Can you continue to knowingly sin and remain a Christian?

[jeremiah1five]

Do you mean makes them a saved person, or saves them in the sense that their obedience shows them to be a saved person worthy to enter into the kingdom at the end of the age?

Obedience is nothing.
In order TO SEE the kingdom of God one MUST be born again (from above-God) FIRST.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jn 3:3.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13.

And ONCE born again THEN we are in position to obey.
And we do obey.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Obedience is nothing.
In order TO SEE the kingdom of God one MUST be born again (from above-God) FIRST.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jn 3:3.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13.

And ONCE born again THEN we are in position to obey.
And we do obey.

Okay, so you're not saying it is obedience to the word that makes us saved. Your post seemed to say that:

I know that but the Law of Christ which is the Law of the Spirit of Christ (He wrote the Law) which is the Law of Moses is only written in the heart-life of those to be saved. THAT'S HOW they are saved. By the word of God, Peter said.

 

[jeremiah1five]

LOL!!! Get yourself a translation that is faithful to the source texts and written in the language that you use yourself. Modern translations are far, far better than a translation created 400+ year ago from a limited set of sources to codify a secular king's idea of what Protestantism should be (and in the process glorify him).

No modern translators use Westcott and Hort. That is a myth! They use the best sources available and use the best translation techniques to produce the excellent translations that we have today.

I suggest that you do some research to find out the reality of what you are discussing, and get rid of your King James!

You obviously don't know the history of the Scriptures and how we got them today.
ALL modern translations us what Westcott and Hort use: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And several other Greek texts corrupted by heretics and NOT used by the True Church of Christ. They changed words, dropped passages, added words, and came out with the Revised Version in 1881. Professor Scrivner was among the translators and shared what took place behind closed doors. John William Burgon. Ever heard of him?
WHO gave these persons the authority to create a new translation? A committee? A President? There is ONLY ONE translation of the Received Texts of Scripture and that is the King James Version. If God sets kings on the throne and sits them down, King James at the Court of Hampton had authority from God who put him on the throne of England at that time and ordered a new English translation for the English-speaking people. And for hundreds of years the KJV was the mainstay of the Church. People came to America bringing this translation until 1853 when Westcott and Hort decided to 'improve' the King James Version. But instead, they deceived the Church of their time and created a new translation using corrupt Greek texts, texts that were NOT being used by the Church. WHY? Because they came from people unknown and places unknown. Would you trust that? Seems you have.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Okay, so you're not saying it is obedience to the word that makes us saved. Your post seemed to say that:

No, I am not saying that. Read it again.

Being born again by God - NOT by "accepting Jesus into your heart," NOT by joining a church or going to a Billy Graham evangelical crusade, and all these other heretical methods of increasing membership and profits. Charles Finney developed the "altar call." The apostles NEVER used such a gimmick. We are not born again with our feet.

 

[JLB]

I know that but the Law of Christ which is the Law of the Spirit of Christ (He wrote the Law) which is the Law of Moses is only written in the heart-life of those to be saved. THAT'S HOW they are saved. By the word of God, Peter said.

The law of Moses is certainly not the law of the Spirit of Life.

The law of Moses ended, was abolished in His flesh on the cross.

The law of Moses was a dividing wall of separation between Jew and Gentile; which created a hatred between them.


He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:14-17





JLB

 

[JLB]

If you believe ONLY that then I suppose you don't have to have no other Gods before you or are not under the Law that states to not take the Name of God is vain.

Please don’t assume to know what I believe.

We certainly have laws and commandments and doctrine to keep and uphold as born again Christians, how we receive them by faith don’t directly from the Spirit of Life in Christ, just as Abraham did.


because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws. Genesis 26:5


Abraham had no scriptures, no tablets of stone.


He walked with God and learned directly from God, then way Adam was supposed to.


Here are some New Testament requirements concerning His commandments.


He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:6


Here’s how we are instructed to remain “in Christ” —


Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 1 John 3:24


again


He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:7-8




JLB

 

[jaybo]

You obviously don't know the history of the Scriptures and how we got them today.
ALL modern translations us what Westcott and Hort use: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And several other Greek texts corrupted by heretics and NOT used by the True Church of Christ. They changed words, dropped passages, added words, and came out with the Revised Version in 1881. Professor Scrivner was among the translators and shared what took place behind closed doors. John William Burgon. Ever heard of him?
WHO gave these persons the authority to create a new translation? A committee? A President? There is ONLY ONE translation of the Received Texts of Scripture and that is the King James Version. If God sets kings on the throne and sits them down, King James at the Court of Hampton had authority from God who put him on the throne of England at that time and ordered a new English translation for the English-speaking people. And for hundreds of years the KJV was the mainstay of the Church. People came to America bringing this translation until 1853 when Westcott and Hort decided to 'improve' the King James Version. But instead, they deceived the Church of their time and created a new translation using corrupt Greek texts, texts that were NOT being used by the Church. WHY? Because they came from people unknown and places unknown. Would you trust that? Seems you have.

