Why Christians Cannot Sin

[Iconoclast]

Founders Ministries

The dominion of sin has been destroyed, but all sin has not yet been eradicated. This means that believers should not expect perfection on this side of heaven, though they should certainly long for...

www.facebook.com

This should help

 

[Iconoclast]

This should help,if you read it

 

[D-D-W]

Once again, you are clearly misquoting Scripture.

No he was not Misquoting scripture, he was misapplying it. His quote of Romans 3.10 was correct.
But Paul was quoting Psalm 14 and 51:

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

So it is clear that Paul was talking about fools. Those who reject God or disbelieve in His existence. CONTEXT!!!

Do not take something speaking to a specific situation and make it a blanket statement for everyone.

 

[Robert Pate]

No he was not Misquoting scripture, he was misapplying it. His quote of Romans 3.10 was correct.
But Paul was quoting Psalm 14 and 51:

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

So it is clear that Paul was talking about fools. Those who reject God or disbelieve in His existence. CONTEXT!!!

Do not take something speaking to a specific situation and make it a blanket statement for everyone.

Nope. Paul was not talking about fools. Paul was talking about humanity in general. Paul said of himself, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do" Romans 7:19. Paul is confessing that he sins.

All of humanity are sinners, because all have been born after Adam, Romans 5:12.

 

[Randy]

Only one is incapable of sin. (God) and He is the first and last. Even some of His angels "chose" to sin.

We are capable of overcoming the world by the "Spirit" so "if" by the "Spirit" you put down the misdeeds of the flesh you will live. As in do not rebuild what God has destroyed. "Choose life" Remain in Christ.

 

[jaybo]

Nope. Paul was not talking about fools. Paul was talking about humanity in general. Paul said of himself, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do" Romans 7:19. Paul is confessing that he sins.

All of humanity are sinners, because all have been born after Adam, Romans 5:12.

You need to go on to Romans 8. Romans 7 is referring to the way Paul was in his former life.

You should pay careful attention to what Paul wrote in Romans 8:6-8, " To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

 

[Robert Pate]

You need to go on to Romans 8. Romans 7 is referring to the way Paul was in his former life.

You should pay careful attention to what Paul wrote in Romans 8:6-8, " To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Romans 7 is not about Paul's former life before he was saved. Where does it say that?

Paul was describing his struggle with sin. Unbelievers and non-Christians don't struggle with sin because they don't have the Holy Spirit. People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would: Galatians 5:17.

 

[jaybo]

Romans 7 is not about Paul's former life before he was saved. Where does it say that?

Paul was describing his struggle with sin. Unbelievers and non-Christians don't struggle with sin because they don't have the Holy Spirit. People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would: Galatians 5:17.

So Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, who was directly converted and saved by Jesus Christ, struggled with sin after he was saved? It's very sad that you don't understand what Paul wrote in Romans 7 (and elsewhere).

Here is what he wrote in Romans 8:1-8, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh [including you, Robert!], but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.[true Christians] To set the mind on the flesh is death, [are you paying attention, Robert?] but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God [are you paying attention, Robert?]; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

And you wrote this: People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin." I believe what Paul wrote, not what you wrote.

 

[Free]

So Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, who was directly converted and saved by Jesus Christ, struggled with sin after he was saved? It's very sad that you don't understand what Paul wrote in Romans 7 (and elsewhere).

Here is what he wrote in Romans 8:1-8, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh [including you, Robert!], but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.[true Christians] To set the mind on the flesh is death, [are you paying attention, Robert?] but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God [are you paying attention, Robert?]; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

And you wrote this: People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin." I believe what Paul wrote, not what you wrote.

Peter sinned:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” (ESV)

So, on what grounds do you think Paul didn't? Is this rather not precisely the type of thing Paul is talking about in Romans 7?

 

[Free]

You need to go on to Romans 8. Romans 7 is referring to the way Paul was in his former life.

You should pay careful attention to what Paul wrote in Romans 8:6-8, " To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 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.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 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. (ESV)

If Romans 7 refers "to the way Paul was in his former life," not only is he speaking in the present tense, but it would seem to contradict what he says in Philippians:

Php 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
Php 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. (ESV)

Either he was struggling with sin in his former life or he was blameless; either he was unable to do the good he wanted or he was a Pharisee.

 

[jaybo]

Peter sinned:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” (ESV)

So, on what grounds do you think Paul didn't? Is this rather not precisely the type of thing Paul is talking about in Romans 7?

