glfredrick
New Member
Do you KNOW beyond a doubt (from the testimony of Scripture) that these individuals gained heaven by their works?
Seems that you would have to divide God in order to say that...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theoretical sinlessness
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
Do you KNOW beyond a doubt (from the testimony of Scripture) that these individuals gained heaven by their works?
Seems that you would have to divide God in order to say that...
glfredrick
New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim, agree with the words above?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
No, I would not agree with that statement.
I know this was only a "what if?" situation - you (Winman) don't loudly proclaim that you never sin, but if you did, those very words would be examples of such sins as boasting and lying!
No one can proclaim (loudly or quietly, it makes no difference): "I never sin," without sinning by doing so.
Why does it offend so many people here when I say, “Whenever I hear a Christian loudly proclaim that they sin, I wonder if there is ANY sin that they gave up, not sins they never committed, but sins they actually gave up.”
You said: “No one can proclaim (loudly or quietly, it makes no difference): "I never sin," without sinning by doing so.”
You miss the point. Why would you keep proclaiming loudly that you are a sinner, when the Word of God calls us “saints”?
Why would you keep loudly proclaiming you are a sinner, after you have been saved, and after the Word of God calls people who do not come to Him sinners, but those in Him are called righteous.
We admit we are sinners before Jesus saves us, and we can confess our sins even publicly, people have done so, according to God’s Word, before they were water baptized. The Word of God also tells us that we are not to continue to live in sin and that if we do sin, we can ask for forgiveness through Jesus.
You do not see anything wrong when you loudly call yourself a sinner after Jesus saved you because you want non-Christians to hear it enough times and maybe they will not judge you when they watch you sinning. Maybe everyone will just stop judging those Christians and realize they are just like everyone else. Maybe you can just keep doing the sins that you do. Where is that reasoning in the Bible?
1 Tim 1
15 This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them.
Do you have a problem with Paul as well?
glfredrick
New Member
Funny... They are copied directly from the statement of faith from Liberty Unversity -- where you supposedly graduated.
Paul did NOT CONTINUE BEING THE WORST OF SINNERS. Do you understand that? Paul did not say HE STILL IS BEING THE WORST SINNER.
Paul beat his body so that he did not lose the prize as he preached to others. See 1 Corinthians 9:27. I have a problem with you believing that Paul was some big sinner AFTER Jesus saved him.
False.
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.
Paul said he was a sinner NOW, in the PRESENT.
When a person truly knows Jesus Christ they will also know how sinful they truly are. When one goes around boasting how sinless they are, it is a sure sign they are not sinless at all, but self deceived.
This all started with an uncalled for remark you made to me, that said I loudly proclaim how sinful I am. I don't recall where I ever did such a thing, could you show where I did that? I freely admit I am a sinner, but I don't boast about it, I am ashamed of my sins.
It seems to me this is an argument over semantics. We all (or at least most of us) agree it is practically impossible to be saved by perfectly keeping the law, since none of us can do it.
I don't see the difference in the argument over it "theoretically" possible. It seems there are several passages that promise blessing and even salvation to those who perfectly keep the law (Deut. 28-29, Rich young ruler, etc.). Also, if James says if you fail in one point of the law, you are guilty of all of it...It follows that if you do not fail, you are not guilty.
So I would word it this way: "It would theoretically possible to be saved by perfectly keeping the law if certain facts about our sinfulness were not true."
God tells us the reason we are punished is because of our sin. If we had no sin, we would not be punished...but we do have sin, so it doesn't seem like there is anything to argue about.
I would say ANYTHING is THEORETICALLY possible, that is; it is possible to theorize about ANYTHING...but if those theories flatly contradict the reality of the world, they don't do anyone any good.
I don't see the difference in the argument over it "theoretically" possible. It seems there are several passages that promise blessing and even salvation to those who perfectly keep the law (Deut. 28-29, Rich young ruler, etc.). Also, if James says if you fail in one point of the law, you are guilty of all of it...It follows that if you do not fail, you are not guilty.
