Christians Don't Sin

[Michael]

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. ...

You probably haven't then. But, this is an example of a black swan fallacy, meaning that the lack of personal exposure to something does not negate its existence. I think that in the past it was used as a philosophical "proof" that nobody had ever seen a swan that was not white, and so the conclusion was that only white swans existed; this was found to be false when black swans were found in Australia (hence "black swan" fallacy). I think the more official name of this, is the argument from ignorance (meaning only that the lack of knowledge of something does not proves its nonexistence). In Noah's day, I have heard estimates of the population of the Earth as being nearly 8 million, and yet there was only ONE man on the Earth who was found righteous. (NOT going to discuss how this population was estimated or what the correct population MAY have been, because is immaterial to the point that there was a relatively LARGE number of ppl, such that ...) If you were alive at this time, what would be the likelihood that you would have known, or even heard of, Noah? Since the "world" seeks after self-satisfaction [via the lust of the flesh (LoF), the lust of the eyes (LoE), and the pride of life (PoL)], how many ppl would be righteous? Would you ever see or hear of any? Especially, given that virtually ALL others would mock, ridicule, misrepresent (etc.) all that such ppl would say or do, then if any such ppl existed, would you even believe it? These others will use never-ending fallacies, deflections, lies, and whatever else it takes, changing the definitions of words to suit their goals (LoF, LoE, PoL), etc.

Ppl who are ATE UP with sin (LoF, LoE, PoL), will FIGHT to protect that stronghold; but they still want to feel good about themselves, so MANY of them will also be religious, attempting to justify themselves. (Note first, that if they are attempting to justify themselves, then it simply shows that they have NOT been justified by God/Christ; He doesn't need help "fixing" His Work.) God does not justify sin. God does not excuse sin. God HATES sin. Which is why He made a way of escape FROM sin.

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. ...

Right, it's the Catholic church, not God's church.

I've met a lot of Protestants who similarly believe that Christians sin. ...

Again, it's the Protestant church, not God's church.

So the position that Christians don't sin would seem to be a minority viewpoint. ...

Correct, just as it was in Jesus' day, and just as He explicitly stated: "NARROW is the path and FEW ...," versus "WIDE is the path and MANY..." Just as it was in Noah's day, which the Bible also says it will be. IF the population in Noah's day was ~8M, then IF that was a "fair" estimate, then out of 320M Americans, wouldn't we expect no more than 40 true Christians. This is in no way an attempt to quantify God's Kingdom [since it is whosoever WILL (as opposed to whosoever wants but WON'T or whosoever MERELY CLAIMS, as the "serpents" of Jesus' day did} , but merely an example of the possible or likely scarcity of their appearance. Again, consider how the mainstream (and falsely-professing) "Christianity" (hypocrit-ianity) present such claims; they present it as "impossible" (denying the very Bible upon which they claim to be founded, since it gives multiple examples of those who lived without sin; even some who were not "saved" did so.). If anyone were to dare to claim the opposite, this mainstream hypocrit-ianity would (as the Jews did with Jesus), fabricate false claims of sin upon them, definitely including false sins of their own invention. They HAVE to find a sin in the person who claims that CHRIST has delivered them from (out of) their sins, OTHERWISE the hypocrit-ian is exposed as NOT Christian, UNsaved, CONDEMNED in their unrighteousness; this, the hypocrite WILL not tolerate, but SIN, they WILL tolerate, and serve (because, as the Bible says, it is their master, and they cannot serve two masters, for they will LOVE one and HATE the other!).

My questions:

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

Technically, I would presume "no," on the grounds that denominations are divisions, and you can't be a division of false-Christianity (hypocrit-ianity) and still be NOT false-Christianity. The Bible says to "come out of her, MY people...." and that HIS sheep hear HIS voice and FOLLOW HIM. I think you could possibly find sincere ppl within denominations, them not knowing where else to go or turn, but I think many would get sick of the hypocrisy and filth and prefer to not fellowship such. You are looking for God's church, not man's. Does the NT call it anything other than God's church? And again, just CALLING it God's church won't make it so, but that might be a good starting point when looking for the sincere. Then just watch out for any redefining of words, especially the main ones, such as "sin." If they start trying to tell you sin isn't sin, or that Jesus didn't mean what He said here, there, etc., or they otherwise have to correct God's Word and/or God/Jesus Himself, WATCH OUT! If ppl can call themselves "Christian" but merely calling themselves such does not make it so, then so can churches call themselves God's church won't necessarily make it so either; but I would make a fair guess that any church NOT calling themselves God's church, is spot-on.

