Thread: Go and sin no more...

From Michael Brown's FB page:

Or just "neither do I condemn what you are doing".

According to the law of Moses, she would stand condemned based on her past actions even if she had never sinned again. Jesus undoes that condemnation so that she is free to live free of sin without her past catching up to her. That is the real meaning of his statement.

Really, the "American Popular Version" isn't "I have absolutely nothing else to say." No, that version, using "grace" as a code word, really says "Hey, embrace your sin. You're under grace, not law. Rock on!"

Originally Posted by Bookman

Really, the "American Popular Version" isn't "I have absolutely nothing else to say." No, that version, using "grace" as a code word, really says "Hey, embrace your sin. You're under grace, not law. Rock on!"

Good point

Isn't there a basic meaning here that at SOME level, she could choose NOT to sin? She was an unregenerated person.

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Isn't there a basic meaning here that at SOME level, she could choose NOT to sin? She was an unregenerated person.

According to Calvinism it would depend on whether or not Jesus was talking to an elect or a nonelect person.

Just trying to come at this from an open angle, not necessarily a pre-set agenda or camp to defend or attack, per se. So I am understanding you say an elect person (per Calvin) would already be predisposed to receive and act on the "sin no more" command, even though they had not been regenerated yet.

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Just trying to come at this from an open angle, not necessarily a pre-set agenda or camp to defend or attack, per se. So I am understanding you say an elect person (per Calvin) would already be predisposed to receive and act on the "sin no more" command, even though they had not been regenerated yet.

No, not at all. But if Jesus speaks like that to an elect person then a Calvinist is likely to assume that the person is or is being regenerated. She could possibly think about it for a while then be regenerated later but the statement is very direct and implies a command to do so right now. If it is a nonelect person then the person will do otherwise and this merely demonstrates that the person is being passed by even though a general command to all people to repent was issued, even specifically to this person.
The point is that Jesus merely appears to interact socially with the person in a meaningful way and the real determining factor involved in what happens next (or at least eventually) is the hidden sovereign ordination of the person as elect or non-elect.
Is the above Biblical to any degree ? Not at all.

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Just trying to come at this from an open angle, not necessarily a pre-set agenda or camp to defend or attack, per se. So I am understanding you say an elect person (per Calvin) would already be predisposed to receive and act on the "sin no more" command, even though they had not been regenerated yet.

Not sure we can go there...the context was an act...we know that sin starts in the heart..not the action..but you are right that OT people had a form of righteousness and some because they loved God..David for instance...he chose to seek God for guidance, to love and trust and honor God in his unregenerated state..

Originally Posted by Quest

Not sure we can go there...the context was an act...we know that sin starts in the heart..not the action..but you are right that OT people had a form of righteousness and some because they loved God..David for instance...he chose to seek God for guidance, to love and trust and honor God in his unregenerated state..

I read a really good article years ago..posted it then..but since have lost it..it was a Calvinist renouncing the idea that OT saints were born again...sure wish I could find it again..