Is It Possible to Live Without Sinning?

[Guest]

Amen pnatt

[John317]

Quote:

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:12)

Saving people from their sins saves them from death.

Many people believe Christ saves us in our sins rather than FROM our sins. There is a big difference.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Quote:

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:12)

Saving people from their sins saves them from death.

Many people believe Christ saves us in our sins rather than FROM our sins. There is a big difference.

I do believe Robert is one of those sin till Jesus comes Christians.

[John317]

Quote:

By the wedding garment in the parable is represented the pure, spotless character which Christ's true followers will possess. To the church it is given "that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white," "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Revelation 19:8; Ephesians 5:27. The fine linen, says the Scripture, "is the righteousness of saints." Revelation 19:8. It is the righteousness of Christ, His own unblemished character, that through faith is imparted to all who receive Him as their personal Saviour.(COL 310)

Good quote.

Here's another important quote on this subject from the same book:

Quote:

The guests at the marriage feast were inspected by the king. Only those were accepted who had obeyed his requirements and put on the wedding garment. So it is with the guests at the gospel feast. All must pass the scrutiny of the great King, and only those are received who have put on the robe of Christ's righteousness.

Righteousness is right doing, and it is by their deeds that all will be judged. Our characters are revealed by what we do. The works show whether the faith is genuine.

It is not enough for us to believe that Jesus is not an impostor, and that the religion of the Bible is no cunningly devised fable. We may believe that the name of Jesus is the only name under heaven whereby man may be saved, and yet we may not through faith make Him our personal Saviour. It is not enough to believe the theory of truth. It is not enough to make a profession of faith in Christ and have our names registered on the church roll. "He that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him. And hereby we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given us." "Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments." 1 John 3:24; 2:3. This is the genuine evidence of conversion. Whatever our profession, it amounts to nothing unless Christ is revealed in works of righteousness.

The truth is to be planted in the heart. It is to control the mind and regulate the affections. The whole character must be stamped with the divine utterances. Every jot and tittle of the word of God is to be brought into the daily practice.

He who becomes a partaker of the divine nature will be in harmony with God's great standard of righteousness, His holy law. This is the rule by which God measures the actions of men. This will be the test of character in the judgment.

There are many who claim that by the death of Christ the law was abrogated; but in this they contradict Christ's own words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. . . . Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Matt. 5:17, 18. It was to atone for man's transgression of the law that Christ laid down His life. Could the law have been changed or set aside, then Christ need not have died. By His life on earth He honored the law of God. By His death He established it. He gave His life as a sacrifice, not to destroy God's law, not to create a lower standard, but that justice might be maintained, that the law might be shown to be immutable, that it might stand fast forever.

Satan had claimed that it was impossible for man to obey God's commandments; and in our own strength it is true that we cannot obey them. But Christ came in the form of humanity, and by His perfect obedience He proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts. COL 312-314

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Quote:

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:12)

Saving people from their sins saves them from death.

Many people believe Christ saves us in our sins rather than FROM our sins. There is a big difference.

We can't be saved in our sins because our sins is what kills us. This is the whole point!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The man of Romans 7 is trying to obey God in the flesh, apart from the Holy Spirit and apart from a relationship with Christ.

False!

The man of Romans 7 hasn't learned to walk in the Spirit (and I might add none of us do it perfectly)....His faith is "in Christ" and hence there's no condemnation even though he is failing to live the good life. To say opposite gives no hope to those who fall frequently and such a stance promotes legalism.

I agree he hasn't learned to walk in the Spirit, but it's more than that. There is no mention at all of the Spirit. Neither is there any mention of faith in Christ until the very last verse. I would suggest that that is when he finally realizes his miserable situation and that his only hope lies in making Jesus Christ his personal Savior and Lord. If the chapter stopped before verse 24, he'd be a lost man. From verses 13 to 23, the Holy Spirit is convicting him of his sins, but conviction of sin is not salvation. There are many who live with a bad conscience who won't be saved because they don't repent and place all their faith in Christ but they keep practicing sin. That was this man's condition until v. 24.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more." He wouldn't have said that if she couldn't possibly stop sinning.

