Sinless Perfection?

[aspen]

There is a great way to find out if you are still a sinner - ask yourself if you have the ability to love God and your neighbor perfectly and consistently. Can you love perfectly and consistently, without thinking? In the same manner as you breath or blink? If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you fail short of this ideal, everyday of your life.

Sin (selfishness) is what we have is common with the rest of humanity - as Christians, our sanctification is not completed yet. Of course, it doesn't mean that we are incapable of growth in this area, but we are far from being capable of automatic perfect love until we are in Heaven. The good thing is that if we continue to be honest, we have to see that we are all in this condition together - we all need Christ and His reflection in our neighbor.....surrendering to Christ should teach us empathy for our neighbor, not pride or arrogance.

 

[mark s]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comprehensive reply.

My impression is that you don't understand that God does not want automatons. He wants us to consent to His love, over and over and over again.

Hi dragonfly,

Not sure where you would get this impression from, we haven't really discussed this, but nothing could be further from the truth. But while God has given us a new nature involving all the intellected and creativity and desire for righteousness that He wants for us, it is not required that our new creation has to be capable of death to be free. Is Jesus an automaton? Of course God is not trying to turn us all into robots. But I've made my decision already! It sound to me that you have also.

We want holiness. We want Jesus. We want to serve Jesus in holiness.

Isn't this what you do, consent to His love? But does that negate God's promise that His rescue is total? That we've passed from death to life, and that being eternal life?

Why do you think James writes about the effect of giving in to temptation? Do you think it's an exercise in semantics, or, is he actually warning the Christians to whom he is writing, that yielding to sin leads to death?

James also wrote about a dead faith, a faith that does not have works. Not all who think they are Christians are Christians. Some believe, but haven't been changed. There seems to be a kind of belief that is more a mental assent to the factual nature of the claims of the Gospel, but the true saving faith is reliance upon Jesus' death and resurrection, and making Him our master.

"Sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death".

OK, back to the OP topic. Sinless perfection . . . what when we don't actually live that way. As a born again believer, should I commit a sin, do I die? Is that what this passage teaches? What does he mean by "fully grown sin"? I don't see that defined in Scripture specifically, so I need to come to understand this based on more clearly stated passages.

It seems to me the greater part of James' letter is about the one who hears the Word but does not do the things in the Word, and the one who both hears and does them. So we come back to the beginning. How perfectly? If there is condemnation for any sins, we are all condemned, excepting, of course, whitestone, notwithstanding that his actions have not matched his words, so make of that what you will.

In another thread, I have pointed out that it was possible to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly. Paul claims this for himself, and Luke claims it for Zacharias and Elisabeth.

So then are you saying that they obeyed every aspect of the Law, and so they never required the sin offerings? Or that they fulfilled all the requirements, and their deviations were faithfully covered by the sin offerings? These are very different things.

Did Paul intend for us to think that he never violated the Mosaic Law?

Romans 7:7-11 ESV
(7) What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
(8) But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
(9) I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
(10) The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
(11) For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

This is simply one example where Paul says in no uncertain terms that he was a lawbreaker.

My point in using the wilderness as an example, is that it doesn't matter which covenant you are under when you 'believe' God, as long as you comply with its terms. A person did not need to be born again to comply with the Mosaic Law. We have the impression that many have done, and they will be saved by their faith and obedience - because faith without obedience is meaningless. There are several major tragedies in the wilderness which NT writers use to warn their peer group and us, that God means what He says when He promises destruction to those who will not obey His voice.

The Bible says that ALL have sinned. No one has been saved through perfect obedience to God.

You say, "saved by their faith and obedience". This is where we completely disagree, and this is the doctrine I most strongly oppose.

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Go back to James. There is a faith that does not produce works. That faith does not save. There is a faith that produces works, That is the saving faith. But the works do not save. The true faith, the kind that will produce the works, that faith saves, and does so before even any works are wrought.

Works demonstrate the reality of the faith. The core issue of this thread is the question of whether or not these be perfect works in all ways at all times - Sinless Perfection.

I realise from reading your posts that you are wedded to the concept that 'regeneration' protects a person from all kinds of woes.

I don't really understand what you mean by this, it's a rather generalized sort of statement, but I do believe that the Bible teaches we are born God's children, with His nature, and that will never change. We will spend the rest of our life becoming more and more like Him.

You seem to be convinced that they will automatically want to grow on to complete maturity. But if you listen (as I do sometimes) to Carter Conlon of Times Square Church, he is constantly challenging the congregation to cease from sin! Obviously, more than a few need encouragement to walk in victory. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I want you to realise that many people don't walk in victory, and that has an effect on their relationship with God. I don't doubt you are entirely earnest and sincere in your hope to mature as a Christian, but some people find that challenge doesn't tick their boxes anymore, and they literally turn back to the world. It's a fact. Some people who continue to attend church have turned back to the world in their hearts

You may not like to acknowledge those facts, but Christians who would rather please themselves than God, are heading for spiritual disaster, unless they turn away from sin. Far be it for me to say they were never born again. In my view it's a total cop-out to resist all the scriptures which indicate that Christians were sinning in all kinds of different ways. Yes! Paul wrote those lists of do nots to Christians, and he specifically repeats what he'd told them when he was with them, that if they didn't cease from sin, they would not inherit the kingdom of God. Have you never read those verses?

This continues in the same discussion, is someone a true Christian or not? And if a true born again Christian sins, do they die-again? Of course we continue to exhort the believers against sin, and preach the deliverance that Jesus has provided for us. There is not one single sin that we lack the power to say NO to. I preach that again and again myself! It is the power of the Gospel over sin.

As a matter of interest, how do you negotiate the fact that they were written to believers? Or, was Paul just being a bit of a tease by frightening Christians who didn't give up the sins of the flesh that they would not inherit the kingdom of God? The Bible says that people can endure to the end, but, it also indicates in many places that the only people who can be sure of salvation, are those who have done the will of our Father in heaven. We are exhorted to leave it to Jesus to judge who did and who didn't.

