What is Sin?

[glfredrick]

You need to ask for your money back because you lack a basic understanding of the meaning of the Greek word translated "holy."

You said:

Joseph Henry Thayer, a RECOGNIZED Greek expert, says that one of the meanings of the Greek word translated "holy" is "in a moral sense, pure, sinless, upright" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

You failed to mention your credentials in Greek... :wavey:

And, I admit that ONE OF the "usages" of the word "holy" is indeed sinless, but you cannot freely substitute that usage whenever it is convenient for your argument. That is not how the langauge works, something you would know if you had one minute of education in the Greek language and grammar.

The most common usage is "set apart" with the connotation "for God's own use." And, in this context, as God makes us holy by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, we cannot be "sinless" in our quest to be "sanctified" or "holy" (one and the same root word in Greek). We are MADE holy in the sinless sense, but we cannot BE holy in the sinless sense on our own. Therein lies your error.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You failed to mention your credentials in Greek...

I never claimed to be an expert on the Greek language and that is why I quote Greek experts when that subject comes up.

And, I admit that ONE OF the "usages" of the word "holy" is indeed sinless, but you cannot freely substitute that usage whenever it is convenient for your argument.

So you finally admit it, proving that you were wrong when you made the following blunder:

"Holy" does not equal "without sin".

Next you say:

The most common usage is "set apart" with the connotation "for God's own use." And, in this context, as God makes us holy by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, we cannot be "sinless" in our quest to be "sanctified" or "holy" (one and the same root word in Greek). We are MADE holy in the sinless sense, but we cannot BE holy in the sinless sense on our own. Therein lies your error.

We can certainly live our lives where we are indeed sinless for extended periods of time. If we cannot be sinless in our "walk" then why does Paul tell us to do the following?:

"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" (2 Cor.7:1).

We are to cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit so that speaks of sinlessness.

 

[glfredrick]

I never claimed to be an expert on the Greek language and that is why I quote Greek experts when that subject comes up.

That is most evident, especially in the way you cite them, as if one can just pick and choose from the laundry list of available usages whenever one wants.

Sorry... Greek does not work that way, nor does English for that matter.

Context is everything, and in context we must also not "divide God" (or His Word) in such a manner as to make God out to be a liar. If one verse states, "He who says he has no sin is a liar..." then that verse must be considered when considering other verses that tell us to be "pure," "holy," "sanctified," a "saint," etc.

What is even weirder is that you are in fact arguing the Roman Catholic view of our state, i.e., that we are merely sin-sick and need to do something of our own accord to remedy that problem. I am fairly sure that you would disavow anything RC, and yet you argue some of their position on this issue. Perhaps you have misinterpreted the Scriptures? They did, based on a faulty exegesis from a Latin text and then passed on that error through some of the Nicene Fathers of the Church until they arrived at the doctrine of purgatory, pennance, and indulgences. Will that be your next move on this issue?

So you finally admit it, proving that you were wrong when you made the following blunder:

I am not wrong. In the context of the verse we were discussing that is precisely what "holy" means -- set apart.

In the LARGER context of ALL the possible uses of the word "holy" it is possible -- in context -- for the use of the word to mean "without sin."

Can you understand those nuances or are you so wooden in your lack of Greek that you cannot understand that useage and context drives the word? That is probably rhetorical... :BangHead:

Next you say:

The most common usage is "set apart" with the connotation "for God's own use." And, in this context, as God makes us holy by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, we cannot be "sinless" in our quest to be "sanctified" or "holy" (one and the same root word in Greek). We are MADE holy in the sinless sense, but we cannot BE holy in the sinless sense on our own. Therein lies your error.

We can certainly live our lives where we are indeed sinless for extended periods of time. If we cannot be sinless in our "walk" then why does Paul tell us to do the following?:

"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" (2 Cor.7:1).

We are to cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit so that speaks of sinlessness.

We can certainly try. I doubt that we would succeed. Do YOU THINK that YOU have accomplished what Paul has asked us to accomplish? Did PAUL think that HE did?

Perhaps you are harboring the sin of pride...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Context is everything, and in context we must also not "divide God" (or His Word) in such a manner as to make God out to be a liar. If one verse states, "He who says he has no sin is a liar..." then that verse must be considered when considering other verses that tell us to be "pure," "holy," "sanctified," a "saint," etc.

