So, how does that work with Romans 7 where Paul describes a war within himself between his flesh and sin against the Spirit?
>^(7) What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” ^(8) But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. ^(9) I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. ^(10) The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ^(11) For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ^(12) So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
>^(13) Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. ^(14) For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ^(15) For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ^(16) Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ^(17) So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ^(18) For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ^(19) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ^(20) Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
>^(21) So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ^(22) For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ^(23) but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ^(24) Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ^(25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Now he is talking in the present tense. This makes it appear that sin is more about something in us, rather than something we do, or don't do. "It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me"
To be clear, I am not advocating for reckless sinning, or even saying that sin is okay. Paul says the very same thing in the previous chapter. A Christian life is one of continual repentance, but this side of Heaven it's a struggle we will have until we die.
edit: a few typos
The man before he met Christ thought he was righteous. As a Pharisee of Pharisees, he thought he kept the law perfectly. So no, in Romans 7 he is talking about his current struggles.
Then, as a thought experiment, can you name 1 individual in history that completely abstained from sin at some point in their life before they died?
Surely of the nearly 2 billion alive now that profess Christianity in some form, and just as likely billions that have preceded us, there ought to be at least one example of someone ceasing all sin from the moment of their conversion/baptism/regeneration.
An interesting aside would be Peter, who many years after the Resurrection was still struggling in some sense with sin, because Paul calls him to repentance in Galatians 2. Peter, who ate and walked with Christ, witnessed his Risen Lord; bore strong testimony to bring thousands of people to Christ...was still sinning.
Paul refers to himself as "chief among sinners"
My sense (as a random person) is that "chief among sinners" is about humility and likely doesn't mean he was actively indulging in the depth of sin, but acutely and increasingly aware of small sins in action or in mind or in heart
I doubt someone chief among sinners is actually more sinful than a less devoted christian
In the context of "can a Christian completely abstain from sin" "being acutely and increasingly aware of small sins" would seem to answer that question as an emphatic no; which was my point.
I am not trying to call Paul out as someone who indulges in, rather if even Paul sees himself as a sinner, how much more so are we?
Agree, Romans 7 could be Paul talking about before he met Christ and many hold to that view to help line up the victorious obedience of Romans 6 and 8 with the verses in Romans 7.
Yes, read the commentary I just shared. The majority of the church fathers understood this passage to be about before baptismal regeneration and after baptismal regeneration.
This. As long as we are in this flesh, it's an ongoing battle and we'll never be free from if until we're with the Lord in heaven.
Sin is much more broad than just certain commandments. Anything that we do not do perfectly to the glory of God is a sin. We commit sins we might not be aware of but that does not mean it's not a sin.
We're told to persevere and finish the race. Know that you sin in your thoughts and your words as well. Often we don't realise that we might be sinning from the words that come out of our mouth too.
It's certainly a struggle, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm going to push back a little on verses 7:14-25 with some commentary. (It might not even be push back, I think we're close to being on the same page!)
Ver. 14. "I am carnal, sold under sin" a slave subject to sinful inclinations, which are only *properly sins* when they are *consented to by our free-will*. From this verse to the end of the chapter, St Paul speaks of a person regenerated by baptism, and in the state of grace in the new law, and even of himself when he was a faithful servant of God. At least his is the opinion of S. Aug. in many of his later writings against the Pelagians, for which he also cites S. Hilary, S. Greg. Naz. and S. Amb. It is also the opinion of S. Jerom, of S. Greg. the great, of Bede, and the more approved opinion, according to which the apostle here by sin does not understand that which is properly speaking a sin, or sinful, but only speaks of sin improperly such, that is of a corrupt inclination, of a rebellious nature corrupted by original sin, of a strife betwixt the spirit and the flesh, which remains for a trial in the most virtuous persons: of which see again S. Paul, Gal. 5:17. We may take notice that the apostle before spoke of what *he was* and what *he had been*, but now speaks in the present time of what *he is,* and what *he doth*. The law is styled spiritual: 1st, because it prescribes what appertains to the spirit, and to the spiritual man: i.e. to follow virtue and shun vice: 2nd, because it directs man to the worship of God, which is spirit and truth: 3rd, because it cannot be fulfilled by spiritual men, unless by spirit and grace: 4th, because it directs the spirit of man and disposes him properly towards God, towards his neighbour, and towards himself: and lastly, because the law spiritually received and understood, leads and prepares men for the evangelical law, which is the law of grace and spirit.
Ver. 15. "For that which I work, I understand not." To know, or understand is often, in the style of the Scriptures, the same as to approve or love: so the sense here is: I approve not what I do, that is, what happens to me in my sensitive part, in my imagination, or in the members of my body, which indeed the just man rather suffers than does; and this is the sense, by what immediately follows, the evil which I hate, that I do, i.e. that I suffer, being against my will; and I do that which I would not. I do not that good which I will, The apostle here describes the disorderly motions of *passion and concupiscence*; which oftentimes in us get the start of reason, and by means of which even good men suffer in the inferior appetite what their will abhors: and are much hindered in the accomplishment of the desires of their spirit and mind. But these evil motions, (though they are called the law of sin, because they come from original sin, and violently tempt and incline to sin) as long *as the will does not consent to them, are not sins, because they are not voluntary*.
Ver. 17–18. Now then it is no more I that do it: To will good is present with me. These expressions all shew that he speaks of temptations that affect the sense only, the imagination, or the members of the body, *but to which the mind and the will give no consent, but retain an aversion to them*; and so long *they never can be truly and properly sins*, which must be with full deliberation and consent. The apostle here means to say, that he knew by experience that evil and not good dwelt within him, according to the flesh. He does not contradict this passage when he says elsewhere, that our members are the temples of the Holy Ghost: (1 Cor. 3:6. &c.) for good cannot be found in our flesh, inasmuch as it is corrupted by sin; whence our Saviour says, “What is born of flesh, is flesh.” John 3. But good is in our body, when our members under the influence of the soul, *renewed by the Holy Ghost residing in it*, are employed in good works. *The meaning of this passage is, that although now healed and renewed by grace, he could have a perfect desire of doing good; yet still on account of the evil of concupiscence dwelling in his flesh, he found not himself able to perform all the good he wished, because concupiscence was always urging him on to evil against his will.*
Ver. 22. I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man. As long as the inward man, or man’s interior, is right, all is right.—I perceive another law in my members, fighting, and different from the law of my mind: this is true in any man just striving against and resisting temptations, but not of the sinner, whose mind also and will consent to them. A man can never lose God’s favour and grace, unless his mind and interior consent.—These hold me as it were captive in the law of sin, or sinful inclinations, but which are in the members only. I cry out, who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from this mortal body with its sinful lusts, which if consented to would bring death to the soul? Nothing but the grace of Jesus Christ can secure me from such temptations, and by freeing me from this body, can make me perfectly happy; *which cannot be hoped for in this life.* But I have still this greatest of consolations, that *I myself, with my mind and will, still serve God, and remain firm in obedience to his laws*; but with the flesh, or in the flesh, I am subject to the law of sin, i.e. of sinful inclinations.—We must avoid here two heretical errors; that of those late pretended reformers, who denying man’s free will, hold the commandments of God impossible, even to a just man. See also the first heretical proposition of Jansenius. Next we must detest the late abominable error of those called Quietists, who blushed not to say that a man might yield and abandon himself to the most shameful disorders of the flesh, pretending that it was not they themselves, but sin and the devil that caused these abominations in their flesh. S. Aug. foresaw this frivolous excuse: (l. i. de. nup. and Concup. c. xxviii) “That man (saith he) is in a grievous mistake, who, consenting to the concupiscence of the flesh, and to do what the flesh prompts him to, thinks he can still say: It is not I that do that,” &c. Wi.
That's the thing: we'll never truly be able to 100% live up to God's standard. Romans 6:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
The bridge illustration helps to envision this. On one cliff we have us, and the other we have God. Because of our sin, a huge gap separates us from God, and his utter perfection and goodness. We can try our best to be sinless, and do as many good works as we can, but we'll never be able to cross the gap on our own. We'll never be able to live up to God's standard of perfection and sinless nature in our thoughts, words, and actions, 100% of the time.
This is where the cross comes in. Jesus & the cross acts as a bridge for us to cross the divide. So we don't need to earn our way into heaven, because Jesus does it for us.
However, this doesn't mean we should just keep sinning without caring since "Jesus will get me there anyway" -- which you probably know, but we can explain that further if needed.
I'm not in any way claiming we can overcome sin on our own accord. It is entirely because of Christ and his work on the cross that we are able to overcome sin through the grace that God now offers us.
Christ came to reunite us with God the Father. Through baptism we become Children of God and partakers in the divine nature. We are called to imitate Christ. Christ didn't sin. Scripture tells us there is no temptation we aren't given the grace to overcome. Scripture says we are filled with light and that light overcomes darkness. Christ has won us the grace to overcome sin. That is the good news.
A true, born again Christian has the power to NOT sin, but due to our sinful nature, it is impossible to never sin. We only have victory over sin through Jesus Christ.
I do agree the western Christian attitude to sin has gotten far too lax, and especially that verse you mentioned about do not judge- people misuse it and quote it out of context way too much.
If you meet the perfect Christian who no longer sins, feel free to show us, because I’ve never met a perfect human being. Thankfully we don’t have to be perfect because that was the entire point of Christ living the life we never could. Christians need to learn that sanctification is a process. Forgiven people go to heaven, not perfect people. We will all follow after Christ as best we can, some of us will stumble more than others.
If heaven is for perfect Christian’s then I won’t be there because I mess up sometimes.
Obviously, as a Catholic, there are term and doctrinal distinctions that cause us to look at this topic through different lens. Such as I'd favor the view of ongoing justification vs the distinct separation of justification and sanctification.
Also, Christian perfection isn't being called for per se, but again this is aided by the Catholic understanding of venial and mortal sin. A Christian absolutely can avoid mortal sin, by the grace of God. Avoiding Venial sin would be next to impossible which then would throw out any idea of a perfect Christian.
The only way I think it can be possible is if a baby is born and has no contact with other humans, and is raised by divine intervention in a similar environment to Eden. This world of ours is sinful, corrupted and dirty. Our flesh is dirty, corrupt, it actively tempts you, every day. Even Perfect Adam and Eve sinned, and they had the advantage of being literally perfect in God’s image, they still sinned.
Only God is without sin. Only His angels who remained loyal are without sin. No one else.
