Sin boldly?

[raumzeitmc2]

You don’t seem to see. There is no justification for schism, and both sides were at fault. And I contend that today, those who wish only to continue the polemics, are just as at fault as they.

I have no desire to continue the polemics, but should I be condemned for merely stating historical facts?

You would certainly insist the reformers (who, quite frankly, had no authority) had every right, indeed, every duty, to speak against what they perceived as errors and injustices.

And am I not to have the same right ?

And it was as much the fault of Pope Leo X and other corrupt members of the Church as it was Luther or any reformer. But that was 500 years ago.

Jon, the reformers used whatever corruption may have been existed then (and I’ve always insisted there was plenty) as a pretext to break from the Church; the true reasons though lie elsewhere. But apart from that, don’t you believe that there was corruption say, in the Church in Augustine’s day? And do you think therefore that Augustine would have been justified in betaking himself off to start another Christian communion - a “pure church” if you will?

You know, I think you are a wonderful Christian, and a good Catholic

You obviously don’t know me very well! But thanks for the very kind and undeserved words my friend!

but I really think our goals here are different. You seem to wish to dwell on the past and lay blame, I wish to look to the future for reconciliation. As a result, I feel like we’re talking past each other.

Well, if it seems I dwell on the past, it’s only because I’m something of an amateur historian, and thus the past is where I live.

But again, it’s not a question of laying blame, but of presenting historical data without prejudice. You feel as though this data is unimportant or somehow irrelevant to the current scene; I disagree. I think it is very relevant and very important.

So I’ll finish by saying that bringing up the hatreds of the past on both sides only does one thing; it stokes the fires of continued hostility.

I’m not hostile. And I not bothered by revelations of sinful clergy or even of sinful Popes. I find the more knowledge of history the better.

But let’s get back to the business of “sin boldly.” Catholics are told they misunderstand what Luther meant. OK. But you never really answered my question earlier. So I’ll ask again (and for the moment let’s just forget what Luther may or may not have meant; I’m just curious as to your opinion. Again:

Can murder, adultery and the like imperil one’s salvation?

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;5125794]I have no desire to continue the polemics, but should I be condemned for merely stating historical facts?

You would certainly insist the reformers (who, quite frankly, had no authority) had every right, indeed, every duty, to speak against what they perceived as errors and injustices.

And am I not to have the same right ?

I didn’t condemn you, and of course you have the right, and I have the right not to participate.

But again, it’s not a question of laying blame, but of presenting historical data without prejudice. You feel as though this data is unimportant or somehow irrelevant to the current scene; I disagree. I think it is very relevant and very important.

No, I feel it has been discussed often enough, and frankly, neither one of us is truly without prejudice.

Can murder, adultery and the like imperil one’s salvation?

Any repeated, and/or unrepented sin by those of us who are regenerate can drive out the HS, and imperil our salvation.

Jon

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I was at my college Alma Mater this past weekend for a performance and it happened to be Open House weekend for the incoming freshmen. All the campus organizations had booths up and such, but one booth that really caught my attention was the Lutheran Club’s booth and members. They wore shirts that proclaimed, “Sin Boldly!” I am very familiar with Lutheran and typical Protestant theology, but this really really really bothered me. I just found it very disturbing that fellow Christians are actually endorsing sin. Terrible. I was just curious as to what you all thought on the matter.

The unfortunate thing is the context Luther made that quote in could hardly be interpreted as endorsing sin (Luther was very clear that we should labor against our passions); but he was prone to very illustrious one liners. Good or bad … who knows? My opinion regarding religion is probably irrelevant (so I won’t offer it … at risk of being bombarded by all sides).

I find the major theological difference between Catholicism and what I would define as “scholastic” protestantism (i.e. reformed, Anglican, Methodist, as contrasted to less scholastic denominational groups, such as Pentecostals, Baptist, evangelicals, etc.) is Catholics tend to have a philosophical explanation for the gaps in scripture, while protestants are less inclined toward this type of sophism (and generally have a more pragmatic worldview, good or bad I don’t know).

Catholics tend to define these philosophical musings as tradition, yet if we are to be intellectually honest there’s hardly a linear nexus between the theology of Paul and Thomas Aquinas. Moreover, most Catholics don’t have the best grasp of theology (as is true with protestants). Most Catholics tend to think god reached his eternal decisions (on who to elect and not to elect) based on foreseen faith and obedience. However, any Catholic who understands your greatest theologians (like Augustine), and declarations by various councils (such as the Council at Carthage) would understand that at its root your religion doesn’t vary significantly from reformed protestantism (at least until the age of theologians like Aquinas, who was far more than a theologian, he was also one of the most skilled philosophers, particularly in the area of metaphysics, in history).

Even in areas like Mariology (an area of significant debate between catholics & protestants) there’s no linear line between the apostolic era and today. There is, however, a long line. For instance, Ireneaus was the first Christian to develop an extensive Mariology. However, even he never claimed his theories were handed down by apostolic revelation (although he was allegedly a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John). When he came up with maxims like Mary is the “New Eve” it was through his exegesis, and not any apostolic tradition or revelation. However, the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the CC to err in such areas, and the CC’s creation of the concept of sacred and ordinary magesterium, has attached them to their contemporary view of Mariology (whether good or bad I don’t know). Is it true that the CC is “the church” and the HS will not allow your organization to err in matters of faith or morals? I think that idea is easily debunked (but of course I think all religion is easily debunked … so I guess I could fairly be described as a heretic by your standards).

These were men who premised their entire philosophy on the basis that god exists; and the events described in both the old and new testaments are largely true (whether in a figurative or literal sense); an assumption I’m willing to dispense with. So I don’t expect you folks to give my opinions very much weight … but at least I can say I had extensive and rigorous training in theology, so I hope you folks will at least try to take off your respective protestant or catholic hats and give my commentary rational consideration.

 

[Thorwald]

I was at my college Alma Mater this past weekend for a performance and it happened to be Open House weekend for the incoming freshmen. All the campus organizations had booths up and such, but one booth that really caught my attention was the Lutheran Club’s booth and members. They wore shirts that proclaimed, “Sin Boldly!” I am very familiar with Lutheran and typical Protestant theology, but this really really really bothered me. I just found it very disturbing that fellow Christians are actually endorsing sin. Terrible. I was just curious as to what you all thought on the matter.

I doubt very much, that any Christian, would wear such a slogan on their shirt. Evidently, these people are not real Christians.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I doubt very much, that any Christian, would wear such a slogan on their shirt. Evidently, these people are not real Christians.

How do you know they weren’t simply college kids trying a tactic that might appeal to other college kids (and college is where we do quite a bit of sinning isn’t it). I’m not even a Christian, and I’m offended that you would question the sincerity of college kids trying to evangelize to others (whether it wasn’t exactly the best idea or not is frankly irrelevant).

Think before you speak … that’s what my mom always said.

 

[Thorwald]

How do you know they weren’t simply college kids trying a tactic that might appeal to other college kids (and college is where we do quite a bit of sinning isn’t it). I’m not even a Christian, and I’m offended that you would question the sincerity of college kids trying to evangelize to others (whether it wasn’t exactly the best idea or not is frankly irrelevant).

Think before you speak … that’s what my mom always said.

Everything you say or do, you will be judged on, against the Word of God. How can this slogan, glorify God? How would Christ have reacted? He taught in ‘awe’ and ‘fear’ of HIs Father and His Father’s righteousness & power. What you personally view as ‘a small thing’, does not mean that God views it the same way. It is not a righteous slogan, and is completely unnecessary. It serves no righteous purpose at all.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Everything you say or do, you will be judged on, against the Word of God. How can this slogan, glorify God? How would Christ have reacted? He taught in ‘awe’ and ‘fear’ of HIs Father and His Father’s righteousness & power. What you personally view as ‘a small thing’, does not mean that God views it the same way. It is not a righteous slogan, and is completely unnecessary. It serves no righteous purpose at all.

I strongly doubt you live up to the standard by which you judge others. I don’t hear much in the way of forgiveness in your language … in fact you sound pretty Pharisaic to me.

How do I think Jesus would have reacted? Didn’t he say whomever is without sin cast the first stone? Didn’t he forgive prostitutes and theives? You my friend sound a lot like a hypocrite …

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Any repeated, and/or unrepented sin by those of us who are regenerate can drive out the HS, and imperil our salvation.

I agree with you, but I’m not so certain Luther would. I mean, what are we to make of this? (or is it possible that Thomas More simply did not understand Luther’s views?)

More’s own catalogue of what he calls “Luther’s conclusions and most shameful opinions”, a catalogue he drew up in his *Dialogue concerning Heresies * in 1529, gives pride of place to the crisis of morals inaugurated by Luther’s teachings:

Item, he [Luther] teacheth that only faith sufficeth to our salvation with our baptism, without good works. He saith also that it is sacrilege to go about to please God with any works and not with faith only.

