Sin limit

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

Is there a sin limit for saved Christians? Say a man (or woman) is saved and a devout Christian, but they have a wild shooting spree and kill a few people. Will they still go into heaven if they ask for forgiveness? Why or why not? Is there a limit, or is god's forgiveness boundless as long as the perpetrator prays afterwards?

This is tying in with the loophole where one can do whatever that want and still be forgiven, making Christianity nothing more than 'the god band-aid.' I'm not saying it is, I'm just curious to see if anyone here thinks there is such a limit.

[Haz]

[Replying to post 20 by bluethread]

Hi bluethread,

You said
I will say that quite often when Paul speaks of not being "under the law" he is speaking of final judgment or rabbinic interpretation. He is not saying that violations of HaTorah are not sins.

We are somewhat in agreement here. Where we seem to differ is that I see scriptures focus being on the Christian's position at final judgement whereas perhaps your focus might be primarily on the earthly court of law. Is that correct? If so then I suggest that Christians should look to the final judgement verdict to correctly understand scripture when it speaks of sin.

1John 3:8 tells us that he who "sins is of the devil".
1John 3:9 says that Christians "cannot sin"
This is an example how scriptures refers to the final judgement verdict when speaking on sin.

To answer your question about my point that the various definitions of sin are related, see below.
Sin is:
Unbelief in Jesus is sin, John 16:9
Transgression of the law is sin, 1John 3:4.
Unrighteousness is sin, 1John 5:17.

In believing on Jesus our faith is counted for righteousness, Rom 4:5. Thus we cannot be charged with unrighteousness.

In believing on Jesus we're not under the law for righteousness by works (Rom 8:2, Rom 10:4, Gal 3:24, Gal 5:18, 1Tim 1:9).
And remember that whatever the law says it says to those under it, Rom 3:19.
As Christians are not under the law therefore Satan, the accuser, cannot charge us with sin/transgression of the law.

Rom 8:33
Who shall lay ANY THING (this includes sin) to the charge of God's elect?

Thus we see that a Christian's position in Christ is one where we cannot be charged with the sin of unrighteousness, nor transgression of the law. In believing on Jesus our faith is counted for righteousness and thus we're not judged by the law as we're not under it.

Unbelievers however can be charged with the sin of unrighteousness as they do not believe on Jesus. Without Christ they will be judged as transgressors of the law of righteousness and found to be unrighteousness.

Consider also Gal 2:18.
For if I build again those things which I destroyed (righteousness by works of the law), I make myself a transgressor/sinner.

Remember that whatever the law says it says to those under it, Rom 3:19.
The law of righteousness requires perfect obedience. Just one offence makes you guilty of all the law, James 2:10.

So we see that, as you say, "keeping the law is sin" as no man can keep the law perfectly, Rom 3:19, James 2:10, Gal 2:18. Hence we see this is really not keeping the law after all.

Note also that being under the law is about seeking to establish your own righteousness instead of submitting to God's righteousness, Rom 10:3.

[ttruscott]

...

The peaceable fruit of righteousness is what Christians have when we believe on Jesus.

....

If we have this peace and this righteousness by rebirth, by our faith, why is it written that all HIS legitimate children are trained to righteousness by being chastised, scourged (whipped) and rebuked?

If we have a full and complete righteousness already such things would be torture and the implication we get righteousness by this torture a lie.

Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Peace, Ted

[Haz]

...

The peaceable fruit of righteousness is what Christians have when we believe on Jesus.

....

If we have this peace and this righteousness by rebirth, by our faith, why is it written that all HIS legitimate children are trained to righteousness by being chastised, scourged (whipped) and rebuked?

If we have a full and complete righteousness already such things would be torture and the implication we get righteousness by this torture a lie.

Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Peace, Ted

Good question.

But regarding the view your taking on chastisement, the questions you need to answer is whether Heb 12 is saying that we're not righteous when we believe on Jesus, and that a training process is required before we are considered righteous?

Likewise for peace between ourselves and God. Is Heb 12 therefore saying that when we believe on Jesus we don't have that peace between God and us until we've successfully completed a training process?

Is Heb 12 saying that the thief on the cross who called Jesus "Lord" did not have peace and righteousness because he never went through the required training process?

Likewise for any Christians who lives a short life. Are only the long lived Christians truly blessed with peace/righteousness because of a longer training period to attain this?

Now righteousness is perfect obedience to the law of righteousness (James 2:10). Are you saying that Christians must attain perfect obedience to the law or else?

I think I'll step back from saying anymore on chastisement in Heb 12 until I have a greater understanding to be able to answer your question.

[ttruscott]

Good question.

My questons were Socratic designed to stimulate direction of thought.

But regarding the view your taking on chastisement, the questions you need to answer is whether Heb 12 is saying that we're not righteous when we believe on Jesus, and that a training process is required before we are considered righteous?