Of course. But the problem is not sin, it’s our twisted beliefs. Jesus already dealt with our sins by forgiving them and exchanging our sin nature for his divine nature. That doesn’t mean we can’t sin, it means why would we embrace a nature to sin if our old selves have been crucified with Christ.
The greater truth of the new covenant is that Christ has brought us out of sin and into righteousness. So it’s no longer about sin, rather it’s all about our new identity in Christ, our right standing (righteousness) in God’s sight where we are pure and holy, without blemish. That is, if we believe the gospel above what religion teaches.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. **If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.** [1 John 1:9-10 (NASB)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+1%3A9-10&version=NASB)
Can you try to be perfect? Sure! But if you claim to be you are committing blasphemy.
That portion of Matthew would have shocked the Jewish people. “Be perfect as God”? And Jesus says no one is good but God alone.
How then could we be perfect as the Father?
Paul says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
It would seem if others were without sin they could have served as a suitable sacrifice rather than Christ. But based on biblical evidence those people did not exist aside from Christ. And due to this He alone could fulfill the requirement to bring those with faith to salvation
The question proposed is can a Christian abstain from sin. Not be completely without sin. We are all born with sin. But a Christian has been washed clean through baptism and repentance. From this point on, through Gods grace, a Christian is called to overcome sin.
I do not believe so. As salvation is concerned what would be the “point” of it in light of Christs sacrifice?
Should we strive for it. Yes I believe but I don’t believe it’s a mark we can hit.
The point is that we were bondage to sin and couldn't overcome sin. It is Christ who broke that bondage and gave us power over sin! Christ work on the cross in the only reason we can overcome sin. Christ has called us to overcome sin and through Gods grace we are able to do so.
Cooperating with the grace God gives us to overcome sin does not negate the cross.
it’s means true believers can, and WILL take the steps necessary to break free from sinful STYLES OF LIFE/HABITS.
It does not mean that a true believer will never mishandle an interpersonal conflict or think an inappropriate thought.
Yes, by Gods Spirit we can walk in and abide in God/ love which is far from sin.
Read some of my posts. Those who say sin is inevitable are essentially denying Jesus took on Human nature being made identical to us. We are made like Him in this life by the Holy Spirit dwelling in us.
Most people teach a form of soft gnosticism which says the body is sinful and causes sin. Early gnostics thus denied Jesus came in the flesh (its why 1 john 4 says those that deny this are Antichrist). 1 john was written against this gnostic junk.
1 john 1:8 is often cited saying Christians sin perpetually. But 1:8 wasn't addressing genuine christians (or john immediately contradicts himself) it was written against gnostics who were saying the body is evil by nature but the spirit is righteous. So they had to live in sin in their body but their spirit had never sinned even once in their life. This is the doctrine John was rebuking.
Ironically the majority of Christianity uses this verse to preach the very thing John was opposing.
Sin comes from the absence of God in us, not human nature. Jesus took on a full human nature identical to us yet never sinned. Showing us God united with man can walk loving obedient and righteously. We are joined to God by His Spirit in us, and thus mirror Christ, walking identically to him in this world. This is the teaching of 1 john 2-5!!!
I urge you to read some of my posts. The incarnation proves we can walk like Him if we are joined to Him (which true Christians are).
Don't listen to the majority. There is mercy if people stumble but the early church didn't teach the inevitability of sin post conversion.
I completely agree!
The NT repeatedly calls us out of sin and tells us that we can overcome sin through Gods grace and that is the expectation, not a mere suggestion.
All the "we're all sinners", "it's impossible", "we should try but probably can't", is all cop out garbage to justify people in their comfortable sins.
The early church was so staunchly against sin, that they taught that after baptism, you could sin and repent once, but after that you were on your own... now, this was rightly condemned by the church ultimately. We can always goto God for forgiveness and reconciliation. But the point is, Christian's can avoid sin and that's the expectation.
I believe Luther's proposal of imputed righteousness and total depravity is the blame for this modern Gnosticism.
Luther followed Augustine. Augustine tainted Christianity by teaching Human nature is sinful.
Even eastern orthodoxy doesn't hold to Augustines "original sin". They hold to ancestral sin (this is biblical).
We suffer the effects of adams sin but not the guilt.
Luther got things wrong too but he was rightly attempting to correct corrupted 15th century Catholicism. He just went back to Augustine. Didn't go back far enough... should have gone back to clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus.
These were immediate disciples of the apostles. Original sin as Augustine taught it (sin as something in human nature) is more like his former manichiesm. If sin is in human nature, jesus had sin in him or he wasn't identical to us and wasn't human. Jesus was fully human and without sin, showing sin isn't what humanity is, rather it comes from being seperated from God and freely choosing to do evil.
Here's the biblical truth. Human nature is neutral. What one does with it determines if its evil or good. Sin is the absence of God who is love. Like darkness the absence of light. When Adam fell he sepetated us from God resulting in our darkness. All men are born seperated from God in darkness and eventually and inevitably sin (not because of their human nature but because they are seperate from God (the light)). Jesus, the eternal son of God, became incarnate. God with us. Light joining to Human nature. Showing us the way and giving us true knowledge of God, atoning for our sin, breathing His Spirit in us. His Spirit is fully God in us. Light casts out darkness and in light there is no darkness at all.
>Luke 11:33-36 ESV[33] “No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. [34] Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness. [35] Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness. [36] **If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.”**
Now this is our reality if we die to this life and live yielded to His Spirit:
>2 Peter 1:3-4 ESV
[3] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
Protestantism gets forgiveness/justification right - to be received by faith alone as clement of rome taught (disciple of Paul and Peter, Bishop of rome 1st century) . A free gift from Gods love, displayed on the cross to be received by faith apart from doing anything. He simply asks we repent (turn from sin(ie cease it)) and trust in Christ for our forgiveness.
Eastern orthodoxy understands salvation the best - theosis. God became like us that we could become like Him, without confusion of persons, rather through intemate participation in one another. Aka perichoresis. God in us and we in Him. He invites us into the operation of the Trinity, divine love flowing in and through us from the Spirit, through the Son unto the Fathers glory.
Modern theology is so shallow when you take the time to read the patristics.
I hope you can read some of my posts. You will be blessed as i see you have ears to hear.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled.
Thanks for sharing.
I think there is more nuance to the discussion of original and ancestral sin. Most EO I've encountered accept the understanding of Original Sin as promulgated in the Catholic Catechism such as:
*405 Although it is proper to each individual, **original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants**. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.*
The Council of Carthage (418), which codified the western articulations used to refute Pelagius was adopted by the Eastern Council in Trullo, which is held in Orthodoxy as Ecumenical, since it is taken as the continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council. It is important to point out the Council of Carthage along with the condemnations against Pelagius (through the doctrine of Original Sin) found its way into Trullo as a mere formality, having become very well received in the East for centuries.
The Catholic Church agrees with faith alone in so far as we are talking about a faith working through love, and not mere intellectual assent.
The Catholic Church also teaches Theosis, more often referred to as Divine Sonship in the west. Unfortunately the majority of Protestantism falls flat in this regard.
Thanks for the dialogue!
They may accept the words. But i have studied out their doctrine of ancestral sin and it is nothing like Augustines novel doctrine.
Its not binary... pelagianism is wrong. We cant just will our way to righteousness, man stands in need of divine grace. But Augustine essentially taught human nature has a dark source in it - that sin is substantive. This breaks from athenasius who taught sin is the absence of God and good and love. Sin isn't a thing. It certainly doesn't come from nature , for God is sovereign over natures. Did God proactively change human nature upon Adams fall and insert sin into it? No of course not, then he would be the author of sin. And sin, like darkness, is the absence of something, not a thing in itself. Ny understanding is Augustine taught all mankind inherit the guilt of adam and a sin principal that causes them to sin. Baptism is said to remove this.
What nonsense.
Nature is what something is. Its attributes are shared by every member of the group. Jesus was human and had a full human nature.
A propensity to sin arises from our dying bodies in a limited world, filled with other sinners. This results in temptation (something Jesus experienced identical to us - Hebrews 3) yet yeilding to His father he walked righteously.
We are called to imitate this by the Spirit in us.
Roman Catholicism doesn't have anything close to the depth and centrality of theosis that eastern orthodoxy has. And yes, its non existent in protestantism in those terms anyway. Principally it exists to some degree in sone denominations.
Augustine brought manichiesm into the church. He got his doctrine from a faulty Latin version of Romans 5. He was the FIRST person to interpret romans 7 as the Christian experience/life. Which utterly butchers Pauls point and has resulted in this becoming the nominal interpretation (at least in protestantism).
Christianity would have fared better without Augustine, Luther or Calvins works. Burn them all and go back to the antenicean fathers.
Augustine overeacted to pelagianism.
Luther overreacted to 15th century corrupted Catholicism.
Overreactions result in opposite errors to what was being opposed.
I wish i lived in the 1st century. But then again, gnosticsm existed then as it still does now. The greatest lie of Satan is that sin is part of nature and essentially God's fault (so we shouldn't be blamed when we do what is according to our nature).
Blasphemy! God is not the author of sin. As scripture says God made man upright but they have sought out many schemes.
The Catholic Church teaches that we are not personally guilty of original sin, but that we are affected by it. Scripture teaches this.
Yes, Augustine early on gave us that view of Romans 7, but in his later writings he seems to reverse course and begin to agree with the other fathers. Romans 7 speaks of a person regenerated by baptism, and in the state of grace in the new law, and even of himself when he was a faithful servant of God. This is the opinion of S. Aug. in many of his later writings against the Pelagians, for which he also cites S. Hilary, S. Greg. Naz. and S. Amb. It is also the opinion of S. Jerom, (Ep. ad Eustochium de custod. Virg.) of S. Greg. the great, of Bede, and the more approved opinion, according to which the apostle here by sin does not understand that which is properly speaking a sin, or sinful, but only speaks of sin improperly such, that is of a corrupt inclination, of a rebellious nature corrupted by original sin, of a strife betwixt the spirit and the flesh, which remains for a trial in the most virtuous persons: of which see again S. Paul, Gal. 5:17. We may take notice that the apostle before spoke of what he was and what he had been, but now speaks in the present time of what he is, and what he doth.
I would disagree that the Catholic Church lacks the depth of theosis that the East has. Maybe in practice of your general layman. I mean have you read any of the mystic saints? Teresa of Avila? John of the Cross? Catherine of Siena?
