Christians Don't Sin

[whag]

I was hoping that a Christian who followed the Christians-don't-sin belief would drop by, but I guess there aren't any lurking around these days.

I think he's already here in the name of Soyeong. He basically said Christians don't commit "intentional" sins, since such wouldn't reflect a genuine love of Christ.

That's as close I think you'll get to someone who believes Christians don't sin.

[JonathanL]

I thought showing the context and arguing for why your interpretation couldn't be correct while giving reasonable interpretations that don't conflict with other verses in the Bible would be relevant.

My interpretation conflicts with your interpretation of other verses in the Bible, but you haven't yet established that your interpretations are correct.

However, you want to look at it, disobeying God's instructions is a sin while obeying them is doing a good work or practicing righteousness.

Disobeying God's instructions are a sin, but not all of God's instructions are directed towards everyone. The commandments of the Mosaic law are a requirement only for those under the old covenant which God established with the Jews and no one else, they are not binding for those (Jews and Gentile) who have joined the new covenant. There are teachings and commandments in the new covenant that are identical to those of the old covenant, but that does not mean that every single command of the mosaic law is simply carried over to the new covenant.

If moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man, then all of the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral commands, including the prohibition of idolatry. On the other hand, if moral laws are in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands are moral laws.

Where have I even implied the bolded? But even under your understanding of moral laws being in regards to man's relationship with God it does not follow logically that all of God's commands are moral laws.

Matthew 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

God wants His people to be the light of the world, so did that change now that Gentiles are no longer alienated and part of His people? Should Gentiles not shine their light before others by doing the good works that God has instructed through His Spirit to give glory to God? God already has all the glory and the only thing that pleases Him is when He does good works through us. Gentiles are now part of God's people not because the distinction has been removed, but because Gentiles are now part of that distinction through faith in Messiah.

It would be wise of you to remember that Gentiles were in fact not forbidden from becoming part of God's people by way of proselytizing long before Jesus accomplished his work of removing the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, Gentiles had the option of becoming part of that distinction long before Christ, and therefore your understanding of what Ephesians 2:14-15 could not possibly be correct, since the existence of Gentile proselytes would indicate that the divide/distinction never existed in the first place.

And following the dietary laws are not going to make us the light of the world. No one is going to look at someone refusing to eat pork and proclaim: "Look at that man, what a righteous soul he is for refusing to eat pork, I can really see the love of God emanating from him."

[Yttrium]

I think he's already here in the name of Soyeong. He basically said Christians don't commit "intentional" sins, since such wouldn't reflect a genuine love of Christ.

That's as close I think you'll get to someone who believes Christians don't sin.

Yeah, but he's more of a "Christians sin now and then, but then we repent for the sin" kind of guy.

[Yttrium]

The commandments of the Mosaic law are a requirement only for those under the old covenant which God established with the Jews and no one else, they are not binding for those (Jews and Gentile) who have joined the new covenant.

Jews I've encountered have said the same thing. Not to mention the Christians I know. I can't imagine Christians starting to follow the Mosaic law in large numbers. It would be a tragedy. Restaurants would stop serving pork and shellfish. I'm not sure I could handle that.

[JonathanL]

This has devolved into a distinctly boring discussion.

This is TWeb, what did you honestly expect?

[whag]

Yeah, but he's more of a "Christians sin now and then, but then we repent for the sin" kind of guy.

I submit he couldn't name one skeptic who ever claimed that Christians who sin don't seek repentance thereafter. It's a rebuttal to a concocted position.

[JonathanL]

I've also seen Christians go to the opposite extreme and claim that we sin continuously, but I don't think either of them have it right. Christians are set free from our sin nature, not in the sense that we no longer have it, but in the sense that it is no longer our master. We are set free from one master to come under a new master in service to God to live in obedience to His commands. I understand statements, such as 1 John 3:6, about Christians not sinning to be talking about intentional sin. If we love God, we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, then how can we willfully choose to transgress His law? If we realize that doing in sinful, then we should become convicted and refrain from doing it. To know that something is sinful and to do it anyway is an act of rebellion against God. How can we say we know God if we live in rebellion to Him?