I met a woman who claimed to be going to God's church. As we talked, however, it became apparent that her church made it "easier" (to the flesh), to live without sin, but reducing the standards (effectively redefining words again). So, their approach was to make the Word of God as appealing to the worldliness and flesh as possible, FOR THE PURPOSE THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO SERVE THE FLESH WHILE CLAIMING TO SERVE GOD.

Is it a popular view among Christians around here? ...

Again, depends on definition of "Christian." I can say I'm a 7' tall, green Martian, but we have objective criteria for those three descriptives (7', green, and Martian), and as such, for me to make such a claim, I have to be either lying, deluded, or a 7'-tall green Martian. Starting with no assumptions either way, reread what Jesus and His apostles said concerning His criteria for a "Christian" ("follower", etc.).

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.
...

The first option is not only a cop-out but self-refuting (ergo inherently false). Sin is considered sinful because that is the definition of "sinful." For sin not to be considered sinful, means that it was not sin that separated us from God in the first place, and therefore, the entirety of the Bible is wrong about the whole nature of sin, the fall in the Garden of Eden, the fallen state of mankind, the need for a redeemer (Yes, they just made both Jesus, and His sacrifice, POINTLESS!), etc. This mainstream hypocrit-ianity even admits that it is sin that separates us from God; in their attempts to proselytize, they even will tell their target that all it takes is ONE sin to separate us from God! Then they turn around (do a definitional 180) and claim that THEIR sin does not separate from God. So, does sin separate, or doesn't it? They can't have it both ways, unless their God is ARBITRARY, LYING, STUPID, etc. But wait, here comes the "rescuing device!" ...
God merely DECLARES them as righteous, even though they still sin. YIKES! Their God is NOT ONLY SO POWERLESS that He CANNOT defeat sin (but wait, they CLAIM that He DID! Wait, WHAT?!?), but that He then LIES to "cover it up!" (Yes, MANY actually teach that very thing. That God will SAY that sin is evil and WILL NOT tolerate it and that IT is what separates us from Him and THEN turn around and SAY that when we sin, we do not. What a LIAR and a HYPROCRITE their "god" is!) THE TRUE God will NEVER lie, will NEVER tolerate sin, will NEVER justify sin, WILL NOT "make a mountain so big even He cannot move it" ("covered by the Blood, so He CANNOT see") REALLY?!? GOD CANNOT see something?!?! FOOLISHNESS of FILTHINESS.
...OR... Maybe God IS POWERFUL. Maybe, as the Bible said, Jesus DID come to destroy the works of the devil. Maybe Jesus DID put to death Death (sin). Maybe we CAN do ALL things through Christ who strengthens us. Maybe the Bible DOES mean what it says! Maybe GOD means what He says! Maybe Jesus DID come to set the captives FREE! Maybe the Bible does NOT need these men who by necessity must presume "perfection" (although ADMITTING that they don't have this perfection) in order to correct the Bible, Jesus and God, as they are inaccurate, and mispoke. Wait, WHAT?!? The admittedly-imperfect ones "must" correct Jesus because He MISPOKE (made a MISTAKE = was IMPERFECT)? (eg. the woman caught in adultery--"What Jesus REALLY meant, was to not commit THAT sin any more." Wait, WHAT!?!? CAN we or CAN'T we control our sins? And if we CAN'T, then why would He tell her to quit ONLY THAT one, KNOWING that she ALLEGEDLY CAN'T? And why does He need them to CORRECT Him? Did Jesus IMPERFECTLY speak? Was He WRONG? (Oops. Maybe it's they hypocrites, claiming to be free from what they are still under bondage to, who are wrong? Maybe?) Of course, they neglect the entirety of the rest of the Bible, as well as the blind man who was also told to go and sin no more (but for whom no specific sin is mentioned) the rich young ruler who claimed to have lived sinless since his youth, Paul who professed that according to the Law he was perfect even before he was saved, etc. etc.]