Jesus wasn't telling her to be blameless...not even the Holy Spirit points out every unknown sin. Why would Jesus load her down with perfectionism? Answer: He wouldn't!

You are right that the Holy Spirit doesn't convict us at the same time of every sin we're committing. But Jesus is saying to her, and to us, to stop committing the sins we're aware of. He's certainly not telling her to stop that one sin and not to be concerned about any other sin in her life.

Literally, the verse reads, "From now on by no means any longer be sinning." Charles B. Williams has, "Stop sinning from this point on." Amplified, "From now on sin no more." The verb is a present tense and therefore may be translated as, "Do not go on practicing sin."

Quote:

A good version has the definite article "the" before "sin".

Why? Does the original Greek have the definite article? Can you give the name of a printed Greek text of John which shows the definite article?

The definite article tou is genitive singular and accompanies the adverb, apo tou nun, which literally reads, "from the now," but means, "from the present time." (See p. 130 of Ray Summers' The Essentials of New Testament Greek.)

All manuscripts read: apo tou nun mhketi hamartane. The verb is present accusative imperative second person singular.

Quote:

"The sin" refers to sexual sins or more specifically "adultery" (prostitution, etc). He was telling her to leave her life of sexual sins....

In the first place, Jesus did not say, "the sin." The word for "sin" is a verb, not a noun.

But yes, of course Jesus was telling her to leave her life of sexual sins. However, what good would it do for her to leave her life of sexual sins if she was going to replace them with other sins? Jesus does not call us cease committing only certain kinds of sins, does He?

[Robert]

The righteousness of Christ is both imputed and imparted. Why do you think this is false?

Yes, but what saves is only the imputed righteousness of Christ. Otherwise what Christ did in our humanity some 2000 years ago was incomplete.

Hebrews 10:9 Then he [Jesus] said, "Here I am, I have come to do your [His Father's] will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will [Christ's doing & dying], we have been made holy [past tense] through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[Robert]

There is no mention at all of the Spirit.

Without the Spirit the man of Romans 7 couldn't say, "For in my inner being [inward man] I delight in God's law". That phrase "inward man" always refers to the converted man. See Paul's writings. Unconverted folks don't "delight" in God's law. This can be seen in the following: "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God." [Romans 8:7]

Yes, there's no mention of the Spirit when it comes to following the desires of the law written in the heart. The flesh doesn't care about the good one desires to do....All it can do is sin. So the sin nature is stronger than the converted mind. However, "the law of the Spirit" is stronger than the flesh and when one surrenders [walks in the Spirit] he or she can experience victory over the flesh.

[Robert]

In the first place, Jesus did not say, "the sin." The word for "sin" is a verb, not a noun.

I don't have that Greek Bible, but I saw the translation. Verse 7 read: "If any one of you is without the sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

In other words if any of you are free of sexual immorality throw that stone. Now He knew they were not because according to the Spirit of the law if you lust after a woman in your heart you've committed adultery.

So I'll stay with my statement - Jesus was speaking of her sexual immorality.

Jesus takes us where we are. Her sin that got her into trouble with the Pharisees was over "adultery". That is the context and that is what Jesus had in mind when He said, "Go and sin no more."

Rob

[Robert]

Let's compare the man of Romans 7, which many maintain that he is unconverted, with the woman caught in adultery:

Romans 7:22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

John 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

If the woman caught in adultery doesn't stand condemned then the man of Romans 7 isn't condemned either.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

The righteousness of Christ is both imputed and imparted. Why do you think this is false?

Yes, but what saves is only the imputed righteousness of Christ. Otherwise what Christ did in our humanity some 2000 years ago was incomplete.

