What IS Sin?

[DHC]

Rom 3:24-25
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(KJV)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Apostle Paul say there for the remission of sins 'future'? No, he did not.

Hello NoHype.

You stated the following;

Rom 3:24-25
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(KJV)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Apostle Paul say there for the remission of sins 'future'? No, he did not.

There is a problem with the KJV translation of (Romans 3:24-25).

NoHype the translation is better in the NASB if you want to check the Koine Greek.

Here is the NASB translation;

Romans 3
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness,
because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His
righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

This translation of the Greek is much better and what Paul is discussing is not what you would understand from the KJV translation.

Paul is simply stating that God is not taking into account the sins committed before the Christ arrived. Because before Christ there
was only the righteousness of the law. But after Christ's arrival there now exists the righteousness of Christ. So God is ignoring the
prior sins and displaying or demonstrating the present righteousness in Christ. The key point is in the Greek that it is the present
righteousness of Christ that justifies.

This is not a doctrinal statement about Christ's sacrifice being for past sins only. This is not what the Greek text is saying NoHype.

May I suggest you get yourself a direct translation of the Greek for these two lines. Avoid the Biblical translations and go for the
literal Greek translation and you will see what Paul is saying.

 

[Barny]

According to Apostle John in 1 John 1, if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us:

Getting back to topic on what is "sin", can you explain how your claim that 1John 1:8 is referring to Christians is not a contradiction to 1John 3:6-9?

1John 3:6-9
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

God does not contradict Himself, so how does the doctrine you follow reconcile the contradiction it faces within 1John ? You can't say 1John 1:8 says Christians still "sin" when 1John 3:6-9 says they cannot sin.

 

[Davy]

Hi Jehonadab. Here are my thoughts on Romans 14:23, (NASB): "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."

Here, Paul is speaking to Christians, whom some may have been Jews, but nevertheless are no longer under the Law of Moses. Some Jewish converts may have been troubled in their conscience when faced with eating food that may have been offered to an idol and then sold on the open street market. What a person does should in no way makes his conscience uncomfortable. If his conscience is bothered, he is self-condemned. Where as a Christian should constantly strive for a clear conscience, even though eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin. However, faith here refers to one's strong conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience. (Word Pictures in the New Testament) Sin, is not referring to grievous sin, but in the sense of missing the mark of a clear conscience, which is what the Greek word for sin actually means.

Thus if a Christian was to eat such meat, his faith or his "conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience" is harmed in some way and is thus sinning against his faith.

There are many modern applications, for example, what sort of films do you like to watch. Some Christians would not watch certain films other Christians would happily watch, because it would affect their conscience and thus in a way be sinning against their "conviction in the light of his relation to Christ and his enlightened conscience" Perhaps afterwards feeling grieved because of watching such a film. This can also apply to going to certain bars, listening to certain music, etc.

 

[NoHype]

Hi NoHype,

You admit that there is no minimum standard of good behaviour required for salvation, but then you contradict this by your quote below.

Not at all, because the idea of Paul's 'walk' is not about a single slip up we as believers may do, and need to repent for. It's about actually how we are living our life, either according to The Spirit or according to our flesh.

There's a difference between consciously living according to our flesh, vs. a slip up. Both can bring bondage, which is why Paul admonished us to walk by The Spirit so we don't get into those troubles. It's simple common sense.

The doctrine you follow falsely describes Christians as living a see-saw lifestyle between Spirit and flesh, based on how good a lifestyle they live. Such doctrines are not supported in scripture. The claim that Gal 5 supports this is error, as I've already shown with that example of drunkenness. Scripture is spiritually discerned, 1Cor 2:14. Anyone who tries to read scripture only in physical terms will be led into error and even legalism.

Gal 5:16-21
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(KJV)

What Paul said there is exactly what the battle is about, a literal war between our spirit and our flesh, for they are "contrary the one to the other" like he said. Walk by our flesh and were are back under the law by our own choice. Just so happens that many of God's laws from His Word are still established in the Christian nations to rule over that walk by the flesh, for that is what Paul is describing there in Gal.5:19-21.

But if you want to deny what Paul taught there according as I have shown, then go to.

Can you explain how this alleged "future sin" that you feel Christians are still chargeable with, is dealt with.

Apostle John already showed you in the 1 John 1 chapter, which I've already covered enough of already. Either you heed what John said there about the need for future repentance to our Advocate Jesus Christ or you don't. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

 

[Barny]

Not at all, because the idea of Paul's 'walk' is not about a single slip up we as believers may do, and need to repent for. It's about actually how we are living our life, either according to The Spirit or according to our flesh.
There's a difference between consciously living according to our flesh, vs. a slip up.

as the outcome for those walking in the flesh is that they do not get to enter into the kingdom of God, then it's important you explain from the doctrine you follow, what is the cut off point which determines whether our behaviour is an occasional slip up or is actual walking in the flesh.

for example, many Christians today have divorced and married another. Mark 10:11,12 describes this as adultery. Does the doctrine you follow claim that such are walking in the flesh each day that they remain in that marriage?