The second option is correct. Christians do not sin. If they were redeemed from their sins, and then sinned again, they would again obtain that separation from God. (e.g. the parable of the man who was forgiven his great debt but then did evil again and his debt was reassigned.) This can be remedied by NOT repeating (repenting). It can also be prevented, if one were so sincere, by seeking out that in oneself which works against God and self, and rid it BEFORE it conceives sin--"CLEANING house" BEFORE it collapses. Sin IS separation from God. (Sinlessness is not communion with God, but a RESULT of communion with God. Faith PRODUCES works. This is HOW we know that nobody who sins is saved; it is proof-apparent of the diseased condition.)

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.

"Christians" who believe that Christians sin, will HAVE to claim that a Biblical contradiction exists in the idea that Christians don't sin, in order to protect their strongholds (flesh/comfort, lust, pride).
Problem 1: To claim that the Bible contradicts the Bible, is to claim that either the Bible is not the Word of God, or that God is inconsistent (ergo arbitrary and therefore His statements irrelevant). If the Bible is not the Word of God, then by what authority (superior to the authority of the Bible) do THEY claim to know the Word of God? The only viable solution is not that the Bible contradicts the Bible, but that someone is misunderstanding or misusing the Bible, usually via lack of context, and unfortunately based off a stronghold which will HEAR, SEE, and ACCEPT NO contradictions to their "right" to continue to sin. As one young man raged at me, while attempting to defend his "Christian" "right" to sin, he didn't care WHAT that says (pointing to the Bible, backing away, waving his hands, REFUSING to read a SINGLE verse, while previously claiming non-stop that it was the inerrant Word of God)! The problem, as told in the Bible, is not a lack of knowledge, but a SPIRITUAL condition (coming from a heart ATE UP with LoF, LoE, PoL).

I have heard MANY ppl claim and support the fallacy of sinning Christians, but as previously mentioned, they use non-stop fallacies, misquoted or misrepresented Bible (out-of-context, and often actually refuting their position), and/or just use the Bible to contradict the Bible (see just-mentioned "Problem 1").

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.

This shows that you have been preconditioned to believe such. WHY would it seem nonsensical?
If there's a God, and He's ALL-powerful, and He came to DESTROY evil, then what would be unbelievable that His followers would allow such to occur in themselves? And, as this God allows free will, so that this choice is actually a choice, and that ppl follow Him from their heart and not as automatons, then this redemption, this "free gift" would ONLY apply to those who accepted it. And it will ONLY CURE those who APPLY the cure (Christ) TO their DISEASE (sin). And if Christ CANNOT defeat their sin, then He has failed, or they have not really turned from it (sin) to Him, to allow Him to DESTROY the evil works.

