The righteous Lord Jesus has not, does not, nor ever shall sin and trespass with His own body, nor members

[Hopeful 2]

That's what I've been doing. The body of Christ was never viewed in any honest sense as sinful.

I suppose you refer to Jesus' actual vessel...right ?

It means,
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. Jn.15:22 KJV
They would have no sin...if Jesus hadn't spoken to them?

The leaders grew intent on murdering Jesus for His teachings, under the guise of Law keeping.

Ask yourself why.

Supra.

 

[journeyman]

I suppose you refer to Jesus' actual vessel...right ?

Yes. His Temple.

The leaders grew intent on murdering Jesus for His teachings, under the guise of Law keeping.

So we agree they violated the law by having Him crucified. Right?

 

[Free]

I disagree with YOUR condemnation of Pater.

Peter elected to condescend to the visiting Jews.

Where is the condescending? Paul clearly says Peter's actions were because he feared "the circumcision party." That is not electing to condescend.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)

So, you must believe Paul sinned then, correct? If Peter didn't sin, then Paul was wrong, since he certainly believed that Peter sinned and called him out publicly for it. Of course, we know that hypocrisy is sin, which is why Peter "stood condemned." If there was no sin, why does Paul say Peter "stood condemned"? Being "led astray" strongly suggests the sinfulness of their actions; it's a negative phrase. And behaving in a way that is "not in step with the truth of the gospel" certainly can only mean they acted untruthfully, which is sin.

Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—
Gal 2:5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. (ESV)

What Peter did resulted, at least temporarily, in the opposite; it undermined the truth of the gospel. It was a denial of the freedom believers have in Christ and made the Gentiles second-class citizens, both undoing the unity that Christ's death brought and adding works to justification.

Didn't Paul do the same thing when he visited Jerusalem and shave his hair, in Acts 21 ?

What Paul did was different. It was strictly dealing with Jewish believers and their beliefs regarding the law and their customs. Those were rumors which, it would seem, the leaders in Jerusalem worried would cause trouble. And, they were right, since even though Paul did as they asked, to dispel those rumors, it wasn't enough and Paul was eventually arrested.

Neither sinned, but as Paul made it clear that Peter missed a chance to show the equality of Gentiles and Jews.

That's an interesting twist on what is stated in the passage. Peter was making it look like he still followed the Law, instead of the freedom that he had in Christ. He was fearful and acted hypocritically, which is sin, and led others astray in that hypocrisy. That's what the passage states.

1 John 1:8, along with verses 6 and 10, are addressing those who walk in darkness-sin.
1 John 1:5, 7, and 9, address those who are, or are about to start their walk, in the light-God.
1 John 2:3-6 makes it clear just who is walking in God..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
Those walking in darkness-sin cannot say they "know Him"

I agree. Those who walk in darkness are those who live in habitual, unrepentant sin that characterizes who they are. But, that isn't believers, although believers do struggle with sin. John states in 1 John 1:9 that "if we keep on confessing our sins," God will forgive us. The plural "sins" matters because it is to be a continual confessing of sins to God and one another. That makes no sense for unbelievers.

John cannot be talking about unbelievers, since the fact that they walk in darkness, in unconfessed, habitual sin goes without saying. That would be a pointless point to make. He is writing to believers and those who profess to be believers but say they are without sin. That is why we see the continual use of "we," "our," and "us" throughout the first chapter and into chapter 2 and the rest of the book. It's also why John says to pray for a "brother committing a sin not leading to death" (1 John 5:16).

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes. His Temple.

So we agree they violated the law by having Him crucified. Right?

Yes.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Where is the condescending? Paul clearly says Peter's actions were because he feared "the circumcision party." That is not electing to condescend.

The condescension was Peter's abstention of eating with Gentiles, for the sake of the visiting Jews.

So, you must believe Paul sinned then, correct? If Peter didn't sin, then Paul was wrong, since he certainly believed that Peter sinned and called him out publicly for it. Of course, we know that hypocrisy is sin, which is why Peter "stood condemned." If there was no sin, why does Paul say Peter "stood condemned"? Being "led astray" strongly suggests the sinfulness of their actions; it's a negative phrase. And behaving in a way that is "not in step with the truth of the gospel" certainly can only mean they acted untruthfully, which is sin.