I believe that there is a three part process in our perfection, When we are in our evils Christ's righteousness covers us by our faith and GOD accepts that as enough to work personally with those who HE normally could not abide and must treat as enemies.

But that does not free us from our addiction to sin. Thus, secondly, we must die and be reborn in the Spirit and not in the body of our sin, that is, our minds are now free of addiction, our free will is returned to us, but since we still have fond memories of the pleasures and profits of sin, we still indulge but since we are in Christ, without getting re-addicted and losing our free will.

So thirdly, to train us in righteousness we suffer HIS chastisements so by the end we are truly righteous in our free will and by our free will we will never again choose evil. And this is the fulness of peace with GOD, all things restored, as you wrote:

Likewise for peace between ourselves and God.

As for the particulars of the thief on the cross, Christians who die before they have time for the sanctification process of suffering, first I will say that in all doctrine there are anomalies that are hard to explain if we are too didactic about the depths of application of the doctrine. And secondly I think that each of the types you ask about have suffered and even that sufferings pre-conversion can be explained by Heb 12 which is how I explain my self caused sufferings before my conversion, thought the bulk of Heb 12 does seem to focus on converts.

My understanding of our fall as pre-earth in sheol allows for a long graduation of rejection of GOD between the first to sin, Satan and the first elect to sin, Adam and Eve and the last few people who chose to follow a loved one into rebellion but they held away from that temptation till the very end before they succumbed. This, to my mind, means their addiction to evil maybe less and all they need is the faith of the womb: Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place. and the sufferings of their death which would account for elect who are aborted being saved by faith and brought to personal complete righteousness by suffering.

But good questions and who knows? I just know my faith...

Now righteousness is perfect obedience to the law of righteousness (James 2:10). Are you saying that Christians must attain perfect obedience to the law or else?

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (I like having the verses before me...)

Paul told us that law had no power to redeem anyone and was passed by when the redeemer came Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested... and together these verses mean to me that if you try to be righteous by the law you will fail but if you become fully righteous by GOD's discipline, then it is eternal.

Peace, Ted

[Peds nurse]

Is there a sin limit for saved Christians? Say a man (or woman) is saved and a devout Christian, but they have a wild shooting spree and kill a few people. Will they still go into heaven if they ask for forgiveness? Why or why not? Is there a limit, or is god's forgiveness boundless as long as the perpetrator prays afterwards?

This is tying in with the loophole where one can do whatever that want and still be forgiven, making Christianity nothing more than 'the god band-aid.' I'm not saying it is, I'm just curious to see if anyone here thinks there is such a limit.

I am a Christian. I am wondering why you have use such an extreme example? We here of the fall of Pastor's, by having affairs with women (or men). We hear of Priests that take advantage of children. Look at the BTK, He was a prominent person in His church.

My response.....just because one claims they are a Christian, does not make it so. God has the ability to look into our hearts, he goes beyond lip service. He isn't fooled by our church going, praise stomping, good deeds. Jesus is the only one who has the ability to save, and sometimes we just don't have insight to know who that is.

[Peds nurse]

Because something isnt logically contradictory doesnt mean its likely or even possible or plausible.

You may keep all options open, but this is nothing but fallacious thinking.

Im sure you dont operate under the beleif that all things could happen. There is the process of discernment. Reason.

The issue here is that, i think, your position is that most people who commit genocide dont do a 180 and become worthy of Heaven. (Of course, if that person claims their commands are from God, you may endorse it).

The hidden premise is that "what good is religion that cant make the world a better place if its logically possible for everyone to do evil, then repent at the right time" (or some variation).

Do you believe this premise? Because who knows when the right time is? Do you see the work of Christians globally? Are they not making the world a better place?

Of course, WLC is known to say Christianity is for sinners, and thus makes the point that, yes, sin all you want, but if you want Heaven, repent properly before you die.

Your rebuttal, to the implied loophole, is that most people dont or cant do this.
Thats fine, but it is done, and so your criticism is defeated.

The answer is: yes you can sin all you want under christianity, and still enjoy the fruits of Heaven, according to the doctrine.

That isn't what the Bible says. The problem is, that many SAY they are Christians, but they really are not. It is impossible to say that they sin all they want, when in fact, one is not sure if they are genuine Christians. We are to be known by our fruits, and by our fruits we will be known.

The reason this is so uncomfortable for the Christian is that it means the 12 million Jewish victims of Hitler have less of a chance of making it to Heaven than a truly repentant Hitler.

And who can deny that in his dying brain Hitler may have intimated true repentance for his actions?



Overall, its a rather silly concept of repentance, substitutionary atonement, heaven, christian exclusivity, etc.

Universalism is far more Just, but does nothing to limit one from doing evil.

Secularism is by far the best, which relies on society to mete out rewards and punishments in the real world. After all, Heaven isnt even real.

