Terry wrote: > I pointed out that this is not a sin > because it endangers others, but because > you, or I, have failed to obey those in > authority over us.
We clearly define sin differently. I believe that sin is anything that is not a manifestation of love. Selfishness is sin. Let me ask you if you would agree with the following axiom: * A person can fail to obey authority over them and still not sin. * If this axiom is true, then we cannot define sin as failing to obey those in authority. Failing to obey authority might be a sin, and it might be a sin in most situations, but we cannot define sin as a failure to obey authority. I believe that every action that fails to obey authorities would only be a sin if it can be shown how it either harms someone else or harms God. For example, authorities typically have zoning laws that make having prayer meetings, Bible studies, and church in your home illegal. I do not believe it is a sin to have church in your home, unless you are not being loving toward your neighbor with regard to parking, etc. Technically, you would be breaking the law, but in actual practice, the authorities don't do much about it unless you harm your neighbor in some way (for example, by parking on their property or blocking their entry to their property). So I would say that unless you harmed your neighbor in some way, then having church in your home is not a sin (even though technically, you have failed to obey those in authority). Would you consider it a sin or not? Would you not gather together in your home or someone else's home just because the authorities said that you were not allowed to do that in a neighborhood zoned residential? Terry wrote: > The fact remains, you have not obeyed God's > instruction to obey the authorities. I believe that I have, and I doubt that you can find anyone in authority who wants to prosecute me if I accidentally slipped over the speed limit by a few mph. I think you are not only being stricter than God here, but stricter than the authorities also. The goal and purpose of the authorities is to help people drive in a safe manner. The rules and penalties are put in place to try and help them enforce the idea of people driving safely. If someone accidentally slips over the speed limit by a few mph, that doesn't mean that they are suddenly in the category of an unsafe driver and ought to be prosecuted. This is how the "letter of the law" approach fails. The letter of the law is incapable of producing true righteousness, and it often leads to people having legalistic mindsets, which misses entirely what true righteousness is all about. Terry wrote: > I think that to assume that He passes off any > sin as being not worth His notice is to underestimate > how much He hates sin. You are missing the point. The point is not about God forgiving sin, or passing off sin, but rather, the question is about whether God is a legalist and considers someone slipping a few mph over the speed limit set by man to be a sinner deserving of eternal damnation in hell fire. I speak for God in saying no, God does not damn a man to eternal damnation in hell fire for that, in fact, he considers it no sin at all. You say that God considers it a sin worthy of eternal damnation. The premise for your viewpoint is a legalistic one. You say that because God instructs us to submit and obey the authorities, and slipping over the speed limit a few mph violates that instruction, then sin has happened and eternal damnation is the righteous judgment for the infraction. My response to this is that you are being legalistic, just like the Saturday worshippers who insist on worshipping God on the day of Saturn instead of the day of the Sun / Son. Let us keep the true Sabbath (which is not Saturday), and let us also be safe drivers. The path to doing this is to walk in love, not in making sure we not violate one iota of what is written. A person can keep every jot and tittle of the law and yet not be righteous enough to inherit the kingdom of God, and a person can miss a jot or tittle and be righteous enough to enter the kingdom of God. Terry wrote: > 1. If Ananias and spouse were Christians, were only > their past sins covered by the blood of Christ, or were > all their sins covered, Past and future? Only past sins were covered, as taught in Romans: Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Terry wrote: >2. Is lying to the Holy Spirit worse than lying to anyone else? Yes, of course, it is much worse to lie to the Holy Spirit. Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Terry wrote: > 3.If Ananias and Sapphira went to Hell as you assume, > was it because they lost their salvation when they lied, > or were they never saved to begin with? I don't view salvation in the standard evangelical, easy believism way of getting your ticket to heaven by saying the sinner's prayer. Jesus said to believe upon him, and I see that as a process that is worked out. We continue to believe in Christ, and while we might speak about a point in time when we were "saved," we are really talking about the point in time when we began a process of believing in Christ. Some grow up, and the birds come and snatch the word of God away from them. Others dry up and whither away. Some are choked by the persecution that comes from the Word. Whatever the case with Ananias and Sapphira, it is clear that they had no lot in the matter with the other believers, or they would not have lied to the Holy Ghost. Terry wrote: > P.S. My apology to your wife. Did not mean > to burden her by agitating you. You didn't burden her at all. She tells me about what is going on with lists she frequents all the time, and I tell her about some of my conversations. I first posed the question to her without telling her it was brought up on this list. After she answered, I told her about our discussion. We are both amazed at the views of some Christians that we find on the Internet. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "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.