If you are an adulterer, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are God's child, you are co-inheritor with Jesus.

John 6:26-29 ESV
(26) Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
(27) Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
(28) Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
(29) Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Mark, there may be a few questionable verse in scripture which were added injudiciously, but we cannot be sure which they were. As a result, we have to believe the whole BIble is true. Nothing that one part of the Bible says, can invalidate another part. They all work together, and when they are applied appropriately, they are relevant. It's the Holy Spirit that does this, not us. We follow His lead.

OK, now you are frightening me! Is it all God's word or not??? I do not share the "flexibilty". If one part doesn't harmonize with another part, it's because I don't understand it right, not because it's maybe been "injudiciously added". What I am "wedded to" is that the Bible is True. And therefore, the more simple and plain its statements, the more I have to take those first, to then go on to understand the less plainly stated, or the more ambiguous.

Regarding whether born again Christians sow to the flesh, I'm astonished you've asked. Why do you think Paul moves on from listing the sins of the flesh in Galatians 5, to the analogy of a sowing two different kinds of seed? It's all the same thesis! To whom did he address the Galatian letter? To Christians! He clearly states that they had begun in the Spirit. Do you believe him? (I know you don't want to... but... this is a test!)

You know I don't want to believe Paul? Come on, man! Hasn't there been enough in this thread? Hey, we can disagree over what it means, but why go after me personally? Do you REALLY
THINK that I don't want to know the truth?

We see throughout Scripture that there are true and false believers, and you really need to understand that if you think you're "saved", and your not, that you've got to do something about this! And throughout the New Testament are things such as, examine yourself to see if you be in the faith, or, adulterers don't inherit, and if this is who you are, take a clue!

In closing this post, I would like to point out that the body of Christ functioning properly can make all the difference to a person going through with God every time they're in a tight corner with Him, or not, and that's why there is so much exhortation in the NT about how we should support one another, speaking in love, walking in love, walking worthy of the vocation to which we've been called. Gal 6:14

AMEN!

 

[aspen]

Mark S so you accept the last half of Mark chapter 16 as inspired scripture? If so, why? It is generally agreed by Biblical scholars that it was added later to finish up the gospel.

 

[mark s]

Mark S so you accept the last half of Mark chapter 16 as inspired scripture? If so, why? It is generally agreed by Biblical scholars that it was added later to finish up the gospel.

Hi Aspen,

I was thinking as I wrote my previous post that someone would bring up the matter of Textual Criticism. And as there are many differences within the different manuscripts, even within manuscript families, and considering the great number of differences between the manuscript families themselves, we do have to somehow determine what Bible to read.

Now, you may have noticed that I quote largely from the English Standard Version. In this particular Bible, that portion is bracketed, leaving it as disputed. The Vaticanus goes the opposite direction, omitting that portion, but leaving a blank spot to fit it.

Its as if neither were able to make up its mind, and one leaned one way, and the other the other.

Is it inspired Scritpure? Makes for an interesting debate. But it is clearly disputed.

The passages I've been quoting are not disputed, and appear in both Byzantine and Alexandrian families of manuscripts.

The Johannine Comma is another example of a disputed passage, also makes for an interesting debate, but not the topic of this thread.

But to your question, being added later does not necessarily disqualify it from being inspired Scripture. Moses, we are told, wrote the first 5 books, including the one that records his death. I think we can safely understand that this part about his death was added later, to finish off the book, but we don't seem to have any issues with it.

But to account for seeming contradictions between undisputed passages by suggesting something may have been added is entering dangerous territory, imo. Now, dragonfly didn't do that, exactly, by appeared to be heading in that direction.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[aspen]

Mark - I appreciate your thoughtful response. I am interested in the opinions of noncatholic Christians on this issue and you have offered me some new insight - thank you.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Trekson,

Hi Dragonfly, I have to take issue with this statement: "In another thread, I have pointed out that it was possible to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly. Paul claims this for himself, and Luke claims it for Zacharias and Elisabeth. My point in using the wilderness as an example, is that it doesn't matter which covenant you are under when you 'believe' God, as long as you comply with its terms. A person did not need to be born again to comply with the Mosaic Law. We have the impression that many have done, and they will be saved by their faith and obedience - because faith without obedience is meaningless."

That is so wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It was and has always been absolutely impossible to keep the Mosaic law perfectly at least as far as not sinning is concerned (except for Christ and maybe Enoch and Elijah). That was God's whole point and the reason He sent His Son to die on the cross for ALL MANKIND. Because as Paul continuously stresses in His teachings it was impossible to keep the whole law. That Zacharias and Elisabeth were blameless simply means they abided by the law in regards to the sacrifices. They offered the appropriate sacrifices for whatever sin they had in whatever manner was ascribed at the proper time for individuals as well as the annual "national" sacrifice. If a man could keep the law perfectly without sin there was no reason for Christ to come. Yes, their faith and obedience played a part but only because they properly performed the proper sacrifices. They had faith that the blood covering of the sacrifices gave them another year because God promised it would.

The third sentence of your reply is, of course, the reason the law was given - to revive in the understanding of the people, the knowledge of sin. I'm not sure Paul stresses it was impossible to keep the whole law, but he certainly stresses that those who would seek to 'keep the law' would have to keep every part of it. You do realise, don't you, that no-one received a clear conscience despite the day of Atonement every year? The Mosaic Law did not set out to do anything other than justify a person from certain sins if they had committed them, and to honour God with Sabbath-keeping and many other offerings, feast days and rituals. That's what it meant to 'keep the law', including the carrying out of the death penalty for those whose sins could not be justified by the blood of animals.

Paul declares himself the chiefest of sinners. 1 Tim. 1:15 - "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

As I pointed out before notice the present tense "I am", not I was. Even though he claims to have kept the law "perfectly", he knows he was and still is a sinner. Remember, "for all have sinned and fallen short..." He didn't start his sinful career after his conversion!!

