The Godly Heresy of Sinless Perfectionism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Catholic Church has done many terrible things throughout history but it makes no sense for them to take 1John 5:7 out of the Bible, Unitarians argue that the CC was responsible for having this verse put in the KJV
Again, you’re not getting what I am saying. The Catholics did not take out 1 John 5:7. The gnostics (Arians from Alexandria) had taken out 1 John 5:7, but the Catholics favored these manuscripts not because it did not teach the Trinity but because they want you to believe the Trinity based on what MOTHER CHURCH says or their priests say. If they can get the Protestant to think they can trust only the Modern Scholar (i.e. like the Catholic layperson trusts the priest for the Bible’s meaning), then Rome has won in their desire to get a person to trust Textual Criticism or in playing the original languages game (To try and find the perfect Bible).
 
Last edited:

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,254
1,841
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, you’re not getting what I am saying. The Catholics did not take out 1 John 5:7. The gnostics (Arians from Alexandria) had taken out 1 John 5:7, but the Catholics favored these manuscripts not because it did not teach the Trinity but because they want you to believe the Trinity based on what MOTHER CHURCH says or their priests say. If they can get the Protestant to think they can trust only the Modern Scholar (i.e. like the Catholic layperson trusts the priest for the Bible’s meaning), then Rome has won in their desire to get a person trust Textual Criticism or in playing the original languages game (To try and find the perfect Bible).
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Your argument makes no sense. And there is nothing wrong with studying the original Greek and Hebrew. You are a King James Only advocate no matter what you call yourself. I actually agree with you on some things but not so much on conspiracy theories.
 

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the NKJV has so much authority that the editors of the ©1982 NKJV actually encourage their readers to alter it as they see fit. You don’t believe it? Here’s what they said:

It was the editors’ conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers.[15]
Source:

Also, which New King James Version is your base? Not all New King James Versions are the same. They even disagree with one another.

But let's compare the NKJV vs. the KJB.
You will see that if you compare them, the KJB wins.

Paul taught that not all Israelites from Egypt died in the wilderness, due to the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb. The NKJV denies Old Testament history that they entered Canaan and charges them instead with rebellion! And they call this a KJV Bible!Hebrews 3:16 (NKJV)
For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
Hebrews 3:16 (KJB)
For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
Paul taught that Jesus Christ was incarnated in humanity rather than the nature of angels, but the NKJV totally corrupts the verse, loses the sense, violates the context, and denies Scripture (I Tim 5:21). Who signed off on this version?Hebrews 2:16 (NKJV)
For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
Hebrews 2:16 (KJB)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
The NKJV, appalled by Solomon’s severity, joined the PTA by removing God’s precept to spank children without regard for their crying. A generation of spoiled children is the result.Proverbs 19:18 (NKJV)
Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction.
Proverbs 19:18 (KJB)
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Solomon wrote some proverbs as ideals for civil rulers, but he never proposed that kings should use witchcraft (Deut 18:10)! Divination is not even close to giving God’s sentence in judgment!Proverbs 16:10 (NKJV)
Divination is on the lips of the king; His mouth must not transgress in judgment.
Proverbs 16:10 (KJB)
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
No wonder the NKJV replaced “corrupt” with “peddling,” for their consciences convicted them about their many corruptions. “Corrupt” hit too close, even if they do peddle the NKJV! What is it called to copyright a public domain work?II Cor 2:17 (NKJV)
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
II Cor 2:17 (KJB)
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No wonder the NKJV got rid of “study” in II Tim 2:15, because the version shows little of it, as shown above. How should a minister “be diligent” to obey the NKJV and please God? Should he strive for a good public image as in Matt 7:22?II Timothy 2:15 (NKJV)
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
II Timothy 2:15 (KJB)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Peter and John never read this corruption. They were never scholars and never wanted to be scholars (Acts 4:13; Matt 11:25-27; I Cor 1:19-20; 3:19-20). God’s pastors are not scholars!Eccl 12:11 (NKJV)
The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.
Eccl 12:11 (KJB)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
Talebearing, or gossiping, is a sin that God hates, as taught clearly in the Bible (Lev 19:16). But the NKJV compares talebearing to tasty trifles! Is this wisdom? Where is the condemnation of gossiping?Proverbs 18:8 (NKJV)
The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles, And they go down into the inmost body.
Proverbs 18:8 (KJB)
The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.
Why does the NKJV fear to use “whore” and “sodomite”? Why avoid connecting sodomite and dog in this text? A “perverted one” can mean anything. But a sodomite dog is a plain description of men having sex with men. The perilous times describe so-called Christians compromising with those “without natural affection” (II Tim 3:3).Deut 23:17-18 (NKJV)
There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.
Deut 23:17-18 (KJB)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

