Can a man sin a sin unto death after being born again.

[DHK]

But you fail to recognize that there is a sin and there is a sin unto death!!! There are sins that the scripture says will not enter the Kingdom of God, and there is a sin that is not unto death. That is the Holy Scripture.

And who is to randlomly say what that sin is? I have been down this road with you before. Quite frankly Bob you set yourself up as a god (just like the Pope), and decide what sin is a sin unto death, and what isn't. So we all must bow down to your decision, just as the Catholics bow down to the decisions of the Pope on what is a mortal sin and what is not. Why do you get to decide? Who put you into that position?
The Bible clearly states that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. Is lying a sin unto death. Have you, as a believer ever lied. The Bible also says: "Let God be true but every man a liar. Thus it says that all men have lied, and the liar will find his place in the lake of fire? It also says in the book of James:
Whoso shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all.
Thus in God's sight telling a lie is just as bad as committing adultery. If you have told a lie, you have, in effect, broken all the commandments of God. You are just as guilty. Sin is sin. You are condemned. All sins are sins unto death. That being the case you have condemned yourself to the lake of fire. You cannot escape sin. If you can, there would have been no need for Christ to die and take the penalty of our sin, would there?

 

[charles_creech78]

And who is to randlomly say what that sin is? I have been down this road with you before. Quite frankly Bob you set yourself up as a god (just like the Pope), and decide what sin is a sin unto death, and what isn't. So we all must bow down to your decision, just as the Catholics bow down to the decisions of the Pope on what is a mortal sin and what is not. Why do you get to decide? Who put you into that position?
The Bible clearly states that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire. Is lying a sin unto death. Have you, as a believer ever lied. The Bible also says: "Let God be true but every man a liar. Thus it says that all men have lied, and the liar will find his place in the lake of fire? It also says in the book of James:
Whoso shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all.
Thus in God's sight telling a lie is just as bad as committing adultery. If you have told a lie, you have, in effect, broken all the commandments of God. You are just as guilty. Sin is sin. You are condemned. All sins are sins unto death. That being the case you have condemned yourself to the lake of fire. You cannot escape sin. If you can, there would have been no need for Christ to die and take the penalty of our sin, would there?[/QUOTE There is a fleshly sin and there is a spiritual sin. (God said the SOUL that sinneth against me shall surely die. This is a spiritual death a sin unto death is what this is. We have all sin a sin unto death. A willful sin.) Fleshly sin is like this if I get mad at you with a cause but later on I come to you and say I am sorry.Before I said I am sorry that was a sin but not a sin unto death. A fleshly sin a thorn in the flesh. Everyone of us know what a sin unto death is . It is the death of the spirit. That is why he said he that is born of God cannot sin.He cannot sin spiritualy . You are not born again outwardly but you are born again inwardly. In 1 john chapter3 it was talking about the spiritual man and in 1john chapter 1 he was talking about the outward man. As a born again Christain you will sin a fleshly sin. But you will not sin a spiritual sin being born again.

 

[charles_creech78]

Charles
You have a misunderstanding of the Scriptures you quoted.
Answer this:
John, writing to believers, and including himself (using the pronoun "we") writes:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If Jesus Christ living in us, doesn't sin, then why do we on a daily basis have to go to the Lord and confess the sins that we commit? Why do we have to come to Christ to ask for forgiveness of sin, if after we are saved, we have no sin to confess. If your theology is correct--a true Christian doesn't sin--then this verse shouldn't be in the Bible. John includes himself here. If WE

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

The same questions above may be asked here. Why does John include this verse if we have no sins. He writes if any man sin Obviously we do sin, otherwise he would not have written that verse. It is written to believers as is the entire epistle. Christians sin. They have a choice. They are not automatons controlled by the Holy Spirit or Christ. You have a choice to sin, and often give into it. Paul described the struggle he had with sin in Romans chapter 7. He said that sin dwells in him.

