Argument against lifelong sin

Just Arrived Joined: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 5

In listening to some IG podcasts, I've heard a few Christians say that 'once a sinner, always a sinner' as some kind of proof of the downfall of man. I haven't heard any good (to me) counter arguments. How about this:

The 'label' of 'sinner' is not valid alll the time. They love to say that in a court of law, someone who steals is a thief and will always be one. But the law doesn't work like that. The law and courts address 'acts' not 'states.' By this I mean if you steal something you are guilty of thieft (an act.) While you were stealing, you were a thief, jjust as while you are cooking, you are a cook. Now if you are a professional chef, you could be called a cook all the time but that is more of a title. It doesn't mean that much at least not in the context the Christians are talking about. So you are not a thief forever is you stole something last year. You committed an act of thieft. You should be punished for the act. Beyond the price you pay for that individual act, the courts don't directly punish you. Now society and even the courts may hold that act against you later, but that is just because experience has shown that many people re-offend. But you are not a 'thief.' You are someone that stole in the past.

This may be just a play on words, but I think it is important to not fall into this little trap.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 16, 2006 Posts: 47

It a good analysis. I'm trying to think of an analogy: Maybe a student? "Have you ever studied in highschool?" "Yes" "then you are a highschool student"
"Um, no, I'm an architect - and while I am a student of life, it is because I explore things now - I am not a highschool student".

Or, how about these two to turn it around:

1. "Have you ever performed a Christian act?" "Yes" "Then you are a Christian"

2. "Have you ever not sinned?" "Yes" "Then you are not a sinner" Wink


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore