Calvinism

[excubitor]

on 14 Apr 2013 - 14:29, said:
1. Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
2. Children dying without baptism are NOT excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

Too many negatives there, for me! Um..... Which is doctrine, and which is heresy? What should one believe or disbelieve? Thanks!

Sorry. I agree it was confusing. I was even confusing myself.

The true doctrine is that infants need to be baptised to be cleansed from original sin. AND that children dying without baptism are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life.

The false doctrine is the heresy of Pelagianism which teaches that children have no need to have original sin removed. AND that children dying without baptism may enter the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life.

Like I said. Most Christians today believe the heresy of Pelagianism, which is why I said that the heretical teachings of Pelagianism are rife in the church today. In fact the christian church (at least on the protestant side and less so on the Catholic and EO side) is almost completely overrun with this particular heresy of Pelagianism.

 

[Hepzibah]

I don`t know where you get that from. Nearly all Protestants believe in original sin although there is a movement today that is discovering just how misrepresented Pelagius was and is. They also mostly deny that holiness is for this life. They believe that God is merciful towards young children though Calvinists in general deny this.

In fact, many more in the earler years of your denomination believed that a man can walk in sinlessness eg St John of the Cross.

Pelagius said that children are not born with original sin but that all men need the grace of God to be saved once they reach the age of accountability as they will then fall like Adam. All unsaved men though have the power of will to resist sins which Augustine denied. To be saved from all sin is not the same thing.

The state that is being touted here is no different to that of the unsaved (which in fact they are). They resist some sins and call it grace. Its not. Grace is resist all sin.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I agree that a man who is saved cannot sin and crucifixion with Christ is salvation and sanctification.

Does your use of cannot mean 'not able to' or 'not permitted to'?

 

[excubitor]

I don`t know where you get that from. Nearly all Protestants believe in original sin although there is a movement today that is discovering just how misrepresented Pelagius was and is. They also mostly deny that holiness is for this life. They believe that God is merciful towards young children though Calvinists in general deny this.

These nearly all Protestants pay lip service to original sin if they don't believe that baptism is required for a child to gain access to the kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
Pelagianism is a set of heresies which at their root deny the doctrine of original sin. To truly believe the true doctrine of original sin then we must accept all the doctrines that go along with it, in particular the necessity of baptism to wash away the stain of original sin.

In fact, many more in the earler years of your denomination believed that a man can walk in sinlessness eg St John of the Cross.

Pelagius said that children are not born with original sin but that all men need the grace if God to be saved once they reach the age of accountability as they will then fall like Adam. All unsaved men though have the power of will to resist sins which Augustine denied. To be saved from all sin is not the same thing.

The state that is being touted here is no different to that of the unsaved (which in fact they are). They resist some sins and call it grace. Its not. Grace is resist all sin.

This is obviously a false teaching. Death entered the world through one man Adam. If this is not true then life cannot enter the world through the obedience of one man being Christ the second Adam.
The pelagian teaching that a man must add to the sin of Adam once he reaches the age of accountability in order to come under the sentence of death means that death is not by the sin of Adam at all, but rather it is by the sin of each man. So if each man is accountable for his sin and the resulting death then it follows that he shall be required out of his own obedience to redeem himself. If death comes into the world by many men then life and salvation must also come into the world by many men, and not just one man being that Christ who is the second Adam. Pelagius and many protestants want it both ways.

Therefore because death came upon us by one man it is therefore by Grace alone and not by any effort of our own that this death is reversed through Christ. It is Grace that gives us the ability to throw off sin and approach the salvation of God. Grace is offered freely to all men of good will who seek after God.

Men after the sin of Adam are powerless to free themselves from the snare of sin. Even their attempts to do good works are selfishly motivated and are filthy rags compared to the righteousness of God. But when Grace comes to them from God on account of the sacrifice of his Son Jesus, the shackles of death and sin are broken and the saved person has true liberty to do good and to shun sin. This is what Augustine taught.

Pelagius distorted the gospel by claiming that fallen man in his natural state had free-will, virtue and law, quite independent of the notion of God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man's own effort.

People who think Pelagianism is not a heresy are just looking at Pelagianism through ridiculously rose coloured glasses. Those who dabble with it as many modern protestants do are going to come a cropper and be sucked into a morasse of error which will threaten their own lives and the lives of all their children and descendants. This is serious stuff.