I would amen this post, but I cannot do it given that I now know that you by the bolded mean the Mosaic commandments.

[Soyeong]

The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

If someone is driving down a road that has a 70 mph speed limit, but they are driving with their wife who doesn't like him driving too fast, so he sets the cruise control to 60 mph, then he is no longer under that law. That law is there as a guardian to prevent people from driving recklessly, but by exceeding its minimum requirements out of love for his wife, he is driving as though that law didn't exist. The penalties of the law are not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. When we act out of love for God in a way that exceeds the minimum requirements of the law, we are showing that we are mature enough in Christ to not a guardian.

Note also that Paul was saying new covenants don't do away with the promises of the previous ones.

Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.

In Romans 7, Paul is not using an metaphor where every part of it represents something else, but rather, he is using an example from the law. For instance, are we represented by the wife? No, because we are dying to the law and it is the husband who died. Are we represented by the husband? No, because it is the wife who is now free to belong a new master. It just doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, if wife's husband died, then she would not be free from any of the other laws, but would be freed only from that aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. If her husband died and she married anther man, she would again be bound to obey that aspect of the law.

When Christ paid our penalty for our transgression of law, he set us free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it. The law didn't go anywhere and we didn't stay dead, but what changed is that we are freed from our old master, our sin nature, and are free to come under a new master, to become slaves of righteousness, and to live in obedience to His commands for how to practice righteousness and avoid sin.

Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Soyeong is different from the Judaizers in some ways but he makes the same moral demands that Christians need to abide by the Mosaic Law. It is therefore a different gospel and needs to be blown out of the water.

A different Gospel is anything other than being saved by grace through faith, not be practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. A different Gospel is one that says we are saved by becoming Jews and obeying all of the laws of Moses, including the oral law. A different Gospel is the one that tells Gentiles that it's not important to practice righteousness and that Gentiles are not set free from sin to become slaves to righteousness. A different Gospel is one that tells Gentiles that it's unimportant to behave in the way that Jesus did, that sanctification is not about being transformed into the character of Christ.

[JonathanL]

A different Gospel is anything other than being saved by grace through faith, not be practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. A different Gospel is one that says we are saved by becoming Jews and obeying all of the laws of Moses, including the oral law. A different Gospel is the one that tells Gentiles that it's not important to practice righteousness and that Gentiles are not set free from sin to become slaves to righteousness. A different Gospel is one that tells Gentiles that it's unimportant to behave in the way that Jesus did, that sanctification is not about being transformed into the character of Christ.

A different gospel is also one that equates practicing righteousness with following the laws of the Mosaic commandment.

[Christianbookworm]

Know what? The two covenants can be compared to two different apartment leases.

[whag]

Know what? The two covenants can be compared to two different apartment leases.

Stop with the JPH cartoons. They're embarrassing.

[JonathanL]

Stop with the JPH cartoons. They're embarrassing.

To the fundy atheists they expose, maybe.

[whag]

To the fundy atheists they expose, maybe.

That's what Jack Chick fans think Chick does. Holding is more aesthetically embarrassing than Chick and a YEC to boot.

[JonathanL]

That's what Jack Chick fans think Chick does. Holding is more aesthetically embarrassing than Chick and a YEC to boot.

He's also way more well-read on biblical issues than you are, which you demonstrate nearly every time you write something about the bible. In terms of reading the bible like a fundy you're probably closer to Jack Chick than what Holding is.

[whag]

He's also way more well-read on biblical issues than you are, which you demonstrate nearly every time you write something about the bible. In terms of reading the bible like a fundy you're probably closer to Jack Chick than what Holding is.

He's so well read he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I'm not impressed by his amount of reading but rather his comprehension. Don't support your arguments with his cartoons lest you be laughed at.