all unrighteousness is sin”. Christians are righteous in Christ so here we do not sin.
4: 1John 3:4 “Sin is transgression of the law”. This is breaking the 10 commandments resulting in a death penalty for transgression.
Christians cannot be accused of sin here as we are not under the law of sin and death. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus SETS FREE from the law of sin and death, (Romans 8:2).
Regarding the law of sin and death it should be noted that:
“whatever the law says it says to those who are UNDER IT” (Romans 3:19,20).
“the law was NOT MADE for a righteous person (Christians), but for…the ungodly and for sinners” (1Tim 1:9).
“where there is NO LAW there is NO TRANSGRESSION (SIN)” (Rom4:15).
Of course we still see Christians doing wrong (erroneously referred to as sin under man’s ambiguous definitions), but as sons of God we are chastised for our wrong.
http://peter-hall.net/2011/11/04/what-actually-is-sin-anyway-its-not-behaviour/
Trent said…
"And Romans 8:32 says, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all..." God actually punished Jesus in our place to pay the debt we owe so that when we die we won't have to pay it."
My point exactly.. for us All not just believers. They get paid for what they have done as it is their wages. These don't show that the Lake of Fire is God's punishment for unbelievers nor does it show a separate payment and application and in fact seem to support my view.
But look at what else Dr. Curtis Hutson says:
“That sounds like everyone is saved, doesn't it? It sounds like everyone will go to Heaven, because he died for everyone. But everyone is not saved/ The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those that believe.
That is what it means when it says they "have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." It means they believe Jesus Christ died for them, that He suffered their death and paid their debt and they are trusting in Him as Saviour.
Now let me briefly sum up what I have said: We are sinners. We owe the sin debt. God transferred our guilt to Jesus. Jesus shed His blood. He died on a cross. He paid what we owe. That is what he meant when he cried out from the cross, "It is finished." Now for us to be washed in the blood, or to accept the payment, we must do it by faith.”
Dr. Curtis Hutson in fact seems to support my view of a separate payment and application.
LB says "If people don’t receive new life until they believe in Jesus, it makes no sense that they receive forgiveness before they believe in Jesus."
I am not interested in what people think makes sense. People think Calvinism makes sense. I am interested in what the Bible teaches. Please clarify what you are quoting and dancing around. Are you saying that as a believer you or I can murder, rape and steal and not commit sin.. Then also as I asked above tell me who 1 Jn 1:9 is written to and telling them?
The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written on our hearts, made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His own blood to atone for the sins of the world.
Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html
LB you are quoting lots of people's opinions. I want yours. If I murder or rape someone as a believer, is it sin just something that was not expedient for me.
2nd, explain your understanding of 1 Jn 1:9 based on context, and who it is written to. believers or not and what does it mean.
You are stuck because you are trying to defend that a believer cannot sin and we have not even touched James yet.
Remember, use the simple scriptures to help interpret the hard ones. Jesus Died for the sins of the world! He paid the price God requires, there fore no person can! However with out a new Life, sin still leads to physical death and the lake of fire. IF a person was perfect, he could get to heaven because sin was paid for. because we cannot, we need a new life that is sin free, I.E. the one 1 Jn talks about.. Read chapter one of John and tell me who the audience is. Believers can sin, regardless of how many people you quote who say otherwise. The new creation that will inhabit eternity cannot.
Trent said...
I am not interested in what people think makes sense. People think Calvinism makes sense. I am interested in what the Bible teaches.
Need I demonstrate that Trent attacking sense does not make sense? What good does it do Trent to study the Bible and theology if he doesn’t require anything to make sense anyway?
Trent said...
I am not trapped, but thus far your argument is not convincing.
You are trapped into defending the position of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and you.
Trent said...
2nd, explain your understanding of 1 Jn 1:9 based on context, and who it is written to. believers or not and what does it mean.
The audience was a confused church in Asia. The pastor there asked John to write a letter to help clear up some major doctrinal heresy called "Gnosticism." The church in Ephesus was filled with people who not only didn't believe Christ came in the flesh, they didn't believe sin was real.
I John 1:1).
In other words, John is establishing that he was an eyewitness to the fact that Jesus truly did come in the flesh. He did this to convince the Gnostics that Jesus was not an illusion.
(verse 3).
This verse says two things. First, John repeats the fact that he, the rest of the apostles and other people saw Christ in the flesh. He wanted the Gnostics to realize that there were many people who could testify to the reality of Christ. Second, he is saying that there are some people in the audience who were not in the fellowship with Christ.
(verse 5).
John's message in this verse is clear: God is light and in Him there is no darkness. We are either in the light (saved) or in darkness (lost). Scriptures are full of this comparison between light (saved) vs. darkness (lost).
(verse 6).
In other words, if someone says he has fellowship with Christ, but is walking in darkness (lost), he is lying and not practicing the truth. The Gnostics claimed to be in fellowship with Christ (saved), and yet were actually living a lie and therefore weren't practicing the truth.
(verse 7).
In other words, if we walk in the light (are saved) we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. To put it another way, once we are saved, we are permanently in the fellowship because the blood of Jesus continually cleanses us from all sin. Therefore, we aren't forgiven because we confess our sins.We are forgiven because of what Christ did for us on the cross.
(verse 8).
John is now addressing the belief the Gnostics had regarding sin because they didn't believe it was real and therefore believed they had no sin. The "we" John is using here doesn't refer to believers. He is referring to the Gnostics, who believed they were without sin. Because they claimed to be without sin, then they were only deceiving themselves and the truth (Jesus) was not in them.
However, verse 9 says that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." In other words, if the Gnostics were to confess they had sins, then God, Who is faithful and righteous, would forgive and cleanse them from their unrighteousness. In the Greek language, the words "forgive" and "cleanse" mean past actions that have results today and will continue to have results in the future. Also, the word "all" used in these verses means all. It doesn't mean that we are cleansed of our past sins and our past unrighteousness, it means we were cleansed of all our unrighteousness. And if God cleanses us from all unrighteousness, then we are cleansed forever!
(verse 10).
Basically this verse is a repeat of verse 8. To put it simply, it means that the Gnostics can't claim to be without sin and yet be saved. John is saying that because the Gnostics claimed they had no sin, they were actually calling God a liar and therefore didn't know the truth.
The purpose of the first chapter of 1 John was to compare the truth of God to the error of gnosticism. John was addressing the Gnostics, who were deceived by their own teaching. He wanted the Gnostics to understand that what they believed conflicted with what God said. He was not, however, addressing believers.
http://www.watchmanscry.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10336
Washed in the blood info
John 6:51-53 This context appears to teach that faith is the means whereby one appropriates the flesh and blood of the Son of God. It is through faith that one lays claim to God’s appointed sacrifice; namely, God’s crucified One. Jesus is the source of life for the believer.
http://www.freedominchrist.net/BIBLICAL%20STUDIES/Old%20Testament/Exodus/When%20I%20See%20the%20Blood.htm
As Jesus’ blood poured from His crucified body and then metaphorically over us upon our acceptance of Him as our Lord and Savior, we became “washed in the blood.”
http://www.wyll.com/11530179/print/
Trent said…
You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.
You say that sin payment was applied to everyone at the cross but life is applied at saving faith. Life was paid for at the cross, wasn’t it? Therefore, Trent separates life and payment for sin, and Trent separates payment for life and application of the payment for life, and then Trent says “You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.”
Christ paid for the sins of everybody on the cross, but there is a qualifier for having the payment applied to you which is saving faith.
1 Jn 1:9. Why did Paul say we, not you. When does he start talking to Gnostics instead of believers. Why do think its at that point. I am assuming you are holding to their views and just don't want to put it in your own words. If 1 Jn 1:9 is to unbelievers, it is telling them to confess as the sole condition to gain eternal life in your opinion, correct? Or was he lying? Please clarify YOUR position instead of quoting what other people say.
LB says. "Born again sinners?
There is no such thing. "8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:8,9"
see, I think you are getting confused. the new being we have inside of us is what cannot sin. You still have a hard time telling me that if I commit adutery, rape or murder as a believer I am not sinning. Please clarify, and tell me that if a believer murders, or rapes, it is not sin for him. If you are consistent, you have to say that. I am waiting for you to be consistent.
1 Jn 1:9. Why did Paul say we, not you. When does he start talking to Gnostics instead of believers. Why do think its at that point. I am assuming you are holding to their views and just don't want to put it in your own words. If 1 Jn 1:9 is to unbelievers, it is telling them to confess as the sole condition to gain eternal life in your opinion, correct? Or was he lying? Please clarify YOUR position instead of quoting what other people say.
LB says. "Born again sinners?
There is no such thing. "8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:8,9"
see, I think you are getting confused. the new being we have inside of us is what cannot sin. You still have a hard time telling me that if I commit adutery, rape or murder as a believer I am not sinning. Please clarify, and tell me that if a believer murders, or rapes, it is not sin for him. If you are consistent, you have to say that. I am waiting for you to be consistent.
LB you continue to post what people have said about scripture. I am interested in what scripture says. You continue to argue that application and payment are different, and I hold that if you pay for something and its not applied to it, its not paid. Please show SCRIPTURE that explains a difference in these two terms. :)
LB says "When I believed on Christ I was so united with Christ, so linked with Him, that I am now so much a part of Him that His crucifixion positionally becomes my crucifixion. A part of me died there at the cross. My old carnal nature was slain there at the cross. Yet, I don't live there in that death. The life I now live, I live in resurrection power."
And that is why you hold to the funny position that Murder and Rape are not sin a believer, though for obvious reasons, you are not comfortable saying so though it is sin for an unbeliever. It sounds very Lordshipish. IF your carnal nature is GONE, then how can a believer sin unto death in James? Be consistent. The only way to avoid sin is to abide in Christ, but it is hard to maintain that biding because of our sin nature that wars against you. If you say you have no sin you make God a liar.
I resubmitted eight replies which Trent did not publish.
Trent said...
LB you continue to post what people have said about scripture. I am interested in what scripture says. You continue to argue that application and payment are different, and I hold that if you pay for something and its not applied to it, its not paid. Please show SCRIPTURE that explains a difference in these two terms. :)
You say that sin payment was applied to everyone at the cross but life is applied at saving faith. Life was paid for at the cross, wasn’t it? Therefore, Trent separates life and payment for sin, and Trent separates payment for life and application of the payment for life, and then Trent says “You are again doing something Scripture does not do IMO which is separate application and payment.”
Trent said...
see, I think you are getting confused. the new being we have inside of us is what cannot sin. You still have a hard time telling me that if I commit adutery, rape or murder as a believer I am not sinning. Please clarify, and tell me that if a believer murders, or rapes, it is not sin for him. If you are consistent, you have to say that. I am waiting for you to be consistent.
Here’s where we got into this discussion about whether it is possible for a Christian to sin.
May 2, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Notice that I used “sin” as a synonym for what is not expedient for a Christian to do. Is not what is sin for a Christian what is not expedient for a Christian to do? Notice that your argument says that all things are lawful to everyone since the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross. Christians are not under the law, but non-Christians have to be under the law or else they aren’t condemned as sinners.
Trent said...
And that is why you hold to the funny position that Murder and Rape are not sin a believer, though for obvious reasons, you are not comfortable saying so though it is sin for an unbeliever. It sounds very Lordshipish. IF your carnal nature is GONE, then how can a believer sin unto death in James? Be consistent. The only way to avoid sin is to abide in Christ, but it is hard to maintain that biding because of our sin nature that wars against you. If you say you have no sin you make God a liar.
William MacDonald, in his book Here's the Difference [published by Gospel Folio Press], has a chapter in which he carefully distinguishes between these two aspects of forgiveness (see Chapter 7). He calls these two aspects "judicial forgiveness" (salvation forgiveness) and "parental forgiveness" (fellowship forgiveness).