 

[Hepzibah]

Does your use of cannot mean 'not able to' or 'not permitted to'?

Hi, he can sin but cannot remain saved if he does.

in particular the necessity of baptism to wash away the stain of original sin.

Hi, yes indeed the baptism of the Spirit though to save by removing the sinful nature that has developed. Roman Catholicalism makes the mistake of taking things literally where they should be interpreted spiritually in the New Covenant.

then it follows that he shall be required out of his own obedience to redeem himself.

No redemption comes by one Man and His shed blood. Death came into the world, meaning spiritual death through Adam. Again your church is taking the literal side. This spiritual death is passed on to all men because of the power of the devil, the Prince of the air, tempting every man.

Pelagius distorted the gospel by claiming that fallen man in his natural
state had free-will, virtue and law, quite independent of the notion of
God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the
supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in
the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man's own
effort.

Pelagius argued against man being corrupt throughout and not able to do good which is what Augstine the true heretic here said. Just looking around we can see that men do good and avoid sins. Men who are not fully corrupted want to do the right thing and lead good lives. There are some who are evil and have evil intentions but they are in the minority. Most want a peaceful life but Augustine would not have that. However, man cannot save himself and Pelagius never said that he could.

You are getting your information from a second source. It is misrepresentation of what he taught.

It is easy to understand where Pelagius was coming from by studying the dispute between him and Augustine over Romans 7.

I am not a Protestant by the way. I do not believe in sola scriptura.

 

[Rex]

I find it both sad and humorous that some look to ancient writers like Augustine, Pelagius or Calvin or Luther as the final word about salvation.
1 Cor 1:12-13

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Hi, he can sin but cannot remain saved if he does.

Does 'cannot remain saved if he does' sin mean the person cannot be saved at all or if he doesn't repent?

 

[Hepzibah]

Does 'cannot remain saved if he does' sin mean the person cannot be saved at all or if he doesn't repent?

Even if he repents, it is not easy for him to be restored. Heb 6:6

 

[Rex]

Hi, he can sin but cannot remain saved if he does.
.

I am not a Protestant by the way. I do not believe in sola scriptura.

So now I understand your reasoning, its pointless to discus what the Apostles said when we overlay it with others opinion we consider of equal or greater revelation. Surly we end up the followers of men whom never knew Christ in doing so.

Hi, he can sin but cannot remain saved if he does.

Even if he repents, it is not easy for him to be restored. Heb 6:6

So let me get this straight, your advocating a man must become and remain perfect "sinless"


You seem to talk in circles

I don`t know where you get that from.

The state that is being touted here is no different to that of the unsaved (which in fact they are). They resist some sins and call it grace. Its not. Grace is resist all sin.

 

[Hepzibah]

So let me get this straight, your advocating a man must become and remain perfect "sinless"

To be saved from sin has no other meaning. Simple - no ifs or buts. Any other meaning is just a twisting of words.

Although I am not a Protestant as I believe that the Spirit is our final authority, I respect the scriptures as inspired by God and will not be contradicted by the truth. The Spirit confirms within me that the scriptures are truth and also some of the words of men ,some more than others. I am not a follower of Pelagius, I just think that history is right when it says that he was a holy man and Augustine by his own admission was not.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Even if he repents, it is not easy for him to be restored. Heb 6:6

Hebrews 6:6 refers to those who abandoned their faith in the blood of the lamb in order to return to the system of temple sacrifices that was still in existence then. It has nothing do with a believer committing a sin.

To be saved from sin has no other meaning. Simple - no ifs or buts. Any other meaning is just a twisting of words.

But that expression is so vague it conveys no meaning.

 

[Hepzibah]

Hebrews 6:6 refers to those who abandoned their faith in the blood of the lamb in order to return to the system of temple sacrifices that was still in existence then. It has nothing do with a believer committing a sin.

That`s your interpretation - I don`t agree.

But that expression is so vague it conveys no meaning.

Sorry if that was vague - yes I believe in sinless perfection.

 

[ScottAU]

Hi Scott

I`m just about 100% with you and am so pleased to hear you preach the truth in such a clear precise way.

We will indeed walk in perfection and know and be known fully after death, but that death must take place in this life, as we consent to crucifixion with Christ and be raised with Him in the here and now. Those who think they must wait until the end of their lives will never attain it and the scriptures do not promise it as death is not our saviour, it is the enemy. Christ saves in this life, that is saving from sin so that the Holy Spirit can dwell within, in a cleansed temple not made with hands.

The church has been led by Satan to think that we are saved from sin at the same time as committing it despite good intentions. Any man can avoid a sin with good intentions even the worst criminal. We cannot turn from all sin however without the power of God, who does not fall short in this power. His power is fully operational but only in those who are willing. If they are not delivered from all sin, including the sinful thoughts of the mind, they have not been willing to turn. They want it all - to hang on to their lives and place themselves mentally in the gates of heaven but scripture is clear - they will be refused entry at death and it will be too late. They were warned about the truth but they scoffed and derided the messenger. By that attitude of derision, they showed themselves for what they are - walking in darkness.

One question for you,why did Paul say that he delighted in the law of God after the inward man when it was the outward man that Jews were/are concerned with? Paul said that as far as the law was concerned he was faultless, but then we see him say in Romans 7 that to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not?

I agree that a man who is saved cannot sin and crucifixion with Christ is salvation and sanctification.

Thanks for your respone.

In Romans 7 Paul is speaking as a representative of a man who is carnal, under the law and is also under deep conviction. Paul is not speaking of his present life as a Christian, he is using a grammatical construct called the "Historical Present" for emphasis. Thus the wretch is an illustration Paul is making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present
http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html

The context of Romans 7 must be considered as well as the specifics of what Paul discusses when coming to an understanding of what he is speaking about.

Romans 6 basically covers the gift of God which is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23) and the methodology of how one enters into Christ via repentance and faith wehreby one is set free from sin (Rom 6:4-7) and thus walks in this free state (Rom 6:8-13) whereby righteousness is produced (Rom 6:16) due to yielding to God (Rom 6:17-18) which bears the fruit of holiness (Rom 6:19) the end of which is eternal life (Rom 6:22). The whole dynamic being a gift of God which works through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23).


Romans 7 then opens with a description of how one moves from the "law" to "Christ" and Paul uses the illustration of marriage (Rom 7:2-4). He is also writing to those who "know the law" (Rom 7:1) and then proceeds to defend the law from the perception that one might deem the law to be bad due that it empowers sin to kill (Rom 7:5-13).

Paul then goes into the famous wretch passage in context with what he has just written, that is a man "under the law" whom is "spiritually dead" and "in bondage to sin." This man is "carnal and sold under sin" (Rom 7:14) yet knows that the law is good and from above (Rom 7:14) yet due to his wretched state "knows not" (Rom 7:15) and thus does what he wouldn't do if he knew better. Thus he does what he wouldn't do otherwise (if he knew better) but freely admits that the law is the right way to go (Rom 7:16), thus he has not outright rejected the outright standards of God (hence the conviction).

Paul then personifies sin (Rom 6:17) as indwelling due to the strength of its draw, quite similar to how God personifies sin in Gen 4:7 when speaking to Cain. Paul then recognises that "in him" (the old man/carnal/flesh man) there is no good thing, there is a will (in the mind) to do that which is right, but the flesh rules over that will (thus his mind is subject to the passions and desires of the flesh [even though Paul does not say it in this verse it is due to having a spirit which is dead to God]). Abraham made a very similar statement in Rom 4:1 where Abraham found the flesh lacking (an allusion to the necessity of the grace/provision/empowerment of God).

Then in Rom 7:19-23 Paul basically sums up that you cannot defeat sin in the flesh. My understanding of this is that we have a flesh body, a mind, and a spirit. When we rebel against God our spirit dies in the sense that it is "alive to God" and thus the flesh is the dominant force exercised over the mind. Thus a sinner is a person where the "base man" or the "carnal man" rules over the mind. One is saved from this state by having their spirit brought back to life (quickened) by God whereby the Spirit then takes control (God working through our spirit) whereby the mind and body are brought into subjection. This is genuine salvation or abiding in Jesus Christ.

In Rom 7:24 we have the wretched man "crying out for deliverance." He than makes the statement that with the mind he serves the law of God but with the body the law of sin. I tend to view this (due to the "thanking" that Paul is expressing that the body will always serve the law of sin (hence the body of sin needing to be destroyed in Rom 6:6) whilst the mind can serve the law of God by abiding in Jesus Christ. Hence in Romans 8:1-2 Paul writes this...

