I still believe in the existence of God, but in 1999 I renounced the Christian Church.

Jesus was born sinless, but humanity wasn't.

(And the Devil still tried to tempt him.)

The Devil tempted a third of the Angels in heaven (who were not sinful) and they were cast out.

Adam and Eve were created (sinless) and they were tempted and fell from grace.

Jesus redeemed Adam's error by his sacrifice on the cross (he carries the weight of all our sins) but we can still fall into sin because the battle will always rage between the spirit and the flesh and the Devil will relentlessly continue to try and derail a Christian's path to salvation.

Remember the Thief crucified to the right of Jesus during the crucifixion?

He was a sinner, but he repented and asked Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom and Jesus said:Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.

Christians (more often than not) avoid sin, but falling from grace can happen.

But God is merciful.

From Luke 15:

<15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

From Luke 15:

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.>

If a person sincerely repents (and has faith) that Jesus died for their sins on the cross, that person will be saved.

Life can be a struggle (on the road to salvation) and a person can stumble, (sin if you prefer) but if he repents then God being a merciful God will forgive him.

As to the verse in John that you brought up. I'll just borrow from you <BP>: <I don't want to carry on just passing scriptures back and forth.>

So no more from me about this topic.

But I may bring a boxing video here from time to time.

Can I answer, or do I have to rejoin a Christian Church to do so?>

Of course you can answer. I am talking about the Christian God though. It seems as though you still believe in the Christian God but have separated yourself from organized religion.

An interesting question, but, it doesn't change the content of 1 John 3:9 <No one who is born of God will continue to sin>

I think what we should do is take 1 John 3:9 and use it as a basis to think axiomatically about other verses in the NT. I think we should do this because it is so clear and unambiguous.

<Jesus was born sinless, but humanity wasn't.>

Yes, but I have not spoken against this anyways. 1 John 3:9 talks about when one is <born again of God>, not when one is <born>.

<Jesus redeemed Adam's error by his sacrifice on the cross (he carries the weight of all our sins) but we can still fall into sin >

I want to point out something particular that you said:

<but we can still fall into sin>

1 John 3:9 says the opposite.

<No one who is born of God <<<will continue to sin>>> because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.>

You said what you said because you were taught that by other Christians.

I don't know exactly what it means to fall from grace.

If you mean that Christians continue to sin then I have to refer you to 1 John 3:9 again.

Please note, <no where> in the NT does it say that <once you are born again of God> you can sin.

It only says the exact opposite.

<chancho>, there is a lot of talk in the Christian community and none of it is scriptural. It's all feel-good religion.

Didn't John walk and talk with Jesus? Wasn't he the disciple that "Jesus loved"? If John wrote that once we are born again of God we <cannot sin>, then we shouldn't say that once we are born again of God we <can> sin - even if all the other so-called Christians say we can.

These fake narratives go around in the churches. The churches are ministered by men that cheat on their wives, causing scandal, attended by congregations that are Christian for about half a day on Sunday, have messed up families, messed up relationships, into drugs, alcohol and adultery - most Christians are a mess so whatever it is they are doing <isn't> working for them.

They pray and nothing changes, because they are not born again of God.

We've got Christians now that say it's not a sin to engage in homosexuality. Think about that. This is the same church that says we can sin once we are born of God. Both are directly against what the bible teaches, yet, you know how these Christians are, if they want to <rationalize> sin, they take the bible an twist the words to make it so.

The key word there is <rationalize>.

<Chancho>, almost all Christians hate me because I bring this stuff up all the time and never let it go. Christians have a lot of pride and ego so they don't want to accept 1 John 3:9. I've been kicked out and banned from Christian groups on FB. They called me a troll and told me that they think it's okay to continue sinning <once they are born again of God>.

Is it any surprise that this prideful, hateful, angry bunch rationalizes verses like 1 John 3:9 to mean exactly the opposite of what it says?

Saved?

A word used too many times now and no one really knows what it means.

To be saved is to be born again of God, because as Jesus to Nicodemus, truly, truly, unless one is born again he will <not> enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You don't <get saved> and go to heaven without being born again, unless we make Jesus a liar. Therefore, being saved is being born again of God so you can be His son and return to the Father. Then you can enter and it's all made possible by Christ.

I no longer listen to all the Christians. They've got their own problems and it's the blind leading the blind. I think it's better to edify one another as we are doing now>

So what have you been "edified" about?
Do you consider trashing the views of others a "learning" process?

Doesn't this ultimately get to the question:

The sky daddy would impose his dictatorship on earth and there would be no dissent.

He would then send his emissary, liberal Jesus, to enforce communism on earth.

And all the Christians on this page would be in ecstatic union.

The sky daddy would impose his dictatorship on earth and there would be no dissent.>

Is that right?>

Sort of. I don't know if God is the Christian God, or if Christianity is just some peoples' "take" on God.

But I am convinced there is a God. Or, more accurately, I have <faith> that God exists, using the Book of Hebrews definition of <faith> as <the evidence of things unseen>. (More accurately, God has thrust <faith> upon me.)

<What do I have to do to please God?>

Everyone is different, and has different abilities. So what a person has to do to please God is also an individual thing, <if> it depends on what you do in your life, the actions you take.

This might be why you keep disputing the answers you get from other people. Because they are telling you what <they> think <they> need to *do* to please God.

What if Tim Tebow had become a librarian instead of a football player? Did he please God with his football career? Would Tebow have been more, or less, pleasing to God if he had become a librarian? Does God even care one way or the other about Tebow's career? If yes, then obviously one of the choices (footballer or librarian) is more pleasing to God for Tebow, but definitely not for someone else (Stephen Hawking).

If no, God doesn't care, then neither choice is more (or less) pleasing to God.

But the bigger picture is, if pleasing God depends on what you *do* in life, then it is ability-dependent and MUST be different/unique for each person.

Do you consider trashing the views of others a "learning" process?>

Edifying about 1 John 3:9

<Trashing views>

I don't think I trashed any view. I'm looking for open discussion about the real meanings of different verses. I am sharing those verses and sharing my thoughts in full, so that others can respond knowing full well what I think.

I have enjoyed <chancho's> end of this discussion and told him so. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing him. <Optimal play> is a staunch Catholic and I'm not, and I don't trash his views either, but I wrote here that I couldn't be a Catholic for reasons x, y and z. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing his views either.

<Everyone is different, and has different abilities. So what a person has to do to please God is also an individual thing, <if> it depends on what you do in your life, the actions you take.>

<What if Tim Tebow had become a librarian instead of a football player? Did he please God with his football career? Would Tebow have been more, or less, pleasing to God if he had become a librarian? Does God even care one way or the other about Tebow's career?>

I didn't think that career choice is what pleases God. I think one could displease God if his career choice is to join the mafia, but careers don't please God as far as I can tell, so I think we agree.

<It can only be universal if it does NOT depend on what you do. And I happen to think that this is true.>

It depends on what we mean by doing I guess, but I think we are coming to some kind of agreement here.

<I think that adapting an attitude of optimism is what God wants me to do, and that is what will "please" God, for lack of a better way to describe it.>

I think we are getting even closer to agreement now.

I think that what we need to do to please God is to always have faith in Him. Put another way, we can't please God unless we have faith. I think you used the word "optimism" instead of faith, but given the context of your statement, I think it means the same thing.

When God sees that we continually have faith in Him, I think <that> is what pleases God, so this is what we need to do.

<But I am convinced there is a God. Or, more accurately, I have <faith> that God exists>

I see it a little differently. I am <convinced> that God exists and I put my faith <in> God. That is, I don't have faith that God exists. I go beyond that and say that I am convinced He exists.

I know you don't.
As you already pointed out, it isn't obvious, and one can be easily fooled.

