Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why Christians Cannot Sin

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?
No. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, whose mother was a Jew? "because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The Jews in the places they were going wouldn't have listened to them; they wouldn't have given the gospel a hearing because they wouldn't have let Paul or Timothy close. This was done for the sake of the gospel, not for the purpose of adhering to the law. Peter, on the other hand, undermined the gospel with those Jews who were already believers.

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.
And what was the purpose of the Law? Hypocrisy is sin and that is what Peter was guilty of. You are continuing to ignore the forcefulness of the language.

Too bad you didn't answer any of my questions in post #138.
I did. I said that "the language unequivocally proves that this was not merely about catering to visitors." Your questions are about catering to visitors, which is not what the passage is about.

Speaking of unanswered questions:

If it really was merely about catering to visitors, then why did Paul take such issue with it?
Do you think God approves of hypocrisy?
 
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.
Yes, the unsaved Paul was following his flesh because he did not have the Holy Spirit. But after Paul was saved, he still said, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do" Romans 8:19. Paul still had a tendency to sin.
 
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.
That is simply your interpretation, which I disagree with. Paul is God's slave; he follows orders. He doesn't struggle; he obeys his Lord.

Your interpretation or Romans 7 and 8 is nonsense.

Galatians 5:13-26 shows how far off the mark that you are. (Try reading what the Bible says in context).

"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. 16 But I say, live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh. For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh, for these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God! [This includes Paul, according to you, correct? According to you Paul is unsaved and going to hell].

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ [including Paul] have crucified the flesh[notice the verb tense here!!!] with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us [including Paul himself] also behave in accordance with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another."

Your theology is way off base. If anyone belongs to Christ they have crucified the flesh. Period.
 
Yes, the unsaved Paul was following his flesh because he did not have the Holy Spirit. But after Paul was saved, he still said, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do" Romans 8:19. Paul still had a tendency to sin.
Read the above post. Your theology is totally and obviously wrong! Again, "Now those who belong to Christ [including Paul] have crucified the flesh[notice the verb tense here!!!] with its passions and desires."
 
Read the above post. Your theology is totally and obviously wrong! Again, "Now those who belong to Christ [including Paul] have crucified the flesh[notice the verb tense here!!!] with its passions and desires."
Are you able to crucify your flesh?

Galatians 5:24 is spiritual. When Jesus died on the cross, we died with him spiritually, Romans 6:6. This is why Paul said, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live" Galatians 2:20. You are trying to mix the spiritual into the physical. It won't work. Physically, you are still a sinner saved by grace.
 
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?
Exegesis on Galatians 2:11-14
This is about the conflict between Judaism and Christianity.

Peter after his conversion had always been happy to eat with Gentiles until James sent some Jewish followers to his house. Knowing how legalistic Jews were Peter was afraid his new Christian way of life would get back to the legalist faction in Jerusalem so he stopped having fellowship with his Gentile friends and ate only with the Jews. By going back and readopting Jewish customs he was denying one of the great truths of the gospel which is that all believers are free from the Law, in Christ Jesus. (Gal_5:1)

Paul was trying his hardest to bring Christianity to the Jews and Peter should have been doing the same, but instead, he hid his Christian faith.

When Paul heard about this he said to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, are living like the Gentiles, and not according to Judaism, why do you compel (by your example) the Gentiles to Judaize (adopt the rites and customs of the Jews)?
.
 
Last edited:
Those born of God "Will not continue to sin".

Johns words
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

So how far did John sift in considering what he defined as sin?? For he did consider it possible to live sin free. And Jesus Himself stated everyone who sins is a slave to sin unless the Son sets you free. Which suggests someone who doesn't continue to sin.

These commands can be kept.
You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

Love one another as "Jesus" loves.
Love God above all including your own family members.

Abstain from sexual immorality.

Our choice=>"Who lives in Him"
Our choice=>"Who remains in Him"

Yet even Paul and Barnabas showed fault but they were neither immoral or Godless nor violent men. Both were in Christ. And I am sure both considered themselves still working towards Christs perfection.

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Regardless there should be a marked noticeable difference shown between those who really are in Christ and no longer of this world vs those who are still of this world. That is why John states those who claim to know Jesus but do not do what He commands are liars and those who are in Him do not continue to sin.

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

"Conditional"
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If "you" keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
 
I didn't say that, Paul did. I am just quoting Paul.

Paul said, "For where there is no law, there is no sin" Romans 4:15.

According to Paul the Mosiac law has been abolished, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14. Many will be offended by this because the basis for all religions is the law. Without the law all religions are worthless. God wants his people to be free from laws, rules and religion. This is why Paul said, "The just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17. The just live by faith in Christ and his Gospel and not by rules, laws or religion.