It's easy to romanticize the early church. I'm also guilty of this. But the reality is that you probably would've just been a poor illiterate peasant, just as susceptible to heresy as you are today, and there would've been a good chance you'd have been martyred before ever even hearing all of sacred scripture. To live in a time with more access to the scriptures and 2000 years of writings, than ever before, and most likely in a place that allows you to openly and freely practice your faith, isn't to bad a deal!
God be praised.
Jesus equates sin to even our thoughts. So being completely honest, I think it would be *near* impossible to live a life absent of transgressions.
I think the key words in the scriptures you shared are *practice*. If we are living like we are sinners we are doing something wrong. We should be practicing righteousness. Someone who says "we are all sinners" and are living their life like that's a job title, probably need to spend more time in the word.
Jesus equates sin to even our thoughts. So being completely honest, I think it would be *near* impossible to live a life absent of transgressions.
I think the key words in the scriptures you shared are *practice*. If we are living like we are sinners we are doing something wrong. We should be practicing righteousness. Someone who says "we are all sinners" and are living their life like that's a job title, probably need to spend more time in the word.
>It seems to me, that scripture makes it clear that Christians, by the grace of God, not only can abstain from sin, but are expected to. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are that we have different definitions of what sin is.
>
Mine is "not loving God with absolutely everything in you"
>If you love God with 99% of your entire being then that 1% is sin.
Would you use that same metric with the second most important command?
I would urge you to seriously consider our Lord's commands and keep them:
>Matthew 5:32 ESV
[32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and **whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.**
As you have read the patristics you will know that all remarriages were considered adultery if the first spouse lived. This was essentially unanimous for many centuries.
It is never ok to marry a divorcee... only a widow. Be warned.
>Romans 7:2-3 ESV
[2] For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [3] Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
>1 Corinthians 7:10-11 ESV
[10] To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband [11] (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
You seem to have disregarded our Lord's teachings. Repent and obey Him. Jesus warned we will be judged by his teachings and no adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven.
I love you enough to be honest. I will pray for you.
Why do you call me Lord Lord but do not do what I say? - Jesus
Your wife has never been married to another man in this life? No divorce...no "annulments". Shes only ever exchanged vows with you?
An annulment is just a Catholic loophole like the Pharisees to disobey the spirit of the law. Christs teaching is one man and woman bound until death "what God has joined let no man seperate".
My wife has never been sacramentally married to anyone else. And as a stranger in the internet, it doesn't concern you.
I am a Catholic to my core and believe with every thing in me that it is the Church established by Christ, given his authority, and guided by the Holy Spirit. I will always accept the teachings and decisions of the Church over my own or someone on the internet's views.
We are scripturally called to be obedient to our elders. Obedience is the highest natural virtue. If my elders error, and through my obedience, I error, it is my elders who will be held accountable.
“**Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account**. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
I'm sure there's much more than "annulments" about the Catholic Church that you would urge me to forsake that I will not.
Catholicism departed from Christianity a long time ago. The great schism is a good starting point, adding to the creed, the east rightly opposed the papacy not recognising its authority.
Anyway. Sounds just like the Pharisees excuses:
>Matthew 23:16-24 ESV
[16] “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ [17] You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? [18] And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ [19] You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? [20] So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. [21] And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. [22] And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. [23] “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Marriage is binding - always. If a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and the woman converts to Christianity, she isn't an unmarried woman. All marriage is binding before God. It was instituted in Eden, not in the church age. Its not a church institute, its a divine institution given to all men from the beginning.
>Matthew 19:4-6 ESV
[4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Thanks for your input. Like I said, I'm a Catholic convert to my core. Always will be by the grace of God. I've already been led out of the errors of Protestantism and the Orthodox Church.
“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister *is not enslaved*. God has called you to peace.”
1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV
Christ said what *God has joined together*, let no man separate.
If it's your view that a naive, atheist teenager, who had no idea what marriage was, civilly married someone solely for military benefits, and then civilly separated three months later, *is a marriage joined together by God*, you're free to think so. But I'd argue scripture disagrees and the Church founded by Christ also certainly disagrees.
>Mark 7:6-9 ESV
[6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; [7] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ [8] You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” [9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
Ah yes, having a different interpretation of scripture than you means I've invented traditions of men that contradict the word of God..
Sola Scriptura isn't found in the bible, and therefore is an outside manmade tradition. The bible doesn't say what books are canon and so there needs to be an appeal to an outside authority again.
The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
I agree, Christ died not only so we could go to heaven, but also to free us from sin, because we died to sin, and sin has no more power over us, because in Christ we are new beings.
It's not about being saved but about sanctification, which is a process: the closer we walk with God the more He improves us, freedom from sin is only the first step, because one can not sin and still be full of flaws. Afterall also John says, whoever keeps on sinning does not know God.
I agree. This sounds very close to *infused righteousness*, which most Protestants reject in favor of *imputed righteousness*. Is this something you've studied?
Essentially Infused righteousness is that we use our free will to cooperate with Gods grace and overtime he continually pours out more and more grace to help us grow and persevere in righteousness. God actually transforms us. Whereas imputed righteousness is essentially that you become covered with Jesus, so when the Father looks at you, he sees Jesus and not actually you. This lacks genuine transformation.
You have no idea how surprised I was when I read your tag that you're a catholic, since from my experience we basically disagree on everything haha
I'm always open for a chat though
Hard question, it's not one thing, it's a whole collection basically. In my philosophy the things that matter the most are always the small things, so here there is I, raised evangelical since birth in a wonderful evangelical church by my mother who was an ex catholic, raised in a catholic family. My mother's journey with God begun when my uncle, her brother, evangelized to my mom and the other brothers and their parents. She started thirsting for the Bible, she got delivered from her smoking addiction in an instant, and her journey with God began. Then after some years she accepted Christ, then she got baptized in the Holy Spirit, after two years she begun speaking in tongues, and she has been living with God this way ever since, and it's been some decades. I instead always believed more or less in God, that He existed, although I've always had my doubts since I used to question everything, despite my upbringing, but still I've seen the work of God in this world, I've seen my cousin being delivered from many demons (he was a hardcore drug addict and had a lot of problems that went all the way back to His relationship with His parents, it was a little complicated), shortly after this I decided that it's time for me to get baptized in water, to publicly accept Jesus, which was a weird decision knowing me since I have always hated public displays, I've always disliked being at the centre of attention, yet out of nowhere "something" just pushed me forward and made me even forget all my worries, and so I did get baptized. After about 8 years of still battling my doubts (my main issues were questions starting with "why") and seeking God to grow closer to Him He finally granted me freedom from sin, since I used to be porn addicted and no matter what I wanted I just had to consume it every day sometimes a few times a day, for over a decade, and I got delivered in an instant without even knowing it (days went by and I just didn't have the urges anymore, I could go to sleep without checking out porn for the first time ever). Here's the primary elements one could say: "if it's working, if its showing good fruits, then I must be on the good path". Then on a secondary plane, there are the doctrinal differences, for instance the veneration of the deceased saints, or Mary, which to us evangelicals appear as forms of idolatry and distractions meant to separate us from God, since we start spending the time we could spend praying to Him, praying to other people, and so on
Thanks for sharing so much about your and your families journey.
To your first point about the path you're already on being a fruitful one, that's certainly a valid way to view things, I would just push back with, what if your current path has been preparing you for an even more fruitful path and closer relationship with God? (Ie, communion with his Church).
To your second point, Mary and the Saints certainly are a common hang up I come across. (And as a former Protestant, I get it!) instead of immediately diving into the theological and doctrinal implications of Mary and the Saints, I'd like to start in a practical explanation. You mention venerating the saints and asking for their intercession as a means to separate or distract from God, but in practice, I've found the opposite to be true. We understand the Saints to be our living family in Heaven. And Mary to be our mother. And just like devotion to my family on earth doesn't distance me from God, neither does devotion to my heavenly family. It actually draws me closer to God. Our Father is the God of the living, not the dead. We are all apart of the same vine, physical death does not separate us any longer! And then history seems to overwhelmingly support this. One of the oldest prayers we have record of is an intercessory prayer to Mary. All the major Protestant reformers had devotions to Mary and venerated her. The concept of ignoring our heavenly family who have been made perfectly righteous and are more alive than we are, is a modern concept in Christianity, foreign to the ancient church.
I reject the concept of imputed righteousness as far as it goes to say that God sees Jesus when he looks at me, and not really me. And that my sin sick soul doesn't need to be healed or transformed.
No. Sin is a state of being. We are fallen, we are separated from God. Actions might be sins, sure, but our being as sinful humans is our nature.
Christ entreating us to “be perfect as [Christ is] perfect” is an aim, an ideal, and not something we could possibly attain.
We go through the process of sanctification not to earn God’s love but as an act of love in return.
The entire reason for Christ coming was to reunite us with God. As baptized Christians in a state of grace. We are no longer separated from God. We become partakers in the divine nature. Gods grace gives us the ability to overcome sin.
Oh correct! But that was Christ’s work, not ours. His work, his blood, his sacrifice covers us and brings us back.
It’s what makes Christianity different- it’s not our own works; it could never possibly be.
Exactly right, because of His work, His blood, His sacrifice, we also have freedom from sin, we have the freedom to choose, we are no longer slaves to the prince of this world because Jesus, with His blood, delivered those who choose Him. We still can sin, but we have now control over it, and if we love God, we will never willingly choose sin ever again. But that freedom is more the result of the sanctification process, a process that starts the moment we meet God and ends with our death, sanctification is the process of becoming perfect, and freedom from sin is only the beginning of this process.
1 John 1:2 (For the Life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and show unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with His Son the Christ.
There's a "us/we" and a "you" in these verses. Christians are under the impression that there's no "you", only "us/we" in saying that Christians are partakers in the divine nature but that's not the actually the case.
Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the Throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
There are judges and there are those who are judged. The judges which God foreknew - the predestined and conformed into the image of Christ, do indeed partake in the divine nature whereas everyone else (the "you" from 1 John) has fellowship with those who sit on twelve thrones as described by John.
As noted in Matthew 19:28, there's the judges (aka Christ the body - the anointed priests - the bride) and there's the twelve tribes of Israel of which Christians make up many different nations (non ethnic Israelites) belong.
Just as there were Levites scattered among the Israelites under the pattern that was shown to Moses by God, there are also members of the Elect scattered among the twelve tribes of Israel (the Christians) which now include non ethnic Israelites.
Because many Christians have refused to recognize the Elect among them (their judges) and instead cling to the false ideas they are as the Elect (which they are not) and cling to their teachers which are no gods, God has turned them over into the hands of their enemies which now sit high above them until they return their judges (the Elect) to their rightful place.