EVALUATE ALL the claims of "sinning Christians" and watch for the ludicrous parts; they will ALWAYS appear, since "sinning Christians" is as inherently contradictory as "cold heat," etc., and always leading to a "sinning Christ" which is IMPOSSIBLE.
"I couldn't help it."
1. Where was their "all-powerful" God during this?
2a. Did they TRY?
2b. WHAT did they DO to attempt this "try?"
2c. HOW SERIOUS did they make this "try?" Did they import that their very SOUL and ETERNITY depended on it? Did they treat it like GOD took it SERIOUS? Did they treat is "serious as SIN?" [That phrase used to mean something, because, excuses or not, ppl used to take sin to be more serious than a heart attack, after all, it is ETERNAL! They used to understand that SIN was DEATH, and therefore they were TORMENTED by their sins! And now, they treat them as negligible; Christ just swept them under the carpet (but COULD not DESTROY them?)]
3. Did you AVOID the situation that tempted to sin?
4. Did you know that you had this issue? And, presuming so, what DEEDS did you DO to PREVENT its recurrence? (Or, did you just let it sit there until it happened again, so you could claim, "I couldn't help it." I had an associate who claimed that "you can't help looking at a woman's body when she walks by." Oh, really? You lost control of your neck muscles and couldn't look the other way? "Well, I would still be thinking about her." (He really meant about her PARTS.) Oh, really? So you have NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT that would take that place in your heart/mind? If God matters so little to your heart, then at least, given your profession, why don't you use your MIND to distract yourself Think on something else. "I can't." Then, pinch yourself hard enough you CANnot focus on anything else. "That's extreme." He just implied that hell is not, sin is not, God is not, God doesn't care what He says about sin, etc. etc. And PAUL said, it would be better to pluck out your eye, but i'm extreme for suggesting that you merely offer sufficient distraction? And WHY were you looking at there that way to start with? Do you CARE how GOD sees her? Then why WON'T you look at her the way GOD sees her? Because he does not LOVE God, he LOVES the LoF, the LoE, and the PoL and merely "loves" God. They love me ALL the day long with their lips but their hearts are FAR from me. ARE YOU PROACTIVELY SEEKING TO ERADICATE ALL THAT IS NOT GOOD/GOD IN YOU, or just thinking about it, talking about, and MAKING EXCUSES for it?

"Can't help it; sin is in the flesh."
1. Uh oh. Jesus came in the flesh. Now they have a sinning Jesus.
2. "He came in the likeness of flesh." BUT, that has God being deceptive, AND WORSE...WHOEVER DENIES THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH IS AN ANTI-CHRIST. (Oops!)

Why don't ppl who CLAIM Christianity HATE sin and SEEK with ALL their MIGHT to ERADICATE it in themselves? Why WON'T they take sin SERIOUSLY? Why won't they FIGHT it NO MATTER WHAT? Why WON'T they LOVE God, SEEK His righteousness, so that His ways become THEIR ways, His vision becomes THEIR vision? LoF, LoE, PoL!! Why can they spend ENDLESS amounts of time and energy making excuses for sin and virtually NONE to eradicate it?? THAT ALONE SHOWS their HEARTS! Do you really think that if you were WILLING to see things the SAME way that God does, that your reactions would be different than His? That they would be no different than they are now? "It's a process..." BUT it starts with GOD is GOD!! So, OBEY until you understand all. Are they really claiming that they can't obey because they don't know better? RUBBISH! They KNOW they aren't supposed to do some things and are supposed to do others; it is GOD who they do not take serious--serious as "a heart attack" (since they no longer take sin serious, we'll use "heart attack"); they live in open rebellion and claim to love God. What?!?

Obviously this could go on forever, since their excuses will also. The point is: God is GOD! So, OBEY! And FOLLOW (SEEK His righteousness, to learn His Heart so that His Ways become your ways. But until then, quit acting like God's on trial, and that you don't have to obey until you feel it yourself, as though He has to CONVINCE you before you are required to capitulate (especially when such LITTLE effort has been put into this seeking and learning); it is YOU who is on trial (for sin, remember?), and you have FAILED if Christ has not redeemed you FROM (OUT OF) your sins.

[tabibito]

Michael makes a good case. There are points here and there that need tweaking, but on the whole it is sound.

[Leonhard]

I think Michael should learn to stay away from the caps lock, and the bold underlined, and italic font option.

Scripture is clear that all Christians without exception sin. Even the pure St. John the Evangelist, whom Jesus called 'The one I love', said he sinned.

However it is also true that sin can cost a person his immortal soul. And that there are sins, St. Paul lists them, that are incompatible with a holy life. We have to resolve these clear statements.

I think the Catholic Church has a clear scriptural delineation that makes adequate sense this in terms of venial and mortal sin. A mortal sin being any sin of grave matter (such as violating one of the ten commandments), with full knowledge and deliberate will. Any such act cannot be done by someone who loves God, and so it costs that person his friendship with God. However if the person is penitent, prays for forgiveness (and seeks out a priest for confession), then God forgives the person and restores him.

