F. Important Considerations Regarding SinRocky wrote:Ed you went on a rabbit trail, I never said anything about justifying sin. And this is not my way, I gave you the bible and you just turn your noose up at it. Ed you totally missed it bro. I never claimed the law justifies or said and thing about justifying sin or sin of omission. I am giving you the reason for the law and how it pertains to sin, according to Paul. So you are disagreeing with the apostle Paul, Why? because it does not fit in with your sin of omission or what ever? I floors me that when you are shown the bible you are like, "I still want my own theology". I guess we will just agree to this agree because I don't know where else to go when one rejects scripture. I am sorry I gave plain and concise Scripture and you reject it, nothing else more to discuss unless you want to discuss maybe I am misunderstanding standing Paul though I don't see how else to interpret those verses. Or you could give me some bible verses on sin of omission so I could study it out that would be helpful as well, But you never do just a, I am right you are wrong nah nah nah boo boo kind of thing.Justaned wrote:RockyRocky wrote:Hmm cant even admit to belittling people lol anyway, The verse you used in James in not giving a definition of sin but its consequence. Here is Paul's explanation on this subject.Justaned wrote:I did give scripture James. May I suggest that if you quote scripture you give the full citation so readers don't have to chase all through scripture find the particular passage you are talking about.Rocky wrote:Ed Why not try for once and address things that people say instead of belittling people. I cant discus unless you address something specific about what am I wrong about. What scripture did give that was wrong? I give scripture what did you give? I simply quoted Paul, Its ok if you disagree just give a point or some kind of tangible counter point you seem to only give opinions with no scripture at least give scripture and maybe we can discuss.. All you do little is belittle with no reason as to why. If you disagree give reason instead of attacking someone's intelligence, thank you.
But I quite agree with Titus123. Sin is more than a breaking a law, it is about the attitude and intent of the heart. Dr Graham hit the nail on the head.
I was not belittleing you I was merely addressing your refusal to see anything other a breaking of a specifice law as being sin. James says sin is conconceived in the heart and the heart of man knows nothing of the letter of the law.
Sorry if you felt I belittled you. I was just trying to address you at the understanding level your tyoical responses suggest you are at.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
And you say sin is not the breaking of some law, well Paul disagrees with you according to his own writings. I am going with Paul on this instead of you.. Now what Law is Paul talking about?
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
Only one law was written on Stone. The moral law, the Decalogue.. Disagree that's fine, but that is what the bible says. I know catch phrases from popular preachers sounds good but it must line up with the bible..
Have it your way I will stick with Dr Graham's definition. Works for me. And yes of course the verses I quoted from James does give the definition of sin.
If you remember the Pharisees kept the law but they had larceny in their hearts and Jesus condemned them for it. If you are not in God's will you have separated yourself from Him and that is exactly what sin does.
Loving one's neighbor goes way beyond the law. Loving ones enemy goes way beyond the law, loving God in body and spirit goes beyond the law. And of course sins of omission which you swear don't exist aren't mentioned in the law. The law defines social behavior but it speaks nothing of the intent of the heart. Some people actually do good for the wrong intent and that is as much sin as not doing anything. Others do as the please and pretend that since their particular lifestyle isn't mentioned in scripture then it isn't sin. Just another way of justifying sinful behavior.
1. Sins of omission.
Failure to do what God's law requires is as much sin as to do contrarily to the requirements of the Law. There are sins of omission as well as of commission. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). Israel was accused of robbing God. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But, ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings" (Mal. 3:8).
Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, (Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2008), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 170.
)