Christians Don't Sin

[whag]

My primate origins, if I do have a primate ancestor, does in no way make any difference to teleology. It has no bearing on the issue of my purpose and the question of why I was created. And everything that I need to know about myself is readily available to me without recourse to the findings of evolutionary theory.

Your purpose is made more complicated by God's never having protected your ancestors in an Eden. You have a more protracted, far less sheltered origin that didn't involve rib-ectomy, a TKOGAE, etc.

Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.

I said topics that actually matter to me, not dogma. My list of topics in the post I quoted was never intended to be exhaustive in any way.

You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?

And I can affirm the existence of my animal (base) nature without having to affirm evolutionary theory.

No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

[JonathanL]

No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

Where have I assumed that centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes are? You're the only one here who is assuming.

[whag]

Where have I assumed that centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes are? You're the only one here who is assuming.

You need to explain what you mean by "animal base nature" then. What would be the reason for apes similarity with human beings other than close relatedness?

[KingsGambit]

Is one's disinterest in this area inevitably going to lead to society judging them? There are plenty of things that others find interesting and that are important that I am not particularly interested in; poetry, quantum physics, gardening, Chinese history, Indian mythology. If biological evolution makes somebody else's list, that's okay with me.

[whag]

Is one's disinterest in this area inevitably going to lead to society judging them? There are plenty of things that others find interesting and that are important that I am not particularly interested in; poetry, quantum physics, gardening, Chinese history, Indian mythology. If biological evolution makes somebody else's list, that's okay with me.

Not "society" -- rather the subjects who he's tasked with showing a sophistication of understanding. And not "judgment" of him but rather his limited religious approach, which undoubtedly would be peppered with Adamic references that would make no sense to an evolutionist who knows Adam is obviously myth.

There are plenty of potential converts who know evolution is true and would regard a Christian's skepticism (clearly he's skeptical if he's inclined to YEC) as based in fear and an inability to process an epistemological fact that should frankly be a doddle to accept given the massive evidence.

[JonathanL]

Not "society" -- rather the subjects who he's tasked with showing a sophistication of understanding. And not "judgment" of him but rather his limited religious approach, which undoubtedly would be peppered with Adamic references that would make no sense to an evolutionist who knows Adam is obviously myth.

I would not refer to Adam at all, but you get points for trying.

[whag]

I would not refer to Adam at all, but you get points for trying.

Interesting. Take me through your approach.

[Soyeong]

But not every prohibition or command in the Mosaic Law is a prohibition against a moral sin, or command to do a moral good. This is obvious for instance (which I'm assuming that you agree with me on), by the fact that animal sacrifices are no longer needed, given that the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus has rendered them obsolete. So in effect a part of the Mosaic Law (the sacrificial laws) were rendered obsolete in the sense that they are no longer obligatory for us to follow.

Morals are about what we ought to do. We ought to obey all of God's commands, so every command that God gives is a moral command. The Nazarite vow involves animals sacrifices (Numbers 6), so when Paul took the vow in Acts 18:18 and paid for the expenses Acts 21:24, those involved animal sacrifices. The book of Hebrews also speaks of priests performing sacrifices in the present tense and was written in part of aleve concerns of not having access to the Temple. Furthermore there will be sacrifices in the Millenium, so regardless of when you think it takes place, it happens after the Messiah's ascension, so these are instances where it is appropriate to be doing animal sacrifices (As well as keeping the Sabbath, new moon, and Feasts) after Jesus' sacrifice. Why is it appropriate to do during Paul's time and during the Millenium, but not appropriate to do now? The destruction of the Temple excuses the sacrifices, but it doesn't excuse keeping the Sabbath, the new moon, and the Feasts.

Another couple questions: Why did God instruct Moses to do sacrifices when God didn't desire sacrifices (Hebrews 10:5)? Why did God instruct Moses to keep the law when Moses was already justified by faith, like Abraham was (Romans 4:1-8)?

I think these two questions hit on a lot of key issues.

1 John 2:3-6 is not talking about the Mosaic commandments, it is talking about Jesus teaching in the gospel of John to His followers that they should love one another. Following the Mosaic commandments has nothing to do with this love. And verse 6 is not speaking about Jesus following the Mosaic commandments perfectly either (although he did follow them), but about his walk self-denial and self-sacrifice, which we are exhorted to follow, as per Mark 8:34-35.

It was Jesus who gave the Torah to Moses, so there is no distinction between his commandments and the law. If you look in the Torah, you will find the same commands to love each other:

Leviticus 19:17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Matthew 22:34-36 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

I'm honestly dumbfounded that anyone could think that follow the Mosaic commands have nothing to do with love - love is their whole point! In Galatians, it's saying that if you have a full understanding of the law and do what it says, then you will love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said the greatest two commands were about loving God and loving your neighbor, the rest of the commands are just fleshing out what that looks like.

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a).

Certainly self-denial and self-sacrifice are part of following Jesus, but so is following the example he set through obedience to Torah.

11 “I have spoken these things to you so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. 12 This is My command: Love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you slaves anymore, because a slave doesn’t know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from My Father. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you. 17 This is what I command you: Love one another.

The only thing new about this command is that it says to love one another as I have loved you rather than as yourself. Jesus kept the Torah perfectly, among other reasons, so that we would have the perfect example to follow for how to love God and how to love one another, not so that we wouldn't have to.

Matthew 5 deals with the moral parts of the law, which are written in the hearts of every person, as per Romans 2:15. It has nothing to say on the matter of parts of the moral law which are not on moral issues, such as ceremonial laws, and dietary laws.

God's commands ought to be followed, so every part of it is a moral issue.

Also, proselytes is the keyword here. Until Acts 10 there were only Gentile proselytes amongst the Christians, but after Cornelius, who was not a proselyte converted to the Christian faith, this changed, which ultimately led to the first Christian council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) where it was unambigiously declared that Gentiles do not in fact have to follow the Mosaic law on every matter.

I explained earlier about the oral law and how Jews did not think that you could teach the laws of Moses properly without it, so in their minds that oral law was part of what they were wanting Gentiles to be required to to do in order to be saved. God didn't give the law to Moses because He thought His people could use a heavy legalistic burden, but rather so that His people who he had declared righteous by grace through faith would know how practice righteousness. His law was intended to be a delight to keep and the Psalmists understood that, just read Psalms 1:1-2 and Psalms 119. Is it just possible that Paul, who said, "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" was in full agreement with the Psalms and that he was not rejecting the law for the Gentiles, but was rejecting the legalist perversion of the law that the Pharisees had turned it into and were trying to hoist onto the Gentiles? By that, I mean what would become a 26 volume set known as the Talmud for how to keep a law that is a small fraction of the size. Did Jesus instruct Moses and the Israelites to keep the law and then criticize the Pharisees for placing a heavy burden on the people by having them keep it or did he criticize the Pharisees for keeping their own traditions instead of God's law? See Mark 7:6-9.

This is a pretty good deal of information, but you haven't made any convincing arguments that it was there interpretations, rulings and traditions that the Judaizers demanded Gentile Christians to follow, rather than the law of Moses proper.

The quickest argument is probably that the law is what informs us what sin is (Romans 7:7a) and Paul said that being under grace didn't mean that we were free to sin (Romans 6:15). Another argument would be:

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

The problem here is not that that the Jews kept the law, but that they kept it in the wrong way. They kept it legalistically as though righteousness they sought were works rather than by faith and they should have kept the law by faith as the Gentiles did.

Romans 2:26-27 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded[b] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and circumcision but break the law.

How does this hold any weight if Paul had no expectation that there were Gentiles in Roman that were keeping the law? Having a circumcised heart is important to both Jews and Gentiles, and we regard that people have it based on whether they keep the law.

Romans 3:27-31 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Paul makes the point that we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law, but to head off that anyone might misunderstand him and think that obeying the law was unimportant, he asked in verse 31 if our faith abolishes the law. By no means! Our faith upholds the law.

More to the point...if you had a list of instructions for how God wanted people to behave, as a demonstration of your faith and love, why wouldn't you want to be obedient?

Evidently you haven't gotten to Gal 3:19-26 (especially verses 24-25, with verse 19 ruling out beyond question that Paul is talking about the manmade oral laws) which effectively invalidates your equating practicing righteousness with following the Mosaic law. They are not the same.

I agree that Paul is not talking about oral laws here, however, Paul is talking about a different type of righteousness.

Romans 10:5-6 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)

The issue is that there are two types of righteousness: one by living rightly in obedience to the law and one by faith. God is holy and His righteous standard is perfection, so the only way to be declared righteous by practicing righteousness is by living in perfect obedience to the law. But all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so the only way for us to be declared righteous is by God's righteousness being in us by faith and God declaring that to be righteous. However, being declared righteous is just the beginning of the Christian walk. After we are set free from sin, we are to become slaves of obedience, which leads to righteousness and sanctification (Romans 6:15-19). As Ephesians 2:8-10 is saying, we are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. Our faith should lead us to practicing righteousness, and in this way, it upholds the law (Romans 3:31).





EDIT:

This is a pretty good deal of information, but you haven't made any convincing arguments that it was there interpretations, rulings and traditions that the Judaizers demanded Gentile Christians to follow, rather than the law of Moses proper.

I forgot to mention, the biggest indication that this is about the oral law and not the written, is that the commandment for all Gentiles to become circumcised in not found anywhere in the Torah, nor is there a commandment given for how a Gentile is to become a proselyte. These are both part of the oral law.

[37818]

That doesn't clear up your contradiction. Christians can't be both unable to sin, and need an advocate to propitiate for them should they sin.

It is not my contradiction, it is yours. Maybe you might want explain how it is contradictory.

[MaxVel]

Your purpose is made more complicated by God's never having protected your ancestors in an Eden. You have a more protracted, far less sheltered origin that didn't involve rib-ectomy, a TKOGAE, etc.

Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.






You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?




No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

You really look like a concern troll.

[Paprika]

The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3...
Then one goes to Romans 7

Now observe the gymnastics:

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.

"When you drive below the speed limit one is no longer under the law

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

Your point being?

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.

No one has claimed that. Stop burning strawmen.

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.

It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.

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.

Note how being "released from the Law" per Paul becomes release from "that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it". It's just eisegesis in a desperate attempt to save the position.

[Soyeong]

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

There were man-made laws that were preventing Jews and Christians from worshiping together and from associating with each other, which essentially treated Gentiles as though they were second-class citizens. If the law was abolished, for instance, in regard to how Jews should dress themselves in a distinctive manner, then it would be Jews conforming to Gentile patterns contrary to what Paul was saying. Furthermore, those man-made laws would still exist as act as a wall between Jews and gentiles being one people of God. Paul's point in the verses before and after were no longer second-class citizens, but that in Messiah they were full citizens of the commonwealth of Israel.

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.

The main differences between the old and the renewed covenants are the means of atonement, the power of that atonement, the priesthood which offers the sacrifice, Temple in which the sacrifice is offered, who has access to the covenant, and that the law is being written on our hearts. It's the same law being written on our hearts, so instructions for how to live rightly did not change.

Some laws, such as the instructions to keep the Sabbath were given prior to when the law was given to Moses and Sinai, so it exists as God's instructions for how His people should behave independently of any covenant to keep it. The old covenant was an contract that offered additional rewards and punishments for obeying God's instructions, but independently of that, the Torah is still instructions for how His people should behave. Gentiles are now part of God's people, so they should take His instructions to heart. God's righteous standard doesn't change, so how to behave rightly doesn't change.

I agree that not all laws were intended for everyone to keep, even when the law was first given to Moses. Some were for priests, judges, men, women, foreigners living among them, and for everyone.

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.

I didn't mean to imply anything, I was just making the point that if morality relates to our relationship with God, then all of God's commands are more commands. However, you seem to want to make a distinction where the commands in Matthew 5 are moral commands, but other are not. If you have in mind the commands to keep the Sabbath or God's Feasts are not moral commands, then it would appear that you are making a distinction along the lines of how we relate to man vs how to relate to God.

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.

The wall wasn't in regard to whether Gentiles could become proselytes, but in regard to how the two groups interacted with each other. Contrary to the Torah, the Jews were treating Gentiles like second-class citizens and throughout the Bible they ruled with 100% consistency in favor of the Torah against man-made laws.

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."

Say what you want about head scarves, but you can pretty consistently tell who is a Muslim by the way they dress. They are representatives of Islam and carry the name of Allah, so according to their actions, they can either bring glory to Allah or carry his name in vain.

You've already claimed that self-denial is a way of following the Messiah, but more than that, people also observe your actions. If you act differently from how the world acts, people will question you, and you will have an opportunity for God to shine through you. If you read Jewish testimonies, you will find that many of them were shocked to find that Jesus was Jewish, so when Christians behave as he did, Jews will also notice and you will likewise have another opportunity for God to shine through you. However, when non-believers see in their eyes that you are picking and choosing which of God commands to follow and become turned off to Christianity, then you are not bringing glory to God. So eating Kosher doesn't just demonstrate our love and faith in God through our obedience to Him, but it also acts as an identifier.

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

It was Jesus who gave the law to Moses, so all of the Mosaic commands are his commands. Jesus fulfilled the law by giving us a fuller understanding of how to keep them and what their intent was, but he didn't say anything to suggest that his commands were a different set from the Mosaic commands. Rather, as Matthew 5:17-19 says, he warned against anyone who would teach to relax even the least of the Mosaic commands. Furthermore, if you take that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets to mean he did away with the Law, then he also did away with the Prophets, including what they said about his second coming.

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

Someone who practices righteousness is someone behaves rightly, justly, lawfully, or in accordance with God's righteous commands. The Torah was essentially God's instructions for how to behave righteously. I'm really not sure how it's possible for someone to read the OT and come to the conclusion that following the Mosaic law was not seen as practicing righteousness.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”

[JimL]

It is not my contradiction, it is yours. Maybe you might want explain how it is contradictory.

If you can not see the contradiction in the assertion that "Christians are not able to sin," and "But when Christians do sin they have an advocate in Jesus," then nothing I say can explain it to you.

[37818]

If you can not see the contradiction in the assertion that "Christians are not able to sin," and "But when Christians do sin they have an advocate in Jesus," then nothing I say can explain it to you.

I do not believe, "Christians are not able to sin."

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." -- 1_1John 1:10.

I do believe Christians have a full and complete forgiveness with God through His Christ.

". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 8:12.

[JimL]

I do not believe, "Christians are not able to sin."

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." -- 1_1John 1:10.

I do believe Christians have a full and complete forgiveness with God through His Christ.

". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 8:12.

Thats why I said that your post, and the biblical quotes, in post #53 was full of contradictions. "There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" False! Question. Why do you think that your God only forgives the sins of Christians?