Do Christians Continue to Be Sinners After Conversion?

Great Debates
61

That is a whole nother thread Poly. Actually, I was tempted to post on it, but it does not fit here. Whole nuther thread!!!

I really know nothing about Hale Lindsey! What did she say in error? Just curious.

I kinda feel the same way.

I am not sure who you are talking to here, but I do agree that if God is not happy with whoever, that is between them and God. My main concern is that impressionable and unaware people do get the wrong information. I too have a hard enough time trying to follow Him. But it is my duty as a Christian to make sure that the truth be known. (God does love you very, very much, and He wants you to follow Him)

I believe somewhere in the Bible (maybe His4ever can help) it says that believers will not be subject to the wrath of God. I am not sure on this. I will have to read more. My point being that If this were true, I want as many people as possible to come to the Lord now. This is their chance. All they need to know is available. His Wrath…Boy oh boy, His Wrath. You underestimate the wrath of God. I think we can rest assure that His Wrath will reach places that. so far, love has not hit. Some refuse to hear love, logic, and truth unless it suits their needs. His wrath will be heard by all. It will pour from the sky, it will crawl from under rocks, it will come from the dirt.

62

Actually, Polycarp, I think I agree with you on all this. The law, as a covenant, is fulfilled and no longer binding - AS A WAY TO SALVATION AND TO GOD. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there is moral behavior that God wants, and sinful behaior that God does not want. The fact that we are not living under the law does not free us from God’s demand to strive for perfection or the fact that he cannot tolerate sin.

The forgiveness of Jesus does not free us to do just whatever - there is still behavior that is sinful. In addition to the most important two commandments (To love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, Loving your neighbor as yourself), one of the first meetings of elders established four additional points under the Law that Christian believers must adhere to: Do not eat meat from strangled animals, do not eat blood, do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, and avoid sexual immorality.

As we both know, the law serves to show us our sinfulness; to show us that it is not possible for us to win God’s approval through good behavior. The law also profided a temporary fix - a bandage on a wound - to allow people, through God’s grace, to partake in Jesus’s salvation before it was completed, through the system of sacrifice (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin), which, as detailed in Hebrews, is just a shadow, a copy, a precursor to the REAL sacrifice that Jesus made. The sacrifices under the law covered sin, but the sacrifice of Jesus, the lamb of God, cleansed it (kind of like those commercials for Febreze: Other sprays just cover up odors. Febreze takes them away!).

But forgiveness does not excuse immoral behavior (What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? - Romans 6:1). In fact, willfully continuing in sin makes a mockery of forgiveness. We will always continue to falter, of course (and smart alecks like Libertarian saying “Oh, have you sacrificed your lamb today?” are no help at all. Unless you think it’s amusing to cause your brother or sister to falter), but the great thing is that Jesus’s death paid for our future sin, as well as our past and present sin.

Love is the basis of salvation, but we are required to behave morally as well. And you can’t take certain statements, like “God is love” and take them so literally (and I think it’s ironic that some people are so entertained by mocking people like Jerseydiamond and His4ever as literalists, when they base their entire worldviews on an absolutely literal interpretation of that one statement) that you end up living by the reverse, Love is God, and worshipping Love itself.

63

Joe Cool, excuse me, but I hadn’t come across this before:

Could you please tell me where this is coming from? If it’s Biblical, forgive me. As I’ve said, I’m not an expert on scripture. Given that some predominantly Christian cultures do have traditional foods which are made with blood, including my own British culture, I’m not sure how well observed one of these has been throughout Western history to date, and two have been impractical for some time. At least, I assume strangling a cow is impractical and I assume that when you wring a chicken’s neck you’re breaking its neck, not strangling it. More to the point, the first three fly in the face of what Jesus said in Matthew 15:17-20:

Yes, I do see “sexual immorality” on the list of things that make a man ‘unclean’. I’m also afraid that it seems you and I may never agree on the details of what that term includes.

Respectfully,
CJ

64

Read Acts 15. The prohibition on blood isn’t just kosher dietary rules and talking about cermonial uncleanness. That was given to Noah in Genesis 9, with the reasoning that the blood IS the life of the animal, and isn’t for our consumption.

The problem with meat sacrificed to idols is, at least to me, obvious. God doesn’t want us to participate in any kind of worship of other gods in any way.