Hebrews 10:9 Then he [Jesus] said, "Here I am, I have come to do your [His Father's] will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will [Christ's doing & dying], we have been made holy [past tense] through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ok, so when you wrote, "False! It's only imputed." you were mistaken.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Yes' date=' but what saves is only the imputed righteousness of Christ. Otherwise what Christ did in our humanity some 2000 years ago was incomplete.

Hebrews 10:9 Then he [Jesus'] said, "Here I am, I have come to do your [His Father's] will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will [Christ's doing & dying], we have been made holy [past tense] through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ok, so when you wrote, "False! It's only imputed." you were mistaken.

Here's what I said: "False! It's only imputed....What we experience is imparted, but this isn't what saves."

Both come from Christ, but it's the imputed that saves....Both don't save! The imparted is the result of having assurance in the imputed righteousness of Christ. What Christ did 2000 years ago was imputed....What He does in the believer as they rest in Him is imparted. In the judgment Christ will use His imparted righteousness to prove not one's goodness, but one's faith. Once He has proven one's faith to be genuine He clothes that person in His imputed righteousness. Hence faith in Christ allows Him to present the believer in His imputed righteousness.

Rob

[pnattmbtc]

John wrote that the righteousness of Christ is both imputed and imparted, to which you responded, "False! It's only imputed....What we experience is imparted, but this isn't what saves."

When you wrote "False! It's only imputed," this was incorrect, wasn't it?, since both imputed and imparted righteousness come from Christ. So you should have written, "True!... What we experience ... etc." Right?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

In the first place, Jesus did not say, "the sin." The word for "sin" is a verb, not a noun.

I don't have that Greek Bible, but I saw the translation. Verse 7 read: "If any one of you is without the sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

What part of speech is the word "ho" in verse 7? Is it a definite article or a postpositive article [i.e., having the force of the relative pronoun]? It's the latter. So in this instance, it is always translated as "the one" or "he who is". "The one [or "he who is"] without sin." Lit. "the one of you without sin..." or "the sinless one of you.."

It is not "the sin."

What you don't evidently realize is that if you want "ho" to be a definite article as in "the sin," then you have no relative pronoun, "any one." In that case, you would be forced to translate it as, "the sinless among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

It's impossible to translate it as "without the sin."

I'd be very interested in knowing what translation gives it as "the sin." Do you have the title? In all of my 67+ translations, not a single one gives it that way, and for very good reason.

Don''t take my word for this-- check the Greek grammars and Greek Lexicons. For instance, see p. 433-435 of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Baker Book House).

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Why would God say such a thing? Because the Jews had made the law their master and under it the penalty for sin was death....Under grace this man would have lived....

Well first of all this is not god speaking because the OT is simply an iron age text trying to make sense of the world they live in. The whole blood sacrifice myth is iron age thinking.

This might hold water if this was an isolated incident, but this OT god does all kinds of childish and petulant things which say nothing about god, but simply reveal the immaturity of the OT writers.

To me it is so obvious that these are made up ideas of men, not any god. That's why god would not say such a thing.

This is a comment/s by a created being re: to He Who created him. And the created being doesn't believe the Word in which wisdom exists.

"....before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. "Hebrews 11:5-7 NKJV

Regards!

[cardw]

Quote:

This is a comment/s by a created being re: to He Who created him. And the created being doesn't believe the Word in which wisdom exists.

This is quite a claim since you have absolutely no evidence that the god described in the Bible created the universe.

I, on the other hand, have volumes of evidence that would indicate otherwise. This includes the history of how the Bible was put together, the motivations of its compilers, logical fallacies, indirect and direct evidence of a man made document.

The claim that the Bible is revelation of the great god of the universe not only fails in every area of evidence, it profoundly fails.

[Robert]

John wrote that the righteousness of Christ is both imputed and imparted, to which you responded, "False! It's only imputed....What we experience is imparted, but this isn't what saves."