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/twoaspet.htm
Remember I showed you this after you said that forgiveness is a fellowship issue.
If there were a DAILY method to maintain good status (fellowship) with God through ongoing confession of sins or pleas for forgiveness, wouldn't you think it'd be mentioned in at least ONE epistle?
What about James 5:16? James talks about confessing our sins to each other and praying for each other. But he's saying we should listen to each other's struggles, offer counsel where appropriate, and pray for each other. The context of James's exhortation to confess our sins to each other has nothing to do with God's forgiving or cleansing us.
God doesn't want us to think that human priests apportion forgiveness to us. Nor does he want us to envision his doling out forgiveness from heaven on a "first come, first serve" basis. Instead, he wants us to ascribe real meaning to Jesus' declaration, "It is finished!"
http://thetruthfreed.blogspot.com/2012/01/andrew-farley-on-confessings-sins-in-1.html
Chapter one is dealing with 5 "ifs":
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
The problem with religion is that they see the word "we" and think, "If we believers" rather than "if anyone." It is the same thing you have in 2nd Timothy 2:13 that says, "If we died with Him then we shall live with Him." Did Paul doubt he would live with Him or that maybe he did not die with Him? Of course not, but was stating that if the reality existed/condition met then you shall live with Him!
Verse 6, who did Jesus say walks in darkness? The believer or unbeliever? Look up all references to those "IN darkness."
Verse 7, who walks in the light? I shared in another blog about how we are "saints in light" according to Colossians 1. We are "now" light in the Lord (Eph. 5:8). Colossians 1 says that we are saints in light and have the forgiveness of sins JUST as 1st John 1:7 says.
Verse 8, Were believers ever said to not have truth in them? Who did Jesus say did not have truth in them? Again, never the believer.
Verse 9, a continuation of the "anybody" who claims they do not have sin. Do believers deny they had sin? Do we find the believers anywhere in John's epistle denying they had sin? What were the false teachers denying? Sin! One can read about the gnostic heretics to discover that. The Greek word for "confess" does not even mean to enumerate a single sin. Confess was simply to agree with God that those denying their "sin" was to do. Religion though will say, "Yes, you need to agree with God concerning that sin you just committed to be forgiven parentally"???
Verse 10, who did Jesus say in the gospel of John did not have His word in them? The answer is abundantly clear, but religion wants this to be believers in-and-out of fellowship. The language nowhere in scripture applies to an already believer, but only to the unbeliever.
http://pureunadulteratedgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/make-daily-confession-of-sins-to-be.html
Rethinking Rebound
An Answer to the Misinterpretations of 1 John 1:9
From a Doctrinal Bible Study by Pastor John A. Ricci and Louis E. DeBoer
Presented by the Congregation of Grace Christian Fellowship
Some teachers today refer to this continual confession of sin as the doctrine of “rebound”—the concept being that we must immediately regain fellowship and spirituality after every sin.
* Every time a Christian sins, he loses fellowship with God and loses the filling of the Spirit
* In order to recover fellowship and the filling of the Spirit, we must confess, or “name and cite,” our sins to God.
* If we do not confess our sins (“rebound”), then we remain “out of fellowship,” with the following disastrous results to our spiritual life:
􀂃 God will not even hear our prayers.
We can not learn any more of God’s Word.
􀂃 All spiritual growth immediately ceases.
ô€‚ƒ Everything we do in God’s service (studying the Bible, witnessing, praying, minstering to our brethren, etc.) is all completely meaningless to God because we were “out of fellowship” the whole time.
Again, this so-called “doctrine of rebound” is formulated by combining 1 John 1:9 and Ephesians 5:18.
http://gracecfellowship.org/images%5Cbooklets%5CRethinkingRebound(2nd%20Edition).pdf
Do you find John saying that a believer can be in and out-of-fellowship with God? Do you really think that a believer can be 100% in fellowship one moment, and 100% out of the fellowship the next? If sin is what causes a believer to be out of fellowship then how often would you estimate most believers to be in fellowship? I would say rarely by such a sin-oriented view. Are there only certain sins that cause a believer to be out of fellowship? If so, please share such verses that “actually” define certain sins to interrupt fellowship with God. Do we all obey the greatest command to love God with “all” our heart, mind, soul, and body? How about your attitude and thought life? I think pride and self-righteousness is behind this belief that one must confess sin the moment one becomes aware of it, as they seem to think that they have no sins at this current moment to confess.
http://pureunadulteratedgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/confess-sins-to-be-forgiven-part-two-of.html
I hold a pure grace view, and am not obsessed with behavior as religion is. I believe in walking after the Spirit. It is the life of faith, and living in the reality of who we are that brings change. You are powerless to change your flesh or your heart. God will change your heart, as you are powerless, but your flesh will remain flesh, so stop trying to make it a Christian. Live in the reality of who you are in Christ, and stop trying to be light as you are always in light!!
Where can you EVER find in John’s writings what Zane Hodges is spewing out here?
http://pureunadulteratedgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/confess-sins-to-be-forgiven-part-3-of-4.html
LB, patience please. I am out of the country, using satellite celebrating my wife and I's 20th wedding anniv. I will get to them. Please consider answering the 2 questions I keep asking day after day in your own words instead of hiding behind others. :) If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not, AND I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
LB, patience please. I am out of the country, using satellite celebrating my wife and I's 20th wedding anniv. I will get to them. Please consider answering the 2 questions I keep asking day after day in your own words instead of hiding behind others. :) If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not, AND I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
LB, patience please. I am out of the country, using satellite celebrating my wife and I's 20th wedding anniv. I will get to them. Please consider answering the 2 questions I keep asking day after day in your own words instead of hiding behind others. :) If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not, AND I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
LB, patience please. I am out of the country, using satellite celebrating my wife and I's 20th wedding anniv. I will get to them. Please consider answering the 2 questions I keep asking day after day in your own words instead of hiding behind others. :) If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not, AND I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
LB, patience please. I am out of the country, using satellite celebrating my wife and I's 20th wedding anniv. I will get to them. Please consider answering the 2 questions I keep asking day after day in your own words instead of hiding behind others. :) If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not, AND I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
Ok, it souneds like you are now admitting that a Christian can Sin.. Am I understanding you correctly? It sounds like that you want to use a different definition of the same word however. Am I understanding that correctly? Please clarify, and then if that is the case, please show me where Scripture clearly defines Sin differently depending on who it is. Then I want you and me to go through 1 Jn kind of like you did and I have some questions for you. We will go vs by vs. Again, I scanned a few articles, but I do not have the time nor inclination to go through what any person has to say about things. We can quote other people all day. I also don't care what GES quotes or believes. What ever your beef with them, I want to discuss scripture. Yes, I understand forgiveness being a fellowship issue. That is where I was going. The point is WE sin even though Christ died for them. He paid for them that happened in the future, but sin Exists in spite of them being paid for. Now that you have admitted that believers sin, we can move on.
Wow.. you have a lot of hostilities towards people. You will note that I am not quoting Zane, Bob or anyone else, unlike you. Lets you and I have a Bible discussion. Also, to actually have a discussion, lets keep the posts down to 1 or 2 at a time so that the conversation can be followed. You are admitting that believers do sin, correct? You think it is a different type of sin though then unbelievers right? You still have a hard time calling rape and murder sin for believers so that is not consistent. You are stating that if I murder someone I will not lose fellowship with God, right? clarify these, then I want to start doing 1 Jn vs by vs, sound good? I think you will be surprised by what your view requires, but we will see.
Trent said...
If a believer commits murder and rape, is it sin or not?
Yes, it’s a sin, but what is the definition of a sin committed by a Christian?
With out Law you are free to do whatever pleases you just as Paul says, “Everything is permissible for me under grace!” I can do anything that I desire to do; however, not everything will be profitable for me if I do them.
http://rlmministries.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=post&action=display&thread=155
The New Testament is very clear that as saved people, we are no longer bound by any law to please God, but we are under His grace.
http://secondcommunitybaptist.org/resources/13+Liberty+in+Christ.pdf
In the sin of Adam we were condemned. In the sinless life of Jesus there is no condemnation!
This verse does not say we will not make mistakes.
We will always suffer for our mistakes while we are God’s earthly temple but we can never, ever be condemned again.
It is the Law that condemns, but as believers we have a new relationship with God’s Laws.
***1.) The Law cannot ever claim us again:(vs 2)
We have been made free from the law of sin and death. Our life is now in the life of the Holy Spirit who can never die.
The law of sin and death was set in motion when Adam disobeyed God. Adam died because his relationship changed with God and was severed. Death is the product of sin!
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
***2.) The law cannot ever again condemn the believer: (vs 3)
***3.)The law can never ever control the believer:
http://gbtemple.com/singles/tag/book-of-romans/
Trent said...
I want you to in your own words explain to me what Jn is telling unbelievers in 1 jn 1:9. does confession lead to eternal life? if so catholics are in luck
What is a characteristic of a Gnostic? He denies he has sin. What must the Gnostic do? Agree with God that he has sin. Then he can believe for eternal life. It seems to me that anybody who demands that 1 John 1:9 contain the gospel message in its entirety is grasping at straws.
Trent said...
Believers can sin, regardless of how many people you quote who say otherwise. The new creation that will inhabit eternity cannot.
Born again sinners?
There is no such thing. "8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:8,9
http://www.simplechurch.com/video/born-again-sinners
You know, you talk to the average person and he'll say, "I'll tell you what I am. I'm just a sinner saved by grace." Well, I'll tell you what I am. I am the righteousness of God in Christ.
Have you ever seen a person and you couldn't get that person saved because you couldn't convince him that he was a sinner. He never would admit that he was a sinner.
Well, I know some Christians who will never get victory because you'll never be able to convince them that they are righteous. You can't convince them, not of their sinnership, but of their sainthood.
http://sermons.pastorlife.com/members/UploadedSermons/sermon_99.pdf
When I believed on Christ I was so united with Christ, so linked with Him, that I am now so much a part of Him that His crucifixion positionally becomes my crucifixion. A part of me died there at the cross. My old carnal nature was slain there at the cross. Yet, I don't live there in that death. The life I now live, I live in resurrection power.
Paul admonishes the Roman believers to "consider (be constantly counting upon the fact, reckon) yourselves to be dead to sin."
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/exchangedlife.html
The Exchanged Life
What do we Exchange?
What we give up Reference What we get in return
Our sin II Cor. 5:21 Christ's Righteousness
Wrath of God Rom. 5:1 Peace with God
Condemnation (Hell) Eph. 2:6 Father's House (Heaven)
Death Gal. 2:20 Life
The Old Man II Cor. 5:17 The New Man
Law Rom. 7:4-6 Grace
Carnal mind I Cor. 1:6 Spiritual mind
http://www.hopefellowshipycc.com/exchanged-life
The Father acknowledges each of us as sinless. This is accounted to us NOT because of what we have done or not done, but because of who we are. We are now accepted in God's sight as His very own Sons and Daughters and we are as sinless (in God's record books) as is Christ himself. Indeed, all the sinlessness that we possess is put to our account because we are "in Christ" and He has paid all the penalties that our sins would naturally bring upon us-both here and now, as well as before the Judgment Seat of God after the resurrection.
The simple truth is, the apostle Paul plainly stated in four distinct places, and backed up in a score of others, that we adult Christians who are mature in Christ have no written laws over us of any kind. Yes, you read me correctly. When Paul many times stated in the Books of Romans, Corinthians and Galatians that we are "no longer under the Law," he meant it with utmost vigor and belief.
Of course, I could give you a hundred verses of Scripture that tell us not to sin and that we can be chastised by God for doing wrong.
Let me be plain as the apostle Paul was, if you break any of those laws (name any law you want, even the most holy, righteous, and good), you will no longer be considered a sinner by God the Father or Christ Jesus if you are "in Christ Jesus."
