Now only remains a judgement for unbelief

I found this quote by FreakyKBH on the "Salvation of Demons" thread to be interesting.

...God poured out His anger on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other judgment for sin from that point forward. Now only remains a judgment for unbelief.

It's remarkable that Jesus spent a great deal of time and effort into teaching what is righteous and what is unrighteous and that being righteous was essential to "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation" only to have the issue rendered moot in such a short time. Are those teachings of Jesus worthless? Was Jesus that clueless?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I found this quote by FreakyKBH on the "Salvation of Demons" thread to be interesting.

...God poured out His anger on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other judgment for sin from that point forward. Now only remains a judgment for unbelief.

It's remarkable that Jesus spent a great deal of time and effort into teaching what is right in such a short time. Are those teachings of Jesus worthless? Was Jesus that clueless?

does this have a scriptural basis, i doubt it. there are of course two extremes, your stance, where those who sin are worthy of death despite the fact that we are still under Adamic sin and in an imperfect state, and those of the freaky evangelists, whose teaching is , that no matter what one does, one is saved. Both clauses are extreme and take no account of what is Biblical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
does this have a scriptural basis, i doubt it. there are of course two extremes, your stance, where those who sin are worthy of death despite the fact that we are still under Adamic sin and in an imperfect state, and those of the freaky evangelists, whose teaching is , that no matter what one does, one is saved. Both clauses are extreme and take no account of what is Biblical.

Jesus taught that righteousness, i.e., one cannot continue to sin, is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". Was Jesus also clueless that "we are still under Adamic sin and in an imperfect state"?

So what do you believe is the dividing line for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation"? How much sin is too much? Which sins are permissible and which aren't? Why do you choose not to believe the teachings of Jesus? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus taught that righteousness, i.e., one cannot continue to sin, is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". Was Jesus also clueless that "we are still under Adamic sin and in an imperfect state"?

So, in your opinion, what's the dividing line for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation"? How much sin is too much? Which sins are permissible and which aren't?

the defining line is this, that there is practice of sin, knowingly and in full recognition, which is condemned and there are involuntary sins, which we cannot, due to our imperfection, help but commit. You really must try to get a handle on this thinkofone.

(1 John 3:4-9) . . .Everyone who practices sin is also practising lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. You know too that that one was made manifest to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him.  Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him.  Little children, let no one mislead you; he who carries on righteousness is righteous, just as that one is righteous.  He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil.

thus it is self evident that those who practice sin, in full recognition are condemned and synonymous with Satan.

however please note, Paul words which described the conflicts that each individual christians strives to overcome, sinful tendency

(Romans 7:21-25)  I find, then, this law in my case: that when I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.  I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,  but I behold in my members another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my members.  Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death?  Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law. . .

thus Paul realised that there is a conflict within everyone, 'sins law', due to imperfection inherited through Adam which ultimately leads to condemnation and at this time death (anyone here not dying?, nope) and the Law of God leading him towards righteousness which he takes great delight in trying to achieve.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the defining line is this, that there is practice of sin, knowingly and in full recognition, which is condemned and there are involuntary sins, which we cannot, due to our imperfection, help but commit. You really must try to get a handle on this thinkofone.

(1 John 3:4-9) . . .Everyone who [b]practices sin is also practising lawlessness, and aw of God leading him towards righteousness which he takes great delight in trying to achieve.[/b]

So far as I know, Jesus did not teach of "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Jesus did not teach make this distinction. Why do you choose not to believe the teachings of Jesus? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?

I've never seen a coherent explanation as to the exact distinction between "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Perhaps you can provide one and some examples. How is it that Jesus failed to make this distinction?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So far as I know, Jesus did not teach of "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Jesus did not teach make this distinction. Why do you choose not to believe the teachings of Jesus? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?

I've never seen a coherent explanation as to the exact distinction between "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Perhaps you can provide one and some examples.

yes, that is because you have restricted your beliefs to the teachings of Jesus, and excluded all others.

In the above i gave two examples which highlight, the practice of sin which is condemned, and the involuntarily committing of sin, due to 'sins law', as Paul puts it, or in other words, imperfection. I cannot be any more clearer than that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, that is because you have restricted your beliefs to the teachings of Jesus, and excluded all others.

In the above i gave two examples which highlight, the practice of sin which is condemned, and the involuntarily committing of sin, due to 'sins law', as Paul puts it, or in other words, imperfection. I cannot be any more clearer than that.

Does this mean that you are unable to provide a "coherent explanation as to the EXACT distinction between 'voluntary' sins and 'involuntary' sins...and some examples."

You provided two passages, of which the first does not even allude to "voluntary" and "involuntary" sin. Unless you're asserting that "practicing" only includes "voluntary" which is a pretty big reach. Is it your assertion that "involuntary sin" is righteous?

These questions still stand:
"Why do you choose not to believe the teachings of Jesus? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Does this mean that you are unable to provide a "coherent explanation as to the EXACT distinction between 'voluntary' sins and 'involuntary' sins...and some examples."

You provided two passages, of which the first does not even allude to "voluntary" and "involuntary" sin. Unless you're asserting that "practicing" only includes "voluntary" which is a pr ...[text shortened]... s? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?"

yes the practice of sin equates with voluntary sinning. I thought that would be obvious, apparently not. when one practices , one does it again and again, in full recognition, this is not the same as doing something involuntarily , is it?

no sin is righteous, all sin is a 'missing the mark', or perfect standard set by God and exemplified by Christ.

if you still cannot get it after this then i am vewy vewy sowy, its clear to me

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I found this quote by FreakyKBH on the "Salvation of Demons" thread to be interesting.

...God poured out His anger on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other judgment for sin from that point forward. Now only remains a judgment for unbelief.

It's remarkable that Jesus spent a great deal of time and effort into teaching what is right ...[text shortened]... in such a short time. Are those teachings of Jesus worthless? Was Jesus that clueless?

The issue was not rendered moot by anyone. Without the righteousness of God, no one will see Him--- except at the judgment seat.

Our righteousness is Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the practice of sin equates with voluntary sinning. I thought that would be obvious, apparently not. when one practices , one does it again and again, in full recognition, this is not the same as doing something involuntarily , is it?

no sin is righteous, all sin is a 'missing the mark', or perfect standard set by God and exemplified by Christ.

if you still cannot get it after this then i am vewy vewy sowy, its clear to me

Crystal clear to me too...

Originally posted by galveston75
Crystal clear to me too...

why thank ye my Texan brother!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why thank ye my Texan brother!

Yur welcome yall!!...

Originally posted by galveston75
Yur welcome yall!!...

the more i think about this Glavo, the more absurd it becomes. it was something badwater stated i think in jest, but get this,

if you are a trinitarian, you believe that your God created himself and split himself into three parts and sent himself to be born of a women and became a carpenter, you believe that at his baptism he was speaking with himself, you believe that the enemies of your God, killed him and while he was dying your God cried out to himself, 'why have I forsaken me', you believe that your God died and when he was dead, resurrected himself from the dead. You believe that after your god was dead and resurrected himself from the dead, he waits for himself to place his enemies at his feet until he gives himself his Kingdom. the more i think about it my friend, the more absurd it becomes

message for original poster, sowy that is off topic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the practice of sin equates with voluntary sinning. I thought that would be obvious, apparently not. when one practices , one does it again and again, in full recognition, this is not the same as doing something involuntarily , is it?

no sin is righteous, all sin is a 'missing the mark', or perfect standard set by God and exemplified by Christ.

if you still cannot get it after this then i am vewy vewy sowy, its clear to me

Okay, so "voluntary sin" is sin that one does "again and again in full recognition". Sin must be repeated for it to be considered "voluntary sin", correct? Does the repeated sin have to be the same sin for it to be considered "voluntary"?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The issue was not rendered moot by anyone. Without the righteousness of God, no one will see Him--- except at the judgment seat.

Our righteousness is Christ.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Jesus spent a great deal of time and effort into teaching what is righteous and that being righteous was essential to "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".

If there "only remains a judgment for unbelief" whether or not one becomes righteous is unimportant. Therefore, the teachings and commandments of Jesus for one to become righteous are also unimportant.