Love requires choice?

I rarely use icons. Perhaps you haven't noticed that.
Using sinful language is sinning. Breaking the rules is the same as breaking God's law. Study Romans 13. As you study Romans 13 be sure to study about God's law of love.
Where did I get angry. Enforcing rules is not being angry. Now you are assuming things that are not true.

 

I do not believe anyone who reaches the age of accountability will keep the law. In fact, I believe babies start breaking the law LONG before they are able to understand right from wrong and are accountable.

I remember my nephew used to bite folks when he was maybe a year old. You would be sitting in a chair and he would come up and chomp on your arm! OWW! He could really bite too! I wanted to slap the little guy. But he was just a little baby and did not really understand what he was doing. He grew into a very fine man that everyone likes. But what a biter!

So, babies do wrong, but I do not believe they are held accountable because they do not understand their actions. And by the time a child is old enough to really understand ( I think around 8-10 years old in general), they have already broken many laws like lying.

So, there is no mature person who is sinless. Only babies and very small children are sinless. That doesn't mean they always keep the law, such as my nephew.

 

And it is always possible for the batter to hit the ball while at the same time he is being struck out. Lots of sense there.

And at the same time he can hit it, he can be struck out, right?

But you haven't been. I have even had to edit one of your posts. You prove yourself wrong. You choose to sin. Why? Why then are you being irresponsible? You don't make any sense.

A contradiction here. Yes, God will hold you responsible--even for "unintentional sins," as Lev.4:1-4 describes. You are still responsible.
Rom.3:23 describes how you miss the mark of God's holiness every day. Every day you sin. You don't like that concept. But you are not as holy as God is. That in itself is sin. You need a proper view of the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God.

 

….if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. Gal 2:21

….if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3:21

Poor arguments? Your shallowness keeps becoming ever more apparent.

Again, if not by obeying the law of God, how then exactly do these that you theorize of remaining sinless, do so?

How does one remain sinless and NOT keep the law?

 

Both are true. It is possible for him to hit the ball, but it is also possible for him to miss. You must have never played ball. Maybe we should talk hockey. :laugh:

Actually, if you have two strikes and foul tip the ball and the catcher catches it, you strike out. FACT. You hit it AND struck out.

YES! I chose to sin! You are starting to get it now. I chose to sin! I did it on purpose. Nobody made me sin. I did it to aggravate you, and it worked. I was demonstating how the world tempts us to sin. I sinned by insulting you, my insult aggravated you. If you had really been paying attention you would have realized I was playing with you. It was a joke, but I knew it would aggravate you. Worked like a charm. :thumbs:

Well, I don't exactly understand all those unintentional sins in scripture. I guess it's like speeding when there are no signs, they say ignorance is no excuse.

Nevertheless, you didn't HAVE to commit those sins. If you had known the particular law you broke, then you could have chosen not to commit it.

It is not like when I called you a name. I did that on purpose. I could have done otherwise, but I thought it would be fun. And it was.

 

Probably the most pertinent post on this thread.

 

Yes, and I gave a pertinent answer, that Charles Hodge, a very famous and notable Reformed theologian believed Jesus could have committed sin.

So, my views are not unusual or unorthodox at all.

 

Produce some notable theologians that agree with your premise that man is capable of living a sinless life.

 

You say Christ was capable of sinning. Man is capable of not ever sinning.

Does that sum it up correctly Winman?

 

The Bible does not address possibility, only the reality that every man has sinned.

Now, I would say that a command not to sin implies the possibility to obey that command. If so, then 1 John 2:1 and many other scriptures teach that a man does not have to sin.

1 Jhn 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:

John here commands us not to sin. I happen to believe that God would not give us a commandment that is impossible to obey.

And note that John says, and "if" we sin, which implies that we do not have to sin. It is not set in stone. Yes, it is possible to sin, but it is also possible to refrain from sin.

Other than the word of God, I can't think of theologians who believe this, most of your famous theologians are Calvinists. They all think we HAVE to sin.

Bet they wouldn't be able to name a sin they HAD to commit though, no one here has come up with anything yet. :laugh:

 

That command is given to the household of faith.

 

You say Christ was capable of sinning. Man is capable of not ever sinning.

Does that sum it up correctly Winman?

 

1) Man can sin.

Christ was a man.

Christ could sin.

2) No man has to sin.

Christ was a man.

Christ never sinned.

Refute this.