Sinless Perfection. Why do so many teach against what Jesus taught?

[1stCenturyLady]

May I be so bold as to suggest that this does not mean you can't sin (as you define that), and that your word is gospel. You have been led astray by deceiving spirits. You have been listening to voices that teach contrary to what the Bible says.

Just curious, are you an 'apostle' in the NAR movement?

I don't know what the NAR movement even is.

The CONTEXT of 1 John 3 is lawlessness. That is the type of sin verse 9 is speaking of that we have no desire to commit based on verse 4 the context of the whole chapter. Lawlessness is against God's laws, but the chapter has nothing to do with sins not unto death, only sins unto death against God's laws. This is exactly why it is so important to know the difference between the types of sins and how God views them, not John Calvin's "sin is sin" that can lead to major confusion to say nothing of ignorance about God. This brings us to 1 John 1:7 where if we walk in the light...the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. Those sins are not sins unto death, but the lesser sins committed due to immature fruit, as John 15 is about, but can be dangerous to our salvation if we do not bear fruit. Not bearing fruit can lead back to lawlessness. So much for OSAS.

The reason why I feel secure in my salvation is because I've been walking in the Spirit for nearly 50 years, and bearing fruit is part of who I am. But many young people in the church are not walking in the Spirit. Couples living together, and even practicing homosexuals are being ordained as bishops! Whether or not these people were ever saved to begin with could be questionable, but to be examples in the Church is the falling away of 2 Thes. 2:3 which shows us that Jesus is returning soon for a SPOTLESS Bride.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

The CONTEXT of 1 John 3 is lawlessness. That is the type of sin verse 9 is speaking of

All sin is lawlessness.

1 John 3:4 YLT
4Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness

He said 'sin is lawlessness'.
He did not say 'lawlessness is sin' as if lawlessness was a specific type of sin.

You can see that he is equating sin and lawlessness, not distinguishing between them.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

2 Thes. 2:3 which shows us that Jesus is returning soon for a SPOTLESS Bride.

Believers are spotless in Christ because the forgiveness of God through faith in Christ's sacrifice makes all believers spotless before God.

If Jesus is only coming back for perfectly sinless people then none of us are going to make it. I mean, you say you still sin, and you expect to be recognized as spotless despite that sin, right? Distinguishing between sins in order to qualify what spotless means is not the answer to reconciling the disparity between being righteous before God and still sinning. The forgiveness of God is what bridges the gap between the two. There is no other way to bridge that gap. That's what the gospel is all about.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

This is exactly why it is so important to know the difference between the types of sins and how God views them, not John Calvin's "sin is sin"

John Calvin did not invent 'sin is sin'. Acts 13:38-39 tells us that the difference between moral sins and venial sins ended because now all are equally forgiven in Christ.

Acts 13:38-39
38“...through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
39Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

The condemnation of the law, that the law itself could not remove, is removed in Christ's superior priesthood and sacrifice. How can you read Acts 13:38-39 and still think there are some sins that are not forgiven? Read it. "Every sin" is forgiven in Christ, not just some.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

This brings us to 1 John 1:7 where if we walk in the light...the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.

And that restores fellowship, not salvation.
You don't lose your salvation when you sin. You lose fellowship with God and fellow believers when you don't walk in the light.

1 John 1:6-7
6If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all b sin.

Those sins are not sins unto death, but the lesser sins committed due to immature fruit, as John 15 is about, but can be dangerous to our salvation if we do not bear fruit.

I insist that you explain how Acts 13:38-39 retains the distinction between sins that cannot be forgiven and sins that can. I insist.

Not bearing fruit can lead back to lawlessness.

Not bearing fruit IS lawlessness.

1 John 3:4
4 sin is lawlessness.

So much for OSAS.

You said you cannot commit the sins that result in death, because Christ took them away. How is that not OSAS?????

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

Couples living together, and even practicing homosexuals are being ordained as bishops! Whether or not these people were ever saved to begin with could be questionable

What does it matter if they were ever saved to begin with? What matters is they are not saved now. They show they aren't by the fact that they are practicing sin, the very word you yourself used to describe their sin. The practice of sin is what shows a person to not be born again, not the kind of sin they commit. The practice of sin is what born again people don't and can't do. They still sin. What they don't do, and can't do, is practice it on purpose as a habitual lifestyle choice. God's seed within them won't let them.

