Christians Don't Sin

[Darth Ovious]

True Christians don't sin. Or so I've been told by some Christians. My response to that usually runs along the lines of: If true Christians don't sin, then I've never met a true Christian. However, this idea has been bugging me lately, and I have a number of questions about it. I note that it's not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are sinners, even the Christians. That's why they have confessionals, after all. The members of the flock go to the confessionals to admit their latest sins, repent, and seek forgiveness. I've met a lot of Protestants who similarly believe that Christians sin. So the position that Christians don't sin would seem to be a minority viewpoint.

My questions:

Are there specific denominations that teach the idea that true Christians don't sin?

Is it a popular view among Christians around here?

Which would be true, under this view? Or do both flavors exist out there? Or is it some other explanation that I've overlooked?
- True Christians have already been forgiven, so nothing they do is considered to be sinful, even if it would be considered sinful for others.
- True Christians simply don't do things that would be considered sinful for others.

Do Christians who believe that Christians sin see a Biblical contradiction in the idea that Christians don't sin? And vice versa? I'd like to get a better understanding of the arguments involved. The idea that true Christians don't sin seems to me to be nonsensical on the face of it, so any attempt to make it make sense would be appreciated.

I'm going to use an example from my workplace to give an analogy. My work place has a zero accident policy. In other words they want to achieve a perfect safety record with no accidents, especially lost time accidents. In essence this goal is actually quite unrealistic and accidents will still happen, but the overall goal is to get to as close as zero accidents as possible. In order to achieve that then we need to know what the perfect standard is.

In the same way this applies to Christianity. The perfect standard is zero sin, however this is not an easy task for us humans and of course we will sin along the way but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop trying.

[whag]

I'm going to use an example from my workplace to give an analogy. My work place has a zero accident policy. In other words they want to achieve a perfect safety record with no accidents, especially lost time accidents. In essence this goal is actually quite unrealistic and accidents will still happen, but the overall goal is to get to as close as zero accidents as possible. In order to achieve that then we need to know what the perfect standard is.

In the same way this applies to Christianity. The perfect standard is zero sin, however this is not an easy task for us humans and of course we will sin along the way but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop trying.

The point isn't to say you're a bunch of hypocritical sinners (that's immature and pointless) but rather to point out that moral perfection in human beings was never possible.

Think about it. Surely, if the first generation couldn't manage perfection, resulting generations of the same imperfect stock would never be able to manage it, either. No one would ever wager that moral perfection could've been achieved and sustained in thousands of generations forever. That's the single most ludicrous implied claim of Christianity.

[tabibito]

Think about it. Surely, if the first generation couldn't manage perfection, resulting generations of the same imperfect stock would never be able to manage it, either. No one would ever wager that moral perfection could've been achieved and sustained in thousands of generations forever. That's the single most ludicrous implied claim of Christianity.

The first generation couldn't manage it? Are you speaking with regard to the first generation of Christians?
If so - the Biblical record explicitly (not implicitly) shows that at least some did, and shows explicitly (not implicitly) that it is impossible to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit. The only part of the whole that is implicit, is that it is not an immediate, fast, easy achievement. It is only attained by singleness of purpose.

[whag]

The first generation couldn't manage it? Are you speaking with regard to the first generation of Christians?
If so - the Biblical record explicitly (not implicitly) shows that at least some did, and shows explicitly (not implicitly) that it is impossible to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit. The only part of the whole that is implicit, is that it is not an immediate, fast, easy achievement. It is only attained by singleness of purpose.

Nope. The first Adamic generation. Whether metaphorical or literal, the first generation couldn't manage perfection according to Christianity, and yet we're to buy the notion that God expected evolved primates to behave perfectly forever.

THAT's the ludicrous implication of Christianity. I think it eventually leads to the conclusion that human beings were meant to sin in order to usher in a perfect tear-free environment.

[tabibito]

Nope. The lfirst Adamic generation. Whether metaphorical or literal, the first generation couldn't manage perfection according to Christianity, and yet we're to buy the notion that God expected evolved primates to behave perfectly forever.

Not relevant - the mission by Christ was centred on overcoming the limitations of being human by lending assistance through the Holy Spirit to achieve purification. The natural man, unaided, can't do it. The whole point of God becoming man was to make the impossible possible.

[whag]

Not relevant - the mission by Christ was centred on overcoming the limitations of being human by lending assistance through the Holy Spirit to achieve purification. The natural man, unaided, can't do it. The whole point of God becoming man was to make the impossible possible.

That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

[Sparko]

That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

and some Christians believe that too. That we had to sin, and Jesus had to come. God doesn't make mistakes. Perhaps in order for a tear-free and sin-free kingdom, we have to know and experience sin for ourselves and how it hurts others, and how serious it is. That way we won't be tempted to fall again. The bible doesn't do into that though, so it is just a theory.

[tabibito]

That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

The easiest way to approach reconciliation of evolution and the Biblical record would be to simply write off the scriptures up until the time of Abraham as pure myth. But it isn't the only possible or logical reconciliation - just the easiest.
Even assuming that it is pure myth, the inability to achieve holiness unaided is I think pretty much established. How many people are there who write off their failures as a matter of only being human, and how many claim that they are as good (in moral terms) as they could be. Very few would even get as far as saying "near enough is good enough."

[whag]

The easiest way to approach reconciliation of evolution and the Biblical record would be to simply write off the scriptures up until the time of Abraham as pure myth. But it isn't the only possible or logical reconciliation - just the easiest.
Even assuming that it is pure myth, the inability to achieve holiness unaided is I think pretty much established. How many people are there who write off their failures as a matter of only being human, and how many claim that they are as good (in moral terms) as they could be. Very few would even get as far as saying "near enough is good enough."

Evolution or not, the significance of the bible emphasizing the first generation's failures is an inadvertent acknowledgement the human experiment was never intended to play out sinlessly. If true, sin was obviously meant to be expressed in order to bring about the ultimate environment. This is hardly acknowledged by most of the church for obvious reasons.

[whag]

and some Christians believe that too. That we had to sin, and Jesus had to come. God doesn't make mistakes. Perhaps in order for a tear-free and sin-free kingdom, we have to know and experience sin for ourselves and how it hurts others, and how serious it is. That way we won't be tempted to fall again. The bible doesn't do into that though, so it is just a theory.

Genesis inadvertently acknowledges that by saying the first couple couldn't get it right.

The doctrine of Adam creating original sin is silly. Rather, those drives that express themselves as sin are teleological and have always been with us.

[Darth Ovious]

The point isn't to say you're a bunch of hypocritical sinners (that's immature and pointless) but rather to point out that moral perfection in human beings was never possible.

Think about it. Surely, if the first generation couldn't manage perfection, resulting generations of the same imperfect stock would never be able to manage it, either. No one would ever wager that moral perfection could've been achieved and sustained in thousands of generations forever. That's the single most ludicrous implied claim of Christianity.

So would you like to write to my company and tell them that their zero accident policy is ludicrous?

[whag]

So would you like to write to my company and tell them that their zero accident policy is ludicrous?

No, that's way too simplistic. I simply pointed out that, if true, the expression of sin represented by the fall was a necessary and inevitable precondition of an ultimate tree-free environment that Christianity promises. I think a tear-free environment doesn't make any sense, and the best way to explain how non-sensical it is is by asking tough questions about the fall that the church rarely acknowledges, if ever.

[whag]

"Tree-free" was a sweet Freudian slip of a compound adjective, and it'll do just fine. Bi I actually meant "Tear-Free."

[tabibito]

With regard to the fundamental principles on this issue, it would seem that Whag, Sparko and I are in agreement.

[Michael]

"There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" is bollocks, yes. They're known to commit sins just as dark and pre-meditated as any non-believer has commited and with the same pattern of frequency, only followed up with repentance.

You are assuming ppl professing to be Christians to be actual Christians; this is not the case. Also, they do not follow it up with repentance, since repentance would mean to turn away from; they follow it up with their false deluded religion. Christians turn from sin, to follow good both because of God/Jesus and with God's help. Ppl who claim that Christians cannot live without sin, neglect (as I've stated on another post here), the examples of UNSAVED, NON-Christians who lived without sin. If unsaved, non-Christians can live without sin, then surely a SINCERE person who LOVES God could make the same sacrifice as someone who was merely doing so to try to be self-righteous (externally sinless by behavior control, but lacking the internal motivations which would have precluded the need to control behavior--a conversion, from dark untruths to light Truth).

Why do they think they're more graced with forgiveness? By virtue of their believing alone. It's silly, yes, but that's what the religion says and it's pretty well established. That we think it's absurd that belief translates to virtue is beside the point. That's clearly what the religion teaches.

Again, those who would profess this are gravely mistaken/misled. The Bible even says that the devils believe, but nobody professing Christianity would claim that the devils are saved. The devils, in fact, have more sincerity than the massive majority of ppl claiming to be Christian, because the devils at least tremble because they believe. But this mainstream false "Christianity" (I call it "hypocrit-ianity.") trivializes sin by their false teachings. The Bible says that one has to believe UNTO salvation; there is a level of belief, which Paul painstakingly tries to impart--that the belief must be great enough to effect a change. That is NOT what Christianity says, but it IS what mainstream/hypocrit-ianity says, and LOUDLY! (If you see my initial post in this thread, I discuss some of the endless lengths to which they will go to protect their true hearts' desires--SIN, and NOT Christ!).