Why Christians Cannot Sin

[Randy]

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

Who was Peter than if acts 15 was only for gentiles?
Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 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? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are

 

[Free]

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

Hypocrisy is sin. Leading others astray is sin. Not walking "uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" is sin. Peter's actions implied that Gentiles had to live like Jews, by adhering to the law, to be justified. Paul then reminds Peter in Gal 2:15-16 that it is only through faith in Jesus that one is justified and not works of the law.

Apart from all that, I know Peter still sinned because all believers continue to struggle against the flesh, just as Paul said he did. This just happens to be one example.

regardless the issue was resolved by the apostles long ago.

Yes, it was.

 

[Randy]

Hypocrisy is sin. Leading others astray is sin. Not walking "uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" is sin. Peter's actions implied that Gentiles had to live like Jews, by adhering to the law, to be justified. Paul then reminds Peter in Gal 2:15-16 that it is only through faith in Jesus that one is justified and not works of the law.

Apart from all that, I know Peter still sinned because all believers continue to struggle against the flesh, just as Paul said he did. This just happens to be one example.


Yes, it was.

Peter's meal habits in retrospect by him I sure did not set well with himself as a good example of a leader of the church. I think if Peter were here he would admit to that error in judgment. I do not agree that Peter is to be labeled a "sinner" at that point in his life.

I think we can keep Gods commands as expressed by Jesus even though we may not be perfect 100 percent of every day. For example we might get angry and state something we regret. We may show errors in judgment from time to time that are not in fully keeping with loving others as Christ loves us. But that is a far cry from living a willful life of sin. "Steeling. immorality, murder, slanderer, unbeliever, adultery, hating ones parents, hating others, a person of violence, deceiving others for gain, etc. etc.

 

[Hopeful]

Very true, and the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost is the domain of the only living God.
.

Amen, but there is more to the "key" than just the one verse spoken by Peter in Acts 2:38, as enduring faithfully until our last day is also "key" to being found in the book of life on the last day.
Though that may be considered what we do after using the "key".

 

[Free]

Peter's meal habits in retrospect by him I sure did not set well with himself as a good example of a leader of the church. I think if Peter were here he would admit to that error in judgment. I do not agree that Peter is to be labeled a "sinner" at that point in his life.

But, this isn't merely about meal habits or errors in judgment, as the context clearly shows; it's about law versus grace for justification. It's about showing by example that one must follow the law, in addition to faith in Christ, to be justified. Peter knew better but out of fear he withdrew from the Gentiles to eat with the Judaizers, causing other Jews to do the same. That is to put up again the very wall that Jesus broke down

The whole book of Galatians is addressed to a church infiltrated by Judaizers who were saying the Gentiles had to be circumcised for justification. Peter's actions added fuel to the fire. It was a serious offense.

I think we can keep Gods commands as expressed by Jesus even though we may not be perfect 100 percent of every day. For example we might get angry and state something we regret. We may show errors in judgment from time to time that are not in fully keeping with loving others as Christ loves us. But that is a far cry from living a willful life of sin. "Steeling. immorality, murder, slanderer, unbeliever, adultery, hating ones parents, hating others, a person of violence, deceiving others for gain, etc. etc.

Yes, that is exactly a point I have made--Christians sin but our lives are not to be characterized by willful sin.

 

[Hopeful]

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

I disagree.
Nothing is required from any believer except faith in God, and adherence to the law of Christ, ie., Love God with all your might and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Other behaviors will naturally follow suit, ie., repentance from sin, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, and ultimately remaining faithful till the day of judgement.

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.

Peter's fault was acting in a manner that made it seem as though the Mosaic Law still had any relevance.
Kind of like you are doing here.
Physical circumcision doesn't make or keep anyone holy, as it is just a presage of the real casting away of the flesh. (Col 2:11)

 

[D-D-W]

Who was Peter than if acts 15 was only for gentiles?
Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 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? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are

There is a difference between how one is saved and how one acts AFTER being saved.

 

[D-D-W]

Physical circumcision doesn't make or keep anyone holy, as it is just a presage of the real casting away of the flesh. (Col 2:11)

Physical circumcision obligates one to follow the Law of Moses.

Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

So when Paul circ'd Timothy, (Acts 16.2) he obligated him to have to follow the Law. Timothy was Jewish from his mother, but Titus was a Greek gentile. So he was NOT circumcised. (Gal 2.3)

So a young Jewish believer was intentionally subjected to the WHOLE LAW, by the same guy who wrote that.

 

[Randy]

There is a difference between how one is saved and how one acts AFTER being saved.

If ones heart is purified by faith in Christ whether they were jew or gentile then the "freedom" found in Christ is the same for all.

 

[Hopeful]

Physical circumcision obligates one to follow the Law of Moses.

With the eclipsing of the Law of Moses by the NT law of Christ, circumcision is done away with.

Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

So when Paul circ'd Timothy, (Acts 16.2) he obligated him to have to follow the Law.

Not necessarily.
In the NT, with no need of circumcision anymore, Tim's circumcision was simply a means of gaining entry into the local synagogues.

Timothy was Jewish from his mother, but Titus was a Greek gentile. So he was NOT circumcised. (Gal 2.3)

True, at least until Paul circumcised him.

So a young Jewish believer was intentionally subjected to the WHOLE LAW, by the same guy who wrote that.

Paul had no power to subject anyone to anything that God had done away with.
It was a ruse to gain unhindered entry to the synagogues Paul went to at his initial meetings with local peoples.