The insertion of 'practices' by the Bible translators is the only way to make sense of how John can say born again people don't sin. Your theory that the difference between moral and venial sins explains how John can say Christians don't sin just doesn't stand up to Biblical scrutiny.

 

[Judge Hardcastle]

That sounds interesting about salvation. What was the RCC version, and what is the Ref version? Thanks.

"...the prevailing understanding of the day was that God’s grace merely gave man the ability to become righteous before God and faith was the active work of the believer who improved and progressed in his standing before God by his obedience and behavior. Luther’s breakthrough was that God justifies the sinner not by giving him the ability to become righteous but by crediting the holiness, obedience, and goodness of Christ to him as righteousness. “Justification is not a change in man but the gracious declaration of God by which He pronounces righteous the sinner who in himself is not righteous.”[7]

Luther's Breakthrough in Romans - Lutheran Reformation

After years of much prayer, meditation, and struggle, Luther discovered the true meaning of God’s Word: “Then finally God had mercy on me, and I began to understand that the righteousness of God is a gift of God by which a righteous man lives, namely faith."

lutheranreformation.org

It's the difference between progressing in your standing with God according to the righteousness of your deeds, and having right standing with him credited to you as a free gift of his grace apart from the merit of earning it through the successful performance of works for righteousness.

 

[Lizbeth]

Drawn away by what? By the practice of sin that John says a born again person can't do because God's seed remains in them?

1 John 3:9
9Everyone having been born of God does not do sin, because His seed remains in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.

Apparently, a born again person can't sin himself out of salvation. That means the born again person must go back to unbelief to no longer be born again and thus commit the sin that he can't commit as a born again believer and be lost. Can a true born again believer do that? That is what is in legitimate debate, IMO.

But it's a worthless argument. All of us agree that the believing person must continue to believe to the very end to be saved through the judgment in the very end (the exception being the stain of 'believers' in the church in these last days who claim you do not have to continue to believe to the end to be saved through the coming judgment).

Believing, and continuing to believe, is what matters. And the Bible exhorts everyone to keep believing. That is our common ground. I detest how we have ignored Paul's counsel to stop rallying behind specific teachers and as a result instantly divide ourselves according to whose doctrinal camp we identify with. What we should be doing is addressing individual doctrinal beliefs, not rallying behind doctrinal labels. We instantly shut off anything of value and truth that a person might say that is in another doctrinal camp than our own because of these artificial, un-Biblical, ungodly divisions we have created amongst ourselves. I listen to all camps and I learn from all of them.

Well, Solomon is an example, who was drawn away through marrying pagan wives. For us I think that is a picture of compromise and friendship with the world and being unequally yoked with unbelievers instead of being separate.

I believe John was speaking of our new man and new nature that is begotten of God and cannot sin......but I think we all know that is not true of our old man. And that is why we are told to put off the old man and put on the new.

I don't divide from my OSAS brothers and sisters, and I avoid protracted debates about it. But I wish they wouldn't try so hard to explain away the clear warnings of scripture, which were not given without reason. Here is another:

Heb 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Clearly this is another one that is talking about born again believers. But the Lord has foreknown who would fall away and some scriptures are written from the point of view of His foreknowledge. Eg, where Jesus speaks of those to whom He will say "Away from me, I never KNEW you" is an example of that.

 

[Lizbeth]

That sounds interesting about salvation. What was the RCC version, and what is the Ref version? Thanks.

The RCC has replaced the reality of salvation with rites and rituals, church membership and tradition. The Reformation brought back the reality of it being salvation by FAITH in Christ, the necessity of being born again, and adherence to the word of God. In other words, it restored the FOUNDATION of the faith.

 

[GodsGrace]

The RCC has replaced the reality of salvation with rites and rituals, church membership and tradition. The Reformation brought back the reality of it being salvation by FAITH in Christ, the necessity of being born again, and adherence to the word of God. In other words, it restored the FOUNDATION of the faith.

This thread is fun to read.
Perfect people.
I'd like to meet one...it would be nice.
So far no such luck.

But you have made comments about the CC which are NOT CORRECT.
WHY do non-catholic christians do this??

Rites and rituals will not save a person...not even a Catholic.
Membership to the CC does not guarantee the salvation of a member.
Neither will tradition.

If what you say is true,,,every Catholic would be saved.

And you THINK the reformation restored the foundation!
We'd have to know what you mean and it would derail too much so we'll let it go.

But, yes, we really should stop spreading lies about what the CC teaches.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

All sin is lawlessness.