[tabibito]

Scripture is clear that all Christians without exception sin.

We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself,fn and the wicked one does not touch him. 1 John 5:18
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
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 1 John 3:6
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:10

There is a world of difference between "do not sin" and "have not sinned."

[whag]

We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself,fn and the wicked one does not touch him. 1 John 5:18
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
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 1 John 3:6
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:10

There is a world of difference between "do not sin" and "have not sinned."

Clearly, that is not the case. King David murdered an innocent man and flagrantly acquired multiple wives while knowing that God was watching.

[tabibito]

Having multiple wives is not listed as a sin. Committing adultery and murder are sins though (and no, he didn't get to blame the gun enemy).
The problem is one of development - the Christian is expected to work toward the state of not sinning: it is not something that is conferred upon avowal of belief.
Baptism results in cleansing, but not purification: in this regard, the analogy being washing hands with soap (cleansing/baptism) and then using sanitiser (purification).

[whag]

Having multiple wives is not listed as a sin.

Why isn't it a sin to have sex with many different women so long as you're married to them?

[tabibito]

I have no idea why it isn't considered a sin. As far as I can tell, there is no definitive answer.

[Michael]

Michael makes a good case. There are points here and there that need tweaking, but on the whole it is sound.

I would appreciate feedback. I realize that I left out large amounts of info/issues, as well as massive additional biblical support, due to time constraints (etc.). This may help flesh out (pardon the expression, as I don't want to encourage fleshliness) sections and deal with major areas of contention and whatnot.

If you feel this venue might not be best, to avoid causing confusion, doubt, etc., feel free to message me (if that works here; I am brand new and haven't checked out features yet.)

[Michael]

I think Michael should learn to stay away from the caps lock, and the bold underlined, and italic font option.

Ad hominem, go figure. If you don't have valid substance for your position, attempt to discredit the other position by discrediting the arguer for it. The most common types of these attacks I have seen, attack the character and/or intelligence of the other party. This one is a more general type--a mock, to generally denigrate/belittle the other party with no real substance to it.

Scripture is clear that all Christians without exception sin. ....

Which scriptures explicitly state that "all Christians without exception sin?" I tried a word search in the Bible and that verse doesn't appear to exist. Because, in I John 3:8, John explicitly stated, "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested , that he might destroy the works of the devil." Did Jesus fail in destroying the works of the devil? "Sinning christians" would have you believe that Jesus could only destroy the penalty for the works of the devil. But, rewriting the Bible, just doesn't make it true. This same John made a claim in his Reveletion about those who add to or take away from the book. (Of course, this is where most detractors will rush to claim that John was only referring to his Revelation. First, notice how they avoid the issue of I John 3:8, to try to debate a point not primary to the initial issue--deflection, red herrings. Furthermore, upon evaluation of this, this position (John referring only to his Revelation), has them then claiming that those who changed only the book of his Revelation, a book so full of imagery as to historically be confusing to most, would be condemned, but that nothing as bad (or worse) would happen to those who changed the direct theology given by Christ and His apostles; I would never want to imply such an upside-down value. But, again this same John continues:
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. {is born: or, has been born}
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
This same John, in his Gospel of Christ (chapter 8), has Christ saying:
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free .
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: [but] the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free , ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. {of his own: or, from his own will or disposition}
45 And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

If we replace the Pharisees with the modern Pharisees:
37 I know that ye are <(current religion/denomination)>; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, <we are (current religion/denomination)> . Jesus saith unto them, If ye were <Christian, Christ's seed>, ye would do the works of <Christ>.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not <Christ>.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. {of his own: or, from his own will or disposition}
45 And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

Even the pure St. John the Evangelist, whom Jesus called 'The one I love', said he sinned.

However it is also true that sin can cost a person his immortal soul. And that there are sins, St. Paul lists them, that are incompatible with a holy life. We have to resolve these clear statements.

