entire sanctification is an obtainable goal.

[Episkopos]

Justification is a legal term.

It is given is a person who has been charged with a crime who has been declared innocent (justified) or has paid their debt in full (justified)

We have been justified, means we have been declare innocent, or that our debt was paid in full

according to scripture. Blood is the agent by which a guilty sinner could be redeemed. and as such, Justified

And when a person takes that justification for himself...we call that self-righteousness.

Only God can justify a person. A person must personally be declared justified by a legal entity. The jails are full of people who say they are innocent. The churches are full also of these self-declared innocents. So really there isn't a whole lot of difference.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And when a person takes that justification for himself...we call that self-righteousness.

Yes, When a person tries to make his justification applicable by works, Either works to be saved or maintain salvation. He is producinv self righteous justification. which will be rejected by God

Only God can justify a person. A person must personally be declared justified by a legal entity. The jails are full of people who say they are innocent. The churches are full also of these self-declared innocents. So really there isn't a whole lot of difference.

Yes, I agree here also. Many in that day will cry out all the works they did in Jesus name, And jesus will say depart, he never knew them.

 

[Episkopos]

Either works to be saved or maintain salvation. He is producinv self righteous justification. which will be rejected by God

This is false. We are indeed justified by works..unto righteousness...and we will ONLY be judged by our works. Our belief system isn't important. No one is going to be judged by what they believe.

Where you are getting mixed up is with the high calling of God in Christ which is IN holiness. The perfection of a resurrection life IN Christ. On that level it is God doing the works through a person (since we are created for good works)...and the only way to stay (or enter) in the Spirit (grace) is by faith...not works.

So you are confusing righteousness and holiness....not discerning that there is a universe of difference between these. So you are choosing the easiest path that is taken from both but applies to neither. This happens a lot. Hence my attempt at warning people away from iniquity.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

This is false. We are indeed justified by works..unto righteousness...and we will ONLY be judged by our works. Our belief system isn't important. No one is going to be judged by what they believe.

This is false

John 3:18
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Those delivered to Christ on judgment day will be judged because they did not believe

Believers will attend a different judgent (BEMA) in which their works are judged, they are either are rewarded or suffer loss

Where you are getting mixed up is with the high calling of God in Christ which is IN holiness. The perfection of a resurrection life IN Christ. On that level it is God doing the works through a person (since we are created for good works)...and the only way to stay (or enter) in the Spirit (grace) is by faith...not works.

So you are confusing righteousness and holiness....not discerning that there is a universe of difference between these. So you are choosing the easiest path that is taken from both but applies to neither. This happens a lot. Hence my attempt at warning people away from iniquity.

This is great when a person says another screws up. Then precedes to tell the other person their screw up is somethign they actually believe

I think the screw up is on your perception of what I said.

 

[Episkopos]

John 3:18
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Those delivered to Christ on judgment day will be judged because they did not believe

You are not being careful here. They who believe INTO Him are not condemned...but they who do not believe Him...His words...are condemned. Jesus said to DO His words. Not just be hearers.

So you have overblown the power of your beliefs...

John 3:36
36 He that believeth INTO the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



You will be judged by the righteous level of DOING as Jesus said...or the higher level of believing INTO Jesus so that it is no longer you but Christ.

Your scheme does neither while claiming the glory of the higher one.

And you are not understanding my correction that you are confusing righteousness and holiness...while doing neither.

 

[farouk]

I would say however that the Bible is clear that Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and that this means He died taking the penalty for us.

Hi @justbyfaith Well, exactly...

What a price He willingly paid...!

 

[justbyfaith]

Perhaps you are not understanding me.

We trust and we love. That is the law given to us.

Much love!

It is also love to warn people when someone is giving them poison to eat or drink.

..
oh, hello officer..... how can I help you ?
..... you ran thru that red light back there.....
oh, did I ? how about that - don't worry officer, no one can keep the law you know....
..... step out of the car ..... let's see you license and registration....
oh, no, I don't think so, after all, no one can keep the law, officer.... so I don't have to do what you say, bye .....


(resulting in being brought before the judge, with a considerable penalty)

I think that you misunderstand me.

Galatians 6:13 tells us that even those who were sticklers for the law did not keep it (and I would say that this is referring to the letter of it).

Galatians 3:22 tells us something similar.

This is not to say that we cannot be obedient to the spirit of the law.

Even Jesus violated the letter when He told a man to take up his bed and walk on the sabbath day.

In response to the Pharisees' condemnation of His behaviour, He replied, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Yet, specifically, in Exodus 20:10, the letter of the law tells us that you shall not do any work on the sabbath.

If I ran through a red light; but it was in order to avoid an accident, for that another car was barreling toward me, I may indeed be cited by the officer, but before the throne of the Lord I would be blameless; because the spirit of the law of a red light is for the safety of the individual.

If I am obedient to the spirit of the law, it is not going to be very often, if ever, that I will run a red light (thus violating the letter).

Love dictated that Jesus heal the lame man on the sabbath, even though He did so in violation of the letter.

Do you wear tziztit and tallit and tefilin? The law of the Old Testament requires that you do.

Do you blow a trumpet every new moon?

These things are required by the letter.

Good luck keeping them in the immediate fashion.

If you violate one aspect of the law you are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10), see Galatians 3:10 also.

Before the Lord, when I stand before Him having violated the law in that I ran a red light, pleading the blood of Jesus will be sufficient for my pardon.

 

[justbyfaith]

The idea of "sinless perfection" exists in the Bible only in the sense it applied to Christ and to us *after* our glorification/immortalization. The Apostle John plainly says that if we deny we have sin, we make God a liar. He sent Christ to die for Man not because he had no redeeming virtue, but rather, because we bear the sin nature, and had to have it dealt with.

All the verses you would cite to speak of "perfection" actually refers to "completing a list of things we need to do," rather than sinless perfection. For example, we need to commit every idol in our life to Christ, though God does not expect this to make us sinless. We simply live in a state of submission to Christ.

Paul clearly depicted himself as "not yet having arrived." And his theology depicts man as "weak" and in need of reliance upon the strength of Christ. This does not communicate "perfection," but rather, the need for aid, or dependency. And nobody should ever suggest that "dependency" indicates perfection!

"sinless perfection" is a misnomer applied to the faithful doctrine of entire sanctification in order to slander it as being in violation of 1 John 1:8.

In all reality, those who teach it do not claim to be without sin; but rather we claim that sin can be rendered dead within us (Romans 7:8, Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24) so that it no longer has any say over our behaviour.

To apply 1 John 1:8 as saying that we all must continue in sin is to bring it into contradiction with 1 John 3:4-9; which I would say is immediate context since it is contained within the same epistle.

We can indeed be perfected (Hebrews 10:14) so that we "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9) in that the element of sin can be rendered dead within us. This is not to say that it is eradicated from us, so that we can say that we "have no" sin.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You are not being careful here. They who believe INTO Him are not condemned...but they who do not believe Him...His words...are condemned. Jesus said to DO His words. Not just be hearers.

So you have overblown the power of your beliefs...

1. I have always stated there is no such things as faith without works
2. I have always stated that mere belief has never saved anyone

Your continued insistence that I preach easy believism is getting old. and tiresome.

John 3:36
36 He that believeth INTO the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

The means of condemnation is unbelief, The proof and reason behind unbelief is that they practice evel and hate light. Its WHY they refuse to come to faith.

Those who believe COME TO THE LIGHT, because they wish to be changed, they wish to be like God, they wish to have their deeds exposed so they can grow.

Works are not a requirement of salvation, They are a Byproduct of salvation, Because only those who have true faith are saved..

You will be judged by the righteous level of DOING as Jesus said...or the higher level of believing INTO Jesus so that it is no longer you but Christ.

Your scheme does neither while claiming the glory of the higher one.

And you are not understanding my correction that you are confusing righteousness and holiness...while doing neither.

No. You will be judged by whether you believed (had true saving faith) or you did not believe.

Those who believe are exposed as to have works

those who do not believe are exposed by their continued life of sin.

Bt salvation is not of works. lest anyone should boast

I understand your call for obedience, and I applaud it, What scares me is your call for obedience is led with a call to be saved by that obedience

That is legalism 101

 

[Candidus]

Justification is a legal term.