1 John 3:4 YLT
4Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness

He said 'sin is lawlessness'.
He did not say 'lawlessness is sin' as if lawlessness was a specific type of sin.

You can see that he is equating sin and lawlessness, not distinguishing between them.

That is the problem with "sin is sin." You believe you are a sinner, so how can you also believe you are saved. Oh yea! The unscriptural doctrine of "past, present and future sins." So going over the speed limit is on par with murder to you? And Jesus forgives it all even willful sinning. Pure willful ignorance.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

John Calvin did not invent 'sin is sin'. Acts 13:38-39 tells us that the difference between moral sins and venial sins ended because now all are equally forgiven in Christ.

Acts 13:38-39
38“...through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
39Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

The condemnation of the law, that the law itself could not remove, is removed in Christ's superior priesthood and sacrifice. How can you read Acts 13:38-39 and still think there are some sins that are not forgiven? Read it. "Every sin" is forgiven in Christ, not just some.

Set free is you never sin again. Are you perfect? Or don't you care about the sins you commit, because they are all forgiven, which is not free to sin. It is free from sin.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I insist that you explain how Acts 13:38-39 retains the distinction between sins that cannot be forgiven and sins that can. I insist.

If you don't do these things they are sin. Not lawlessness, but not perfect. The past old sins are lawlessness.

2 Peter 1:5-11
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The insertion of 'practices' by the Bible translators is the only way to make sense of how John can say born again people don't sin. Your theory that the difference between moral and venial sins explains how John can say Christians don't sin just doesn't stand up to Biblical scrutiny.

We are not to commit a lawless sin even once. It is willful.

 

[ProDeo]

Well, Solomon is an example, who was drawn away through marrying pagan wives. For us I think that is a picture of compromise and friendship with the world and being unequally yoked with unbelievers instead of being separate.

I believe John was speaking of our new man and new nature that is begotten of God and cannot sin......but I think we all know that is not true of our old man. And that is why we are told to put off the old man and put on the new.

I don't divide from my OSAS brothers and sisters, and I avoid protracted debates about it. But I wish they wouldn't try so hard to explain away the clear warnings of scripture, which were not given without reason. Here is another:

Heb 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Clearly this is another one that is talking about born again believers. But the Lord has foreknown who would fall away and some scriptures are written from the point of view of His foreknowledge. Eg, where Jesus speaks of those to whom He will say "Away from me, I never KNEW you" is an example of that.

Amen sister. I have been OSAS most of my life. When I came here I was already doubting OSAS for a couple of years. A few intense threads here made me NOSAS. Nevertheless I believe the very vast majority of true born of God will endure to end.

Aside of King Solomon Paul mentions at least 3 people whose faith led shipwreck, John mentions people who left and there is Judas... chosen not only to fulfill the Scriptures by the foreknowledge of God but also IMO set as an example of NOSAS. The privilege of chosen being in the inner circle of Jesus, hearing everything Jesus said, seeing all Jesus miracles, notable performing miracles himself when Jesus sent out the twelve, it begs the question --> what went wrong in that head.

Actually I think OSAS for some can be dangerous, thinking they are untouchable.

 

[Lizbeth]

Rites and rituals will not save a person...not even a Catholic.
Membership to the CC does not guarantee the salvation of a member.
Neither will tradition.

If what you say is true,,,every Catholic would be saved.

I agree. The RCC is wrong.....they are not saved by those things. I think you might have misunderstood my post...? Only true FAITH in Christ can save....faith which is not of our own but is the gift of God.

And you THINK the reformation restored the foundation!
We'd have to know what you mean and it would derail too much so we'll let it go.

Yes I believe it did. It restored the gospel, which is faith in Christ...the necessity of being born again (begotten of the Holy Spirit) through faith, which Jesus spoke of. Which is a real lived (and ongoing) experience, not a "sacrament".

 

[MostlyConfused]

The bible doesn't talk about mortal and venial sins.

Actually, it does. 1 John 5:16. He says if you see someone sinning, pray for them. He is careful to then say he doesn’t mean to pray for someone committing a sin unto death. So he makes a distinction between sin and sin unto death.
1CL is difficult for me to understand and agree with a lot of the time, but I’m fairly certain this is what she talks about a lot, that distinction.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The RCC has replaced the reality of salvation with rites and rituals, church membership and tradition. The Reformation brought back the reality of it being salvation by FAITH in Christ, the necessity of being born again, and adherence to the word of God. In other words, it restored the FOUNDATION of the faith.