I never said that Paul didn't sin, nor did he. Paul, Peter, everyone but Jesus Christ sinned. However, that is not what Paul wrote about in Romans 7. He wrote about struggling with sin prior to being saved and becoming one with Christ.

Have a look at Romans 7:11, "For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me." So Paul is actually dead? He is writing from beyond the grave? Obviously, this chapter requires understanding.

And in verse 14 he writes, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin." So Paul, the great apostle, is a phony? He isn't saved; he is a slave to sin?

And in verse 24 he writes, "Wretched person that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" So, there is the proof that the great apostle Paul is actually unsaved!!!

Okay, enough with the foolishness. Paul is clearly writing in Romans 7 about the life one lives as an unsaved person. Is that really so hard to understand? It clearly doesn't refer to the condition of the great apostle after he was saved from his sinful life by Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:21-24, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned [past tense] and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified[present tense] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

a) Everyone has sinned
b) Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are justified [considered sinless] by his grace.

 

[Free]

I never said that Paul didn't sin, nor did he. Paul, Peter, everyone but Jesus Christ sinned. However, that is not what Paul wrote about in Romans 7. He wrote about struggling with sin prior to being saved and becoming one with Christ.

Have a look at Romans 7:11, "For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me." So Paul is actually dead? He is writing from beyond the grave? Obviously, this chapter requires understanding.

And in verse 14 he writes, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin." So Paul, the great apostle, is a phony? He isn't saved; he is a slave to sin?

And in verse 24 he writes, "Wretched person that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" So, there is the proof that the great apostle Paul is actually unsaved!!!

Okay, enough with the foolishness. Paul is clearly writing in Romans 7 about the life one lives as an unsaved person. Is that really so hard to understand? It clearly doesn't refer to the condition of the great apostle after he was saved from his sinful life by Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:21-24, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned [past tense] and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified[present tense] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

a) Everyone has sinned
b) Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are justified [considered sinless] by his grace.

So, you agree that believers do sin, correct?

 

[Hopeful]

Romans 7 is not about Paul's former life before he was saved. Where does it say that?

Paul was describing his struggle with sin. Unbelievers and non-Christians don't struggle with sin because they don't have the Holy Spirit. People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would: Galatians 5:17.

It "says that" in Rom 7:5, and again in Rom 7:18, when he makes references to his past in the flesh.
By the end of Rom 7 he makes it clear which he now follows.
The mind.

 

[Hopeful]

Peter sinned:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” (ESV)

So, on what grounds do you think Paul didn't? Is this rather not precisely the type of thing Paul is talking about in Romans 7?

How is it a sin to accommodate visitors?
Don't you cater to the visitors a tad more than the usual household when you have company?
Is that a sin for you?
Peter's "fault" was that he made it appear that the Law still had some merit, when he could have called attention to the dissolution of the Law and our oneness between Jew and Gentile in Christ.
Your inference is that observing God's Law is a sin.
Untimely, but not sin.

 

[Hopeful]

And in verse 24 he writes, "Wretched person that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" So, there is the proof that the great apostle Paul is actually unsaved!!!

Answered in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Romans 3:21-24, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned [past tense] and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified[present tense] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Rom 7:23...Answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

a) Everyone has sinned
b) Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are justified [considered sinless] by his grace.

Actually sinless, as the old man (body of this death) was killed, and we have been freed from the law of sin (which was in our members).
If one repents of sin, they are by definition an ex-sinner.

 

[Free]

How is it a sin to accommodate visitors?
Don't you cater to the visitors a tad more than the usual household when you have company?
Is that a sin for you?
Peter's "fault" was that he made it appear that the Law still had some merit, when he could have called attention to the dissolution of the Law and our oneness between Jew and Gentile in Christ.
Your inference is that observing God's Law is a sin.
Untimely,

Not at all. It seems you may not have read the passage close enough.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” (ESV)

To think that this was merely about accommodating or catering to "visitors a tad more than the usual household," is to completely ignore the language used, as though one did not even read the passage. It is very clearly the sin of hypocrisy by which Peter "stood condemned."

 

[Robert Pate]

So Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, who was directly converted and saved by Jesus Christ, struggled with sin after he was saved? It's very sad that you don't understand what Paul wrote in Romans 7 (and elsewhere).