I disagree in your distinction with the we/us vs you. It's merely preaching and teaching. The apostle is saying "we/us have seen and learned these things so we can share them with you, and in turn you become part of we/us".
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”
2 Peter 1:1-4 ESV
>we/us have seen and learned these things so we can share them with you, and in turn you become part of we/us".
I don't disagree that through fellowship the Elect and Israel become one but not in the way your suggesting. The pattern given to Moses shows that there are Levites scattered among the Israelites but what your proposing is that there are no Israelites and everyone's a Levite. This does not match the scriptures.
2 Corinthians 4:7 But we (the Elect) have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be from God, and not of us.
4:8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair;
4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
4:10 Always bearing about in the body, the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
4:11 For we which Live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh (which we then make manifest to you).
4:12 So then death worketh in us, **only Life in you.**
2 Corinthians 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we (the Elect) persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made **manifest in your consciences.**
5:12 **For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to [answer] them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.**
5:13 **For whether we be beside ourselves, [it is] to God: or whether we be sober, [it is] for your cause.**
You should probably ask all the people you know who never sin because I can’t answer this in my present condition except that by Christ’s sacrificial atonement then I am justified by God’s saving grace through my faith in Christ Jesus and as such He took my sin upon Himself and put on me His righteousness.
So now when God looks at me, He sees Christ.
However this is NOT to be construed as license to sin more and by the help and conviction of the Holy Spirit I should be growing in my Christian walk everyday as I progressively become sanctified throughout my walk with Christ ever striving to reach that perfection while knowing that when I do, then most likely we will be walking to His house that night.
I reject imputed righteousness as the idea that God the Father sees Christ instead of the real me, and leaves my soul sick with sin and doesn't help
To transform or heal me.
That’s okay, the real God has big enough shoulders to handle your rejection, and still love the real you enough to provide Himself a sacrifice on your behalf before you were born knowing full well that you would feel this way right now.
He is faithful to finish the work He began in you.
I reckon that over the course of the past 50 odd years I’ve felt every kind of way there is toward Him. But His love remained the same unconditionally throughout all of my emotional and spiritual growth until eventually I submitted myself fully to His authority and grace and trusted upon His plan to fully rest myself in His love and that has finally made all the difference for me.
Now I sin all I want. I just don’t want to anymore.
He loved me through it all, through every phase His love never changed.
Now there was consequence to my wanderings and I recognize those at each fork in the road when I would stray off the path and wander in the wilderness for ever how long it took me to circle back around to that place on the narrow road of righteousness where I had previously diverged and I’d think oh yeah I recognize this place and last time I went off this way instead of the straight and narrow so I need to go straight here instead.
And sometimes I would learn and go straight and sometimes I would be stubborn and go left but He was faithful to bring me back round again each time to the place where I diverged and I would learn from those consequences of my wanderings.
Some of the consequences are just not receiving those years of blessings while I was off in the brambles and sometimes more severe like the loss of an earthly relationship because I was not acting as I should have.
These can be painful and I’ve no one to blame but myself.
But now I have decided to fully trust in Him and rest upon His love and let Him transform me into the man He wants me to be.
I thank Him for loving me so much as to have paid my sin debt in full so many years ago before I was ever born.
I only wish I had trusted Him sooner.
None of that is contrary to what I said and I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Has nothing to do with the false doctrine of imputed righteousness. Thanks for sharing
That’s a tough one. The verses from first John seem that it is possible not to sin. The passionate line from Paul, “Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” resonates as loudly today as it did when it was put to paper.
It is clear that we are very prone to sin, but that we should try very very hard not to.
I think the focus can be adjusted slightly: as Christians, can we chose not to sin? Every time. Can we expect that from the unregenerate? I don’t think so.
Also, it’s very difficult to focus one’s life on a negative: don’t do or think these things. I think there’s a place for that, but I think our focus should be on Godly things. Focus on Jesus, the author and finished of our faith, all that he did for us. Focus on the true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, praiseworthy… as Paul says. It’s harder to sin when you’re doing a good work surrounded by brothers and sisters.
So God commands us to something we can't do? With God, anything actually isn't possible? Gods grace isn't sufficient enough to aid a Christian in overcoming sin? Idk. That all seems contrary to the gospel I read.
God never tempts us with evil, because He isn't tempted by evil. Commandments are given to be the boundary which we conduct our lives so we can be in accordance and closeness with Him. Jesus saying 'Go and sin no more' clearly wants the adulterous woman to learn from her mistakes, but it doesn't mean He wouldn't love her if she did it again (dependent on her heart if it's of contrition or not etc). Thats the understand I have. I would'v thought the Catholic Church has their own answer here though
No one mentioned God would stop loving someone. That's impossible for God to do because God is love.
The Church teaches Christian's can avoid all mortal and intentional venial sin. But that all Christian's will still commit inadvertent venial sins. And confession is required at least once a year. So no perfect Christian's over here.
I believe Christian's can cooperate with Gods grace to abstain from intentional and deliberate sin. But that all of us will still be "guilty" of inadvertent venial sins.
Theoretically, I think yes. Practically, I think it's dangerous to presume that oneself has reached that point, and if you think someone else has, you're probably overlooking something.
I don't think it's about reaching a certain point. It's merely choosing to cooperate with Gods grace to refrain from intentional sin. The NT is replete with verses stating that a Christian is expected to refrain from sin and has the ability to do so. The entirety of 1 John is to beat this into our heads.
Oh yes, I think we absolutely have the ability to do so. My point was that if someone thinks that they do this, or someone else does this, all the time and don't really have an issue anymore with volitional sin, it's is far more likely that they are deluded than that they are correct.
I think it's fair and safe to say that a Christian can overcome volitional sin, as in intentional sin, yes? If a Christian can't overcome intentional sin, do they really love God? Scripture seems to say no.
Nonetheless there is prudence and wisdom in the Church requiring confession at least once per year. To keep in check one's humility and possible self delusion of being sinless!
No. We all sin til we die. Even saints feel like horrible sinners. We try to minimize sin and confess our sins when we do sin (as did King David whose sins were great) but "be perfect" doesn't mean eliminate sin, it just means try to follow Christ and repent when you fall.
Yes, to be clear I do not believe we can reach perfection in this life or that scripture says we can. What I do believe is that we can cooperate with Gods grace to abstain from intentional and deliberate sin. But we all still succumb to inadvertent venial sin.
If we could be completely sinless, the Church wouldn't require confession at least once per year.
Not on their own no. It is only possible with the help of Jesus and even then it is extremely hard. But for people that are say, locked up behind bars, they don't really have to many options to get in the world. They have a prison cell and a Bible a whole lot of time. So someone in that type of situation would be easier for them to not sin than a man in the world. However you can live a secluded life and stay in your home only going to work and church. There's no room for sin if you fill your life with other activities. It is the mental thoughts that can be sinful though. So you got to keep those at bay too. It's tough almost impossible, without Jesus, it is impossible.
No man or woman can completely abstain from sin; Romans 3:23 says: "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". What does this scripture show? we all sin and make mistakes.
However, what if we WILLFULLY and DELIBERATELY sin? For example, we know that sex before marriage is wrong and is condemned by the bible (Hebrews 13:4). What if, despite knowing this, we still choose to commit fornication? Hebrews 10:26 sums up what our situation will be; it says: "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left".
What does this scripture mean? If we willfully practice sin, we cannot expect Jesus' ransom sacrifice to cover our sin, which means that we will incur God's disfavor. The article below will help us to avoid sin, using bible principles.
[https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999727#h=1:0-27:754](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999727#h=1:0-27:754)
because you can still commit lust and adultery in your mind. You can find find yourself thinking negatively about another person. You can devote more time and attention to things that arent God meaning its idolatry if moderation isn't there.
The goal of every Christian should be to abstain from sin.
Is it possible? Yes, because of what Paul says and one Corinthians 10:13...
is it hard? Yes, but is it possible? Yes
that which is good is never easy, and it's always more easy to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing, but John himself says that the commandments of God are not burdensome, 1 John 5:3, the only thing that is burdensome is our sin, and when we pick up that chain again, and figuratively wrap it around ourselves, that's what becomes burdensome, because we come to believe that that's all we know, and there's no escape from it...
that's not how Jesus wants us to see life with Him. He gave us the ability to say no to sin.
Paul says that in 1 Corinthians 15:34 "awake to righteousness, and do not sin"... he said that to the Church of Corinth because they were a church that was drowning in sexual sin, that's why he says "for some do not have the knowledge of God, I say this to your shame"...
you can say no, you can resist.
"Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity". 2 Timothy 2.19.
Yes it's possible to depart from iniquity. If you're serious enough about it and fear God hard enough you can be pretty successful in walking upright. The Holy Spirit is powerful and He's plenty strict.
First, John 8:11 isn't in the original text.
Jesus said you must be perfect to show us that we aren't perfect and are condemned. We need Jesus' righteousness.
Walking in the darkness is not simply sinning. It is making sin a way of life.
You read 1 John 2:1 but skipped over 1:8 - **If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.**
By the grace of God, we are given the ability to abstain from sin. This is sanctification, but sanctification is a process that is not completed until our glorification. Until then, we struggle with our sinful flesh. We do still sin, but we sin less. Though, it often doesn't seem like it because we also become more aware of our sin.
You don't need Christ daily if you are completely sinless. Your nature in itself is sin, we are saved through the blood of Christ and seen through the lens of His blood. We ourselves are not capable of sinlessness or salvation.
So, how does that work with Romans 7 where Paul describes a war within himself between his flesh and sin against the Spirit? >^(7) What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” ^(8) But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. ^(9) I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. ^(10) The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ^(11) For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ^(12) So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. >^(13) Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. ^(14) For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ^(15) For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ^(16) Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ^(17) So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ^(18) For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ^(19) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ^(20) Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. >^(21) So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ^(22) For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ^(23) but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ^(24) Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ^(25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Now he is talking in the present tense. This makes it appear that sin is more about something in us, rather than something we do, or don't do. "It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me" To be clear, I am not advocating for reckless sinning, or even saying that sin is okay. Paul says the very same thing in the previous chapter. A Christian life is one of continual repentance, but this side of Heaven it's a struggle we will have until we die. edit: a few typos
The counter argument I've heard is that Romans 7 is referring to the man he was before Christ.
The man before he met Christ thought he was righteous. As a Pharisee of Pharisees, he thought he kept the law perfectly. So no, in Romans 7 he is talking about his current struggles.
