Do Christians continue to sin?

Carrying Sins

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Do you want to get a rise out of Christians? Then, start talking about whether they sin or not after becoming believers.

How would you define sin? One fellow provided this explanation on a Christian forum on the Internet:

Sin, by definition, is “missing the mark.” Paul renders it, falling short of the glory of God. The attaining and maintaining of the Glory of God is our “mark,” our “target.” We have been given God’s glory (John 17:22) and we are to reveal that glory to the world. (Mat 5:16) When we fail to do so by acting contrary to God’s will, we fall short of our goal of revealing God glory by our obedience to God’s good and perfect will for us. That is what sin is.
When we ask someone for forgiveness we must confess our sin against him. To be sincere that request must include sorrow for our sin and repentance. Those conditions fulfill God’s requirements for forgiveness: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jo 1:9) And if we forgive, God forgives. (Mat 6:14).[1]

How would you respond if a person asked you: Do you sin and is it on purpose? Can this sinning involve breaking the rule of those over you, including speeding – as an example?[2] This person backed up this statement by applying Romans 13:2 (KJV), ‘Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation’ (emphasis in his original).

Then came the cynicism:

Oh no??? What would happen if you were speeding, had an accident and died prior to confessing? Worse yet, have you ever got angry at others when driving; maybe even your brethren in Christ without knowing them, and ended up breaking the greatest of Jesus’ commands of all; Rom 13:9 . . .it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.[3]

Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, provided this definition: ‘Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature’ (Grudem 1999:210, emphasis in original). However, this is a rather restricted definition when the diversity of NT words for sin is considered.

Many Greek New Testament words for sin

(Richard C Trench, Anglican Archbishop of Dublin, courtesy Wikipedia) Trench was Archbishop from 1864-1884 and he died in 1886 at the age of 78.

Richard C Trench in his Synonyms of the New Testament (Trench 1880) lists 8 different words used for sin.[4] They include these meanings:

agnoema signifies error, i.e. ignorance of what one should have known. The only incidence of this word in the NT is in Heb 9:7. However, the related word, agnoia is in Ps 25:7 and the verb, agnoein, is in Ps 25:7 and Heb 5:2. ‘Sin is designated as an agnoema when it is desired to make excuses for it, as far as there is room for such, to regard it in the mildest possible light (see Acts 3:17)’. Trench observes that ‘there is always an element of ignorance in every human transgression…. Compare the words of the Lord, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), and those of St. Paul, “I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, ‘No sin of man, except perhaps the sin against the Holy Ghost, which may for this reason be irremissible [unpardonable] (Matt 12:32), is committed with a full and perfect recognition of the evil which is chosen as evil, and of the good which is forsaken as good’ (Trench 1880:247).

anomia or paranomia and anomema mean unrighteousness or lawlessness; anomema is not in the NT but is in 1 Sam 25:28 and Ezek 16:49 in the LXX. Trench’s assessment was that

we have generally translated anomia “iniquity” (Matt 7:23; Rom 6:19; Heb 10:17); once “unrighteousness” (2 Cor 6:14), and once “transgression of the law” (1 Jn 3:4). It is set over against dikaiosune (2 Cor 6:14)[5]…; joined with anarchia … with antilogia (Ps 55:10). While anomos is once at least in the N.T. used negatively of a person without law, or to whom a law has not been given (1 Cor 9:21)…; though elsewhere of the greatest enemy of all law, the Man of Sin, the lawless one (2 Thess 2:8); anomia is never there the condition of one living without law but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law: and so, of course, paranomia, found only at 2 Pet 2:16; cf. Prov 10:29, and with paranomein, Acts 23:3. It will follow that where there is no law (Rom 5:13), there may be hamartia, adikia [i.e. injustice, unrighteousness] but not anomia, being as Oecumenius defines it “the error against the adopted law”[6] or as Fritzsche stated, “the contempt for the law or the permissiveness of morals by which the law is violated.”[7] Thus the Gentiles, not having a law (Rom 2:14) might be charged with sin; but they, sinning without law (anomos = chwris nomou, Rom 2:12; 3:21), could not be charged with anomia. It is true, indeed, that, behind that law of Moses, which they never had is another law, the original law and revelation of the righteousness of God that is written on the hearts of all (Rom 2:14-15); and, as this in no human heart is obliterated quite, all sin, even that of the darkest and most ignorant savage, must still in a secondary sense remain as anomia, a violation of this older, though partially obscured, law (Trench 1880:243-244).

hamartia or hamartema, which means missing of a mark or aim, is the meaning most frequently used to describe sin. Examples of the use of hamartia include (this is not an extensive list) Jn 8:21; Rom 3:9; 5:12; 6:2, 6; 7:7; 8:2-3; 2 Cor 5:21; Jas 1:15; etc. Hamartema occurs only in Mark 3:28; 4:12; Rom 3:25; 1 Cor 6:18. This word is never used as meaning ‘sinfulness, or as the act of sinning, but only sin contemplated in its separate outcomings and deeds of disobedience to a divine law’. The difference between hamartia and hamartema is that hamartia ‘is sin in the abstract as well as the concrete’ (Trench 1880:241).

hettema refers to failure – reducing what should have been provided in full. It does not occur in Classical Greek, appears once in the LXX at Isa 31:8 and is only used twice in the NT at Rom 11:12 and 1 Cor 6:7, having ‘an ethical sense’ in the latter Scripture, meaning ‘coming short of duty, a fault’ (Trench 1880:248).

parabasis means transgressing of a line. ‘There must be something to transgress, before there can be a transgression…. With law came for the first time the possibility of the transgression of the law’ (Rom 4:15). ‘In the constant language of St. Paul this parabasis, as the transgression of a commandment distinctly given, is more serious than hamartia (Rom 2:23; 1 Tim 2:14; cf. Heb 2:2; 9:15). See also the use of both hamartia and parabasis in Rom 5:14 (Trench 1880:244-245).

parakoe refers to disobeying a voice. It appears 3 times in the NT at Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 10:6; Heb 2:2, and this noun is never in the LXX. However, the verb, parakouw (I refuse to hear) is used in Matt 18:17 and also in Esth 3:3, 8 and Isa 65:12. ‘Parakoe is in its strictest sense a failing to hear, or a hearing amiss; the notion of active disobedience, which follows on this inattentive or careless hearing, being superinduced upon the word; or, it may be, the sin being regarded as already committed in the failing to listen when God is speaking’ (Trench 1880:242-243).

paraptwma denotes trespass or fault – falling where someone should have stood upright. Paraptwma occurs only in later Greek and then rarely. Both paraptwma and hamartia are found together in Eph 2:1 which speaks of being ‘dead in the trespasses and the sins’. ‘The former are sins suggested to the mind and partially entertained and welcomed there, and the latter the same embodied in actual deeds’ (Trench 1880:245-246). However,

paraptwma is sometimes used when it is intended to designate sins that are not of the deepest dye [of the most extreme] and the worst enormity. One may trace this very clearly in Gal 6:1, our Translators [KJV] no doubt meaning to indicate as much when they rendered it by “fault,” and not obscurely, as it seems to me in Rom 5:15, 17, 18. Paraptwma is used in the same way, as an error, a mistake in judgment, a blunder, by Polybius (9.10.6) (Trench 1880:246).

The milder form of paraptwma is not always associated with its use. It is a mortal sin (Ezek 18:26) and in Heb 6:6, the parapesein [parapiptw] has an emphasis similar to that of other words for ‘sin’ in Heb 10:26 (‘sinning deliberately’) and Heb 3:12 (‘to fall away from the living God’). ‘In the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in which he distinctly calls it paraptwma, when a man, having reached an acknowledged pitch of godliness and virtue, falls back from, and out of this; “he was lifted up to the height of heaven, and is fallen down to the deep of hell’ (Trench 1880:246-247).

plemmeleia refers to a discord in the harmonies of God’s universe. This word occurs frequently in the LXX (see Lev 5:15; Num 18:9) but it doesn’t occur in the NT. It is found in Greek church fathers such as Clement of Rome (First Clement 41). ‘It is properly a discord or disharmony’ (Trench 1880:248-249).

The born again Christians don’t sin??

Then came the double whammy[8] when the person said, ‘I read in 1 Jn 5:18 (KJV), “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God (Jesus) keepeth himself (Me and you), and that wicked one (Satan) toucheth him not”.[9]

Is this true or not? I have not met a Christian who affirms that he/she does not sin. How can the content of 1 John 5:18 be true when it doesn’t match the reality of Christian behaviour? What is causing a person to promote the KJV translation of 1 Jn 5:18? Does this translation convey accurately what that verse states in the Greek language?

If we confess our sins….

How do you think the person accused would respond? He countered:

And I read, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1Jo 1:8) and: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1Jo 1:9)

Do you know someone or have you heard of someone who ever lived other than Jesus who was without sin?[10]

How would you respond to this kind of expose? It did not go down very well with the person claiming those who are born of God don’t sin.[11] His claim was that this response did not answer his question because the person had said, ‘We fall short of our goal of revealing God (sic) glory by our obedience to God’s good and perfect will for us. That is what sin is’. He posed the question: ‘Are you in fact saying you fall short of God’s will for you because you sin on purpose? Maybe my question should have been; why would you want to do that?’ Then he cherry picked two verses in the KJV:

1 Jn 3:6 (KJV), ‘Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him’. Then he had the audacity to ask: ‘Are we reading of someone besides us here?’ That’s a way of avoiding the issue. What does 1 Jn 3:6 mean? The NIV of 1 Jn 3:6 accurately translates the tenses in the Greek, ‘No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him’. The KJV is a bad translation that misses the nuance of the Greek present tense.

1Jn 5:18 (KJV) ‘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’. Again, the NIV accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek present tense, ‘We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them’. This person continued:

Are we not born of God? Does our Father somehow see us in Christ and His sacrifice covering our nakedness as He saw Adam after providing the blood offering for him?

Then once again, would you go to hell for unrepentant sin if you died for speeding before you confessed for doing so? Thanks, and brother I do hope you realize I’m messing with you; I sure don’t believe this for me. I believe we are kept by God, and sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. (Eph 4:30).[12]

Believers who continuously sin

I jumped in at this point.[13] Here there is a link to an Interlinear Greek-English translation of 1 John 5:18. The important thing to note is that hamartanei is present tense, singular number, indicative mood. Present tense has the meaning of continuous or continual action. So it means that all of those who are born again of God will not live a life of continual sin. It does not mean they will not commit acts of sin from time to time. If that happens, they seek forgiveness from God (1 John 1:9) and, where necessary, from the person against whom they committed the sin (Col 3:13).

The person asked a valid question: ‘Why would anyone want to sin in the first place; would you agree that one sins on purpose, and what is the consequence of a sin not confessed?’[14] My response was[15] that our sinful nature has not been eradicated. We still have it.

Rom 6:18 (ESV) states, ‘and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness’. HOWEVER, there is our continuing battle, ‘Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me’ (Rom 7:20 ESV).
Something powerful is still at work in the believer that leads to the committing of sin. It is called the sin nature or original sin. While admitting that Adam’s sin was the original sin of the human race, evangelical theologian Henry Thiessen stated that

it still does not show how the sinful disposition found a place in Adam’s nature. We can be sure that God did not put motives before man that led him to sin. That would make God responsible and absolve man from guilt. Nor did God remove from him His sustaining grace, in which case He would likewise bear the responsibility. Nor is it sufficient to say that the power of choice with which God had endowed Adam was bound to lead to this result, for as [Augustus] Strong says, ‘The mere power of choice does not explain the fact of an unholy choice’[16]…. We cannot tell how the first unholy emotion arose in the soul of a holy being, but we know the fact that it did. The only satisfactory explanation is that man fell by a free act of revolt from God (Thiessen 1949:247-248).

All sin entered the world as a result of this disobedient action by Adam and Eve.

How do you think this person would respond to some of that information?

But we are more than over-comers

This was glib Christianese.[17] His comeback was that in spite of the carnal nature, Christians are more than over comers or conquerors in Christ and in spite of what Paul stated in Romans 7, he went on to proclaim that there ‘is NO condemnation’, using these Scriptures.

Rom 8:35, ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?’
Rom 8:36, ‘As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter’.
Rom 8:37, ‘Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us’.
I bring this forth at different times, and what do you think of Moses who committed a sin unto death as it were (Deut 32:50) (Num 20:12) for not believing God. Is he in hell? Not quite, but he was denied certain things he could have had. I contend that it is God keeping us, and not our faithfulness. Our purpose in this is to attain into being a joint-heir with Christ as His bride.[18]

How does one reply to moving past Romans 7 and onto the content of Romans 8? I replied:[19] Romans 8 does not negate the influence of this: ‘Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me’ (Rom 7:20 ESV) is still part of living and growing as a Christian.
As for Moses, that was for a particular time and person in the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Christians are under a New Covenant. According to Heb 8:8-13 (ESV), we know:

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbour
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’,
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful towards their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.?

I do not know why you are harking back to Deut 32:50 (KJV ) and Num 20:12 (KJV) when that arrangement is now obsolete. It has vanished and has been replaced by the New Covenant. There is no need for continual sacrifices under the Old Covenant system: Hebrews 10 (ESV) provides the perfect exposition of Christ’s once for all sacrifice that has replaced the repeated sacrifices of the OT. So, Deut 32:50 (KJV) and Num 20:12 (KJV) do not have a place since the passion-resurrection of Christ.