Another example is that under the law the Sabbath is to be kept holy. Nobody is doing this as required under the law. Even the so called Sabbath keepers fail to adhere to it correctly.

as sin is transgression of the law, both the examples above are sin for those under the law. These examples would be walking according to the flesh, which you admit results in failure to enter into the kingdom of God.

can you explain your doctrines position relating to the above.

And what is the cut off point as to whether someone is walking in the flesh or is in just a slip up? these are important questions as the doctrine you follow claims that our behaviour determines whether we are saved or not.

 

[james1523]

Christ becomes our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30). - this means Christ is the only standard by which God will accept us. Only Christ, is well pleasing in God's sight.
All unrighteousness is sin (1 John 5:17) - sin is anything not pleasing to God.
Therefore sin is anything not of Christ.

This is why anyone who never breaks the law (if it were possible), would still be in sin, if their righteousness was of themselves, and not of Christ. Because the self is not pleasing to God (that's why Jesus said we have to deny it), and only Christ is well-pleasing to God.

 

[Barny]

Christ becomes our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30). - this means Christ is the only standard by which God will accept us. Only Christ, is well pleasing in God's sight.
All unrighteousness is sin (1 John 5:17) - sin is anything not pleasing to God.
Therefore sin is anything not of Christ.

This is why anyone who never breaks the law (if it were possible), would still be in sin, if their righteousness was of themselves, and not of Christ. Because the self is not pleasing to God (that's why Jesus said we have to deny it), and only Christ is well-pleasing to God.

Amen.

Paul said much the same.
Phil 3:5-9
If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

We should never follow any lukewarm doctrines mixing grace with works of the law. That is to deny Christ/righteousness by faith.

 

[RJ]

Did someone miss how the New Testament Scripture actually defines what 'sin' is?

I Jn 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
(KJV)

"... for sin is the transgression of the law" per Apostle John, and this is a New Covenant teaching, not an old one.

You continue to take things directly out of context to support your theology.

Did someone miss how the New Testament Scripture actually defines what 'sin' is?

Did you miss the commentary that T.J. offers?:
Matthew Henry Commentary
The sons of God know that their Lord is of purer eyes than to allow any thing unholy and impure to dwell with him. It is the hope of hypocrites, not of the sons of God, that makes allowance for gratifying impure desires and lusts. May we be followers of him as his dear children, thus show our sense of his unspeakable mercy, and express that obedient, grateful, humble mind which becomes us.
Sin is the rejecting the Divine law. In him, that is, in Christ, was no sin.
All the sinless weaknesses that were consequences of the fall, he took; that is, all those infirmities of mind or body which subject man to suffering, and expose him to temptation. But our moral infirmities, our proneness to sin, he had not. He that abides in Christ, continues not in the practice of sin.
Renouncing sin is the great proof of spiritual union with, continuance in, and saving knowledge of the Lord Christ. Beware of self-deceit.
He that doeth righteousness is righteous, and to be a follower of Christ, shows an interest by faith in his obedience and sufferings. But a man cannot act like the devil, and at the same time be a disciple of Christ Jesus. Let us not serve or indulge what the Son of God came to destroy.
To be born of God is to be inwardly renewed by the power of the Spirit of God. Renewing grace is an abiding principle.
Religion is not an art, a matter of dexterity and skill, but a new nature. And the regenerate person cannot sin as he did before he was born of God, and as others do who are not born again. There is that light in his mind, which shows him the evil and malignity of sin.
There is that bias upon his heart, which disposes him to loathe and hate sin. There is the spiritual principle that opposes sinful acts.
And there is repentance for sin, if committed. It goes against him to sin with forethought. The children of God and the children of the devil have their distinct characters.
The seed of the serpent are known by neglect of religion, and by their hating real Christians. He only is righteous before God, as a justified believer, who is taught and disposed to righteousness by the Holy Spirit.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. May all professors of the gospel lay these truths to heart, and try themselves by them.

• Sin is the rejecting the Divine law. In him, that is, in Christ, was no sin.
• Lord is of purer eyes than to allow any thing unholy and impure to dwell with him
• All the sinless weaknesses that were consequences of the fall
• all those infirmities of mind or body which subject man to suffering, and expose him to temptation
• Renouncing sin is the great proof of spiritual union
• Beware of self-deceit

Yes transgressing any of the old law (ten commandments) are a sin. But, NoHype, don't be decieved, anything that is not pure is not of God or not of his Devine Law. Divine law is commonly equated with eternal law, meaning that if God is infinite, then his law must also be infinite and eternal. Infinity permeates all other attributes of God: his goodness, love, power, etc. are all considered to be infinite.

• So, sin is just not the transgression of the old law, it is anything that is not part of God's devineness. Sin is anything that is not of God.
• So sin would be any transgression of God's devine law or Eternal Law!