You can see more on this chart at the following source.

Source:
Please keep in mind that I do not agree with their view of Soteriology.
 
Last edited:

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Your argument makes no sense. And there is nothing wrong with studying the original Greek and Hebrew. You are a King James Only advocate no matter what you call yourself. I actually agree with you on some things but not so much on conspiracy theories.
The Catholics really don't know that they are favoring wrong manuscripts that attacks the Trinity. They do not have the spiritual discernment to see that they are holding to the wrong Alexandrian manuscripts. The Catholics want you to believe in trusting in the priests to understand the Bible. So the removal of 1 John 5:7 (Which was done by Arians) is not a problem in their view because the Catholic church does not believe in the Bible Alone position. They also believe in extra biblical traditions.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…

full

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

READ THE ABOVE.

All Modern Bibles come from the NU (Nestle and Aland Text).

Your NKJV Bible says the NU omits this... and the NU omits that.
So your NKJV points you to the Nestle and Aland trying to give it more authority than the NKJV itself.
Or it leaves it up to YOU the reader to decide what is best when it comes to the Word of God.
This is wrong. The Word of God should be our authority, not ourselves or Modern scholars (Who do not believe there is any perfect Bible on the planet).
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,254
1,841
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the NKJV has so much authority that the editors of the ©1982 NKJV actually encourage their readers to alter it as they see fit. You don’t believe it? Here’s what they said:


Source:

Also, which New King James Version is your base? Not all New King James Versions are the same. They even disagree with one another.

But let's compare the NKJV vs. the KJB.
You will see that if you compare them, the KJB wins.

Paul taught that not all Israelites from Egypt died in the wilderness, due to the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb. The NKJV denies Old Testament history that they entered Canaan and charges them instead with rebellion! And they call this a KJV Bible!Hebrews 3:16 (NKJV)
For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
Hebrews 3:16 (KJB)
For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
Paul taught that Jesus Christ was incarnated in humanity rather than the nature of angels, but the NKJV totally corrupts the verse, loses the sense, violates the context, and denies Scripture (I Tim 5:21). Who signed off on this version?Hebrews 2:16 (NKJV)
For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
Hebrews 2:16 (KJB)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
The NKJV, appalled by Solomon’s severity, joined the PTA by removing God’s precept to spank children without regard for their crying. A generation of spoiled children is the result.Proverbs 19:18 (NKJV)
Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction.
Proverbs 19:18 (KJB)
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
Solomon wrote some proverbs as ideals for civil rulers, but he never proposed that kings should use witchcraft (Deut 18:10)! Divination is not even close to giving God’s sentence in judgment!Proverbs 16:10 (NKJV)
Divination is on the lips of the king; His mouth must not transgress in judgment.
Proverbs 16:10 (KJB)
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
No wonder the NKJV replaced “corrupt” with “peddling,” for their consciences convicted them about their many corruptions. “Corrupt” hit too close, even if they do peddle the NKJV! What is it called to copyright a public domain work?II Cor 2:17 (NKJV)
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
II Cor 2:17 (KJB)
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
No wonder the NKJV got rid of “study” in II Tim 2:15, because the version shows little of it, as shown above. How should a minister “be diligent” to obey the NKJV and please God? Should he strive for a good public image as in Matt 7:22?II Timothy 2:15 (NKJV)
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
II Timothy 2:15 (KJB)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Peter and John never read this corruption. They were never scholars and never wanted to be scholars (Acts 4:13; Matt 11:25-27; I Cor 1:19-20; 3:19-20). God’s pastors are not scholars!Eccl 12:11 (NKJV)
The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.
Eccl 12:11 (KJB)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
Talebearing, or gossiping, is a sin that God hates, as taught clearly in the Bible (Lev 19:16). But the NKJV compares talebearing to tasty trifles! Is this wisdom? Where is the condemnation of gossiping?Proverbs 18:8 (NKJV)
The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles, And they go down into the inmost body.
Proverbs 18:8 (KJB)
The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.
Why does the NKJV fear to use “whore” and “sodomite”? Why avoid connecting sodomite and dog in this text? A “perverted one” can mean anything. But a sodomite dog is a plain description of men having sex with men. The perilous times describe so-called Christians compromising with those “without natural affection” (II Tim 3:3).Deut 23:17-18 (NKJV)
There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.
Deut 23:17-18 (KJB)
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