Again, keeping the law perfectly was not about not sinning - like it is in the New Covenant.

Regarding the quotation from 1 Tim 1:15, I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that Paul is calling himself a sinner at the time of writing. I believe - by using the past tense with regard to Jesus coming into the world to save sinners - that his focus is on the Lord and his past coming to Him. While he is still in existence, he is bound to say 'I am', but he is comparing himself to all other sinners, rather than claiming still to be in bondage to sin.

Hi Mark,

Hi dragonfly,

Not sure where you would get this impression from, we haven't really discussed this, but nothing could be further from the truth. But while God has given us a new nature involving all the intellected and creativity and desire for righteousness that He wants for us, it is not required that our new creation has to be capable of death to be free. Is Jesus an automaton? Of course God is not trying to turn us all into robots. But I've made my decision already! It sound to me that you have also.

We want holiness. We want Jesus. We want to serve Jesus in holiness.

Isn't this what you do, consent to His love? But does that negate God's promise that His rescue is total? That we've passed from death to life, and that being eternal life?

Being completely honest with you, it's only recently (in the last year) that I've realised how much NT doctrine has the resurrection of the body in view. Paul talks about it frequently. It is for this that we hope, and it is to this end that we are to 'fight the good fight of faith [to] lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called...' 1 Tim 6:12.

In the next verses, please keep in mind this matter of 'works' which you brought up in your post. I've been looking at it more closely, as until I arrived in CyB I'd never met Christians who a) believed all their future sins are forgiven without either repentance or seeking God for forgiveness, B) believe it unnecessary to attempt to, or, impossible to succeed to cease from sin, c) think salvation is assured by what they believe - regardless of its compatibility with scripture or not, d) do not realise the Mosaic law was replaced by the law written in our hearts. It's been a roller-coaster! Attached to all these is the question of whether one can be saved without actually 'doing the Father's will'.

The thief on the cross is regularly wheeled out to prove one doesn't need to 'do' something, but his change of heart came out during his converstation with Jesus. He spoke differently. If you look in the NT for all the 'sins' in which heart attitudes are betrayed by what is being said, you'll realise that how we speak is indicative of our inner state.

Philippians 3:8 - 16 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead.

Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

I ask you.... does this man think he is saved by faith without works? Acts 9:15, 16.

My impression is (now) that 'works' has become a dirty word in certain Christian circles, where it has been associated with keeping the Mosaic Law, which we all know cannot save us; whereas Paul's point was not at all that works are unnecessary as a demonstration of obedience to faith; his point was that salvation now entailed faith in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection - and the receipt of the Holy Spirit by which to live pleasing God, actively fulfilling His calling. (I could elaborate on that, but, will keep it simple for now.)

There are so many verses in both Old and New Testaments that speak of obedience and faith, that one has to hand it to the 'authorities' who have succeeded in making Bible study passe, so that no-one will be any the wiser when false doctrine is introduced. The disciples trailed round after (or with) Jesus watching Him 'do' stuff (and I include His teachings in His 'doing') which demonstrated His relationship with God, right to the last foot that was washed to prepare them for their ministry.

Luke 10:1, 2, 3, 2 Cor 4:5, Acts 5:29, 32, 42, Heb 5:9, Matt 7:21, 24 Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

In other words, believing into Jesus Christ, such that we are raised up from our death in Him by the power of the Holy Spirit, leads us to 'walk in newness of life' Rom 6:4, in a meaningful way. 1 John 4:9, 12, 17.

James also wrote about a dead faith, a faith that does not have works. Not all who think they are Christians are Christians. Some believe, but haven't been changed. There seems to be a kind of belief that is more a mental assent to the factual nature of the claims of the Gospel, but the true saving faith is reliance upon Jesus' death and resurrection, and making Him our master.

"Sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death".

OK, back to the OP topic. Sinless perfection . . . what when we don't actually live that way. As a born again believer, should I commit a sin, do I die? Is that what this passage teaches? What does he mean by "fully grown sin"? I don't see that defined in Scripture specifically, so I need to come to understand this based on more clearly stated passages.

It seems to me the greater part of James' letter is about the one who hears the Word but does not do the things in the Word, and the one who both hears and does them. So we come back to the beginning. How perfectly? If there is condemnation for any sins, we are all condemned, excepting, of course, whitestone, notwithstanding that his actions have not matched his words, so make of that what you will.

How perfectly? 2 Cor 13:9, 2 Corinthians 6:'... as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

So then are you saying that they obeyed every aspect of the Law, and so they never required the sin offerings? Or that they fulfilled all the requirements, and their deviations were faithfully covered by the sin offerings? These are very different things.

Did Paul intend for us to think that he never violated the Mosaic Law?

I think I've answered most of this in my post to Trekson. And no, Paul did not intend for us to think he had never violated the Mosaic Law. But he understood the differences between the Mosaic Law and the law of God better than we do, so he could preach straight off the bat with absolute clarity, as soon as he had been born again.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. 1 Timothy 1:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:1, 2, 22

You say, "saved by their faith and obedience". This is where we completely disagree, and this is the doctrine I most strongly oppose.

I hear you. But, therefore, I don't understand this:

Go back to James. There is a faith that does not produce works. That faith does not save. There is a faith that produces works, That is the saving faith. But the works do not save. The true faith, the kind that will produce the works, that faith saves, and does so before even any works are wrought.

At no time have I separated the works from the faith. My thesis has always been that the response of faith to God's word to the 'believer', is to obey Him. That is the 'right' response, and there is no-where in scripture where disobedience to the word of God is counted as 'faith'. It is always counted as unbelief, and incurs God's wrath. However, we have an Advocate with the Father 'if' we sin.

If you are an adulterer, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are God's child, you are co-inheritor with Jesus.

This would only be true if you are of the belief that a Christian is not required to repent for sin. Are you?

My reading of John 8 and the other places which end with Jesus saying 'Go and sin no more', is that there is mercy and plentiful redemption with Him, even for Christians.... (but not unrepented, habitual adultery).

