Dake Bible Discussion BoardWhat is "SIN"

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Post Reply
Grandfather
The Chosen Fast of God is To Undo the Heavy Burdens
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Grandfather »

Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
When you use "miss the mark" as your definition of sin, you infer that one is "aiming at" not losing their keys under the command of, in this case, God.
Excuse me. "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition.
And yes, it does imply that one is "aiming at" something, that something is the holiness of God.
(perhaps you're aiming at something a little lower, easier to hit, which is why you claim to be sinfree, or sinless.)
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
But if there is no command not to lose your keys, there was no "mark" to miss.
If God gave us no command to not stub our toes, what "mark" have we missed if we do stub a toe?
Are you now invoking another book of the Law in order to quantify sin?
Are you abandoning grace in favor of a list of commandments that can't make us perfect after that was already
tried and failed?
There are no (specific) commands to do a lot of things, and there are a lot of commands that can be used as "proof text". For example I could mention Proverb 3 Where the writer talks about wisdom and makes this comment "Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble." So perhaps there is a command not to stumble.

BTW - I have said repeatedly I am not quanitfing sin. All sin pays the same wage. Furthermore, until one fully grasps the depth and nature of sin, they cannot fully appreciate grace. You're the one claiming to live sin free, thus you're the one diminishing the power of grace.

Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
It was written..."be ye "THEREFORE" perfect..."
Does that not translate to..."because this is what was really commanded of God, do it."
Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of "therefore...
Definition of therefore
1 a: for that reason : CONSEQUENTLY
b: because of that
c: on that ground
2: to that end.
"Be ye on those grounds, for that reason, to that end, perfect..."
What "grounds"?
The sermon on the mount's remarks.
if you really want to go that route. then start at the beginning and therefore be perfect in all of what Jesus spoke on that sermon. For example... are you perfect in following vs23,24? Do you leave the alter and seek to be reconciled to those that have ought against you? Not you against them, but them against you? Or vs 25, do you agree with your adversary quickly? Hmmm, viewing this board and your posts I would say not.



User avatar
luchnia
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by luchnia »

It was stated by Grandfather, " "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition."

It has been some years since I delved deeply into the topic of what sin was/is. This brought me back some to my older studies about sin and its master and brought in some other thoughts.

Grandfather states "...it is THE definition." A question can be asked THE definition based on what and defined by who? A greek word, or a concept of God?

Along these lines one might ask the question what does missing the mark actually mean? Is it as simple as a righteous person throwing a ball at a target and missing and for that the righteous man is guilty of an offense against God? I my view the idea is missing the moral bullseye and not simply missing the mark.

In one of the original Noah Webster dictionaries (before they all got watered down) here is his definition of sin: "a transgression of the divine law; moral depravity; an offense in general. To violate the divine law or any rule of duty.

I think where we mess up is we tend to remove moral depravity from the definition of sin. Look at all the dealings with God and man in scripture and see where God found what righteous men did that was depraved and offensive. You cannot find anything because a child of God is not in moral depravity. Those that miss the moral mark and serve satan are morally depraved. The child of God partakes of God's divine nature and are led by the Spirit and are Christ.

As Spiritblade posted in another post from scripture even the plowing of the wicked is sin. Why? Because the wicked are morally depraved and disobey God. The wicked do not serve God nor do they inherit eternal life. Scripture does not indicate the plowing of the righteous is sin. No, the plowing of the righteous is good and upright.

To me the two natures are very different and as Paul stated it is about whom you serve, Romans 6:13-18
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.


Word up!

Grandfather
The Chosen Fast of God is To Undo the Heavy Burdens
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Grandfather »

luchnia wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:22 pm
It was stated by Grandfather, " "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition."

It has been some years since I delved deeply into the topic of what sin was/is. This brought me back some to my older studies about sin and its master and brought in some other thoughts.

Grandfather states "...it is THE definition." A question can be asked THE definition based on what and defined by who? A greek word, or a concept of God?

Along these lines one might ask the question what does missing the mark actually mean? Is it as simple as a righteous person throwing a ball at a target and missing and for that the righteous man is guilty of an offense against God? I my view the idea is missing the moral bullseye and not simply missing the mark.

In one of the original Noah Webster dictionaries (before they all got watered down) here is his definition of sin: "a transgression of the divine law; moral depravity; an offense in general. To violate the divine law or any rule of duty.

I think where we mess up is we tend to remove moral depravity from the definition of sin. Look at all the dealings with God and man in scripture and see where God found what righteous men did that was depraved and offensive. You cannot find anything because a child of God is not in moral depravity. Those that miss the moral mark and serve satan are morally depraved. The child of God partakes of God's divine nature and are led by the Spirit and are Christ.

As Spiritblade posted in another post from scripture even the plowing of the wicked is sin. Why? Because the wicked are morally depraved and disobey God. The wicked do not serve God nor do they inherit eternal life. Scripture does not indicate the plowing of the righteous is sin. No, the plowing of the righteous is good and upright.

To me the two natures are very different and as Paul stated it is about whom you serve, Romans 6:13-18
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Who said missing the mark of Gods holiness was not moral depravitive? All sin separates us from God. I have repeated this often.



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1979
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Hill Top »

Grandfather wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:10 am
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
When you use "miss the mark" as your definition of sin, you infer that one is "aiming at" not losing their keys under the command of, in this case, God.
Excuse me. "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition.
And yes, it does imply that one is "aiming at" something, that something is the holiness of God.
(perhaps you're aiming at something a little lower, easier to hit, which is why you claim to be sinfree, or sinless.)
Where is God's command not to lose our keys, that we aim to obey?
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
But if there is no command not to lose your keys, there was no "mark" to miss.
If God gave us no command to not stub our toes, what "mark" have we missed if we do stub a toe?
Are you now invoking another book of the Law in order to quantify sin?
Are you abandoning grace in favor of a list of commandments that can't make us perfect after that was already
tried and failed?
There are no (specific) commands to do a lot of things, and there are a lot of commands that can be used as "proof text". For example I could mention Proverb 3 Where the writer talks about wisdom and makes this comment "Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble." So perhaps there is a command not to stumble.
Just as there is a command to do no manual labor on the Sabbath..
Is that command still in effect?
Why are you interested in returning to the days of Law keeping?
What profit is there in the ways Jesus freed us from?
BTW - I have said repeatedly I am not quanitfing sin. All sin pays the same wage. Furthermore, until one fully grasps the depth and nature of sin, they cannot fully appreciate grace. You're the one claiming to live sin free, thus you're the one diminishing the power of grace.
As Paul wrote..."What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2)
Your attempts to grasp more things to be forgiven of fit right in with this verse.
Seemingly, you are living with a mind-set that wants to find more sin in the world than there already is.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
It was written..."be ye "THEREFORE" perfect..."
Does that not translate to..."because this is what was really commanded of God, do it."
Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of "therefore...
Definition of therefore
1 a: for that reason : CONSEQUENTLY
b: because of that
c: on that ground
2: to that end.
"Be ye on those grounds, for that reason, to that end, perfect..."
What "grounds"?
The sermon on the mount's remarks.
if you really want to go that route. then start at the beginning and therefore be perfect in all of what Jesus spoke on that sermon. For example... are you perfect in following vs23,24? Do you leave the alter and seek to be reconciled to those that have ought against you? Not you against them, but them against you? Or vs 25, do you agree with your adversary quickly? Hmmm, viewing this board and your posts I would say not.
I have already "evened the score" with those I had sinned against before my conversion.
Who do I "even the score" with relative to stubbing a toe?



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1979
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Hill Top »

Hill Top wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:32 pm
Grandfather wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:10 am
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
When you use "miss the mark" as your definition of sin, you infer that one is "aiming at" not losing their keys under the command of, in this case, God.
Excuse me. "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition.
And yes, it does imply that one is "aiming at" something, that something is the holiness of God.
(perhaps you're aiming at something a little lower, easier to hit, which is why you claim to be sinfree, or sinless.)
Where is God's command not to lose our keys, that we aim to obey?
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
But if there is no command not to lose your keys, there was no "mark" to miss.
If God gave us no command to not stub our toes, what "mark" have we missed if we do stub a toe?
Are you now invoking another book of the Law in order to quantify sin?
Are you abandoning grace in favor of a list of commandments that can't make us perfect after that was already
tried and failed?
There are no (specific) commands to do a lot of things, and there are a lot of commands that can be used as "proof text". For example I could mention Proverb 3 Where the writer talks about wisdom and makes this comment "Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble." So perhaps there is a command not to stumble.
Just as there is a command to do no manual labor on the Sabbath..
Is that command still in effect?
Why are you interested in returning to the days of Law keeping?
What profit is there in the ways Jesus freed us from?
BTW - I have said repeatedly I am not quanitfing sin. All sin pays the same wage. Furthermore, until one fully grasps the depth and nature of sin, they cannot fully appreciate grace. You're the one claiming to live sin free, thus you're the one diminishing the power of grace.
As Paul wrote..."What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2)
Your attempts to grasp more things to be forgiven of fit right in with this verse.
Seemingly, you are living with a mind-set that wants to find more sin in the world than there already is.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
It was written..."be ye "THEREFORE" perfect..."
Does that not translate to..."because this is what was really commanded of God, do it."
Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of "therefore...
Definition of therefore
1 a: for that reason : CONSEQUENTLY
b: because of that
c: on that ground
2: to that end.
"Be ye on those grounds, for that reason, to that end, perfect..."
What "grounds"?
The sermon on the mount's remarks.
if you really want to go that route. then start at the beginning and therefore be perfect in all of what Jesus spoke on that sermon. For example... are you perfect in following vs23,24? Do you leave the alter and seek to be reconciled to those that have ought against you? Not you against them, but them against you? Or vs 25, do you agree with your adversary quickly? Hmmm, viewing this board and your posts I would say not.
I have already "evened the score" with those I had sinned against before my conversion.
Who do I "even the score" with relative to stubbing a toe?



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1979
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Hill Top »

Grandfather wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:45 pm
luchnia wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 12:22 pm
It was stated by Grandfather, " "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition."

It has been some years since I delved deeply into the topic of what sin was/is. This brought me back some to my older studies about sin and its master and brought in some other thoughts.

Grandfather states "...it is THE definition." A question can be asked THE definition based on what and defined by who? A greek word, or a concept of God?

Along these lines one might ask the question what does missing the mark actually mean? Is it as simple as a righteous person throwing a ball at a target and missing and for that the righteous man is guilty of an offense against God? I my view the idea is missing the moral bullseye and not simply missing the mark.

In one of the original Noah Webster dictionaries (before they all got watered down) here is his definition of sin: "a transgression of the divine law; moral depravity; an offense in general. To violate the divine law or any rule of duty.

I think where we mess up is we tend to remove moral depravity from the definition of sin. Look at all the dealings with God and man in scripture and see where God found what righteous men did that was depraved and offensive. You cannot find anything because a child of God is not in moral depravity. Those that miss the moral mark and serve satan are morally depraved. The child of God partakes of God's divine nature and are led by the Spirit and are Christ.

As Spiritblade posted in another post from scripture even the plowing of the wicked is sin. Why? Because the wicked are morally depraved and disobey God. The wicked do not serve God nor do they inherit eternal life. Scripture does not indicate the plowing of the righteous is sin. No, the plowing of the righteous is good and upright.

To me the two natures are very different and as Paul stated it is about whom you serve, Romans 6:13-18
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Who said missing the mark of Gods holiness was not moral depravitive? All sin separates us from God. I have repeated this often.
As stubbing a toe doesn't separate us from God, it is not a sin.



