ARCHIVE: The Apostle Pauls affirms that a Christian can sin.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Sozo said:
Short answer: Yes. (this is like asking if I stopped beating my wife yet..can't win that question)
Long answer: Yes and No...if I am to represent the whole counsel of God on the subject.
One problem I have with you is that if I changed some words in my post, even if I or others did not fully understand them, it could make the difference between heaven or hell for me. I have given a classical understanding of sanctification that most believers would agree with in general. Different people like John Wesley or Jonathan Edwards or Packer or whoever might spin it a bit different or emphasize things differently. We would have to deal with the same texts that can only be distorted in limited ways.
YES: I suggested that you look at a simple Expository Dictionary of the NT like Vine's. It lists the various uses of the same word in various contexts. In some contexts, holiness or sanctification refers to the initial setting apart as holy unto the Lord as we are justified (legally declared righteous and treated just as if we never sinned). We are holy in Him, as you rightly maintain. Our positional standing is as a saint in Christ, no longer as a godless sinner without Christ in our lives or His finished work applied to us.
NO: Other contexts about holiness and sanctification link it with a progressive element, a practical holiness. This is why I gravitate to the Pentecostal (a Holiness movement) Church and not a nominal religion that says you can live like the devil all week as long as you go to Mass or confession (without godly repentance and renewed obedience) one hour a week. It divorces positional and practical/progressive holiness.
God wants a holy people separate from the world set apart to Him. He does not want people who believe a theory without practical fleshing out of it.
In the progressive sense, I sometimes have a wrong thought, motive, action. I am still in Christ. I respond to the conviction of the Spirit through the Word. I do not persist in it because of my initial sanctification or His grace that covers a multitude of sins. The fact that I want to beat sozo up is not consistent with Christ-like holiness. The fact that I have lusted at some point in my Christian walk is not virtuous.
We can talk about our holy standing in Christ, but we should also be able to look at each individual thought, motive, choice on a case by case basis. No matter what you say, adultery is sinful and contrary to holiness, even for the believer.
The verses I gave do not divorce holiness from obedience. Why badger me to accept an inferior view? Be holy as I am holy...this is an imperative, a command...it is to be obeyed, not simply to spout off a positional understanding that is isolated from actual Christ-likeness.
I want a second opinion (post #365 and longer one following this one). Since sozo wants a yes or no...would someone show me where my thinking is totally wrong (besides e4e who is a one string fiddle also) and give an alternate understanding of the practical, progressive vs initial, positional verses (if we looked at all references in the OT and NT about holiness and sanctification, the pattern would not be limited to positional only).
kmoney said:
People who think they can sin with impunity because their future sins are automatically forgiven, even while they are persisted in. This presumes on God's grace and divorces theory from practice.
If I say that a little fooling around is OK because I am a Christian and will not go to hell anyway, it is using grace as an excuse to sin without consequence. For some Roman believers, they wrongly thought that since God's grace is so free and wonderful, why not sin some more so they could have more grace?! Few think that way today, but many believers do rationalize their compromise and allow sin in the camp. Few churches discipline believers today. No wonder we are so anemic and compromised with the world.
Sozo said:
Rom. 6:13, 14 Our one will can yield our body to righteousness (purity in marriage, for example) or the same will can yield to the desires of the flesh (lust is a legitimate desire out of control) such as gossip, gluttony, sexual immorality (Corinthian saints were a case study of this). We can offer our body parts to sin or to the Lord. Making flesh vs spirit a metaphysical vs moral issue leads to sozoism confusion.
Sozo said:
Christocentric, but not without us in the picture (reconciliation involves two parties).
We cannot save ourselves. It depends on Christ, not our ability. Faith is not a work. Loving obedience is an expression of faith, not a self-righteous work.
There is a difference between a godless unbeliever habitually sinning as a sinner, and a saint who has one wrong motive (sinful) who is in Christ and continues to trust Christ alone for salvation and eternal life. Saying that the wrong choice is not a sin is grasping at straws to retain an impossible position (Christians literally cannot vs just will not or should not sin).
Sozo said:
Just as God's saving grace and power is not irresistible (universalism is not true...not all are saved despite God's perfect grace), so God's keeping power and grace is not irresistible (unconditional eternal security is also unbalanced). Those who quench and grieve the Spirit to the point of defiant, godless unbelief, are not believers, by definition (they are apostates, those who fall away from truth back to a Christless state).
Sozo
New member
You are a such an idiot.godrulz said:
Frankly, I wonder why more people don't tell you that you are wrong. Either they don't know the truth, or they don't think you are wrong.
You quoted the verse that states that no one will see the Lord unless they are holy.
Is it your hope that you are holy the moment you die?
If you do something that YOU consider a "sin" right before you get plowed by a semi, are you going to hell?
According to your bizzare theology you would.