I don't believe Peter sinned.
Paul was right that Peter shouldn't have pulled away from the Gentiles, but Peter's reasoning to do so was sound.
Paul let Peter know what a chance to illustrate equality between Jew and Gentile, that Peter missed.
I don't call that sin.

What Peter did resulted, at least temporarily, in the opposite; it undermined the truth of the gospel. It was a denial of the freedom believers have in Christ and made the Gentiles second-class citizens, both undoing the unity that Christ's death brought and adding works to justification.

I agree, as Peter unintentionally validated living under the Mosaic Law.
But didn't Paul do the same thing by submitting to the Jews in Jerusalem before he was arrested ?
Why did he go to a useless temple to purify himself ?
Acts 21:23-24..."Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."
Wasn't that condescension to the Law keeping Jew's manner of life ?

What Paul did was different. It was strictly dealing with Jewish believers and their beliefs regarding the law and their customs. Those were rumors which, it would seem, the leaders in Jerusalem worried would cause trouble. And, they were right, since even though Paul did as they asked, to dispel those rumors, it wasn't enough and Paul was eventually arrested.

There is no difference, except location.

That's an interesting twist on what is stated in the passage. Peter was making it look like he still followed the Law, instead of the freedom that he had in Christ. He was fearful and acted hypocritically, which is sin, and led others astray in that hypocrisy. That's what the passage states.

Then Paul too was a sinner.
I don't beleive either were sinners.

I agree. Those who walk in darkness are those who live in habitual, unrepentant sin that characterizes who they are. But, that isn't believers,

I agree.
True repentance would have allowed them to say they had no sin.

although believers do struggle with sin. John states in 1 John 1:9 that "if we keep on confessing our sins," God will forgive us. The plural "sins" matters because it is to be a continual confessing of sins to God and one another. That makes no sense for unbelievers.

You gotta confess before you are baptized for the remission of past sins.
That is the first step to walking in God !

John cannot be talking about unbelievers, since the fact that they walk in darkness, in unconfessed, habitual sin goes without saying. That would be a pointless point to make. He is writing to believers and those who profess to be believers but say they are without sin. That is why we see the continual use of "we," "our," and "us" throughout the first chapter and into chapter 2 and the rest of the book. It's also why John says to pray for a "brother committing a sin not leading to death" (1 John 5:16).

John is writing to believers, but about both believers who know and walk in God and sinners who don't know God and walk in sin.
How do we know if we "know God" ?
"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3-6)

Only the repentant walk in God.
Everybody else is unrepentant.

 

[journeyman]

Yes.

Good. Now we can see that our Father will forgive sinners deapite what was done to His Son, not because of it.

 

[Free]

The condescension was Peter's abstention of eating with Gentiles, for the sake of the visiting Jews.

But, again, it clearly wasn't merely a condescension. Firstly, it was done out of fear. That is clearly stated. Second, it cannot be since condescension is to move towards the inferior. But, this is the opposite--he was showing the Greeks that the Jews were superior for holding to the law and Jewish customs.

I don't believe Peter sinned.

Of course, because your theology will not allow you to see the obvious, but must reinterpret the passage to mean something other than it does.

Paul was right that Peter shouldn't have pulled away from the Gentiles, but Peter's reasoning to do so was sound.
Paul let Peter know what a chance to illustrate equality between Jew and Gentile, that Peter missed.
I don't call that sin.

It is clearly stated to be hypocrisy, which is sin, and it was done out of fear. This is why Paul says that Peter "stood condemned." Peter completely undermined the gospel both in damaging the unity and equality between Jews and Gentiles, and in approving of adding works to salvation. Others were "led astray by their hypocrisy." This was clearly a sinful act on the part of Peter.

I agree, as Peter unintentionally validated living under the Mosaic Law.

There was nothing unintentional about it.

But didn't Paul do the same thing by submitting to the Jews in Jerusalem before he was arrested ?
Why did he go to a useless temple to purify himself ?
Acts 21:23-24..."Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."
Wasn't that condescension to the Law keeping Jew's manner of life ?

There is no difference, except location.

There is a significant difference having nothing to do with location, which I have pointed out.

Then Paul too was a sinner.
I don't beleive either were sinners.

Of course, they were both sinners, but not Paul in either of these two particular cases.