Item, that no man can do any good work.

Item, that the good and righteous man always sinneth in
doing well.

Item, that no sin can damn any Christian man, but only lack of belief. For he saith that our faith suppeth up [consumes] all our sins how great soever they be.

Item, he teacheth that no man hath no [any] free will, nor can anything do therewith, not though the help of grace be joined thereunto; but that everything that we do, good and bad, we do nothing at all there in ourself, but only suffer God to do all things in us, good and bad, as wax is wrought into an image or a candle by a man’s hand, without
anything doing thereto itself.

Item, he saith that God is as verily the author and cause of the evil will of Judas in betraying Christ, as of the good will of Christ in suffering of His passion (More,Dialogue… IV, 2, in Campbell, 1947:150f)

google.com/search?q=%22no+sin+can+damn+any+Christian+man%22&hl=en&lr=&filter=0

Erasmus, Tyndale, and More, William Edward Campbell, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1949, p. 150.
books.google.com/books?id=xflBAAAAIAAJ&q=%22no+sin+can+damn+any+Christian+man%22&dq=%22no+sin+can+damn+any+Christian+man%22&lr=&pgis=1

And this is just an aside, fwiw.

I once heard a fellow, born Lutheran, who said flat out,

“I can rape and murder all I want; I’m still in!”

By “in,” of course, he meant that he was “in” with the elect, that he was “saved.” No sin was gonna damn him! And yes, I know, he’s not representative of the vast majority of Lutherans (or even of sane people! LOL).

And then there was this “bible student” acquaintance of mine. Nice guy; we had some very interesting conversations. But one day (this was years ago, btw) in the midst of our friendly conversation, he said, very casually,

“God doesn’t give a fu-k what we do!”

Hmmmm…

Where here do people get such far-out notions? I should also mention btw, that both these gentlemen were very critical of the Catholic Church, very anti-catholic! Go figure.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to be polemical or anything; I’m just genuinely interested in getting at the truth.

Thorwald wrote:

I doubt very much, that any Christian, would wear such a slogan on their shirt. Evidently, these people are not real Christians.

Well, ya never know!
oldlutheran.cybrhost.com/oldlutheran/page.php?page=store&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=OL&Product_Code=401&Category_Code=

Just guessing, but I’d say that, as a general rule, it probably wouldn’t be very “cool” to wear such a slogan in the presence of Jesus of Nazareth! LOL!!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

*“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” *

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It’s his style, and this statement is a perfect example. Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Throughout his career, Luther taught that faith was a living faith. Luther stated, “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith." Luther also stated, "Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith.” Luther preached and taught this regularly.

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2089

Luther also wrote these words:

For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”

Martin Luther, when a Monk, would confess mundane sins such as taking an extra large scoop of food in the prior days meal, for hours on end (to the occassional annoyance of his superiors). To say Luther endorsed sin, or was himself an extraordinary sinner … is pure slander (no kinder word can describe this malignment, it’s just slander). In fact Luther didn’t operate in a vacuum. He had substantial support and garnered a high level of respect among his peers (in the Catholic clergy).

 

[holyrosary11]

That’s only part of the quote from Martin Luther–the rest that followed encouraged a yet bolder trust in Christ. The quote is found in this letter to a friend of his. The letter also discusses the Mass, confession, and the priesthood. Yet the only part people seem to remember is the two words “sin boldly”. scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Sin-Boldly.html

I thought about those two words from Luther recently when I heard a sermon encouraging Catholics to live our faith boldly. A better motto for a Christian’s t-shirt is: Live Boldly.

there is so way you can white-wash those words… just no way …

 

[holyrosary11]

I think Luther’s infamous epigram has to do with living by faith–that whatever is NOT motivated by faith is sin.

At least, it seems to me it should be seen in that context.

yeah… it’s about like saying: “stab your children but just have all the more faith - that God will keep them alive and healthy”…

 

[holyrosary11]

Trying to convince some people of the actual intent and context of Luther’s quote is pointless. Some get it and some just use it as their megaphone for criticizing Protestants.

no, just OSAS protestants…

and if something is in need of criticism, why is it wrong to criticize?

I get sick and tired of hearing people criticize the entire Catholic Church, official teachings and all, because of what some pervert priests did (especially when more Protestant churches have this problem than the RCC)…

and besides, most posters here are focusing on Luther, not all protestants…

 

[holyrosary11]

No matter what I do, no matter how good my good works are, there is sin in them, my sin, the sin that causes me, without Christ, to face eternal damnation. But because of Grace, I am called to do those good works, to the best of my ability, no matter how sin-filled I am or they are. If I am called to good works, and act on that calling boldly, I will sin boldly.
But I trust Grace.

I would encourage you to read the below article, then judge what Luther says.
Jon

ntrmin.org/Be%20a%20sinner%20and%20sin%20boldly%20web.htm#a2

you should not be spreading this error. Sin destroys the soul, no matter whether one believes in Christ or not. And Jesus said that those who love Him are those who keep His commandments. This is the most dangerous teaching in Christendom todya… that you can just sin and you will get into Heaven… without any purgation … or even with purgation. Mortal sin keeps one from even entering Purgatory.

Sin makes a soul not even WANT Heaven…

People who believe in Once Saved Always Saved need to read the Bible…

 

[holyrosary11]

*“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” *

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It’s his style, and this statement is a perfect example. Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Throughout his career, Luther taught that faith was a living faith. Luther stated, “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith." Luther also stated, "Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith.” Luther preached and taught this regularly.

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2089

Luther also wrote these words:

For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”

Martin Luther, when a Monk, would confess mundane sins such as taking an extra large scoop of food in the prior days meal, for hours on end (to the occassional annoyance of his superiors). To say Luther endorsed sin, or was himself an extraordinary sinner … is pure slander (no kinder word can describe this malignment, it’s just slander). In fact Luther didn’t operate in a vacuum. He had substantial support and garnered a high level of respect among his peers (in the Catholic clergy).

how is it you can believe Luther, a man who contradicted himself over and over… taught one thing one day and something different the next… and yet you say you don’t know if you can believe the Cahtolic Church???

The Catholic religion is the only one that is consistent…

 

[humble_in_doubt]

golly … this is more hopeless than I ever imagined?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

how is it you can believe Luther, a man who contradicted himself over and over… taught one thing one day and something different the next… and yet you say you don’t know if you can believe the Cahtolic Church???

The Catholic religion is the only one that is consistent…

I don’t say I don’t know if I can believe the CC … I’m an atheist (so I don’t believe in the veracity of your bible, though I was raised Roman Catholic). I’m just simply laying out the theology of Martin Luther. It cannot be said he was inconsistent … that’s just your opinion, which is refuted by the facts (as I’ve laid out).

The sad thing is you folks feel the need to slander someone simply because you disagree with him. When I say slander I mean that in the full sense of the word. You misrepresent his teachings, unfairly malign his character, etc. just to prove you’re right and he’s not.

From an unbiased perspective what you’re doing is a logical fallacy (ad hom attacks), which are usually the dying words of a losing argument.

In other words if you believe in the merits of your argument then why not just present your argument without slanderous attacks? It is clear that Luther never taught it’s OK to sin (but rather he was merely prone to hyperbole). In fact he consistantly taught witness to faith is good works and obedience.

In fact in this regard he differs little from Catholic theologians such as Augustine; although there is significant difference between Luther and the Catholic theology of his day (which evolved into a Semi-Pelagian theology, having election based on foreseen merit).

I sadly watch you folks talk past each other, heap ad hom attacks toward each other, and say little of any substance or value (in fact I would opine that very few of you have any more than a very rudimentary understanding of theology).

I suppose your (or some other posters) reaction will be to either insult or ignore me. Why attack the merits of my argument (when childish insults are so much more fun)? Ahhh … good ol’ christianity …

 

[MarysGirls]

I don’t say I don’t know if I can believe the CC … I’m an atheist (so I don’t believe in the veracity of your bible, though I was raised Roman Catholic). I’m just simply laying out the theology of Martin Luther. It cannot be said he was inconsistent … that’s just your opinion, which is refuted by the facts (as I’ve laid out).

The sad thing is you folks feel the need to slander someone simply because you disagree with him. When I say slander I mean that in the full sense of the word. You misrepresent his teachings, unfairly malign his character, etc. just to prove you’re right and he’s not.

From an unbiased perspective what you’re doing is a logical fallacy (ad hom attacks), which are usually the dying words of a losing argument.

In other words if you believe in the merits of your argument then why not just present your argument without slanderous attacks? It is clear that Luther never taught it’s OK to sin (but rather he was merely prone to hyperbole). In fact he consistantly taught witness to faith is good works and obedience.

In fact in this regard he differs little from Catholic theologians such as Augustine; although there is significant difference between Luther and the Catholic theology of his day (which evolved into a Semi-Pelagian theology, having election based on foreseen merit).