In spite of this fact, in God's eyes (now that we are NOT under the Law since we are no longer reckoned to be sinners), even those evil actions have to be reckoned as lawful to do.
Paul said to go ahead and do as you please because all things are lawful unto you, but remember, whatsoever is not of faith [or a belief that things are okay] is wrong: "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
This Pauline way to look at sin or sinful acts is plain. It means that all things are indeed lawful to do, but all things are not edifying or beneficial. Go ahead and do as you please, but remember that one must be responsible for his or her actions and that everything a person does should be to glorify God the Father and Christ Jesus and His teachings.
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess015.htm
What does it mean that all things are lawful? Just this. It means nothing is unlawful. It has to mean this. But it isn’t for everybody. This is what it means for us, we who believe it, we who live by it.
How did it happen that all things became lawful to me? It happened at the same time it became lawful for everybody else. It happened by the same event, the resurrection. It happened when He spoiled principalities and powers, the force of law they employ to maintain their power and principality.
For those who don’t believe, all things are not lawful for them. They will lose their lives trying to keep them. If they break one, it will not be considered a lawful act. The law is still in effect for the unbeliever, the lawless.
You are saying right now, what a fool, he thinks he can go around doing unrighteousness of all kinds. Yes, of course, all things are lawful to me. Do you think this freedom means I must go around and commit unrighteousness here and there?
The reason I avoid these things is not due to the force of law (which for me was dealt with, taken out of they way that the second might be established, done away, nailed to His cross, abolished for us who are not under the law), but because I have inherited the kingdom of God. This is where I live now and it is why all things are lawful. Legally, the inhabitants who live here can do no wrong, nothing is unlawful for us, “but we have been washed, we are sanctified, we are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
http://secrettemple.blogspot.com/2005/12/for-me-all-things-are-lawful.html
The difference between Ephesians 1:6-8 and 1 John 1:9 is that John is dealing with what we call “relational,” or “familial,” forgiveness—like that of a father and a son.
“Positional” forgiveness, or judicial forgiveness, is that which is obtained by every believer in Christ.
The Gift of Forgiveness by Charles Stanley.
http://www.gotquestions.org/confession-forgiveness.html
The answer is that divine forgiveness has two aspects. One is the judicial forgiveness God grants as Judge.
The other is a parental forgiveness God grants as your Father.
John MacArthur
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/if-we-confess-our-sins-9344.html
Third, the context for the confession is not just judicial: it is also relational.
Daniel B. Wallace
http://bible.org/article/honest-god-or-god-not-pit-stop-1-john-15-10
I have not confessed my sins in well over 5 years, so I must be deprived of blessing and the abundant life but that would be a lie. I can tell you that I am so blessed in the Lord that I can never return to the teachings of that theology I once embraced. I rarely have met anyone in FG in person that claimed I was out-of-fellowship because I have not confessed my sins to be forgiven.
The “all” in Colossians 2:13 are “judicially” forgiven according to religion, as they claim that implies "all" past, present, and future sins. However, the “all” in 1st John 1:9 is “parental” forgiveness according to religion, but that only implies "all" past, present, but not future sins.
There is only one way to still be in your sins, believer, and that is if Christ was not raised. I am rejoicing that He has risen indeed!
They had “annual reminders” of sin there in Hebrews 10, but FG makes it hourly reminders, as they claim you need to confess sin the “moment” you become aware of it, but where does John or Paul ever say that? If we are going to live sin conscious or law conscious then we are sinning constantly and are always in the need of confessing. Does anyone keep the greatest law of loving God with their whole being?
You get to the point where you wonder if you were sincere in confessing those sins so you end up repeating the same prayer but this time with some emotion behind it. Sometimes you think you need to reconfess your sins because you still feel guilty. Religion claims that the Holy Spirit could be behind your guilt or possibly the devil.
http://pureunadulteratedgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/make-daily-confession-of-sins-to-be.html
Trent said…
Jn 3:16-18 with Jn 20:30-31 makes is clear why someone will be in the Lake of Fire. If they did not believe, they do not have Eternal life or God's life. If they do not have that life then they are condemned based on that. We do not gain eternal life by doing good works, and in the same way, we do not end up in the Lake of fire because of bad works either.
Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
The condemnation that our sins deserve has been poured out on Christ, our sin-bearer; that is why ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’.
Post the replies I have submitted. I wouldn’t have submitted them if I hadn’t wanted to use them in discussion for one reason or another.
Ok. so you have acknowledged believers sin. I agree. Yes, it affects us differently because we have the new creation inside of us that is untouched by that sin. There for since we can sin, so can unbelievers, but Jesus still has paid the price for all sin unless you show me somewhere in scripture it says Jesus's blood is either only applied after belief, or it is not applied to some. 1 Jn 1:9 you claim it is telling a Gnostic how to have eternal life, and unlike a normal person, they must confess their sin before they can believe? where is that in the context.. and are you ready to start in verse one to determine context? What is the purpose and to whom does Paul address? Lets look at the we and yous together to determine if your view makes sense.
You are both. You have acknowledged that you as a believer sin, but at the same time, God only sees the new creation.. yet if you were to do as David did, there would be a necessary confession before fellowship would be restored. Moses screwed up too. Yes, you are a sinner, but you also have the unsinning new creation 1 Jn discuss's.. another reason why he is addressing believers though gnostics may be under discussion. Lets take things at face value shall we?
the passages about lawful etc, none of which say it is not sin. You sin, I sin.. that makes us sinners, HOWEVER, You have already agreed, and so I think we are past that now. Sin is sin, but as a believer, we are spared its eternal consequences because we have the part in us that cannot sin. AMEN? The part that we disagree on is that you believe that Jesus did not pay/apply for an unbelievers sins, therefore God will punish them. I say that Jesus paid for all sins, therefore it is not God's punishment, but just them recieving their wages and natural result. James is very clear that there is a natural progression that goes from Sin and I think it is clear that it does not end at death unless you are a believer. then your old nature dies and you only have the unsinning new.
If you are unwilling to go vs by vs with me through 1 Jn, I think we will have to agree to disagree though. Lets take 1 verse at a time.
Also note, that every reply that i am aware of has been posted.. though since you are doing 10-20 per day, I am sure it is possible I have missed one. Please go back through and double check. If I did miss one, I will do it if you show me. I am sure I have double posted some as you have submitted some 3 times and with as many as you have done..and the repeats its a bit confusing. Its why I prefer discussing instead of quoting other teachers. reread my blog statement. :)
Do we follow the cry of the reformers.. or the reformers and their followers. You seem like you have a lot of people you follow and quote. I prefer to dig into the scripture and follow where it leads.
Trent said...
Also note, that every reply that i am aware of has been posted.. though since you are doing 10-20 per day, I am sure it is possible I have missed one. Please go back through and double check. If I did miss one, I will do it if you show me. I am sure I have double posted some as you have submitted some 3 times and with as many as you have done..and the repeats its a bit confusing. Its why I prefer discussing instead of quoting other teachers. reread my blog statement. :)
At least you posted the links to the articles I quoted from.
Trent said...
Ok. so you have acknowledged believers sin. I agree. Yes, it affects us differently because we have the new creation inside of us that is untouched by that sin. There for since we can sin, so can unbelievers, but Jesus still has paid the price for all sin unless you show me somewhere in scripture it says Jesus's blood is either only applied after belief, or it is not applied to some.
You have to use sense to see that life and sin debt were both paid for at the cross but are applied only at saving faith. Is there anyone beside you who argues for your position? Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges. Anyone else?
Trent said...
1 Jn 1:9 you claim it is telling a Gnostic how to have eternal life, and unlike a normal person, they must confess their sin before they can believe? where is that in the context.. and are you ready to start in verse one to determine context? What is the purpose and to whom does Paul address? Lets look at the we and yous together to determine if your view makes sense.
You are both. You have acknowledged that you as a believer sin, but at the same time, God only sees the new creation.. yet if you were to do as David did, there would be a necessary confession before fellowship would be restored. Moses screwed up too. Yes, you are a sinner, but you also have the unsinning new creation 1 Jn discuss's.. another reason why he is addressing believers though gnostics may be under discussion. Lets take things at face value shall we?
the passages about lawful etc, none of which say it is not sin. You sin, I sin.. that makes us sinners, HOWEVER, You have already agreed, and so I think we are past that now. Sin is sin, but as a believer, we are spared its eternal consequences because we have the part in us that cannot sin. AMEN? The part that we disagree on is that you believe that Jesus did not pay/apply for an unbelievers sins, therefore God will punish them. I say that Jesus paid for all sins, therefore it is not God's punishment, but just them recieving their wages and natural result. James is very clear that there is a natural progression that goes from Sin and I think it is clear that it does not end at death unless you are a believer. then your old nature dies and you only have the unsinning new.
If you are unwilling to go vs by vs with me through 1 Jn, I think we will have to agree to disagree though. Lets take 1 verse at a time.
Yeah, we can go through 1 John 1one verse at a time. I’ve already posted web articles of such a thing. Bring it on!
Trent said...
Do we follow the cry of the reformers.. or the reformers and their followers. You seem like you have a lot of people you follow and quote. I prefer to dig into the scripture and follow where it leads.
You have to use sense to interpret scripture.
LB said "Yeah, we can go through 1 John 1one verse at a time. I’ve already posted web articles of such a thing. Bring it on!
You have to use sense to interpret scripture. "
Great! I will start on the next post. I agree, you need to use Sense, context and God's word and becareful amount following the "majority" I bet you would have had a lot to say to Martin Luther.
1 Jn 1:1-2
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
can we agree that the We and the Us here is Paul and fellow believers?
Trent said...
Great! I will start on the next post. I agree, you need to use Sense, context and God's word and becareful amount following the "majority" I bet you would have had a lot to say to Martin Luther.
Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
The condemnation that our sins deserve has been poured out on Christ, our sin-bearer; that is why ‘there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’.
Doesn’t this blow your theory that people won’t be in Hell for sin right out of the water?
Trent said...
1 Jn 1:1-2
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
can we agree that the We and the Us here is Paul and fellow believers?
Paul?
Jeremy Myers
There are four keys to understanding 1 John which, just like with correctly understanding every passage in the Bible, are all contextual keys. Rightly dividing the Word of truth demands that you always look at the historical, cultural and grammatical context. The first two keys come from looking at the historical/cultural context and they explain John's reason for writing. We will learn about the heresy he is trying to combat and that will in turn help us understand the purpose for John's letter. The third and fourth keys provide the grammatical context. These keys deal with correctly defining terms and understanding how these words form the overall structure and outline of the book of 1 John.
I think everybody agrees that John was clearly writing to Christians.
To understand 1 John we must understand the heresy of Gnosticism.
And so we read in places that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (1:5). God is not mostly good with a little bit of evil. There is no sin in Him at all (3:5). When John writes that Christians do not sin (3:9), he is combating the Gnostic teaching that a Christian can sin all they want in the flesh and it won't affect them spiritually. When John talks about people who deny that Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh (4:2), he is refuting this teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh.
Anyway, all the way through the book, John is stating the case against Gnosticism, and so if you are going to understand John, you have to first have a basic understanding of what the Gnostics believed and taught.
http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/1%202%203%20John/1%20John%20Keys.htm
nope, I already conceded that point. My argument is that it is not God's punishment as Jesus already paid the price for his sin. Lets get into 1 John and not get off on tangents as your argument is apparently still based on Christians not sinning.
Trent said...
nope, I already conceded that point. My argument is that it is not God's punishment as Jesus already paid the price for his sin.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Who is there no condemnation to? Those who are in Christ Jesus. What do those who aren’t in Christ Jesus have? Condemnation and the law of sin and death. How does this not blow your theory right out of the water? You say that people after the cross don’t go to Hell for their sins. Why should people before the cross go to Hell for their sins but people after the cross not go to Hell for their sins? People didn’t change at the cross, and the reason they go to Hell didn’t change at the cross.
Trent said...
Lets get into 1 John and not get off on tangents as your argument is apparently still based on Christians not sinning.
Is my quote from Bible Thumping Liberal that all things are lawful true or not?
LB, please think for yourself. Lets study the scripture. If Martin Luther did what you are doing we would be Catholics :) Lets try again. Who is the WE and US in 1 Jn 1:1-2? Do you agree that it is Paul and Fellow Believers? Do you want to comment on anything else in the passage?
Trent said...
LB, please think for yourself. Lets study the scripture. If Martin Luther did what you are doing we would be Catholics :) Lets try again. Who is the WE and US in 1 Jn 1:1-2? Do you agree that it is Paul and Fellow Believers? Do you want to comment on anything else in the passage?
The Book is called 1 John. John is referring to John and fellow believers. Maybe some Gnostics if they happen to be reading it.
Did Jesus pay for life on the cross? Then, why wasn’t the life applied to everyone at the cross like you say the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross?
LB Said "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Who is there no condemnation to? Those who are in Christ Jesus. What do those who aren’t in Christ Jesus have? Condemnation and the law of sin and death. How does this not blow your theory right out of the water? You say that people after the cross don’t go to Hell for their sins. Why should people before the cross go to Hell for their sins but people after the cross not go to Hell for their sins? People didn’t change at the cross, and the reason they go to Hell didn’t change at the cross."
You are making assumptions. It says no condemnation for those who walk according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. what does that mean? You are not looking at complete verses and passages. Are you back to claiming that murder and rape are no longer sin for believers? We can focus on James next ok? But, lets try and stay focused. Lets focus on 1 Jn as we agreed and the context there instead of jumping all over the bible.
LB said "The Book is called 1 John. John is referring to John and fellow believers. Maybe some Gnostics if they happen to be reading it."
Oops. :) good point. Ok, so you are suggesting that John, when he says we and Us in vs 1 and 2 maybe including gnostics??? I want to make sure that is what you are saying before I address it. I will requote the verses for you. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;" You need to decide if John is including Gnostics with himself, OR if he is addressing them..
1 Jn 1:1-2 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;"
So lets make it clearer. Please tell me who you think JOHN means when he says WE and US and who you think he is speaking to when he says YOU.
Trent said...
You are making assumptions. It says no condemnation for those who walk according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. what does that mean? You are not looking at complete verses and passages.
Now you’re denying that Romans 8:1-2 is as good a gospel passage as John 3:16?
Trent said...
Are you back to claiming that murder and rape are no longer sin for believers?
Are you ever going to state that all things are lawful?
Trent said...
We can focus on James next ok? But, lets try and stay focused. Lets focus on 1 Jn as we agreed and the context there instead of jumping all over the bible.
The topic is "Will people be in Hell because of Sin?" I’m telling you “Yes.” You’re telling me “No.” I don’t care about 1 John except how to interpret it in a Free Grace manner and whether we are supposed to confess our sins. If we are supposed to confess our sins, I don’t have to confess my sins anyway.
Trent said...
So lets make it clearer. Please tell me who you think JOHN means when he says WE and US and who you think he is speaking to when he says YOU.
All right, run John and his fellow believers up the flagpole and see what happens.
Did Jesus pay for life on the cross? Then, why wasn’t the life applied to everyone at the cross like you say the payment for sin was applied to everyone at the cross?
LB what I am trying to do, is stay focused so that perhaps we will accomplish something. You have helped clarify the sin/lake of fire issue already for me already, but Please lets do one thing at a time now. We can do Romans, James or whatever later. Are you or are you not comfortable interpreting a book by its context?
What does run John and the believers up the flagpole mean?
1 Jn 1 1-2 who is US, WE and YOU referring to. Once you answer that and ask anything else you feel you need to show me in those verses we can hit VS 3.
Trent said...
What does run John and the believers up the flagpole mean?
"Let's run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it" is a catchphrase which became popular in the United States during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It means "to present an idea tentatively and see whether it receives a favorable reaction."
Trent said...
1 Jn 1 1-2 who is US, WE and YOU referring to. Once you answer that and ask anything else you feel you need to show me in those verses we can hit VS 3.
John is writing to his fellow believers about John and his fellow believers. And do you agree that 1 John is basically a rebuttal to Gnosticism?
Trent said...
You have helped clarify the sin/lake of fire issue already for me already, but Please lets do one thing at a time now.
"Will people be in Hell because of Sin?"
You and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges say “No.”
Now you would go through the whole book of 1 John so you don’t have to admit that you and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges were wrong? Just come out and answer my questions and admit you are wrong. I may be wrong about 1 John, but I admit I may be wrong about 1 John. 1 John has always been a kind of mysterious book. But you are guilty of a glaring error, maybe even a heresy.
LB says "John is writing to his fellow believers about John and his fellow believers. And do you agree that 1 John is basically a rebuttal to Gnosticism?"
lets see what the text says as that is what matters, right?
LB says "Now you would go through the whole book of 1 John so you don’t have to admit that you and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges were wrong? Just come out and answer my questions and admit you are wrong. I may be wrong about 1 John, but I admit I may be wrong about 1 John. 1 John has always been a kind of mysterious book. But you are guilty of a glaring error, maybe even a heresy. "
LB, everyone thought Martin Luther was a heretic right? It does not matter what Zane, Bob, you or I may say right? Thats why I want to study 1 John to see what it says. fair? Now lets stay on topic. :)
v 3 "that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. "
LB based on this verse, why are they writing to these believers?
Trent said...
lets see what the text says as that is what matters, right?
The word “Gnosticism” isn’t even in 1 John, yet it definitely has an influence on 1 John.
Trent said...
LB, everyone thought Martin Luther was a heretic right? It does not matter what Zane, Bob, you or I may say right? Thats why I want to study 1 John to see what it says. fair? Now lets stay on topic. :)
The topic is "Will people be in Hell because of Sin?" It looks like you’re postponing admitting there will be people in Hell because of sin. “People won’t be in Hell because of sin.” If that isn’t heresy, what is?
Trent said...
LB based on this verse, why are they writing to these believers?
That you may have fellowship with us. Sounds kind of dumb, doesn’t it? Maybe it makes sense if you put Gnosticism in the equation.
Trent said…
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
You are making assumptions. It says no condemnation for those who walk according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. what does that mean? You are not looking at complete verses and passages. Are you back to claiming that murder and rape are no longer sin for believers?
Your insistence that people won’t be in Hell because of sin has driven you to deny eternal security in Romans 8:1-2 for yourself, hasn’t it?
So if there isn't condemnation for those who don't walk according to the flesh, what's the implication? Yep, that there is condemnation for those who do.
http://seth.heasley.net/blog/2007/06/eternal-security-and-romans-8/
Consider Paul’s argument in Romans 6. He tells us that we have died to sin (Rom 6:2) and that the body of sin has been brought to nothing (Rom 6:6). He argues further that we are free from sin (Rom 6:7) and that sin will have no dominion over our bodies (Rom 6:14). This happened, says Paul, when we believed in Christ. Thus, we died with him in a death like his and were raised in a resurrection like his (Rom 6:3–5). In short, sin died when you believed.
http://thecripplegate.com/how-to-rout-sin/
We too are deemed to have had our old body crucified with Christ because of the sins in it, but our old body also died on the cross and sin died along within it, which means that sin was annulled through death, i.e. died.
When Christ rose He resurrected in the new body cleansed from sin and we rose through His resurrection, because His resurrected body is our new body free of sin and alien to it.
http://www.stmacariusmonastery.org/sm0608.pdf
We must understand clearly that under the old covenant, sin was only covered. But under the new covenant, sin was eliminated.
Under the old covenant lambs could only cover sin. But under the new covenant Jesus took away sin (John 1:29).
Jesus is not merely our atonement. In fact, He did away with our need for atonement. Where there is no sin, there is no need to cover sin.
http://www.cfaith.com/index.php?view=article&catid=91%3Athe-cutting-edge-&id=1578%3Ajesus-is-not-just-our-atonement&format=pdf&option=com_content
Sin was eliminated on the Cross
http://www.ncmitraining.com/NCMIMANUSCRIPTS/Colossians%20-%20We%20are%20reconciled%20to%20Christ.htm
With this began the victory of life over death, because in him sin was eliminated, which is the cause of death.
http://www.logoshouse.com/index.php?&sid=4dmqn9kettplkd7js1p4jum56b0oopo4&__path=logoshouse.commentary&chapterId=1198
LB said "The topic is "Will people be in Hell because of Sin?" It looks like you’re postponing admitting there will be people in Hell because of sin. “People won’t be in Hell because of sin.” If that isn’t heresy, what is?"
LB, thats why we are going through scripture. You saying something is heresy does not make it so. :)
LB says "That you may have fellowship with us. Sounds kind of dumb, doesn’t it? Maybe it makes sense if you put Gnosticism in the equation. "
It sounds dumb if you hold to your view. It makes perfect sense in mine. Ok, so you agree it means what it says? Do you agree that the we, our and you are still the same people as in vs 1 and 2? If not, why?
am not going to let you send us on a rabbit trail yet. :) lets finish with 1 John. we are only on vs 3. I will point out one thing you said.
"With this began the victory of life over death, because in him sin was eliminated, which is the cause of death."
Then why is there still death? Note James 1:14-16. Clearly sin and death are still threats to believers.
Lets work through 1 John, then we can go else where. Cultists like to chase verses all over instead of sticking with a passage, especially one they don't like what it says. I KNOW that is not you, but please lets stay focused. :)
Trent said...
LB, thats why we are going through scripture.
1 John is supposed to somehow prove that people won’t be in Hell because of sin?
Trent said...
You saying something is heresy does not make it so. :)
“People will be in Hell because of sin.” Isn’t denying that denying fundamental Christian doctrine?
Trent said...
It sounds dumb if you hold to your view. It makes perfect sense in mine. Ok, so you agree it means what it says? Do you agree that the we, our and you are still the same people as in vs 1 and 2? If not, why?
Paul wants them to have fellowship. Don’t they already have fellowship or Paul wouldn’t be writing to them?
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Sounds kind of dumb, doesn’t it?
Trent said...
Then why is there still death?
There is no spiritual death.
Trent said...
am not going to let you send us on a rabbit trail yet. :)
Did you ever see a study of theology that didn’t send you on a rabbit trail? Tell me the point you want to make in 1 John so I can refute it. You don’t listen to me when I refute you anyway. You know you refuse to answer my questions. Why would Trent refuse to answer my questions? Obviously because Trent refuses to admit he’s wrong like Bob Wilkin.
LB SAys "1 John is supposed to somehow prove that people won’t be in Hell because of sin? "
*sigh* LB, the issue is not whether they are there because of their sin. I have acknowledged you are correct. The issue is, Did Jesus pay for their sin where God is concerned, or was his payment not enough and he is punishing them for it. I think 1 John will show you that Sin is still a fellowship issue for believers, and thus can still exist for believers and unbelievers even though Christ paid the price for it. Why are you trying to hard not to see what God's word says?
LB says “People will be in Hell because of sin.” Isn’t denying that denying fundamental Christian doctrine?
Again, I am not saying this, so please stop creating a straw man, and Bible Doctrine is what matters. There are many erroneous Christian
beliefs people have and you know that.
LB says "Paul wants them to have fellowship. Don’t they already have fellowship or Paul wouldn’t be writing to them? "
Obviously they don't have the fellowship he is discussing, or "John" does not know what he is talking about. You are avoiding discussing vs 3. why?
lb quote "5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
Sounds kind of dumb, doesn’t it?
we will get there, but in context. Now, lets get back to vs 3. You managed to write all that with out considering anything. One thing to notate right now. He is affirming here who is audience is. Believers
LB says "There is no spiritual death."
Agreed, but sin caused physical and spiritual death correct?