It is given is a person who has been charged with a crime who has been declared innocent (justified) or has paid their debt in full (justified)

We have been justified, means we have been declare innocent, or that our debt was paid in full

according to scripture. Blood is the agent by which a guilty sinner could be redeemed. and as such, Justified

No, you said it is either that they are declared innocent, or that they had the debt paid in full... with is a false analogy. If before a judge, a person is found and judged guilty, they are either pardoned or they are punished; not both.

Why strain so hard to include payment when the Bible evades such a statement with such intent? Do you need it as leverage to justify other unbiblical doctrines? Do they fail if that is not true? If what the Bible teaches cannot stand without being propped up by some unbiblical or extra-biblical theory, what does that say about inspiration?

Do you believe in pardon/forgiveness or Payment? It can't be both! The Bible speaks of mercy and forgiveness... NEVER payment.

 

[Episkopos]

Those who believe are exposed as to have works

Everybody does works. Judgment will be of what kind they are. This whole idea that God wants to us to believe without doing anything is as ridiculous as can be. We are not to stand still. Salvation is a kind of walk.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, you said it is either that they are declared innocent, or that they had the debt paid in full... with is a false analogy.

If you say so

If before a judge, a person is found and judged guilty, they are either pardoned or they are punished; not both.

In jewish law. a person come come and pay the debt of a guilty person. And in doing so. that person was justified.

Why strain so hard to include payment when the Bible evades such a statement with such intent? Do you need it as leverage to justify other unbiblical doctrines? Do they fail if that is not true? If what the Bible teaches cannot stand without being propped up by some unbiblical or extra-biblical theory, what does that say about inspiration?

Do you believe in pardon/forgiveness or Payment? It can't be both! The Bible speaks of mercy and forgiveness... NEVER payment.

Why stumble so hard and try to pay your debt, when that is impossible. and if you are going to go in front of God without your debt paid. thinking you we get a get of of jail card by all your works..

The penalty (judgment) of sin is death

Ony death can cover your debt

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Everybody does works. Judgment will be of what kind they are. This whole idea that God wants to us to believe without doing anything is as ridiculous as can be. We are not to stand still. Salvation is a kind of walk.

Once again you just show you have no understanding of anything I have said

good day sir. If your not willing to listen to understand there is no need to go further

 

[Randy Kluth]

"sinless perfection" is a misnomer applied to the faithful doctrine of entire sanctification in order to slander it as being in violation of 1 John 1:8.

In all reality, those who teach it do not claim to be without sin; but rather we claim that sin can be rendered dead within us (Romans 7:8, Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24) so that it no longer has any say over our behaviour.

To apply 1 John 1:8 as saying that we all must continue in sin is to bring it into contradiction with 1 John 3:4-9; which I would say is immediate context since it is contained within the same epistle.

We can indeed be perfected (Hebrews 10:14) so that we "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9) in that the element of sin can be rendered dead within us. This is not to say that it is eradicated from us, so that we can say that we "have no" sin.

It is an interesting subject, but before going headlong into it, let me just share my immediate thoughts. I think you're wrong that "sinless perfection" is not part of the idea of a "complete sanctification." All evangelicals believe in "victory over sin." This is not the same thing as having a flawed human nature coexisting with our demonstrations of righteousness. Either the sin nature is excised from within us when we do righteousness, or we do righteousness while the "sin tendency" continues to exist within us.

I personally practice righteousness even as I notice wrong thoughts rise up within me, which to me is evidence of the sin nature. We are temporarily cleansed of this until the redemption of our bodies in the resurrection. The blood of Christ has to regularly be applied not because it wasn't good for all time, but rather, because we sin over and over again, being that the sin nature exists within us, and we have to over and over again confess our sins and be cleansed.

So which among these options do you personally believe, that we can exterminate the sin nature while it is in us in order to do righteousness? Or is it that in the midst of our inherent sin we do righteousness? This for me is the real deal, because if we can completely exterminate sin in our lives, simply by force of will, or by faith, then in theory we *never* have to sin. But in reality, I believe we do have to sin in the sense that we are inherently sinful, and do commit sins. It's just that we need to subdue it, and regularly get victory over it, and avoid the worst sins.

If victory over sin is what these Sanctification people teach, I should think we all teach that. But it's the idea of *exterminating sin*--even temporarily, that is the error, in my judgment. We become mature, and in that sense "perfect," but we do not become sinless--not even for a moment. We have the sin nature, and therefore we *will* sin, if only in smaller ways. I certainly wouldn't justify committing big sins just because "we are sinful."

I think Sanctification Teaching came about because many people, like me personally, grew up in church, and knew God, but knew nothing of the "power of God." When that power is activated in our lives, we can distinguish between "good works" and "Christ's righteousness."

The latter is more "perfect" than the former, since the former seems to lack the ability to understand the correlation between God's "voice" and our obedience. Otherwise, we are just following seemingly good principles, which actually may or may not be inspired.

When we actually "hear" God's voice, we are following actual revelation, and we feel truly Sanctified. And I think this is true. In either case, the Christian has the sin nature and never becomes perfect until the resurrection. The idea is to have better conformity to God's word, as well as a more intimate relationship with the Lord.

The idea of having the ability to 100% avoid sin throughout our lives, despite the existence of the sin nature, seems to be what you're advocating? My argument against this is that just *having the sin nature* means we must, in some sense, sin.

And that's what John is saying in 1 John, that we *must* sin to some degree, but that even as we capitulate to some degree we can subdue it and mitigate it. The end result will be that our sin nature will not be able to hinder our relationship with God and our ability to produce righteousness.

 

[amadeus]

No disagreement with what you say here, but the statement does not change the nature of sin. It still brings death. God never amends the principle from Genesis through Revelation.

If I tried to respond to that many people in one post... I GUARANTEE that something would happen and I would lose the post in cyberspace before it got posted!

And on the other end from a person posting such a long post are the ones like me, who very simply would not bother to read it. The post was not lost in the sense you meant, but lost nonetheless in that likely few bothered to read it.

 

[amadeus]

Justification is a legal term.

It is given is a person who has been charged with a crime who has been declared innocent (justified) or has paid their debt in full (justified)

We have been justified, means we have been declare innocent, or that our debt was paid in full

according to scripture. Blood is the agent by which a guilty sinner could be redeemed. and as such, Justified

But having been justified and cleansed a person's time here time remains before him. He has effectively been taken back to where Adam and Eve were before they disobeyed God. Now in the time that remains to him, the person has the opportunity to do what Adam and Eve failed to do... obey God continuously through to end of their remaining time. Impossible? People often say so when they claiming to be believers deny the power of God...

"And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible." Mark 10:26-27

Possible because Jesus paid the price and he is in us to do the necessary work to endure to the end...

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Col 1:27

But for that hope to become more than hope, we must endure to the end. For this reason we also warned:

"Quench not the Spirit." I Thess 5:19

 

[Episkopos]

It is an interesting subject, but before going headlong into it, let me just share my immediate thoughts. I think you're wrong that "sinless perfection" is not part of the idea of a "complete sanctification." All evangelicals believe in "victory over sin." This is not the same thing as having a flawed human nature coexisting with our demonstrations of righteousness. Either the sin nature is excised from within us when we do righteousness, or we do righteousness while the "sin tendency" continues to exist within us.

I personally practice righteousness even as I notice wrong thoughts rise up within me, which to me is evidence of the sin nature. We are temporarily cleansed of this until the redemption of our bodies in the resurrection. The blood of Christ has to regularly be applied not because it wasn't good for all time, but rather, because we sin over and over again, being that the sin nature exists within us, and we have to over and over again confess our sins and be cleansed.

So which among these options do you personally believe, that we can exterminate the sin nature while it is in us in order to do righteousness? Or is it that in the midst of our inherent sin we do righteousness? This for me is the real deal, because if we can completely exterminate sin in our lives, simply by force of will, or by faith, then in theory we *never* have to sin. But in reality, I believe we do have to sin in the sense that we are inherently sinful, and do commit sins. It's just that we need to subdue it, and regularly get victory over it, and avoid the worst sins.

If victory over sin is what these Sanctification people teach, I should think we all teach that. But it's the idea of *exterminating sin*--even temporarily, that is the error, in my judgment. We become mature, and in that sense "perfect," but we do not become sinless--not even for a moment. We have the sin nature, and therefore we *will* sin, if only in smaller ways. I certainly wouldn't justify committing big sins just because "we are sinful."