You can see more on this chart at the following source.

Source:
Please keep in mind that I do not agree with their view of Soteriology.
If you bothered to check the link in the post you are responding to you would find the author prefers the KJV. The book is highly critical of Textual Criticism and modern translations.
 
Last edited:

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,254
1,841
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Catholics really don't know that they are favoring wrong manuscripts that attacks the Trinity. They do not have the spiritual discernment to see that they are holding to the wrong Alexandrian manuscripts. The Catholics want you to believe in trusting in the priests to understand the Bible. So the removal of 1 John 5:7 (Which was done by Arians) is not a problem in their view because the Catholic church does not believe in the Bible Alone position. They also believe in extra biblical traditions.

Here it is straight out of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in it’s 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…

full

Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

READ THE ABOVE.

All Modern Bibles come from the NU (Nestle and Aland Text).

Your NKJV Bible says the NU omits this... and the NU omits that.
So your NKJV points you to the Nestle and Aland trying to give it more authority than the NKJV itself.
Or it leaves it up to YOU the reader to decide what is best when it comes to the Word of God.
This is wrong. The Word of God should be our authority, not ourselves or Modern scholars (Who do not believe there is any perfect Bible on the planet).
Unchecked Copy Box
2Sa 15:6 -7 How could this be 40 years when David only ruled for 40 years? Check your perfect version. Here are some more not saying I agree with everything at this site Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word
 
Last edited:

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Unchecked Copy Box
2Sa 15:6 -7 How could this be 40 years when David only ruled for 40 years? Check your perfect version. Here are some more not saying I agree with everything at this site Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word
I explained one supposed KJB contradiction that you seen as a problem and this just shows that folks are seeing error or contradiction where none exists. You also are not dealing with the problems in the New King James (compared to the KJB). I am not going to keep explaining things that you will just reject. We also look through a glass darkly, as well. So while I may not know the answers to all things perfectly, the LORD does.
 
Last edited:

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you bothered to check the link in the post you are responding to you would find the author prefers the KJV. The book is highly critical of Textual Criticism and modern translations.
It does not matter. If one does not have a perfect Bible then THEY become the final authority and not the Bible. Every word of God is pure. I believe Psalms 12:6-7 and Proverbs 30:5. Most today do not believe such verses.
 
