WHAT IS SIN? – EXAMPLE AND ANALYSIS - ROMANS 3:23

The Ignorant Fishermen Blog ^ | 7/9/09 | DJP I.F.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

Today there are many different views and thoughts about just what the term “Sin” means. Just the word alone gives people the Hee-bee-Gee-bees. People do not like to think of themselves as “Sinners.” They say or think, “Well, I’m not that bad. I’ve never killed anyone. If you only knew the good I do...(and so on and so forth).” These statements and sentiments are expressed in attempting to justify themselves in light of the realities of their "sinful"condition. (John 3:19-21, Hebrews 6:1; 9:14).

Sin, as defined in God’s Word, the Bible, is the transgression and violation of the righteousness and perfection of Almighty God. Sin is also the transgression and violation of the Eternal/ Spiritual and Temporal (Time-bound)/ Natural laws and absolutes of Almighty God the Creator, which are established from the foundation of the world and eternity past (Acts 15:18; 1 John 3:4).

In Adam’s fall we sinneth all! (Romans 5:12, 19) We all are imperfect, we all have sinned! That is the bottom line. God’s Holy (perfect) Word states:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). (The word glory refers to the supreme stature of God, His surpassing “weight, worth and wealth,” and His righteous perfection and holy character.)

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

An Egg can Tell..

[wastoute]

Sin means you have missed the mark. A mark one cannot hit. Only one did it.

Μολὼν λάβε

[Kolokotronis]

"Sin, as defined in God’s Word, the Bible, is the transgression and violation of the righteousness and perfection of Almighty God. Sin is also the transgression and violation of the Eternal/ Spiritual and Temporal (Time-bound)/ Natural laws and absolutes of Almighty God the Creator, which are established from the foundation of the world and eternity past"

The Greek word the NT uses for sin is "αμαρτια" which means to "miss the mark", the Mark being Christ. The West, with its "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" phronema has distorted the concept and what is expected of us.

[ArtDodger]

Boiled down, sin is simply not obeying God’s word.

[Linda Frances]

Most of the time you know for sure what is right and what is wrong. In the real world sometimes it’s hard to be sure unless you stop and ask God.

Example

Right here on this blog, my fingers flew across the keyboard, my heart as angry as can be at some liberal....

It’s ok to be angry at injustices or sins as Jesus was.

Somes as I’m typing, my heart as angry as can be at some liberal again, but this time, I feel a voice within telling me to erase that and change some words.

I call obama a obammunist-marxist-socialist-zerO-......
rewrite
Obama is acting like a communist/marxist/socialist in making these policies.

My first line I hated him
The second line I hated his policies

Anyone else have problems like that? Is it wrong to call Obama Obammunist?

[scrabblehack]

If you transliterate that into Roman letters, it’s “hamartia.”

[Kolokotronis]

“Boiled down, sin is simply not obeying God’s word.”

Well, that’s not a complete definition. God became man so that man might become like God; that we might fulfill our created purpose of being not only in the image of God but also in His likeness, a likeness lost in The Fall and which we have the potential to regain on account of Christ’s destruction of death. That’s the whole point of the Incarnation.

We do this by dying to the self through adherence to God’s Commandments, none of which is possible without the gift of Faith.

[Kolokotronis]

“Only one did it.”

Not much point in the Incarnation then, was there!

[WVKayaker]

We do this by dying to the self through adherence to God’s Commandments, none of which is possible without the gift of Faith.

Your remarks would be correct, if you ignore the rest of Paul's thought, and cast doubt on Jesus Words...! Works will follow as a result of His actions, not of our own!

Luke 5" 17 One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick. 18 Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."

21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26 Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, "We have seen remarkable things today."

*******

Romans 3: 7 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

He is risen, indeed!

[Ahithophel]

[Sin] means to "miss the mark", the Mark being Christ.

