Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: Free from sin

Expand Messages
  • Darryl Ward
    It is somehwat dishonest to quote sections out of the Bible out of conetxt to justify a position. I am not sure what translation you are using, but the NRSV,
    Message 1 of 73 , Sep 30, 2006
      It is somehwat dishonest to quote sections out of the Bible out of conetxt
      to justify a position.

      I am not sure what translation you are using, but the NRSV, which I
      understand to be the most literal English language translation available,
      says:

      Gen 6:9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man,
      blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

      Jesus said only God was good.

      Was Jesus wrong?

      Kind regards

      Darryl

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "James" <jamesjay@...>
      To: <apologetics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 3:06 AM
      Subject: Re: [apologetics and theology] Re: Free from sin


      >
      >
      > Darryl Ward wrote:
      >
      > > NOBODY is good other than God, even if he or she follows all the
      > > commandmants.
      > >
      > > Christians are NOT perfect, just forgiven.
      > >
      >
      > Ge 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and
      > perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
      >
      > James Kirby
      >
      >
      > Brought to you by Theologically Correct dot Com Ministries.
      > http://theologicallycorrect.com
      > 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 - Resources for Christian Living for the Whole Life
      of the Believer
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 30/06/2006
      >
      >
    • not Yusef
      I wrote:
      Message 73 of 73 , Oct 2, 2006
        I wrote:

        <<< c) they are so deprived and dumbed-down that they think, for
        example,
        that if a person just repeats the line "1x1x1=3" before the modalists
        and JWs that they are trying to "reach" then he has said all he needs
        to say to prove the doctrine(s) of the Trinity to be true. >>>

        Read "1x1x1=1" instead of "1x1x1=3," of course.


        I also wrote:

        <<<James wrote:

        << Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto
        him,
        Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come
        unto thee.

        Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I
        condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

        Ro 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of
        righteousness.
        Ro 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
        righteousness.
        Ro 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God,
        ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

        1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the
        knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

        Eph 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your
        wrath:

        1Jo 3:8 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. >>

        Are these verses supposed to contradict my viewpoint in some way? Am
        I supposed to accept the naive "ought means can" view of morality WRT
        to four of those passages and therefore conclude that believers are
        able in any and every instance not to sin? Am I supposed to equate
        the mass noun "sin" of the Romans passage with the count noun "sin,"
        despite the different meanings of these words? Am I obliged to argue
        for the umpteenth time WRT 1 John 3:8 that present
        tense "sins," "continues to sin," "committeth sin," etc.
        grammatically can vary in meaning according to context?

        Guess I won't ever get an answer to those questions now.>>>

        ***

        Well, since I apparently won't be having any further dialogue with
        James, incidentally in which one can already have witnessed the
        classic "You didn't answer my question" baloney when I fact have
        answered clearly but people just don't like the answer cuz they're
        too busy looking for dragons to quickly slay, it looks like I'll have
        to awkwardly answer the former questions myself.

        1) "Are these verses supposed to contradict my viewpoint in some way?"

        Why, yes, Kwame; they supposedly contradict your viewpoint while the
        manner in which they supposedly do so is not the least bit self-
        evident.

        2) "Am I supposed to accept the naive ['ought implies can'] view of
        morality WRT to four of those passages and therefore conclude that
        believers are able in any and every instance not to sin?"

        Why, apparently there is at least one person out there who expects
        you to accept this idea, yes. How can you ask this question though?
        Don't you know that God won't place anyone under obligations which
        they cannot fulfill? But surely you really don't know this, because
        one cannot know a proposition *unless it is true.*

        First of all, in Galatians 2:21 the apostle Paul informs us that it
        is impossible to obey the Law of Moses while the apostle Paul is
        meanwhile notorious for his message on the natural man's bondage and
        captivity to sin. Meanwhile, one knows that the Israelites of old
        were obligated to obey the Law of Moses. However, if one is in
        bondage to sin, then he probably cannot obey the Law since, after
        all, he *is* in captivity or bondage to sin. So the Hebrews of old
        apparently were obligated to do something that they *could not* do
        (hence the need for *grace* as far as righteousness goes!).

        Meanwhile, you yourself, Kwame are someone who regularly cites Harry
        G. Frankfurt's article "Alternate Possibilities and Moral
        Responsibility" (Journal of Philosophy, 66, Dec. 1969) where Dr.
        Frankfurt ingeniously demonstrates through thought experiment and
        intuition that a person may be in place where he has no choice but to
        do something wrong but still may be culpable for this wrongdoing. So
        the view that ought implies can seems to be dead wrong, and therefore
        John 5:14, 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:34, and Ephesians 4:26 apparently
        do not demonstrate that believers have the ability to avoid the
        execution of an act of sin at any given instant. (Even if this idea
        can be proven otherwise, there is no proof of this idea in those
        passages.)

        3) "Am I supposed to equate the mass noun 'sin' of the Romans passage
        [s] with the count noun 'sin' [as in 'Those are sins'], despite the
        different meanings of these words?"

        Well, apparently, there is at least one person out there who expects
        you to do this, Kwame. After all, James can't be appealing to the
        Romans verses to argue that Christians qua Christians will never have
        sinned, for you have already clearly demonstrated in the past that
        there is biblical testimony to various sinful acts of members of the
        body of Christ. So it must be that James expects you to confuse the
        meaning of mass noun "sin" with that of count noun "sin." But don't
        do it. After all:

        a) You know about things such as http://www.mf.no/bibelprog/vines.pl?
        word=sin where Mr. Vine expresses his learned opinion that the
        word "sin" varies in meaning per context;

        b) You know that it is grammatically incorrect to translate Romans
        6:18, 20, 22 as they are translated into English unless "sin" in
        those contexts is a mass noun and so semantically differs from the
        count noun "sin."

        c) In fact, if you were even to bother to check the opinions of Bible
        commentators on this subject you're sure that they would agree with
        this assessment by and at large;

        d) Paul says "sin" in those verses, not "sins."

        So yes, you're "supposed" to accept something that apparently really
        should not be accepted.

        5) Am I obliged to argue for the umpteenth time WRT 1 John 3:8 that
        present tense "sins," "continues to sin," "committeth sin," etc.
        grammatically can vary in meaning according to context?"

        No, Kwame. You've already done an adequate job at making your case.
        And the case is closed. The sentences "Christians sin"
        and "Christians do not sin" as conventionally used can express
        propositions which both are true at the same, and these sentences are
        true.

        ***

        Imagine that. During that entire monologue: not one complaint about
        my writing style or about my supposedly not answering questions. I
        should start talking to myself more often.

        -Kwame
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.