The passage in John 6:26-29 ESV does not end until v 30. They understood what He was saying to them - that they could not 'do the works of God', but God was going to 'do' something in them.

dragonfly

Mark, there may be a few questionable verse in scripture which were added injudiciously, but we cannot be sure which they were. As a result, we have to believe the whole BIble is true. Nothing that one part of the Bible says, can invalidate another part. They all work together, and when they are applied appropriately, they are relevant. It's the Holy Spirit that does this, not us. We follow His lead.

Mark
OK, now you are frightening me! Is it all God's word or not??? I do not share the "flexibilty". If one part doesn't harmonize with another part, it's because I don't understand it right, not because it's maybe been "injudiciously added". What I am "wedded to" is that the Bible is True. And therefore, the more simple and plain its statements, the more I have to take those first, to then go on to understand the less plainly stated, or the more ambiguous.

I don't think you quite read what I said. I think we agree, don't we?

Hey, we can disagree over what it means, but why go after me personally?

You've asked everyone else personal questions. Why not you? (It didn't seem tooo personal, to me.)

We see throughout Scripture that there are true and false believers, and you really need to understand that if you think you're "saved", and your not, that you've got to do something about this! And throughout the New Testament are things such as, examine yourself to see if you be in the faith, or, adulterers don't inherit, and if this is who you are, take a clue!

Amen.

 

[mark s]

Hi dragonfly,

I, like Paul, am heavily looking towards our physical resurrection. And the older I get, the more appealing, and real, it becomes.

until I arrived in CyB I'd never met Christians who a) believed all their future sins are forgiven without either repentance or seeking God for forgiveness,

Whoa! Who has said this?

But the reality is that we have different ideas about what soteriological repentance is, or so it seems.

Metanoia (repentance) is a conjuction literally tanslated “after-mind”, and means the mind you have after having exchanged the old mind for a new mind.

Simply stated, before I repented of my sin, I was OK with my sin. But after I became born again, I had a completely different viewpoint, and I was no longer OK with my sin. I changed my mind about my sin, and my relationship with God, and God changed me.

And I've never had the same perspective of sin since. Or anything else, for that matter.

I sought God for forgiveness, and He forgave me of my sin. You've quoted a passage later in your post:

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

All that believe are justified from all things.

That our forgiveness is complete and total is the only possible result from what God did in Christ:

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Even before we repented, before we came to faith, God had taken everything He had against us, and put it upon Jesus. God reconciled us to Himself, all that remained was for us to receive the reconciliation. Reconcile means to restore relationship. God restored us back into relationship, at least as much as had to do with Him. What remained was that we restore relationship from our side. And when we do, the relationship is complete.

And we do that by receiving this reconciliation through faith.

Having already reconciled us to Himself even when we were still His enemies, once we have received the reconciliation, and become His Own children, from where comes this notion that we would not still be reconciled to Him?

But even saying that God put our sins on Jesus doesn't say the full truth:

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We go back to Colossians on this one:

Colossians 2:13-14 ESV
(13) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
(14) by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

First thing, does all mean all, or does all mean some?

But that aside, when the Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross, they nailed to the cross our debt due to our sin, and it was dealt with there.

If this was not ALL of your sins, then from where can more forgiveness come???

This is a serious question, and I hope it is not overlooked. Everyone reading this thread needs to answer this question.

If Jesus' death did not provide forgiveness for all of your sins, then where will you obtain more forgiveness? You would have to crucify Jesus again, that that won't be happening.

Now, some will jump up and say, “YEAH! That's right! You crucify Him all over again!” But you've got to realize, Jesus is NOT returning to the cross to die again! And if you have sins that are not paid for, and not forgiven, they never will be.

You can't go back to an animal sacrifice. And Jesus is not coming back to die for sins again.

Hebrews 10:12-18 ESV
(12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
(13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
(14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(15) And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
(16) "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
(17) then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
(18) Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Why is there no longer any offering for sin? Because they are forgiven.

OK, a long one going, so I'll break off here, and continue later.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

Whoa! Who has said this?

This is a major part of Kidron's thesis. He says we sin all the time - and we could even shoot our mother to death - and we will be already forgiven. I've been challenging him for weeks, and have found other slivers of the same attitude towards sins we have not yet committed, in other posters' thinking.

The fact is, while Christ died for all the sins of everyone who will ever live, I will not receive forgiveness for mine, until I seek Him for it. It doesn't matter whether I'm coming to Him the first time, or the last time, there is the same need for God's solution to my spiritual need, to be applied to me personally by the Holy Spirit. This is why if we walk in the Spirit the whole time, in the light as He is in the light, we lose consciousness of sins because His blood is cleansing us continuously, according to John in 1 John 1:7. But by his statement, John is acknowledging that an on-going work of the Spirit with regard to sin is part of what we receive by faith in the eternal nature of the sacrifice of Christ, where every moment in our timeline, is now in the heavenlies.


So, to answer your other question (if I haven't already), it is not that the sovreignty of Christ's work is in question, but the individual's appropriation of it needs to be taken seriously by the believer. The doctrine which says the teaching of Christ was Old Covenant and only for Jews, and is not relevant to Christians, means that everything that Christ taught about how to stay right with God and other people, they do really think doesn't apply to them. There are even Gentile Christians who leave out Matthew and Hebrews from their readings, because they've been taught they're only relevant to Jews and Israelites. Man alive, how can you have lived this long and not met all these wonderful brethren?

 

[Axehead]

Hi Mark,



This is a major part of Kidron's thesis. He says we sin all the time - and we could even shoot our mother to death - and we will be already forgiven. I've been challenging him for weeks, and have found other slivers of the same attitude towards sins we have not yet committed, in other posters' thinking.