I think Sanctification Teaching came about because many people, like me personally, grew up in church, and knew God, but knew nothing of the "power of God." When that power is activated in our lives, we can distinguish between "good works" and "Christ's righteousness."

The latter is more "perfect" than the former, since the former seems to lack the ability to understand the correlation between God's "voice" and our obedience. Otherwise, we are just following seemingly good principles, which actually may or may not be inspired.

When we actually "hear" God's voice, we are following actual revelation, and we feel truly Sanctified. And I think this is true. In either case, the Christian has the sin nature and never becomes perfect until the resurrection. The idea is to have better conformity to God's word, as well as a more intimate relationship with the Lord.

The idea of having the ability to 100% avoid sin throughout our lives, despite the existence of the sin nature, seems to be what you're advocating? My argument against this is that just *having the sin nature* means we must, in some sense, sin.

And that's what John is saying in 1 John, that we *must* sin to some degree, but that even as we capitulate to some degree we can subdue it and mitigate it. The end result will be that our sin nature will not be able to hinder our relationship with God and our ability to produce righteousness.

While trying to do our best is good....it isn't the gospel. Paul speaks of being dead to sin...and that it is no longer he that lives but Christ. So unless Jesus is sinning through him then there is no sin possible when we are IN Christ.

So then the striving is not to try not sinning....but to enter into He who knew no sin. In Him we take on His victory in holiness.

 

[Randy Kluth]

While trying to do our best is good....it isn't the gospel. Paul speaks of being dead to sin...and that it is no longer he that lives but Christ. So unless Jesus is sinning through him then there is no sin possible when we are IN Christ.

So then the striving is no to try not sinning....but to enter into He who knew no sin. In Him we take on His victory in holiness.

I appreciate you weighing in on this. I'm basing my belief on personal experience. I always sense the sin nature, and feel it cloud my judgment. At the same time I sense Christ is always with me, producing love out of his own heart, and he lets me share in it. The goal is to keep the light of Christ's love shining, putting out the little fires that crop up now and then. Sin is something that has to be fought back--it always tries to creep in. Sometimes you just have to ignore it until it goes away. The only alternative to capitulation to sin is choosing to indulge Christ in our lives.

 

[Episkopos]

I appreciate you weighing in on this. I'm basing my belief on personal experience. I always sense the sin nature, and feel it cloud my judgment. At the same time I sense Christ is always with me, producing love out of his own heart, and he lets me share in it. The goal is to keep the light of Christ's love shining, putting out the little fires that crop up now and then. Sin is something that has to be fought back--it always tries to creep in. Sometimes you just have to ignore it until it goes away. The only alternative to capitulation to sin is choosing to indulge Christ in our lives.

Yes the Lord is near to they who call out to Him in our wilderness.

 

[Candidus]

I'm basing my belief on personal experience.

Randy, basing beliefs on personal experiences is a dangerous means of arriving at Biblical truth. If I fail spiritually, it has not the least bearing on what God says that He will do or is willing to do. Many people believe that God's Law is unreasonable, and God is a God of Love; in their "experience" they "feel accepted" and believe that they are on their way to eternal bliss when they die. "I've tried really hard, but it is impossible for me to obey God..." is poor basis in which to press Scripture into supporting what we experience.

When we get "saved" the devil does not die. We will get tested, and be tempted; but just like the temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness, temptation is not sin or sinfulness. If we are being tested, it is to see our response. I have heard many Christians blame themselves and believe that there is something spiritually wrong with them when they are tempted and tested. The true test as to whether this test shows something to be spiritually wrong, is if we fail. Yes, it is that experience that reveals or faith or unbelief, and cause us to evaluate our standing with God.

We all base much of what we know of God on our personal experience with Him. Experience is only valid up to a point. God says that He is able to keep the Believer from falling; is He able? Can He? Will He give us a way of escape when we are tempted? If the Bible promises victory and we fail; this is an abnormal Christian experience. If we say that "everyone I know does not experience victory" and that proves something.... it does not prove that that is "normal Christianity." It does prove that they should evaluate whether they are truly Christian.

The Bible says what Christian experience is; if our lives do not reflect it, we should "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you-unless, of course, you fail the test? 2 Cor. 13:5.