Christ Rose
2024-08-23 21:32:20 UTC
Reply
PermalinkFri, 23 Aug 2024 13:11:38 -0700,
<vaaqdq$11i9e$***@dont-email.me>
Robert <***@no.way> wrote:
========================================
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:1-2)
To begin, this verse shows that you haveAnd he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world. (1Jn 2:1-2)
been a slanderous liar when you tried to
equate the instruction in 1 John 1:8-9
with an effort to get people to sin.
This passage plainly states that the
goal of the writing is "that ye sin
not".
It is a slanderous lie to contend that
if someone claims we should admit we
have a sin nature and confess our sins
to God (as 1 John 1:8-9 plainly teaches
believers should), then we are telling
people they should go indulge in sin.
This is the same slanderous lie that
Paul's detractors tried to attribute to
him, and to which he responded,
And why not say, Let us do evil that
good may come?as we are slanderously
reported and as some affirm that we say.
Their condemnation is just. (Romans
3:8, NKJV)
Robert has been desperately and
endlessly trying to impute this same
slanderous lie to the teaching of 1 John
1:8-9, as if for one to admit he has a
sin nature and confess his sins
constituted an effort to justify
indulging in sin, when John specifically
states that this instruction is given to
prevent people from sinning.
What many mistaken people do is to cherry pick verses as stand alone
doctrinal truths upon which they base their Doctrinal Summaries,
This is exactly what you do, hypocrite.doctrinal truths upon which they base their Doctrinal Summaries,
You've been camping in 1 John 3 and
selectively cherry-picking only the
passages and words (like "if") which you
can more easily twist into denying that
believers have a sin nature.
Meanwhile, you've been shown all the
relevant verses, and the harmony in
understanding between them. The
overwhelming mass of Scripture data
supports the understanding that the
believer struggles with a sin nature
until Christ glorifies him and gives him
a new body that is not corrupted by sin:
https://christrose.news/sin-nature.
while
ignore the context not only in that chapter but also in the entire book as
well as the entire Word of God given to man, by the Heavenly Father.
The context of 1 John 2:1-2 is that Johnignore the context not only in that chapter but also in the entire book as
well as the entire Word of God given to man, by the Heavenly Father.
just told them that anyone who denies
they have a sin nature or needs to
confess their sins, makes God out to be
a liar, and the truth and word of God is
not in Him:
If we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness. If we say that we have
not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His
word is not in us. (1 John 1:810,
NKJV)
_That_ _is_ the immediate context.
Further, 1 John 3 uses the present
tense, showing that when it says the
child of God does not sin, it's not
contradicting 1 John 1:8-9. It's showing
that the child of God doesn't "keep on
sinning", without confessing his sins.
It's not in the aorist, but the present
tense, and the examples in 1 John 3 do
not sustain the idea it's in the aorist
tense.
When 1 John 3 says the child of God
practices righteous, does that mean he
practices a single right act, then
indulges in sin? No, it means he "keeps
on" practicing righteousness.
Likewise, when it says the child of God
does not sin, it means he does not keep
on sinning. The example it gives, is the
Devil, who has been "sinning from the
beginning". That doesn't mean Satan
committed a single act of sin, but that
he has never stopped sinning. The
present tense can't mean one thing in
one verse, then mean the exact opposite
in the very next verse.
Therefore they make huge mistakes like those that focus on chapter 7 in
romans, and never realizing the answers given in chapter 8.
You're fabricating your own bridges, toromans, and never realizing the answers given in chapter 8.
cross the gap between what the Bible
actually states, and what you want it to
mean.
You have no answer for Romans 7b,
because it directly states the same
thing John does, which is that the
believer struggles with a sin nature. It
is the liar who deceives himself and who
does not have the word of God or the
truth in him (according to Scripture)
who claims he does not have a sin nature
or ever need to confess his sin.
Same here in I John.
You're just flapping your mouth. Youaren't demonstrating anything from the
text itself. You allude to the text,
then you just start flapping your mouth
in contradiction and confusion about
what it says, without demonstrating it
from Scripture.
