Paul did not write Books as we see in our current version of the Bible, he wrote letters to specific churches. And just because he wrote letters does not mean they were specifically inspired by God. Paul himself felt many times he owed these churches more from him. We see in scripture how he tried to make his rounds and revisit these churches. These letters were not as a whole, but to specific churches. The council in 325 A.D decided to make these letters into Books. But knowing how the history of the Catholic Church has been a literal crap stain for most believers of God, whose to honestly know if 1700 years ago, these men were actually following God's direction, or just following the things they cherry picked. Yes, we have this monologue claiming there was a process to voting which Book was God inspired vs those not. But the history of the connection to the Catholic platform suggests anything but Godliness, especially inspired Godliness.
Do we all willfully sin against God?.
- Thread starter Embankment
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Paul did not write Books as we see in our current version of the Bible, he wrote letters to specific churches. And just because he wrote letters does not mean they were specifically inspired by God. Paul himself felt many times he owed these churches more from him. We see in scripture how he tried to make his rounds and revisit these churches. These letters were not as a whole, but to specific churches. The council in 325 A.D decided to make these letters into Books. But knowing how the history of the Catholic Church has been a literal crap stain for most believers of God, whose to honestly know if 1700 years ago, these men were actually following God's direction, or just following the things they cherry picked. Yes, we have this monologue claiming there was a process to voting which Book was God inspired vs those not. But the history of the connection to the Catholic platform suggests anything but Godliness, especially inspired Godliness.
Luke 18:15-18
King James Version(KJV)
15.)And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when [his] disciples saw [it], they rebuked them.
16.)But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17.)Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
18.)And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
King James Version(KJV)
15.)And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when [his] disciples saw [it], they rebuked them.
16.)But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17.)Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
18.)And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
You are right, many of us do the same thing. And the reason behind this is that we don't want to accept that we are wrong or we have committed a sin. We just try to hide our sins from others.
It's the root of other sins. Since a person we don't accept he has done wrong, can commit sins again and again.
It's the root of other sins. Since a person we don't accept he has done wrong, can commit sins again and again.
-
1
- Show all
Nice question Embankment. If I am not mistaken Caths distinguish between mortal and venial sins, but that does not seem to be in the Bible.
Roughly speaking to me there are two categories:
Unpardonable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (and there seems to be no consensus on what that means exactly).
All other sins. Within this category, there are: confessed sins (which in theory should be pardoned, but implies non-recurrence)
Then there are the non-confessed to God sins, and there are more divisions in that:
non-confessed deliberately: not sure what can happen here, if we do not ask for forgiveness and keep missing the mark, some think we can lose salvation,
non-confessed out of ignorance: do we have blind spots due to culture, context, gender, etc.? are we guilty of sins that we do not consider them such because of acceptance in our culture?
For example: structural evil: if our culture is structured in such a way that oppression and exploitation occurs daily in our work, etc. are we guilty by association and not doing anything about it?
Can communal repercussions be taken as a variable that makes some sins more serious than others?
Stealing case: a well off persons going out of the grocery store accidentally has an apple fall off the bags. A hungry child near by sees it, and after the rightful owner departs gets close and takes the apple. Technically speaking that child is stealing.
Now let's compare with a politician, that tampers with accounting records and gets a large kickback from a bid given to a company, taking inappropriately a large sum of taxpayers money.
In the latter case, there seems to be a betrayal of public trust together with the unethical reception of funds. If the project was needed for betterment and a less quality was obtained for choosing the particular company, then the sin is greater than that which the child taking the apple is, or at least so it seems.
Will both go to hell if do not repent? how about if they repent but do not restore that taken?
In Catholic tradition, such studies were done under Moral theology, in protestant traditions I think is Christian ethics. Should we all receive more education and training in this regard to be able to walk in a manner worthy of the calling?
If so what would be the best way to do such training and education.
Deep issue, we all have weak sides, we all may rationalize some behaviors different.
Outward behaviors have to be accompanied of inner change. In the Bible says that disreputable persons were in the lead as compared to religious leaders, because maybe they had bad ways through duress in circumstances, but innerly they knew it to be wrong and dreamed of a way out.
While sometimes persons in authority in all kind of institutions mis behave regardless of the lack of duress of their circumstances... is that worse?
How about the choosing between 2 evils? Example fighting totalitarian regimes in WWII, vs not doing anything and let tyranny reign unchecked?
Not an easy issue. It would be good to have more input from forum participants.
Kind regards.
Roughly speaking to me there are two categories:
Unpardonable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (and there seems to be no consensus on what that means exactly).
All other sins. Within this category, there are: confessed sins (which in theory should be pardoned, but implies non-recurrence)
Then there are the non-confessed to God sins, and there are more divisions in that:
non-confessed deliberately: not sure what can happen here, if we do not ask for forgiveness and keep missing the mark, some think we can lose salvation,
non-confessed out of ignorance: do we have blind spots due to culture, context, gender, etc.? are we guilty of sins that we do not consider them such because of acceptance in our culture?
For example: structural evil: if our culture is structured in such a way that oppression and exploitation occurs daily in our work, etc. are we guilty by association and not doing anything about it?
Can communal repercussions be taken as a variable that makes some sins more serious than others?
Stealing case: a well off persons going out of the grocery store accidentally has an apple fall off the bags. A hungry child near by sees it, and after the rightful owner departs gets close and takes the apple. Technically speaking that child is stealing.
Now let's compare with a politician, that tampers with accounting records and gets a large kickback from a bid given to a company, taking inappropriately a large sum of taxpayers money.
In the latter case, there seems to be a betrayal of public trust together with the unethical reception of funds. If the project was needed for betterment and a less quality was obtained for choosing the particular company, then the sin is greater than that which the child taking the apple is, or at least so it seems.
Will both go to hell if do not repent? how about if they repent but do not restore that taken?
In Catholic tradition, such studies were done under Moral theology, in protestant traditions I think is Christian ethics. Should we all receive more education and training in this regard to be able to walk in a manner worthy of the calling?
If so what would be the best way to do such training and education.
Deep issue, we all have weak sides, we all may rationalize some behaviors different.
Outward behaviors have to be accompanied of inner change. In the Bible says that disreputable persons were in the lead as compared to religious leaders, because maybe they had bad ways through duress in circumstances, but innerly they knew it to be wrong and dreamed of a way out.
While sometimes persons in authority in all kind of institutions mis behave regardless of the lack of duress of their circumstances... is that worse?
How about the choosing between 2 evils? Example fighting totalitarian regimes in WWII, vs not doing anything and let tyranny reign unchecked?
Not an easy issue. It would be good to have more input from forum participants.
Kind regards.
my mother was is a very devoted Christian so made sure I grew up going to church. Teenage years I got into pot pretty heavy and stopped going to church. I remember going back for Christmas service and while I was high, I ended up blacking out and being carried out. A few years later I went to a Bible college that my brother was attending seminar at. I staid for a few months and told the dean I should leave because I was causing others to sin. Ie sneeking in beer, secular movies smoking cigarettes.
After leaving school I went into the Marines stationed in Hawaii and deploying to Afghanistan. I saw God work first hand while deployed saving a little girl and her sheep.
Back to civilian life for the past 6 yrs I’ve been a alcoholic (checking into inpatient rehab in a few weeks) have continued to date non Christian girls, don’t go to church barely have read the Bible.
To sum it up, I have a understanding of what living for Jesus means. But I have continued to live a Luke warm Christian life at best and until very recently have lived in maybe described as a sometimes feel guilty sometimes not willful sin.
After leaving school I went into the Marines stationed in Hawaii and deploying to Afghanistan. I saw God work first hand while deployed saving a little girl and her sheep.
Back to civilian life for the past 6 yrs I’ve been a alcoholic (checking into inpatient rehab in a few weeks) have continued to date non Christian girls, don’t go to church barely have read the Bible.
To sum it up, I have a understanding of what living for Jesus means. But I have continued to live a Luke warm Christian life at best and until very recently have lived in maybe described as a sometimes feel guilty sometimes not willful sin.
Brother, thank you for sharing part of your testimony. I believe you wouldn’t be able to speak these things unless God was working on your heart. He is faithful to finish that good work. Keep your faith in HIM and not yourself. Find a bible based church where you can surround yourself with an atmosphere of accountability or guilt and continue to fight the good fight.
Sounds like the typical life of a Roman soldier back in Jesus times, and it just happens that one of them had more faith than most in Israel.
I eventually have to read the following:
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/produc...p-ranger-faced-fear-and-found-courage-through
Jeff even has a chaplain course in Logos Bible software. As you mention, many times soldiers have first hand experience of God's power and providence, they also have a good grasp of what humans can be and do without godliness touching their lives.
I thought you were referring to some discipleship program or something when you referred to your walk with God.
Thank you for sharing your story. Not sure if there is a remote possibility to contact Jeff from your side to see if there is beneficial associations for others like you that have gone through some very tough experiences.
Kind regards.
I eventually have to read the following:
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/produc...p-ranger-faced-fear-and-found-courage-through
Jeff even has a chaplain course in Logos Bible software. As you mention, many times soldiers have first hand experience of God's power and providence, they also have a good grasp of what humans can be and do without godliness touching their lives.
I thought you were referring to some discipleship program or something when you referred to your walk with God.
Thank you for sharing your story. Not sure if there is a remote possibility to contact Jeff from your side to see if there is beneficial associations for others like you that have gone through some very tough experiences.
Kind regards.
L
I don't find that to be the case at all. I find that Peter and Paul's witting are complementary. The seeming differences come from the idea that they were writting to different audiences who had to be taught according to their need for understanding.
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Galatians 2:7-9 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/gal.2.7-9.NASB
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Galatians 2:7-9 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/gal.2.7-9.NASB
I was looking at that part underlined and my mind vibrated and remembered the scripture
1 John 3:2-3
King James Version(KJV)
2.) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3.) And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
1 John 3:2-3
King James Version(KJV)
2.) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3.) And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.