Re: [TruthTalk] Judy and John on the Law and the Spirit

[knpraise]

 John wrote:> Do you understand that I believe that "event sin"> can be stop immediately but other types of sin> cannot?   There are addictions, character failures> such as pride and selfishness that are the foundation> for other sin AND are listed as sin  (selfishness is a> sin but it is not an event). Step away from looking at the problem holistically and try to reduce the problem into separate elements.   I have no reason to do this.  Sin, in its several considerations, is that which brings us down if not managed, pardoned and/or given release.      First, consider that sin has a defiling effect.  The person overtaken with pride did not get there overnight.  As he continued in the "event sins" as you call it, there was a defiling effect upon his character.  These character flaws can be stopped immediately by a miracle, or wit
hout a miracle, can progressively improve as long as the "event sins" are forsaken.  The thing is, while his character is improving, he is not condemned as long as he does not engage in "event sins."  In other words, he is not sinning, even though his character might not be as great as the believer who has been walking without committing sin for 10 years. Same discussion ? different word:  arrogant or arrogance.   Ok??  Arrogance is a foundation for ?event sin.?   But it is more than that.  Arrogance is wrong.  It is on the list; pride, arrogance, conceit and the like are those things that provide for the truth of the statement ?we HAVE SINNED and CONTINUE to fall short of the Glory of God.      This leads us to consider separating the concepts of sin and temptation.  If one has a tendency toward pride or toward selfishness, is this sin?  They are on the sin lists !!   They are part of the fallen nature, no doubt.    You  see, this discussion is not a problem to anyone I know, BSF included, because no one I know thinks we are or will be sin free  --  ?10 years? is a hoot.     No, this is temptation.  Jesus had these same temptations.    So Christ was selfish, 
covetous, bigoted, lustful, arrogant and the like ???   He just did not act on it?    You lost me on that one.     He was human just like us.  He had fleshly desires tended toward self preservation and pride just like the rest of us.  The difference is that he did not yield to these temptations.  He put them in their proper place. He lived His life by the same Spirit we have.   But He was not JUST LIKE US.  John wrote:> There are sins of omission  when we should be doing> something and we choose not to. Why would a person committed to Christ not always choose to do what he knows he should be doing?  Do you have an example of this? You,  Lance, Deegan, me, and so on. John wrote:> Some sins stop -- but others only decrease in influence. I think you are confusing the source of sin, temptation, with sin itself.  I also think you are confusing poor character with sin.  One of the reasons believers need to stop all sin is so that they can grow spiritually, which produces good character.  Romans 7: 25 makes it clear that this is not true.   Two things are going on at the same time  --  the spiritual side is increasing and the fleshly side is decreasing.  Eph 4:22 -23 :  ?  ?lay aside the old self WHICH IS BEING CORRUPTED in accordance with the lusts of deceit and put on the new self  ?????   ?   they are happening at the same time.      One reason many so-called "Christians" do not have great character is that they indulge in sin from time to time, thinking that everybody else does it too. Another reason is because they are arrogant, conceited and still carnal.   John wrote:> Some may never be completely gone. It is true that some element of the sinful desires of the flesh will never be completely gone until the resurrection, but this is not sin if we do not follow it.  It is only temptation.  We are promised that we will be tempted, but we are also promised that we can have victory over that temptation in every case.   John wrote:> It is my opinion that there is absolutely no alternative> to this  -- that those who disagree share a much narrower> definition of sin than I I think there is some truth to this statement.  I think you are stricter than God in regards to your definition and understanding of sin.  This is one reason why I have claimed that you are every bit a legalist as I am (in my opinion more of a legalist), it is just that you have changed the object of your legalism.  You have forsaken the law and so you are not a legalist in regards to the law.  You have instead become a legalist in regards to the grace doctrine.  In doing so, you have broadened the definition of sin beyond what the Scriptures do in order to magnify the grace doctrine.  You equate the source of sin, temptation, as sin itself, and then reason that because such cannot be avoided, everybody sins.  The problem with your reasoning is that sin and temptation are two different things.  We can avoid sin.  We cannot avoid temptation. The source of sin is Satan  --   <
/SPAN>and He makes his approach in any of a number of ways.    You have it all worked out, David, while ignoring it ugly realities in your very life.   As far as the ?John is a legalist? theme.   You have this theme for only one reason  --   hoping to irritate me. And you simply love getting off subject, turning the discussion back onto me.   Ditto Deegan and Izzy. Let?s just skip it, this time.  It is immature for all concerned.