LB says "Did you ever see a study of theology that didn’t send you on a rabbit trail? Tell me the point you want to make in 1 John so I can refute it. You don’t listen to me when I refute you anyway. You know you refuse to answer my questions. Why would Trent refuse to answer my questions? Obviously because Trent refuses to admit he’s wrong like Bob Wilkin.
Theology that uses rabbit trails to prove something is not good theology. I truly do not understand why you are afraid to see what John says. I would say that you refuse to acknowledge you could be wrong and are not willing to let the Bible speak for itself. I don't want to "argue" or "refute" I want to study scripture and see what it says, agreed? I am going to stick to just discussing these verses you agreed to discuss. IF you feel another verse helps you interpret then use it, but you still have to then tell me what you feel the verse means. Anything you quote also has to be interpreted by context and takes more time. Lets try again.
v 3 "that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. "
Now please answer. Notice that I did not say it was for fellowship, you did. If it is not, then
based on this verse, why are they writing to these believers? Is You, Our, We, still the same people as in vs 1-2?
Trent said...
*sigh* LB, the issue is not whether they are there because of their sin. I have acknowledged you are correct. The issue is, Did Jesus pay for their sin where God is concerned, or was his payment not enough and he is punishing them for it.
Zane Hodges says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Bob Wilkin says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Were Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin right or wrong about that?
Did the people before the cross who go to the Lake of Fire go there because of sin or because they don’t have the life offered by Christ?
Do people deserve to go to Hell because they don’t have life or because they are sinners?
Did Christ pay for life for everyone on the cross? If so, why wasn’t it given to everyone at the cross? If life wasn’t given to everyone at the cross, why was payment for sin given to everyone at the cross?
Trent said...
I think 1 John will show you that Sin is still a fellowship issue for believers, and thus can still exist for believers and unbelievers even though Christ paid the price for it. Why are you trying to hard not to see what God's word says?
Do you say that forgiveness of sins is always a fellowship issue even though I showed you on Middletown Bible Church that forgiveness of sins is sometimes a salvation issue?
The wages of sin is a) death or b) being out of fellowship? This is a black and white issue. Do you have spiritual death coming to you? Then I guess you aren’t saved. Are you saved? Then I guess you don’t have any sins.
Trent said...
Again, I am not saying this, so please stop creating a straw man, and Bible Doctrine is what matters. There are many erroneous Christian beliefs people have and you know that.
“People won’t be in Hell because of sin.” “People will be in Hell because of sin.” Well, which is it?
Trent said...
Obviously they don't have the fellowship he is discussing, or "John" does not know what he is talking about. You are avoiding discussing vs 3. why?
How do you know they don’t have the fellowship he is discussing?
Trent said...
we will get there, but in context. Now, lets get back to vs 3. You managed to write all that with out considering anything. One thing to notate right now. He is affirming here who is audience is. Believers
Exchanged Life people say John is not necessarily writing exclusively to believers. Paul addressed the people he wrote to as believers, but John doesn’t do that here.
Trent said...
Agreed, but sin caused physical and spiritual death correct?
You’re saying that sin was not eliminated because physical death was not eliminated and the Exchanged Life view is not right? Why should physical death bother the Exchanged Life view and not your view? You said “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” What you don’t realize is that the Lamb of God literally takes sinning away from the saved, huh?
We still die because even though our sins are forgiven, its effects continue. Furthermore, the death that Jesus saved us from is not a physical one, but a spiritual one – separation from God.
http://carm.org/jesus-paid-sin-debt-why-do-we-still-die
Trent said...
Theology that uses rabbit trails to prove something is not good theology. I truly do not understand why you are afraid to see what John says. I would say that you refuse to acknowledge you could be wrong and are not willing to let the Bible speak for itself. I don't want to "argue" or "refute" I want to study scripture and see what it says, agreed? I am going to stick to just discussing these verses you agreed to discuss. IF you feel another verse helps you interpret then use it, but you still have to then tell me what you feel the verse means. Anything you quote also has to be interpreted by context and takes more time. Lets try again.
v 3 "that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. "
Now please answer. Notice that I did not say it was for fellowship, you did. If it is not, then
based on this verse, why are they writing to these believers? Is You, Our, We, still the same people as in vs 1-2?
I suppose they’re the same people, but if it isn’t that they may have fellowship, what is John writing for?
LB says "Did Christ pay for life for everyone on the cross? If so, why wasn’t it given to everyone at the cross? If life wasn’t given to everyone at the cross, why was payment for sin given to everyone at the cross?"
Where does it say in the Bible Jesus Paid for everyones Life? You are trying to avoid the topic, so lets revisit all this stuff when we are done with 1 John and determine that. Maybe we can then hit Romans Ch 6. :)
LB says "How do you know they don’t have the fellowship he is discussing? "
If I say I am going to give you 5$ to buy lunch, common sense says you don't have lunch. Please give me your understanding of vs 3 or answer the questions I posed so we can move on. You already agreed with me that Believers have sin remember? Rom 6:12, James sin unto death. If you cannot remain consistent then you have an issue. You can't keep changing your stance based on the verse. Please confirm, Can a believer rape and murder and not Sin? Was David sinning? I can't believe you would hold such a heretical belief that a believer can do anything he wants and not sin.. amazing.
Trent said "Now please answer. Notice that I did not say it was for fellowship, you did. If it is not, then
based on this verse, why are they writing to these believers? Is You, Our, We, still the same people as in vs 1-2?"
LB said "I suppose they’re the same people, but if it isn’t that they may have fellowship, what is John writing for? "
Vs 3 seems clear that it is so that they may have fellowship. Since we agree that everyone discussed "thus" far are believers, then obviously fellowship is not equivalent to eternal life. Ok, so we seem to be back to agreeing so far, lets take on verse 4.
1 John 1:4 "And these things we write to you that your [fn] joy may be full. "
Do you agree that we and you are still the same people discussed in verses 1 and 3? Do you agree that having full Joy is apparently tied into being in fellowship? If not, please clarify where you disagree.
Death abolished! Death destroyed! Death has 'died' !! Jesus destroyed sin and death when He died! Jesus conquered the grave by coming up out of it!
http://www.youareallbrothers.com/current/show_article.php?id=200,20050910
Jesus came to earth and unilaterally expiated, eliminated, destroyed and abolished sin and physical death. Without sin, judgment for sin also disappears.
Jesus, the last Adam, unilaterally reversed Adam’s mistakes for introducing sin and death.
There is no need to confess sin after the cross, because sin no longer exists.
Religion says, Jesus came to offer forgiveness of sins. The Word of God says, “Jesus destroyed sin.”
Jesus unilaterally destroyed and abolished sin and death on the cross by his death and resurrection. And the word “sin” should never be associated with evil acts or evil deeds committed by men.
Dealing with sin and judgment, after the cross, is telling God that Jesus death did not abolish sin and death; therefore, Jesus failed.
http://www.immortality-club.com/Life_is_Simple.pdf
Well, the Bible speaks of three different deaths. The first is spiritual death - separation of the soul from God. The Bible describes every man as “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). The second is physical death - the separation of the soul from the body. The third is eternal death - permanent separation from God’s mercy and love - Hell. All these are the deserved and predicted consequences of sin: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). However, the Lord Jesus has abolished these three deaths by dealing with the cause of them - sin.
He has abolished spiritual death by dying on the cross to put away sin and so bring us to God.
Because Jesus took our punishment on Himself and died, those who believed in Christ shall not be sent to hell to suffer for their sin.
http://www.gethsemanebpc.com/resources/pastoral-exhortation/pastoral-2010/482-death-abolished.html
1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Trent said...
Theology that uses rabbit trails to prove something is not good theology.
Good theology can’t have a rabbit trail? Do you want me to show you good theology and we’ll see if it has a rabbit trail?
Not interested in rabbit trails or letting you off the hook. :) Iron sharpens iron my friend. Let me repeat where we are at on vs 3.
1 John 1:4 "And these things we write to you that your [fn] joy may be full. "
Do you agree that we and you are still the same people discussed in verses 1 and 3? Do you agree that having full Joy is apparently tied into being in fellowship? If not, please clarify where you disagree.
Trent said...
Vs 3 seems clear that it is so that they may have fellowship. Since we agree that everyone discussed "thus" far are believers, then obviously fellowship is not equivalent to eternal life. Ok, so we seem to be back to agreeing so far, lets take on verse 4.
Trent said...
1 John 1:4 "And these things we write to you that your [fn] joy may be full. "
Do you agree that we and you are still the same people discussed in verses 1 and 3? Do you agree that having full Joy is apparently tied into being in fellowship? If not, please clarify where you disagree.
Yeah, run it up the flagpole. And later on you’ll try to tell me that this proves that we have to confess our sins or people won’t be in Hell because of sin or something. But you ought to be more open-minded.
LB says "Simply by knowing, believing and accepting you can receive the FREE GIFT OF LIFE because Jesus Christ paid the FULL PRICE for EVERY SIN of MAN FOREVER. Romans 3:24-26"
what is the difference between believing and accepting? But yes, I agree with the rest. Thats my point and I think you said it well.
In regards to Vs 4, LB said "Yeah, run it up the flagpole. And later on you’ll try to tell me that this proves that we have to confess our sins or people won’t be in Hell because of sin or something. But you ought to be more open-minded."
when it comes to scripture, If its not in scripture, there needs to be overwhelming evidence. i.e. trinity. I am going to not be open minded to things that seem to contradict the clear teaching. You seem to be saying that even if 1 john says something, you won't believe it, which seems a bit close minded as well.
1 Jn 1:5 "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. "
I don't think we have any disagreement here, but here we go. Do you agree that We and You still refer to the same people as the first 4 verses? What do you think Darkness means in this context?
Trent said...
You already agreed with me that Believers have sin remember? Rom 6:12, James sin unto death.
Luther denied it was Apostolic, he labelled it ‘a right strawy epistle’, attributing it to an unidentified James.
Martin Luther: "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."
Those who have died to sin will no longer walk in sin (Rom 6:1-2).
Trent said...
Was David sinning?
David was under the Law.
Trent said...
If you cannot remain consistent then you have an issue. You can't keep changing your stance based on the verse. Please confirm, Can a believer rape and murder and not Sin? I can't believe you would hold such a heretical belief that a believer can do anything he wants and not sin.. amazing.
Are all things lawful like Bible Thumping Liberal said?
Trent said...
what is the difference between believing and accepting? But yes, I agree with the rest. Thats my point and I think you said it well.
Did Christ pay for life for everyone on the cross? If so, why wasn’t it given to everyone at the cross? If life wasn’t given to everyone at the cross, why was payment for sin given to everyone at the cross?
Zane Hodges says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Bob Wilkin says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Were Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin right or wrong about that?
Do people deserve to go to Hell because they don’t have life or because they are sinners?
Do you say that forgiveness of sins is always a fellowship issue even though I showed you on Middletown Bible Church that forgiveness of sins is sometimes a salvation issue?
The wages of sin is a) death or b) being out of fellowship?
“People won’t be in Hell because of sin.” “People will be in Hell because of sin.” Well, which is it?
Trent said...
when it comes to scripture, If its not in scripture, there needs to be overwhelming evidence. i.e. trinity. I am going to not be open minded to things that seem to contradict the clear teaching. You seem to be saying that even if 1 john says something, you won't believe it, which seems a bit close minded as well.
If 1 John is obviously about Gnosticism but doesn’t say “Gnosticism,” you obviously have to be open-minded to watch out for the Gnosticism.
Trent said...
1 Jn 1:5 "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. "
I don't think we have any disagreement here, but here we go. Do you agree that We and You still refer to the same people as the first 4 verses? What do you think Darkness means in this context?
Unrighteousness comes to mind.
Romans 6:2 - We are dead to sin.
Romans 6:2 - We cannot live any longer in sin because our sin died with the sacrifice of Christ.