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Verse 2 above is the solution for the wretch. One must enter into the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. This occurs via Rom 6:4-7 (ie. repentance and faith) whereby one is raised up by the power of God (Col 2:12), refreshed (Act 3:19) and quickened (Eph 2:5) whereby ALL THINGS have become new (2Cor 5:17).

So basically Romans 6, 7 and 8 all harmonise for Paul is simply getting deep into the methodology and reasoning of being born again. Rom 6 is the HOW. Rom 7 is the WHY. Rom 8 is the RESULT.



What the false teachers have done is take Romans 7:14-25 and twist it into a description of the present walk of a Christian thus justifying their saved in sin message. These wolves are easy to expose for a Christian IS NOT "carnal and sold under sin" rather a Christian has been "redeemed from all iniquity and made pure" (Tit 2:14).

These wolves utterly deny the possibility of heart purity. They see salvation in "doctrine" as opposed to the real Jesus Christ. It is basically the same error as the Pharisees who also denied heart purity in favour of the letter of the law.

 

[Hepzibah]

Hi Scott

Thank you for your reply.

he is using a grammatical construct called the "Historical Present" for emphasis.

Agreed.

The context of Romans 7 must be considered as well as the specifics
of what Paul discusses when coming to an understanding of what he is
speaking about.

Romans 6 basically covers the gift of God which is eternal life THROUGH Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23) and the methodology of how one enters into Christ via repentance and faith wehreby one is set free from sin (Rom 6:4-7) and thus walks in this free state (Rom 6:8-13) whereby righteousness is produced (Rom 6:16) due to yielding to God (Rom 6:17-18) which bears the fruit of holiness (Rom 6:19) the end of which is eternal life (Rom 6:22). The whole dynamic being a gift of God which works through Jesus Christ (Rom 6:23).


Romans 7 then opens with a description of how one moves from the "law" to "Christ" and Paul uses the illustration of marriage (Rom 7:2-4). He is also writing to those who "know the law" (Rom 7:1)
and then proceeds to defend the law from the perception that one might
deem the law to be bad due that it empowers sin to kill (Rom 7:5-13).

Agreed. The man described believes that he is required to keep the law but tries in his own strength.I made this mistake but it was not my experience of it being before Christ apprehended me, I thought that I was as good as the next man. I did not grieve for my sins. Then one day the truth was revealed to me that Christ died for my sins. I had never been struggling before that. When I heard the good news I understood that I was a sinner and I felt relieved and grateful for what He gave me as a gift. I did not feel I had to earn it or try.

But consider this - how few in the church have ever been brought to the Lord with the full gospel. They are told that Christ will slowly sanctify them. This is what I was told and why I eventually came to a point of despair as what went on inside me was not what the scriptures told me should be going on. I wanted to be obedient but something stopped me yet I believed in Christ and that He alone could save me. Many have also been through this..

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Verse 2 above is the solution for the wretch. One must enter into the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. This occurs via Rom 6:4-7 (ie. repentance and faith) whereby one is raised up by the power of God (Col 2:12), refreshed (Act 3:19) and quickened (Eph 2:5) whereby ALL THINGS have become new (2Cor 5:17).

So
basically Romans 6, 7 and 8 all harmonise for Paul is simply getting
deep into the methodology and reasoning of being born again. Rom 6 is
the HOW. Rom 7 is the WHY. Rom 8 is the RESULT.

Agreed, but there was a gap in there for me as I had not been taught the full gospel. And until the full gospel had been revealed to me by Christ himself, I consider that I was a believer but not yet a `little Christ` and walking as He walked.

I ask you to consider this.

"Arminus taught that until Augustine, the most common view of Romans
7 was the one he was teaching. Arminius taught that becoming a
Christian delivered a person from the power of the law and the dominion
of sin and where this did not occur, neither did regeneration (2
Corinthians 5:17).