The fact is, while Christ died for all the sins of everyone who will ever live, I will not receive forgiveness for mine, until I seek Him for it. It doesn't matter whether I'm coming to Him the first time, or the last time, there is the same need for God's solution to my spiritual need, to be applied to me personally by the Holy Spirit. This is why if we walk in the Spirit the whole time, in the light as He is in the light, we lose consciousness of sins because His blood is cleansing us continuously, according to John in 1 John 1:7. But by his statement, John is acknowledging that an on-going work of the Spirit with regard to sin is part of what we receive by faith in the eternal nature of the sacrifice of Christ, where every moment in our timeline, is now in the heavenlies.


So, to answer your other question (if I haven't already), it is not that the sovreignty of Christ's work is in question, but the individual's appropriation of it needs to be taken seriously by the believer. The doctrine which says the teaching of Christ was Old Covenant and only for Jews, and is not relevant to Christians, means that everything that Christ taught about how to stay right with God and other people, they do really think doesn't apply to them. There are even Gentile Christians who leave out Matthew and Hebrews from their readings, because they've been taught they're only relevant to Jews and Israelites. Man alive, how can you have lived this long and not met all these wonderful brethren?

Here is part of Hebrews that many don't think apply to them, today.


Heb_3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb_3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Axehead

 

[Episkopos]

Here is part of Hebrews that many don't think apply to them, today.


Heb_3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb_3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Axehead

Yes!!

It does not say....who do always err in their heart because they have not known the proper technique or doctrine....

His ways....what pleases Him... His desires and His will. His plan, His vision.....His life...His presence.

....in departing from the living God.

God is a Person not a concept. Jesus rejects those who follow concepts because they never KNEW the Person.

 

[mark s]

Here is part of Hebrews that many don't think apply to them, today.


Heb_3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb_3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Axehead

This is failing to come from the Old Covenant into the New Covanent.

The ancient Isaelites failed to enter the promised land. Now the writer urges them to enter the new covenant.

We have to remember what this letter is. This is not describing a born again child of God forsaking God to become un-born-again.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark,

This is a major part of Kidron's thesis. He says we sin all the time - and we could even shoot our mother to death - and we will be already forgiven. I've been challenging him for weeks, and have found other slivers of the same attitude towards sins we have not yet committed, in other posters' thinking.

Hi Dragonfly,

I don't think you're quite catching Kidron's point.

Personally, I think we sin more frequently than we think. For instance, I think I've had a pretty good day today, nothing really stands out to me. But what would God say if He examined my life. What about the momentary impatience with the guy at work? He's supposed to follow my schedule, not get sarcastic and condescending. While I controlled my words, in my heart i wanted to tell him what for. This wasn't a moment of pure love. How much more will I find the further I look? And that's just man's view. What about God's view?

You say, even shoot our mother to death. Aren't sins the same? That which is not of faith is sin. Sin is sin. Some sins receive greater consequence, I think, but won't any unforgiven sins separate someone from God?

The fact is, while Christ died for all the sins of everyone who will ever live, I will not receive forgiveness for mine, until I seek Him for it. It doesn't matter whether I'm coming to Him the first time, or the last time, there is the same need for God's solution to my spiritual need, to be applied to me personally by the Holy Spirit. This is why if we walk in the Spirit the whole time, in the light as He is in the light, we lose consciousness of sins because His blood is cleansing us continuously, according to John in 1 John 1:7. But by his statement, John is acknowledging that an on-going work of the Spirit with regard to sin is part of what we receive by faith in the eternal nature of the sacrifice of Christ, where every moment in our timeline, is now in the heavenlies.

So then the old question repeated again . . . if you commit a sin, and you die before you seek Him to "receive forgiveness", you are condemned to the Lake of Fire? This is your view?

So, to answer your other question (if I haven't already), it is not that the sovreignty of Christ's work is in question, but the individual's appropriation of it needs to be taken seriously by the believer. The doctrine which says the teaching of Christ was Old Covenant and only for Jews, and is not relevant to Christians, means that everything that Christ taught about how to stay right with God and other people, they do really think doesn't apply to them. There are even Gentile Christians who leave out Matthew and Hebrews from their readings, because they've been taught they're only relevant to Jews and Israelites. Man alive, how can you have lived this long and not met all these wonderful brethren?

My friend, I've met a great many people who believe a great many things, and have had many many debates. I love debating these things for a few reasons. Weaknesses in my view will be revealed. I always learn more about God. Errors can be corrected, both mine and other's. And it tends to sharpen my mind, improve my critical thinking skills, and helps train my mind to focus on the key points.

I think we would all agree that certain parts fo the Bible were directed primarily towards others, and we are not thinking that we are to do what is being said, but that this does not mean we think these parts to be any less of the Holy Word.

For instance, we all know we not supposed to be building arks, right? This was for Noah. Though we still learn about God and man by studing this portion.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Mark I apologise for taking so long to get back. My time is pretty much taken up with worldly matters at present.

Hi hebzibah,

It can take time, I completely understand!

I believe that God can and will purify me of all sin. But I believe that this is a process that occurs in us following our regeneration. I believe that we are regenerated, and that we will spend the rest of our lives demonstrating that we are a new creation, but not altogether at once.

If this to you makes me a promoter of sin so be it, I'll not argue the point further.

I remain a believer in entire sanctification so therefore I am not an unbeliever. I am in a constant repentant state and do not think that a man who sins will get into heaven and await the mercy of God to restore me. You however, are not believing in the full work of the cross, you doubt the Lord God in thinking that He will not give you the desire of your heart for purity if indeed you still keep it and have not given up and become hardened. I dont know whats in your heart but that will happen one day if you do not respond to those longings and allow the truth to enter your soul. You will end up with a hardened heart even though you do not see it at present. Those who are warning you are doing so out of concern.

Let's consider what you are saying here for a moment. I say that I still commit sins, and you say that you still commit sins, this is correct?

If that is true, you then go on to say that neither one of us will enter heaven unless something changes.

You consider the outworking of my position that I will become hard hearted, and will give up on God, and be lost forever. That is, UNLESS I come to believe that I'm not saved, not Spirit filled, not regenerate if there remains a single sin in my life.