You clearly do not know what you're talking about. I don't know the source of your misinformation, nor am I interested in doing so. But clearly you don't know the truth.

Here is part of the introduction to the NIV....

Textual basis: The manuscript base for the Old Testament was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome.[24] The manuscript base for the New Testament was the Koine Greek language editions of the United Bible Societies and of Nestle-Aland.

Translation methodology: The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts whose goal was to produce a more modern English language text than the King James Version. The translation took ten years and involved a team of over 100 scholars[26][27] from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian.

Professor of New Testament Studies Rodney J. Decker wrote in the Themelios Journal review of the NIV 2011: By taking a mediating position between formal and functional equivalence (though tending, I think, closer to the formal end of the spectrum), the NIV has been able to produce a text that is clearer than many translations, especially those weighted more heavily with formal equivalence ... If we are serious about making the word of God a vital tool in the lives of English-speaking Christians, then we must aim for a translation that communicates clearly in the language of the average English-speaking person. It is here that the NIV excels. It not only communicates the meaning of God's revelation accurately, but does so in English that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. It is as well-suited for expository preaching as it is for public reading and use in Bible classes and children's ministries.

And here is part of the introduction to the NET...

The New English Translation, also known as the NET Bible, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. These scholars teach biblical exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools. Further, the original translator for each book was chosen in every instance because of his or her work in that particular book—often extending over several decades. Many of the translators have participated in other translation projects as well. They have been assisted by doctoral students and advised by style consultants and SIL field translators. Hence, the notes alone are the fruit of hundreds of thousands of hours of biblical and linguistic research.

In addition to format and content, the broad framework of the project is unique among translations. From its beginning the project has been independent of ecclesiastical control. The NET Bible is not funded by any denomination or church. This has directly impacted the content: Translators and editors are free to follow where the text leads and translate as they see best. There is no pressure to make sure the text reads a certain way. This does not mean that the project is not responsible to anyone. In a very real sense, the NET Bible is responsible to the universal body of Christ. Through publication on the Internet and free distribution of the text, the editors and translators have sought to submit the NET Bible to their brothers and sisters in Christ all over the world. The questions, comments, and feedback received from them are examined very carefully, and the translation and notes are reevaluated in response. This dynamic process yields a Bible that is honest to the original text of the Bible, yet valuable and acceptable to Bible readers everywhere.

And here is part of the introduction to the NRSVue... (with my emphasis)

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611.

In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as ‘the Authorized Version.’ With good reason it has been termed ‘the noblest monument of English prose,’ and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.

Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision. The task was begun, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The (British) Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881–1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated with the work, was published, as was mentioned above, in 1901. In 1928 the copyright of the latter was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada that were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.

continued below...

 

[jaybo]

continued...

The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry concerning the need for further revision. After studying the questions whether or not revision should be undertaken, and if so, what its nature and extent should be, in 1937 the Council authorized a revision. The scholars who served as members of the Committee worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. In 1946 the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, took place on September 30, 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151). Thereafter the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

These summaries should convince any reasonable person that modern translations are clearly not what you claim they are. Your opinion that the KJV is the word of God is clearly wrong. You are stuck in a delusion! I don't think there is any hope of convincing you of reality, but others reading this thread should be aware that what you claim is clearly and obviously wrong.

 

[Hopeful]

16So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want.
And so we see, as children growing up and maturing into the image and stature of Christ (not starting out there) we will in fact sometimes not walk by the Spirit and not do what we as born again Christians want to do.

If you want to call folks who are still walking after the flesh as reborn of God's seed, you are entitled to your erroneous opinion.

Of course, you mean 1 Corinthians 10:13

OOOPs, too late to change it now...
Good catch.

12So the one who thinks he is standing firm should be careful not to fall. 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide an escape, so that you can stand up under it.

First, let's notice that there is in fact something that you as a born again person can not bear, showing us that being born again does not mean you are incapable of sinning as you insist.

Notice too that God won't permit "what I cannot bear".

So, what your erroneous 'sinless perfection' theology really should be teaching is that you're only perfectly sinless because God won't let you face the particular temptation you as a born again person will not be able to resist, not that you by virtue of being a new creation are incapable of sinning.

You write it as if were a bad thing????
Is a promised escape from temptation a bad thing?

But anyway, what Paul is telling us is that God provides the way out for the temptations he has allowed us to face, knowing we can bear them. And so, by faith, we are to resist the temptation that we know we can bear (we know because God is allowing us to be tempted by it), because God has provided a way to resist it.

Isn't that comforting ?
It sure is to me.

But as I showed above, Paul says we're not always going to do that.

No you didn't.
You showed what you wanted to deceive me with.

The whole counsel of scripture shows us that we don't always do that because we are learning to do that, not starting out being able to do that all the time. And so our failure is not a failure of God's faithfulness, but a failure of us to take the way out he has provided from temptation because of ignorance, or immaturity.

Can a peach tree that is reborn as pumpkin ever bring forth peaches?
Ever?
Neither can God's children, who have been reborn from being the devil's children, bring forth the fruit of the devil.
Ever.

 

[Hopeful]

The evidence that he is born again is the fact that he does not live in that sin as a matter of a deliberate and willful lifestyle and that he comes back after his failure.

How can one "come back" to Godliness from a manifestation of never having been Godly?

 

[Hopeful]

No, deserters are unbelievers.

What's the difference?
Sinners are unbelievers.

He does provide that. But as growing, maturing children of God we don't always avail ourselves of what he has provided.

Do growing maturing grapes ever bring forth figs?
The seed determines what kind of fruit is brought forth.
You write like you have no idea of what rebirth is.
At least no idea that the old man must be destroyed before he can be reborn.
You keep alluding to the deeds of the undead man as if he had not ben destroyed before rebirth.

No one is justified by doing righteous things. There is no righteous work that you can do that will make you righteous. The only way to become righteous, and thus saved, is to believe and trust in God's promise that he will remove the guilt of your unrighteousness through forgiveness and give you a righteousness outside of yourself (for you have none). Faith in God's promise that he will do that is the ONLY way to become righteous, and thus saved. You do not become righteous by doing righteous things.

I feel that my righteous deeds do indeed justify God's and Jesus' sacrifice on my part.
Otherwise, my unrighteousness would show They did it all for nothing.

 

[Hopeful]

Obedience is cause for reward, but not the reward of justification (being made righteous). That only happens by the mercy of God's forgiveness and the imputation of his righteousness as a free gift of his grace.

Without obedience, there is no reward, here or later.
I could not be justified without hearing, believing, and acting in faith.
No repentance from sin...no justification.
No water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ...no remission of sins, sanctification, or justification.
No remission of sins...no gift of/temple of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, having faith is very costly, but you were not made righteous by paying that cost. Only the forgiveness of God and the imputation of God's righteousness, received by faith (not works), can make you righteous.

After being made righteous by faith in God's redemption, that is when you pay the sometimes very costly price of discipleship, not justification. Jesus paid the price for your justification, not you. And it does not need to be paid again once it is applied to your account when you first believe. The obedience of faith is not payment toward justification. The blood of Christ is the payment for justification. And faith is what secures it on your behalf, not your works of obedience.

Obey and be made righteous.
Jesus is the door, but we must use it to enter.

 

[Hopeful]

Did you sin yesterday? Today?

Of course not.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 Jn. 1:8–10.
So, make God a liar and tell me you haven't sinned and don't sin.

John uses a system that juxtaposes those who walk in light-God with those who walk in darkness-sin in 1 John 1.
(Paul uses the same system in Rom 8.)
Verses 6, 8, and 10 of 1 John 1 apply to those walking in sin.
They cannot say they have fellowship with God or that they have no sin.
Versed 5, 7, and 9 apply to those who walk in God-the light.
How can there be any sin in God-the light?
If you sin "every day" then you do not have fellowship with God, or that you have no sin.
Confess yours sins, be washed of them by the blood of Christ, and start walking in God.

Thanks be to God for rebirth from His seed !

 

[Hopeful]

No. Why would it? Does every apple tree bear apples perfectly, free of worms, or the deformity of disease, or the stunting effects of poor soil and lack of moisture?

It will never bear anything but apples.
Gods seed will never bear liars, thieves, or murderers.

No. But even the malnourished, stunted apple tree, riddled with damaging insects and producing little, if any, fruit, is STILL an apple tree. So, too, the born-again believer who, due to simple spiritual immaturity, and/or bad teaching, and/or being starved of Christian fellowship and the "water" of the word, and/or being plagued by besetting sins, bears little, if any, spiritual fruit. Though he be a fractious, willfully-sinful "carnal babe in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1); though he ought to be a teacher of the meat of the word but is capable only of ingesting "milk" (Hebrews 5:11-14); though he is "weak in the faith," excessively careful about trivial matters (Romans 14:1-2), the Christian man (or woman) is STILL a genuinely-redeemed child of God.

Sinners hate God, (Matt 6:24), and will not be redeemed.

This is silly. See above.
Monkeys fall from trees; whales beach on the seashore; dogs are afraid of cats; birds fly into buildings. We don't think, though, that these out-of-character behaviors undo the basic nature of these creatures. Likewise, the Christian who sins. They are a "work in progress" (Ephesians 2:21, 4:15; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7; Colossians 2:19) being changed over time by the power of the Holy Spirit, made more and more like Christ. Like the baby monkey that can do little but cling to its mother, or the baby whale who has to be lifted to the surface of the ocean by its mother in order to take its first breath, or the puppy who is able only to suckle at its mother's teat and sleep, the new, or spiritually-immature, believer is a spiritual infant, in need of enormous support (as all infants are) in the nascent stages of their spiritual walk with God, stumbling and staggering, and falling down, too, but growing at the same time, nonetheless. What a horrible, evil thing it is to say to these spiritual "babes" that they are not really saved, that their inevitable stumbling and falling is proof-positive that they are not God's. Few things could be more damaging to their growth spiritually than to have such a notion thrown at them that leaves them in a perennial state of fear and uncertainty.

And the atrocious hypocrisy in the sinless-perfection stuff is also appalling, as is the inevitably-attached false doctrine of works-salvation. No one, deep down, thinks they are truly sinlessly-perfect. In fact, what "sinless perfection" truly is remains a mystery to us all. As holy and righteous as we think we are, the more God comes into clear view in our minds and hearts, the farther from His amazing holiness we see that we are! What incredible hubris, then, to propose that one has attained to His perfect holiness! Wow.

Your accommodations for sin shows your doctrine is of the devil

1 John 1:8-10 (NASB)
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

John uses an A-B, A-B, A-B, system to juxtapose those who walk in God-the light, against those who walk in sin-the darkness.
Verses 5, 7, and 9 apply to those who have confessed their sins, and been washed of them by the blood of Christ so they can say they have fellowship with God and that they have no sin.
Verses 6, 8, and 10 apply to those who cannot say they have fellowship with God, or that they have no sin.
Verse 7 says that all our old sins can be washed away.
Why can't we say it is true?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you want to call folks who are still walking after the flesh as reborn of God's seed, you are entitled to your erroneous opinion.

"Still walking after the flesh" suggests the absence of a change of life. That person is indeed not reborn of God's seed. But the believing person who is learning to walk in the obedience of the Spirit, more and more, like a child learning to walk, they are indeed born again, the seed of God within them growing bigger and bigger, maturing to the full image and stature of Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You write it as if were a bad thing????
Is a promised escape from temptation a bad thing?

It's a great promise! But the point was, you are wrong that the sinless perfection you claim genuine believers have is the result of being born again. We see that even if you want to defend a doctrine of sinless perfection from 1 Corinthians 10:13 that perfection is because God guards the born again person against the temptation he would otherwise cave in to, not because he is born again person who can't sin! That destroys this continual argument you make about pumpkin vines and fig trees not being able to ever produce anything other than pumpkins and figs, or else they're not really those kinds of plantings. There is no way you can refute what I'm saying. You are dead wrong even in the reason why you think believers are perfectly sinless!

Differences in doctrine is fine and can be expected and even respected to a point, but I would expect nothing less from you than to acknowledge that you have been wrong about why believers are (supposedly) sinless and always incapable of sinning according to 1 Corinthians 10:13. It's not because they are born again creations incapable of sinning as you have been claiming, but because God guards them from the temptations he knows they can't resist. Again, assuming your doctrine of sinless perfection was actually true.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Isn't that comforting ?
It sure is to me.

Yes, it is. But it is a promise that God has provided the way out of the temptation he has allowed that he knows you can resist, not that you will always avail yourself of the escape he has provided!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No you didn't.
You showed what you wanted to deceive me with.

Here are the plain words of scripture:

16So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want. Galatians 5:17

Stop twisting these plain words of scripture to suit your erroneous doctrine of sinless perfection! Paul says we don't do what we want to do because we still have the desires of the flesh, along with the Spirit, not because we are not born again. It plainly says that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Can a peach tree that is reborn as pumpkin ever bring forth peaches?
Ever?

Yes!
Even your theology has to acknowledge this.

But it won't, because (assuming your doctrine is correct, which it is not) God keeps the born again new creation from being tempted by things God knows he can't bear, not because he's a peach tree, or a pumpkin vine that is incapable of bearing anything else. This particular defense of sinless perfection you love to use is proven false by the very passage you use to defend it!