[Haz]

My questons were Socratic designed to stimulate direction of thought.

Actually my hesitation on the topic of chastisement had more to do with a recent discussion with a friend on the topic of chastisement.

I believe that there is a three part process in our perfection, When we are in our evils Christ's righteousness covers us by our faith and GOD accepts that as enough to work personally with those who HE normally could not abide and must treat as enemies.

But that does not free us from our addiction to sin. Thus, secondly, we must die and be reborn in the Spirit and not in the body of our sin, that is, our minds are now free of addiction, our free will is returned to us, but since we still have fond memories of the pleasures and profits of sin, we still indulge but since we are in Christ, without getting re-addicted and losing our free will.

So thirdly, to train us in righteousness we suffer HIS chastisements so by the end we are truly righteous in our free will and by our free will we will never again choose evil. And this is the fulness of peace with GOD, all things restored, as you wrote:

I realize that you use the term "sin" in the traditional sense as many do.
I prefer to use God's definitions of sin which confirms why 1John 3:9 says we "cannot sin".

Upon reading Heb 12 again it says the FRUIT of righteousness to those trained by it"(chastisement).
My friend had suggested that this fruit is the fruit of the Spirit, Gal 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

So it's not righteousness that we're trained in as we have that righteousness already in Christ. I understand my friend was suggesting that Christians have that righteousness already (by faith) and by being sons of God we endure chastening to train us which results in fruit of the Spirit/righteousness (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance).

As for the particulars of the thief on the cross, Christians who die before they have time for the sanctification process of suffering

There is no process of sanctification, as is commonly alleged.

Note Heb 10:12
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It was Christ's sacrifice that sanctified us.

The doctrine that suggests that there is a process of sanctification fails in that it negates Christ's sacrifice by implying that his sacrifice failed to complete the job of sanctification. I think most Christians would not want to declare that Christ's sacrifice failed at sanctifying us. Therefore I suggest the doctrine of a process of sanctification is one that has not really been considered in accordance with scripture.

But good questions and who knows? I just know my faith...

These are questions many will not be able to answer. But you are correct it's our faith that is the issue. Believe on Jesus.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (I like having the verses before me...)

Paul told us that law had no power to redeem anyone and was passed by when the redeemer came Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested... and together these verses mean to me that if you try to be righteous by the law you will fail but if you become fully righteous by GOD's discipline, then it is eternal.

Peace, Ted

I agree that trying to be righteous under the law will result in failure.
But I think you know already that nobody is righteous in behavior in this physical life, regardless of even a lifetime of chastisement.

[ttruscott]

...

I agree that trying to be righteous under the law will result in failure.
But I think you know already that nobody is righteous in behavior in this physical life, regardless of even a lifetime of chastisement.

Nope, I do think some learn to be righteous in mind and behaviour...

A very good post which shows much thought on the topic, but I am not convinced, since IF a reborn person, an adopted son of GOD, CANNOT sin as you interpret 1 John 3:9 then how is it right for them to suffer for nothing as per Heb 12? Unnecessary suffering is torture, eh? 1 John 3:9 cannot be an absolute but must be a continuum...

Peace, Ted

[Haz]

I agree that trying to be righteous under the law will result in failure.
But I think you know already that nobody is righteous in behavior in this physical life, regardless of even a lifetime of chastisement.

Nope, I do think some learn to be righteous in mind and behaviour...

A very good post which shows much thought on the topic, but I am not convinced, since IF a reborn person, an adopted son of GOD, CANNOT sin as you interpret 1 John 3:9 then how is it right for them to suffer for nothing as per Heb 12? Unnecessary suffering is torture, eh? 1 John 3:9 cannot be an absolute but must be a continuum...

Peace, Ted

Paul was blameless under the law of righteousness and yet he considered this to be dung as he sought righteousness through faith, Phil 3.

It seems you over rate self righteousness.

Regarding Heb 12 on chastisement, that is not regarding sin.
The wages of sin is death, and this applies to those who reject Christ. Hence we see your point about " unnecessary suffering is torture" regarding chastisement is not relevant.

[ttruscott]

...

Paul was blameless under the law of righteousness and yet he considered this to be dung as he sought righteousness through faith, Phil 3.

It seems you over rate self righteousness.

Was this not because the law cannot impart righteousness? Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Regarding Heb 12 on chastisement, that is not regarding sin.
The wages of sin is death, and this applies to those who reject Christ. Hence we see your point about " unnecessary suffering is torture" regarding chastisement is not relevant.

Haz, re-read what you wrote here, ok?. Part you say refers to those who reject Christ but therefore the part that does not refer to the rejectors of Christ but to legitimate adopted sons of GOD, that is, those who are reborn in Christ, must be unrelevant to our lives, to our suffering for no reason if not as training in righteousness???

I can't follow this at all...did you read the passage in Heb?

Peace, Ted.