So I would word it this way: "It would theoretically possible to be saved by perfectly keeping the law if certain facts about our sinfulness were not true."
God tells us the reason we are punished is because of our sin. If we had no sin, we would not be punished...but we do have sin, so it doesn't seem like there is anything to argue about.
I would say ANYTHING is THEORETICALLY possible, that is; it is possible to theorize about ANYTHING...but if those theories flatly contradict the reality of the world, they don't do anyone any good.
You are correct.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
These verses are unnecessary
unless it is theoretically possible not to sin.
Jesus was telling the truth when he said, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Mat 19:17)
If a man were to perfectly keep all of God's laws for his entire life he would enter eternal life. He would not be "saved", because we are saved from sin.
However, the scriptures already foresee that no man has, or will ever keep the whole law.
To add to my last post.
When Jesus said, "but if thou wilt enter life, keep the commandments.", this not only confirms theoretical sinlessness, but it overthrows both Original Sin and Total Depravity.
If a man is born dead in Adam's sin, then Jesus's statement in Mat 19:17 would be untrue. Even if a man lived a perfectly sinless life and kept all of God's laws, he would not enter life because of Adam's sin, not his own.
Gal 5:3 and Jam 2:10 would not make sense either.
Think about it and you will see it is true.
When Jesus said, "but if thou wilt enter life, keep the commandments.", this not only confirms theoretical sinlessness, but it overthrows both Original Sin and Total Depravity.
If a man is born dead in Adam's sin, then Jesus's statement in Mat 19:17 would be untrue. Even if a man lived a perfectly sinless life and kept all of God's laws, he would not enter life because of Adam's sin, not his own.
Gal 5:3 and Jam 2:10 would not make sense either.
Think about it and you will see it is true.
glfredrick
New Member
Then you go stand at the foot of the cross and tell Jesus to come down. His sacrifice is not needed except to fulfill some whim or desire of man, for we can do as well on our own if we are but sincere and devoted enough to do so.
I will bow and accept that I have no hope apart from His amazing grace,,,
That is your INFERENCE! The text does not explicitly say such a thing. It is an heretical inference for many reasons!
1. It absolutely contadicts Mt. 7:13-14; John 14:6; Acts 4:12 and demands there is another way under heaven to come to the Father other than by Jesus Christ.
2. It absolutely contradicts Mt. 7:13-14; Galatians 1:8-9 and demands there is another gospel of salvation - sinless justification under law.
3. It absolutely contradicts Matthew 19:17, 25; Romans 3:9-20; Gal. 3:10-12 by demanding there are millions of intrinsically "good" human beings (infants) rather than "none, no not one" but God.
4. It absolutely contradicts Job 14:1,4; 15:14; 25:3; which deny man is born without a sinful nature.
5. It denies the need of the incarnation and life and death of Jesus Christ.
6. It denies Galatians 3:21 that explicitly denies that it is possible for spiritual life to come by the law!
It is a flat heretical lie spawned by Satan in the depths of hell.
Quite the opposite! Because man is physically born spiritually dead that is precisely why "there is none good but one and that is God."
What a screwed up rationale! There is no "if" because Spirtually dead people cannot live a sinless life due to Adam's sin.
You are simply and completely ignorant why God "ADDED" the law! Man does not perceive himself to be a sinner by God's definition of sin. The Lawyer, rich young ruler and Saul of Tarsus are perfect examples of self-perception of self-righteous hypocrits just as those in Matthew 12 and Romans 2:1-28. The average person you meet on the street will tell you the same thing. They don't see themselves spiritually dead, justifiably worthy for hell, but see themselves no worse than anyone else and believe they will go to heaven based upon their own perceived goodness or as Saul of Tarsus perceived himself as "blameless."