That the believer who has faith to see their old man of sin is crucified with Christ, is indeed free from sin. If one lives with the propensity of sin still operating in them, and are at times serving sin; then they have not believed that they died with Christ.
Sin was not committed by him as he saw vitally that his sinful man was dead with Christ on the Cross.
"But", you say. "I still see sin living and operating in me!!" You dear saint are looking at that which was crucified, that which in spite of its identity with the Lamb sacrifice, would still set itself to dominate and rule in tyranny over you, causing you to obey its every whim.
http://overcomers.ca/Free_Of_Sin.html
Here’s a question for you:
Will Christians be judged for their sins or for their good works?
LB said "Luther denied it was Apostolic, he labelled it ‘a right strawy epistle’, attributing it to an unidentified James."
Wow.. now you are choosing what is scripture and what is not?? dude, where do you draw the line to defend what you believe? Let scripture be your guide, not people.
Trent said "Do you agree that We and You still refer to the same people as the first 4 verses? What do you think Darkness means in this context? "
LB said "Unrighteousness comes to mind."
Ok, good. Will you affirm that Unrighteousness and Sin can be useed interchangeably? If you feel it is something different, please give your references where kunrighteousness is not sin. If you agree, lets go to verse 6 since we are in agreement.
Ok, I think we will do Romans next since you seem to be confused when we are done with 1 jn. I will quote and show you something on Rom 6.
vs 2 says "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? " Note it is not saying what you are saying. then vs 12 "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
You see? That would be a waste of a chapter if you were correct. Ok, lets finish 1 Jn as that is Context, then you can choose the next book ok?
LB says "Here’s a question for you:
Will Christians be judged for their sins or for their good works?"
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Trent said...
Where does it say in the Bible Jesus Paid for everyones Life? You are trying to avoid the topic, so lets revisit all this stuff when we are done with 1 John and determine that. Maybe we can then hit Romans Ch 6. :)
Now you are denying that Jesus paid for everyone’s life?
Clearly, Jesus paid the ransom for our lives to God. That ransom was His own life, the shedding of His own blood, a sacrifice. Due to His sacrificial death, each person on earth has the opportunity to accept that gift of atonement and be forgiven by God. For without His death, God's Law would still need to be satisfied—by our own death.
http://www.gotquestions.org/ransom.html
Simply by knowing, believing and accepting you can receive the FREE GIFT OF LIFE because Jesus Christ paid the FULL PRICE for EVERY SIN of MAN FOREVER. Romans 3:24-26
http://www.bloodofjesus.com/ministry.php?show=Blood-Of-Jesus
Because Jesus is both God and man, He alone is able to pay the price for our ransom through His sinless life and substitutionary death (1 Peter 1:18-19).
http://marshill.com/media/christ-on-the-cross/jesus-paid-our-debt
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Trent said...
Wow.. now you are choosing what is scripture and what is not?? dude, where do you draw the line to defend what you believe? Let scripture be your guide, not people.
How do you know that James should be in the canon? Can you explain “Faith without works is dead” in a Free Grace manner? You ought to use Scripture you understand to interpret Scripture you don’t understand, and, frankly, if a Book doesn’t get interpreted it doesn’t do you a lot of good.
Trent said…
Ok, good. Will you affirm that Unrighteousness and Sin can be useed interchangeably? If you feel it is something different, please give your references where kunrighteousness is not sin. If you agree, lets go to verse 6 since we are in agreement.
Unrighteousness and sin are interchangeable. And we have the righteousness of Christ.
Trent said...
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Doesn’t even G.E.S. say that believers won’t be judged for their sins but will be rewarded for their good works?
Trent said...
vs 2 says "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? " Note it is not saying what you are saying. then vs 12 "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
You see? That would be a waste of a chapter if you were correct.
Romans 6:4 - We walk in the "spirit" of the Lord because we are raised up with the Lord.
Romans 6:6 - Our old man is crucified with Him on Calvary, when He died.
Romans 6:6 - The body of sin is destroyed.
Romans 6:6 - No need to serve sin.
Romans 6:7 - Dead with Christ - free from sin.
Romans 6:11 - "reckon" - greek=logizmai. Take an inventory of, esteem, see that which is despised.
Romans 6:11 - "reckon" - See that the man of sin "died" in the sacrifice of Christ.
Romans 6:11 - "but alive" - Alive unto God in a new life.
Romans 6:12 - "Let not." No need to serve sin.
Romans 6:13 - Instruments - Greek - "weapons"
Romans 6:14 - Sin has no dominion.
Romans 6:18 - Made free from sin to serve God in righteousness.
Romans 6:19 - Yield yourselves unto Holiness.
Romans 6:22 - Free from sin.
Romans 6:22 - Fruit unto Holiness.
http://overcomers.ca/Free_Of_Sin.html
In order to get to 6:12 you have to go through 6:2, and 6:2 says we cannot live any longer in sin because our sin died with the sacrifice of Christ.
Did Christ pay for life for everyone on the cross? If so, why wasn’t it given to everyone at the cross? If life wasn’t given to everyone at the cross, why was payment for sin given to everyone at the cross?
Zane Hodges says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Bob Wilkin says people won’t be in Hell because of sin.
Were Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin right or wrong about that?
Do people deserve to go to Hell because they don’t have life or because they are sinners?
Do you say that forgiveness of sins is always a fellowship issue even though I showed you on Middletown Bible Church that forgiveness of sins is sometimes a salvation issue?
The wages of sin is a) death or b) being out of fellowship?
“People won’t be in Hell because of sin.” “People will be in Hell because of sin.” Well, which is it?
LB said "How do you know that James should be in the canon? Can you explain “Faith without works is dead” in a Free Grace manner? You ought to use Scripture you understand to interpret Scripture you don’t understand, and, frankly, if a Book doesn’t get interpreted it doesn’t do you a lot of good."
James clearly understood grace and if you take it verse by verse its easier to understand then 1 John IMO. We can do james after 1 john. faith with out works being dead is easy because its not discussing eternal life. If you believe God lost control of the Canon, then how do you know any verse should be there? :)
Trent said…
Ok, good. Will you affirm that Unrighteousness and Sin can be useed interchangeably? If you feel it is something different, please give your references where kunrighteousness is not sin. If you agree, lets go to verse 6 since we are in agreement.
LB said "Unrighteousness and sin are interchangeable. And we have the righteousness of Christ. "
ok then on to vs 6!
1jn 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
Ok, is "We" still John and believers? if not, on what basis do you say it changed. What prevents fellowship with Christ according this verse? By the way, I think you are going to find it interesting where I agree with you in a few more verses. :)
As I have said before, I don't Know what GES says and if they contradict scripture, I don't care. I care what God says and I just answered your question with a verse that seemed to be pretty clear right? Why keep bringing extra biblical references into things? Lets stick to the Word. :)
LB said "Do you say that forgiveness of sins is always a fellowship issue even though I showed you on Middletown Bible Church that forgiveness of sins is sometimes a salvation issue?"
Trent said "I don't care what a website says, I care what scripture ways. :) "
LB said "The wages of sin is a) death or b) being out of fellowship? "
Trent sais "Death Physically and Spiritually. Thankfully we avoid receiving those wages spiritually as we have LIFE in Christ however we can still suffer the physical according to God's word."
Trent said...
James clearly understood grace and if you take it verse by verse its easier to understand then 1 John IMO. We can do james after 1 john. faith with out works being dead is easy because its not discussing eternal life. If you believe God lost control of the Canon, then how do you know any verse should be there? :)
I don’t know much about such matters and I doubt you do either.
Trent said…
1jn 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
Ok, is "We" still John and believers? if not, on what basis do you say it changed.
“We” would refer to John and believers except if the “we” turns out to be unbelievers who say they have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness. Could be Gnostics.
Trent said…
What prevents fellowship with Christ according this verse?
Walking in darkness, I suppose.
Trent said...
As I have said before, I don't Know what GES says and if they contradict scripture, I don't care. I care what God says and I just answered your question with a verse that seemed to be pretty clear right? Why keep bringing extra biblical references into things? Lets stick to the Word. :)
The Bema is the place where the works of believers will be judged to determine their eternal rewards. There is no future judgment of believers to determine their eternal destinies as the Lord promised in John 5:24 ("shall not come into judgment").
http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2012/12D1.html
It is significant to note that both the unregenerate and the regenerate will be judged by their works. The unregenerate will be judged by their works at the Great White Throne Judgment and the result of that judgment will be degrees of eternal punishment in hell. The regenerate will be judged by their works at the Judgment Seat of Christ and the result of that judgment will either be reward or the lack of it.
I can never be judged for my sins because my sins have been paid for. The Lord Jesus Christ became sin for me. I owed a debt I couldn’t pay. He paid a debt He didn’t owe. Christ, who knew no sin, became the epitome of sin for me in order that I, who knew no righteousness might become the righteousness of God in Christ. What a transaction that was! What an exchange! All of my sins traded in for His righteousness.
You will never, ever, in all of eternity, be brought under judgment for even one sin again.
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1995i/Radmacher.html
So, I guess if everyone’s sins were paid for at the cross everyone will be at the Bema and not at the Great White Throne.
Is the payment Christ made for our lives different from the payment Christ made for our sins? If not, why did everyone have their sins paid for at the cross but did not receive life at the cross?
Trent said…
"Death Physically and Spiritually. Thankfully we avoid receiving those wages spiritually as we have LIFE in Christ however we can still suffer the physical according to God's word."
Fellowship With God by Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Every believer lives in the realm of light and has continual fellowship with God; but enjoying that fellowship requires “walking intimately with Christ.” Regrettably, many churches teach the idea that believers can actually be “in and out of fellowship with God,” depending upon their walk – when they sin, they are said to be “out of fellowship,” and when they are walking in faith, they are said to be “in fellowship.” Though this erroneous view of fellowship is commonly held by many Christians, that is not at all what Scripture teaches. When believers sin, they do not “enjoy their fellowship” with Christ, but that does not mean it has been dismantled in some way, or uprooted as a reality in their lives – should believers sin, and that they do often, they continue to be recipients of the life of Christ and have an “intimate common bond with Him” (sin does not alter that in any way!)… but their enjoyment of that intimate bond is clearly affected; in short, the “partnership” continues, but the joy of that partnership is eclipsed. This is a very critical principle for the believer to understand.
http://www.thetransformedsoul.com/about-the-book/chapters/chapter-5
Is grace a license to sin? David Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that if you don’t get that question you are not truly preaching the gospel. In fact, he said that those who accurately preach God’s grace will always be accused of being antinomian, another way of saying that they are giving people license to sin.
http://graceformyheart.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/license-to-sin/
LB said "Is the payment Christ made for our lives different from the payment Christ made for our sins? If not, why did everyone have their sins paid for at the cross but did not receive life at the cross? "
Show me the verse that says Jesus paid for our eternal life. He paid for our sins So that we could have eternal life by belief. He has that power by virtue of being God. Lets focus on the sin issue, because I think when we are done with 1 Jn, you will see that beleivers can sin. sin does not destroy fellowship, but living in Sin does. Repentance is not needed but confession is and you gave a great definition earlier.
Trent said…
1jn 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
Ok, is "We" still John and believers? if not, on what basis do you say it changed.
LB said “We” would refer to John and believers except if the “we” turns out to be unbelievers who say they have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness. Could be Gnostics."
umm, what would make you feel that at this point We could be now talking about unbelievers based on context?
Trent said…
What prevents fellowship with Christ according this verse?
Lb said "Walking in darkness, I suppose. "
ok, It seems like you are following John's logic so far. Just answer why you believe that when John says "We" he might think he is in a group of unbelievers. Does he know if he has eternal life?
Trent said...
LB said "Do you say that forgiveness of sins is always a fellowship issue even though I showed you on Middletown Bible Church that forgiveness of sins is sometimes a salvation issue?"