Last edited:

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@RLT63

The NKJV is a bridge Bible to the Modern Translations and Textual Criticism. The NKJV will point to the Nestle and Aland text (NU) and or say this verse is not in the NU, etc. This just shoots one believing God’s Word to begin with because of all the footnotes that make you doubt God’s Word. You said the NKJV is your base. Again, which NKJV? They don’t all say the same thing. They come out with different editions over the years that changed certain words so they could retain the copyright. The NKJV is also not always faithful to the Textus Receptus and it also favors the same wordings in Modern Bible that is based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.
 
Last edited:

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,254
1,841
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@RLT63

The NKJV is a bridge Bible to the Modern Translations and Textual Criticism. The NKJV will point to the Nestle and Aland text (NU) and or say this verse is not in the NU, etc. This just shoots one believing God’s Word to begin with because of all the footnotes that make you doubt God’s Word. You said the NKJV is your base. Again, which NKJV? They don’t all say the same thing. They come out with different editions over the years that changed certain words so they could retain the copyright. The NKJV is also not always faithful to the Textus Receptus and it also favors the same wordings in Modern Bible that is based on the Alexandrian manuscripts.
But the scholars that translated the KJV and the notes in it were divinely inspired. So the KJV is perfect, Christians can be perfect and let me guess the earth is 6,000 years old right?
 

Bible Highlighter

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2022
4,767
989
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To all:

Dear Believer of God’s Word:

This derailed argument on this topic of which Bible we should use started because the OP (Johann) favors an original languages interpretation over what the English says in the Bible when it comes to 1 Peter 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 7:1, and Galatians 5:24. Nowhere did he employ this same tactic with 1 John 1:8 because he obviously favors the sin and still be saved interpretation on 1 John 1:8. So it comes back to simply believing God’s Word. I am talking about believing the whole counsel of God’s Word. We are to live by every Word of God. How can we do that if God’s Word is tainted or corrupted? Men today want to justify some level of sin and they will use any argument to make such a case. My encouragement to the good Berean is to continually trust God’s Word and give glory to Him in all things (Even when it may not always make sense to us). For our time here may potentially be short.

Blessing be unto you all in the Lord Jesus.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
3,254
1,841
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To all:

Dear Believer of God’s Word:

This derailed argument on this topic of which Bible we should use started because the OP (Johann) favors an original languages interpretation over what the English says in the Bible when it comes to 1 Peter 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 7:1, and Galatians 5:24. Nowhere did he employ this same tactic with 1 John 1:8 because he obviously favors the sin and still be saved interpretation on 1 John 1:8. So it comes back to simply believing God’s Word. I am talking about believing the whole counsel of God’s Word. We are to live by every Word of God. How can we do that if God’s Word is tainted or corrupted? Men today want to justify some level of sin and they will use any argument to make such a case. My encouragement to the good Berean is to continually trust God’s Word and give glory to Him in all things (Even when it may not always make sense to us). For our time here may potentially be short.

Blessing be unto you all in the Lord Jesus.
I used to be King James Only. It’s a fine translation but it’s not perfect. There’s nothing wrong with having a preference for it as long as you don’t let it become an idol. Having contempt for studying the original language makes no sense and you referred to the original language yourself when making your case against contradictions. So you will do it when it suits you. I actually agree with some of what you have posted but disagree with a lot of it too. So let’s get back on topic. The Greek doesn’t change the meaning of 1John 1:8. Is it possible for a Christian to live without sinning?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan

HIM

Active Member
Apr 18, 2021
239
93
28
57
Ashland
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I explained one supposed KJB contradiction that you seen as a problem and this just shows that folks are seeing error or contradiction where none exists. You also are not dealing with the problems in the New King James (compared to the KJB). I am not going to keep explaining things that you will just reject. We also look through a glass darkly, as well. So while I may not know the answers to all things perfectly, the LORD does.
So you didn't look at the link. I did. It is extensive so I did not look at all of it. From what I looked at some of the points are valid and some are not. Obvious bias. That is the thing with people when they have an axe to grind. They see what they want even when there is no arguing the facts presented.
 