The first part is accurate, the second part is wide of the mark, so to speak. Sin is any transgression or lack of conformity to the law or will of God. For example, Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17. Instead of being the mark, Christ came to hit the mark: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."Matthew 5:17. His sinlessness is a function of hitting the mark everytime, just as our sinfulness is a funciton of missing the mark at least once. Consider: For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15.(Original sin is a topic for another day; see, e.g., Romans 9:11) Peace, A

[Kolokotronis]

Unlike the monergism which developed in the West with the Protestant Reformation, The Church has a synergistic theology. Matt. 7:7, etc.

“”Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
For inasmuch as He had enjoined things great and marvellous, and had commanded men to be superior to all their passions, and had led them up to Heaven itself, and had enjoined them to strive after the resemblance, not of angels and archangels, but as far as was possible) of the very Lord of all; and had bidden His disciples not only themselves duly to perform all this, but also to correct others, and to distinguish between the evil and them that are not such, the dogs and them that are not dogs although there be much that is hidden in men):—that they might not say, “these things are grievous and intolerable, “for indeed in the sequel Peter did utter some such things, saying, “Who can be saved?” and again, “If the case of the man be so, it is not good to marry): in order therefore that they might not now likewise say so; as in the first place even by what had gone before He had proved it all to be easy, setting down many reasons one upon another, of power to persuade men: so after all He adds also the pinnacle of all facility, devising as no ordinary relief to our toils, the assistance derived from persevering prayers. Thus, we are not ourselves, saith He, to strive alone, but also to invoke the help from above: and it will surely come and be present with us, and will aid us in our struggles, and make all easy. Therefore He both commanded us to ask, and pledged Himself to the giving.
However, not simply to ask did He command us, but with much assiduity and earnestness. For this is the meaning of “seek.” For so he that seeks, putting all things out of his mind, is taken up with that alone which is sought, and forms no idea of any of the persons present. And this which I am saying they know, as many as have lost either gold, or servants, and are seeking diligently after them.
By “seeking,” then, He declared this; by “knocking,” that we approach with earnestness and a glowing mind.
Despond not therefore, O man, nor show less of zeal about virtue, than they do of desire for wealth. For things of that kind thou hast often sought and not found, but nevertheless, though thou know this, that thou art not sure to find them, thou puttest in motion every mode of search; but here, although having a promise that thou wilt surely receive, thou dost not show even the smallest part of that earnestness. And if thou dost not receive straightway, do not even thus despair. For to this end He said, “knock,” to signify that even if He should not straightway open the door, we are to continue there.” +John Chrysostomos, Homily XXIII on Matthew.

[Kolokotronis]

“...the second part is wide of the mark, so to speak.”

Interesting theology; when coupled with your remarks:

“Instead of being the mark, Christ came to hit the mark”

and

“His sinlessness is a function of hitting the mark everytime, just as our sinfulness is a funciton of missing the mark at least once.”

its vaguely Arian, but then again, Arianism bases itself, as does so much Western theology, in +Paul’s epistles and seems top pop up regularly in discussions with Western Christians, especially Protestants.

Off to the Divine Liturgy.

[WVKayaker]

Homily is not Scripture, FRiend. It is another man's interpretation which you wish to put forth as facts. Obviously, I do not accept bondage, nor do I wish to remain under the penalty of sin. God set forth a plan whereby He knew of our frailty, and gave us a way of escape. Under your plan, we can not rest in Him, as He promises.

Did Jesus tell the man to limp home, and tomorrow he would be hobbled again? No, the man was healed COMPLETELY. It was a single complete act of Grace! God doesn't feel bound by your rules. He knows that those who have ears can hear... and with faith

Romans 9: 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)!

****

Luke 7: 1 When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." 6 So Jesus went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." 10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well. YMMV.

[Ahithophel]

Artful: “Boiled down, sin is simply not obeying God’s word.”

Kolo: Well, that’s not a complete definition. God became man so that man might become like God...We do this by dying to the self through adherence to God’s Commandments.

Obeying God's word and adhering to His commandments are the same thing, aren't they? You seem to be mixing the definition of sin with the consequences of sin. Even as the Incarnate Word, Christ learned obedience: Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. Hebrews 5:8. And He obeyed perfectly, living a life free of sin by which we may begin to regain our original likeness and image of God through sanctification. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. I Corinthians 2:14-16. Peace, A.