There hearts are so hardened that they cannot see the whole picture.
idem.Part of the problem is that they grew up with the Bibles that we have which
are all structure in chapter and verse as determined by man, so that when
speaking, teaching, preaching, that others can look up easily in the Bible
the location of the focus of the biblical teaching,
Idem. Keep on talking though. You haveare all structure in chapter and verse as determined by man, so that when
speaking, teaching, preaching, that others can look up easily in the Bible
the location of the focus of the biblical teaching,
to do a lot of prep work to get people
brainwashed enough to accept your
contradiction of Scripture. If you just
came out and stated it, it would be
obvious you contradict and twist the
Scriptures.
Then too, there is the weakness of the translations of the Word from their
original language to the English over 500 years ago. With its understanding
far different than that of todays time.
Yeah, it's not because youroriginal language to the English over 500 years ago. With its understanding
far different than that of todays time.
interpretation so evidently contradicts
the translation of Scripture that you
have to now poison people's minds
against their own Bibles before you feel
comfortable that they will be deluded
enough to accept your twisted ideas...
For these reasons alone, one must walk in the spirit, and be led by him
constantly and consistently so as to understand what the Lord has to say,
just like in the verses I started off with.
Look at this troll. He's still flappingconstantly and consistently so as to understand what the Lord has to say,
just like in the verses I started off with.
his mouth to undermine what the Bible
plainly states, without actually
demonstrating anything from Scripture,
because he knows his proposal
contradicts what they read in their
Bibles...
That word IF is of very vital importance for one to understand and
grasp the whole concept. It thoroughly dismisses the doctrines of daily
sins. How? By the phrase, "that ye sin not.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we alsograsp the whole concept. It thoroughly dismisses the doctrines of daily
sins. How? By the phrase, "that ye sin not.
ought to love one another. (1 John
4:11, NKJV)
--Same word "if" (ei). Does "if" God so
loved us imply it's possible or likely
he did not love us? No. "ei" can also
carry the meaning of "since".
Now if God so clothes the grass of the
field, which today is, and tomorrow is
thrown into the oven, will He not much
more clothe you, O you of little faith?
(Matthew 6:30, NKJV)
Again, does "if" (ei) God so clothes the
grass mean He might not cloth the grass?
No, it means "since" He so clothes the
grass.
What then shall we say to these things?
If God is for us, who can be against
us? (Romans 8:31, NKJV)
Does "If" God is for us imply He might
not be for us? No, for the believer, it
shows a condition of certainty.
Thus, you cannot extrapolate from the
word "if (ei), that it means the person
might not ever sin. It already said in
the previous verses that anyone who
denies he has a sin nature and acts of
sin, he is self-deceived, makes God out
to be a liar, and does not have the
truth or the word of God in him. It does
not now mean that there might be people
who don't ever sin.
And again, you ignore the fact this
passage exposes your slander in claiming
that those who agree we have a sin
nature and need to confess our sins to
God, are motivated by the desire to get
people to justify and indulge in sin.
John plainly states that the purpose of
the instruction to admit you have a sin
nature and confess your sins, is to
promote holiness, so that you "may not
sin". You slanderously try to impute
your own false narrative to the verse,
when it plainly states the opposite of
what you claim.
Now, you try to cherry-pick the word
"if" out of that, as if this word stands
alone to contradict and refute what John
just said in 1 John 1:8-10. It is not to
be understood as a contradiction to that
verse, but as being in harmony with it.
"ei" can mean "since", and in no way
contradicts 1 John 1:8-9, with the idea
that some people might not ever sin.
--
Have you heard the good news Christ died
for our sins (), and God raised Him
from the dead?
That Christ died for our sins shows
we're sinners who deserve the death
penalty. That God raised Him from the
dead shows Christ's death satisfied
God's righteous demands against our sin
(Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:1-2). This means
God can now remain just, while forgiving
you of your sins, and saving you from
eternal damnation.
On the basis of Christ's death and
resurrection for our sins, call on
the name of the Lord to save you:
"For "everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved."" (Romans
10:13, ESV)
https://christrose.news/salvation