<Big Pawn:
The real sin happens silently, with us being almost unaware of it. It seems as though we are just contemplating some thoughts when in reality, we are choosing to identify with the deceiver.>

Maybe you consider this, "embracing" other views?

<Big Pawn:
You have no wisdom or insight to offer in regard to understand what God wants of us>

You seem to expect/want all Christians to agree with you.

<Big Pawn:
I have enjoyed <chancho's> end of this discussion and told him so. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing him.>

Things you agree with aren't the problem.

<Big Pawn:
I look at questions like "Am I pleasing to God" as an opportunity to discover things about myself that are keeping me from being right with God.>

The key word is "myself."
It's supposed to be a reflective process.
It isn't really about the world agreeing with you.

<Big Pawn:
Most Christians don't care about this stuff. They just quote the bible, condemn their fellow man, feel holy and go on their merry way, wagging their fingers at everyone while they themselves no *nothing* at all.>

<Most Christians>

Since there is supposed to be 2.1 billion in the world, I'm guessing you've "sampled" over a billion?

<condemn their fellow man, feel holy> <wagging their fingers >

Yes, we'd never want to do that.

<Big Pawn:
These fake narratives go around in the churches. The churches are ministered by men that cheat on their wives, causing scandal, attended by congregations that are Christian for about half a day on Sunday, have messed up families, messed up relationships, into drugs, alcohol and adultery - most Christians are a mess so whatever it is they are doing <isn't> working for them.>

So we have over a billion, "messes?"

<Big Pawn:
an opportunity to discover things about myself that are keeping me from being right with God.>

<Big Pawn:
You have no wisdom or insight to offer in regard to understand what God wants of us>>

I asked him for some and he gave none.

I was stating the fact as it reflected the present moment at the time.

<You seem to expect/want all Christians to agree with you.

<Big Pawn:
I have enjoyed <chancho's> end of this discussion and told him so. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing him.>>

The section you pasted in support of your assertion doesn't seem to back it up in any way I can see. What's the problem? I enjoyed <chancho's> end of the discussion. So what?

That makes me a bad guy?

<The key word is "myself." It's supposed to be a reflective process.
It isn't really about the world agreeing with you.>

Right, and? Did I say that the world needs to agree with me?

You said that, not me.

<<Big Pawn: Most Christians don't care about this stuff. They just quote the bible, condemn their fellow man, feel holy and go on their merry way, wagging their fingers at everyone while they themselves no *nothing* at all.>

<Most Christians>

Since there is supposed to be 2.1 billion in the world, I'm guessing you've "sampled" over a billion?>

Dice, learn a lesson here. When a poll is taken in America about what Americans think about X, they say, "Most Americans agree that..." even though they don't sample all 330,000,000 Americans.

They usually only sample a few hundred or maybe 1500 or something like that.

I've easily exchanged ideas like these with that many Christians over the years. The results are as I described and are in the same ballpark of numbers as that of a poll.

<<Big Pawn: an opportunity to discover things about myself that are keeping me from being right with God.>

Id suggest trying to get along with other Christians as a good first step.>

I don't think that "getting along" is a good thing in itself. Everybody else is busy <going along to get along>.

There's enough of that.

I appreciate your input, but I feel no pressure to go along to get along. I understand your position, but I'm getting the kind of back and forth I want from <chancho> and <optimal>, and even <tga> even though he says he renounced his Christianity. Interestingly, he still believes in God.

<dice>, I also enjoy the back and forth I got with <patzer2>, another Christian on the <rogoff> page, as well as <sugardom>, a Christian who I get along with well. And then there is <pgp> and I always enjoy his comments even though we may disagree at times, and he posts good posts here as well, and we get on just fine.

Reading this again, I want to say that I did not trash his views. I trashed his terse demeanor and refusal to offer any real comment despite his insistence on replying.

You get that?

His views are that the world is 6k years old. I didn't trash that. His views on salvation, sin, the atonement, the rapture, the end times, judging and so on - I didn't trash them and never have.

Those are his views and I've not trashed them.

He comes here to get in on the conversation, and then when I ask him something he responds with a link to the whole bible.

Really?

Faith is something I put <in> God, and this ties into my previous comment.>

You use the word <faith> more conventionally, and I don't disagree with this usage.

For whatever reason I like the Book of Hebrews definition, that <faith> is the "evidence of things unseen".

It is this "evidence of things unseen" that has been thrust upon me. Which is another way of saying that I have been convinced God exists.

<Big Pawn> If God by His sovereign grace has imputed Christ's righteousness to each of us who believes in Christ... why would He have to do that, if we are no longer capable of sinning? Does not Christ's righteousness cover everything we do? So that, in effect, and as Paul says in Romans, all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient?

<pgp: If God by His sovereign grace has imputed Christ's righteousness to each of us who believes in Christ... why would He have to do that, if we are no longer capable of sinning?>

Because it's Christ's sacrifice that allows us to be right with God, allowing us to be born again in the first place. Jesus came and made it possible to be born again.

<Does not Christ's righteousness cover everything we do?>

Yes, that's how I see it. Until we are born again, we are sinners and Christ covers that, allowing us to be born again. As 1 John 3:9 says,

<Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God>

<Pgp: And He will also sanctify us bit by bit. Not all at once, lest it frighten our neighbors.>

The Church in Thessalonika asked St Paul the apostle that same question.

Paul reminded them that what pleases God is their sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8).

~~~~

<Dec-28-16 Big Pawn: <No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.>

1 John 3:9

The verse you quoted is not as precise as this one. Yours is more vague. This one here clearly says that <if> you are born of God, <then> you cannot go on sinning.

This is because now, as opposed to before, <God's seed is in him> and he <cannot> sin.

It doesn't say that it's easier to not sin, but it's okay if we do sometimes (a little bit).

It doesn't say that we shouldn't sin.

It doesn't say that the body will sin but the spirit won't.

It doesn't say that the flesh is sinful but we are covered by Christ.

No.

It says that we <cannot> sin <IF>

<<<<IF>>>>

<if> we are born of God and <now> have His seed in us.

This means that <if> you are a child of God, then you have the nature of God in you and <that> is what makes you born again. You've been reborn with God's nature and no longer have the nature of the devil.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that <if you are a child of God you can still sin>.

I don't want to carry on just passing scriptures back and forth. The whole world does that and look at it.>

In the same letter, John previously says "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." (NIV)

- 1 John 1:8-10

Now, this apparently contradicts his later statement "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God." (NIV)

- 1 John 3:9

When John says "they cannot go on sinning" he means that they cannot continue upon the wide and easy path to destruction, but are now committed to the hard and narrow road that leads to life (cf Matthew 7:13-14). They now walk in the light (cf 1 John 1:7).

Nevertheless, even on the road to life, we still sin because of our imperfect human nature, but as long as we remain faithful and confess our sins, we will find forgiveness (1 John 1:8-9).

John distinguishes between sin that can be forgiven and sin that leads to death, and it is the sin that leads to death which those who are born of God cannot commit (cf 1 John 5:16-17).

To read 1 John 3:9 in isolation is to misunderstand the meaning and overall intent of John's letter.

~~~~

<Dec-30-16 Big Pawn: <diceman: So what have you been "edified" about?

Do you consider trashing the views of others a "learning" process?>

Edifying about 1 John 3:9

<Trashing views>

I don't think I trashed any view. I'm looking for open discussion about the real meanings of different verses. I am sharing those verses and sharing my thoughts in full, so that others can respond knowing full well what I think.

I have enjoyed <chancho's> end of this discussion and told him so. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing him. <Optimal play> is a staunch Catholic and I'm not, and I don't trash his views either, but I wrote here that I couldn't be a Catholic for reasons x, y and z. I don't think he thinks I'm trashing his views either.

If they think so I hope they would tell me. I don't mean to come across as trashing their views. I want open discussion about what it means to be a Christian and don't want to trash their views. If I disagree I have to say so otherwise it's a pointless discussion, but I do not aim to <trash> anyone's views.>

You have not 'trashed' my views nor anybody else's.

This passage may be of interest to you:

<2 Peter 2>

<20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Now, this apparently contradicts his later statement "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God." (NIV)>

Glad to see you weighing in again.

I don't see a contradiction because when John says, <If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.> I agree that we have all sinned.

The critical difference is that <once we are born again of God> that we <cannot sin> as in 1 John 3:9.

1 John 3:9 implies 1 John 1:8-10 because he says we can <no longer> sin or <continue> to sin, which implies that we all have sinned.

<chancho: This passage may be of interest to you:

<2 Peter 2>

<20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.>

This is what it's all about, digging into the meaning of the words!

<If they escaped> does not mean <born again of God>. It could just mean the beginning and progress through the sanctifying process. I happen to think that the sanctifying process starts long before we are born again. When we begin to be sanctified we start seeing, hearing and understanding the truth for the first time and that is what allows us to escape the world.

We start to see everything differently. Once you wake up it's never the same again.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of Calvinism vs Molinism, although I lean toward Molinism at the moment, but if we are predestined to be saved, then that is what causes God to tap on our shoulders <long before> we are born again to begin the sanctifying process. We suddenly awaken to God and start the journey of seeking and finding.

Along the way we grow in our spirituality and escape the world. You become separate from the world in that you do not desire or value the same things as everyone else.

I think one of the most important parts of the sanctifying process is the awareness of and subsequent removal of the spirit of anger, hate, resentment; satan's spirit.

If we are angry, proud, hateful or resentful, we can't forgive. If we don't forgive we won't be forgiven.

<But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.> Matth 6:15.

The sanctifying process eventually shines a bright light on our inner selves and allows us to let go of our anger, so that God can take that spirit away, allowing us to forgive others so that God can forgive us, and then he can give us a rebirth and a new nature, crowning the sanctification process.

Glad to see you weighing in again.> I've been too busy over Christmas but I see there's been an interesting discussion going on in this forum!

<I don't see a contradiction because when John says, <If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.>

I agree that we have all sinned.

The critical difference is that <once we are born again of God> that we <cannot sin> as in 1 John 3:9.

1 John 3:9 implies 1 John 1:8-10 because he says we can <no longer> sin or <continue> to sin, which implies that we all have sinned.>

John's letter is directed to a church he knows quite well. The clear implication is that they are all born again of God, and yet he acknowledges they will still sin. He is not making a distinction between those who have not been born again of God and therefore are sinning, and those who have been born again of God and therefore are not sinning.

Anyway, I see it's just clicked over to Jan-01-17

I disagree. John says that we can tell if we are born again of God by whether or not we continue to sin.

<9. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.>

In the next verse he explains that this is how you can tell if you are born of God.

<10. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.>

It is the current Christian thought that if you confess Jesus as your lord and savior that you are born again.

This is not what John says.

Therefore, I disagree that John considers the sinners in the church to be born again of God; children of God.

I think the process goes something like this:

1. God taps us on the shoulder and we begin to wonder and seek Him.

2. We begin a process of sanctification.

3. We are still sinners but because of Christ salvation is at hand.

4. We examine ourselves as we sanctify ourselves.

5. We get to know God

6. We fellowship with others and all get to know God.

7. We repent.

8. We give up anger, hate, pride.

9. We forgive those who have wronged us.

10. God forgives us since we've forgiven our brothers.

11. God removes the spirit of satan in us now that we've forgiven those who have sinned against us.

12. We are born again of God

13. We cannot continue to sin because we are born again of God.

14. We go to heaven because now we are born again.