But when I said “unbeliever”, I did not mean someone who did or didn't hold a certain doctrine. I apologize for my lack of clarity, as I tend to use “believer” synonomously with “born again”, regenerate.

By your doctrine, neither one of us are regenerate. So why listen to either of us??? This isn't determined by whether or not we hold a certain doctrine, but by whether or not we've stopped sinning, is that not correct?

Meanwhile, in reality, I'm not relying upon my own ability to maintain perfect thought, word, and deed, without which I'm not saved. I'm relying on Jesus' perfect sacrifice, and His righteousness accounted to me for my salvation. And so even though I may sin, this does not cost me my hope, since my hope is in Jesus, and not in me.

And you are concerned that I will become hard hearted? I am moving ever closer to His presence, as He continues to conform me to His image, day by day coming closer and closer. I have the certain knowledge that He will do exactly has He has promised, that He will in fact complete the good work He began in me, and will never leave me, nor forsake me.

Adam and the angels had no sin nature yet fell.

Jesus was called the “last Adam”. Why?

Adam was in a state that has not been duplicated in natural born man ever since. He had neither been corrupted by sin, nor regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

And that we were corrupted by sin, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit means that there is a fundamental difference between us and Adam.

Basically, then, you are saying that we are in the same place Adam was before he sinned?

Ephesians 4:20-24 ESV
(20) But that is not the way you learned Christ!--
(21) assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus,
(22) to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires,
(23) and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
(24) and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

I see Scripture associate the old sinful ways with the old sinful nature. You've given fasting as an example, we forget and eat, and then eat though we don't forget.

But what about something a little darker, God forbid! We look with lust, or we allow an unrighteous anger. Where did that come from?

And what is the "upper reaches of the mountain"? I don't understand what that means, and I don't understand why it would make things harder to understand. It sounds like you're using this phrase to describe a "greater spirituality" or something like that, I'm guessing here, but doesn't the Bible teach that the more spiritual have greater understanding?

We do have more understanding of the scriptures and what Jesus means, but walking in the Spirit and subduing the instinct and denying self is an art to be learned and the enemy throws ever increasing snares in our path the higher we go. Becoming proficient is an ongoing task but the victory is assured so long as we continue though we may fall at times back into our human understanding.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this answers my question.

You had written:

The reason for sinning is not the same in the perfected. I think James is discussing the usual reason for sinning, but when the old nature has been eradicated, then there must be a process for it to be activated (we never reach a point when it is impossible to fall). From my own experiences, it was depending on my own strength again which led to the sin nature reviving but I cannot be dogmatic about it. Things can become rather vague in the upper reaches of the mountain.

You seem uncertain about this, which is fine, of course none of us understand everything, but you attribute to being in a more advanced spiritual state, apparently.

But as I'm reading this again, I'm seeing a contradiction I missed earlier. You say that when the sin nature has been eradicated, there must be a process for it to be activated.

So then, how is it possible to “activate” something that's been “eradicated”.

Wouldn't this be instead to re-create something? Can't you only “activate” something if its only been deactivated?

So do you truly think, then, that we are born again, then die again, then are born again, then die again, then born again, and so on?


Not trying to put words into your mouth. I hope you understand what I am asking.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

With some abandon I'm going to toss another angle to this topic into the pot.

To your question.

if you commit a sin, and you die before you seek Him to "receive forgiveness", you are condemned to the Lake of Fire? This is your view?

Are you asking because you want to know what I believe, or, are you unsure what scripture teaches? The whole matter of how to define sin is a mixture of very strict definitions laid out clearly, and, the additional guidance given in the NT, which puts a certain amount of pressure on the believer to consider carefully how God is leading him in certain choices. He also has to care about what his conscience is telling him.

Are statements like, Rom 14:5, and Jam 4:17 in the same category as those listed in Lev 18 which God calls abominations? In view of the symmetry in Lev 18:28 and Rev 3:16, how does one measure idolatry - the first great forbidden practice - while comparing incest, child abuse and murder, and homosexual or bestial behaviour, with materialism? It is not immediately clear how God measures these things.

2 Tim 2:19, 1 Tim 6:10

Is a person who weighs 200% of their recommended weight who eats another whole packet of cookies, in the same sin category as someone who has been unfaithful to his wife for twenty years without her apparently knowing? How does God view one last night of prostitution to get enough money to pay the rent and keep food on the table for the kids this week, compared with one last trip to a prostitute by a man who had achieved victory over this sin for two whole consecutive years? I have no idea how to weigh these things in eternal terms. Do you? Are they all damned, end of story?


Jesus talks about greater damnation - which forces us to understand there will be lesser damnation. John 19:11


We also have verses about 'better': 2 Peter 2:21

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea,

than that he should offend one of these little ones.​

This question is about acknowledging that there is a hierarchy of sins in scripture, and we should try to understand it.

Really, only God knows whether our hearts are harbouring sin, or we have committed a sin He cannot forgive.

 

[mark s]

Hi Mark,

With some abandon I'm going to toss another angle to this topic into the pot.

Hi dragonfly,

Excellent!

To your question.

Are you asking because you want to know what I believe, or, are you unsure what scripture teaches? The whole matter of how to define sin is a mixture of very strict definitions laid out clearly, and, the additional guidance given in the NT, which puts a certain amount of pressure on the believer to consider carefully how God is leading him in certain choices. He also has to care about what his conscience is telling him.

I want to know how you think of this. I believe this is a critical issue with you view as I understand your view. Perhaps I am mistaken about what you think. The answer to this question should clarify certain aspects for me.

Let's define sin.

Now, as we're discussion "sinless perfection" as the mark of the truly born again, or, as some have called it "entire sanctification", then sin can be easily defined as anything that deviates from that, assuming that we are talking in these terms.

If you hold to the Mosaic Law, then anything that deviates from the Mosiac Law. If you use the NT lists of sins as you "law", then deviations from that. As you've indicated a more personal, "how is God leading you", we could say, that which is not of faith.

My answer would be anything we do that originates from the flesh nature.

I think we can agree that not all sins are the same in degree, however, can we likewise agree that all sins separate the sinner from God, and warrant condemnation?

You ask, are all damned, end of story? Doesn't the Bible teach that any sin is sufficient to condemn someone? If you've broken 1 law, you've broken the entire law?

So then, whether or not there is a greater or lessor condemnation, do you believe that if you've committed a sin, any sin, and you die without having confessed to receive forgiveness, that you are condemned?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Hepzibah]

Hi Mark

I say that I still commit sins, and you say that you still commit sins, this is correct?

If that is true, you then go on to say that neither one of us will enter heaven unless something changes.

There is a difference between someone who denies that Christ can save us from all sin despite the scriptures which confirm it, and the cloud of witnesses here and in the many writings of the church, and someone who believes this and is seeking it. Their hearts are not the same. One is seeking after righteousness and the other is denying it can be acheived (death is an emeny not a friend) and acting from the flesh. If one is truly seeking, then I believe that the Lord will be found yet there is a danger of `settling on one`s lees` as it were and being satisfied with one`s position and taking for granted His mercy so I am aware that I can slip.

Meanwhile, in reality, I'm not relying upon my own ability to maintain perfect thought, word, and deed, without which I'm not saved. I'm relying on Jesus' perfect sacrifice, and His righteousness accounted to me for my salvation. And so even though I may sin, this does not cost me my hope, since my hope is in Jesus, and not in me.

I am also not relying on my own ability otherwise I would not be saying that it is failing. I rely on Christ alone and His shed blood to save me from sin. His work on the cross is efficatious for all time because it requires faith alone to bring the law of life into force where I recieve His power to overcome all sin.

Adam was in a state that has not been duplicated in natural born man ever since. He had neither been corrupted by sin, nor regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Adam was created innocent and not yet holy, which I believe is the state of every human born. God looks on all men the same so why would He impute sin on some (most)? Adam failed the test and fell, like all men. If we put off our old selves, then we are back in the state of Adam before he fell, though not innocence but holy as God intended. Christ allows man to pass the test this time.

We look with lust, or we allow an unrighteous anger. Where did that come from?

It is all from the same source - the sin nature which we have imparted to us when we fall. We take on the nature of the source is activating us from deep inside, and it is either the devil or God.

You say that when the sin nature has been eradicated, there must be a process for it to be activated.

So then, how is it possible to “activate” something that's been “eradicated”.

Wouldn't this be instead to re-create something? Can't you only “activate” something if its only been deactivated?

So do you truly think, then, that we are born again, then die again, then are born again, then die again, then born again, and so on?

Man always retains the will to turn from God. He wants free moral agents who love Him not robots. Eradicated means entirely out of action unless man wants to turn away. How do you explain eradication if sin remains?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark,

I think I missed the whole of this in your previous reply to me, so I'm going back to it.

Hi Dragonfly,

I don't think you're quite catching Kidron's point.

Personally, I think we sin more frequently than we think. For instance, I think I've had a pretty good day today, nothing really stands out to me. But what would God say if He examined my life. What about the momentary impatience with the guy at work? He's supposed to follow my schedule, not get sarcastic and condescending. While I controlled my words, in my heart i wanted to tell him what for. This wasn't a moment of pure love. How much more will I find the further I look? And that's just man's view. What about God's view?

You say, even shoot our mother to death. Aren't sins the same? That which is not of faith is sin. Sin is sin. Some sins receive greater consequence, I think, but won't any unforgiven sins separate someone from God?

With all due respect, I don't think you've read Kidron's many posts, in reply to my challenges to which, he has stated repeatedly that once saved, our sins - no matter what or their consequences - do not separate us from God, do not alter our place in His family, do not affect our eternal inheritance one jot. All our future sins are forgiven (so may as well relax and forget about them or their consequences - my paraphrase). We are committing thousands of sins a day which are all already taken care of by the death of Christ upon whom God poured His wrath for all the sins of the whole world.

When I mentioned repentance, he thinks that's an exaggeration. A confession, perhaps, (I eventually got from him) to restore fellowship with God, but, definitely not repentance. The 'boy' that 'had sex with his mother' - the example from scripture I used (not in those terms - those are his) didn't need to worry about his standing with God, due to the aforementioned (and oft-repeated) explanation I've already described.


My general response to your comments and questions in post #153 is, you are offering a too two-dimensional view of the issues.

 

[mark s]

Hi Hepzibah,

Let's be clear. I do not deny that Jesus Christ can save us from all sin. He most certainly can and does.

I have yet to see anyone who both claims and demonstrates sinlessness, with the exception of Jesus Christ Himself. And I don't mean as He lives through people. I've actually only "met" one person who claims perfect sinlessness, and I have witnessed their sins myself. So their claim simply is not credible, no matter how emphatically made.

But these facts do not mean that Jesus Christ cannot save us from our sins. That there is "no power" in the resurrection.

And this notion that I'm somehow not "trying as hard" as you because you believe you aren't actually born again if you commit a sin? And I'm not seeking after righteousness? Denying that it can be acheived? And therefore acting in the flesh?

And then, back to the same place we always seem to go. Satisfied to stay in sin, since, after all, I'm forgiven!!!

Man, I'm done defending myself against these statements with you. If you want to paint me that way - you've never even met me! - be my guest. And you can argue against that to your heart's content, but you won't be addressing my assertions.

But I'm glad for a couple of things in your post.

Adam was created innocent and not yet holy, which I believe is the state of every human born. God looks on all men the same so why would He impute sin on some (most)? Adam failed the test and fell, like all men. If we put off our old selves, then we are back in the state of Adam before he fell, though not innocence but holy as God intended. Christ allows man to pass the test this time.

This will cause some disagreement between us.

