Heresy or error?

[Johann]

God is high and lofty and He IS sinless perfection.
If one were to walk in Gods Spirit, (rather than just being led by His Spirit) he would be walking in Gods sinless perfection, not his own. This would make the man sinless while he was walking there since there is no sin in Gods Spirit. It would never and will never be the man walking in his own holiness, there is only one holy, God.

I do not think even the apostles always walked in the Spirit. Otherwise, as epi has said, John would not have bothered to say in Revelation, I was in the Spirit…

Listen stunned, I don't go by what epi is saying or writing or his podcasts.
This is between you and me.
Are you saying that you are sinlessly perfect, whilst in the body, in word, thought and deed?
If yes, then you and I have a proved this is not the case, sinless perfection debunked, yes?
What is the purpose of progressive sanctification?

We can take it from here......
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yeah, and what "ditch" might that be? Sinless perfection has taken this Forum by force, correct? Epi and most of the prominent members, yes?

You can very well see when a man says he is holy and he is not. The bad doctrines took the man into a. Ditch.

The opposite ditch is to say no man ever can or has or will walk in Gods holiness. It’s an over correction.

 

[Johann]

Listen stunned, I don't go by what epi is saying or writing or his podcasts.
This is between you and me.
Are you saying that you are sinlessly perfect, whilst in the body, in word, thought and deed?
If yes, then you and I have a proved this is not the case, sinless perfection debunked, yes?
What is the purpose of progressive sanctification?

We can take it from here......
J.

I might look stupid, being an Afrikaner, but I ain't.

 

[Johann]

You can very well see when a man says he is holy and he is not. The bad doctrines took the man into a. Ditch.

The opposite ditch is to say no man ever can or has or will walk in Gods holiness. It’s an over correction.

Have you? Are you walking in God's holiness?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Are you saying that you are sinlessly perfect, whilst in the body, in word, thought and deed?

No…
I am saying that it is POSSIBLE to walk in the Spirit in Gods holiness and that if and when a man did or does, he would not be sinning, since there is no sin in Him.
You assume that by me saying it is possible to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, that I am saying I have ever or currently am, walking in the Spirit. I have not. I am led by the Spirit. And I’ve been weaned from my flesh, which is great relief but it is still not walking in the Spirit.

 

[Johann]

Again this can be a matter of communication or the lack thereof between men sometimes when they really believe almost the same thing.

Probably a communication problem, with a denomination, and culture.

 

[David H.]

Yeah, and what "ditch" might that be? Sinless perfection has taken this Forum by force, correct? Epi and most of the prominent members, yes?

Johann if I may interject here, Holiness is not about sinless perfection by works on our part, Holiness is about yieliding to the work of the Holy Spirit in us making us into saints. Theologically this is known as progressive sanctification. In this process we go from being the faithful to becoming saints. set apart for God. In Other words this can only begin to take place when we admit that we cannot by our own strength and will become perfect and holy unto God, and surrender to his working in our lives. A practical example from my past is my drinking. the more I tried to stop drinking the more I drank. When i surrendered my life to serving righteousness and God he took that desire away from me to drink all together, for he was giving me the water of life via the Spirit which was quenching that thirst. In other words, the sweet water of the Holy Spirit satisfied more than wines and spirits and I had no more desire for the "enlightenment" wines and spirits gave me, as it paled in comparison to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Now most churches have words to describe this second move of the Spirit.... Total surrender, discipleship, baptism by fire, the second move of the Spirit, laity vs. saints.... whatever the term you want to use. But of late there has been a move in the protestant churches that states that we only need the first move of the Spirit and they have downplayed the second move to the laity making it only something for the leadership of the churches. This is Nicolaitanism in a nutshell which keeps the laity suckling on milk instead of maturing and growing into elders of the faith. That is what some of us are trying to correct. We are all to become a royal priesthood, and to walk in the Power of the Spirit, not just a select few who like Simon the magician wish to use their powers for their own gain. Read Acts 8:1-24 to understand this. Most believers (the faithful) are stuck in child mode having received the earnest of the Spirit (baptism of Jesus), while few have reached the point of repentance to receive the fulness of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.

 

[Johann]

No…
I am saying that it is POSSIBLE to walk in the Spirit in Gods holiness and that if and when a man did or does, he would not be sinning, since there is no sin in Him.
You assume that by me saying it is possible to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, that I am saying I have ever or currently am, walking in the Spirit. I have not. I am led by the Spirit. And I’ve been weaned from my flesh, which is great relief but it is still not walking in the Spirit.

How are you being led by the Spirit, @amadeus can't "rightly answer" and the mind is a battlefield.
Ever looked upon a man with lust?
Both you and I have committed murder by slinging mud at each other, the tongue, a little member NO man can tame, agree?

So you might be "weaned" of fleshly desires but not the tongue, yes?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

How are you being led by the Spirit, @amadeus can't "rightly answer" and the mind is a battlefield.

If you and I aren’t talking about epi, then are we talking about Amadeus?

 

[Johann]

baptism by fire, the second move of the Spirit, laity vs. saints....

Sorry, I have stopped reading...I am not here to philosophize.
You make the Reformers look bad, but the Reformers will make you look bad...

"second move, laity versus saints..."
I am still looking for a "second move" of the Ruach in my KJV Bible, and can't find it.
In error, you don't "become" a saint, you are a saint, that's IF you are His.

...and stunned reckon my doctrines are bad, like that of my "fathers"

J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

How are you being led by the Spirit, @amadeus can't "rightly answer" and the mind is a battlefield.
Ever looked upon a man with lust?
Both you and I have committed murder by slinging mud at each other, the tongue, a little member NO man can tame, agree?

So you might be "weaned" of fleshly desires but not the tongue, yes?

now we are getting somewhere good!

Of course I have done those things. It’s what the flesh does. it takes offense. Hurt pride, hurt feelings, angers, resentments, murders.

But to be weaned from the flesh includes our cutting tongue. It includes all the excitements, not just lust. They are still there but they are in subjection. David spoke of it when he said, my soul is like a weaned child within me.
I could talk about it more because it is now something I know by experience, but I absolutely cant put off leaving any longer this morning. But it’s like…satan can no longer stir your flesh up and yank you around by your emotions and get you fuming and spitting mad.
Its to have the righteousness in your inner man that you’ve hungered for. That hunger to not just not murder on the outside of your cup but to really and truly not do it inside either. It’s still not walking in the Spirit though. I can see, all the time, the…first motions toward. Toward murdering and selfishness, etc. but…you are able to rule over it and not let it go past first stirrings. Everything just remains calmed.

Gotta go. Be back when I can tonight.
live enjoyed talking with you this morning, johann.

 

[Johann]

If you and I aren’t talking about epi, then are we talking about Amadeus?

Neither, this is a discussion between me and you, that's if you can keep your tongue in check, I will do the same.

 

[Johann]

now we are getting somewhere good!

Of course I have done those things. It’s what the flesh does. it takes offense. Hurt pride, hurt feelings, angers, resentments, murders.

But to be weaned from the flesh includes our cutting tongue. It includes all the excitements, not just lust. They are still there but they are in subjection. David spoke of it when he said, my soul is like a weaned child within me.
I could talk about it more because it is now something I know by experience, but I absolutely cant put off leaving any longer this morning. But it’s like…satan can no longer stir your flesh up and yank you around by your emotions and get you fuming and spitting mad.
Its to have the righteousness in your inner man that you’ve hungered for. That hunger to not just not murder on the outside of your cup but to really and truly not do it inside either.

Gotta go. Be back when I can tonight.
live enjoyed talking with you this morning, johann.

Likewise.
Shalom.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Sorry, I have stopped reading...I am not here to philosophize.
You make the Reformers look bad, but the Reformers will make you look bad...

"second move, laity versus saints..."
I am still looking for a "second move" of the Ruach in my KJV Bible, and can't find it.
In error, you don't "become" a saint, you are a saint, that's IF you are His.

...and stunned reckon my doctrines are bad, like that of my "fathers"

J.

Neither, this is a discussion between me and you, that's if you can keep your tongue in check, I will do the same.

You see these things I don’t know where you get them from. It seems to me that if you get angry it’s someone else’s fault…
You can not control someone else’s tongue and you likewise can not blame someone else’s tongue for your tongue.
you just have to accept that everyone is ruled by their flesh, including you, and ask for what you see you lack.
The way God works is to change you first, not anyone else.
If you’re waiting for someone else to be nice before you’ll be nice, you’ll be still waiting 10 years from now. You don’t have because you don’t ask is quite true.

But this got me thinking of the news and how all these talking heads all say what, or who, the problem is when it’s the flesh that’s the problem. Always. I know unbelievers aren’t going to see their lack and so pray for what they need, but we sure can get disgusted enough with it all to do so!

 

[David H.]

