Shoots someone, or murders them. Shooting in self-defense is never a sin. You should make yourself more clear.Originally posted by godrulz
I am listening, but I am not understanding your view. God says certain things are sin. You say an unbeliever who murders sins, but if a believer shoots someone it is not sin and is not counted against them?!
Anyway, it is not counted against them, i.e., they are not condemned for it.
No. god effects repentance and obedience.God commands repentance and obedience.
We have to accept more than that. We have to accept that we are not condemned. We have to accept that we are not slaves to sin. We have to accept that we are slaves to righteousness. We have to submit to Christ. Yet, it is by His grace that we submit.You suggest we just have to accept blanket forgiveness for past, present, and future sins.
Temporally we would, and should, suffer the consequences. Even as someone in Christ. But eternally there is no condemnation.This would not stand up to a judge in any court of law based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. If a Christian murders someone (theoretically possible if we can shoot a deer), how is it that it is not counted against us and we are let off with no consequences.
This person never accepted the love,grace, or provision.If this murderer feels guilt and hardens his heart and drifts from God to the point of rejecting His love, grace, and provision, why is it not counted against him?
religious unbeliever, what?He has immunity while the poor religious unbeliever goes to jail and hell for the identical act, thought, and motive?
I never said we weren't responsible for our choices, you dolt.:doh:Why not call sin, sin? You dance around it by saying it is flesh, unprofitable acts, or bad choices (which we are supposedly not responsible for/flesh, even if we chose to yield to it, contrary to the Spirit).
Sin is transgression of the law. And where there is no law, there is no transgression. Right? So those who are not under the law do not sin, by definition.
The disagreement here is the definition of sin. I am not going in circles. You're just not following. I agree that the norm is for believers to act morally, and not yield to the flesh. And I agree that they can yield to the flesh.Your theology will not allow for the possibility of a believer to sin, so you argue in circles to avoid the obvious ( I reiterate that the norm is for believers to not sin and to not yield to the flesh).
If the gifts and call of God are without repentance, then all gifts and all calls of God are without repentance. That includes when God calls you to Him, for salvation. I did not just randomly read that verse, and assume that it meant what I said it meant. It was part of the sermon at my church, Sunday. And I agree with what my pastor said about it.Romans 11:29 is NOT talking about individual salvation and destiny. It is talking about the corporate election of Israel and roles/offices/responsibilities. The nation of Israel was called to bring forth the law and Messiah. Despite their rebellion, their calling remained to be the people of God. This is rarely used as a proof text for OSAS (there are much better ones), and demonstrates your tendency to read your ideas back into texts.
Ummm, no. 1 John 1 is to unbelievers, period. At least three verses in the chapter show that. The only application it has to believers is to remind us that we have been cleansed form all unrighteousness. And the verses that talk about provision are in 1 John 2. 1 John 1:9 says nothing about provision. Your sins are forgiven. Get over it.I agree that we should emphasize our hope and victory in Christ to be holy as He is holy (NT command). We should recognize, by faith, our newness of life in Christ and walk in this truth. I merely am trying to point out (cf. Paul; John) that it is theoretically possible to sin and that their is still provision if we do (I Jn. 1:9...commonly applied to unbelievers in evangelistic tracts, but actually about believers if the context is closely examined).