True repentance would have allowed them to say they had no sin.

No. That is the serious error John addresses in 1 John 1:8, 10. A person who claims to be without sin has not truly repented.

You gotta confess before you are baptized for the remission of past sins.
That is the first step to walking in God !

Of course, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. John's statement in 1 John 1:9 is that believers are to continually confess their sins (plural) for forgiveness.

John is writing to believers, but about both believers who know and walk in God and sinners who don't know God and walk in sin.
How do we know if we "know God" ?
"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3-6)

John is not writing about unbelievers. That doesn't make sense since, as I pointed out, it would all go without saying. John is writing to believers, about believers and those who think they are believers but deny their sin.

Only the repentant walk in God.

Everybody else is unrepentant.

Of course, no one is saying otherwise. But the repentant who walk in God still struggle with sin. Anyone who believes they walk in God and says they are without sin are self-deceived, don't have the truth, make God a liar, and don't have his word in them, according to 1 John 1:8, 10.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Good. Now we can see that our Father will forgive sinners deapite what was done to His Son, not because of it.

Isn't it really both ?
God could have forgiven the murderers of Jesus by the OT's days of atonement, right up until Christ did away with the Law.
Now, in the NT, God forgives because we can repent of sin and be baptized into Christ and into His death and burial.
He forgives us now, because Jesus died for our sins.

 

[Hopeful 2]

But, again, it clearly wasn't merely a condescension.

As long as you do recognize that Peter was making allowances for the visiting Jews, not much else matters.

Firstly, it was done out of fear. That is clearly stated.

I'm sure it was.
And the motivation for that fear was...what ?
Being viewed as a Law breaker !
The visitors were all Law keepers !

Second, it cannot be since condescension is to move towards the inferior. But, this is the opposite--he was showing the Greeks that the Jews were superior for holding to the law and Jewish customs.

Peter lowered himself to the POV of the visitors.
That is condescension.

Of course, because your theology will not allow you to see the obvious, but must reinterpret the passage to mean something other than it does.

Is that because your theology must continue to embrace sinfulness ?

It is clearly stated to be hypocrisy, which is sin, and it was done out of fear. This is why Paul says that Peter "stood condemned." Peter completely undermined the gospel both in damaging the unity and equality between Jews and Gentiles, and in approving of adding works to salvation. Others were "led astray by their hypocrisy." This was clearly a sinful act on the part of Peter.

I don't see the word hypocrisy in Gal. 2 of the KJV of the bible.
What later version are you using that condemns apostles ?
Peter missed an opportunity, for sure, but declaring what Paul had already taught to the visitors would have made the visitors feel...how ?
It's just too bad we didn't get to read of what happened next.
The visitors may have showed up and asked if they might try some of the Galatians ham !
Who knows ?
But I can't condemn Peter for missing an opportunity, when Peter had been living with the same POV as the visitors for so long.
Do you also think Peter would have been sinning if he went back to Jerusalem and did not order bacon with his eggs ?

There was nothing unintentional about it.

I'm not as certain as you seem to be.

There is a significant difference having nothing to do with location, which I have pointed out.

Do Gentiles had to bend to Judaism, only when they were in Judea?
How hypocritical would that be ?

Of course, they were both sinners, but not Paul in either of these two particular cases.

As you beleive everybody is a sinner, your answer only surprised me for a second.
You would be right too, if Jesus hadn't allowed us to put off the old man, (Eph 4:22), and put Jesus on. (Gal 3:27)
But thankfully, He did allow it.

No. That is the serious error John addresses in 1 John 1:8, 10. A person who claims to be without sin has not truly repented.

It is true, if one is still walking in sin-darkness.
But it isn't true for those walking in God, in Whom is no darkness.

Of course, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. John's statement in 1 John 1:9 is that believers are to continually confess their sins (plural) for forgiveness.

Adding "continually" to your interpretation, only serves to accommodate continued sinning.
I don't see that as God's POV.

John is not writing about unbelievers. That doesn't make sense since, as I pointed out, it would all go without saying. John is writing to believers, about believers and those who think they are believers but deny their sin.

Believers don't walk on darkness, so he IS addressing the conduct of unbelievers.
Those walking in darkness don't know God, and their conduct illustrates that.
John tells us how we can determine who know God, in 1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
According to your POV, there isn't anyone who "knows God".

Of course, no one is saying otherwise.

You are saying otherwise, and are about to again...

But the repentant who walk in God still struggle with sin. Anyone who believes they walk in God and says they are without sin are self-deceived, don't have the truth, make God a liar, and don't have his word in them, according to 1 John 1:8, 10.

See ?
Your POV incorporates sin into God.
Sinners cannot walk in God, who is the light.
They all walk in darkness and know not God.
They cannot even say they have fellowship with God, much less that they have no sin !

 

[journeyman]

Isn't it really both ?
God could have forgiven the murderers of Jesus by the OT's days of atonement, right up until Christ did away with the Law.

It can't be both, because God doesn't do what He Himself despises. OT and NT atonement are accomplished the same way by faith in His sacrifice,

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them...Heb4:2 KJV

Now, in the NT, God forgives because we can repent of sin and be baptized into Christ and into His death and burial.
He forgives us now, because Jesus died for our sins.

He forgives now because He turned the other cheek instead of knocking the heads off sinners.

Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?
Mt.26:53 NET

He "did away with the law" simply by not seeking justice by it,

- If you, LORD, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? Psa.130:3 NIV

And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psa.143:2 KJV

 

[Hopeful 2]

It can't be both, because God doesn't do what He Himself despises. OT and NT atonement are accomplished the same way by faith in His sacrifice,

You are saying then, that God despises forgiving.
I don't agree, as in the OT, there were ways of atonement, and in the NT the blood of Christ washes away our sins at baptism.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them...Heb4:2 KJV

The verse you cite isn't about forgiveness.
It is about entering into His rest.

He forgives now because He turned the other cheek instead of knocking the heads off sinners.

Didn't Jesus forgive anyone before He was arrested in the garden ?
The adulteress caught in the act comes to mind.
Jesus' turning the other cheek was part of the scenario that set the stage for His forgiveness of anyone whose later repentance from sin is true

Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?
Mt.26:53 NET
He "did away with the law" simply by not seeking justice by it,
- If you, LORD, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? Psa.130:3 NIV
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psa.143:2 KJV

He did away with the Law when it was "nailed to His cross". (Col 2:14)

 

[journeyman]

You are saying then, that God despises forgiving.

No. I said God despises the abuse of His Son,

"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, Mt.21:40-41 NIV

The verse you cite isn't about forgiveness.
It is about entering into His rest.

No. It's about not entering His rest because of unbelief in what He said, which means not being forgiven.

Didn't Jesus forgive anyone before He was arrested in the garden ?
The adulteress caught in the act comes to mind.
Jesus' turning the other cheek was part of the scenario that set the stage for His forgiveness of anyone whose later repentance from sin is true

Yes because they desired forgiveness. The adulterer was told to stop living in sin.

He did away with the Law when it was "nailed to His cross". (Col 2:14)

It's obvious Jesus put "ordinances which were against us" to death by not condemning sinner, especially when He had every right to do so and without bringing condemnation on Himself,

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Rom.2:12 KJV

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I agree Jesus will never sin. The thing i believe which is kind of biblical in context is that as Jesus was nailed a cross for the sins of mankind He will hold the marks in His hand of His sacrifice for eternity. I believe if Jesus fully recovered His sacrifice would not hold eternal value. To eternally gain we have to eternally lose something. For us it sin and for Jesus it is the marks in His hands.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No. I said God despises the abuse of His Son,

If you say so...

No. It's about not entering His rest because of unbelief in what He said, which means not being forgiven.

?No, but yes... ?

Yes because they desired forgiveness. The adulterer was told to stop living in sin.

So Jesus did forgive people before His death and resurrection.
Including those who killed Him.

It's obvious Jesus put "ordinances which were against us" to death by not condemning sinner, especially when He had every right to do so and without bringing condemnation on Himself,

That isn't what the Col. verse says.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Rom.2:12 KJV

That is true.
I am sure glad we don't have to sin anymore !

 

[journeyman]

If you say so...

His word says it. It's a shame that so many theologians have portrayed God as a child abuser.

?No, but yes... ?

No. I said salvation (or entering Gods' rest) will never happen without being forgiven. Or will it happen without forgiving others for our Saviors sake.

So Jesus did forgive people before His death and resurrection. Including those who killed Him.

Of course. They had no idea who their real enemies were, or understand how the Messiah was prophesied to defeat them.

That isn't what the Col. verse says.

Not when you isolate it from the rest of scripture.

That is true.

Well, if you're still interpreting Col. the same way then you have a conflict.

I am sure glad we don't have to sin anymore !

Only antichrist says otherwise.

 

[Hopeful 2]

His word says it. It's a shame that so many theologians have portrayed God as a child abuser.

How are you linking that to the death of Jesus ?

No. I said salvation (or entering Gods' rest) will never happen without being forgiven. Nor will it happen without forgiving others for our Saviors sake.

I agree with that.

Of course.

I agree with that too.

They had no idea who their real enemies were, or understand how the Messiah was prophesied to defeat them.

That sounds like a new thread, as I can't link it to your "Of course".

Not when you isolate it from the rest of scripture.

It does say it..."Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"
You've thrown is your "by forgiving sinners", addendum when it doesn't attach.

Well, if you're still interpreting Col. the same way then you have a conflict.

I see no conflict between "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (Rom.2:12) and "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14)

Only antichrist says otherwise.

Aren't you surprised at how many say otherwise ?

 

[journeyman]

How are you linking that to the death of Jesus ?

It's core doctrine in every reformed church or off shoot of reformed theology.world wide.
Our Chief example of what a kind father should be like is not One Who exacts justice for sin (listen this time)...instead of the reason justice will be exacted for sin.

I agree with that.

I agree with that too.

Then interpret the rest of scripture in light of it.

That sounds like a new thread, as I can't link it to your "Of course".

That's because you see the good Father viewing His own Son as sinful and being able to forgive sinners because of it.

I see evil men viewing Jesus as sinful and God being able to forgive even repentant murderers.

You know something Hopeful2? If people tortured and murdered my son I'd want to kill them. Our Father showed them mercy because His Son showed them mercy and the Son is just as our Father is.

It does say it..."Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"
You've thrown is your "by forgiving sinners", addendum when it doesn't attach.

I see no conflict between "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" (Rom.2:12) and "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14)

Aren't you surprised at how many say otherwise ?

The law is nothing with a witness. The law will be present at the judgement seat of Christ the Faithful Witness.
His Spirit in believers is Witness #2,

It is also written in your law (Deu.17:6), that the testimony of two men is true. Jn.18:7 KJV

If I were me I better watch what I say about Him.

 

[Free]

As long as you do recognize that Peter was making allowances for the visiting Jews, not much else matters.

So, what is actually stated doesn’t matter? It doesn’t matter that Paul said he "opposed" Peter, that Peter “stood condemned,” that Peter removed himself from the Greeks out of fear, that Peter acted hypocritically (sin), and led other Jews “astray” by his hypocrisy?

I tend to believe that what is stated actually matters. Your position ignores the entire context of Galatians, which is the false gospel of works of the law being needed for justification.

I'm sure it was.
And the motivation for that fear was...what ?
Being viewed as a Law breaker !
The visitors were all Law keepers !

Exactly. They were Jewish Christian believers that falsely believed works of the law were necessary for justification. But, in Gal 1:6-10 Paul says that is a false gospel and that a person who preaches that false gospel is to be considered accursed.

Peter lowered himself to the POV of the visitors.
That is condescension.

Is that because your theology must continue to embrace sinfulness ?

The heresy of sinful perfection is leading you to misinterpret the clear meaning of the passage. There is simply no way to conclude that Peter didn’t sin here; the language Paul uses is very clear. He went against "the truth of the gospel" and began to imply by his actions that works of the law were necessary for justification.

I don't see the word hypocrisy in Gal. 2 of the KJV of the bible.
What later version are you using that condemns apostles ?

Why do you fallaciously appeal to the KJV, even ignoring the Greek, as though the Bible was written in KJV English? Let’s look at the word Paul uses: sunupokrinomai. It means, “to act hypocritically in concert with,” according to Strong’s. Thayer’s says it means “1) to dissemble with” and “2) to act hypocritically with.”

What does “dissemble” mean? According to Merriam-Webster:

“1 : to hide under a false appearance
2: : to put on the appearance of”

“: to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissemble

So, the ESV says “hypocrisy” because that is what Paul said in the Greek, and the KJV says the very same to thing, just using a different word for it. I strongly recommend you start using lexicons and dictionaries.

Additionally, you seem to be ignoring Paul saying that he “opposed” Peter “to his face, because he stood condemned.” That is strong language; too strong for something that wasn’t sin, which is what hypocrisy is.

Peter missed an opportunity, for sure, but declaring what Paul had already taught to the visitors would have made the visitors feel...how ?

Why does that matter? Supporting a false gospel just to please people is still supporting a false gospel. Paul states in 1:10 that he is not "trying to please man," but rather that he seeks the approval of God.

But I can't condemn Peter for missing an opportunity, when Peter had been living with the same POV as the visitors for so long.

You won't condemn Peter when Paul does. Why is that? Do you know better than Paul? Referring to Peter’s actions as merely a "missed opportunity," is to purposefully downplay the sinfulness of Peter's actions.

Do you also think Peter would have been sinning if he went back to Jerusalem and did not order bacon with his eggs ?

No, but how is that relevant? Again, context matters.

I'm not as certain as you seem to be.

Why not? What about the context should leave you uncertain?

Do Gentiles had to bend to Judaism, only when they were in Judea?
How hypocritical would that be ?

The passage in question, Acts 21:20-26, is speaking of Jews, not Gentiles.

As you beleive everybody is a sinner, your answer only surprised me for a second.
You would be right too, if Jesus hadn't allowed us to put off the old man, (Eph 4:22), and put Jesus on. (Gal 3:27)
But thankfully, He did allow it.

It is true, if one is still walking in sin-darkness.
But it isn't true for those walking in God, in Whom is no darkness.

The NT has a continuous and clear message: believers are saved from the penalty and power of sin, but still struggle with sin and will do so until glorification. We are called to be holy, with the help of the Holy Spirit, but nowhere are we said to be sinlessly perfect, or able to be, prior to glorification.

Adding "continually" to your interpretation, only serves to accommodate continued sinning.

I don't see that as God's POV.

You don’t because you ignore what God actually inspired John to write. That’s entirely on you. John wrote in Greek, not English, and certainly not KJV English.

Believers don't walk on darkness, so he IS addressing the conduct of unbelievers.
Those walking in darkness don't know God, and their conduct illustrates that.
John tells us how we can determine who know God, in 1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
According to your POV, there isn't anyone who "knows God".

There sure is. Your position fallaciously begs the question while ignoring what John actually wrote. You appear to have studied this neither properly nor thoroughly enough.

Again, it makes no sense for John to be addressing known unbelievers, since what he says goes without saying—that they are walking in darkness. It also makes no sense for unbelievers to be continually confessing their sins, either from your point of view or mine. John is addressing those who profess to believers but deny that they sin.

You are saying otherwise, and are about to again...

See ?
Your POV incorporates sin into God.
Sinners cannot walk in God, who is the light.
They all walk in darkness and know not God.
They cannot even say they have fellowship with God, much less that they have no sin !

See above answer.

 

[Free]

His word says it. It's a shame that so many theologians have portrayed God as a child abuser.

It's core doctrine in every reformed church or off shoot of reformed theology.world wide.
Our Chief example of what a kind father should be like is not One Who exacts justice for sin (listen this time)...instead of the reason justice will be exacted for sin.

No, it isn’t a core doctrine of any Reformed church, or any church for that matter. That is a gross misrepresentation and a straw man of penal substitutionary atonement, which is central to the cross and Jesus’s mission, as clearly taught in Scripture.

 

[journeyman]

No, it isn’t a core doctrine of any Reformed church, or any church for that matter. That is a gross misrepresentation and a straw man of penal substitutionary atonement, which is central to the cross and Jesus’s mission, as clearly taught in Scripture.

In the past I cited Gods' law, the prophets, His Son and His apostles all teaching a heart of repentance caused by Christs' sacrifice which brings forgiveness. That heart comes from seeing how the Son of God was terribly sinned against, yet continued loving those who hated Him.

Substitutionary (or penal) atonement is contrary to all scripture. And any father who thinks it just to kill the innocent for the guilty is an evil maniac and that goes 70 x 7 for God.