[Mr Rogers]

Most people believe sins are the acts we do. In a superficial sense, that is true - but more importantly, sin is a heart that refuses to submit to God. We are born slaves to sin, but are freed when God creates us anew in the new birth.

"So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” - Matthew 15

From the introduction to Martin Luther's Commentary on Romans:

"To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.

LAW:

You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That's the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God's law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God's law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, "You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another." It is as if he were saying, "Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another's eye but do not notice the beam in your own."

Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn't last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don't even know what you are teaching. You've never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can't possibly do.

In chapter 7, St. Paul says, "The law is spiritual." What does that mean? If the law were physical, then it could be satisfied by works, but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it unless everything he does springs from the depths of the heart. But no one can give such a heart except the Spirit of God, who makes the person be like the law, so that he actually conceives a heartfelt longing for the law and henceforward does everything, not through fear or coercion, but from a free heart. Such a law is spiritual since it can only be loved and fulfilled by such a heart and such a spirit. If the Spirit is not in the heart, then there remain sin, aversion and enmity against the law, which in itself is good, just and holy.

You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law." From this you can see that the schoolmasters and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

SIN:

Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person's completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That's what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3).

That is why only unbelief is called sin by Christ, as he says in John, chapter 16, "The Spirit will punish the world because of sin, because it does not believe in me." Furthermore, before good or bad works happen, which are the good or bad fruits of the heart, there has to be present in the heart either faith or unbelief, the root, sap and chief power of all sin. That is why, in the Scriptures, unbelief is called the head of the serpent and of the ancient dragon which the offspring of the woman, i.e. Christ, must crush, as was promised to Adam (cf. Genesis 3). Grace and gift differ in that grace actually denotes God's kindness or favor which he has toward us and by which he is disposed to pour Christ and the Spirit with his gifts into us, as becomes clear from chapter 5, where Paul says, "Grace and gift are in Christ, etc." The gifts and the Spirit increase daily in us, yet they are not complete, since evil desires and sins remain in us which war against the Spirit, as Paul says in chapter 7, and in Galations, chapter 5. And Genesis, chapter 3, proclaims the enmity between the offspring of the woman and that of the serpent. But grace does do this much: that we are accounted completely just before God. God's grace is not divided into bits and pieces, as are the gifts, but grace takes us up completely into God's favor for the sake of Christ, our intercessor and mediator, so that the gifts may begin their work in us.

In this way, then, you should understand chapter 7, where St. Paul portrays himself as still a sinner, while in chapter 8 he says that, because of the incomplete gifts and because of the Spirit, there is nothing damnable in those who are in Christ. Because our flesh has not been killed, we are still sinners, but because we believe in Christ and have the beginnings of the Spirit, God so shows us his favor and mercy, that he neither notices nor judges such sins. Rather he deals with us according to our belief in Christ until sin is killed.

FAITH:

Faith is not that human illusion and dream that some people think it is. When they hear and talk a lot about faith and yet see that no moral improvement and no good works result from it, they fall into error and say, "Faith is not enough. You must do works if you want to be virtuous and get to heaven." The result is that, when they hear the Gospel, they stumble and make for themselves with their own powers a concept in their hearts which says, "I believe." This concept they hold to be true faith. But since it is a human fabrication and thought and not an experience of the heart, it accomplishes nothing, and there follows no improvement.

Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate.

Now justice is just such a faith. It is called God's justice or that justice which is valid in God's sight, because it is God who gives it and reckons it as justice for the sake of Christ our Mediator. It influences a person to give to everyone what he owes him. Through faith a person becomes sinless and eager for God's commands. Thus he gives God the honor due him and pays him what he owes him. He serves people willingly with the means available to him. In this way he pays everyone his due. Neither nature nor free will nor our own powers can bring about such a justice, for even as no one can give himself faith, so too he cannot remove unbelief. How can he then take away even the smallest sin? Therefore everything which takes place outside faith or in unbelief is lie, hypocrisy and sin (Romans 14), no matter how smoothly it may seem to go.