Once again you demonstrate that you have little regard for the Scriptures AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Why did you misquote the verse? Paul does not say that "He who says he has no sin is a liar."

Instead he said:

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 Jn.1:10).

The Greek word translated "sinned" is a "verb" and not a "noun."

Since you consider yourself a Greek expert then why did you not know that? Why am I the one who is having to correct you since you insist that you are the expert?

Of course all of us has sinned but that does not mean that we cannot be sinless at the present time. Once a Christian confesses his sin then that sin is no longer credited into his account and is sent away:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "forgive" is "to send away" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So once a Christian confesses his sin that sin is sent away from him and he is cleansed from the defilement which that sin causes. At that time he can be described as sinless.

Are you saying that we cannot keep ourselves pure?:

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim.5:22).

Perhaps you are harboring the sin of pride...

Perhaps you have no intention to even try to keep yourself pure.

 

[glfredrick]

Once again you demonstrate that you have little regard for the Scriptures AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Why did you misquote the verse? Paul does not say that "He who says he has no sin is a liar."

Instead he said:

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 Jn.1:10).

The Greek word translated "sinned" is a "verb" and not a "noun."

Since you consider yourself a Greek expert then why did you not know that? Why am I the one who is having to correct you since you insist that you are the expert?

Of course all of us has sinned but that does not mean that we cannot be sinless at the present time. Once a Christian confesses his sin then that sin is no longer credited into his account and is sent away:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "forgive" is "to send away" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So once a Christian confesses his sin that sin is sent away from him and he is cleansed from the defilement which that sin causes. At that time he can be described as sinless.

Are you saying that we cannot keep ourselves pure?:

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim.5:22).

Perhaps you have no intention to even try to keep yourself pure.

I cited John... The rest you can have. It is "accuser of the brethren stuff" and I'll have none of it. You are so deep into your own sin that you dont' even realize it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I cited John... The rest you can have.

Yoiu not only cited a verse from John but you perverted it:

If one verse states, "He who says he has no sin is a liar..." then that verse must be considered when considering other verses that tell us to be "pure," "holy," "sanctified," a "saint," etc.

You have no respect for the Scriptures because you twist them to serve your purposes. Paul does not say that "He who says he has no sin is a liar."

Instead he said:

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 Jn.1:10).

The Greek word translated "sinned" is a "verb" and not a "noun."

Since you consider yourself a Greek expert then why did you not know that? Why am I the one who is having to correct you since you insist that you are the expert?

Of course all of us has sinned but that does not mean that we cannot be sinless at the present time. Once a Christian confesses his sin then that sin is no longer credited into his account and is sent away:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "forgive" is "to send away" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So once a Christian confesses his sin that sin is sent away from him and he is cleansed from the defilement which that sin causes. At that time he can be described as sinless.

Are you saying that we cannot keep ourselves pure?:

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim.5:22).

 

[glfredrick]

Jerry, you can hammer away in your Pelagian view of sinless man all you want. I'm done with you. You will not listen. You will not heed the words of Scripture. You will not heed the orthodoxy of the church for 2000 years. You are your own man on an island of personal doctrine and I cannot compete with that.

I just pray that you hear God if and when He actually calls your name...

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course all of us has sinned but that does not mean that we cannot be sinless at the present time. Once a Christian confesses his sin then that sin is no longer credited into his account and is sent away:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "forgive" is "to send away" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So once a Christian confesses his sin that sin is sent away from him and he is cleansed from the defilement which that sin causes. At that time he can be described as sinless.

Are you saying that we cannot keep ourselves pure?:

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim.5:22).

The Biblical definition of sin cannot be restricted to merely willful acts of transgression, although willful acts of transgression are certainly sin.

Sin is transgression of the law but the law can be transgressed many different ways. '

1. Willful sin or presumptuous sin
2. Ignorantly - sins of ignorance
3. By omission - coming short of God's glory - Rom. 6:23
4. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin - Rom. 14


Those who believe in living above sin MUST redefine sin to suit their doctrine. These heretics refuse to distinguish between things that differ or recognize the other Biblical ways that God's law can be violated. So they simply pick and choose what suits their heresy.