The common opinion of man's self-perception is the basis of YOUR HERESY! The law was given by God to drive him away from SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS and define sin according to God's standard rather than the standard of self-righteous hypocrits in order that they it might drive them to Christ to seek the righteousness demanded by the Law.
You have one messed up mind!
glfredrick
New Member
I believe that we can lay this entire argument to rest with one simple passage spoken by Jesus.
"You must be born again."
When confronted by a Jewish leader and teacher (which means the same thing as "lawyer" in 1st century culture) Jesus made it ultra clear to this man, who should have known this from his knowledge of the Law, that the ONLY WAY into the kingdom of God is by being born again. Not by keeping the Law, not by being righteous on one's own merits, not by anything humanly derived. ONLY by super-natural means, a spiritual rebirth, from God.
"You must be born again."
When confronted by a Jewish leader and teacher (which means the same thing as "lawyer" in 1st century culture) Jesus made it ultra clear to this man, who should have known this from his knowledge of the Law, that the ONLY WAY into the kingdom of God is by being born again. Not by keeping the Law, not by being righteous on one's own merits, not by anything humanly derived. ONLY by super-natural means, a spiritual rebirth, from God.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
Yes, a sinner must be born AGAIN by the Spirit. Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" which means the same thing as "born again" or a "repetition of a birth":
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.
Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."
It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.
Last edited by a moderator:
You fail to keep in mind some truths when reading the scriptures. There are two different laws to keep in mind. There is the law about not sinning, and then there is the law of WORKS. It is NOT a law of WORKS to stop cheating on your wife! It is NOT a law of WORKS to stop stealing. For instance, in Galatians 5:3, this is about a law of WORKS. Being circumcised is a work that we do NOT have to do in Jesus. If a person gets circumcised because God said to do this in the Old Testament (Old Covenant) then he is to do the WHOLE LAW, the whole law with obeying festivals, animal sacrifices, ceremonial cleansing, etc. James 2:10, this is about the same as in Galatians 5:3. As I said before, not sinning is not about the WORKS we are not saved by anymore! There are two laws to keep in mind. If a Jew or a Jew convert obeys the law of circumcision, to be in right standing with God, then he must follow ALL the law, even still the animal sacrifices, because you just cannot pick and choose what to obey from God. However, through Jesus we do not have circumcision anymore, and no New Moon celebrations, etc., for Jesus nailed these things to the cross. Those things were a SHADOW of what was to come, Jesus Christ.
You must be born again is about living by the Spirit of God and Jesus Christ. We DO NOT receive the Holy Spirit UNTIL AFTER we believe and obey. See Acts John 14:23 and Acts 5:32. That is the Word of God. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say we cannot believe on our own without the Holy Spirit causing us to believe first, nowhere.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Is there a circumcised male in the house?
Note carefully to whom this is spoken, and pay careful attention to the English, and GK word for, 'every.'
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
A LOT of humanists are being exposed in this thread. :wavey:
HP: Is there a circumcised male in the house?
Don't you get it? The historical context is the doctrine spelled out in Acts 15:2 and the following context of Acts 15! Paul is refuting people JUST LIKE YOU who believe it is POSSIBLE to be justified under the law!
Circumcision was the first FIRST COMMAND UNDER LAW that a Jewish human being was subjected to. His point is simple! If you are going to come to a theological position that it is possible to keep the law for justification and if you are going to publicly commit to circumcision as adult professed Christians to side with that position then you are INDEBTED to keep every point of the law every moment of your life until you die because if you fail in but ONE POINT you fail EVERY POINT and come under its condemnation rather than approval!
This SYSTEM of justification is for those still IGNORANT of what the Law actually demands and still in DENIAL as to INDWELLING SIN and their DAILY coming short of the Laws demand.
In other words, this system is regarded POTENTIALLY POSSIBLE only by self-righteous hypocritical heretics who are blind to their own sin nature!
- Status