Does sin exist any more?


#1

Good, thought provoking article.


#2


#3

Sorry but I disagree. This is just a rehashing of the same old concept of those who believed in pagan gods. Sacrifice an animal and all your sins are gone. Jesus has just become a substitute. I don’t see a difference.

Sin abounded because people believed that sacrificing an animal took it all away. How about putting away your sin and obeying the word of God. Maybe then sin won’t abound??


#4

I’m not at all sorry that I disagree. So do the New Testament writers. It’s ludicrous to state that “sin” refers only to “the sin” of Adam and Eve.

Crisco mentions that the noun sin is " 'αμαρtια" (hamartia). Correct. But then he says that the word for sin is usually a noun in the New Testament. So what? It’s also a verb. The verbal form of the word is 'αμαρτανω" (hamartanō). This verb occurs 37 times.

Here is one example:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. (Heb 10:26,27)

Sounds pretty serious to me. It doesn’t teach that sin doesn’t exist—that Jesus took care of it all. Well… He did take care of it in the sense that He provided enabling grace (Titus 2) to overcome it. This enabling grace can be appropriated by faith:

"Sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under Law, but under grace."

So we need not go on sinning and face judgment. We can overcome by the blood of the Lamb!

Listen to them sing it!


#5

#6

Sure His grace is enough to enable us to overcome! But that fact does not imply that we will choose to appropriate His grace through faith. In that case, our sin will persist.


#7

Paidion, I agree.

The teaching that Jesus took care of it all is nonsensical.
There is no difference whether you say:
“We have no sin because an animal sacrifice takes care of it all”, or
“We have no sin because Jesus’ sacrifice takes care of it all.”
It’s the same thing.

Besides, if the first statement was true, then there was no sin because it was already taken care of.

No matter he many times you say this, I still don’t get it. Maybe it’s just me.:upside_down_face:

There were already people before Jesus who were able to overcome sin by faith in the Spirit.
Hebrews 11:5 " By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death," and was not found because God had translated him, for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
verse 7 " By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."


#8

LLC, it is true that Enoch and Noah were able to do great things through faith. But the enabling grace provided by Jesus’ death and resurrection is much more effectual. Please read the following text carefully. It affirms that this enabling grace trains us to live righteously, and that Jesus gave Himself for us in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, and to purify for Himself a people of his own who are zealous in the performance of good works. The implication is that neither self-effort alone nor faith alone will suffice.

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
(Titus 2:11-15)


#9

No, it’s not just you. If people couldn’t perform good works prior to Calvary, they didn’t have free will.


#10

You’re right qaz… there are others who indeed believe the blood (sacrifice) of Christ is no different than the blood (sacrifice) of animals — and such apparently claim to be believers… go figure :question:


#11

qaz… I think for clarity it pertinent to share some our my PM response to you where you raised this issue; which also ties in a little with that excellent video you linked to above… worth watching as the historical context shows how some of this stuff can be better understood.


#12

Thanks for clarifying that the answer to the thread’s title, “Does sin (itself) exist any more?” is literally yes. But when you imply that what actually doesn’t exist anymore is “relational separation,” I assume that you also don’t literally mean that no one can experience alienation from God in their life? Do you mean that on God’s side, He no longer actually has hostility toward them, and will not subject them to damnation?


#13

Uh-oh.


#14

Subjectively… yes that’s right; biblically speaking however, the most anyone could be was… “enemies in your mind” — that alienation was typically evidenced by “wicked works” and so yeah that can still occur, BUT, the greater reality is actually this…

Yep!!


#15

I agree. people prior to Calvary did have the power to do good. As Moses commanded “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart and be stiff-necked no longer.”

If you remember, the law of the Lev. priests had no power in the beginning as Moses said, they were not a part of Israel and they had no rule over it. However, many followed it and were deceived into thinking that the sacrifice of animals took away their sins as the Lev. law states.

Again,the Lev. law states that an animal sacrifice takes away your sin. Is this true or false? If it’s true then Israel had no sin as it was wiped away.

Of course it’s not true as Isaiah says: Bring Me no more futile sacrifices. Wash yourselves , make yourselves clean; put away your evil doings. Learn to do good and your sins will be as white as snow.
Jesus doesn’t take away your sins either, as He says: " Sin no more."


#16

Of course, we need a good article - to set this topic straight! And a serious one, to boot!

Zombies, Sin, and Salvation

Let me quote a bit, from the article!

Do you see now why the zombie – a human being so compromised by the effects of a contagion that he is really only a simulacrum of a human – is such an apt symbol for a person under the influence of sin? And do you see, further, why the erection of a mighty wall would be an utterly unsuccessful strategy against such a threat? Indeed, one of the most memorable scenes in World War Z is of the zombies swarming over the walls of Jerusalem.

Before the Catholic talk, there is the Eastern Orthodox take:

But in BOTH Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological thought, sin is a disease…like that that makes zombies.

Now for a great talk, on sin and zombies!

So go watch this Zombie movie, so you can understand sin better

And see if you can spot all the sins, in this video:


#17

Does sin still exist?

Did sin EVER exist? An example:
In 100 B.C. a man rapes a woman. I think we agree that that was A sin.
In 100 A.D. a man rapes a woman. Do we agree that THAT is A sin also?
In 2019 a man rapes a woman. In fact, many men rape many women. The act is exactly the same. If the act was a sin then, is it not still a sin?
In that sense, yes, sin not only still exists but is running amok in the world, destroying lives and cultures.

In 100 B.C., did God hate that act of rape?
In 2019, has God changed somehow?

1 John 1.9. Unless some sophistry says this does not apply to us today, that verse alone should answer our original question.


#18

Thanks for the clarification. I do think that even traditionalists may affirm this language. But despite believing God is not ‘hostile,’ they may see room for continuing events of ‘judgment,’ interpreted as corrective agents (a form of purifying ‘sanctification’).


#19

I’d think it highly probable for some traditionalists to conclude just that.


#20

100 BC definitely because the law was in full effect. AD 100, I’m not sure. No one to my knowledge thinks rape became amoral when the law ended. The question is if technically it’s still sin. IOW, something may be immoral without being “sin”.