Does sin exist any more?


So, sinning still happens. Sin is still real.
Of course that is not the end of the story, thank God.
Still, sins are REAL. There can be no ‘reality’ that is more ‘real’ than real sin, though there is a larger reality. What’s real is real. No other reality can change the ‘realness’.

That much is clear, I think. If not, where did I go wrong?
So if acts of sin have been done away with by Christ’s work - well that does not follow logically at all, because acts of sin have NOT ceased. The victims sure as hell know that.

Perhaps ‘sin’ is different from ‘acts of sin’? Perhaps Christ has done away with ‘sin’ but ‘sins’ are still ravishing the world? Or the power of ‘sin’ has been broken, to the utter surprise of the women in the mass rapings in Europe by immigrant men?
Paidion is on the right track, I think. Sophistry does not help; the power of sin being broken and replaced by goodness from a changed heart - the work of the Holy Spirit joining with our decision and effort - is what is needed. Now. Everywhere.


qaz, yes it’s still a sin. There were a lot of things wrong with the Lev. law. Besides the fact that it was tyrannical and unjust, people were being persecuted for things that were not really sins; for example: having a baby, not having your genitals circumcised, eating meat, working on Sunday, having different beliefs etc.etc. It can be likened to the dark ages of the Roman Catholic Church. As Dave mentions, there are REAL sins, and no amount of animal sacrifices, incense burning, or what have you is going to take it away.



Where did you go wrong… glad you asked. Till now the entire mentality of your responses in this thread have been against any notion that ‘acts of sin’ have in any way, shape or form ceased (stating the bleeding obvious that no one needed reminding), AND YET THAT IS NOT the title nor the point raise to begin with. The thread title is NOT… Do acts of sin exist any more?

Halleluiah… IF ONLY you’d thought earlier. Little wonder you guys read these verses accordingly and so decide, no these can’t be trusted…

Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sinful acts of the world!

Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sinful acts by the sacrifice of Himself.

Yep definitely Jesus FAILED big time on that score; or as the lone voice bleats… “Jesus doesn’t take away your sins either

Jesus never came to stop anyone from sinning; no… he came to stop the charge, liability, guilt and condemnation of sin itself (singular) being held to one’s eternal charge. In fact He did that for Israel (Mt 1:21; Rom 11:27, 32)… and such had the intended beneficial flow-on affect ON BEHALF OF all humanity (Rom 11:12, 15).

Now before any knuckleheaded Neanderthal chimes in with the likes of… “Oh great, so we can all go and sin with impunity… yippee!— Seriously?! NO. When the revelation of righteousness comes with the realisation of God’s grace then all such corrupt antics start to change; which then becomes inherently beneficial to self and others — and thus the likes of Tit 2:11-14 et al find their intended resonance etc.


@davo I agree with the gist of your posts, with one exception: I’m not sure the immoral things people do to are sins. Is it possible to be immoral? Yes. Does that mean it’s possible to sin? I’m not sure. I liked when Doug King said IIRC when his grandkids misbehavior, he doesn’t use the vocabulary of “sin” to punish them.


Sure they did; they had free will. People still do good deeds, including people who hate God. That’s free will! But with the enabling grace of Christ, they are empowered to work righteousness more consistently.
If you disagree, how do you explain away the Titus 2 passage which clearly affirms that the grace of God " trains people to “live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age” and that Jesus gave Himself in order to “purify a people of His own who are zealous for good works.” Do these words mean nothing to you? Or do you simply consider the apostle Paul to have been mistaken in writing them?


Ok, sin does not equal sinful acts. Got it. Thanks for that gibberish!!

Duh. Again. It’s like trying to talk to this blank space to the right


It’s not clear to me that Jesus’ interest was only to stop our liability concerning sin, but not to challenge sinning and ultimately to defeat and end sinning.

You cite texts that Jesus’ coming is to take or put away sin, and appear to ridicule Dave for not “trusting” that Jesus succeeds in that. But even with you definition that this only means that Jesus removes condemnation for sin, I assume that you also don’t hold that Jesus had ended that when John said he is the Lamb who takes away sin (but you see it as accomplished in future years that follow).

And I assume that Dave and I also see Jesus defeating ‘sinning’ in a time future to John’s affirmation of his accomplishment. Thus, the difference is not that only you believe this promise, but that given our different interpretation of what it means to be delivered from sin, we differ only on the timing for the consummation of that promised victory.