They also ignore the fact that many scriptures speak of the believer JUDICIALLY sinless in regard to his position in contrast to his actual CONDITION. Of course such contextual distinctions don't suit the heretics false doctrine and so he dismisses or ignores such distinctions.

Scriptures that speak about confessing our sins in order for them to be taken away are referring to sins we can confess or knowable sins, not sins of ignorance.

The best of saints is never without sin in regard to COMING SHORT of the glory of God and that is what John referred to in 1 John 1:8 using the present tense and the first person plural pronoun - "if we say we have no sin".

For example, we are commanded to love the Lord with 100% of our total being 100% of the time and our neighbors as ourselves. Apart from Christ no such human being has lived 100% of the time who has loved God and neighbor 100% of total self. Hence, we ALWAYS come short, or miss the mark of absolute sinless perfection.

We can be "perfect" in the sense of MATURE but not in the sense of sinless perfection. Paul claimed to be the former (Philip. 3:15) but denied he had ever reach the latter but still pressed toward that mark (Philip. 3:12-14).

Philip. 3:12 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.

Philip. 3:15 ¶ 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.


Now the heretic who believes in sinless perfection will simply ignore all this or worse yet pervert and twist the scriptures to defend his silly doctrine.

I say silly, because it is a joke! Just ask their spouse how sinless they are and the laugh begins! Paul treated such silly thinking as IMMATURE thinking rather than MATURE thinking when he said:

........and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. - Philip. 3:15


Of course the theological ideologue heretic will never be converted until God does reveal to him that truth.

The real truth is that the more spiritually mature a person really is, and the closer they walk with God the more they will confess "I AM the cheif of sinners" because when we walk with Christ His glory reveals our shortcomings because greater the light the greater we see our SHORT comings. That is sin of omission.

However, the heretic thinks he is as good as Jesus and GETTING BETTER every day.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you can hammer away in your Pelagian view of sinless man all you want.

There you go changing the subject again. You get caughr red-handed purposefully perverting what the Apostle John said and you refuse to take responsibility for such a dastardly deed.

Of course you want to change the subject as fast as you can so others cannot see just how deceitfully you treat the Scriptures. you said:

If one verse states, "He who says he has no sin is a liar..." then that verse must be considered when considering other verses that tell us to be "pure," "holy," "sanctified," a "saint," etc.

Of course we both know that John did NOT say "He who says he has no sin is a liar."

That is another perversion of the Scriptures which you intentionally tried to slip into this discussion in your quest to deceive others. Here is what John actually said:

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 Jn.1:10).

You got caught once again changing the Scriptures in order to make them fit your views so that you can deceive others.

Then you refuse to take responsibility for doing such an evil thing and you attack me in the hope that no one will notice that you purposely changed what is written by the Apostle john.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

However, the heretic thinks he is as good as Jesus and GETTING BETTER every day.

No one even hinted that he is as good as the Lord Jesus. As usual you build your strawman and then knock it over.

They also ignore the fact that many scriptures speak of the believer JUDICIALLY sinless in regard to his position in contrast to his actual CONDITION. Of course such contextual distinctions don't suit the heretics false doctrine and so he dismisses or ignores such distinctions.

Of course you ust ignore what is said here because it is not speaking of being JUDICALLY righteous:

"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" (2 Cor.7:1).

We can indeed clean ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit or else Paul would not tell us to do it. Paul and his fellow believers were indeed able to live lives which he described as being "holy" and "blameless":

"You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed" (1 Thess.2:10).

All you want to do is give excuses why your life cannot be described as "blameless." Mature Christians encourage others to live lives that can be described as blameless but immature ones insist that it is impossible.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:23).

 

[The Biblicist]

No one even hinted that he is as good as the Lord Jesus. As usual you build your strawman and then knock it over.

Living above sin is being equal to Christ! So if you believe you can be sinless you do believe you are as good as Christ.

Of course you ust ignore what is said here because it is not speaking of being JUDICALLY righteous:

"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" (2 Cor.7:1).

12 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.
13 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,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The same writer talking about the same thing! There is no goal less than perfection worthy to strive after!