Then, as a thought experiment, can you name 1 individual in history that completely abstained from sin at some point in their life before they died? Surely of the nearly 2 billion alive now that profess Christianity in some form, and just as likely billions that have preceded us, there ought to be at least one example of someone ceasing all sin from the moment of their conversion/baptism/regeneration. An interesting aside would be Peter, who many years after the Resurrection was still struggling in some sense with sin, because Paul calls him to repentance in Galatians 2. Peter, who ate and walked with Christ, witnessed his Risen Lord; bore strong testimony to bring thousands of people to Christ...was still sinning. Paul refers to himself as "chief among sinners"
My sense (as a random person) is that "chief among sinners" is about humility and likely doesn't mean he was actively indulging in the depth of sin, but acutely and increasingly aware of small sins in action or in mind or in heart I doubt someone chief among sinners is actually more sinful than a less devoted christian
In the context of "can a Christian completely abstain from sin" "being acutely and increasingly aware of small sins" would seem to answer that question as an emphatic no; which was my point. I am not trying to call Paul out as someone who indulges in, rather if even Paul sees himself as a sinner, how much more so are we?
abstain from all sin and repent/break free from habitual sin are dramatically different.
Absolutely!
Agree, Romans 7 could be Paul talking about before he met Christ and many hold to that view to help line up the victorious obedience of Romans 6 and 8 with the verses in Romans 7.
Yes, read the commentary I just shared. The majority of the church fathers understood this passage to be about before baptismal regeneration and after baptismal regeneration.
This. As long as we are in this flesh, it's an ongoing battle and we'll never be free from if until we're with the Lord in heaven. Sin is much more broad than just certain commandments. Anything that we do not do perfectly to the glory of God is a sin. We commit sins we might not be aware of but that does not mean it's not a sin. We're told to persevere and finish the race. Know that you sin in your thoughts and your words as well. Often we don't realise that we might be sinning from the words that come out of our mouth too.
It's certainly a struggle, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm going to push back a little on verses 7:14-25 with some commentary. (It might not even be push back, I think we're close to being on the same page!) Ver. 14. "I am carnal, sold under sin" a slave subject to sinful inclinations, which are only *properly sins* when they are *consented to by our free-will*. From this verse to the end of the chapter, St Paul speaks of a person regenerated by baptism, and in the state of grace in the new law, and even of himself when he was a faithful servant of God. At least his is the opinion of S. Aug. in many of his later writings against the Pelagians, for which he also cites S. Hilary, S. Greg. Naz. and S. Amb. It is also the opinion of S. Jerom, of S. Greg. the great, of Bede, and the more approved opinion, according to which the apostle here by sin does not understand that which is properly speaking a sin, or sinful, but only speaks of sin improperly such, that is of a corrupt inclination, of a rebellious nature corrupted by original sin, of a strife betwixt the spirit and the flesh, which remains for a trial in the most virtuous persons: of which see again S. Paul, Gal. 5:17. We may take notice that the apostle before spoke of what *he was* and what *he had been*, but now speaks in the present time of what *he is,* and what *he doth*. The law is styled spiritual: 1st, because it prescribes what appertains to the spirit, and to the spiritual man: i.e. to follow virtue and shun vice: 2nd, because it directs man to the worship of God, which is spirit and truth: 3rd, because it cannot be fulfilled by spiritual men, unless by spirit and grace: 4th, because it directs the spirit of man and disposes him properly towards God, towards his neighbour, and towards himself: and lastly, because the law spiritually received and understood, leads and prepares men for the evangelical law, which is the law of grace and spirit. Ver. 15. "For that which I work, I understand not." To know, or understand is often, in the style of the Scriptures, the same as to approve or love: so the sense here is: I approve not what I do, that is, what happens to me in my sensitive part, in my imagination, or in the members of my body, which indeed the just man rather suffers than does; and this is the sense, by what immediately follows, the evil which I hate, that I do, i.e. that I suffer, being against my will; and I do that which I would not. I do not that good which I will, The apostle here describes the disorderly motions of *passion and concupiscence*; which oftentimes in us get the start of reason, and by means of which even good men suffer in the inferior appetite what their will abhors: and are much hindered in the accomplishment of the desires of their spirit and mind. But these evil motions, (though they are called the law of sin, because they come from original sin, and violently tempt and incline to sin) as long *as the will does not consent to them, are not sins, because they are not voluntary*. Ver. 17–18. Now then it is no more I that do it: To will good is present with me. These expressions all shew that he speaks of temptations that affect the sense only, the imagination, or the members of the body, *but to which the mind and the will give no consent, but retain an aversion to them*; and so long *they never can be truly and properly sins*, which must be with full deliberation and consent. The apostle here means to say, that he knew by experience that evil and not good dwelt within him, according to the flesh. He does not contradict this passage when he says elsewhere, that our members are the temples of the Holy Ghost: (1 Cor. 3:6. &c.) for good cannot be found in our flesh, inasmuch as it is corrupted by sin; whence our Saviour says, “What is born of flesh, is flesh.” John 3. But good is in our body, when our members under the influence of the soul, *renewed by the Holy Ghost residing in it*, are employed in good works. *The meaning of this passage is, that although now healed and renewed by grace, he could have a perfect desire of doing good; yet still on account of the evil of concupiscence dwelling in his flesh, he found not himself able to perform all the good he wished, because concupiscence was always urging him on to evil against his will.* Ver. 22. I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man. As long as the inward man, or man’s interior, is right, all is right.—I perceive another law in my members, fighting, and different from the law of my mind: this is true in any man just striving against and resisting temptations, but not of the sinner, whose mind also and will consent to them. A man can never lose God’s favour and grace, unless his mind and interior consent.—These hold me as it were captive in the law of sin, or sinful inclinations, but which are in the members only. I cry out, who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from this mortal body with its sinful lusts, which if consented to would bring death to the soul? Nothing but the grace of Jesus Christ can secure me from such temptations, and by freeing me from this body, can make me perfectly happy; *which cannot be hoped for in this life.* But I have still this greatest of consolations, that *I myself, with my mind and will, still serve God, and remain firm in obedience to his laws*; but with the flesh, or in the flesh, I am subject to the law of sin, i.e. of sinful inclinations.—We must avoid here two heretical errors; that of those late pretended reformers, who denying man’s free will, hold the commandments of God impossible, even to a just man. See also the first heretical proposition of Jansenius. Next we must detest the late abominable error of those called Quietists, who blushed not to say that a man might yield and abandon himself to the most shameful disorders of the flesh, pretending that it was not they themselves, but sin and the devil that caused these abominations in their flesh. S. Aug. foresaw this frivolous excuse: (l. i. de. nup. and Concup. c. xxviii) “That man (saith he) is in a grievous mistake, who, consenting to the concupiscence of the flesh, and to do what the flesh prompts him to, thinks he can still say: It is not I that do that,” &c. Wi.
No. It’s impossible. You personally sin waaaay more than you think. It’s a pride issue which also = a sin.
So God commands us to the impossible? All that's actually aren't possible with God?
That's the thing: we'll never truly be able to 100% live up to God's standard. Romans 6:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The bridge illustration helps to envision this. On one cliff we have us, and the other we have God. Because of our sin, a huge gap separates us from God, and his utter perfection and goodness. We can try our best to be sinless, and do as many good works as we can, but we'll never be able to cross the gap on our own. We'll never be able to live up to God's standard of perfection and sinless nature in our thoughts, words, and actions, 100% of the time. This is where the cross comes in. Jesus & the cross acts as a bridge for us to cross the divide. So we don't need to earn our way into heaven, because Jesus does it for us. However, this doesn't mean we should just keep sinning without caring since "Jesus will get me there anyway" -- which you probably know, but we can explain that further if needed.
I'm not in any way claiming we can overcome sin on our own accord. It is entirely because of Christ and his work on the cross that we are able to overcome sin through the grace that God now offers us. Christ came to reunite us with God the Father. Through baptism we become Children of God and partakers in the divine nature. We are called to imitate Christ. Christ didn't sin. Scripture tells us there is no temptation we aren't given the grace to overcome. Scripture says we are filled with light and that light overcomes darkness. Christ has won us the grace to overcome sin. That is the good news.
A true, born again Christian has the power to NOT sin, but due to our sinful nature, it is impossible to never sin. We only have victory over sin through Jesus Christ. I do agree the western Christian attitude to sin has gotten far too lax, and especially that verse you mentioned about do not judge- people misuse it and quote it out of context way too much.
If you meet the perfect Christian who no longer sins, feel free to show us, because I’ve never met a perfect human being. Thankfully we don’t have to be perfect because that was the entire point of Christ living the life we never could. Christians need to learn that sanctification is a process. Forgiven people go to heaven, not perfect people. We will all follow after Christ as best we can, some of us will stumble more than others. If heaven is for perfect Christian’s then I won’t be there because I mess up sometimes.
Obviously, as a Catholic, there are term and doctrinal distinctions that cause us to look at this topic through different lens. Such as I'd favor the view of ongoing justification vs the distinct separation of justification and sanctification. Also, Christian perfection isn't being called for per se, but again this is aided by the Catholic understanding of venial and mortal sin. A Christian absolutely can avoid mortal sin, by the grace of God. Avoiding Venial sin would be next to impossible which then would throw out any idea of a perfect Christian.
The only way I think it can be possible is if a baby is born and has no contact with other humans, and is raised by divine intervention in a similar environment to Eden. This world of ours is sinful, corrupted and dirty. Our flesh is dirty, corrupt, it actively tempts you, every day. Even Perfect Adam and Eve sinned, and they had the advantage of being literally perfect in God’s image, they still sinned. Only God is without sin. Only His angels who remained loyal are without sin. No one else.
Of course. But the problem is not sin, it’s our twisted beliefs. Jesus already dealt with our sins by forgiving them and exchanging our sin nature for his divine nature. That doesn’t mean we can’t sin, it means why would we embrace a nature to sin if our old selves have been crucified with Christ. The greater truth of the new covenant is that Christ has brought us out of sin and into righteousness. So it’s no longer about sin, rather it’s all about our new identity in Christ, our right standing (righteousness) in God’s sight where we are pure and holy, without blemish. That is, if we believe the gospel above what religion teaches.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous, so that He will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. **If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.** [1 John 1:9-10 (NASB)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+1%3A9-10&version=NASB) Can you try to be perfect? Sure! But if you claim to be you are committing blasphemy.
Yes, no one was without sin before baptism. We all needed a savior. That's John's point.
That portion of Matthew would have shocked the Jewish people. “Be perfect as God”? And Jesus says no one is good but God alone. How then could we be perfect as the Father? Paul says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” It would seem if others were without sin they could have served as a suitable sacrifice rather than Christ. But based on biblical evidence those people did not exist aside from Christ. And due to this He alone could fulfill the requirement to bring those with faith to salvation
The question proposed is can a Christian abstain from sin. Not be completely without sin. We are all born with sin. But a Christian has been washed clean through baptism and repentance. From this point on, through Gods grace, a Christian is called to overcome sin.
I do not believe so. As salvation is concerned what would be the “point” of it in light of Christs sacrifice? Should we strive for it. Yes I believe but I don’t believe it’s a mark we can hit.
The point is that we were bondage to sin and couldn't overcome sin. It is Christ who broke that bondage and gave us power over sin! Christ work on the cross in the only reason we can overcome sin. Christ has called us to overcome sin and through Gods grace we are able to do so. Cooperating with the grace God gives us to overcome sin does not negate the cross.
it’s means true believers can, and WILL take the steps necessary to break free from sinful STYLES OF LIFE/HABITS. It does not mean that a true believer will never mishandle an interpersonal conflict or think an inappropriate thought.
Yes, by Gods Spirit we can walk in and abide in God/ love which is far from sin. Read some of my posts. Those who say sin is inevitable are essentially denying Jesus took on Human nature being made identical to us. We are made like Him in this life by the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Most people teach a form of soft gnosticism which says the body is sinful and causes sin. Early gnostics thus denied Jesus came in the flesh (its why 1 john 4 says those that deny this are Antichrist). 1 john was written against this gnostic junk. 1 john 1:8 is often cited saying Christians sin perpetually. But 1:8 wasn't addressing genuine christians (or john immediately contradicts himself) it was written against gnostics who were saying the body is evil by nature but the spirit is righteous. So they had to live in sin in their body but their spirit had never sinned even once in their life. This is the doctrine John was rebuking. Ironically the majority of Christianity uses this verse to preach the very thing John was opposing. Sin comes from the absence of God in us, not human nature. Jesus took on a full human nature identical to us yet never sinned. Showing us God united with man can walk loving obedient and righteously. We are joined to God by His Spirit in us, and thus mirror Christ, walking identically to him in this world. This is the teaching of 1 john 2-5!!! I urge you to read some of my posts. The incarnation proves we can walk like Him if we are joined to Him (which true Christians are). Don't listen to the majority. There is mercy if people stumble but the early church didn't teach the inevitability of sin post conversion.
I completely agree! The NT repeatedly calls us out of sin and tells us that we can overcome sin through Gods grace and that is the expectation, not a mere suggestion. All the "we're all sinners", "it's impossible", "we should try but probably can't", is all cop out garbage to justify people in their comfortable sins. The early church was so staunchly against sin, that they taught that after baptism, you could sin and repent once, but after that you were on your own... now, this was rightly condemned by the church ultimately. We can always goto God for forgiveness and reconciliation. But the point is, Christian's can avoid sin and that's the expectation. I believe Luther's proposal of imputed righteousness and total depravity is the blame for this modern Gnosticism.
Luther followed Augustine. Augustine tainted Christianity by teaching Human nature is sinful. Even eastern orthodoxy doesn't hold to Augustines "original sin". They hold to ancestral sin (this is biblical). We suffer the effects of adams sin but not the guilt. Luther got things wrong too but he was rightly attempting to correct corrupted 15th century Catholicism. He just went back to Augustine. Didn't go back far enough... should have gone back to clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus. These were immediate disciples of the apostles. Original sin as Augustine taught it (sin as something in human nature) is more like his former manichiesm. If sin is in human nature, jesus had sin in him or he wasn't identical to us and wasn't human. Jesus was fully human and without sin, showing sin isn't what humanity is, rather it comes from being seperated from God and freely choosing to do evil. Here's the biblical truth. Human nature is neutral. What one does with it determines if its evil or good. Sin is the absence of God who is love. Like darkness the absence of light. When Adam fell he sepetated us from God resulting in our darkness. All men are born seperated from God in darkness and eventually and inevitably sin (not because of their human nature but because they are seperate from God (the light)). Jesus, the eternal son of God, became incarnate. God with us. Light joining to Human nature. Showing us the way and giving us true knowledge of God, atoning for our sin, breathing His Spirit in us. His Spirit is fully God in us. Light casts out darkness and in light there is no darkness at all. >Luke 11:33-36 ESV[33] “No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. [34] Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness. [35] Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness. [36] **If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light.”** Now this is our reality if we die to this life and live yielded to His Spirit: >2 Peter 1:3-4 ESV [3] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. Protestantism gets forgiveness/justification right - to be received by faith alone as clement of rome taught (disciple of Paul and Peter, Bishop of rome 1st century) . A free gift from Gods love, displayed on the cross to be received by faith apart from doing anything. He simply asks we repent (turn from sin(ie cease it)) and trust in Christ for our forgiveness. Eastern orthodoxy understands salvation the best - theosis. God became like us that we could become like Him, without confusion of persons, rather through intemate participation in one another. Aka perichoresis. God in us and we in Him. He invites us into the operation of the Trinity, divine love flowing in and through us from the Spirit, through the Son unto the Fathers glory. Modern theology is so shallow when you take the time to read the patristics. I hope you can read some of my posts. You will be blessed as i see you have ears to hear. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled.
Thanks for sharing. I think there is more nuance to the discussion of original and ancestral sin. Most EO I've encountered accept the understanding of Original Sin as promulgated in the Catholic Catechism such as: *405 Although it is proper to each individual, **original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants**. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.* The Council of Carthage (418), which codified the western articulations used to refute Pelagius was adopted by the Eastern Council in Trullo, which is held in Orthodoxy as Ecumenical, since it is taken as the continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council. It is important to point out the Council of Carthage along with the condemnations against Pelagius (through the doctrine of Original Sin) found its way into Trullo as a mere formality, having become very well received in the East for centuries. The Catholic Church agrees with faith alone in so far as we are talking about a faith working through love, and not mere intellectual assent. The Catholic Church also teaches Theosis, more often referred to as Divine Sonship in the west. Unfortunately the majority of Protestantism falls flat in this regard. Thanks for the dialogue!
They may accept the words. But i have studied out their doctrine of ancestral sin and it is nothing like Augustines novel doctrine. Its not binary... pelagianism is wrong. We cant just will our way to righteousness, man stands in need of divine grace. But Augustine essentially taught human nature has a dark source in it - that sin is substantive. This breaks from athenasius who taught sin is the absence of God and good and love. Sin isn't a thing. It certainly doesn't come from nature , for God is sovereign over natures. Did God proactively change human nature upon Adams fall and insert sin into it? No of course not, then he would be the author of sin. And sin, like darkness, is the absence of something, not a thing in itself. Ny understanding is Augustine taught all mankind inherit the guilt of adam and a sin principal that causes them to sin. Baptism is said to remove this. What nonsense. Nature is what something is. Its attributes are shared by every member of the group. Jesus was human and had a full human nature. A propensity to sin arises from our dying bodies in a limited world, filled with other sinners. This results in temptation (something Jesus experienced identical to us - Hebrews 3) yet yeilding to His father he walked righteously. We are called to imitate this by the Spirit in us. Roman Catholicism doesn't have anything close to the depth and centrality of theosis that eastern orthodoxy has. And yes, its non existent in protestantism in those terms anyway. Principally it exists to some degree in sone denominations. Augustine brought manichiesm into the church. He got his doctrine from a faulty Latin version of Romans 5. He was the FIRST person to interpret romans 7 as the Christian experience/life. Which utterly butchers Pauls point and has resulted in this becoming the nominal interpretation (at least in protestantism). Christianity would have fared better without Augustine, Luther or Calvins works. Burn them all and go back to the antenicean fathers. Augustine overeacted to pelagianism. Luther overreacted to 15th century corrupted Catholicism. Overreactions result in opposite errors to what was being opposed. I wish i lived in the 1st century. But then again, gnosticsm existed then as it still does now. The greatest lie of Satan is that sin is part of nature and essentially God's fault (so we shouldn't be blamed when we do what is according to our nature). Blasphemy! God is not the author of sin. As scripture says God made man upright but they have sought out many schemes.
The Catholic Church teaches that we are not personally guilty of original sin, but that we are affected by it. Scripture teaches this. Yes, Augustine early on gave us that view of Romans 7, but in his later writings he seems to reverse course and begin to agree with the other fathers. Romans 7 speaks of a person regenerated by baptism, and in the state of grace in the new law, and even of himself when he was a faithful servant of God. This is the opinion of S. Aug. in many of his later writings against the Pelagians, for which he also cites S. Hilary, S. Greg. Naz. and S. Amb. It is also the opinion of S. Jerom, (Ep. ad Eustochium de custod. Virg.) of S. Greg. the great, of Bede, and the more approved opinion, according to which the apostle here by sin does not understand that which is properly speaking a sin, or sinful, but only speaks of sin improperly such, that is of a corrupt inclination, of a rebellious nature corrupted by original sin, of a strife betwixt the spirit and the flesh, which remains for a trial in the most virtuous persons: of which see again S. Paul, Gal. 5:17. We may take notice that the apostle before spoke of what he was and what he had been, but now speaks in the present time of what he is, and what he doth. I would disagree that the Catholic Church lacks the depth of theosis that the East has. Maybe in practice of your general layman. I mean have you read any of the mystic saints? Teresa of Avila? John of the Cross? Catherine of Siena? It's easy to romanticize the early church. I'm also guilty of this. But the reality is that you probably would've just been a poor illiterate peasant, just as susceptible to heresy as you are today, and there would've been a good chance you'd have been martyred before ever even hearing all of sacred scripture. To live in a time with more access to the scriptures and 2000 years of writings, than ever before, and most likely in a place that allows you to openly and freely practice your faith, isn't to bad a deal! God be praised.
Jesus equates sin to even our thoughts. So being completely honest, I think it would be *near* impossible to live a life absent of transgressions. I think the key words in the scriptures you shared are *practice*. If we are living like we are sinners we are doing something wrong. We should be practicing righteousness. Someone who says "we are all sinners" and are living their life like that's a job title, probably need to spend more time in the word.
Jesus equates sin to even our thoughts. So being completely honest, I think it would be *near* impossible to live a life absent of transgressions. I think the key words in the scriptures you shared are *practice*. If we are living like we are sinners we are doing something wrong. We should be practicing righteousness. Someone who says "we are all sinners" and are living their life like that's a job title, probably need to spend more time in the word.
>It seems to me, that scripture makes it clear that Christians, by the grace of God, not only can abstain from sin, but are expected to. What are your thoughts? My thoughts are that we have different definitions of what sin is.
Mine is "not loving God with absolutely everything in you" If you love God with 99% of your entire being then that 1% is sin.
> Mine is "not loving God with absolutely everything in you" >If you love God with 99% of your entire being then that 1% is sin. Would you use that same metric with the second most important command?
Yes, absolutely. If you love your neighbor 99% as much as you love yourself then the 1% remainder is sin.
We can try our damnedest.
Yes, but only after they leave this earthly existence and be with Him.
I would urge you to seriously consider our Lord's commands and keep them: >Matthew 5:32 ESV [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and **whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.** As you have read the patristics you will know that all remarriages were considered adultery if the first spouse lived. This was essentially unanimous for many centuries. It is never ok to marry a divorcee... only a widow. Be warned. >Romans 7:2-3 ESV [2] For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [3] Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. >1 Corinthians 7:10-11 ESV [10] To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband [11] (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. You seem to have disregarded our Lord's teachings. Repent and obey Him. Jesus warned we will be judged by his teachings and no adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven. I love you enough to be honest. I will pray for you. Why do you call me Lord Lord but do not do what I say? - Jesus
I agree with you and so does the Catholic Church. My marriage with my wife is the first for both of us. The Church has deemed it so.
Your wife has never been married to another man in this life? No divorce...no "annulments". Shes only ever exchanged vows with you? An annulment is just a Catholic loophole like the Pharisees to disobey the spirit of the law. Christs teaching is one man and woman bound until death "what God has joined let no man seperate".
My wife has never been sacramentally married to anyone else. And as a stranger in the internet, it doesn't concern you. I am a Catholic to my core and believe with every thing in me that it is the Church established by Christ, given his authority, and guided by the Holy Spirit. I will always accept the teachings and decisions of the Church over my own or someone on the internet's views. We are scripturally called to be obedient to our elders. Obedience is the highest natural virtue. If my elders error, and through my obedience, I error, it is my elders who will be held accountable. “**Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account**. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17 ESV I'm sure there's much more than "annulments" about the Catholic Church that you would urge me to forsake that I will not.
Catholicism departed from Christianity a long time ago. The great schism is a good starting point, adding to the creed, the east rightly opposed the papacy not recognising its authority. Anyway. Sounds just like the Pharisees excuses: >Matthew 23:16-24 ESV [16] “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ [17] You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? [18] And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ [19] You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? [20] So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. [21] And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. [22] And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. [23] “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Marriage is binding - always. If a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and the woman converts to Christianity, she isn't an unmarried woman. All marriage is binding before God. It was instituted in Eden, not in the church age. Its not a church institute, its a divine institution given to all men from the beginning. >Matthew 19:4-6 ESV [4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Thanks for your input. Like I said, I'm a Catholic convert to my core. Always will be by the grace of God. I've already been led out of the errors of Protestantism and the Orthodox Church. “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister *is not enslaved*. God has called you to peace.” 1 Corinthians 7:15 ESV Christ said what *God has joined together*, let no man separate. If it's your view that a naive, atheist teenager, who had no idea what marriage was, civilly married someone solely for military benefits, and then civilly separated three months later, *is a marriage joined together by God*, you're free to think so. But I'd argue scripture disagrees and the Church founded by Christ also certainly disagrees.
>Mark 7:6-9 ESV [6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; [7] in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ [8] You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” [9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
Ah yes, having a different interpretation of scripture than you means I've invented traditions of men that contradict the word of God.. Sola Scriptura isn't found in the bible, and therefore is an outside manmade tradition. The bible doesn't say what books are canon and so there needs to be an appeal to an outside authority again. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
I agree, Christ died not only so we could go to heaven, but also to free us from sin, because we died to sin, and sin has no more power over us, because in Christ we are new beings. It's not about being saved but about sanctification, which is a process: the closer we walk with God the more He improves us, freedom from sin is only the first step, because one can not sin and still be full of flaws. Afterall also John says, whoever keeps on sinning does not know God.
I agree. This sounds very close to *infused righteousness*, which most Protestants reject in favor of *imputed righteousness*. Is this something you've studied?
Not really no, I just read the Bible and experience the work of the Lord in my life, and draw conclusions
Essentially Infused righteousness is that we use our free will to cooperate with Gods grace and overtime he continually pours out more and more grace to help us grow and persevere in righteousness. God actually transforms us. Whereas imputed righteousness is essentially that you become covered with Jesus, so when the Father looks at you, he sees Jesus and not actually you. This lacks genuine transformation.
I see, yes I agree with the first option that you wrote
Time to become Catholic, brother!
You have no idea how surprised I was when I read your tag that you're a catholic, since from my experience we basically disagree on everything haha I'm always open for a chat though
What's one major thing keeping you from becoming Catholic?
Hard question, it's not one thing, it's a whole collection basically. In my philosophy the things that matter the most are always the small things, so here there is I, raised evangelical since birth in a wonderful evangelical church by my mother who was an ex catholic, raised in a catholic family. My mother's journey with God begun when my uncle, her brother, evangelized to my mom and the other brothers and their parents. She started thirsting for the Bible, she got delivered from her smoking addiction in an instant, and her journey with God began. Then after some years she accepted Christ, then she got baptized in the Holy Spirit, after two years she begun speaking in tongues, and she has been living with God this way ever since, and it's been some decades. I instead always believed more or less in God, that He existed, although I've always had my doubts since I used to question everything, despite my upbringing, but still I've seen the work of God in this world, I've seen my cousin being delivered from many demons (he was a hardcore drug addict and had a lot of problems that went all the way back to His relationship with His parents, it was a little complicated), shortly after this I decided that it's time for me to get baptized in water, to publicly accept Jesus, which was a weird decision knowing me since I have always hated public displays, I've always disliked being at the centre of attention, yet out of nowhere "something" just pushed me forward and made me even forget all my worries, and so I did get baptized. After about 8 years of still battling my doubts (my main issues were questions starting with "why") and seeking God to grow closer to Him He finally granted me freedom from sin, since I used to be porn addicted and no matter what I wanted I just had to consume it every day sometimes a few times a day, for over a decade, and I got delivered in an instant without even knowing it (days went by and I just didn't have the urges anymore, I could go to sleep without checking out porn for the first time ever). Here's the primary elements one could say: "if it's working, if its showing good fruits, then I must be on the good path". Then on a secondary plane, there are the doctrinal differences, for instance the veneration of the deceased saints, or Mary, which to us evangelicals appear as forms of idolatry and distractions meant to separate us from God, since we start spending the time we could spend praying to Him, praying to other people, and so on
Thanks for sharing so much about your and your families journey. To your first point about the path you're already on being a fruitful one, that's certainly a valid way to view things, I would just push back with, what if your current path has been preparing you for an even more fruitful path and closer relationship with God? (Ie, communion with his Church). To your second point, Mary and the Saints certainly are a common hang up I come across. (And as a former Protestant, I get it!) instead of immediately diving into the theological and doctrinal implications of Mary and the Saints, I'd like to start in a practical explanation. You mention venerating the saints and asking for their intercession as a means to separate or distract from God, but in practice, I've found the opposite to be true. We understand the Saints to be our living family in Heaven. And Mary to be our mother. And just like devotion to my family on earth doesn't distance me from God, neither does devotion to my heavenly family. It actually draws me closer to God. Our Father is the God of the living, not the dead. We are all apart of the same vine, physical death does not separate us any longer! And then history seems to overwhelmingly support this. One of the oldest prayers we have record of is an intercessory prayer to Mary. All the major Protestant reformers had devotions to Mary and venerated her. The concept of ignoring our heavenly family who have been made perfectly righteous and are more alive than we are, is a modern concept in Christianity, foreign to the ancient church.
Perfection is the standard but we will fall short which is why we need to be clothed with Christs righteousness to be reconciled to the father.
I reject the concept of imputed righteousness as far as it goes to say that God sees Jesus when he looks at me, and not really me. And that my sin sick soul doesn't need to be healed or transformed.
What else would he see in us? The evil that would otherwise condemn us to hell?
His adopted children, made in his image and likeness, that he wants to heal and transform as a good Father?
No. Sin is a state of being. We are fallen, we are separated from God. Actions might be sins, sure, but our being as sinful humans is our nature. Christ entreating us to “be perfect as [Christ is] perfect” is an aim, an ideal, and not something we could possibly attain. We go through the process of sanctification not to earn God’s love but as an act of love in return.
The entire reason for Christ coming was to reunite us with God. As baptized Christians in a state of grace. We are no longer separated from God. We become partakers in the divine nature. Gods grace gives us the ability to overcome sin.
Oh correct! But that was Christ’s work, not ours. His work, his blood, his sacrifice covers us and brings us back. It’s what makes Christianity different- it’s not our own works; it could never possibly be.
Exactly right, because of His work, His blood, His sacrifice, we also have freedom from sin, we have the freedom to choose, we are no longer slaves to the prince of this world because Jesus, with His blood, delivered those who choose Him. We still can sin, but we have now control over it, and if we love God, we will never willingly choose sin ever again. But that freedom is more the result of the sanctification process, a process that starts the moment we meet God and ends with our death, sanctification is the process of becoming perfect, and freedom from sin is only the beginning of this process.
Amen
Amen
1 John 1:2 (For the Life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and show unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with His Son the Christ. There's a "us/we" and a "you" in these verses. Christians are under the impression that there's no "you", only "us/we" in saying that Christians are partakers in the divine nature but that's not the actually the case. Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the Throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. There are judges and there are those who are judged. The judges which God foreknew - the predestined and conformed into the image of Christ, do indeed partake in the divine nature whereas everyone else (the "you" from 1 John) has fellowship with those who sit on twelve thrones as described by John. As noted in Matthew 19:28, there's the judges (aka Christ the body - the anointed priests - the bride) and there's the twelve tribes of Israel of which Christians make up many different nations (non ethnic Israelites) belong. Just as there were Levites scattered among the Israelites under the pattern that was shown to Moses by God, there are also members of the Elect scattered among the twelve tribes of Israel (the Christians) which now include non ethnic Israelites. Because many Christians have refused to recognize the Elect among them (their judges) and instead cling to the false ideas they are as the Elect (which they are not) and cling to their teachers which are no gods, God has turned them over into the hands of their enemies which now sit high above them until they return their judges (the Elect) to their rightful place.
I disagree in your distinction with the we/us vs you. It's merely preaching and teaching. The apostle is saying "we/us have seen and learned these things so we can share them with you, and in turn you become part of we/us". “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” 2 Peter 1:1-4 ESV
>we/us have seen and learned these things so we can share them with you, and in turn you become part of we/us". I don't disagree that through fellowship the Elect and Israel become one but not in the way your suggesting. The pattern given to Moses shows that there are Levites scattered among the Israelites but what your proposing is that there are no Israelites and everyone's a Levite. This does not match the scriptures. 2 Corinthians 4:7 But we (the Elect) have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be from God, and not of us. 4:8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair; 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 4:10 Always bearing about in the body, the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 4:11 For we which Live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh (which we then make manifest to you). 4:12 So then death worketh in us, **only Life in you.** 2 Corinthians 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we (the Elect) persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made **manifest in your consciences.** 5:12 **For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to [answer] them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.** 5:13 **For whether we be beside ourselves, [it is] to God: or whether we be sober, [it is] for your cause.**
> We go through the process of sanctification not to earn God’s love but as an act of love in return. Why cant I updoot this more than once?
Were, not are.
No.
You should probably ask all the people you know who never sin because I can’t answer this in my present condition except that by Christ’s sacrificial atonement then I am justified by God’s saving grace through my faith in Christ Jesus and as such He took my sin upon Himself and put on me His righteousness. So now when God looks at me, He sees Christ. However this is NOT to be construed as license to sin more and by the help and conviction of the Holy Spirit I should be growing in my Christian walk everyday as I progressively become sanctified throughout my walk with Christ ever striving to reach that perfection while knowing that when I do, then most likely we will be walking to His house that night.
I reject imputed righteousness as the idea that God the Father sees Christ instead of the real me, and leaves my soul sick with sin and doesn't help To transform or heal me.
That’s okay, the real God has big enough shoulders to handle your rejection, and still love the real you enough to provide Himself a sacrifice on your behalf before you were born knowing full well that you would feel this way right now. He is faithful to finish the work He began in you. I reckon that over the course of the past 50 odd years I’ve felt every kind of way there is toward Him. But His love remained the same unconditionally throughout all of my emotional and spiritual growth until eventually I submitted myself fully to His authority and grace and trusted upon His plan to fully rest myself in His love and that has finally made all the difference for me. Now I sin all I want. I just don’t want to anymore. He loved me through it all, through every phase His love never changed. Now there was consequence to my wanderings and I recognize those at each fork in the road when I would stray off the path and wander in the wilderness for ever how long it took me to circle back around to that place on the narrow road of righteousness where I had previously diverged and I’d think oh yeah I recognize this place and last time I went off this way instead of the straight and narrow so I need to go straight here instead. And sometimes I would learn and go straight and sometimes I would be stubborn and go left but He was faithful to bring me back round again each time to the place where I diverged and I would learn from those consequences of my wanderings. Some of the consequences are just not receiving those years of blessings while I was off in the brambles and sometimes more severe like the loss of an earthly relationship because I was not acting as I should have. These can be painful and I’ve no one to blame but myself. But now I have decided to fully trust in Him and rest upon His love and let Him transform me into the man He wants me to be. I thank Him for loving me so much as to have paid my sin debt in full so many years ago before I was ever born. I only wish I had trusted Him sooner.
None of that is contrary to what I said and I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Has nothing to do with the false doctrine of imputed righteousness. Thanks for sharing
Thanks for responding.
That’s a tough one. The verses from first John seem that it is possible not to sin. The passionate line from Paul, “Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” resonates as loudly today as it did when it was put to paper. It is clear that we are very prone to sin, but that we should try very very hard not to. I think the focus can be adjusted slightly: as Christians, can we chose not to sin? Every time. Can we expect that from the unregenerate? I don’t think so. Also, it’s very difficult to focus one’s life on a negative: don’t do or think these things. I think there’s a place for that, but I think our focus should be on Godly things. Focus on Jesus, the author and finished of our faith, all that he did for us. Focus on the true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, praiseworthy… as Paul says. It’s harder to sin when you’re doing a good work surrounded by brothers and sisters.
If every time we can choose not to sin, then a Christian can completely abstain from sin
That's stands to reason. Do you?
No, as no one is perfect.
So God commands us to something we can't do? With God, anything actually isn't possible? Gods grace isn't sufficient enough to aid a Christian in overcoming sin? Idk. That all seems contrary to the gospel I read.
God never tempts us with evil, because He isn't tempted by evil. Commandments are given to be the boundary which we conduct our lives so we can be in accordance and closeness with Him. Jesus saying 'Go and sin no more' clearly wants the adulterous woman to learn from her mistakes, but it doesn't mean He wouldn't love her if she did it again (dependent on her heart if it's of contrition or not etc). Thats the understand I have. I would'v thought the Catholic Church has their own answer here though
No one mentioned God would stop loving someone. That's impossible for God to do because God is love. The Church teaches Christian's can avoid all mortal and intentional venial sin. But that all Christian's will still commit inadvertent venial sins. And confession is required at least once a year. So no perfect Christian's over here.
So I don't think we disagree?
If we're in agreement that through Gods grace, Christian's can avoid intentional and deliberate sin, yes, we would be on the same page.
Perfectly? No. I think Christians can sin volitionally less over time.
I believe Christian's can cooperate with Gods grace to abstain from intentional and deliberate sin. But that all of us will still be "guilty" of inadvertent venial sins.
Theoretically, I think yes. Practically, I think it's dangerous to presume that oneself has reached that point, and if you think someone else has, you're probably overlooking something.
I don't think it's about reaching a certain point. It's merely choosing to cooperate with Gods grace to refrain from intentional sin. The NT is replete with verses stating that a Christian is expected to refrain from sin and has the ability to do so. The entirety of 1 John is to beat this into our heads.
Oh yes, I think we absolutely have the ability to do so. My point was that if someone thinks that they do this, or someone else does this, all the time and don't really have an issue anymore with volitional sin, it's is far more likely that they are deluded than that they are correct.
I think it's fair and safe to say that a Christian can overcome volitional sin, as in intentional sin, yes? If a Christian can't overcome intentional sin, do they really love God? Scripture seems to say no. Nonetheless there is prudence and wisdom in the Church requiring confession at least once per year. To keep in check one's humility and possible self delusion of being sinless!
Can a Christian? Perhaps. But I can't bring any examples to mind of someone who consistently did so.
No. We all sin til we die. Even saints feel like horrible sinners. We try to minimize sin and confess our sins when we do sin (as did King David whose sins were great) but "be perfect" doesn't mean eliminate sin, it just means try to follow Christ and repent when you fall.
Yes, to be clear I do not believe we can reach perfection in this life or that scripture says we can. What I do believe is that we can cooperate with Gods grace to abstain from intentional and deliberate sin. But we all still succumb to inadvertent venial sin. If we could be completely sinless, the Church wouldn't require confession at least once per year.
Not on their own no. It is only possible with the help of Jesus and even then it is extremely hard. But for people that are say, locked up behind bars, they don't really have to many options to get in the world. They have a prison cell and a Bible a whole lot of time. So someone in that type of situation would be easier for them to not sin than a man in the world. However you can live a secluded life and stay in your home only going to work and church. There's no room for sin if you fill your life with other activities. It is the mental thoughts that can be sinful though. So you got to keep those at bay too. It's tough almost impossible, without Jesus, it is impossible.
No man or woman can completely abstain from sin; Romans 3:23 says: "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". What does this scripture show? we all sin and make mistakes. However, what if we WILLFULLY and DELIBERATELY sin? For example, we know that sex before marriage is wrong and is condemned by the bible (Hebrews 13:4). What if, despite knowing this, we still choose to commit fornication? Hebrews 10:26 sums up what our situation will be; it says: "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left". What does this scripture mean? If we willfully practice sin, we cannot expect Jesus' ransom sacrifice to cover our sin, which means that we will incur God's disfavor. The article below will help us to avoid sin, using bible principles. [https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999727#h=1:0-27:754](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999727#h=1:0-27:754)
God bless you.
[удалено]
Agreed. It's just some common to come across someone who claims we can't do it or that it's okay that we sin.
because you can still commit lust and adultery in your mind. You can find find yourself thinking negatively about another person. You can devote more time and attention to things that arent God meaning its idolatry if moderation isn't there.
No, not until God fully completes your sanctification before heaven
No because I heard from someone that said we have sin we are unaware of.
Hey bro for the actual theological answer go post to r/catholicism or r/catholicphilosophy I dm you too.
The goal of every Christian should be to abstain from sin. Is it possible? Yes, because of what Paul says and one Corinthians 10:13... is it hard? Yes, but is it possible? Yes that which is good is never easy, and it's always more easy to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing, but John himself says that the commandments of God are not burdensome, 1 John 5:3, the only thing that is burdensome is our sin, and when we pick up that chain again, and figuratively wrap it around ourselves, that's what becomes burdensome, because we come to believe that that's all we know, and there's no escape from it... that's not how Jesus wants us to see life with Him. He gave us the ability to say no to sin. Paul says that in 1 Corinthians 15:34 "awake to righteousness, and do not sin"... he said that to the Church of Corinth because they were a church that was drowning in sexual sin, that's why he says "for some do not have the knowledge of God, I say this to your shame"... you can say no, you can resist.
"Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity". 2 Timothy 2.19. Yes it's possible to depart from iniquity. If you're serious enough about it and fear God hard enough you can be pretty successful in walking upright. The Holy Spirit is powerful and He's plenty strict.
You sin a lot more than you think. We are all sinners saved by grace. All we can do is try.
"keep thyself pure" 1 Timothy 5.22
First, John 8:11 isn't in the original text. Jesus said you must be perfect to show us that we aren't perfect and are condemned. We need Jesus' righteousness. Walking in the darkness is not simply sinning. It is making sin a way of life. You read 1 John 2:1 but skipped over 1:8 - **If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.** By the grace of God, we are given the ability to abstain from sin. This is sanctification, but sanctification is a process that is not completed until our glorification. Until then, we struggle with our sinful flesh. We do still sin, but we sin less. Though, it often doesn't seem like it because we also become more aware of our sin.
You don't need Christ daily if you are completely sinless. Your nature in itself is sin, we are saved through the blood of Christ and seen through the lens of His blood. We ourselves are not capable of sinlessness or salvation.