Last edited:

stormymonday

Member
Dec 25, 2022
83
17
8
concord
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It does not matter. If one does not have a perfect Bible then THEY become the final authority and not the Bible. Every word of God is pure. I believe Psalms 12:6-7 and Proverbs 30:5. Most today do not believe such verses.
There is no such thing as a perfect bible. I'm not sure but are you saying the AKJV is perfect?
 

Bible_Patrol

New Member
Jan 1, 2023
9
1
3
124
Stockholm
www.shorturl.at
Faith
Christian
Country
Sweden
The Godly Heresy of Sinless Perfectionism




How can a heresy be ‘godly’? In short, it can’t. Godliness is about conformity to sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). However, most cases of (reasonably convincing) false teaching will consist of biblical truths that have been skewed in some way. The ingredients are good, but the recipe is incomplete or else has had unwelcome things added, and the result is a theological and practical mess.

Sinless Perfectionism is a doctrine like that. In short, it holds that it is possible for Christians to completely defeat sin in the present life and to live holy lives like Jesus did. At a glance, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus came to save us from sin. He died for our sins on the cross and he sent his Holy Spirit to empower his people to overcome sin and to live obedient, righteous lives in the present (Titus 2:11-14). Christians should have the highest aspirations for living holy lives and rejecting all sin.

Sinless Perfectionism is Unbiblical
However, the Bible also says that ‘If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). It speaks of the fact that until the resurrection we must be at war with sinful desires (Galatians 5:16-17). Sin is not an enemy ‘out there’. It’s an enemy within that lives and feeds off our fallen human desires and weaknesses (James 1:13-15). That is why sinless perfectionism is not only untrue but also dangerous. People don’t tend to win battles that they don’t even realise they are supposed to be fighting.

Sinless perfectionism is not only untrue but also dangerous. People don’t tend to win battles that they don’t even realise they are supposed to be fighting.


There is a much-repeated (but possibly untrue) story about the 19th century Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon in which he debunked perfectionism in a memorable way.[1]

Spurgeon was at a conference where a preacher taught perfectionism in an outspoken manner and even claimed to have reached a state of sinless perfection himself. Spurgeon didn’t challenge him on the spot. Instead, the next morning he poured a pitcher of milk over the man’s head, to which the ‘perfectionist’ responded with the kind of rage and hostility that you’d expect from any sinner. Perfectionism debunked.

We like this story. It’s funny to hear of false teaching being exposed in an amusing way. But I suspect that our reaction is far too smug. It betrays an attitude of self-assurance at precisely the point where we should feel our greatest need. It demonstrates a disturbing lack of concern about the fact that we sin and that our sin is deeply offensive to God. When we remember this then it’s impossible to gleefully say in our hearts: “you stupid perfectionists—of course we all sin!” Are we pleased with the situation? Have we forgotten what sin is? Even though we know that it’s false, shouldn’t we wish that sinless perfectionism were true? Don’t you long to be free of sin?

Spiritual Complacency is Unbiblical Too
If there is an equal and opposite error to sinless perfectionism then it is the sin of spiritual complacency. It’s shrugging your shoulders at sin’s inevitability. It’s acceptance that sin is just part of life, and I’m OK with that. It’s responding to occasions of sin by almost justifying it with glib lines like: “we know that we all sin.” That is a ghastly attitude for a Christian to have and it needs to be challenged.

If there is an equal and opposite error to sinless perfectionism then it’s shrugging your shoulders at sin’s inevitability—sin is just part of life, and I’m OK with that.


It is easy for me to criticise sinless perfectionism because I don’t personally know any Christians who struggle with this doctrine. However, I dare say that I know an entire evangelical culture that is complacent about sin. We’ve forgotten that sin is ugly and grotesque; the complete opposite to righteousness. We’ve forgotten that God’s will for our lives is that we be holy (1 Thessalonians 4:3). We’ve forgotten that what Christians look forward to above all else is Jesus returning to take away our sin completely. We’ve forgotten that anyone who truly desires that day to come will be obsessed with living a holy life now (1 John 3:2-3).

