Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The Sorcerer's Sin

[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.

Ignoring the potential dispensational discussions that we could launch into from here...
Paul's New Testament perspective still included the idea of sins of ignorance. In fact, Paul cites his ignorance as a reason for finding forgiveness.

They were only sins from a NT perspective.
His OT actions were according to the Law of God.
They were not sins when he did them.

All NT sin must include temptation, lust, enticement, and conception.
In James' 1:14-15 formula, there is no room for ignorance.

[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."

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 ?

I believe Peter sinned in this matter (acting as if eating with and/or entering a Gentile's house was still sin). HIs conscience had been liberated from such beliefs long before this (in the events that led up to his visit with Cornelius and it was clear he had no issue with it until these other Jews showed up).

I don't see how your position (that repentance isn't real if a person later commits the same sin) holds true in light of Peter's conduct. If anyone legitimately had the Holy Ghost before falling back, it was Peter.

[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 ?

I believe Peter sinned in this matter (acting as if eating with and/or entering a Gentile's house was still sin). HIs conscience had been liberated from such beliefs long before this (in the events that led up to his visit with Cornelius and it was clear he had no issue with it until these other Jews showed up).

Is it a sin to only set out the good china for visitors ?
Or the good towels ?
No ? Keeping them away from the family until the visitors show up seems like something you would label a sin.
Preferential treatment !
Why is it a sin for Peter to condescend to visiting Jews who were, I guess, still in the No Gentiles In My House" OT-mindset ?

I don't see how your position (that repentance isn't real if a person later commits the same sin) holds true in light of Peter's conduct. If anyone legitimately had the Holy Ghost before falling back, it was Peter.

Peter didn't commit a sin.
Who was hurt by his deference to the visitors ?

[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 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.

I think that the use of the word "all" in the command to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength means that it is possible to love God partially rather than wholly. It's not that someone is either loved or not loved. It's whether they are loved with all one's being.

[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.

I think that the use of the word "all" in the command to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength means that it is possible to love God partially rather than wholly. It's not that someone is either loved or not loved. It's whether they are loved with all one's being.

That is what the command is all about !
Quit using only a portion of your heart, soul, strength, and mind, to love God !

[Spiritblade Disciple]

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 ?

One example I can think of would be Eve. She was deceived. Would she have still given in to the temptation had she not been deceived? See 1st Tim. 2:11-14 and 2nd Cor. 11:3. Paul seems to think that real Christians can be deceived and corrupted.

Eve believed what she knew was a lie.
She exhibited a lust to "be as gods". (Gen 3:5)

If she really knew it was a lie, how was she deceived?

[Hill Top]

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 ?

One example I can think of would be Eve. She was deceived. Would she have still given in to the temptation had she not been deceived? See 1st Tim. 2:11-14 and 2nd Cor. 11:3. Paul seems to think that real Christians can be deceived and corrupted.

Eve believed what she knew was a lie.
She exhibited a lust to "be as gods". (Gen 3:5)

If she really knew it was a lie, how was she deceived?

She believed the devil had some authority to over-ride God's commandment.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

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.

Why do you believe they committed murder? Where does the Bible say they committed murder?

The desired and ended up causing the death on an innocent man.
That is murder, to me.
Both Jer. 4:31, and Hosea foretell it.
Acts 7:52 cites it.

Yet, they still didn't know it was wrong when they did it. Jesus said they didn't know what they were doing. Stephen agreed that they did it in ignorance.

Even though they believed themselves to be doing the right thing, they still needed forgiveness.

An individual can sin without knowing they have done so. Sins of ignorance.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

The Bible says they committed it in ignorance (Acts 3:17). Ignorance mitigates the degree of punishment due to the offender (Luke 12:47-48). Ignoring this distinction seems unjust.

The only ignorance they manifested was their knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God.
They caused the death of an innocent man.
I see no mitigating factors.

The fact that you don't see them doesn't mean that there aren't any.

[Hill Top]

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.

Why do you believe they committed murder? Where does the Bible say they committed murder?

The desired and ended up causing the death on an innocent man.
That is murder, to me.
Both Jer. 4:31, and Hosea foretell it.
Acts 7:52 cites it.

Yet, they still didn't know it was wrong when they did it. Jesus said they didn't know what they were doing. Stephen agreed that they did it in ignorance.

Even though they believed themselves to be doing the right thing, they still needed forgiveness.

An individual can sin without knowing they have done so. Sins of ignorance.

The only thing the perpetrators of Christ's murder were ignorant of, or acknowledge, was that Jesus was their Messiah.
The murder was a sin.