I sadly watch you folks talk past each other, heap ad hom attacks toward each other, and say little of any substance or value (in fact I would opine that very few of you have any more than a very rudimentary understanding of theology).

I suppose your (or some other posters) reaction will be to either insult or ignore me. Why attack the merits of my argument (when childish insults are so much more fun)? Ahhh … good ol’ christianity …

I can see what you’re getting at and I want to neither insult you nor ignore you. But I don’t think the others on this post are trying to slander or attack anyone or anything, granted they have gone too far in the past same as you and I have.
I don’t know what Luther’s intention was. Perhaps he was “prone to hyperbole” as you put it, or perhaps he wasn’t.
I found this in Christ the King, Lord of History.

Luther had a despairing belief in his own sinfulness. He meditated often on Hell, death, punishment, and Christ as a stern jugde instead of loving Savior. Once he wrote that he “hated God and was angry at Him.” He came to feel that his own sins were so great that not even God was powerful enough to forgive them, that he could do nothing to make himself holy. Finally Luther concluded that only faith could save him. Nothing he could do could possibly persuade God to forgive his sins, because they were so great. But if he believed in Christ as the Redeemer, then God would overlook his sins and pretend they weren’t there.
This idea of Luther’s was totally different from Christianity as it had been believed and taught since the time of Christ. Orthodox Christianity had taught that Christ’s death on the cross earned grace for us. Grace then made the Christian into a new man. It wasn’t that God overlooked the person’s sins, but that the sins were gone. Any action performed in the state of grace and united to Christ was meritorious. Through these actions, the person earned more grace, growing holier and closer to God. Luther believed that man stayed the same, but that God would no longer punish him for his sins if he had faith. He also taught that nothing we did had any merit at all, that we couldn’t earn more grace, that we couldn’t become holier. We were evil men whom God would take into His presence anyway if we believed in Christ. Luther became so extreme in his view that he wrote, “Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be commited. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world; the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”

 

[Thorwald]

I strongly doubt you live up to the standard by which you judge others. I don’t hear much in the way of forgiveness in your language … in fact you sound pretty Pharisaic to me.

How do I think Jesus would have reacted? Didn’t he say whomever is without sin cast the first stone? Didn’t he forgive prostitutes and theives? You my friend sound a lot like a hypocrite …

I fully understand where you are coming from. However, prostitutes willingly commit their sin. In Romans chpt 1, these people that can become ‘turned over to a reprobate mind’, also willingly (and knowingly) commit their sin. In the case of rape, the victim is an unwilling partner. The rapist has defiled the victim’s body, without the victim’s consent. We are made in the image of God. No person has the right to defile our body in any way if we refuse to be a part of their act. This is a special kind of sin. On a spiritual level, it is similar to a false prophet defiling the true word of God (and we all know what happens to a false prophet).

Peter mentions that there are sins unto death. He also says that he doesn’t tell us to pray for those sins. Is rape one of them? I simply ask the question. Don’t get a hemmorhage over it.

 

[Thorwald]

I strongly doubt you live up to the standard by which you judge others. I don’t hear much in the way of forgiveness in your language … in fact you sound pretty Pharisaic to me.

How do I think Jesus would have reacted? Didn’t he say whomever is without sin cast the first stone? Didn’t he forgive prostitutes and theives? You my friend sound a lot like a hypocrite …

I was evaluating your answer in the wrong thread. Sorry? I thought your answer referred to my thread concerning rape. However, the slogan could be taken as ‘false prophesy’. It depends who your audience is.

P.S. I have to go. If you leave a comment, I will respond later this evening, or tomorrow.

 

[holyrosary11]

Are you familar with th rhetorical figure of hyperbole ? Luther was using hyperbole. As does anyone who says, “There were millions of people in the street”.​

How many different meanings can those two words have (Sin boldly)? Yet the people we sin against (and ALL sin is hurtful to someone) don’t appreciate being sinned against (adultery, theft, etc)…

What about Sciprttures that contradict this “do whatever you want but believe all the more” idea? (osas…)

What about the one that says: Whatever you do to the least of Christ’s brethren you do to Jesus? (Mt 25:31)…

What about the one where we are told that if we love him, we will keep his commandments?

i could go on and on…

When are poeple going to realize that they can’t pick and choose when it comes to the Word of God?

Yeah, go ahead and sin - just don’t sin against ME… Is that it?

commit adultery… just not with my spouse… Lie… just not to me… Steal, just not from ME…

sounds really Christian… really loving