Why Christians Cannot Sin

[Randy]

There we have it. Peter sinned, as all Christians do.

You only have the accusation. From reading acts 15 we do note some did go out from the Jerusalem believers and did indeed stir up the troublesome message among the gentiles that Paul is addressing. You also have that message was not sent or authorized by those in authority. Therefore in light of Peters stance in that council what you don't have is that "Peter" was actively involved in what Paul accused him of. "Forcing gentiles to adhere to the full law of the jews for righteousness sake"

But like Paul I see all the law as law and Paul considered the law in judgments he made such as, "For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

We use the NT as a guide as to which broken commandments can still lead to death.

For example as one who knows Jesus I would state forbidden sex acts in the law qualify as sexual immorality.

Yet also as one who knows Jesus I would state I don't need to keep a sabbath day as in the law that is a complete absence of work with even meals prepared in advance.

 

[Robert Pate]

You only have the accusation. From reading acts 15 we do note some did go out from the Jerusalem believers and did indeed stir up the troublesome message among the gentiles that Paul is addressing. You also have that message was not sent or authorized by those in authority. Therefore in light of Peters stance in that council what you don't have is that "Peter" was actively involved in what Paul accused him of. "Forcing gentiles to adhere to the full law of the jews for righteousness sake"

But like Paul I see all the law as law and Paul considered the law in judgments he made such as, "For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

We use the NT as a guide as to which broken commandments can still lead to death.

For example as one who knows Jesus I would state forbidden sex acts in the law qualify as sexual immorality.

Yet also as one who knows Jesus I would state I don't need to keep a sabbath day as in the law that is a complete absence of work with even meals prepared in advance.

Some Jews are so afraid of violating the sabbath that they stay in bed all day. Some believe that throwing off the covers is work also getting dressed is work. If you move a chair that is work. What a hellish way to have to live.

 

[Randy]

Some Jews are so afraid of violating the sabbath that they stay in bed all day. Some believe that throwing off the covers is work also getting dressed is work. If you move a chair that is work. What a hellish way to have to live.

It would be as if one existed in constant fear from Gods retribution for not being in compliance with His commands for those who truly fear God.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

 

[Robert Pate]

It would be as if one existed in constant fear from Gods retribution for not being in compliance with His commands for those who truly fear God.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Right. If fear is the motivation for obedience and not love, that is nothing but worthless religion.

 

[Free]

You only have the accusation. From reading acts 15 we do note some did go out from the Jerusalem believers and did indeed stir up the troublesome message among the gentiles that Paul is addressing. You also have that message was not sent or authorized by those in authority. Therefore in light of Peters stance in that council what you don't have is that "Peter" was actively involved in what Paul accused him of. "Forcing gentiles to adhere to the full law of the jews for righteousness sake"

That is quite the assumption. Essentially, you’re wanting to shift the sin from Peter onto Paul, who supposedly falsely accused Peter, without any evidence in Scripture that this was the case. What we do know, which is what our understanding must be based on, is that Paul accused Peter of doing something. We should never base our understanding on assumptions that have no evidence.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's accusation was false.

 

[Randy]

That is quite the assumption. Essentially, you’re wanting to shift the sin from Peter onto Paul, who supposedly falsely accused Peter, without any evidence in Scripture that this was the case. What we do know, which is what our understanding must be based on, is that Paul accused Peter of doing something. We should never base our understanding on assumptions that have no evidence.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's accusation was false.

I didn't shift any "sin" onto Paul. I stand by what I stated. What I didn't find is anything in the text to verify "Peter" was advocating for "anyone" to seek a righteousness by obeying the law of Moses. I did find that "some" without being authorized and sent by the leadership did go out and did speak the message that was creating a falsehood of the gospel message.
What we also know "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you"

Peter addressing the group, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?"

 

[Randy]

That is quite the assumption. Essentially, you’re wanting to shift the sin from Peter onto Paul, who supposedly falsely accused Peter, without any evidence in Scripture that this was the case. What we do know, which is what our understanding must be based on, is that Paul accused Peter of doing something. We should never base our understanding on assumptions that have no evidence.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's accusation was false.

Peter wasn't the one advocating but he did draw back

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 

[Cooper]

No. Timothy was Jewish. Circ was/is still required for Jewish believers.

Peter's fault was trying to force Gentile believers to follow the same rules as Jews.

"I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”"

Um - since the definition of the word (both in Greek and Hebrew) translated "sin" actually means to aim an arrow and miss the bulls eye, "mistaken" has to be sinful.

How say you?
Peter was being hypercritical. He lived as a Gentile in the presence of Gentiles, and he lived as a Jew in the presence of Jews. Not liking Peter being two-faced, Paul said, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles, why do you tell Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Good question.)

That would cause them to become entangled in the law, which as Gentiles they never had been, with the inevitability of falling out of God’s grace, and consequently 'missing the mark.'
.

 

[Free]

I didn't shift any "sin" onto Paul. I stand by what I stated.

If Peter wasn't guilty of the sin of hypocrisy, then Paul is guilty of the sin of false accusation, a lie, against a leader in the church no less.

What I didn't find is anything in the text to verify "Peter" was advocating for "anyone" to seek a righteousness by obeying the law of Moses.

That isn't my argument. Peter chose to obey the law out of fear of the Judaizers, undermining the gospel through implying that following the Law mattered and leading other Jews astray and compelling Gentiles to live like Jews.

I did find that "some" without being authorized and sent by the leadership did go out and did speak the message that was creating a falsehood of the gospel message.
What we also know "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you"

Peter addressing the group, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?"