I still do not understand how the apostles and the RCC knew the difference between a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death, but the Reformation dumbed it down to "sin is sin."

Martin Luther even wrote to sin boldly, because even if you committed murder and adultery 1,000 times a day, they would not separate you from God. With a statement like that you would think Lutherans believed in OSAS but they don't. That is Calvinism that believes that as if the New Covenant isn't threaded with warnings.

 

[Lizbeth]

I still do not understand how the apostles and the RCC knew the difference between a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death, but the Reformation dumbed it down to "sin is sin."

Martin Luther even wrote to sin boldly, because even if you committed murder and adultery 1,000 times a day, they would not separate you from God. With a statement like that you would think Lutherans believed in OSAS but they don't. That is Calvinism that believes that as if the New Covenant isn't threaded with warnings.

I have not studied the Reformers and all that they taught sister. By all accounts from what I 've heard they were deplorably wrong on some things, but not the foundational things. If Martin Luther was actually counselling believers to sin boldly then he was wrong.....but is it possible he didn't mean it literally but was just being dramatic to try and make a point? Albeit a wrong one if he was promoting OSAS.

For my part I do not understand how the Lord wouldn't want us to pray and war for a believer who is in adultery or succumbed to some other major temptation or besetting sin. Even the Corinthian believer who had his father's wife was restored. It would make sense in the case of someone who had become reprobate to the point of blaspheming the Holy Spirit though....that appears to be a point of no return.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I have not studied the Reformers and all that they taught sister. By all accounts from what I 've heard they were deplorably wrong on some things, but not the foundational things. If Martin Luther was actually counselling believers to sin boldly then he was wrong.....but is it possible he didn't mean it literally but was just being dramatic to try and make a point? Albeit a wrong one if he was promoting OSAS.

For my part I do not understand how the Lord wouldn't want us to pray and war for a believer who is in adultery or succumbed to some other major temptation or besetting sin. Even the Corinthian believer who had his father's wife was restored. It would make sense in the case of someone who had become reprobate to the point of blaspheming the Holy Spirit though....that appears to be a point of no return.

Lutherans don't believe in OSAS. I didn't know, so looked it up. I also asked google, who coined the phrase OSAS, and it said, John Calvin.

The man who had his stepmother it says in 2 Corinthians that repentance leads to salvation, so it is possible he wasn't born again yet, but it seems to me he should have known better for Paul to be angry with the leaders of the Corinthian church to not have kicked him out earlier.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

This thread is fun to read.
Perfect people.
I'd like to meet one...it would be nice.
So far no such luck.

But you have made comments about the CC which are NOT CORRECT.
WHY do non-catholic christians do this??

Rites and rituals will not save a person...not even a Catholic.
Membership to the CC does not guarantee the salvation of a member.
Neither will tradition.

If what you say is true,,,every Catholic would be saved.

And you THINK the reformation restored the foundation!
We'd have to know what you mean and it would derail too much so we'll let it go.

But, yes, we really should stop spreading lies about what the CC teaches.

The CC does know the difference between mortal sins and venial sins, and the Reformation should have kept up that knowledge, but didn't. I looked up John Wesley, who fought against Calvinism, and asked if he knew there was a difference. Here is what it said:

Yes, John Wesley distinguished between sins unto death and sins not unto death. He viewed sins not unto death as those that are still open to repentance and forgiveness, while sins unto death represent a final rejection of grace and a state of unrepentance.

This is not how I see them taking the whole Bible into consideration. How would you say the CC describes mortal sins and venial sins. AI says,

The Catholic Church distinguishes between mortal sins, which are grave offenses that sever one's relationship with God, and venial sins, which are less serious and do not break this relationship. Mortal sins require full knowledge and consent, while venial sins can weaken one's spiritual state without completely separating them from God's grace.

Understanding Mortal and Venial Sins​

The distinction between these two types of sin is fundamental in Catholic teaching.

• Mortal Sin — A serious sin that results in the loss of grace and separation from God; it requires three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.
• Venial Sin — A less serious sin that does not sever one's relationship with God; it can weaken one's spiritual state but is forgivable through acts of contrition.
• Consequences — Mortal sins lead to eternal separation from God if unrepented, while venial sins can be forgiven through prayer and good works.
• Scriptural Basis — The distinction is rooted in Scripture, notably in St. Paul's writings, which outline the differences in severity.