Like most extremists you don't have any common sense when it comes to interpreting the scriptures. If your interpretation of Paul in 2 Cor. 7:1 were correct then Paul would not be denying he had attained in Philippians 3:12-13.

Progressive sanctification has only one worthy goal to press toward and that is the finality of sanctification or glorification - sinless perfection. Any other goal is not worthy, but only a fool would claim he has already attained. Paul was no fool but there are many such fools that make the boast they can attain it, because they don't believe Paul would have set that as the goal if they could not attain it right now! They don't have enough common sense to see that Paul is simply setting forth the goal to strive for rather than claiming it can be achieved! They don't have enough common sense to see that Paul plainly denies he has acheived that goal, but simply presses toward that mark regardless if he can't acheive it here and now! No, instead they pit Paul against Paul and claim to be wise in the Scriptures while mocking others!

So, Mr. Wise man, do you choose to interpret 2 Cor. 7:1 to flatly contradict Philipians 2:12-14?

"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" (2 Cor.7:1).[/QUOTE]

Philip. 2:12 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.
13 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,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

If all can acheive it (2 Cor 7:1) then why did Paul deny he acheived it (Philip. 3:12) but rather was merely following after it?

If all can acheive it (2 Cor. 7:1) then why did Paul deny he had apprehended it (Philip. 3:13)?

If all can acheive it (2 Cor. 7:1) then why is Paul still only reaching forth and pressing toward that mark (Philip. 2:13)?

Could it be as simple as that is the only worthy goal for a child of God to press toward even though it is unattainable here and now? Could it be as simple as no other goal is worth striving for even if that goal is not attained here and now??

Hmmmmmmmm!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Like most extremists you don't have any common sense when it comes to interpreting the scriptures. If your interpretation of Paul in 2 Cor. 7:1 were correct then Paul would not be denying he had attained in Philippians 3:12-13.

You just ignore the verses which demonstrate Paul could indeed live his life for extended periods of time in a "blameless" manner:

"You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed" (1 Thess.2:10).

Progressive sanctification has only one worthy goal to press toward and that is the finality of sanctification or glorification - sinless perfection.

Even though Paul could live a holy life for extended periods of time he admitted that he sometimes came up short of that goal and that what he was referring to in the passages which you quoted.

But you assert that if we cannot attain perfection then anything short of that is not worth the effort.

"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident" (Prov.14:16).

 

[Darrell C]

You just ignore the verses which demonstrate Paul could indeed live his life for extended periods of time in a "blameless" manner:

"You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed" (1 Thess.2:10).

Even though Paul could live a holy life for extended periods of time he admitted that he sometimes came up short of that goal and that what he was referring to in the passages which you quoted.

But you assert that if we cannot attain perfection then anything short of that is not worth the effort.

"A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident" (Prov.14:16).

Hello Jerry, I would ask just one question: is there a difference between those that are in Christ, and those that were under law before the death of Christ?

God bless.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here is a list of Scriptures that speak to the topic of sin. Obviously they are not all ‘definitions’ of sin, but they do speak concerning the issue of sin. Does anyone find other important verses on sin that we might add to the list in order to make it as complete as we can and to aide us with our definitions of sin?
1. Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
2.Gen. 18:20 Sin is grievous
3. Gen. 31:36 Sin amounts to a trespass
4. Gen. 39:9 Sin is great wickedness
5. Ex. 34:9 Sin is iniquity
6.1Sam.15:23 Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft
7.Prov.14:34 Sin is a reproach
8. Prov. 21:4 A high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin
9. Prov.24:19The thought of foolishness is sin
10. Ezek. 33:14 Sin is the opposite of lawful and right
11. John 8:34 He that sins is the servant of sin
12.Romans 3:20 By the law is the knowledge of sin
13.Romans 5:13 Sin is not imputed where there is no law
14. Romans 14:23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin
15. Heb 3:13 Deceitfulness is sin
16. When lust is conceived it bringeth forth sin.
17. James 4:17 To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin
18. 1John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law
19. 1 John 3:8; John 8:44 Is of the devil
20. 1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin. and there is a sin not unto death
21.Romans 4:15 for where no law is, there is no transgression
22. Romans 14:23 Anything not of faith is sin
23. John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
24.John 15:24 "If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.
25. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Sin is anything done or not done, commission or omission that falls short of the perfection of God. We can do a good or a great think, but if it is not perfect it is a sin.