You must not understand flesh here as denoting only unchastity or spirit as denoting only the inner heart. Here St. Paul calls flesh (as does Christ in John 3) everything born of flesh, i.e. the whole human being with body and soul, reason and senses, since everything in him tends toward the flesh. That is why you should know enough to call that person "fleshly" who, without grace, fabricates, teaches and chatters about high spiritual matters. You can learn the same thing from Galatians, chapter 5, where St. Paul calls heresy and hatred works of the flesh. And in Romans, chapter 8, he says that, through the flesh, the law is weakened. He says this, not of unchastity, but of all sins, most of all of unbelief, which is the most spiritual of vices.

On the other hand, you should know enough to call that person "spiritual" who is occupied with the most outward of works as was Christ, when he washed the feet of the disciples, and Peter, when he steered his boat and fished. So then, a person is "flesh" who, inwardly and outwardly, lives only to do those things which are of use to the flesh and to temporal existence. A person is "spirit" who, inwardly and outwardly, lives only to do those things which are of use to the spirit and to the life to come.

Unless you understand these words in this way, you will never understand either this letter of St. Paul or any book of the Scriptures."

Also see here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2341393/posts (shameless self-serving ping!)

[Ahithophel]

Off to the Divine Liturgy.

Excellent, and perhaps you could come back with some scripture to support your theology or challenge mine. Mere allusions to Arianism just don't cut it. Peace, A

[Ahithophel]

W: “Only one did it.”

K: Not much point in the Incarnation then, was there!

That only one did is the whole point of the Incarnation: Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Romans 5:12-17. Viewed differently, what makes Jesus' blood so precious? Its exceeding scarcity as the blood of a perfect man, the only perfect man. See 1 Peter 1:19. Peace, A.

[Mr Rogers]

There is a difference between our being justified by God, and our sanctification. One is strictly an act of God:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead [not sick] in our trespasses, made us alive [past tense] together with Christ— by grace you have been saved [past tense] — and raised [past tense] us up with him and seated [past tense] us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved [past tense] through faith [not deeds]. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift [not wage] of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2

But it goes on:

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

And in Galatians: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.”

Sanctification is an ongoing process, and once we’ve been born again, we can participate in it to some extent - although it is still primarily a work of God.

In a single verse: “by one sacrifice he has made perfect [past tense...PERFECT] forever [it won’t change tomorrow if you sin] those who are being made holy [ongoing, and it is God in action].” - Hebrews 10

[Eagle Eye]

Sin is, simply put, disobedience to God.

On the one hand it could be stealing or lying about someone else.

On the other hand it could be refusing to speak God’s word as directed, or not ministering to others as guided by holy spirit.

[WVKayaker]

Sanctification is an ongoing process, and once we’ve been born again, we can participate in it to some extent - although it is still primarily a work of God.

In a single verse: “by one sacrifice he has made perfect [past tense...PERFECT] forever [it won’t change tomorrow if you sin] those who are being made holy [ongoing, and it is God in action].” - Hebrews 10

The centurion's slave was healed, along with blind, lame, and all others Jesus touched, both physically and spiritually, even Lazarus died\ physically. Their healing was instant, and complete. None of them is around to talk about it, because "all men must die". We have no continuing record of any of them.

Much attention has been given to the "Shroud of Turin", a piece of cloth purported to be from Jesus burial. It has been analyzed and debated as much as whether the Ark is in the old USSR.

Sanctification is defined as:

n.

[L. sanctificatio: cf. F. sanctification.]

1. The act of sanctifying or making holy; the state of being sanctified or made holy; esp. (Theol.), the act of God's grace by which the affections of men are purified, or alienated from sin and the world, and exalted to a supreme love to God; also, the state of being thus purified or sanctified.

God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. - 2 Thess. ii. 13.

2. The act of consecrating, or of setting apart for a sacred purpose; consecration. Bp. Burnet.

"... not by works of righteousness, which we have done..."

He is risen, indeed!

[Uncle Chip]

Boiled down, sin is simply not obeying God’s word.

Yep --

The NT word for sin is "hamartano, hamartia". Strong's Concordance, erroneously IMHO, defines "hamartano" as "missing the mark" from the root word "meros" [3313] which doesn't make much sense and doesn't have anything to do with missing/hitting the mark.

But look right there in the same Concordance and one will find that "hamartia" and "hamartano" [sin] are a combination of "ha" meaning "against" and "martus" meaning "witness, record, testimony, evidence, report, martyr"..

Sin [hamartia, ...] thus means "against + the testimony, the record, the evidence, the report, the witness, the martyr.".

The Books of the Bible are just that. They are the recorded testimonies of the witnesses, documented evidence of the facts, firsthand reports of the truth that the reader/listener will either accept or reject. Rejection of or rebellion against that which is written therein is exactly what sin is. It is believing, teaching, writing, speaking, acting, doing that which is contrary to those witnesses [prophets, writers, apostles, ...] and their reports and subsequent written records, most of whom and most of which have from time to time have suffered persecution, burnings, excisions, revilings, disdain, opposition, hatred, martyrdom because of the testimony that they as witnesses present.

[WVKayaker]

Sin is "missing the mark" as an arrow on a target. If it isn't "dead center bullseye", it is "sin"...

The Law is the target. Jesus not only nailed the target, but got nailed for it. He fulfilled EVERY prophecy, and conformed to every applicable rule. He made fun of those He knew were simply manmade restrictions and ordinances. Men like those, since if it is defined, and they don't do "that thing", they can stand tall in the front pew.

Jesus God came to earth in mortal form to fulfill the Mosaic Law He revealed as Father God to expose our NEED FOR HIS GRACE revealed in the promise... and so with His Promise, we can rest and conform to His nature. We'll NEVER achieve it, never! We will only be transformed by His Holy Spirit indwelling, not by following a zillion rules and regs!

Mark 12: 18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"

24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

All these arrows "sin"!

[kosta50]

Boiled down, sin is simply not obeying God’s word

Jesus chose Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 as the only commandments, both of which have only one requirement: love. But love is really not a commandment; you can't make someone love you, because forced love is no love.

If God loves us unconditionally, then we assume his likeness when we are capable of loving him unconditionally as he he is beleived to love the world.

"Obedience" to God has to come from within, out of love for God, and not because God said so. +Paul reiterates this when he says "for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law" and "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom 13:8,10).

That's why +Paul argued that mechanical obedience, the legalistic approach to the relationship with God, which is defining of Judaism, does not save because it lacks the key ingredient, love.

You can not fulfill the law simply by doing everything right even if you can be 100% compliant, even if you never curse, never violate the Sabbath, never miss a fast, never miss going to a church, and live a "righteous" life.

[kosta50]

Sanctification is an ongoing process, and once we’ve been born again, we can participate in it to some extent - although it is still primarily a work of God

I hope you realize that John 3:3 could not have been something Jesus said, because in Aramaic there is no equivalent double meaning in the word "again" as in the Greek anothen, and as far as I know Jesus did not speak Greek to Nicodemus.

Therefore, the whole idea of being "born again" (as from above) is a Greek construct that was added later on by Greek writers. That's why John 3:4 (Nicodemus' reaction) would be nonsensical unless Jesus and Nidocemus spoke to each other in koine Greek!

This is an excellent example how biblical additions and deletions affect doctrine. But, of course, without textual criticism, the "perspicuous" scriptutre gives no evidence that it has been choreographed by doctrinal needs.

[Kolokotronis]

“That only one did is the whole point of the Incarnation:”

You may want to read this, by someone who was instrumental in determining just what is in the Canon of the NT.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.toc.html

[Kolokotronis]

Whatever would Eastern Christians, especially Greeks, do without Protestants like Strong to tell us what our language means?

[Kolokotronis]

“Excellent, and perhaps you could come back with some scripture to support your theology or challenge mine.”

But that would be backwards, A. Scripture, the NT anyway, is a creation of The Church, not the other way around and the consensus patrum explains what it means, thus the short quote from +John Chrysostomos. Your method of theology is, in terms of the life of The Church, nearly brand new. There was an Ecumenical Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, who at a minimum flirted with Calvinism and your sort of theology, but his writings were condemned as heretical and alien to the Faith of The Church at the Synod Of Jerusalem in the 1670s.

[Uncle Chip]

Whatever would Eastern Christians, especially Greeks, do without Protestants like Strong to tell us what our language means?

Some just might not know what their Greek words mean in the English language.

[Kolokotronis]

“Some just might not know what their Greek words mean in the English language.”

Somehow I’ll bet our theologians, hierarchs, monastics and priests who teach and preach in English know just fine what our Greek words mean in our English, UC.

[Iscool]

Whatever would Eastern Christians, especially Greeks, do without Protestants like Strong to tell us what our language means?

Why would a Greek be any more qualified than an Englishman/American to translate Greek to English??? Maybe you Greeks don't understand English any more than we understand Greek...

[Uncle Chip]

Somehow I’ll bet our theologians, hierarchs, monastics and priests who teach and preach in English know just fine what our Greek words mean in our English, UC.

Yeh, the ones that do so no doubt have a good English Bible and good Greek/English Concordance.

[Kolokotronis]

"Maybe you Greeks don't understand English any more than we understand Greek..."

That's very unlikely, at least here in No. America. But its really neither here nor there. The language of the NT is Greek, not English so what matters is what the words mean in Greek...and αμαρτια, I, does not mean against witnesses or martyrs, it means to miss the mark. In Greek I can take a word apart, especially down to the root level, and make it mean all sorts of things. It doesn't mean that's how the word is understood and used. I can do the same exact thing by moving the accent from one syllable to another or using different letters which make the exact same sound when spoken; for example, "when" and "never" are the same word but for the accent, "goats" and "the same" are pronounced the same way but spelled slightly differently. When I was a kid in Greek school, we made a game out of this.

[Eagle Eye]

Jesus fulfilled all the law and paid all the price.

Believers can still miss the mark. And do on a regular basis.

If they didn’t, then Johns epistles are wasted words.

[Mr Rogers]

“I hope you realize that John 3:3 could not have been something Jesus said, because in Aramaic there is no equivalent double meaning in the word “again”...”

So you are saying that in Aramaic, it isn’t possible to say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Sounds like a limited language.

It is also worth remembering that exact quotes were not required or expected in ancient times - only equivalent meanings.

[grame]

Wow, I’m not sure I can absorb all of your points. But as one who’s name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life because of the sacrifice of Jesus, My Lord and Savior, I understand that I will not be perfect until I am taken home to be with Christ. Even so it is my desire to be obedient and blameless, but I also realize as I grow closer in my relationship with Jesus using the Holy Spirit as my guide, I realize just how ‘natural’ sin is, I mean how quickly my thoughts will turn sinful according to the standard I hold now. I might not have examined them that way earlier in my walk, too many ‘big’ sins in the way to be cleared out. But the more scripture I put in my mind, the more that is revealed to be far less than perfect or done with the sanctification process. Every thought needs to be examined and sanctified.

[Iscool]

That's very unlikely, at least here in No. America. But its really neither here nor there. The language of the NT is Greek, not English so what matters is what the words mean in Greek...and αμαρτια, I, does not mean against witnesses or martyrs, it means to miss the mark.

Sin, when used as a verb in Greek means to 'miss the mark' as you say...

However, when it is used as a noun, it means 'offense', to be very general about it...

I know that and I don't even know Greek (although I looked it up)...It's all in the context, in English...

[kosta50]

So you are saying that in Aramaic, it isn’t possible to say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

The koine term anothen means "from above" or "from high place" that is "of things which come from heaven or God," as well as "anew" or "again." Aramaic term means just "again." John 3:3 makes makes sense only in Greek, because it means "unless one is born "from heaven or from God" since no one can be born again, as Nicodemus seems to have understood it. But in Aramaic there would be no such double meaning; it would be nonsense.

Because, contextually, John 3:3-4 are nosensical when retro-translated into Aramaic, and because Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek, this could not be what he said.

[Mr Rogers]

It makes perfect sense if the word means just again.

Also, we’ve discussed before how people of the time considered quotes. One quoted meanings, not exact words. The text in John could be the summary of a 30 minute discussion.