When you wrote "False! It's only imputed," this was incorrect, wasn't it?, since both imputed and imparted righteousness come from Christ. So you should have written, "True!... What we experience ... etc." Right?

[olger]

Yes, it possible to surrender our will to Christ's will.

carry on,

og

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

me:John wrote that the righteousness of Christ is both imputed and imparted, to which you responded, "False! It's only imputed....What we experience is imparted, but this isn't what saves."

When you wrote "False! It's only imputed," this was incorrect, wasn't it?, since both imputed and imparted righteousness come from Christ. So you should have written, "True!... What we experience ... etc." Right?

Robert:Here's what was said:

"'the robe of Christ's righteousness'-- includes both the imputed righteousness and the imparted righteousness of Christ."

Since we are clothed in Christ's righteousness, which John's states is both imputed and imparted, then according to his theory we are saved by both. This is false!

This statement simply says "'the robe of Christ's righteousness'-- includes both the imputed righteousness and the imparted righteousness of Christ." Are you saying this is false? The robe of Christ's righteousness includes only the imputed righteousness of Christ?

You wrote, "False! It's only imputed." Is what you meant, "True! But only the imputed righteousness saves us"?

What I'm asking is this. Are you disagreeing with the idea that the robe of Christ's righteousness includes both imputed and imparted righteousness. Or are you only disagreeing with the idea that we are saved by both imputed and imparted righteousness, while agreeing that Christ's robe of righteousness includes both.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Robert

I don't have that Greek Bible, but I saw the translation. Verse 7 read: "If any one of you is without the sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

[/quote']

What part of speech is the word "ho" in verse 7? Is it a definite article or a postpositive article [i.e., having the force of the relative pronoun]? It's the latter. So in this instance, it is always translated as "the one" or "he who is". "The one [or "he who is"] without sin." Lit. "the one of you without sin..." or "the sinless one of you.."

It is not "the sin."

What you don't evidently realize is that if you want "ho" to be a definite article as in "the sin," then you have no relative pronoun, "any one." In that case, you would be forced to translate it as, "the sinless among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

It's impossible to translate it as "without the sin."

I'd be very interested in knowing what translation gives it as "the sin." Do you have the title? In all of my 67+ translations, not a single one gives it that way, and for very good reason.

Don''t take my word for this-- check the Greek grammars and Greek Lexicons. For instance, see p. 433-435 of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Baker Book House).

I was curious about this too. In addition to looking at every English translation I could find, I also looked at Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French and Russian (which didn't help, since Russian doesn't have articles), and could find any in any of these languages either that translated it "the sin."

[Robert]

I'd be very interested in knowing what translation gives it as "the sin." Do you have the title?

No...it was 15 years ago...but even then if that Bible is wrong it doesn't matter. The context is about adultery and that's the sin Jesus had in mind when He said "go and sin no more"

Rob

[Robert]

Are you disagreeing with the idea that the robe of Christ's righteousness includes both imputed and imparted righteousness.

It's not partially by what Christ does in us (imparted) and partially what He did 2000 years ago in our humanity (imputed). IT's 100% what He did 2000 years ago (imputed) that constitutes the robe of His righteousness.

[Robert]

I was curious about this too. In addition to looking at every English translation I could find, I also looked at Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French and Russian (which didn't help, since Russian doesn't have articles), and could find any in any of these languages either that translated it "the sin."

I'll talk with Jack Sequeira....I can't find it in his notes....He knows Greek, etc....I don't, but the nice thing is common sense prevails. The bottom line is Christ doesn't expect perfection. That's why He came and lived & died for us...

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

I'd be very interested in knowing what translation gives it as "the sin." Do you have the title?

No...it was 15 years ago...but even then if that Bible is wrong it doesn't matter. The context is about adultery and that's the sin Jesus had in mind when He said "go and sin no more"

Rob

How do you know what Jesus had in mind?