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 1:15
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Ephesians 3:8
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

Saints AND the faithful
None of these verses make any sense until you realize that there is a distinction between the saints and the faithful.... for example, Paul says he is least among the saints. according to your thinking then the most carnal of converts in today's modern church is already a saint? to me this is taking the premiere seat at the banquet for yourself when you don't deserve that seat.... I would rather take the worst seat. That is true humility.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well done in my opinion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, merry Christmas everyone. I’ve honestly never had a better one.
Im understanding more, if even just yet an inkling, some of how the body begins to fit together and move and the necessity of that if unity is ever to happen.
I see also that unity doesn’t have to always mean close geographical proximity, to which I said, when I saw it, well of course God doesn’t need that to bring unity, why are you surprised? Didn’t an apostle even say to some of the body - I’m there with you in Spirit?

Its like Ephesians 4 exploded into 3D for me suddenly over yesterday and this morning. And the verse about being weak and sickly for not discerning the body and - well, it’s all flying at me again. I can’t wait for it to settle so I can share it.

Yes. Ephesians is Paul's magnum opus in a way. Happy New Year.

 

[Johann]

Saints AND the faithful

'The saints' and 'the faithful' are not two sets of people, but one.

The Apostle starts, as it were, on the surface, and goes down; takes off the uppermost layer and lets us see what is below it; begins with the flowers or the fruit, and then carries us to the root. The saints are saints because they are first of all faithful. 'Faithful' here, of course, does not mean, as it usually does in our ordinary language, 'true' and 'trusty,' 'reliable' and 'keeping our word,' but it means simply 'believing'; having faith, not in the sense of fidelity, but in the sense of trust.
The letter is addressed to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus. Saints are people who have been separated to God from the world. It is a name which is applied in the NT to all born-again believers. Basically the word refers to a believer's position in Christ rather than to what he is in himself. In Christ all believers are saints, even though in themselves they are not always saintly. For instance, Paul addressed the Corinthians as saints (1Co_1:2), even though it is clear from what follows that they were not all living holy lives. Yet God's will is that our practice should correspond to our position: saints should be saintly.
And faithful in Christ Jesus. The word, faithful, means “believing ones” and is thus a description of all true Christians. Of course, believers should also be faithful in the sense that they are reliable and trustworthy. But the primary thought here is that they had acknowledged Christ Jesus to be their only Lord and Savior.
The faithful
Not faithful in the sense of fidelity and perseverance, but believing, as Joh_20:27; Act_10:45. It is to be included with the saints under the one article.

To the saints ... and to the faithful - the same persons: Greek, ’to those who are saints, and faithful in Christ Jesus.’

The sanctification by God is put before man’s faith. God’s grace in the first instance sanctifies us (i:e., sets us apart in His eternal purposes as holy unto Himself); and our faith, by God’s gift, lays hold of salvation (2Th_2:13; 1Pe_1:2). Consecration to God is the idea prominent in "saints."

You want to make a distinction when there are none.
J.

 

[Johann]

'The saints' and 'the faithful' are not two sets of people, but one.

The Apostle starts, as it were, on the surface, and goes down; takes off the uppermost layer and lets us see what is below it; begins with the flowers or the fruit, and then carries us to the root. The saints are saints because they are first of all faithful. 'Faithful' here, of course, does not mean, as it usually does in our ordinary language, 'true' and 'trusty,' 'reliable' and 'keeping our word,' but it means simply 'believing'; having faith, not in the sense of fidelity, but in the sense of trust.
The letter is addressed to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus. Saints are people who have been separated to God from the world. It is a name which is applied in the NT to all born-again believers. Basically the word refers to a believer's position in Christ rather than to what he is in himself. In Christ all believers are saints, even though in themselves they are not always saintly. For instance, Paul addressed the Corinthians as saints (1Co_1:2), even though it is clear from what follows that they were not all living holy lives. Yet God's will is that our practice should correspond to our position: saints should be saintly.
And faithful in Christ Jesus. The word, faithful, means “believing ones” and is thus a description of all true Christians. Of course, believers should also be faithful in the sense that they are reliable and trustworthy. But the primary thought here is that they had acknowledged Christ Jesus to be their only Lord and Savior.
The faithful
Not faithful in the sense of fidelity and perseverance, but believing, as Joh_20:27; Act_10:45. It is to be included with the saints under the one article.

To the saints ... and to the faithful - the same persons: Greek, ’to those who are saints, and faithful in Christ Jesus.’

The sanctification by God is put before man’s faith. God’s grace in the first instance sanctifies us (i:e., sets us apart in His eternal purposes as holy unto Himself); and our faith, by God’s gift, lays hold of salvation (2Th_2:13; 1Pe_1:2). Consecration to God is the idea prominent in "saints."

You want to make a distinction when there are none.
J.

 

[bbyrd009]

Who is sufficient to explain it? No one.

well, so you say

And we have to be careful to not let those who might see this begin an argument of He is not God.

I said "you are Elohim"

so, are you God?