User avatar
macca
Let Not the Words and Sayings of God Depart From Thine Eyes
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:37 am
Location: australia

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by macca »

Matt 9:13;
But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

The righteous do not need to repent of anything, according to Jesus. :2gunfire:



Grandfather
The Chosen Fast of God is To Undo the Heavy Burdens
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Grandfather »

macca wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:44 am
Matt 9:13;
But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

The righteous do not need to repent of anything, according to Jesus. :2gunfire:
There are none righteous, no not one Romans 3:10



Grandfather
The Chosen Fast of God is To Undo the Heavy Burdens
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Grandfather »

Hill Top wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:36 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:32 pm
Grandfather wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:10 am
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
When you use "miss the mark" as your definition of sin, you infer that one is "aiming at" not losing their keys under the command of, in this case, God.
Excuse me. "Missing the mark" is not MY definition, it is THE definition.
And yes, it does imply that one is "aiming at" something, that something is the holiness of God.
(perhaps you're aiming at something a little lower, easier to hit, which is why you claim to be sinfree, or sinless.)
Where is God's command not to lose our keys, that we aim to obey?
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
But if there is no command not to lose your keys, there was no "mark" to miss.
If God gave us no command to not stub our toes, what "mark" have we missed if we do stub a toe?
Are you now invoking another book of the Law in order to quantify sin?
Are you abandoning grace in favor of a list of commandments that can't make us perfect after that was already
tried and failed?
There are no (specific) commands to do a lot of things, and there are a lot of commands that can be used as "proof text". For example I could mention Proverb 3 Where the writer talks about wisdom and makes this comment "Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble." So perhaps there is a command not to stumble.
Just as there is a command to do no manual labor on the Sabbath..
Is that command still in effect?
Why are you interested in returning to the days of Law keeping?
What profit is there in the ways Jesus freed us from?
BTW - I have said repeatedly I am not quanitfing sin. All sin pays the same wage. Furthermore, until one fully grasps the depth and nature of sin, they cannot fully appreciate grace. You're the one claiming to live sin free, thus you're the one diminishing the power of grace.
As Paul wrote..."What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1-2)
Your attempts to grasp more things to be forgiven of fit right in with this verse.
Seemingly, you are living with a mind-set that wants to find more sin in the world than there already is.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:16 pm
It was written..."be ye "THEREFORE" perfect..."
Does that not translate to..."because this is what was really commanded of God, do it."
Here is the Mirriam-Webster definition of "therefore...
Definition of therefore
1 a: for that reason : CONSEQUENTLY
b: because of that
c: on that ground
2: to that end.
"Be ye on those grounds, for that reason, to that end, perfect..."
What "grounds"?
The sermon on the mount's remarks.
if you really want to go that route. then start at the beginning and therefore be perfect in all of what Jesus spoke on that sermon. For example... are you perfect in following vs23,24? Do you leave the alter and seek to be reconciled to those that have ought against you? Not you against them, but them against you? Or vs 25, do you agree with your adversary quickly? Hmmm, viewing this board and your posts I would say not.
I have already "evened the score" with those I had sinned against before my conversion.
Who do I "even the score" with relative to stubbing a toe?
You're missing the point. It is not you that "evens the score".... If THEY have something against YOU, you are to go to them and allow them to "even the score".



Grandfather
The Chosen Fast of God is To Undo the Heavy Burdens
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: What is "SIN"

Post by Grandfather »

Hill Top wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:36 pm
I have already "evened the score" with those I had sinned against before my conversion.
How about after your conversion? Has no one had "ought" against you?
I understand your reading comprehension is sometimes challenged so let me help you.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matt 5:23,24

1 - You are the one coming to the altar
2 - Your brother (in context anyone) has something against you. Not you against him
3 - You leave the altar and be reconcilded
4 - Only after reconciliation do you return to the alter, not before

And should they not have heard you in your attempt to reconcile, did you follow the instructions of Matt 18?
Did you first go to them privately? vs 15
Did you then take a neutral witnesses to verify your honest attempts to reconcile vs 16
Did you them take the case to the church v 17



Post Reply