His response was[20] that his view was that the old covenants were of importance, otherwise God would not have written about them:

1 Cor 10:11, ‘Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come’.
The point I attempted to make is that Moses was not condemned even though he suffered loss.

1 Cor 3:15, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire’.
This present covenant shows Jesus entering the Holy place one time and purchased us with eternal redemption in Heb 8:12. Even now we read in Rom 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. To me this shows no condemnation

However, what is the place of the OT covenant in relation to the New Covenant?

Old Covenant shadows

I contended[21] that the Old Covenant provided shadows. The New Covenant provided the substance – Christ:
Colossians 2:16-17 (ESV) affirms this, ‘Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ’.
Heb 8:4-5 (ESV), ‘Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain”’.
Heb 8:10 (ESV) explains the fulfillment of the ‘shadow’:
‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people’.

Then there was this twist:

Christians seen as sinless

What?

Then this brother in Christ moved to his own rhetoric:[22]

Would it be correct to say that in Christ we are seen as sinless; our new nature does not sin for we are kept by our Savior. Our carnal nature, or old man walking after the flesh instead of after the Spirit may be guilty of even a sin unto death.
1 Jn 5:18 (KJV again), ‘We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God (This is Jesus keeping us) keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not’.

It was here that I jumped in. In Christ, we are declared righteous forensically. It is a legal standing before God: ‘Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom 5:1 ESV).[23] Of his repeated use of the KJV on 1 John 5:18, I stated: I do not know why you continue to use this bad KJV translation. I have exegeted this verse for you (see above and below) to demonstrate that the meaning is as in the NIV where ‘sinneth not’ uses the verb which means continuous or continual action, ‘We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them’ (1 Jn 5:18 NIV). That’s the meaning of the Greek, which is contrary to the KJV translation.

His rejoinder was, ‘And so you think, and/or know that you don’t continue to sin. How does that agree with 1 Jn 1:8 (KJV)? “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’. You state that you don’t commit continuous sin; is this what some call sins of commission? How does someone that is born of God not continue to sin while sinning?’[24]

Christians not engaged in continuous sin

(courtesy ChristArt)

Let’s note the difference between continuous and continual in English. According to Oxford Dictionaries, ‘continuous’ means ‘forming an unbroken whole; without interruption (2015. S v continuous) and ‘continual’ means ‘forming a sequence in which the same action or event is repeated frequently’ (2015. S v continual).

Now what does the NT Greek present tense mean? John Wenham’s introductory Greek text states that ‘the Greek Present corresponds more closely in meaning to the English Present Continuous than to the Present Simple’ (Wenham 1965:29, emphasis in original).

Advanced NT Greek text by Dana & Mantey states that ‘the important element of tense in Greek is kind of action. This is its fundamental significance’ and ‘action as continuous’ and ‘here the principal tense is the present, which in the indicative [mood] is used primarily of present time’ (Dana & Mantey 1955:178, emphasis in original). Three dimensions of the present tense are given by Dana & Mantey:

The Progressive Present that is earest the root idea of the present. It signifies action in progress, or state in persistence, and may be represented by the graph of a continuous line (without a break in it of any kind. Examples include Matt 25:8, ‘Our lamps are going out’. See also Matt 8:25 and Jn 5:7 (Dana & Mantey 1955:182)

The Customary (Gnomic) Present in which the tense denotes ‘that which habitually occurs, or may be reasonably expected to occur’. An example would be Heb 3:4, ‘For every house is built by someone’ (ESV). See also Matt 7:17; 2 Cor 9:7 (Dana & Mantey 1955:183).

The Iterative Present which describes ‘that which recurs at successive intervals, or is conceived of in successive periods. It is sometimes called the present of repeated action’. Such an example is 1 Cor 15:31, ‘I die every day’. Other examples include Rom 8:36 and 1 Cor 11:21.

Therefore, the Greek present tense[25] means continuous or continual action. First John 5:18 (NIV) deals with the fact that Christians do not live a lifestyle of sin.
So what does 1 John 1:8 (ESV) mean? ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 Jn 1:8 ESV).

‘If we say’. In Greek this is a third class condition with ean. ‘Say’ is aorist tense, referring to point action; it happened.
‘We have no sin’ = hamartian ouk echomen, i.e. sin not have. ‘That is, we have no personal guilt, no principle of sin. This some of the Gnostics held, since matter was evil and the soul was not contaminated by the sinful flesh, a thin delusion with which so-called Christian scientists delude themselves today’ (Robertson 1933:208).
‘We deceive ourselves’. Deceive is present tense active voice, meaning ‘to lead astray’ as continual action.
If this happens, ‘the truth is not in us’. Again continual action of the present tense.

R C H Lenski, in his commentary, wrote of this verse:

Verse 8 speaks of sin. The claim that we do not have “sin” means “such a thing as sin,” and not having such a thing means that nothing of the nature of sin clings to us to stain us as filth or to blacken us as guilt so that we need cleansing or removal. It is debated as to whether John includes original sin or speaks only of actual sin as though actual sins were ever committed by us except as outgrowths of the depravity that is inherent in us (Lenski 1966:391)

Therefore, this verse is not teaching what this fellow was saying. It is providing this practical instruction: If we say (once for all action) that we do not have a sinful nature (a sin principle), as the Gnostics were teaching (John’s epistles are especially addressed to correct the errors of Gnosticism), then we are continually deceiving ourselves – leading ourselves astray. If that kind of denial of the sinful nature takes place, the truth of the nature of human beings cannot be in us continually.

Conclusion

To answer the question posed as the title of this article, ‘Do Christians continue to sin?’ the reply, based on Scripture, is that Christians will sin because their sinful nature has not been eradicated. However, they will not keep on sinning as a lifestyle.

They have the power of God by his Holy Spirit within them to be able to control the actions of sinful behaviour. If they sin, they confess their sins to God and he forgives (1 John 1:9). Jesus said we ought to pray, ‘Forgive us our sins [or debts], as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us’ (Matt 6:12 ISV). There is a need to confess to those we have sinned against: ‘Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective’ (James 5:16 ISV).

Do you remember the one who said, ‘Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly’ (source)?

See my other articles:

How could very good human beings commit the first sin?

Sinful nature or sinful environment?

What is the nature of death according to the Bible?

Works consulted

Dana, H E & Mantey, J R 1927/1955, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto, Canada: The Macmillan Company.

Grudem, W 1999. Bible doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. J Purswell (ed). Leister, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.[26]

Robertson, A T 1933. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The General Epistles and The Revelation of John, vol 6. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press. Also available online HERE.

Strong, A 1907. Systematic theology, 3 vols in 1. Philadelphia: The Judson Press.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Trench, R C 1880. Synonyms of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.[27] Trench’s Synonyms(1880. S v Sin), is available at StudyLight.org, http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/tsn/view.cgi?n=84 (Accessed 15 March 2015).

Wenham, J W 1965. The Elements of New Testament Greek (based on the earlier work by H P V Nunn). London / New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

Notes

[1] Christian Forums.net, ‘Is God a “TRINITY”? Jim Parker#96. 12 December 2015. Available at: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/is-god-a-trinity.62213/page-5 (Accessed 15 December 2015).

[2] Ibid., Eugene#105.

[3] Ibid., his emphasis.

[4] This entire section of various words, meanings and references to sin is based on Trench (1880:239-249). This publication is now in the public domain.

[5] The Greek dikaiosune means righteousness.

[6] This is a translation of the Greek by StudyLight.org.

[7] This is a translation of the Latin by StudyLight.org.

[8] A double whammy is ‘a situation that is bad in two different ways: a situation in which two bad conditions exist at the same time or two bad things happen one after the other’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2015. S v double whammy).

[9] Christian Forums.net, ibid., Eugene#105.

[10] Ibid., Jim Parker#106.

[11] Ibid., Eugene#107.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., OzSpen#108.

[14] Ibid., Eugene#110.

[15] Ibid., OzSpen#111.

[16] This citation is from Strong (1907:585).

[17] Wikipedia defines Christianese (or Christianeze) as referring, ‘to the contained terms and jargon used within many of the branches and denominations of Christianity as a functional system of religious terminology’ (Wikipedia 2015. S v Christianese). Take a read of a more detailed definition of Christianese by Tim at Dictionary of Christianese (2012. S v Definition of Christianese).

[18] Christian Forums.net. ibid., Eugene#112.

[19] Ibid., OzSpen#114.

[20] Ibid., Eugene#115.

[21] Ibid., OzSpen#116.

[22] Ibid., Eugene#123.

[23] Ibid., OzSpen#124.

[24] Ibid., Eugene#126.

[25] This section is based on ibid., OzSpen#127.

[26] This is a limited edition printing in 2001, licensed by special permission from Augsburg Fortress of the 1966 edition by Augsburg Publishing House.

[27] This is the eighth printing in May 1975 and is a reproduction of the ninth edition published in London in 1880.

Truth Challenge