OK you said he was writing this to the believers.This is the law witch this is writen in an't it. 1 timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the Law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the Law is good,if a man use it Lawfully, Know you said the law was writen to the believer . Let us hear what sayeth the law 1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the LAW is NOT MADE for a RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the lawless and DISOBEDIENT, for the UNGODLY and for SINNERS, for UNHOLY and PROFANE, for MURDERERS of FATHERS, and MURDERERS of MOTHER, for MANSLAYERS, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars for perjured person, and if ther be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

 

[Brother Bob]

And who is to randlomly say what that sin is? I have been down this road with you before. Quite frankly Bob you set yourself up as a god (just like the Pope), and decide what sin is a sin unto death, and what isn't. So we all must bow down to your decision, just as the Catholics bow down to the decisions of the Pope on what is a mortal sin and what is not. Why do you get to decide? Who put you into that position?

Sorry you feel that way DHK, when I just quoted scripture.
1Jo 5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

1Jo 5:17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

The above scripture are the word of God, not mine. I judge no man, the Lord said the words He speaks shall judge us in the last day.



Romans, chapter 3


1: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2: Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3: For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This scripture was to the Jews concerning the Law of circumcision. If a man don't believe the Laws that God give to the Jews, then let every man be a liar and God be truth.

This scripture is not saying, "every man is a liar", why would God say that you were a liar, and then say if you lie ,you will have your part in the Lake of Fire. It don't make sense.

You misread that scripture DHK, "let God be truth and every man a liar". It is saying you are a liar, if you say something against what God said.

No, I am just a poor weak struggling Christian, who believes that Christians live a better life than the world. If you are a friend of the world, you are an enemy to God.

I believe we are saved, by the Grace of God and that Grace continues with us until the resurrection.

One other thing DHK, Why do you say the following just means an early death, when it says it is impossible to renew this man again. If anyone could do what the following scripture says, then an early death will not help him, for he will still have that sin unto death against him, which cannot be removed, according to scripture.

Eph. 6:4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[DQuixote]

[It is better if a believer who is bringing shame to the name of Christ be taken out of this world before more damage is done to the name of Christ, then he live, and face even greater loss of reward and/or judgement at the JSOC./QUOTE]

That sums it up.

 

[Brother Bob]

[It is better if a believer who is bringing shame to the name of Christ be taken out of this world before more damage is done to the name of Christ, then he live, and face even greater loss of reward and/or judgement at the JSOC./QUOTE]

That sums it up

Taking him out early will not help the man, for it is impossible to have the sin removed, so he will go into judgement with a sin unto death, that is impossible to remove, according to Eph 6:4 there is no forgiveness for him if such a thing can happen.

Hbr. 6:4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[charles_creech78]

Taking him out early will not help the man, for it is impossible to have the sin removed, so he will go into judgement with a sin unto death, that is impossible to remove, according to Eph 6:4 there is no forgiveness for him if such a thing can happen.

Brother Bob do not listen to what he said . God can only judge you . I seen you show the truth on hear. But like God said they have eyes they see not and ears they hear not. The gospel is hide to them that are lost.But I myself know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified and resureaction to be the way. I have read alot of bible and asked God for alot of understanding. You can not get through to someone like that. Don't give him a fight. That is what he wants.

 

[EdSutton]

Eph. 6:4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Ephesians 6:4-6 (New King James Version)

4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Bondservants and Masters

5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
[It is better if a believer who is bringing shame to the name of Christ be taken out of this world before more damage is done to the name of Christ, then he live, and face even greater loss of reward and/or judgement at the JSOC./QUOTE]

That sums it up
Taking him out early will not help the man, for it is impossible to have the sin removed, so he will go into judgement with a sin unto death, that is impossible to remove, according to Hbr 6:4 there is no forgiveness for him if such a thing can happen.

Quote:
Hbr. 6:4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

__________________
Brother Bob,

Thanks oh master Ed; At least I had the verses right.

 

[EdSutton]

I'm not really interested in word games.

Then, with all respect, why play them? You were the one who said, and I quote:

There is no such thing as a carnal Christian.

I posted Scripture that showed that Paul referred to himself as carnal and to the Church at Corinth, whom he referred to as saints, and brethren as carnal. And I do believe that both Paul and "brethren" and "saints" are Christians.

And I also posted that carnal equals the spiritually immature, or babies who are drinking milk, and posted that Scripture, as well.

So I figure it is your opinion vs. what Scripture says.