If the scriptures are “God-breathed”, then they convey - in Greek and Hebrew - what God wanted to convey. And if they are not, then they aren’t worth studying.

[The Ignorant Fisherman]

FREEPERS..To All..thanks for your insights.. and Great feed back by all! thanks for your participation!

The Ignorant Fishermen

[kosta50]

It makes perfect sense if the word means just again

I think you are missing the point. In Greek, it is a play on words. In Aramaic it's not; being born again means just that (literally crawling back into your mother's womb and being brought forth again).

The double meaning Jesus is using in John 3:3 is possible only in Greek. I think there would be no dispute that Jesus addressed Nicodemus in Aramaic, and that this double meaning passage was a latter-day addition, like so many other passages. So much for variants that are not doctrinally important.

Also, we’ve discussed before how people of the time considered quotes. One quoted meanings, not exact words

No, ancient writers quote as they imagined the person quoted would have said something. We know that because we have non-witnesses quoting Jesus conversing with Pontius Pilate, and Jesus being quoted on the Cross. Last time I checked, none of the disciples were there (except the one he loved the most, which is not John, yet everyone pretends he is).

This places the entire Bible in the tale category. Just think of all the instances where prophets quote "God" directly.

The fact that you recognize that ancients made up quotes makes your reply even that much more bizarre in my opinion, because it makes biblical text even that much less credible. Imagine, we have quotes from the Garden of Eden...and both of us know they are made up!

If the scriptures are “God-breathed”, then they convey - in Greek and Hebrew - what God wanted to convey. And if they are not, then they aren’t worth studying.

what you are saying: if they are indeed God-breathed (including latter-day additions we find in the Bible, since they are retained) it suggests that God wants us to believe tales and made-up quotes!

[Ahithophel]

Scripture, the NT anyway, is a creation of The Church, not the other way around[.]

An age old debate, But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:20-21. Also, I can't help but notice in Matthew 4 when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, He refuted the Devil's theology by quoting Scripture and only Scripture. (Would you say that was the wrong approach?) And in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus (through Abraham in the story) affirmed the sufficiency of sola scriptura: But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' Luke 16:29-31. Later, well before the Council of Trent, the Apostle Paul wrote, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16. And the Diet of Worms notwithstanding, the Apostle Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture. See 2 Peter 3:14-16. Peace, A

[1010RD]

Last time I checked, none of the disciples were there (except the one he loved the most, which is not John, yet everyone pretends he is).

Who is it then?

[Kolokotronis]

“Later, well before the Council of Trent, the Apostle Paul wrote, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

You do understand, I trust, that Orthodoxy does not accept the local Council of Trent as being binding either as to dogma or discipline?

As for scripture being profitable, I agree...but The Church defines which scripture is profitable, otherwise, my friend, we’d all be a bunch of gnostics along the lines of that protestant woman Elaine Pagels. Your quote points out one of the problems with sola scriptura and scriptural cherry picking.

[Ahithophel]

The Church defines which scripture is profitable, otherwise, my friend, we’d all be a bunch of gnostics along the lines of that protestant woman Elaine Pagels.

Overlooked or forgotten there is the word "all" -- Paul wrote that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching [etc.]" Paul was no gnostic I think you'll agree, and those who ascribe less than 100% profitabilty to Scripture certainly risk going the way of Prof. Pagels.

Your quote points out one of the problems with sola scriptura and scriptural cherry picking.

Without accepting the premise or conclusion, which problem is that and how so? (Please, these ipse dixit pronouncements do nothing to advance the discussion). And again, let me ask: Was Jesus' approach to refuting the Devil in Matthew 4 was wrong? Peace, A

[kosta50]

Who is it then?

Some say it's Thomas.

[1010RD]

Really, what makes them think Thomas is the one?

[kosta50]

Really, what makes them think Thomas is the one?

I have no clue. But the Bible never says it's John either.

[1010RD]

the Bible never says it's John either.

That never stops anyone from surmising, does it?

[kosta50]

That never stops anyone from surmising, does it?

That's for sure.