I can’t find an OT reference for the prohibition on strangled meat, though we are required to obey it. At any rate, it’s all in Acts 15.

65

Jersey wrote:

To conquer what, this puny anthill? What a weak and pathetic god — cowering behind a facade of love until such time as it has opportunity to seize the power of earthly magistrates and judges so that it can become like them and vindicate small minded bigots who have already decided for it who is worthy and who is not. A god of hell. Get it away from me. I don’t know that god.

66

John 3:36 gives a good contrast although I’m sure there are other Scriptures. I’m out of time so that’s all I can come up with now. It plainly states that those who believe in the Son have everlasting life (no wrath), and goes on to say that those who believe not the Son, the wrath of God abides on them. Clearly therels a distinction here.

67

His4ever wrote:

Well, you’ve mixed up “believe not” and “reject”, but that aside, the verse also says that the person rejecting the Son will not see life:

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” — John 3:36 (Spoken by John the Baptist)

And yet, I recall you saying that everyone will live eternally:

So, are you telling God that those who reject the Son will see life after all?

68

Actually, I violated a minor rule of board etiquette here – after two quotes from you and my response, I switched to one from His4Ever and neglected to tag it as being from her. I’m sorry! But I agree with you in principle, and mostly in detail as well.

We agree here, Joe – elsewhere I grump that the idea that God expects behavior complying with the Two Great Commandments, the New Commandment, and the Golden Rule is misread by people who are focused on the Bible as being “license to sin” – rather, it’s demanding a high and thought-through standard of specifically moral behavior in everything that one does. If I comply with every other jot and tittle of the law and (mis)treat someone with whom I disagree as though they were evil and hateful, I have broken the Law as a whole, because the whole of it is comprised in those Two Great Commandments, according to our Lord.

Yep, I recognized this as being from Acts 15 – what we liturgical types call the Council of Jerusalem and describe as the first of the ecumenical councils – and, like every one since, its purpose was to define for believers the implications of the faith on issues on which church leaders and their followers were divided.

Where we differ, and can afford to differ, I think, is in what constitutes “sexual immorality.” IMO, sex is most appropriate within a covenanted marital relationship, and an offense against one’s sex partner and God to the extent that the relationship between them differs from being that kind of relationship. (There’s a big difference between a one-night stand and a couple that “doesn’t wait for the wedding.”) And whether or not the state or the church happens to recognize the existence of that covenanted relationship is not the key point – what matters is the intent of the partners and what God reads in their hearts.

If the law of the land (as in some Third World countries) required that you present Jersey’s father with 100 cattle and show that you had a parcel of property bought and paid for before you would be permitted to marry her, would your commitment to her be any different while you tried to accumulate the worldly goods prerequisite to your legal marriage? Would you be sinning if you chose to live together in a committed relationship that you two regarded as a marriage in the interim?

It’s on that basis that I regard the covenant between, say, Dr Matrix and Cajun Man as equivalent to marriage and not “sexual immorality,” completely understanding that your mileage may indeed vary on this issue. I’m reiterating it, not to convince you, but to try to make clear my thinking on the subject, which seems to have been misunderstood as a Broadway musical setting of the song “Anything Goes” as sung by Esprix backed up by a chorus line! :wink:

69

Ugh. I hate that one. “SMARMY” in big bold letters doesn’t even begin to cover it - but you could start by adding “smug” and “self-righteous” to it as well. The only other one that bugs me just as much is the one that says, “You’d smile too if you knew you were going to heaven.” Ugh. Spare me your platitudes. :wally (Well, not you, specifically, GOM, just those who would believe such a thing.)

Esprix

70

Pish tosh, dear sir - answering a question isn’t telling others what to do. Now stop that this instant and gimmie some lovin’! :smiley:

Esprix

71

I couldn’t agree with this statement more.

Esprix

72

And the problem with this would be…? :wink:

(Hmmm. Does watching your boyfriend make out with the bartender - with your, his and the bartender’s permission - count as ‘sexual immorality?’" :wink: )

Esprix

73

No, I believe that to mean that those without Christ will not see eternal life in heaven with God. It’s not talking about physical life and death, but spiritual. I don’t believe it means non existence for how can God’s wrath abide on someone who no longer exists?

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Also in Matthew18:8-9 Jesus gives warnings about it being better to cut your hand or foof off or pluck out your eyes if they cause you to sin than to have all your parts to be cast into hell.

Also in Luke chapter 16 you can read the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man died and went to the bad place and Lazarus went to the good place and was in Abraham’s bosom.
verse 24 states “And he (the rich man) cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”

Now, to me that doesn’t sound much like oblivion does it? If the lost are just going to be obliterated into nothingness, there would be no need for Jesus to give any warnings about hell. And it’s quite obvious that after the rich man’s death, he was still conscous and aware because he was tormented in the flame and wanted water.

In my opinion, the doctrine that those who are lost are just going to be blinked out of existence and into oblivion is mere wishful thinking.

74

Ummm… no. Resoundingly, glaringly, no.

If you do, fine. I’m even willing to entertain the idea myself. But the vast majority of theologians (defined as “people with theological degrees”) are quite traditional and orthodox. They are
not those currently being published and discussed academically, because they have by and large, nothing really new to say (which is not at all a bad thing).

75

As a performance, nothing…I hope someday it happens at a Dopefest we’re both at! :slight_smile: As a summary of my theology, I assume you got the idea that it misrepresents it!

On whose part? Is voyeurism considered sinful? Are you two in a committed relationship? Is the bartender? (What about his partner’s permission?) Ya wanna play “Dueling Ethics”? :smiley:

Esprix

76

His4ever wrote:

You’ve spoken often of the “plain meaning” of scripture and, so far as I can recall, have not allowed that people might have different good faith interpretations. And yet here you are, playing with the tenses and adding the words “in heaven” to the word “life”.

It talks about both the future and the present. And it says nothing about life in heaven. Look again at what it says:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.

Why doesn’t this mean what it says, that God’s wrath remains on him now (present tense), but he will not see life in the future (future tense)?

77

Libertarian, I once heard an evangelist preach: you can be dead in sin, and you can be dead to sin.

I was also taught that the Holy Ghost quickens, or makes alive, a person who is dead in their sins.

Rom 8:11
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
KJV

Rom 6:4
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Response to Christians aren’t perfect bumper sticker:
Matt 5:48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Rom 6:15
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
KJV

The bible talks of eternal life and eternal damnation. Both concepts lasting forever.

78

shoe1234, I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at. Matthew 5:48 in the middle of a long list of exhortations in the Sermon on the Mount, which includes “Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors” so I read “perfect” in that context as something we are to strive to do. Also, a rather extensive commentary on the Gospels I have, The Complete Gospels translates Matthew 5:48 as

The footnote attached to this verse reads

Like I said, I didn’t fully understand your response. Do you think Christians cease to be sinners after conversion or is perfection a state which we are expected to strive for.

A genuinely confused
CJ

79

The term “life” in Scripure doesn’t always necessarily refer to just physical life. It’s obvious that we don’t live forever in these physical bodies, yet the Bible talks about having eternal life, so that indicates that it’s someting beyond the physical. It’s obvious to me anyway that Jesus is talking about life eternal because the people already have physical life. So if He’s saying to people who are already physically alive " whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" then He’s not talking about physical life in the body.

I ask again, how can God’s wrath remain on someone who is in oblivion, no longer exists? I don’t believe this is talking about physical life but the part of us that lives on after death. I don’t see anything in my reading of Scripture that indicates a choice of oblivion after death. If you do, then we disagree as usual.
Also, why would Jesus need to give warnings about hell, if the lost were just to be obliterated into nothingness? Why was the rich man in a place of torment after his death and Lazarus in a place of comfort?

Sorry, I just don’t see the oblivion theory here.

80

His4ever wrote:

That’s rather the point! :smiley:

The scripture in question says that he will not see life. I think that it obviously means the spiritual life after death. After all, it’s future tense. How you can NOT see the “oblivion theory” is hard to understand. You are forcing a meaning that isn’t there in the simple words.

And I repeat again that it says the wrath remains now. Present tense and now. Now is the physical life.

This is amazing. When it uses the future tense, you presume that it does not mean a future spiritual life. But when it uses the present tense with the word “now”, you presume that it does not mean the current physical life.

That’s all just… bizarre.