And I did not have to "interpret" away the Biblical wording of carnal, nor make an assumption that the Bible did not make, here.
I merely quoted what it did say.

Hence, I deny playing any word games.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Great point. But, Paul's authority greatly overwrote any of NT prophets. Agabus could scarcely be called a prophet too, by even NT standards. His prophecy was awfully incorrect and he was wrong on several major details. Yet, the text is clear, he prophesied in the Holy Spirit.

First, where does Scripture say that "Paul's authority greatly overwrote any of NT prophets"? Mind telling me where you found this Scripture??

And I'm also going to challenge a couple of your statements about Agabus.

27 And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28 - NKJV)

10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 (For they had previously[e] seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
30 And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. 31 Now as they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the commander came near and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and he asked who he was and what he had done. (Acts 21:10-11, 26-33 - NKJV)

Agabus is mentioned exactly two times in Scripture. And I quoted both of those instances, above. In each case, he is identified as a prophet. And that is by NT standards, as I read it. so whether or not you want to call him a prophet, the Bible does. He also gave exactly two prophecies that are recorded in Scripture. The first one is said to have come to pass, and the second (ten chapters later) was about Paul. He said Paul would be "bound" though he did not say exactly how, by the Jews. I would say that since the Jews siezed apul and dragged him out of the temple, they in some way bound him. And since they were beating him, I seriously doubt they would have been able to do this, were he not bound. I simply don't think Paul would have "just stood there and let them beat on him," any more than would you or I. And as the Commander of the Romans took him, the logical question becomes, took him from whom? Obviously, the Jews, who had him. Seems to me like that prophecy came true as well.

But I am glad you acknowledge, at least, that he prophesied "in the Holy Spirit."

BTW, DHK did not post what you here quoted. I did!

Ed

 

[DHK]

There is a fleshly sin and there is a spiritual sin.

That is theological error (a kinder word for heresy). You are espousing Roman Catholic theology; are you sure you are not a Catholic? I used to be one for 20 years, so I know what they believe. The Catholics differentiate between degrees of sins; the Bible doesn't, and God doesn't. Why are you following a man-made system of philosophy? You have no Scriptural basis for this .
What is the difference between sin against the flesh and spiritual sin? The answer is none. Sin is sin in God's sight. He doesn't differentiate. Let's look at some Scripture:

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
--Habukkuk declared the holiness of God. He stated that God was so holy that he would not condone any sin, no matter how you would classify it. "He cans't look upon iniquity--not of the heart; not of the flesh--there is no difference in his sight. He is a holy God.

Now take a look at what Jesus said about adultery:
Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
--Is adultery a sin unto the flesh or a spiritual sin? and what is the difference?
This is one of those that sins that Bob says is a sin unto death (though Bob has no proof of it). It is a sin you call, a sin of the flesh; and yet it is no different than other sins. You draw arbitrary lines, and like Bob, act as a god to yourself deciding what sins are serious enough to send a person to Hell and what are not. How arrogant to put yourself above all else, and judge your brother as such. That is exactly what the Bible commands us not to do.

Adultery is a sin of the heart. If you but look upon a woman to lust after her you commit the sin of adultery. That is how Jesus defined the sin of adultery. It wasn't simply the physical act. It was a sin that was committed in the heart.

Likewise, according to Mat.5:21,22, murder is committed in the heart. If you lose your temper without a cause, become angry with your brother, you have committed murder. That was Christ's assessment. Murder doesn't have to be the actual physical act.
Are you still going to differentiate between so called spiritual sins and physical sins?
Let me give you a hint: there is no such difference. Sin is sin in God's sight. He doesn't differentiate between sin. He calls is a transgression of the law (1John 3:4). So why are you pretending to be a Catholic unless you are one?

(God said the SOUL that sinneth against me shall surely die. This is a spiritual death a sin unto death is what this is. We have all sin a sin unto death. A willful sin.)

That verse is a quote from Ezekiel. It was to the Israelites. It was speaking of the consequence of sin--physcial death.

Fleshly sin is like this if I get mad at you with a cause but later on I come to you and say I am sorry.Before I said I am sorry that was a sin but not a sin unto death.