Incompatible would mean that you cannot be saved and unsaved at the same time. I am not attempting to claim you didn't mean this same thing here, just adding a clarification because of how many ppl (again, not necessarily you here, nor your intent here) use language variations to change intents and meanings. Many ppl would attempt to use "incompatible" in a sense of not entirely best of friends or whatnot, as opposed to biblical incompatibility, such as light and darkness.

A mortal sin being any sin of grave matter (such as violating one of the ten commandments), with full knowledge and deliberate will. Any such act cannot be done by someone who loves God, and so it costs that person his friendship with God.

Again, not disagreeing with your main point about mortal sin, per se, but rather clarifying the degree of the loss: the loss is not a "friendship" in normal context, it is the entire relationship; it dies (not that it cannot be resurrected, but rather that it MUST be resurrected, because it is not merely "weakened," but rather dead). Language can often be used to convey nuances of meaning which can lessen or overdo the actuality of reality. I try to be careful about these issues because it quickly and easily leads to misunderstandings, or even completely new theologies based upon what technically is a change in definition--the error of ambiguity of using the same word with two different definitions, effectively changing the meaning of a statement or conclusion.

However if the person is penitent, prays for forgiveness (and seeks out a priest for confession), then God forgives the person and restores him.

I would agree with this too, depending on how "penitent" is defined [back to "repent" meaning to turn (action) away from (oppose)]. Regarding the just-mentioned issue of changing the nuances of words to effectively change the definitions and therefore the outcome, many ppl will have "penitent" mean to merely "feel bad" or "feel guilty." But what good or value does this do for the person or God, if it is not sufficient to effect change? God is not fooled, and the person will have NO benefit, if they do not truly change on the inside. Eg. Mat. 3:6-8 (cont. on to 12 to see how "extreme" John the Baptist meant it). Jesus did not upbraid John for what he taught or did. I.e. Jesus agreed.

[tabibito]

This same John made a claim in his Reveletion about those who add to or take away from the book. (Of course, this is where most detractors will rush to claim that John was only referring to his Revelation.

The book definitely refers to the book that the angel had in his hand. The same prohibition is applied to the book in Daniel, and there are books of the New Testament which were written after Revelation - so the argument is not one that holds water.

[Michael]

... There is a world of difference between "do not sin" and "have not sinned."

Exactly, This is one of the most common errors I hear used to justify false "sinning christians" theology. They will claim that a verse in the past tense is proof of the inevitability of the future and present. "For all have sinned" is past tense. I was once 10-years old; I no longer am. Go figure. The past is not the present nor the future. And GOD is more powerful than sin. [And from this point, won't all refutations supporting "sinning christians" therefore really be attempting to support that God is NOT, more powerful than sin, that God CANNOT overcome sin, that Jesus FAILED to do what I John said that He came to do ("destroy the works of the devil"), that the devil is more powerful than God/Christ, that Jesus did not put to death (eliminate) Death (sin).] What happened to "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," "What a mighty God we serve," etc.?

The most common reworkings of language I have run across in this area, to attempt to "prove" their point(s), are the changing of tenses and the religious redefining of words. These are the same thing though, since the definition of "did" is not the same as that of "do," since the tense changes the exact definition. The most commonly redefined words I come across in religion, all relate to the sin issue. That alone ought to indicate something about the real truth.

The most common of these reworked/redefined (i.e. lying) words I come across:
* repent
* sin (sin itself, redefining it to warp the summation of its relevance and handling)
* commit
* deeds
* whosoever
* love
* worship
* follow
* Lord
* Savior
* into
* judge
* sinner
* keep / abide / continue
* all
* liars
* none
* dead
* death
And the list goes on and on and on and on, just like the lusts they serve with their heart, minds, and souls, and therefore their bodies as well.

