Please explain this.

[Lady Crosstalk]

Lady Crosstalk said: ↑
"It diminishes what He did, out of obedience to the Father, if we say that we can be sin-free by grace through faith."

How do you figure?

The OT saints were granted eternal life through the grace of God through their faith in Him. But they were NOT sinless after. Granted, we have the advantage of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and they did not have that. But the Bible only calls Him our "helper" not our dictator or puppet master. The fact that we can and do "grieve" Him means that we are still under a cloud of sin as long as we live in our mortal bodies.


Lady Crosstalk said: ↑
That is NOT what the Bible teaches.

It is what the Bible teaches.

No. The Bible teaches that Christ alone is the only One who has ever walked the earth and escaped from its bounds, sin-free. Please read the first chapter of the gospel of John.

 

[justbyfaith]

My pastor comes from a Moravian background and they have a motto in the Moravian Church that I find useful:

“In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.”

I believe that Luke 16:10 would teach us that we ought to seek after accuracy and unity even in the non-essentials.

Is this the heart that is capable of choosing Christ?
Or will God need to make the first move ...

[John 6:44 NASB] 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Notice that the Father drawing a man to Christ is not the same thing as Him regenerating the man. Calvinists contend that a man cannot come to faith in Jesus unless God first saves the man; but Romans 5:2 declares that we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. I am hoping that you will see this more readily than some other Calvinists that I have contended with.

This is NOT what Calvinism teaches. Rather ... “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” [Philippians 1:6]

Yet, some Calvinists teach it. If you say that they are misrepresenting what Calvinism teaches in teaching it, how am I to know that in saying that, you are not the one who is misrepresenting the doctrine? Because they would say that they have it right.

Look carefully at the account of the Fall. Adam and Eve walked in the Garden with God for who knows how long before the Fall--they would have had the closest of "personal relationships" with Him. Eve knew the consequences of disobedience and that they were dire. But she WANTED to sin. Read it starting at 3:6 (Satan, acting through the snake had previously set her up by planting doubt about what God had said and His character), "The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her." The anatomy of the Fall is plain to see. She WANTED to disobey even though she had been warned. Later, Cain, like his mother WANTED to disobey God, even though he had been warned. Like Adam and Eve, we start off "blameless" and innocent but, in this world of sin and death, we soon learn the way of sin. "As in Adam all die, so, in Christ, shall all be made alive."

Here you seem to be attempting to justify having the desire to sin (and this in your own life?), saying that it is true of everyone across the board. I know that I do not desire to sin; I want to live a life of holiness. Romans 7:14-25 sometimes comes into play if I become focused on the law; but when I do not think that I have to sin it is very definitely true that I will not sin; because I do not want to sin.

If you insist that you never sin, 1 John 1:8 calls you a liar.

Denying that you ever sin, makes you a liar (1 John 1:8).

You are misunderstanding the verse. It does not say, "If we say that we do not sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." If it said that, it would be in contradiction to 1 John 3:5-9. No. it says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And this can mean one or both of two things. 1) That everyone has a record of sin; and if we say that we do not we are deceiving ourselves; or, 2) sin indwells each and every one of us; which does not mean that it necessarily has any kind of say over what we do; since sin can be rendered dead and powerless (Romans 7:8, Galatians 5:24, Romans 6:6).

And denying the exclusivity of Jesus' walk of complete and utter holiness, makes you a heretic, because it attacks one of the fundamental truths of our faith.

Then the apostle John was a heretic; because he taught in 1 John 3:5-9 (also compare 1 John 3:6 to 1 John 2:17) that we can walk in consistent freedom and victory over sin (a consistent life of holiness). Which does not mean that we are without sin; and neither does it mean that we have never sinned. It means that we are no longer walking according to the sins of our past life outside of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17); and also, that we are not allowing indwelling sin to control the way that we live (see Romans 8:13).

And of course, I am not saying that each and every one of us was not a sinner before we accepted Christ. For I believe that each and every last one of us was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5).

 

[justbyfaith]

Whatever happened to the command to repent?

It seems that most heretical teachers today preach that real repentance cannot be a reality for that we are all bound to sin at some point in the future.

This doctrine of the inevitability of sin is a heresy that has run rampant in the church today.

It is refuted by a careful examination and clear understanding of Romans chapter 6.

 

[justbyfaith]

No. The Bible teaches that Christ alone is the only One who has ever walked the earth and escaped from its bounds, sin-free.

Actually, the Bible teaches us that Jesus became sin for us in order that we might become the righteousness of the Lord in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

He was sinless from birth; but He did not escape its bounds, sin-free. He took our sins upon Himself along with their penalty.

He also cried from the Cross, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.

This same Holy Ghost comes to dwell within us as a Helper so that we can walk in freedom and victory.

Consider Hosea 14:2...

Hos 14:2, Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

 

[justbyfaith]

Lady Crosstalk said: ↑
"It diminishes what He did, out of obedience to the Father, if we say that we can be sin-free by grace through faith."

justbyfaith: How do you figure?

