Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The Sorcerer's Sin

[Hill Top]

... virtually no one consistently [Loves God with all the heart, mind, soul, strength, and might to 100% of ideal human capacity and neighbor as self] at all times to 100% of their capacity.

Everyone who has been reborn of God's seed, does what God wants them to do 100% of the time.

To me, that verse means that a person that is born of God don't sin intentionally, while His seed remains in that person.

All sin is intentional. (James 1:14-15)

James 1:14-15 does not say that "all sin is intentional."
Given that there are examples of unintentional sin in the Bible, why do you claim to the contrary, that all sin is intentional?

It is written..."But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (James 1:14-15)
If temptation, lust, enticement, and conception are necessary for something to be a sin...how can one accidently commit something he was tempted to do, lusted for, and enticed to do ?

Here is just one example of unintentional sin. See Acts 3:17 and surrounding text. They sinned in ignorance, but still needed to repent (Acts 3:19).

Though the cited killers may have been ignorant of whom they killed, they were well aware that murder was against God's will.
The Jewish leaders were tempted, enticed, lusted after, and committed their sin.
Their road to sin started when they started to desire His death, in John 5.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

Did Gal. 2 Peter intend to disobey God by condescending to the visiting Jews ?
I don't think so.
Why do you ?

Paul says that he "withstood" Peter "to his face, because" Peter "was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11). Then, Paul goes on to say why Peter "was to be blamed," and why Peter was culpable.

I think Paul knew better than I do and I think Paul is clear that Peter "was to be blamed."

[Hill Top]

The New Testamen and real life experience with enough people who have received the gift of tongues to know that those that speak in tongues are still capable of sin and do, in fact, actually sin.

Doesn't a sin, show that their repentance from sin was false ?
If that was false, so is their "gift".

Jesus said to forgive up to 490 times a day for the same sin (Matthew 18:22).
If I understand what you are saying... You are saying that the only way to tell if repentance is genuine is to never sin again. If that is true, what does speaking in tongues have to do with proving someone has truly repented? After all, plenty of people who speak in tongues have sinned since beginning to speak in tongues.

If a turn from sin is real, it will be permanent.
If sinners are speaking in tongues, (or prophesying/healing), their gift is false.
Repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins are required for the real gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

[Hill Top]

The fact that you don't see errors and missed opportunities as sin confirms that you and I have different definitions of what sin is.

Is it a sin if a kid runs out between cars, and you kill them ?
NO, unless you were driving drunk/drugged, and faster that the posted limit.

That depends upon the circumstances.

I supplied the circumstances above. Speeding and impairment.

Does it fall short of the glory of God in any way?

Speeding and drunkenness fall short of the glory of God.
It is written..."Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Titus 1:15)
Be pure; and all things done in purity, will be to the glory of God.

[Hill Top]

All sin is intentional.

I still don't agree that all sin is intentional. There are New Testament examples of sins committed through ignorance.

See Paul's sins committed in ignorance and unbelief which he listed in 1st Timothy 1:13-16, for example. He didn't know he was sinning when he did those deeds and he didn't intend to sin when he did them. Yet, those acts counted towards Paul's being the chief of sinners.

Paul's pre-conversion actions were done under the auspices of the Law.
By the Law, there was no condemnation.
But had they been done in Christ, there would be.
Paul's comment was with NT eyes about OT events.

[Hill Top]

Did Gal. 2 Peter intend to disobey God by condescending to the visiting Jews ?
I don't think so.
Why do you ?

Paul says that he "withstood" Peter "to his face, because" Peter "was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11). Then, Paul goes on to say why Peter "was to be blamed," and why Peter was culpable.

I think Paul knew better than I do and I think Paul is clear that Peter "was to be blamed."

I agree.
Peter's actions made it seem that eating with, and going into a Gentile's house, were still sin.
Had he been confident of his interactions with Gentiles, he wouldn't have sought different conditions.
His conscience was still rooted in Jewish Law keeping.

I sure wish more had been written about that scene...what did the visitors do ? Did they to eat with the Gentiles ?
Or were they separatists, as feared by Peter ?

[Hill Top]

The New Testamen and real life experience with enough people who have received the gift of tongues to know that those that speak in tongues are still capable of sin and do, in fact, actually sin.

Doesn't a sin, show that their repentance from sin was false ?
If that was false, so is their "gift".

Jesus said to forgive up to 490 times a day for the same sin (Matthew 18:22).
If I understand what you are saying... You are saying that the only way to tell if repentance is genuine is to never sin again. If that is true, what does speaking in tongues have to do with proving someone has truly repented? After all, plenty of people who speak in tongues have sinned since beginning to speak in tongues.

See above.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

Are you saying that from the time a person begins speaking in tongues, that person can never love God with more of their mind? That there is never any more potential for mentally loving God more? And, that that level of mental love never varies?

If one loves God with all their mind, how can they love Him more than "all" their mind ?
We are all to grow in grace and knowledge, and hopefully, will have more and more reasons to love Him.
But there is only one "love".

In 1st Thessalonians 3:12, Paul is writing to believers in the hope that their love might increase and abound towards each other and all men. The goal being hearts established in holiness. I think this makes it clear that someone can be a genuine believer and yest still have room to love both God and men to greater degrees.

[Hill Top]

Are you saying that from the time a person begins speaking in tongues, that person can never love God with more of their mind? That there is never any more potential for mentally loving God more? And, that that level of mental love never varies?

If one loves God with all their mind, how can they love Him more than "all" their mind ?
We are all to grow in grace and knowledge, and hopefully, will have more and more reasons to love Him.
But there is only one "love".

In 1st Thessalonians 3:12, Paul is writing to believers in the hope that their love might increase and abound towards each other and all men. The goal being hearts established in holiness. I think this makes it clear that someone can be a genuine believer and yet still have room to love both God and men to greater degrees.

I see "love" in terms of back and white.
Either someone is loved, or they are not.
I find that I can love more and more "about" someone, as I see them more and more.
But the love is already in place.
Probably just a matter of semantics ?
Love is manifested by actions; so doing more for someone, could be interpreted as growing in love.