Ironically, Vic Reasoner points out that Augustine changed his
views on Romans 7. Early on Augustine held the same view as Arminius
over the person of Romans 7, mainly that Paul was describing a man under
the law and dominion of sin. He published his views under the title Exposition of certain Propositions in the Epistle to the Romans. In
the book, Augustine wrote that this chapter (Romans 7) must be
understood as relating to a man under the law and that this and not to a
man under grace. However, Augustine over-reacted to the Pelagian heresy
(where Pelagius was teaching sinless perfection through human free will
and rejected the Augustine theory of original sin and total depravity)
and he begin to teach that Romans 7 was to be understood as the highest
state of Christian experience (and obvious over-reaction to Pelagius who
was teaching that Romans 7 described an unsaved man). Augustine reacted
by retracting the second position (that the person of Romans 7 is not a
man under grace) but not the first. Augustine then made the sin in
Romans 7 to be sexual desire and he reduced original sin to sexual
desire and thus he made the human body sinful and even regenerated
persons would be struggling with sin their entire lives thereby.

http://arminiantoday.com/2009/07/12/arminius-on-romans-713-25/"

The writer is wrong here - Pelagius did not preach that it was an unsaved man. If that was what he taught then he and Augustine would not have been in dispute about it. As said, Augustine did an about turn and brought into the church a new interpretation known now as Calvinism.

What you are saying was not what Pelagius taught but it was the teaching of the majority of the church before the dispute. Pelagius was teaching holiness doctrine which was in the minority as always, Because the church does not teach this doctrine, many come to Christ as believers but are not yet saved. They hear the truth, if they are blessed to come across it that sin has no place in the life of a true disciple, and they cry out in desperation as they know they cannot keep the law because they have tried that is, if they have not become reprobate. They have not understood that the Spirit gives power to live a holy life and instantly once they believe it.

I have another question - do you believe that unintentional sin is allowed?


Just to make it clear ;

Calvinsim - the man is a normal Christian

Arminianism - the man is an unbeliever

Traditional Holiness before Pentecostalism - the man has come to a crisis whereby he has been serving God in his own strength because he did not know any better. This is where Pelagius stood as there is no other way to interpret Romans 7 apart from the ways mentioned.

 

[ScottAU]

I have another question - do you believe that unintentional sin is allowed?

Unintentional sin is very different to flagrant rebellion.

I wrote an article on the issue which you might like to read...

http://thesinmuststop.blogspot.com/2013/03/obedience-versus-transgression.html

 

[jiggyfly]

No...I don't believe I do need to rephrase. Too many doctrinal and theological mistakes come from the assumption that God works on and is judged by, human standards.
Consider....God calls us to be selfless. But God is about his own glory....sounds kind of selfish, right? In human standards it would be. But God is not human, He is the Great I AM....the one who breathed out the universe and formed us with his hands. For him it is right and just for him to seek his own glory. It is right because he IS God. For us to seek our own glory is about us putting ourselves in his place....clearly sinful.
My point being that what God demands of us, and what he holds for himself, are different. We cannot judge them equally....to do so is to set ourselves up as gods....blasphemy!!
As far as God's love goes....I do not understand why people say that if he was truly loving he wouldn't judge. The exact opposite is true! For God to be perfectly loving, he must also uphold perfect justice. It is quite clear in scripture...that God is loving, but he also will judge. To believe anything else is deny his own words to us.

I sorry but it sounds like you believe God requires things of us that He is not willing to do Himself. I have never said Father won't judge, I know from time spent with Him that He is always judging righteously discerning what is right from wrong, after all He is our Father. I think you just misunderstand Him and His righteous judgement. Jesus said that our heavenly Father loves His enemies and my time spent with Him dictates this same character, but I see you don't see the contradiction in your statements and this is part of your struggle so no sense in going on till HolySpirit reveals more to you.

No sense in responding on the rest of your post till you can reconcile your beliefs about God's character so till then I hope you are blessed with more time with Him.

 

[Hepzibah]

Scott

Thank you it was useful to have the link to your blogs and the video`s so that I can fully understand your theology.

Please understand that I am not one of the `wolves`. I do not plead for sin and in fact I go further than you. I do not believe there is a difference between deliberate and unconscious sin in the Christian. Sin is sin and brings death which means that the man loses his discernment in interpreting scripture and is blind to Satan`s higher level of deception. If he can get the man to accept `unconscious` sin then he is happy because the man has put himself under the law of sin and death and lacks the power of God to convict others of sin, and even brings his own doctrine into disrepute and especially holiness teaching when others see the mans sins at the same time as he is preaching perfection. He is seen to be a hypocrite as his sins are in full view of others and he pleads that they are not sins as he did not mean them. Holy men in the past were known for their holy lives and not merely for their words contradicted by their actions. This is a great deception of these times. It comes from misinterpreting Wesley.