Lady Crosstalk: The OT saints were granted eternal life through the grace of God through their faith in Him. But they were NOT sinless after. Granted, we have the advantage of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and they did not have that. But the Bible only calls Him our "helper" not our dictator or puppet master. The fact that we can and do "grieve" Him means that we are still under a cloud of sin as long as we live in our mortal bodies.

I don't see how this means that us walking in freedom from sin diminishes what He did for us on the Cross.

I think that saying that we cannot walk in freedom diminishes what He did for us on the Cross.

He died to set us free (see John 8:31-36).

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

JBF: Here you seem to be attempting to justify having the desire to sin (and this in your own life?), saying that it is true of everyone across the board.

LC: I am not "attempting to justify having the desire to sin"--it is STILL present in our members even after we come to Christ. The Apostle Paul remarked that he was "the chief of sinners".

JBF: I know that I do not desire to sin; I want to live a life of holiness.

LC: So do I.

JBF: Romans 7:14-25 sometimes comes into play if I become focused on the law; but when I do not have to sin it is very definitely true that I will not sin; because I do not want to sin.

LC: LOL--did you ask your spouse whether you are sin-free? You are making your own law of what constitutes holiness.

JBF: You are misunderstanding the verse.

LC:Read the next verse (verse 9). It is clear that John is speaking of the present.

JBF: Then the apostle John was a heretic; because he taught in 1 John 3:5-9 (also compare 1 John 3:6 to 1 John 2:17) that we can walk in consistent freedom and victory over sin.

LC:It is clear when you read the surrounding passages that John is speaking of those who live a life of sin. He is not saying that we will never grieve the Holy Spirit who is our constant companion.

JBF: It means that we are no longer walking according to the sins of our past life outside of Christ; and also, that we are not allowing indwelling sin to control the way that we live (see Romans 8:13).

LC: Um--Is that not what I have been telling YOU since the beginning or our discussion?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Actually, the Bible teaches us that Jesus became sin for us in order that we might become the righteousness of the Lord in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

He was sinless from birth; but He did not escape its bounds, sin-free.

You are confusing Jesus' two natures. He was and IS wholly God. Only an infinite God could atone for the sins of the whole world. But He was and IS wholly human as well. I was looking at His humanity when I made that statement.

 

[justbyfaith]

LC: LOL--did you ask your spouse whether you are sin-free? You are making your own law of what constitutes holiness.

I do not claim to be without sin...but I know that my walk of righteousness has been increasing since I got born again according to Proverbs 4:18.

jbf: You are misunderstanding the verse.
LC: Read the next verse (verse 9). It is clear that John is speaking of the present.

Your point?

I think that verse 9 also substantiates my point quite nicely; for it teaches us that He can cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

LC: It is clear when you read the surrounding passages that John is speaking of those who live a life of sin. He is not saying that we will never grieve the Holy Spirit who is our constant companion.

Neither is the Lord saying that it is inevitable that we will do so, anywhere in scripture.

jbf: It means that we are no longer walking according to the sins of our past life outside of Christ; and also, that we are not allowing indwelling sin to control the way that we live (see Romans 8:13).
LC: Um--Is that not what I have been telling YOU since the beginning or our discussion?

It is what I have been telling you.

So there must be some kind of miscommunication somewhere. Are you certain that you have not been involved in some kind of cult? They have been known to mess with proper definitions.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are confusing Jesus' two natures.

How so?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I do not claim to be without sin...but I know that my walk of righteousness has been increasing since I got born again according to Proverbs 4:18.

So has that of EVERY born-again Christian.

Why are you changing your tune? I thought you can remain sin-free because you don't want to sin.

It is what I have been telling you.

Uh--no you haven't. You have suddenly done a 180 and are trying to claim that what I have been saying is what you have been saying.

So there must be some kind of miscommunication somewhere.

I can certainly agree with that statement if you now mean that sanctification is progressive while we remain in our mortal bodies. But that definitely is NOT what you have maintained from the beginning. You said that you believed one could be entirely sanctified while yet on earth. Do I have to look up the posting?

Are you certain that you have not been involved in some kind of cult?

LOL--Now you are trying to get out of the corner in which you have trapped yourself by trying an ad hominem. No--I have NOT been involved in a cult (unless you consider a standard Baptist Church a cult) --but I think you know that.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

How so?

It is too late to launch into a discussion of the hypostatic union. I'm going to bed--I've been up since 6 a.m.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why are you changing your tune? I thought you can remain sin-free because you don't want to sin.

I have said that I do have indwelling sin by my doctrine; but that I don't have to live by it.

I believe that we can come to a place where we do not sin and cannot sin. When I say this, you understand what I am saying. But when the apostle John says it, surely there must be some esoteric meaning.

Uh--no you haven't.

Um--yes I have.

I can certainly agree with that statement if you now mean that sanctification is progressive while we remain in our mortal bodies. But that definitely is NOT what you have maintained from the beginning. You said that you believed one could be entirely sanctified while yet on earth. Do I have to look up the posting?