The "amazing" (amazing only because of their profession), is that although they will travel the entire length and breadth of the whole world, sparing no cost (time, money, energy, etc.), to attempt to "prove" that "christians sin," they never seem to get excited or hopeful over the prospect that they don't HAVE to sin. This just shows how much they WANT to continue to sin, but also to just feel "justified," as if they are somehow getting away with it, fooling God, as it were. But God is not fooled, nor a respector of persons (whether you call yourself "christian" or not, or "Abraham's seed," or "Pharisee," etc., you will be judged by your DEEDS; JESUS said so, EXPLICITLY!). Why don't they WANT to be FREE FROM sin? Why don't they ACHE and STRIVE and LEAP at the prospect of not "having" to do what God considers EVIL and HATEFUL? Therein lies the answer to the whole issue!

I.e. 2 Tim. 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[Michael]

The book definitely refers to the book that the angel had in his hand. The same prohibition is applied to the book in Daniel, and there are books of the New Testament which were written after Revelation - so the argument is not one that holds water.

You jumped right into the "problem" I went into detail to attempt to curtail. I said that John was not referring to other books, merely that if such as statement was made about his Revelation full of imagery and symbolism, then how much more should it be applied to the direct teachings of Jesus and His apostles? And that the very ppl who would jump at the issue that John was ONLY referring to his Revelation, would miss the point of the relevance of the rest of the NT. Unless one would claim that God would ONLY put special protection on a specific book, but not care so much if they messed with His main and direct presentation.

[tabibito]

You jumped right into the "problem" I went into detail to attempt to curtail. I said that John was not referring to other books, merely that if such as statement was made about his Revelation full of imagery and symbolism, then how much more should it be applied to the direct teachings of Jesus and His apostles? And that the very ppl who would jump at the issue that John was ONLY referring to his Revelation, would miss the point of the relevance of the rest of the NT. Unless one would claim that God would ONLY put special protection on a specific book, but not care so much if they messed with His main and direct presentation.

Revelation 22:18-19

₁₈ For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; ₁₉ and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

A specific penalty is noted concerning specific action with respect to a specific prophecy. There is no general principle to be found here.
Trying to make a general principle from the passage would be doing the very thing that you are complaining should not be done.



YOU shall not add: is that a significant distinction? or did everything written after Deuteronomy violate the command stated in Deuteronomy 4:2?
"If anyone adds or takes away" would be "any human" I think - or does God not have the right to amend an incorrect interpretation, or ambiguity, of scripture?

[Michael]

A specific penalty is noted concerning specific action with respect to a specific prophecy. There is no general principle to be found here.
Trying to make a general principle from the passage would be doing the very thing that you are complaining should not be done.

Two strawman fallacies here.
1. I did not claim that a general principle was being made here, only that one could be made, considering the consistent nature of God, rationality, and the value of God's written Word. So, I made a comparison, that if such a penalty would be against the Revelation, then one would one expect the same or more to apply to the same (God's Word) or more (the explicit doctrine in God's Word), especially considering God being consistent: Messing with His Word, is messing with His Word. If it's His Word, He meant it, and if He meant it, it matters to Him. So if one were to mess with it in one place, and He were to care greatly, then one would presume He would also care if one were to mess with it in another place. It's about being consistent and God being consistent.
2. I don't recall claiming that a generality should not be made. In fact, your first part seems to be claiming that I do claim that a generality could be assumed, but your second part claims that I claim that a generality should not be made. I assume one of us is miscommunicating, or as least misunderstanding the other then, otherwise this claim seems self-refuting.

YOU shall not add: is that a significant distinction? or did everything written after Deuteronomy violate the command stated in Deuteronomy 4:2?
"If anyone adds or takes away" would be "any human" I think - or does God not have the right to amend an incorrect interpretation, or ambiguity, of scripture?

Ah, see, you found where the Bible explicitly does support the point I was trying to make--that God's Word should not be changed by people [and, God being consistent, the condemnations/"plagues" then come (relating again back to the original point in all this--ppl who attempt to change what the Bible says by changing the meanings of words, or having the Bible contradict itself, effectively rewriting the Bible)]. Was this supposed to be making a contrary point (which I do not see), or were you merely pointing out the same, that the Bible does state the principle which I was presenting, just presented in a different location? Which, again, indicates that principles are often easily found, so long as they don't contradict explicit statements elsewhere; God's nature is consistent.