1 John 16 which is used to back up `unconscious sins` is taken out of context as John is talking about the distinction that Jews mistakenly used in their interpretion of Number 15 where God grants mercy to those who are not yet in Christ. I will quote Adam Clarke

. Here is an an allusion to a distinction in
the Jewish law, where there was חטאה למיתה chattaah lemithah, "a sin
unto death;" and חטאה לא למיתה chattaah lo lemithah, "a sin not unto
death;" that is,
1. A sin, or transgression, to which the law had assigned the
punishment of death; such as idolatry, incest, blasphemy, breach of the
Sabbath, and the like. And
2. A sin not unto death, i.e. transgressions of ignorance,
inadvertence, etc., and such is, in their own nature, appear to be
comparatively light and trivial. That such distinctions did exist in the
Jewish synagogue both Schoettgen and Carpzovius have proved.
2. By the sin not unto death, for which intercession might be
made, and unto death, for which prayer might not be made, we are to
understand transgressions of the civil law of a particular place, some
of which must be punished with death, according to the statutes, the
crime admitting of no pardon: others might be punished with death, but
the magistrate had the power of commuting the punishments, i.e. of
changing death into banishment, etc., for reasons that might appear to
him satisfactory, or at the intercession of powerful friends. To
intercede in the former case would be useless, because the law would not
relax, therefore they need not pray for it; but intercession in the
latter case might be prevalent, therefore they might pray; and if they
did not, the person might suffer the punishment of death. This opinion,
which has been advanced by Rosenmuller, intimates that men should feel
for each other's distresses, and use their influence in behalf of the
wretched, nor ever abandon the unfortunate but where the case is utterly
hopeless.

Christ`s sacrifice was to cover both deliberate and unconscious sin as the Holy Spirit is given in the New Covenant as He cannot dwell where there is pollution in the temple, and anyone walking in the light, is not ignorant of transgressions to the law, as promised in the OT.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light and a light unto my path. I have sworn and will perform it that I will keep they righteous judgements Ps 119 v 105.

There is no clause in this statement such as `as far as I am able`.

But the path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day, the way of the wicked is as darkness they know not at what they stumble Pro 4:19.

The man of God hears the Holy Spirit within him and is guided to know what is sin and what is not, heis not left in ignorance . He hears the Spirit tell him whether to turn to the left or to the right and the man obeys. It is called walking in the light for this reason. Just doing what one knows is right is not enough - the Apostle Paul like the Pharisees kept the law, and Paul said he did it perfectly. It is not enough.

If one is indwelt by the Spirit one does not even have thoughts that are unworthy of the temple. Only righteousness comes from that man. There cannot be dirty and clean water coming from the same tap/faucet.

Even under the laws of man, ignorance is not accepted as defence.

 

[ScottAU]

Scott

Thank you it was useful to have the link to your blogs and the video`s so that I can fully understand your theology.

Please understand that I am not one of the `wolves`. I do not plead for sin and in fact I go further than you. I do not believe there is a difference between deliberate and unconscious sin in the Christian. Sin is sin and brings death which means that the man loses his discernment in interpreting scripture and is blind to Satan`s higher level of deception. If he can get the man to accept `unconscious` sin then he is happy because the man has put himself under the law of sin and death and lacks the power of God to convict others of sin, and even brings his own doctrine into disrepute and especially holiness teaching when others see the mans sins at the same time as he is preaching perfection. He is seen to be a hypocrite as his sins are in full view of others and he pleads that they are not sins as he did not mean them. Holy men in the past were known for their holy lives and not merely for their words contradicted by their actions. This is a great deception of these times. It comes from misinterpreting Wesley.

1 John 16 which is used to back up `unconscious sins` is taken out of context as John is talking about the distinction that Jews mistakenly used in their interpretion of Number 15 where God grants mercy to those who are not yet in Christ. I will quote Adam Clarke


Christ`s sacrifice was to cover both deliberate and unconscious sin as the Holy Spirit is given in the New Covenant as He cannot dwell where there is pollution in the temple, and anyone walking in the light, is not ignorant of transgressions to the law, as promised in the OT.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light and a light unto my path. I have sworn and will perform it that I will keep they righteous judgements Ps 119 v 105.

There is no clause in this statement such as `as far as I am able`.

But the path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day, the way of the wicked is as darkness they know not at what they stumble Pro 4:19.