But in the biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. It does not mean to do evil.

The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is usually translated as sin in the New Testament. In Classical Greek, it means “to miss the mark” or “to miss the target”

http://usedrecurvebowsforsale.org/sin-archery-term/

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hello Jerry, I would ask just one question: is there a difference between those that are in Christ, and those that were under law before the death of Christ?

How do you define the phrase "in Christ"?

If it means in the Body of Christ then no one before the death of Christ were "in Christ" before the Cross.

 

[Darrell C]

How do you define the phrase "in Christ"?

If it means in the Body of Christ then no one before the death of Christ were "in Christ" before the Cross.

That those who are in Christ are those that have been, through the finished work of Christ, forgiven of their sins and become members of the Church, His body.

Which I view to be a supernatural event in the lives of men.

We are in agreement that "no one before the death of Christ were "in Christ" before the Cross," and now for the reason I asked:

Should we not distinguish between Paul before conversion, and Paul after conversion?

Paul was, like all men before the Cross in my view, not born again, not indwelled by God, and not having received forgiveness of sin.

After salvation, you say of him:

You just ignore the verses which demonstrate Paul could indeed live his life for extended periods of time in a "blameless" manner:

"You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed" (1 Thess.2:10).


Even though Paul could live a holy life for extended periods of time he admitted that he sometimes came up short of that goal and that what he was referring to in the passages which you quoted.

But you assert that if we cannot attain perfection then anything short of that is not worth the effort.

The point is, you admit that Paul can be holy "for extended periods of time," and point to his confession of righteousness and blamelessness concerning his conversation among the Thessalonians, but, you also point out that "he sometimes came up short."

In that, should we not also distiguish that scripture speaks of a man before conversion, as well as after, and for both men, shows that they will at times...sin?

God bless.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sin is anything done or not done, commission or omission that falls short of the perfection of God. We can do a good or a great think, but if it is not perfect it is a sin.

It would seem to me that before a person could be accused of missing the mark he must first know what he is aiming at. A person must first be able to distinguish between what is good and what is not before sin will be imputed into his account:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas.4:17).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The point is, you admit that Paul can be holy "for extended periods of time," and point to his confession of righteousness and blamelessness concerning his conversation among the Thessalonians, but, you also point out that "he sometimes came up short."

In that, should we not also distiguish that scripture speaks of a man before conversion, as well as after, and for both men, shows that they will at times...sin?

The subject of the discussion was in regard to a Christian's "walk" and his ability or inability to walk in a manner described as being "sinless."

So it has nothing to do with the unconverted. I say that once a Christian sins then when he confesses that sin he is cleansed from all unrighteousness and is therefore in a state that can be described as "sinless" or in a state of practical "holiness."

Then after that as long as he walks in the Spirit then the righteousness which is demanded by the law will be fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Ro.3:31).

I say that a Christian is capable of living in this manner for extended periods of time because he has the ability to walk after the Spirit for extended periods of time.

What say you?

 

[Darrell C]

The subject of the discussion was in regard to a Christian's "walk" and his ability or inability to walk in a manner described as being "sinless."

Agreed. However, one thing that is crucial to this discussion is whether we view those that came before the Cross had an ability to attain to that which Christ cme to do, which is bring complete atonement for sin.

If Hebrews tells us that the law was incapable of taking away sins, cleansing the conscience, and fulfilling the promise of God concerning these, would we not conclude that all men before the Cross had absolutely no means to live in such a way that they would not need the work of the Cross applied on their behalf?

So if, after conversion, we are reliant upon the righteousness of Christ in our standing, and the indwelling of God for our obedience, would we not also conclude that both before and after salvation, we are dependant upon God?

The subject of the discussion was in regard to a Christian's "walk" and his ability or inability to walk in a manner described as being "sinless."

As pointed out before in the quotations presented, you yourself admit "long periods," which is in my view an admission that even after conversion, sinlessness is at the very least, improbable.

So it has nothing to do with the unconverted. I say that once a Christian sins then when he confesses that sin he is cleansed from all unrighteousness and is therefore in a state that can be described as "sinless" or in a state of practical "holiness."

Before Paul's conversion, he makes a bold statement concerning his conversation:



Philippians 3

King James Version (KJV)


5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8Yea 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,

9And 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:


He goes on to say that though blameless (and I believe that, really) as touching the "righteousness which is in the law," he distinguishes between that and the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Meaning, he distinguishes between two attainable "righteousnesses:" that which is through faith in Christ, and that which is in the law.

While there was probably not a man alive that could compare with Paul concerning this, he points out that it is not this righteousness that he holds preeminent, but that which has been imputed to him through his faith in Christ.

Then after that as long as he walks in the Spirit then the law will be fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Ro.3:31).

No matter how "righteous" Paul lived, he was incapable of fulfilling the law concerning Christ. Only Christ could do that.

"The law" does not only speak of commands, statutes, and ordinances, but the "law" spoke of Christ, as I am sure you would agree.

In order for the law to be fulfilled, it was necessary that Christ come, who fulfilled the law in the sense that in no way did He act contrary to that which the law taught, as well as in the prophetic sense, that as the law foretold Christ's coming, He came in fulfillment.

Paul couldd not do that. No man could.

Even after salvation.

We see the second sense spoken of by Christ here:


Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)

25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


Christ spoke to them, expounding in all the scriptures the things concerning Messiah. Here, "Moses and the Prophets" are mentioned, called "all" the scriptures.

For our benefit, I think, that He might be clear to show that the law was indeed meant to lead man to Christ, He says...


44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


As He said before, in all of scripture. Leaving little left with the description given, being the law of Moses, the Prophets, and in the Psalms.

Christ fulfilled these things, and He alone could do so. The necessity derived from man's need for redemption, which He alone could fulfill.


45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

No man could fulfill the law before Christ, and no man, even after salvation, go beyond that which Christ came to do.

I say that a Christian is capable of living in this manner for extended periods of time because he has the ability to walk after the Spirit for extended periods of time.

What say you?

I agree.

We would not be commanded to put away sin if either the need were not present or it was an impossibility.

But, going back to the original thought in mind when I replied to the statement made, it should be carefully noted that in scripture there is a distinguished difference between righteousness which man is capable of attaining to, and righteousness which only Christ could fulfill, and in fact, can still only fulfill.

If we admit that though we can go long periods of righteousness, yet fall at times, we admit that we can still sin, though we have been given a position of perfection through the work of Christ.

God bless.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If Hebrews tells us that the law was incapable of taking away sins, cleansing the conscience, and fulfilling the promise of God concerning these, would we not conclude that all men before the Cross had absolutely no means to live in such a way that they would not need the work of the Cross applied on their behalf?

Of course all the saved must have the benefits of the Cross applied to them but please consider what the Scriptures say about the how Zacharias and Abis lived before the Cross:

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Lk.1:6).

So if, after conversion, we are reliant upon the righteousness of Christ in our standing, and the indwelling of God for our obedience, would we not also conclude that both before and after salvation, we are dependant upon God?

I never said that we are not dependent upon God.

As pointed out before in the quotations presented, you yourself admit "long periods," which is in my view an admission that even after conversion, sinlessness is at the very least, improbable.

I never said that any of us will live sinless lives from now until we die. However, we can live that way for extended periods of time.

He goes on to say that though blameless (and I believe that, really) as touching the "righteousness which is in the law," he distinguishes between that and the righteousness which is of God by faith.

I believe that he was speaking about how others viewed him because in an earlier epistle he admitted that he was not blamess (Ro.7:7-11).

Meaning, he distinguishes between two attainable "righteousnesses:" that which is through faith in Christ, and that which is in the law.

The following decribes the righteousness which is of the law and it also describes the pinnacle of the righteousness which a person can hope to attain:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the" (Mt.22:36-40).

If we admit that though we can go long periods of righteousness, yet fall at times, we admit that we can still sin, though we have been given a position of perfection through the work of Christ.

I am glad to see that you agree with what I said here because many on this thread say that it is impossible:

I say that a Christian is capable of living in this manner for extended periods of time because he has the ability to walk after the Spirit for extended periods of time.