Which only points to his hypocrisy, that Paul called him out on.

 

[Randy]

That is quite the assumption. Essentially, you’re wanting to shift the sin from Peter onto Paul, who supposedly falsely accused Peter, without any evidence in Scripture that this was the case. What we do know, which is what our understanding must be based on, is that Paul accused Peter of doing something. We should never base our understanding on assumptions that have no evidence.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul's accusation was false.

What's your assumption?
As I stated your answer may very on how far you sift in defining sin. The commandments spoken of by Jesus as well as abstaining from sexual immorality can be kept. I myself live like one in obedience to God through Christ my Lord.
Murderers, thieves, the sexual immoral, unbelievers, the godless will not enter the kingdom of God.
This is clear to me.
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

 

[Randy]

If Peter wasn't guilty of the sin of hypocrisy, then Paul is guilty of the sin of false accusation, a lie, against a leader in the church no less.


That isn't my argument. Peter chose to obey the law out of fear of the Judaizers, undermining the gospel through implying that following the Law mattered and leading other Jews astray and compelling Gentiles to live like Jews.


Which only points to his hypocrisy, that Paul called him out on.

I will concede the point on hyprocrasy but Peter was not advocating either directly from himself nor directing others as a Apostle of the Lord to keep the law of Moses for righteousness sake.

 

[D-D-W]

If Peter wasn't guilty of the sin of hypocrisy, then Paul is guilty of the sin of false accusation, a lie, against a leader in the church no less.

That is true.

IF one really believes that a true born again Christian is incapable of sin, then either Peter or Paul were not really born again Christians.

 

[Free]

What's your assumption?

Am I making one? I am just presenting what the text states without adding to it or removing from it. If Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and leading others astray by it, then that is what happened, lest we make Paul a liar. There is simply nothing else stated about the matter.

As I stated your answer may very on how far you sift in defining sin. The commandments spoken of by Jesus as well as abstaining from sexual immorality can be kept. I myself live like one in obedience to God through Christ my Lord.
Murderers, thieves, the sexual immoral, unbelievers, the godless will not enter the kingdom of God.
This is clear to me.
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

This is different from saying that Christians sin. John's meaning is that one who is born of God cannot continue in a life of willful sin. He is speaking of a person's character and a life characterized by sin; such a person cannot be saved. In relation to sin, John presents a few ideas in his first epistle: 1) That Christians sin, and so need to confess their sins for forgiveness; 2) That anyone who thinks they are a believer and says they have no sin, is actually not a believer; 3) That a person whose life is characterized by willful sin, cannot be born of God.

I will concede the point on hyprocrasy but Peter was not advocating either directly from himself nor directing others as a Apostle of the Lord to keep the law of Moses for righteousness sake.

Verbally advocating, no, but implicitly his actions did. He knew, as you pointed out with Acts 15, that it was fine to associate and eat with Gentiles, but as soon as the Judaizers joined him, he gradually withdrew from being with the Gentiles and observed the Law out of fear. Other Jews that had previously associated with the Gentiles simply followed his example, as a leader and Apostle.

 

[Randy]

That is true.

IF one really believes that a true born again Christian is incapable of sin, then either Peter or Paul were not really born again Christians.

Barnabas was lead astray as well. So you think Peter and Barnabas were active sinners or perhaps made a error in judgment in something new? No long term standing church. No NT. I think we can thank God for the wisdom God granted Paul who was chosen by grace while he was in his unbelief and seeking harm to the saints. So he himself was firm on the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Johns writing is clear.
Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.

 

[Randy]

Am I making one? I am just presenting what the text states without adding to it or removing from it. If Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and leading others astray by it, then that is what happened, lest we make Paul a liar. There is simply nothing else stated about the matter.


This is different from saying that Christians sin. John's meaning is that one who is born of God cannot continue in a life of willful sin. He is speaking of a person's character and a life characterized by sin; such a person cannot be saved. In relation to sin, John presents a few ideas in his first epistle: 1) That Christians sin, and so need to confess their sins for forgiveness; 2) That anyone who thinks they are a believer and says they have no sin, is actually not a believer; 3) That a person whose life is characterized by willful sin, cannot be born of God.


Verbally advocating, no, but implicitly his actions did. He knew, as you pointed out with Acts 15, that it was fine to associate and eat with Gentiles, but as soon as the Judaizers joined him, he gradually withdrew from being with the Gentiles and observed the Law out of fear. Other Jews that had previously associated with the Gentiles simply followed his example, as a leader and Apostle.

Actually all those who were in authority stated the message went out without their authorization. So Peter ate only with jews. On yah he was a sinner for his meal habits. NOT!

 

[Free]

Actually all those who were in authority stated the message went out without their authorization. So Peter ate only with jews. On yah he was a sinner for his meal habits. NOT!

I'm not sure what your point is here as that doesn't have anything to do with any argument I have made.

 

[Randy]

I'm not sure what your point is here as that doesn't have anything to do with any argument I have made.

Point=>Peter was not a sinner nor was he advocating a different gospel message.


regardless the issue was resolved by the apostles long ago.

 

[Randy]

That is true.

IF one really believes that a true born again Christian is incapable of sin, then either Peter or Paul were not really born again Christians.

Speaking of context what is that you are holding up in your avatar picture?

 

[D-D-W]

regardless the issue was resolved by the apostles long ago.

Yes - in Acts 15 for the gentile believers, and with clarification for Jewish believers in Acts 21.

 

[D-D-W]

Speaking of context what is that you are holding up in your avatar picture?

A Torah Scroll.