 

[Randy]

But, this isn't merely about meal habits or errors in judgment, as the context clearly shows; it's about law versus grace for justification. It's about showing by example that one must follow the law, in addition to faith in Christ, to be justified. Peter knew better but out of fear he withdrew from the Gentiles to eat with the Judaizers, causing other Jews to do the same. That is to put up again the very wall that Jesus broke down

The whole book of Galatians is addressed to a church infiltrated by Judaizers who were saying the Gentiles had to be circumcised for justification. Peter's actions added fuel to the fire. It was a serious offense.


Yes, that is exactly a point I have made--Christians sin but our lives are not to be characterized by willful sin.

Well Peter snapped out of that snafu at the conference as noted in Acts 15.

 

[jaybo]

Physical circumcision obligates one to follow the Law of Moses.

Galatians 5:3
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

So when Paul circ'd Timothy, (Acts 16.2) he obligated him to have to follow the Law. Timothy was Jewish from his mother, but Titus was a Greek gentile. So he was NOT circumcised. (Gal 2.3)

So a young Jewish believer was intentionally subjected to the WHOLE LAW, by the same guy who wrote that.

Clearly you don't understand the situation. I won't give you the answer, but clearly you need to think this through more carefully. Hint: who were Timothy's parents?

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

Roms. 7:15-25

"For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully agree with the law of God in the inner person, but I see a different law in the parts of my body waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin, the law which is in my body’s parts. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

 

[D-D-W]

With the eclipsing of the Law of Moses by the NT law of Christ, circumcision is done away with.

Not for ethnic Jews.

In the NT, with no need of circumcision anymore, Tim's circumcision was simply a means of gaining entry into the local synagogues.

That is an attempt to take what Paul said and make it fit your doctrine.

Paul had no power to subject anyone to anything that God had done away with.

First off, the testimony of God's Law was that it was eternal. It is repeated over and over in the Books of Moses.

Second, if what you say is true, why did Paul warn the Galatians (5:3) that if they got circumcised they would have to keep the whole law? If there was no law, the warning would have been unnecessary.

 

[D-D-W]

Clearly you don't understand the situation. I won't give you the answer, but clearly you need to think this through more carefully. Hint: who were Timothy's parents?

Acts 16:1
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek,

In the late 2nd temple period the Jewish lineage was changing from patrilineal (thru the father) to matrilineal (thru the mother) as it is to this day.

So Timothy was (at least by modern standards) ethnically Jewish. By circ'ing him, Paul made him fully Jewish.

 

[Robert Pate]

Roms. 7:15-25

"For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully agree with the law of God in the inner person, but I see a different law in the parts of my body waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin, the law which is in my body’s parts. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

The KJV is a much better version of Paul's struggle with sin.

This scripture is very compatible with Galatians 5:17. Only those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit will experience this struggle in their lives.

 

[Randy]

Not for ethnic Jews.

That is an attempt to take what Paul said and make it fit your doctrine.

First off, the testimony of God's Law was that it was eternal. It is repeated over and over in the Books of Moses.

Second, if what you say is true, why did Paul warn the Galatians (5:3) that if they got circumcised they would have to keep the whole law? If there was no law, the warning would have been unnecessary.

There was a change in the covenant because God stated the people broke the covenant He made with them.
The inward circumcision by the Spirit of Christ on the hearts of the believers is a sign of that new covenant Jesus introduced by His blood and He is depicted as a high priest from the tribe of Judah in the order of Melchizedek which is another change in the law noted in Hebrews. The old covenant is obsolete.

The freedoms found in Christ are the same for ALL. Everyone is Christ has had their hearts purified by "Faith" not the law of Moses.

I know by the Spirit and the NT those that "God" calls His children
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The entrance into the only valid covenant (new and eternal) with God is the same for all and the freedoms of Christ found in that covenant (serving/worshipping God in the new way of the Spirit not the old way by the written code) is the same for ALL.

 

[jaybo]

Roms. 7:15-25

"For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully agree with the law of God in the inner person, but I see a different law in the parts of my body waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin, the law which is in my body’s parts. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

Keep reading!

 

[jaybo]

There was a change in the covenant because God stated the people broke the covenant He made with them.
The inward circumcision by the Spirit of Christ on the hearts of the believers is a sign of that new covenant Jesus introduced by His blood and He is depicted as a high priest from the tribe of Judah in the order of Melchizedek which is another change in the law noted in Hebrews. The old covenant is obsolete.

The freedoms found in Christ are the same for ALL. Everyone is Christ has had their hearts purified by "Faith" not the law of Moses.

I know by the Spirit and the NT those that "God" calls His children
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The entrance into the only valid covenant (new and eternal) with God is the same for all and the freedoms of Christ found in that covenant (serving/worshipping God in the new way of the Spirit not the old way by the written code) is the same for ALL.

Great post!

 

[Hopeful]

Not for ethnic Jews.

If they still consider their ethnicity an important factor of salvation, they have become idolaters of country over God.
They are still in the OT, OC.

That is an attempt to take what Paul said and make it fit your doctrine.

And your POV wasn't?

First off, the testimony of God's Law was that it was eternal. It is repeated over and over in the Books of Moses.

It is eternal, but it's eternity included it's passing away at the cross of the presaged Redeemer. (Co. 2:14)
If circumcision, dietary rules, feast keeping, sabbath keeping, tithing, temple worship, days of atonement, priesthood, etc. are necessary for salvation, then the blood of Christ was not enough of a sacrifice.

Second, if what you say is true, why did Paul warn the Galatians (5:3) that if they got circumcised they would have to keep the whole law? If there was no law, the warning would have been unnecessary.

Only necessary for the folks who were tricked or misguided into believing any part of the OT was still in effect.
If they accepted one part as necessary, the whole of it was necessary.
They had to elect in which Covenant they would like to live.
They couldn't live by both.
Which are you living in?