Here is what he wrote in Romans 8:1-8, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh [including you, Robert!], but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.[true Christians] To set the mind on the flesh is death, [are you paying attention, Robert?] but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God [are you paying attention, Robert?]; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

And you wrote this: People that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the ones that struggle with sin." I believe what Paul wrote, not what you wrote.

Yes, Paul struggled with sin after he was converted to Christ.

You apparently think that something is wrong with Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Romans chapter 7 is about Paul's physical life as a Christian. His struggle with sin.

Romans Chapter 8 is about Paul's spiritual life as a Chrisitan. His victory in Jesus Christ.

The fact that you don't have this struggle in your life is a serious concern, because only those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit will have this struggle. Because "The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would" Galatians 5:17.

 

[Hopeful]

Not at all. It seems you may not have read the passage close enough.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Your version of the bible has changed what the KJV said.
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (KJV)
Why would God condemn a man for following a God given Law?
His fault was making it look like the Law still had any sway over converts.

Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” (ESV)
To think that this was merely about accommodating or catering to "visitors a tad more than the usual household," is to completely ignore the language used, as though one did not even read the passage. It is very clearly the sin of hypocrisy by which Peter "stood condemned."

I know that some people, or versions of the bible, seem to be more interested in bringing condemnation than cutting some slack or reasoning things out, so I chalk up your POV to the version of the bible you use.
But I must ask, is it also condemnable to hide away your beers when the JWs visit?
Or should we offer them one to illustrate the freedoms we have in Christ?
Is it a sin if we have meatless lasagna when a vegetarian visits?
Is it a sin if we put out the good towels when a visitor comes over?
At what point does catering to the visitor become condemnable?

 

[Free]

Your version of the bible has changed what the KJV said.
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (KJV)
Why would God condemn a man for following a God given Law?
His fault was making it look like the Law still had any sway over converts.

The KJV got it wrong, or at least, not as correct as it should have been. The Greek word used is kataginosko; it is found three times in the KJV and is translated as "condemn" the other two times.

Definition

to find fault with, blame to accuse, condemn

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kataginosko.html

According to M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament:

He was to be blamed (κατεγνωσμένος ἦν)

A.V. is wrong. Rev. correctly, he stood condemned. Not by the body of Christians at Antioch; rather his act was its own condemnation.

His fault was clearly hypocrisy, which is sin. He was undermining the gospel.

I know that some people, or versions of the bible, seem to be more interested in bringing condemnation than cutting some slack or reasoning things out, so I chalk up your POV to the version of the bible you use.

On the contrary, even with the KJV it is abundantly clear that Peter sinned in this passage. You are not even attempting to address the strength of the language that Paul uses. If it really was merely about catering to visitors, then why did Paul take such issue with it?

But I must ask, is it also condemnable to hide away your beers when the JWs visit?
Or should we offer them one to illustrate the freedoms we have in Christ?
Is it a sin if we have meatless lasagna when a vegetarian visits?
Is it a sin if we put out the good towels when a visitor comes over?
At what point does catering to the visitor become condemnable?

Again, the language unequivocally proves that this was not merely about catering to visitors.

Do you think God approves of hypocrisy?

 

[Hopeful]

The KJV got it wrong, or at least, not as correct as it should have been. The Greek word used is kataginosko; it is found three times in the KJV and is translated as "condemn" the other two times.

Definition

to find fault with, blame to accuse, condemn

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kataginosko.html

According to M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament:

He was to be blamed (κατεγνωσμένος ἦν)

A.V. is wrong. Rev. correctly, he stood condemned. Not by the body of Christians at Antioch; rather his act was its own condemnation.

His fault was clearly hypocrisy, which is sin. He was undermining the gospel.


On the contrary, even with the KJV it is abundantly clear that Peter sinned in this passage. You are not even attempting to address the strength of the language that Paul uses. If it really was merely about catering to visitors, then why did Paul take such issue with it?


Again, the language unequivocally proves that this was not merely about catering to visitors.

Do you think God approves of hypocrisy?

Did God find fault in Paul for circumcising Timothy?
If Peter was worthy of condemnation for not eating with Gentiles, isn't Paul equally guilty for circumcising Timothy?

Peter's fault was lending credence to the Law being in effect, after the Law was nailed to the cross of Christ.
Condemnable?
Mistaken, but not sinful.

Too bad you didn't answer any of my questions in post #138.