Trent said "I don't care what a website says, I care what scripture ways. :) "
Middletown Bible Church is full of scripture. So, where are they wrong?
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/twoaspet.htm
Trent said...
Show me the verse that says Jesus paid for our eternal life. He paid for our sins So that we could have eternal life by belief. He has that power by virtue of being God. Lets focus on the sin issue, because I think when we are done with 1 Jn, you will see that beleivers can sin. sin does not destroy fellowship, but living in Sin does. Repentance is not needed but confession is and you gave a great definition earlier.
Trent said…
umm, what would make you feel that at this point We could be now talking about unbelievers based on context?
Trent said…
ok, It seems like you are following John's logic so far. Just answer why you believe that when John says "We" he might think he is in a group of unbelievers. Does he know if he has eternal life?
Well, what does verse 6 say?
1jn 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
Either the “we” say they have fellowship with Him and walk in light or say they have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness. And apparently some people said they had fellowship with Him and walked in darkness or else John wouldn’t be addressing the matter.
Trent said...
Show me the verse that says Jesus paid for our eternal life.
I already gave verses on June 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM and on June 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM you said I said it well.
Trent said...
He paid for our sins So that we could have eternal life by belief.
Is the payment for life and the payment for sin the same payment?
Trent said...
He has that power by virtue of being God.
If Christ has the power to give life by virtue of being God, how come He had to pay for our sins and our lives and we have to accept everlasting life?
Trent said...
Lets focus on the sin issue, because I think when we are done with 1 Jn, you will see that beleivers can sin. sin does not destroy fellowship, but living in Sin does.
Do you agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that a Christian is always really in fellowship with God, or do you think that God puts a believer in and out of fellowship?
Trent said...
Repentance is not needed but confession is and you gave a great definition earlier.
If you’re going to be legalistic and put me on a guilt trip and say I have to confess my sins, why don’t I have to go further and repent of my sins? Must I confess every single sin? If not, why not. If not, why must I confess any at all?
LB maybe this will help you understand. I can quote early church fathers heretical statements. It means nothing. You quote people that I consider heretics in some topics like John MacArthur. You don't even agree with him, but because he agrees with your point you quote him. Quoting people never gets anywhere, so lets lets scripture speak for itself. Try not to input meaning from other places. use Exegesis. Does that make sense? Otherwise, this is just a blog to quote people who agree with your opinion instead of searching scripture. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit helps you interpret God's word? Lets try to leave bias's behind and see what the context says. Now, back to 1 John.
LB said "Is the payment for life and the payment for sin the same payment?"
I am saying there is not a payment for eternal life. It is God's life and he does not have to pay for it. If you have a verse that disagrees, lets discuss it.
LB said "If Christ has the power to give life by virtue of being God, how come He had to pay for our sins and our lives and we have to accept everlasting life?"
Because he is Just, HE CHOSE to pay for our sins so that we could believe.
LB said "Do you agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that a Christian is always really in fellowship with God, or do you think that God puts a believer in and out of fellowship? "
We can discuss the Prodigal Son parable after 1 John.
LB says "If you’re going to be legalistic and put me on a guilt trip and say I have to confess my sins, why don’t I have to go further and repent of my sins? Must I confess every single sin? If not, why not. If not, why must I confess any at all?"
Because we are going by God's word, not what I say. Ok, lets get back to 1 John.
1jn 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
LB says Either the “we” say they have fellowship with Him and walk in light or say they have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness. And apparently some people said they had fellowship with Him and walked in darkness or else John wouldn’t be addressing the matter. "
So the WE could be everyone, both the you, we and I, correct? I had not thought of that, but it works. Good Point. So you agree though that he is at this point still addressing or discussing believers, right?
Trent said...
LB maybe this will help you understand. I can quote early church fathers heretical statements. It means nothing. You quote people that I consider heretics in some topics like John MacArthur. You don't even agree with him, but because he agrees with your point you quote him. Quoting people never gets anywhere, so lets lets scripture speak for itself. Try not to input meaning from other places. use Exegesis. Does that make sense? Otherwise, this is just a blog to quote people who agree with your opinion instead of searching scripture. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit helps you interpret God's word? Lets try to leave bias's behind and see what the context says. Now, back to 1 John.
If somebody says something I like I can quote him. If I could only quote people I agreed with 100% I might never quote anybody. If the Holy Spirit can interpret God’s Word, why can’t He interpret people’s statements?
Trent said...
We can discuss the Prodigal Son parable after 1 John.
I asked "Do you agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that a Christian is always really in fellowship with God, or do you think that God puts a believer in and out of fellowship?" and you’re supposedly a big fan of a Christians being in and out of fellowship, so do you agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that a Christian is always really in fellowship with God, or do you think that God puts a believer in and out of fellowship?
LB, in regards to fellowship, I would say FOR sure there can be fellowship issues. When Peter denied Christ 3 times, you don't think there was a relationship break? If not, why did Christ have a heart to heart afterwards where Peter was remorseful? The prodigal son Parable and Jesus talks about if you love him you will keep his commandments and many others. the 99 sheep and the one lost that is found, the widow who lost her mite all I think are clear that a believer can lose fellowship, But lets focus on the Sin issue and 1 John before moving on, unless you are already convinced that a believer can sin?
Trent said...
Because we are going by God's word, not what I say. Ok, lets get back to 1 John.
You’re always saying “Confess your sins. Confess your sins. Confess your sins.” How does one confess his sins? If 1 John 1:9 is interpreted from the Free Grace-Exchanged Life view, it simply means that the Gnostics should admit they have sins and should become saved. If 1 John 1:9 is interpreted from the Free Grace-legalistic watered-down Lordship Salvation view there are questions to be answered and criteria to be met.
Trent said...
Because he is Just, HE CHOSE to pay for our sins so that we could believe.
Isn’t saying He had to pay for our sins another way of saying He had to pay for life?
Trent said...
So you agree though that he is at this point still addressing or discussing believers, right?
I suppose predominately believers.
Trent said...
But lets focus on the Sin issue and 1 John before moving on, unless you are already convinced that a believer can sin?
Are all things lawful to a believer?
Trent said...
I am saying there is not a payment for eternal life. It is God's life and he does not have to pay for it. If you have a verse that disagrees, lets discuss it.
1 Peter 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
LB Says "You’re always saying “Confess your sins. Confess your sins. Confess your sins.” How does one confess his sins? If 1 John 1:9 is interpreted from the Free Grace-Exchanged Life view, it simply means that the Gnostics should admit they have sins and should become saved. If 1 John 1:9 is interpreted from the Free Grace-legalistic watered-down Lordship Salvation view there are questions to be answered and criteria to be met. "
umm.. how many times have I said it?? You gave a great working definition of confess already, and I agree with it. WE have not even gotten to 1jn 1:9 so lets continue letting scripture speak for itself. :) right now, you seem stuck on 1 Jn 1:6
LB says "Isn’t saying He had to pay for our sins another way of saying He had to pay for life? "
2 things are not the same unless scripture says they are. Basic Bible interpretation. People thinking they are is a great source of confusion. You are interpreting with a bias and thus making an assumption. Back to vs 6?
LB says "I suppose predominately believers. " are under discussion.
Is there ANYTHING in the context at this point that makes you think he has added unbelievers into the audience he is addressing or is it just your theology getting in the way?
LB said "are all things lawful for a believer"
I am willing to discuss this topic as soon as you acknowledge that RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is not sin for a believer. Until then, its a rabbit trail that you are not really interested in dealing with
Trent says that all of God’s forgiveness is parental and not judicial.
Middletown Bible Church
Some Key Verses:
Luke 24:47
Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43; 26:18
Romans 4:7-8; 1 Corinthians 6:11
Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14
Hebrews 10:17-18
"That through His Name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission [forgiveness] of sins" (Acts 10:43).
Trent says parental. But Trent is saying that according to this verse Christians have parental forgiveness automatically.
LB quotes a variety of verses.
some interesting points LB, but we need to discuss them in context to determine if they make an argument that payment and forgiveness are equal. The payment for life looks worth of study, but lets complete one thing at a time. 1 John. :) no avoiding it, you have to accept all of God's words, not just the ones you want to. Something to consider. IF your "experience" contradicts God's word, who is wrong?
Middletown Bible Church
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col. 2:13). Notice that it says, "ALL"!
"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for His Name's sake" (1 John 2:12).
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 8:12, and see 10:16).
"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7).
Hebrews 10
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Colossians 1
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1 Corinthians 6
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 4
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Acts 26
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 2
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 3
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Luke 24
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Trent said...
umm.. how many times have I said it?? You gave a great working definition of confess already, and I agree with it. WE have not even gotten to 1jn 1:9 so lets continue letting scripture speak for itself. :) right now, you seem stuck on 1 Jn 1:6
What’s the great working definition of confess I gave already?
LB says "Isn’t saying He had to pay for our sins another way of saying He had to pay for life? "
Trent said...
2 things are not the same unless scripture says they are. Basic Bible interpretation. People thinking they are is a great source of confusion. You are interpreting with a bias and thus making an assumption. Back to vs 6?
You and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges say everyone’s sins were paid for and applied to everybody at the cross but everlasting life is applied to believers at saving faith. So, when was the everlasting life paid for?
Trent said...
Is there ANYTHING in the context at this point that makes you think he has added unbelievers into the audience he is addressing or is it just your theology getting in the way?
If you want to talk about somebody’s theology getting in the way, include yourself. You seem determined to prove that 1:9 is not referring to Gnostics. If the Gnostics are not referred to in 1 John 1:9, where are the Gnostics referred to in 1 John?
Trent said...
I am willing to discuss this topic as soon as you acknowledge that RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is not sin for a believer. Until then, its a rabbit trail that you are not really interested in dealing with
If RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is lawful for a believer, RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is not sin for a believer. Are all things lawful for a believer?
Trent said...
some interesting points LB, but we need to discuss them in context to determine if they make an argument that payment and forgiveness are equal. The payment for life looks worth of study, but lets complete one thing at a time. 1 John. :) no avoiding it, you have to accept all of God's words, not just the ones you want to. Something to consider. IF your "experience" contradicts God's word, who is wrong?
Let’s do it all.
LB, I know you are not wanting to deal with 1 Jn 1 7-9, but avoiding them does not make them disappear.
Ignoring Paul's context to the verse you kept quoting make your stand valid.
1 Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
You claim this means a Believer cannot sin and yet you ignore verse 18.
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
Since verse 19 clearly shows its still talking to believers, how can you reconcile this to your view?
We are told to cease fellowship with believers who are living in Sin, but then you claim that we cannot sin and nothing causes a loss of fellowship with God. You quote verses above that clearly are to believers about Sin but try and use them out of context.
You submitted 6 more comments, without dealing with any of the above, one from a CHURCH OF CHRIST website who believe in a salvation of works and baptism. Really? That is Heresy, as is teaching a believer that now they can commit adultery, murder, abortion, rape, incest with out Sinning. James is clear that teachers are under a stricter judgment.
This is turning into a how many quotes can you get to support your position instead of a study of what God's word says. Please deal with the context to your argument from Paul in 1 Cor 6, AND lets get back to 1 John 1:6.
If WE are not the believers in the first 5 verses, what evidence are you using for it? If you agree there is no evidence and obviously its still the same believers, lets go to verse 7.
Jumping from scripture to scripture when faced with context is something cultists do and not worthy of you.
Grace and Truth
Trent.
P.S. I am happy to post the comments as soon as we deal with some of the context we already have. Currently whenever you get uncomfortable, you jump somewhere else. Lets focus a bit or we will never get anywhere agreed? :)
Oh and in regards to gnostics, an argument from silence is not an argument. The gnostics are in 1 John when John brings them up. IF you believe they all of the sudden are in view in vs 6, I want to know why? remember, exegesis, not eisegesis.
"Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.
The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. "
Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.
Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.
http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
Trent said...