That is your opinion without any foundation in Scripture--pure guesswork and nothing else. Why should we believe you over and above the Scripture?

A fleshly sin a thorn in the flesh.

Prove that. Paul had a thron in the flesh. But that thorn was not a sin. God doesn not give people sin. God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh. You commit blasphemy by attributing sin to God.

Everyone of us know what a sin unto death is .

No we don't. especially if we have to rely on your definition and/or Bob's definition. We greatly disagree on our definitions. Just read through this thread and see. Everyone has there own definition of what a sin unto death is . You have made an arrogant statement, and you yourself can't define it, and then back it up with Scripture.

It is the death of the spirit. That is why he said he that is born of God cannot sin.He cannot sin spiritualy .

If you believe that you take the position of an Arminian and believe that one can lose their salvation. I thought you believed in eternal security or OSAS. You statements say otherwise. Once saved a man cannot lose his salvation. Jesus promsied that. The gift of God is eternal life. It can't be lost. If it could then eternal life wouldn't be eternal and Christ would be a liar.

You are not born again outwardly but you are born again inwardly.

That is heresy. Either you are born again or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are saved or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are on your way to heaven or you are not. You can't be both. Either your sins are forgiven or they are not. It can't be both ways. Perhaps you need to consider this matter very carefully and decide what side of the fence you are really on.

In 1 john chapter3 it was talking about the spiritual man and in 1john chapter 1 he was talking about the outward man. As a born again Christain you will sin a fleshly sin. But you will not sin a spiritual sin being born again.

This is complete nonsense. The entire chapter of 1John is written to believers. Sin is sin. God doesn't differentiate. Catholics do. Which are you?

 

[Brother Bob]

A fleshly sin a thorn in the flesh. Prove that. Paul had a thron in the flesh. But that thorn was not a sin. God doesn not give people sin. God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh. You commit blasphemy by attributing sin to God.

The thorn came from Satan, not God.

A fleshly sin a thorn in the flesh. Prove that. Paul had a thron in the flesh. But that thorn was not a sin. God doesn not give people sin. God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh. You commit blasphemy by attributing sin to God.

God didn't think so: 1Jo 5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jo 5:17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jo 5:18¶We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

You are not born again outwardly but you are born again inwardly. That is heresy. Either you are born again or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are saved or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are on your way to heaven or you are not. You can't be both. Either your sins are forgiven or they are not. It can't be both ways. Perhaps you need to consider this matter very carefully and decide what side of the fence you are really on.

Rom 8:23And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

Rom 8:21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

[webdog]

The thorn came from Satan, not God.

Do you have Scripture for this, BB? When The Angel of The Lord touched Jacob's hip, he created a "thorn" of sorts, no?

 

[charles_creech78]

That is theological error (a kinder word for heresy). You are espousing Roman Catholic theology; are you sure you are not a Catholic? I used to be one for 20 years, so I know what they believe. The Catholics differentiate between degrees of sins; the Bible doesn't, and God doesn't. Why are you following a man-made system of philosophy? You have no Scriptural basis for this .
What is the difference between sin against the flesh and spiritual sin? The answer is none. Sin is sin in God's sight. He doesn't differentiate. Let's look at some Scripture:

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?
--Habukkuk declared the holiness of God. He stated that God was so holy that he would not condone any sin, no matter how you would classify it. "He cans't look upon iniquity--not of the heart; not of the flesh--there is no difference in his sight. He is a holy God.

Now take a look at what Jesus said about adultery:
Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
--Is adultery a sin unto the flesh or a spiritual sin? and what is the difference?
This is one of those that sins that Bob says is a sin unto death (though Bob has no proof of it). It is a sin you call, a sin of the flesh; and yet it is no different than other sins. You draw arbitrary lines, and like Bob, act as a god to yourself deciding what sins are serious enough to send a person to Hell and what are not. How arrogant to put yourself above all else, and judge your brother as such. That is exactly what the Bible commands us not to do.

Adultery is a sin of the heart. If you but look upon a woman to lust after her you commit the sin of adultery. That is how Jesus defined the sin of adultery. It wasn't simply the physical act. It was a sin that was committed in the heart.

Likewise, according to Mat.5:21,22, murder is committed in the heart. If you lose your temper without a cause, become angry with your brother, you have committed murder. That was Christ's assessment. Murder doesn't have to be the actual physical act.
Are you still going to differentiate between so called spiritual sins and physical sins?
Let me give you a hint: there is no such difference. Sin is sin in God's sight. He doesn't differentiate between sin. He calls is a transgression of the law (1John 3:4). So why are you pretending to be a Catholic unless you are one?

That verse is a quote from Ezekiel. It was to the Israelites. It was speaking of the consequence of sin--physcial death.

That is your opinion without any foundation in Scripture--pure guesswork and nothing else. Why should we believe you over and above the Scripture?

Prove that. Paul had a thron in the flesh. But that thorn was not a sin. God doesn not give people sin. God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh. You commit blasphemy by attributing sin to God.

No we don't. especially if we have to rely on your definition and/or Bob's definition. We greatly disagree on our definitions. Just read through this thread and see. Everyone has there own definition of what a sin unto death is . You have made an arrogant statement, and you yourself can't define it, and then back it up with Scripture.

If you believe that you take the position of an Arminian and believe that one can lose their salvation. I thought you believed in eternal security or OSAS. You statements say otherwise. Once saved a man cannot lose his salvation. Jesus promsied that. The gift of God is eternal life. It can't be lost. If it could then eternal life wouldn't be eternal and Christ would be a liar.

That is heresy. Either you are born again or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are saved or you are not. You can't be both. Either you are on your way to heaven or you are not. You can't be both. Either your sins are forgiven or they are not. It can't be both ways. Perhaps you need to consider this matter very carefully and decide what side of the fence you are really on.

This is complete nonsense. The entire chapter of 1John is written to believers. Sin is sin. God doesn't differentiate. Catholics do. Which are you?

I will not answer to you again you are in this more to judge then to listen. My God bless you more in under standing of what you read.

 

[webdog]

I will not answer to you again you are in this more to judge then to listen. My God bless you more in under standing of what you read.

I don't see where he judged at all. He plainly provided Scripture to refute your false teaching...

 

[Brother Bob]

The thorn came from Satan, not God.
Do you have Scripture for this, BB? When The Angel of The Lord touched Jacob's hip, he created a "thorn" of sorts, no?

2Cr 12:7¶And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

 

[webdog]

2Cr 12:7¶And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Wouldn't that be comparable to God allowing satan to test Job? Nothing can happen without the permissive will of God.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
2Cr 12:7¶And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Wouldn't that be comparable to God allowing satan to test Job? Nothing can happen without the permissive will of God.

Of Course, but the thorn still came from satan. Satan couldn't touch Job until God let him.

32
aggeloV
aggelos
ang'-el-os
from aggello (probably derived from agw - ago 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

4566
Satan
Satan
sat-an'
of Hebrew origin (satan 7854); Satan, i.e. the devil:--Satan. Compare SatanaV - Satanas 4567.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Just my opinion, of course I could be wrong, but even the scripture says it was of satan. I don't know if it was sin or not though, but being it came from satan, there is a good chance it was the temptation of sin, it could of been Paul's persecutions, enemies, troubles in the flesh for serving God. Could of been many things to discourage him from continuing on in the "word", or as Moses "look what we did".

 

[JustChristian]

Then, with all respect, why play them? You were the one who said, and I quote: I posted Scripture that showed that Paul referred to himself as carnal and to the Church at Corinth, whom he referred to as saints, and brethren as carnal. And I do believe that both Paul and "brethren" and "saints" are Christians.

And I also posted that carnal equals the spiritually immature, or babies who are drinking milk, and posted that Scripture, as well.

So I figure it is your opinion vs. what Scripture says.

And I did not have to "interpret" away the Biblical wording of carnal, nor make an assumption that the Bible did not make, here.
I merely quoted what it did say.

Hence, I deny playing any word games.

Ed

Actually, what I meant by saying that there is no such thing as a carnal Christian is that someone cannot be genuinely converted to Christ without being born again. This changes the person's objectives and actions. While they will continue to sin they will repent and return to the Master. I'm saying that a carnal Christian meaning someone who doesn't undergo a radical change in their life which makes Christ their Lord and Savior isn't a Christian at all.