To be free from the law is to be free from sin, "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace" Romans 6:14. The law is what promotes sin. "But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence (Lust) for without the law sin was dead" Romans 7:8.

No one will be able to live the Christian life until they are free from the law and the commandments. Paul wrote, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes" Romans 10:4. To everyone that believes the Gospel. In the Gospel Jesus by his righteous sinless life fulfills all of the demands of the law. He does this in our name and on our behalf, just like we did it ourselves.

The fulfilling and the abolishment of the law was not enough to save fallen man. Something had to be done about our sins and the sins of the whole world. Again, Jesus in our name and on our behalf, bore our sins on the cross and atoned for them and the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2. Because of the doing and the dying of Jesus we can now stand in God's Holy Court as justified. Jesus justifies the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconciles them unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. We are complete in him, Colossians 2:10.
What do you mean by law?
 
Exegesis on Galatians 2:11-14
This is about the conflict between Judaism and Christianity.
On the surface maybe, but not really. It was about Peter acting hypocritically to the point that other Jews followed his example and were led astray.

Peter after his conversion had always been happy to eat with Gentiles until James sent some Jewish followers to his house. Knowing how legalistic Jews were Peter was afraid his new Christian way of life would get back to the legalist faction in Jerusalem so he stopped having fellowship with his Gentile friends and ate only with the Jews. By going back and readopting Jewish customs he was denying one of the great truths of the gospel which is that all believers are free from the Law, in Christ Jesus. (Gal_5:1)

Paul was trying his hardest to bring Christianity to the Jews and Peter should have been doing the same, but instead, he hid his Christian faith.

When Paul heard about this he said to Peter, "If you, being a Jew, are living like the Gentiles, and not according to Judaism, why do you compel (by your example) the Gentiles to Judaize (adopt the rites and customs of the Jews)?
.
I'm assuming you meant that Paul was trying his hardest to bring Christianity to the Gentiles. There is also nothing in the passage that any of this was at Peter's house. I'm not sure why you think Peter "hid his Christian faith," when all involved, Jew and Gentile, appear to be Christians. This wasn't a sudden stopping of fellowship with the Gentiles, but a gradual pulling away out of fear of the circumcision party. He chose to follow the law, implying that it was still in force, rather than following the gospel. It was to make a distinction between Jew and Gentile, which elsewhere Paul says was done away with in Christ. This was the sin of hypocrisy on Peter's part.

It's quite amazing that this is even being disputed, apart from certain people wanting the Bible to say that Christians do not or cannot sin, which it doesn't but rather makes it quite clear that they do.

Perhaps you are willing to answer the question which has yet to be answered despite my asking it twice: Do you think God approves of hypocrisy? Or, do you think hypocrisy is a sin?
 
On the surface maybe, but not really. It was about Peter acting hypocritically to the point that other Jews followed his example and were led astray.


I'm assuming you meant that Paul was trying his hardest to bring Christianity to the Gentiles. There is also nothing in the passage that any of this was at Peter's house. I'm not sure why you think Peter "hid his Christian faith," when all involved, Jew and Gentile, appear to be Christians. This wasn't a sudden stopping of fellowship with the Gentiles, but a gradual pulling away out of fear of the circumcision party. He chose to follow the law, implying that it was still in force, rather than following the gospel. It was to make a distinction between Jew and Gentile, which elsewhere Paul says was done away with in Christ. This was the sin of hypocrisy on Peter's part.

It's quite amazing that this is even being disputed, apart from certain people wanting the Bible to say that Christians do not or cannot sin, which it doesn't but rather makes it quite clear that they do.

Perhaps you are willing to answer the question which has yet to be answered despite my asking it twice: Do you think God approves of hypocrisy? Or, do you think hypocrisy is a sin?
Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogues first.
Acts 18:1-28 ESV
(1) After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.
(2) And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them,
(3) and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.
(4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.
(5) When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.
(6) And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
(7) And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue.
(8) Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
(9) And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent,
(10) for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.”
(11) And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
(12) But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal,
(13) saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.”
(14) But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint.
(15) But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things.”
(16) And he drove them from the tribunal.
(17) And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of this.
(18) After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
(19) And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
(20) When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined.
(21) But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus.
(22) When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch.
(23) After spending some time there, he departed and went from one place to the next through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
(24) Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
(25) He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
(26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
(27) And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,
(28) for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Of course, hypocrisy is a sin.
.
 
Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogues first.
Acts 18:1-28 ESV
(1) After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.
(2) And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them,
(3) and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.
(4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.
(5) When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.
(6) And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
(7) And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue.
(8) Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
(9) And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent,
(10) for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.”
(11) And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
(12) But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal,
(13) saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.”
(14) But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint.
(15) But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things.”
(16) And he drove them from the tribunal.
(17) And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of this.
(18) After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
(19) And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
(20) When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined.
(21) But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus.
(22) When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch.
(23) After spending some time there, he departed and went from one place to the next through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
(24) Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
(25) He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
(26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
(27) And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,
(28) for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Of course, hypocrisy is a sin.
.
There we have it. Peter sinned, as all Christians do.
 
No. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, whose mother was a Jew? "because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The Jews in the places they were going wouldn't have listened to them; they wouldn't have given the gospel a hearing because they wouldn't have let Paul or Timothy close. This was done for the sake of the gospel, not for the purpose of adhering to the law. Peter, on the other hand, undermined the gospel with those Jews who were already believers.
True, but both Paul and Timothy lent themselves to the same behavior Peter did.
They used OT Law to assuage outsiders.
In effect, making it appear that the Law still held some authority.
Now I do recognize their motive was to enter synagogues in an area that knew of Tim's parentage, but why is that any different than Peter's attempt to not show himself a sinner for eating with Gentiles?
And what was the purpose of the Law? Hypocrisy is sin and that is what Peter was guilty of. You are continuing to ignore the forcefulness of the language.
Is it a sin to eat with Gentiles?
Peter thought the visiting Jews thought so.
He was wrong, perhaps on both counts.
I did. I said that "the language unequivocally proves that this was not merely about catering to visitors." Your questions are about catering to visitors, which is not what the passage is about.
Your POV is noted, but it erroneously makes it appear that Peter actually committed sin (for trying not to be blamed for sin), something folks in Christ are incapable of doing.
Speaking of unanswered questions:
If it really was merely about catering to visitors, then why did Paul take such issue with it?
Do you think God approves of hypocrisy?
Peter missed a big chance to establish the freedom we enjoy in Christ, and the unity of the brethren, no matter from whom they were originally born.
Doesn't mid Acts dispensationalism do the same thing?
 
Yes, the unsaved Paul was following his flesh because he did not have the Holy Spirit. But after Paul was saved, he still said, "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do" Romans 8:19. Paul still had a tendency to sin.
He did say it, when he narrated the conditions of his prior life lived after the flesh.
He had already made that clear when he mentioned "WERE in the flesh", past tense.
 
True, but both Paul and Timothy lent themselves to the same behavior Peter did.
They used OT Law to assuage outsiders.
In effect, making it appear that the Law still held some authority.
Now I do recognize their motive was to enter synagogues in an area that knew of Tim's parentage, but why is that any different than Peter's attempt to not show himself a sinner for eating with Gentiles?
What Paul did to Timothy was for appearances sake, for the sake of the gospel. What Peter did was for the sake of the law and went against the gospel. It was the sin of hypocrisy.

Is it a sin to eat with Gentiles?
Peter thought the visiting Jews thought so.
He was wrong, perhaps on both counts.

Your POV is noted, but it erroneously makes it appear that Peter actually committed sin (for trying not to be blamed for sin), something folks in Christ are incapable of doing.
You are, yet again, ignoring the forcefulness of the language. Hypocrisy is sin and that was the sin of Peter in this instance. Christians sin; the Bible makes that abundantly clear and has very sharp words of warning for those who profess Christ but deny that they sin.

Doesn't mid Acts dispensationalism do the same thing?
No idea what you're talking about.
 
The first Christians were all Jews. Gentiles came in later. They were "grafted into the tree" of God's people -- the Jews. Romans 11 spells this out very clearly.
 
The first Christians were all Jews. Gentiles came in later. They were "grafted into the tree" of God's people -- the Jews. Romans 11 spells this out very clearly.
Most of them were Jews, some were Gentile converts to Judaism.
 
What Paul did to Timothy was for appearances sake, for the sake of the gospel. What Peter did was for the sake of the law and went against the gospel. It was the sin of hypocrisy.
So was Peter's dissimulation.
Peter was worried about how he would appear to the visitors.
You are accusing him of the sin of not wanting to be accused of sin.
You are, yet again, ignoring the forcefulness of the language. Hypocrisy is sin and that was the sin of Peter in this instance. Christians sin; the Bible makes that abundantly clear and has very sharp words of warning for those who profess Christ but deny that they sin.
It is the "forcefulness" of your version of scripture's interpretation only.
No idea what you're talking about.
 
Back
Top