The man of God hears the Holy Spirit within him and is guided to know what is sin and what is not, heis not left in ignorance . He hears the Spirit tell him whether to turn to the left or to the right and the man obeys. It is called walking in the light for this reason. Just doing what one knows is right is not enough - the Apostle Paul like the Pharisees kept the law, and Paul said he did it perfectly. It is not enough.

If one is indwelt by the Spirit one does not even have thoughts that are unworthy of the temple. Only righteousness comes from that man. There cannot be dirty and clean water coming from the same tap/faucet.

Even under the laws of man, ignorance is not accepted as defence.

I agree with you.

Yet I would still contend that non-presumptuous sin such as making a wrong judgment, acting in haste, prioritising wrong, perhaps worrying, over-zealousness are things that do not necessarily flow from guile within. When God wants us to keep His righteous judgments it is in the context of "obedience from the heart." God looks at the heart and if He finds faith (faithfulness) then He reckons that as righteousness despite existent shortcomings.

What is not acceptable is rebellion.

Paul may have kept the law perfectly but he was only adorning the outside of the cup. Paul did not have a faith that works by love and thus when God later taught him the truth he was very clear in making the distinction between righteousness via a faith that works by love and the perception of righteousness via keeping the law. Paul alluded that it was in fact to "fall from grace" if one sought righteousness in the law hence he clearly understood the dynamic of being saved by grace THROUGH faith.

 

[Hepzibah]

Scott

Lets look at them one at a time.

making a wrong judgment

Agreed. Especially in the early stage but even at full stature, we can make a mistake in judgement and Wesley allowed for this. (I am not a Weslyan, definitely not an Arminian) As Wesley said, we can judge a person to be better than he is and misjudge a persons heart. We do not and never have perfect knowledge.

acting in haste

This one might occur in the very early stage but is much less likely and is a very very bad sign in the mature stage as a Spirit led believer will take care to follow guidance and not make haste as haste is a sign of the flesh working.

prioritising wrong

Again this one is a very bad sign of not being led by the Spirit and should not be seen in the Spirit led.

, , , perhaps worrying

Absolutely NOT. Worry is lack of trust and if this is present then one is not walking in the light.

, over-zealousness

Again, very possible in the very early stage but very bad indeed in those who are teaching and have reached maturity.

Really it is only the first one that is acceptable.

Indeed God looks for heart obedience but if we have a pure heart then really all ones actions and thoughts will be pure and there is a huge difference between a mistaken judgement and the other examples you gave. In heart purity much more is required than intention. The power of the Holy Spirit overcomes any inability or shortcomings apart from a rare `mistake`.

 

[Rach1370]

I sorry but it sounds like you believe God requires things of us that He is not willing to do Himself. I have never said Father won't judge, I know from time spent with Him that He is always judging righteously discerning what is right from wrong, after all He is our Father. I think you just misunderstand Him and His righteous judgement. Jesus said that our heavenly Father loves His enemies and my time spent with Him dictates this same character, but I see you don't see the contradiction in your statements and this is part of your struggle so no sense in going on till HolySpirit reveals more to you.

No sense in responding on the rest of your post till you can reconcile your beliefs about God's character so till then I hope you are blessed with more time with Him.

I'm sorry....but I see that as a bit of a cop out. I've given scripture and reason for my opinions, and you've used the whole "God told me different" argument. Anything God has told or shown you needs to be backed up by scripture...anything he's told you WILL be backed up by scripture.
So choose not to answer if you will, that's your right and I respect it, but please know that I don't accept the answer above.....for a few reasons....

You say my understanding is faulty....and yet you seem to think that God won't 'require things of us he himself is not willing to do'....well, I'm afraid that is blown out of the water is a single comment.....God demands us to repent. If we take that with your 'understanding', that means God must show repentance as well. Clearly this is not the case. God cannot show repentance, because he is perfect....for him to even suggest or hint at his need (or even willingness) to repent, then he is showing, or admitting to, less than perfection. His glory will not then be declared. And we know (from all over, but particularly Eph 1:12,14) that God is FOR his own glory....he will never act in a way that denies it.

So I'm very sorry if you feel I must continue 'waiting' for the Spirit to enlighten me. I disagree with you and believe that he already has. And I must say, I'm a bit disappointed that you used that particular phrase....it seems to be a very common retort when one disagrees, but has zero biblical reason for it....as I said above...a cop out.