Jesus taught that Christians would ‘hunger and thirst’ after righteousness (Matthew 5:6). Imagine a man who has been deprived of food and water for far too long. Hunger and thirst are not just a thought in his head, but all-encompassing desires that cannot be ignored. His whole body cries out for sustenance! He will never – can never – be satisfied until his desire is satiated. Is our hunger for righteousness like that? That’s what perfectionism (at its best) gets right. It desires to be without sin. That is a profoundly godly ambition, and one that all Christians should share. We recognise that we will inevitably fall short. But we are not happy about it.

Come Lord Jesus!

I have tried this myself with these "sinless perfection giants"...just say anything untoward, and a reaction you'll get, maybe we should, like Spurgeon, pour milk on their heads.

J.
Sir, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? As it is written, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And unto what were you baptized?
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,869
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Sir, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? As it is written, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And unto what were you baptized?
Is speaking in glossalia indicative that you have been saved?
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


You are a newbie, are you attempting to peiradzo me, or dokimazo?
And while I have you here, which denomination/ekklesia are you affiliating with?

Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan

HIM

Active Member
Apr 18, 2021
239
93
28
57
Ashland
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I used to be King James Only. It’s a fine translation but it’s not perfect. There’s nothing wrong with having a preference for it as long as you don’t let it become an idol. Having contempt for studying the original language makes no sense and you referred to the original language yourself when making your case against contradictions. So you will do it when it suits you. I actually agree with some of what you have posted but disagree with a lot of it too. So let’s get back on topic. The Greek doesn’t change the meaning of 1John 1:8. Is it possible for a Christian to live without sinning?
Sure it does. For one understanding the Greek language is subject to context and grammar. The context prior to and after verse eight speaks of sinlessness. It says God is light and in Him is no darkness in verse 5. And then goes on to say that if we claim fellowship with Him and should walk in darkness we lie and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is, we are in fellowship and the blood of Jesus cleanses us of all sin. Then in respect to being cleansed from all sin it states if we say we have no sin in verse 8. Besides sin being a noun, a state of being here and not a verb, an action. If verse 8 was implying that we would always be sinning or have sin then Jesus' blood would not actual cleanse us from ALL sin and verse 7 would be a lie. As well as verse 9 were it states if we confess our sins He will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Even further verse 2:1 would make no sense There we are counseled not to sin. If it weren't possible why counsel it? And then in 2:1 it states if we do we have an advocate. It doesn't say when we do, it says if. As well as verse 10 saying sinned not sinning. Past tense not present. Which incidentally is the first time in this context sin is a verb.




1John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

1John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1John 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.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
 

Bible_Patrol

New Member
Jan 1, 2023
9
1
3
124
Stockholm
www.shorturl.at
Faith
Christian
Country
Sweden
Is speaking in glossalia indicative that you have been saved?
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


You are a newbie, are you attempting to peiradzo me, or dokimazo?
And while I have you here, which denomination/ekklesia are you affiliating with?

Thank you
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
 

HIM

Active Member
Apr 18, 2021
239
93
28
57
Ashland
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is speaking in glossalia indicative that you have been saved?
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


You are a newbie, are you attempting to peiradzo me, or dokimazo?
And while I have you here, which denomination/ekklesia are you affiliating with?

Thank you
What 3000 + posts makes one something? Please stop. For one we are to speak to people at the level they are at with respect regardless of how they address us. Second you might be familiar with the Greek language but you don't know it. Third, the questions they asked were legitimate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bible_Patrol

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,869
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
A house divided against itself cannot stand. Your argument makes no sense. And there is nothing wrong with studying the original Greek and Hebrew. You are a King James Only advocate no matter what you call yourself. I actually agree with you on some things but not so much on conspiracy theories.
Well said
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan