A look at 1 John 3.6

[live2blive]

Completely Lost in your flesh focused conversation of what freedom from sin is, is God's Spiritual interpretation of what the paramount importance of being made "free from sin" actually is.
Not being free from the presence of sin but being free from the power of death .
God's interpretation is not about the act as the carnal mind walking in the flesh loves to revel in.
God's interpretation is about the new attitude of the Spirit.
The old nature of flesh knows no law, never has , never will.
The new nature needs no law.
God declared to Adam & Eve, who had direct communion with God the Father, that if they sinned they would die. yet they lived in their flesh many hundred years after they first sinned.
Do you believe that having lived thru that first sin and having learned their lesson , that for the next couple hundred years that Adam & Eve never sinned again ?
Do you believe you will meet Adam & Eve one day ?
How can that be if God said that their one solitary sin would cause them to die ?
Do you believe if you are to ask them when you meet them did they ever commit another sin after the fall they will tell you , yes or no ?

Ezekial 18:4
... the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

You did not answer my question. The Savior told his disciples, "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free [from sin]" (John 8:32). Do you believe the Saviour's words? What do you think He meant?

Regarding your words that "The new nature needs no law", there is the Law of the Spirit which governs the new nature (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 8:2).

Regarding Adam and Eve, yes, they became sinners and were comitting sins after the fall. I don't understand why you asked this question.

 

[live2blive]

Could you rephrase your question. I am not following what you are asking. Be as specific as possible. Thank you in advance.

It was not a question but statement. You are saying that in Romans 7 Paul uses present tense to describe his present state, not as "historical present". I am saying that sometimes Paul uses present tense in the first person not necesserily as "historical present", but for generalization or emphasis, not to describe his present state. Other exemples in addition to Romans 7 are Romans 3:7 and 1 Corinthians 13:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

Did Paul give his body to be burned?

 

[Consecrated Life]

You did not answer my question. The Savior told his disciples, "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free [from sin]" (John 8:32). Do you believe the Saviour's words? What do you think He meant?

I did tell you what for me "free from sin" meant from the mouth of God.
Freedom not from the presence of sin, but freedom from the power of death .

Regarding your words that "The new nature needs no law", there is the Law of the Spirit which governs the new nature (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 8:2).

As I said : "God's interpretation is not about the act as the carnal mind walking in the flesh loves to revel in."
God's interpretation is Spiritual not carnal.
If you believe that why has your thread been an appeal to the flesh ?

Regarding Adam and Eve, yes, they became sinners and were comitting sins after the fall. I don't understand why you asked this question.

My question how do you expect to meet Adam & Eve one day in heaven given their committing of other sins after hearing directly from God on the matter ?

 

[live2blive]

I did tell you what for me "free from sin" meant from the mouth of God.
Freedom not from the presence of sin, but freedom from the power of death .

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:34-36).

Don't you see that Jesus will make people free, they will be not the servants of sin, i.e. they will not committ sin?

As I said : "God's interpretation is not about the act as the carnal mind walking in the flesh loves to revel in."
God's interpretation is Spiritual not carnal.
If you believe that why has your thread been an appeal to the flesh ?

When my thread has been an appeal to the flesh? I dont understand.

My question how do you expect to meet Adam & Eve one day in heaven given their committing of other sins after hearing directly from God on the matter ?

The Savior attoned for their sins (Romans 5:15-19).

 

[Consecrated Life]

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:34-36).

Don't you see that Jesus will make people free, they will be not the servants of sin, i.e. they will not committ sin?

When did you ever meet a person who never commits sin ?

 

[live2blive]

When did you ever meet a person who never commits sin ?

I believe that the words of the Savior were true, and the apostles after being born from God did not commit sins (1 John 3:6-9). I also met such people. We may have misunderstanding because we may undrestand sin differently. What do you think sin is?

 

[Consecrated Life]

I believe that the words of the Savior were true, and the apostles after being born from God did not commit sins (1 John 3:6-9). I also met such people. We may have misunderstanding because we may undrestand sin differently. What do you think sin is?

When was the last time you met such a person who never commits sin ?
And how could you be certain such a person never sinned when they were not in your presence ?
For me sin is suffering.
Suffering anything that breaks fellowship, disrupts the perfect peace I love with my eternal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Distressing my soul to the point that I welcome His chastening .

 

[Hopeful 2]

You were implying that seed causes seed to grow, which is what I was disagreeing with. I would never disagree that seed brings forth after its kind. That's logical.

If anything, I was saying that seed can only bring forth after its own kind.
Having once been of Adam's seed, but reborn of God's seed, we can never bring forth Adam's sinful fruit.

 

[Hidden In Him]

If anything, I was saying that seed can only bring forth after its own kind.

That's not what you said, LoL.

But no biggie. I need to get down to doing some work anyway.

Blessings in Christ, and thanks for the polite interchange
- H

 

[Hopeful 2]

That's not what you said, LoL.

But no biggie. I need to get down to doing some work anyway.

Blessings in Christ, and thanks for the polite interchange
- H

In one sense, seed does cause seed to grow.
Apple seeds bring forth seed bearing apples.
Fig seeds, cause seed bearing figs to grow.
Grape seeds eventually bear grape seeds.
And God's seed ?
By the grace of God, it will bear sowers of more seed.

 

[Hidden In Him]

In one sense, seed does cause seed to grow.
Apple seeds bring forth seed bearing apples.
Fig seeds, cause seed bearing figs to grow.
Grape seeds eventually bear grape seeds.
And God's seed ?
By the grace of God, it will bear sowers of more seed.

No, Hopeful. What you are talking about there is the principle of seed being multiplied, as in “and multiply your seed sown.” Water and sunlight are what make seeds grow. Different thing

 

[live2blive]

When was the last time you met such a person who never commits sin ?
And how could you be certain such a person never sinned when they were not in your presence ?

I understand and respect your scepticism. In such cases I am sceptical too. My evaluation comes from knowing such a person really well. Much boils down to the true understanding of what sin is.

For me sin is suffering.
Suffering anything that breaks fellowship, disrupts the perfect peace I love with my eternal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Distressing my soul to the point that I welcome His chastening .

I somewhat understand what you are saying, but are you sure that what you are describing is sin? For example, it is not clear if, let's say, you told a joke and later found that another person was really offended by it, would you think it was sin? Or if you told this joke intentionally, in retaliation, to cause pain to another person? Or if you said something and later realized it was not true? Or if you said something which is not true not to let your boss know that you did something wrong? Is each this action a sin if they caused you suffering?

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, Hopeful. What you are talking about there is the principle of seed being multiplied, as in “and multiply your seed sown.” Water and sunlight are what make seeds grow. Different thing

That is of a different context than 1 John 3:9.
God's seed can only bring forth Godly people.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I understand and respect your scepticism. In such cases I am sceptical too. My evaluation comes from knowing such a person really well. Much boils down to the true understanding of what sin is.

I have never had the experience of meeting someone who feels the need to make it known that they never commit sin.
Moreover I have never met anyone else who has told me second hand that they know someone who never sins ?
How rare a thing is this I have to ask ?
Ordinarily this would not raise an eyebrow with me , but when authenticity of such claims are alleged to form the dividing line between who and who is not a Christian it causes me to look with a much more Jaundiced eye and question who are these people and why can't anyone ever point one out or name .
Their claims being publicly made .

 

[live2blive]

I have never had the experience of meeting someone who feels the need to make it known that they never commit sin.
Moreover I have never met anyone else who has told me second hand that they know someone who never sins ?
How rare a thing is this I have to ask ?
Ordinarily this would not raise an eyebrow with me , but when authenticity of such claims are alleged to form the dividing line between who and who is not a Christian it causes me to look with a much more Jaundiced eye and question who are these people and why can't anyone ever point one out or name .
Their claims being publicly made .

What's much more important than discussing people is understanding the purpose of the Saviour regarding sin. Therefore, I gave you several examples and asked if you thought that all or some of them would be considered sin. I hope you agree that it does not help to talk about sin without knowing what sin is. However, if you are not interested in continuing, I understand.

 

[Consecrated Life]

I have never had the experience of meeting someone who feels the need to make it known that they never commit sin.
Moreover I have never met anyone else who has told me second hand that they know someone who never sins ?
How rare a thing is this I have to ask ?
Ordinarily this would not raise an eyebrow with me , but when authenticity of such claims are alleged to form the dividing line between who and who is not a Christian it causes me to look with a much more Jaundiced eye and question who are these people and why can't anyone ever point one out or name .
Their claims being publicly made .

What's much more important than discussing people is understanding the purpose of the Saviour regarding sin.

Then please state what then is the "purpose" of individuals such as yourself in repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed , anonymous Christians, juxtaposed to the unholy sinful faux Christians being repeatedly presented ?
Apparently individuals such as yourself , see a worthy purpose in establishing a spiritual line of demarcation to identify who is a Christain and who is not , without ever actually being able to specifically name a sinless person who walks the earth today, or you would not repeatedly bring it up?
Especially when contradict your own premise by saying that the future sins of Adam & Eve following the fall did not negate their faith and trust in God, yet somehow if someone becoming a Christian includes an effective expiration date of Christ's work expiring the day they become a Christian.

 

[live2blive]

Then please state what then is the "purpose" of individuals such as yourself in repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed , anonymous Christians, juxtaposed to the unholy sinful faux Christians being repeatedly presented ?
Apparently individuals such as yourself , see a worthy purpose in establishing a spiritual line of demarcation to identify who is a Christain and who is not , without ever actually being able to specifically name a sinless person who walks the earth today, or you would not repeatedly bring it up?

I think you are misjudging me. When I was "repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed, anonymous Christians"? I mentioned the individuals only because you kept asking me about it. If you want names, let's talk about the apostles Paul and John. I still think that our discussion is useless until we come to the mutual understanding of what sin is.

Especially when contradict your own premise by saying that the future sins of Adam & Eve following the fall did not negate their faith and trust in God, yet somehow if someone becoming a Christian includes an effective expiration date of Christ's work expiring the day they become a Christian.

When did I say that "if someone becoming a Christian includes an effective expiration date of Christ's work expiring the day they become a Christian."? What do you even mean by that?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Then please state what then is the "purpose" of individuals such as yourself in repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed , anonymous Christians, juxtaposed to the unholy sinful faux Christians being repeatedly presented ?
Apparently individuals such as yourself , see a worthy purpose in establishing a spiritual line of demarcation to identify who is a Christain and who is not , without ever actually being able to specifically name a sinless person who walks the earth today, or you would not repeatedly bring it up?
Especially when contradict your own premise by saying that the future sins of Adam & Eve following the fall did not negate their faith and trust in God, yet somehow if someone becoming a Christian includes an effective expiration date of Christ's work expiring the day they become a Christian.

I think you are misjudging me. When I was "repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed, anonymous Christians"? I mentioned the individuals only because you kept asking me about it.

You proclaimed the following before I ever spoke word one to you about sinless Christians.
You brought it up , not me .
If you are going to make such profound proclamations concerning the spiritual condition of people you should be prepared to fully unpack the allegation much further than you now seem so unwilling to do .

.... If some Christians sin, it means they don't know Him.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I have never had the experience of meeting someone who feels the need to make it known that they never commit sin.
Moreover I have never met anyone else who has told me second hand that they know someone who never sins ?
How rare a thing is this I have to ask ?
Ordinarily this would not raise an eyebrow with me , but when authenticity of such claims are alleged to form the dividing line between who and who is not a Christian it causes me to look with a much more Jaundiced eye and question who are these people and why can't anyone ever point one out or name .
Their claims being publicly made .

You must not like 1 John 3:9 at all.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Then please state what then is the "purpose" of individuals such as yourself in repeatedly bringing up the example of super-holy never sinning unnamed , anonymous Christians, juxtaposed to the unholy sinful faux Christians being repeatedly presented ?
Apparently individuals such as yourself , see a worthy purpose in establishing a spiritual line of demarcation to identify who is a Christain and who is not , without ever actually being able to specifically name a sinless person who walks the earth today, or you would not repeatedly bring it up?
Especially when contradict your own premise by saying that the future sins of Adam & Eve following the fall did not negate their faith and trust in God, yet somehow if someone becoming a Christian includes an effective expiration date of Christ's work expiring the day they become a Christian.

If nobody ever told you perfect obedience to God was possible, you would be content with 75% or 50% obedience.
That is where the supposed "church" world is at right now.