Romans 5:12-19 ESV
(12) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
(13) for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
(14) Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
(15) But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
(16) And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
(17) If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18) Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Many were made sinners. Adam's sin did something to those who came after.

Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV
(1) And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
(2) in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
(3) among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

There was something fundamentally wrong with our nature, With everybody's nature.

Also this part:

Eradicated means entirely out of action unless man wants to turn away. How do you explain eradication if sin remains?

To me, "eradicated" means done away with, no longer there, completely gone. Is that how you are using it? Or as, inactive, but still there?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Mark, Hepzibah and all readers,

This morning I vaguely remembered a thread I'd read once, and have found it summarised on one of the participant's websites. I think it may help to solve the disconnect which keeps appearing in thread titles across CyB, and I do hope that particularly you, Mark, will find time to look into it, to consider if/how it answers some of your questions.

This is the blurb describing the content of the pdf linked below.

"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" [Heb 9:13,14]

This is an extract from some posts made by Ron Bailey on http://www.sermonindex.net about a conversation he was having with someone else in another forum. Follow so far? Good, here is how Ron introduces the subject:

"In my conversations on another forum I was talking to a gentle Calvinist who genuinely wanted to know what I thought. His question was 'if God has been propitiated, and that propitiation was for the 'whole world', in its fullest sense, how can God remain angry with the sinner whose sins have already received atonement? Good question, I thought.

I have prayed a little and thought a little, and this was my reply. There will be some nuances you will miss because you haven't seen the rest of the conversation, but I think this will stand on its own feet so here we go…"

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/mybiblebase/fFMGLjctBPm0QSe5493hAyV4Qja533WbXLpCM3FndydvykrD5GXw6UvmfADR/redheifer.pdf

Found on this page: http://mybiblebase.com/2009/10/ (There is a preview option to the pdf, there.)


Most people on CyB would be blessed to dip into this, remembering 'the law' was a shadow of better things.

 

[Hepzibah]

Hi Mark

I've actually only "met" one person who claims perfect sinlessness, and I have witnessed their sins myself. So their claim simply is not credible, no matter how emphatically made.

Just because you met a fake/s doesn`t disprove the doctrine. It is true that today they are hard to find and many claim it but the proof is not there. If you were living in the 19th century you would not have to look so hard and amongst those that claimed sinlessness, their families and brethren did not deny it. Try to find refutals (apart from their enemies who would not know righteousness if it was in front of them). A doctrine is not true because people demonstrate it but because it is in scripture and this is.

many died through one man's trespass,

Indeed all men have sinned. It is inescapable but that does not automatically have to mean that the men were born sinners. Because of Adam sin entered the world.

To me, "eradicated" means done away with, no longer there, completely gone. Is that how you are using it? Or as, inactive, but still there?

Completely gone yes but can come back again. Everthing depends on the organic relationship we have with Him. If your sin nature is eradicated why then do you sin?



Sorry I have offended you. I welcome the chance to discuss my own understanding and understand others in my search for truth.

dfY

You mention Ron Bailey and I have had some discussions with him. Do you mind me asking whether his theology is the same as the others here eg epi you whitestone?

 

[Episkopos]

Hi Mark, Hepzibah and all readers,

This morning I vaguely remembered a thread I'd read once, and have found it summarised on one of the participant's websites. I think it may help to solve the disconnect which keeps appearing in thread titles across CyB, and I do hope that particularly you, Mark, will find time to look into it, to consider if/how it answers some of your questions.

This is the blurb describing the content of the pdf linked below.

"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" [Heb 9:13,14]

This is an extract from some posts made by Ron Bailey on http://www.sermonindex.net about a conversation he was having with someone else in another forum. Follow so far? Good, here is how Ron introduces the subject:

"In my conversations on another forum I was talking to a gentle Calvinist who genuinely wanted to know what I thought. His question was 'if God has been propitiated, and that propitiation was for the 'whole world', in its fullest sense, how can God remain angry with the sinner whose sins have already received atonement? Good question, I thought.

I have prayed a little and thought a little, and this was my reply. There will be some nuances you will miss because you haven't seen the rest of the conversation, but I think this will stand on its own feet so here we go…"

http://posterous.com...R/redheifer.pdf

Found on this page: http://mybiblebase.com/2009/10/ (There is a preview option to the pdf, there.)


Most people on CyB would be blessed to dip into this, remembering 'the law' was a shadow of better things.

Very good treatise until the final conclusion.

We cannot have "faith in His blood". That is a wrong conclusion. Nowhere else in the bible do we see that faith in blood does anything. We are to have faith in Christ ,,,,we are not believers in blood. So the text could also have been written...in His blood by faith...which is the idea being conveyed.

We have this verse which shows how the blood of Christ is activated in our lives...

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

So the ongoing cleansing from sin takes place as we walk in the Spirit AND have fellowship in the Spirit (which preserves our spiritual walk),

 

[mark s]

Hi Mark

Just because you met a fake/s doesn`t disprove the doctrine. It is true that today they are hard to find and many claim it but the proof is not there. If you were living in the 19th century you would not have to look so hard and amongst those that claimed sinlessness, their families and brethren did not deny it. Try to find refutals (apart from their enemies who would not know righteousness if it was in front of them). A doctrine is not true because people demonstrate it but because it is in scripture and this is.

Completely in agreement.

Indeed all men have sinned. It is inescapable but that does not automatically have to mean that the men were born sinners. Because of Adam sin entered the world.

What do you have to say about the Scriptures that say everyone was "by nature children of wrath"? What does this mean, by nature?

What about the Scripture that says through Adam all men were made sinners?

Completely gone yes but can come back again. Everthing depends on the organic relationship we have with Him. If your sin nature is eradicated why then do you sin?

So when you're born again, the sin nature completely disappears, then when you die again, its like a new original fall of man, this process repeating as long as you sin and repent, sin and repent? Is that a correct understanding?

Sorry I have offended you.

I'd just like to see you interacting with the doctrine, and the Scriptures, instead of making it an argument against me.

Love in Christ,
Mark