So, what do you think this means?:

jbf: "It means that we are no longer walking according to the sins of our past life outside of Christ; and also, that we are not allowing indwelling sin to control the way that we live (see Romans 8:13)."

It would appear that you think this means that there is a gradual progression into holiness but that the goal can never be obtained.

Which is not what I meant by that in the slightest.

To me, it means that we can walk in freedom and victory over sin.

That one can be entirely sanctified on the earth is clear from the kjv's rendering of 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. But if you don't like that, you can certainly heap up for yourself a teacher, in the translator of some other translation, to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

 

[amadeus]

However, the point of my question was that if any version also has errors in it, then it will also ultimately lead you astray by that 1 degree off when headed to Hawaii in a plane. In order to have the unadulterated, saving message of God's word, God's word must be without error as concerning doctrine: it cannot be off in its teaching because of mistranslation.

I have already mentioned how a different message is given in some versions when it comes to Romans 8:1.

We really need the Holy Ghost to help us determine which translation is correct when it comes to these differences. Jeremiah 29:13 tells us that we will find the truth when we seek the Lord with all of our heart.

I know some make excuses for the discrepancy in Romans 8:1 by saying that the truth of the matter is revealed in other passages. The problem is, false doctrine will develop out of reading that passage in the wrong version.



Neither am I kjv-only, I consider myself kjv-superior.

I consider that other versions are useful but cannot be identified as inerrant.

But I do consider that the kjv is inerrant as concerning doctrine.

How else are we going to get the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God in our language?

Must one be an expert in Greek and Hebrew in order to be able to discern the unadulterated message of God's word?

But it is clear that some versions of the Bible are watered-down and offer malnutrition to their readers.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

To me it says that if we are hungry and we are thirsty after righteousness we shall be filled without regard to us needing to use any certain Bible translation.

Were people not ever saved during the centuries when most people were illiterate and prior to the invention of the printing press when very few copies and any Bibles were available even for the literate? Is God therefore limited to saving only the literate who have access to only certain "better" Bible translations?

How great is our God?

 

[justbyfaith]

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

To me it says that if we are hungry and we are thirsty after righteousness we shall be filled without regard to us needing to use any certain Bible translation.

Were people not ever saved during the centuries when most people were illiterate and prior to the invention of the printing press when very few copies and any Bibles were available even for the literate? Is God therefore limited to saving only the literate who have access to only certain "better" Bible translations?

How great is our God?

If you are truly hungry and thirsty for righteousness, you will switch to the kjv as soon as you realize that there are things missing in other translations and that this means you will be spiritually malnourished in the reading of them.

 

[justbyfaith]

Were people not ever saved during the centuries when most people were illiterate and prior to the invention of the printing press when very few copies and any Bibles were available even for the literate?

It was the general practice in those days for the pastors to read long passages of the holy scriptures to the congregants every time the church doors were opened, in obedience to 1 Timothy 4:13.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is too late to launch into a discussion of the hypostatic union. I'm going to bed--I've been up since 6 a.m.

Okay...when you have the time.

Just know that if you are going to tell someone that they are off-base concerning a doctrine, you need to be prepared to give them the real scoop from the word of the Lord as to what that doctrine is really all about.

 

[justbyfaith]

The doctrine of entire sanctification is obviously the contention over which newer Bible translations were created (in an attempt to ultimately defeat that doctrine in the church as being generally and publicly accepted). I believe that the devil hates this doctrine so much that he did what he could to take this doctrine out of every new translation; but that he could not succeed at doing this with the established kjv (though it seems to be going out of vogue...still, the truth is most often never popular).

As such, the doctrine may even be essential to salvation...for is it not the devil's goal to destroy the souls of men by keeping from them the doctrine that would save them if they knew it?

 

[GodsGrace]

If you don't know that Charles Wesley was in charge, then you know nothing.

Please stop telling me what I don't know....
And start posting what is, so that I COULD know....
Thanx.

 

[GodsGrace]

The doctrine of entire sanctification is obviously the contention over which newer Bible translations were created (in an attempt to ultimately defeat that doctrine in the church as being generally and publicly accepted). I believe that the devil hates this doctrine so much that he did what he could to take this doctrine out of every new translation; but that he could not succeed at doing this with the established kjv (though it seems to be going out of vogue...still, the truth is most often never popular).

As such, the doctrine may even be essential to salvation...for is it not the devil's goal to destroy the souls of men by keeping from them the doctrine that would save them if they knew it?

JBF,
The idea of entire sanctification in this life, as espoused by John Wesley, for example, has been abandoned even by holiness churches.

Guess why?

Because NO ONE can become sinless in this life.

It's IMPOSSIBLE.

But we still should keep trying....but if we expect to become perfect, we have a long fall coming eventually that might take our faith away...AND THAT is what the enemy wants.

• 

 

[Grailhunter]

Please stop telling me what I don't know....
And start posting what is, so that I COULD know....
Thanx.

Charles Wesley was an English leader of the Methodists most widely known for writing about 6,500 hymns. His younger brother John Wesley was the founder of the Methodism. He came to America and was part of the First Great Awakening movement.