But maybe we who see Jesus also coming to ultimately defeat evil itself are just naïve “knuckleheaded Neanderthals” :slight_smile:


Welcome back DaveB… I wasn’t too convinced of the rebadged B2.0 either :wink: lol


I think it’s all a bit “semantics” i.e., people outside of churchianity don’t use the label “sin” when speaking of someone’s ill deeds, and plenty of people DO get punished for said misdeeds WITHOUT any mention of such as being “sins” — they just don’t.


Haha - 1.0 is out of political name calling.
2.0 is still not a girlie-man, though…bring it on…


Again Bob… your only is your imposed interpretation onto what I actually wrote. Perhaps it may have been more prudent of me to have inserted (and I did think of it) ‘primary’ with regards to the main objective of his Jesus’ ministry, i.e., attack/destroy the root (sin) and the leaves (sinful acts) eventually start to whither.

It is not ridicule it is incredulity… and Dave is by no means alone as you likewise demonstrate — and this is nothing new because it’s been said before. You guys really DO minimise those texts when you explain them away as you do.

Well to quote B2.0… Duh.

John points to Jesus who in his ministry was (for John ‘is’) in the process of taking away etc — the writer of Hebrews looks at the reality of the completed act (the Cross), an act that had it closing act (the Parousia) on THEIR immediate horizon… BEAUSE the whole thrust of the sin was the law and that wrought the death. As already noted… while the Temple stood the way into the Holiest of All was NOT YET made manifest. There was an outworking to completion in the parousia what was accomplished through the cross.

Thus the sin that was empowered by the law fell, thus annulling the death, aka “death is defeated”. Or to draw on Paul further… “but sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Ah well if the cap fits lol :wink:

Mind you… the focus of my thoughts in this thread have been sin, not the evil you now mention.


There was an outworking to completion in the Parousia…

if the cap fits lol :wink: My focus here have been sin, not the evil you now mention.

Thanks, I guess I don’t much separate defeating the “root” and the “leaves” it supports (sin and sinning). What you emphasize as primary and secondary I emphasize as inseparably linked. But I appreciate your affirmation that Jesus does come (if only secondarily) to end sinning. For when you put in bold, Jesus never came to stop anyone from sinning; No… he came to stop our liability…, it could sound like you saw no coming to stop sinning.

Yes, I do grasp that you see the defeat of ‘sin’ as being “complete” in AD70, while I perceive that more needs to yet happen to complete that accomplishment. For while you see the defeat of “sin” and of “evil” as different things, I see them inseparably linked and similar, just as I see the defeat of sin and of sinning as going hand in hand.

I sometimes sense our main difference is indeed mostly differing emphases, for I would not want to minimize how the assurance of not being under God’s condemnation is vital to the ultimate defeat of evil, or as you put it, the withering of our sinful acts.


Yes, I think probably so :slight_smile:


The root of sin is the heart of man as it says in Matt. 15:19 " For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Unless the heart is changed, evil and death are not destroyed.

Paidion, God can be found at anytime.
Deut. 4:29 "But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.
Jer.29:13 "And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for me with all your heart.
Proverbs 8:17 “I love those who love Me and those who diligently seek me will find Me.”


But not everyone is calling God. Even though God published his or her telephone number.


If Jesus came only to get you off the hook, why couldn’t God have done that without sending Jesus?
Did Jesus have to die to satisfy God’s wrath, as the Fundamentalists preach?

I say, and I believe the apostle Paul taught, that Jesus died to deliver us from sin. SIN ITSELF is the enemy from which we need to be delivered. We need to be delivered from the practice of sin!


If people had free will before Calvary, why couldn’t they already live “consistently” (however you arbitrarily define it - one sin a day? one sin a week? one sin a month?) righteous lives?


They could in theory. I could build a house in theory. But I would have much better success if a carpenter instructed me and assisted me.


Jesus could have had a ministry that ended with him ascending to heaven before dying a horrible death if all that was needed was instruction.


Again, I don’t buy your only. But apart from that… do you have an issue in God sending Jesus to do just that, i.e., as you say… get you off the hook? Or do you prefer your own self efforts in attempting to do the same?

I don’t believe so… Jesus joined, identified with and “was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa 53:12) in classic Hebraic martyrdom (4Macc 17:20-22).

Indeed… I would agree Jesus’ death accomplished that very thing; as Jesus proclaimed… “it is finished!

SIN is not the enemy — you’ve been delivered already… how you choose to walk in that deliverance is your business.

NO… you just need to stop sinning if you are — His enabling grace can teach you, but you yourself simply have to choose to walk in that learning; your choice.