Perry wrote: > Since you became a believer, have you sinned? Yes, I have. But this was not because of anything Jesus could not do or did not do for me. It was because of my own unbelief. Remember how some of the apostles could not cast out a devil? Remember how Peter failed to keep walking on the water? Jesus rebuked Peter, "oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Perry wrote: > Jesus did not save us from sin, he saved > us from the penalty (death) of sin. I think the Scriptures teach much more than this. Consider the following passages: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Mat 1:21) "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1 John 3:5-6) "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:6) "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) Perry wrote: > And, that little word "if" is indeed a big word. > However, it does not preclude our still being > sinners. Check this out in 1 John 1 & 2, > especially v. 10: > 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us > our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. > 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, > and his word is not in us. > 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye > sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the > Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: > 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours > only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Clearly the context here is that he will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. What about those who might claim not to have unrighteousness to need cleansing? They are liars. What then of those who are cleansed? Are they righteous or unrighteous? Are they sinners or saints? I say that those who have been cleansed by Jesus are righteous saints and no longer sinners. Of course, one must see this and believe it for it to be true. If you see yourself only as a continual sinner saved from the future penalty of sin, then faith cannot bring anything else to you but that. In 2:1 above, John says, "I write this to you that you sin not." Why write for them not to sin if they would yet continue to sin? Why encourage them to do something that was impossible? If his mindset was like your mindset, why not follow this with, "when any man sins, we have an advocate...."? Instead, John says, "IF any man sins, we have an advocate..." That word *IF* is there, not when. Perry wrote: > I believe in salvation the moment we truly > believe and put our faith in Jesus. And sin > does not have dominion over us once we > are saved, in that it does not put us to death > since we are saved from the penaty of sin. I don't understand? You mean you have not died because you put faith in Christ? Are you talking about physical death? What do you have right now that you did not have before you put faith in Jesus? How are you saved right now from the penalty of sin, which is death? >From my perspective, present salvation deals with covering our past sin and delivering us from this world system into God's kingdom, which is righteousness in the Holy Ghost, not sin in the Holy Ghost. Future salvation deals with mercy in the judgment and the redemption of our physical bodies. Perry wrote: > However, we are still can be tempted, > and still can sin. We can indeed be tempted. Not only that, we will be tempted. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do not teach that we will sin. It's possible to sin if we stop applying faith in Jesus Christ, like Peter did on the water trying to walk to Jesus. However, if we walk in the light, we cannot sin. "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13) Perry wrote: > In Romans 6 Paul is specifically addressing a > specific that believed that intentionally sinning > increasingly demonstrated God's abounding > grace. Paul is correcting this incorrect doctrine. No he wasn't. Maybe you read that in a commentary from some sinning Christian scribe? Read the Bible yourself. Look at the verses preceding Romans 6:1. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:19-21) Paul wasn't answering anybody else's wacked out doctrines. He was answering an objection that came from a logical reading of his own train of thought. He just made the following points: 1) the law came 2) so that sin abounded 3) so that grace would abound 4) so that eternal life might come by Jesus Christ our Lord Look at Paul's own discourse, and one is tempted to say, "ok, Paul, let's all sin that grace might abound unto eternal life!" This is what Paul was answering when he said, "shall we continue in sin that grace may abound. Certainly not!" Paul is basically saying that once step 4 takes place, step 2 is demolished. How can we possibly continue in sin once step 4 takes place? Yes, there were some who accused Paul of teaching that we should do evil so that good may come, but the context is different. It was one whereby they were mocking Paul's doctrine to mean that all of us are sinners, being sinners in order to show the goodness of God (see Rom. 3:8). Perry wrote: > (See 6:1. I have read commentaries that label > these people "antinomians", who believed that > since they were no longer under the law they > could sin freely and that, in fact, this was a > good thing because it showed how great God's > grace was!) There were some Christians years later known as antinomians that believed this way, but I am not aware of them at the time that Paul wrote Romans. See Romans 3:8 for the context of those who slanderously reported this about Paul. In Romans 3:8, these were clearly Torah observant Jews who were blaspheming Paul's doctrine. In other words, they were nomians (law abiders), not antinomians (against the law, those who did not believe in Torah observance). :-) I'm sorry, but I think some commentaries might have led you astray on this one. If you give me a reference to the commentaries you read that suggested this, maybe I can sort it out. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