LB, I know you are not wanting to deal with 1 Jn 1 7-9, but avoiding them does not make them disappear.
I’ve been going through 1 John with you and I ain’t afraid of it.
Trent said...
You submitted 6 more comments, without dealing with any of the above, one from a CHURCH OF CHRIST website who believe in a salvation of works and baptism. Really?
It amazes me because they criticize the Church of Christ for making a huge deal on 2 verses in the NT that says, “and is baptized shall be saved” and “be baptized for the remission of sins,” as religion will tell them that over 150 times do we read that we are saved through faith without the mention of water baptism. They will tell everyone not to funnel 150+ clear verses through only 2 verses of scripture, but rather funnel the 2 verses through the 150+ verses. OK, practice what you preach then with a 1st John 1:9.
http://pureunadulteratedgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/make-daily-confession-of-sins-to-be.html
Trent said...
That is Heresy, as is teaching a believer that now they can commit adultery, murder, abortion, rape, incest with out Sinning. James is clear that teachers are under a stricter judgment.
Hey, Paul said all things are lawful. You calling Paul a liar?
Trent said...
Currently whenever you get uncomfortable, you jump somewhere else. Lets focus a bit or we will never get anywhere agreed? :)
You call me uncomfortable and you don’t answer my questions. You remind me of a politician.
Trent said...
If WE are not the believers in the first 5 verses, what evidence are you using for it? If you agree there is no evidence and obviously its still the same believers, lets go to verse 7.
They’re believers, leaving the possibility of there being unbelievers.
There are arguments that 1 John 1 is written to unbelievers.
http://escapetoreality.org/2012/06/14/is-1-john-1-for-believers/
http://hischarisisenough.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/why-i-dont-believe-1-john-19-is-written-to-believers-2/
http://brownbible.com/index.php/The-Gift-Of-Righteousness/what-is-the-story-with-1-john-19-part-one.html
http://brownbible.com/index.php/The-Gift-Of-Righteousness/what-is-the-story-with-1-john-19-part-two.html
1 John 1:9 was written to believers but it was written about Gnostic teachers who had infiltrated their ranks.
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=58478
Obviously you want to say that 1 John 1 was written to believers about believers and refuse to acknowledge that 1 John 1 could be written to believers about Gnostics.
Since Paul 2 verses later says we can Sin, nope, I agree completely with Paul. Unfortunately you do not. Ok, back to 1 John since you are ready. I will repeat my self for the 4th time.
If the WE in vs 6 is not the same people being discussed in the first 5 verses, what evidence are you using for it? If you agree there is no evidence and obviously its still the same believers, lets go to verse 7.
Trent said...
You claim this means a Believer cannot sin and yet you ignore verse 18.
Are all things lawful? Can a Christian go to Heaven with sin on his account? So, can a Christian sin?
Since all things are lawful and nothing is sinful, what is called “sin” is obviously that which is not expedient. It is justifiable to not fellowship with someone who does stuff which is not expedient even though that stuff is technically not sinful.
LB I will answer all of your questions to the best of my ability and have.. except when you are trying to get away from our study. Questions for the purpose of avoidance I will make wait till we get done. Lets see what John teaches us and go from there.
Ok, will you please tell me why you feel it might be unbelievers based on the verses thus far? I don't care what people say ABOUT God's word if it is against the clear teaching. We are going through vs by vs and it is obvious it is talking to Christians. The only reason you are saying "leaving it open for unbelievers" is because of your theology. Your theology should be gotten from Scripture, not use it to understand scripture. Lets try this. WHY do you feel 1 John is written to gnostics? Please do not answer with anything other then context of 1 JN. I do not care what people say about it, if you can't make your argument from 1 John, then its eisegesis and I Hope you read about that. So since you have a caveat that I know you will fall back to later, I want to know now why you feel vs 6 might have unbelievers in it.
LB says "Are all things lawful? Can a Christian go to Heaven with sin on his account? So, can a Christian sin? "
All things are lawful in the Context of what Paul was discussing, however since he discussed believers sinning, of course they can. Since Jesus paid the price of the sin of the world, of course not.
LB said "Since all things are lawful and nothing is sinful, what is called “sin” is obviously that which is not expedient. It is justifiable to not fellowship with someone who does stuff which is not expedient even though that stuff is technically not sinful. "
Whoa!!! Nothing is sinful?? Let me quote vs 18 "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." Where do you get that? See that is eisegesis. Please either show me one passage that says Sin is not Sin or lets focus on 1 Jn and tell me whose teaching you feel outranks what the Bible says.
LB do you see the difference? I am making my argument from scripture, and you are making your argument from what people say about scripture. If you were not, you would not be talking about gnostics in vs 6 of 1 Jn. I am not saying he was not dealing with gnostic heresy. Thats a great theory, but is audience is OBVIOUSLY believers as you even admitted until vs 6.
Trent said...
So since you have a caveat that I know you will fall back to later, I want to know now why you feel vs 6 might have unbelievers in it.
Trent said...
I am not saying he was not dealing with gnostic heresy. Thats a great theory, but is audience is OBVIOUSLY believers as you even admitted until vs 6.
There is no mention of personal names. This is highly unusual except in books written to many churches, such as Ephesians and James. The only NT letter which does not include the name of the author is Hebrews. However, it is obvious that I John was written to believers presently facing an internal church problem of false teachers (Gnostics).
http://www.freebiblecommentary.mobi/new_testament_studies/1john/1john_intro.html
John wrote to expose this fake Christianity. He does this by presenting three main features of authentic Christianity – three characteristics that will be present in anyone who has a genuine faith.
John examines these three characteristics over and over again. It’s for that reason that 1 John can seem very repetitious to both read and preach on.
http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/142/-1-john---counterfeit-christianity
It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted.
http://carm.org/gnosticism
To really understand what is going on in this letter, 1 John, it is important to talk about a religious philosophy called Gnosticism.
http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/notes-on-1-john-the-background/
It would seem very reasonable that 1 John is addressing Gnostics except for one thing: Gnosticism was not fully developed until 50 to 100 years later. However, proto-Gnosticism was prevalent then, and Eusebius records that John encountered proto-Gnosticism in the heretic Cerinthus. Thus many believe 1 John was written in a large part to combat proto-Gnosticism.
http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/1jn.htm
1 John is not written to Gnostics, 1 John is about Gnostics trying to protect Christians from being deceived.
http://www.letusreason.org/Popteach57.htm
We can assume John is talking to believers, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t talking about Gnostics. As for “John can’t be talking about Gnostics because he doesn’t mention “Gnostics,” this was an early form of Gnosticism and perhaps it didn’t even have a name yet.
Trent said...
All things are lawful in the Context of what Paul was discussing, however since he discussed believers sinning, of course they can. Since Jesus paid the price of the sin of the world, of course not.
Trent said...
Whoa!!! Nothing is sinful?? Let me quote vs 18 "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body." Where do you get that? See that is eisegesis. Please either show me one passage that says Sin is not Sin or lets focus on 1 Jn and tell me whose teaching you feel outranks what the Bible says.
Are all things lawful? Yes or no.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven?
Paul in context says all things are lawful but we can sin, therefore, you have two options. Things that in his context are lawful are sin, OR his context of all is not discussing sin. We can talk about that later.
LB says "We can assume John is talking to believers, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t talking about Gnostics. As for “John can’t be talking about Gnostics because he doesn’t mention “Gnostics,” this was an early form of Gnosticism and perhaps it didn’t even have a name yet."
Ok, here we go then. v7
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin"
Do you agree that the We is still the same people under discussion in the first 6 verses. What does it mean "IF we walk in the light we have fellowship with one another." what is the other option? What is the condition so that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from All Sin? How do you walk in the light?
Trent said...
Paul in context says all things are lawful but we can sin, therefore, you have two options. Things that in his context are lawful are sin, OR his context of all is not discussing sin. We can talk about that later.
In other words, Trent says “No, Not Everything is Lawful!”
•All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23)
•All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (I Cor. 6:12)
•All things are lawful, but not all things edify. (I Cor. 10:23)
Paul could have simply refuted the statement by writing, “All things are lawful? God forbid! Some things are absolutely not lawful!” He would have then explained which laws applied and which did not, and why.
He actually believed that all things are lawful. Or, to put it another way, nothing is unlawful–because the law no longer applies.
Elsewhere Paul made it abundantly clear why he would not invoke the Law against behavior of which he disapproved.
1.Apart from law, sin is dead. (Romans 7:8b)
2.Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)
3.The law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)
The Father acknowledges each of us as sinless.
The simple truth is, the apostle Paul plainly stated in four distinct places, and backed up in a score of others, that we adult Christians who are mature in Christ have no written laws over us of any kind.
When Paul many times stated in the Books of Romans, Corinthians and Galatians that we are "no longer under the Law," he meant it with utmost vigor and belief.
Of course, I could give you a hundred verses of Scripture that tell us not to sin and that we can be chastised by God for doing wrong.
Paul said to go ahead and do as you please because all things are lawful unto you, but remember, whatsoever is not of faith [or a belief that things are okay] is wrong: "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
This Pauline way to look at sin or sinful acts is plain. It means that all things are indeed lawful to do, but all things are not edifying or beneficial. Go ahead and do as you please, but remember that one must be responsible for his or her actions and that everything a person does should be to glorify God the Father and Christ Jesus and His teachings.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven?
Trent did not answer. Trent cannot afford to answer Yes and Trent cannot afford to answer No. So Trent ducks the question.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven?
Ok, here we go then. v7
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin"
Trent said...
Do you agree that the We is still the same people under discussion in the first 6 verses.
Yes.
Trent said...
What does it mean "IF we walk in the light we have fellowship with one another."
I suppose it means that Christians have fellowship with other Christians.
Trent said...
what is the other option?
There’s another option?
Trent said...
What is the condition so that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from All Sin?
The condition so that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from All Sin is that you’re saved.
Trent said...
How do you walk in the light?
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
You walk in the light by being saved.
LB said "In other words, Trent says “No, Not Everything is Lawful!”
No, you are choosing to misquote me. I was very clear and did not ignore the context. You do not want to deal with all the verses, just the ones that support your view.
LB says "Trent did not answer. Trent cannot afford to answer Yes and Trent cannot afford to answer No. So Trent ducks the question.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven? "
Rom 3:23 All have sinned, HOWEVER as you will see in 1 JN, only the new creation inside of us enters heaven which has not sinned. That is why I am trying not to answer. I want you to see what scripture says. Lets continue in 1 Jn. :)
v7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin"
Trent said...
Do you agree that the We is still the same people under discussion in the first 6 verses.
LB says "Yes."
Trent said...
What does it mean "IF we walk in the light we have fellowship with one another."
LB says "I suppose it means that Christians have fellowship with other Christians."
Trent said...
what is the other option?
LB says There’s another option?"
Yes, because there is a condition attached. IF we walk in the light. If we don't...
Trent said...
What is the condition so that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from All Sin?
LB says "The condition so that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from All Sin is that you’re saved."
he is talking about saved people and including HIMSELF and telling them IF they walk in the light they will have fellowship and be cleansed from sin. If you take the Lordship position, the verse does not need to be there because its a given. It does not mention belief or eternal life. Is walking in the light a condition for eternal life in your opinion?
Trent said...
How do you walk in the light?
LB say "......"
Trent said...
No, you are choosing to misquote me. I was very clear and did not ignore the context. You do not want to deal with all the verses, just the ones that support your view.
Are all things lawful? Yes or no.
You didn’t give me a Yes or No.
Paul in context says all things are lawful but we can sin, therefore, you have two options. Things that in his context are lawful are sin, OR his context of all is not discussing sin. We can talk about that later.
You did what you had to do to keep from admitting that all things are lawful and then you tried to put the subject off until later. You wouldn’t say that all things are lawful. Therefore, you said “No, Not Everything is Lawful!”
Post a Comment