Morally Pure

[Jerry Shugart]

On another thread DHK said the following:

Get it into your head that "morally pure" is not the same as being sinless.


Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!

Let us take his advice and consult a dictionary.

The word "moral" is defined as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" (Merriam-Webster.com).

The word pure as it relates to morals is defined as "free from moral fault or guilt" (Ibid.).

So when we put the two words together we can see that morally pure refers to being free from moral fault or guilt in our behavior.

So in order to be morally pure a person must not sin or he will not be free from moral fault or guilt. in other words, a morally pure state is one where there is no sin.

 

[DHK]

If a person tells a lie, will he still be morally pure?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If a person tells a lie, will he still be morally pure?

Of course once a person tells a lie he is no longer "free from moral fault or guilt" so he is not morally pure.

You did not answer anything which I said that proves that you are wrong.

Why not?

 

[DHK]

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

keep thyself pure--"thyself' is emphatic. "Keep THYSELF" clear of participation in OTHER men's sin by not failing to rebuke them that sin (1Ti 5:20) JFB

Keep thyself pure. Particularly in regard to participation in the sins of others; generally, in all things--in heart, in word, in conduct. [Barnes]

Keep thyself pure. Free from the sins of other men. [PNTC]

This verse has a completely different meaning than the one you are assigning it. See what other commentaries say about it. There is nothing about sinlessness. It is the avoidance of other men's sins.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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

Why do you continue to ignore what I said in my initial post on this thread in anwer to what you said here?:

Get it into your head that "morally pure" is not the same as being sinless.

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!

Let us look again what the dictionary says about the meaning of the term "morally pure."

The word "moral" is defined as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" (Merriam-Webster.com).

The word pure as it relates to morals is defined as "free from moral fault or guilt" (Ibid.).

So when we put the two words together we can see that morally pure refers to being free from moral fault or guilt in our behavior.

So in order to be morally pure a person must not sin or he will not be free from moral fault or guilt. in other words, a morally pure state is one where there is no sin.

Now please stop trying to derail this thread.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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.

HP: Here is a state of moral purity or moral righteousness mentioned. When one is cleansed from all sin at salvation, such a one is indeed made morally righteous or sinless. To suggest otherwise is to say that Scriptures are wrong and sin remains.

Those that believe one cannot be sinless, explain to us the meaning of the verse in question, and explain to us how much sin remains when Christ comes in. What sin(s) are so sinful that the blood of Jesus Christ just cannot seem to rid a repentant sinner of them?

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I am almost of the opinion that we might need to do the 'minute' test again.:thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Morals, in and of themselves, do not save anyone. Grace through faith does. Many a good moral person died lost. A moral person isn't necessarily a CHRISTian, but a CHRISTian is moral.

 

[DHK]

Why do you continue to ignore what I said in my initial post on this thread in anwer to what you said here?:

Perhaps because you ignore the truth. I just quoted to you three commentaries, all explaining the phrase, the very verse from which the phrase was taken. Biblical commentaries are a better source then English dictionaries, aren't they? Why do you ignore them? Nevertheless, let us look at your "evidence."

Let us look again what the dictionary says about the meaning of the term "morally pure."

The word "moral" is defined as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" (Merriam-Webster.com).

Principles are principles, not acts. A principle of right or wrong is not an act of right or wrong. No sin is committed on principle.

The word pure as it relates to morals is defined as "free from moral fault or guilt" (Ibid.).

Moral fault or guilt is not actual fault or guilt. It is moral. Moral is an attribute. That is a characteristic, which is impossible to assign actual sin to. It does not say "fault", but moral fault. That is different. And of course "guilt" is a good thing, not a bad thing. If man did not have guilt he would not have any sense of right or wrong.

So when we put the two words together we can see that morally pure refers to being free from moral fault or guilt in our behavior.

Which has nothing to do with being free from sin.

So in order to be morally pure a person must not sin or he will not be free from moral fault or guilt. in other words, a morally pure state is one where there is no sin.

That is a false conclusion.
What kind of morals does a person have? Morality is a relative term and defined only in the context in which it is used.
Purity is also a relative word and defined only in the context in which it is used.
Justin Bieber may think that he is morally pure, and compared to Lady Gaga maybe he is. But in the sight of the Lord is either one of them?

Now please stop trying to derail this thread.

Stop evading posts and answers. You sound like a broken record with a one-track mind. When an answer is given you fail to respond to it, but keep on repeating the same mantra over and over again, but more insultingly and with more intensity each time.

 

[DHK]

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.

HP: Here is a state of moral purity or moral righteousness mentioned. When one is cleansed from all sin at salvation, such a one is indeed made morally righteous or sinless. To suggest otherwise is to say that Scriptures are wrong and sin remains.

That states our position of righteousness in Christ once we are saved.
As you say: "a state of moral purity or moral righteousness."
But that is not the same as our "walk." In our daily walk with Christ we face trials, struggles, the flesh, sin, etc. And we fail, often. We are not sinless like Christ. Only Christ is sinless.

Those that believe one cannot be sinless, explain to us the meaning of the verse in question, and explain to us how much sin remains when Christ comes in. What sin(s) are so sinful that the blood of Jesus Christ just cannot seem to rid a repentant sinner of them?

The blood of Christ covered all our sins at salvation: past, present and future. That is why we are eternally secure in his hand. When we sin in this life, according to 1 John 1:9 we simply confess that sin to Christ, repent of it, and move on. He forgives us so that our fellowship is restored. It never affects our salvation in anyway.

2Co 5:17

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

This is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible.
It is speaking of our past lives before we were saved: whether we were bankers, janitors, Jews, Gentiles, fat, skinny, etc. We don't know any man after the flesh any longer. (Read context). When we are in Christ (saved) we are new creatures. Those old things (past occupations, racial backgrounds, genetic disorders, etc.) they are all passed away. All things are become new. The janitor is just as equal as the banker in the church; just as the Jew and the Gentile are. All things are become new. All former prejudices are done away. That is the meaning of that verse. Read the entire context and see if I am not right concerning this.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What kind of morals does a person have? Morality is a relative term and defined only in the context in which it is used.

The subject we are discussing is the term "morally pure." here is what you said:

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Here is the definition of "pure" as it relates to morals:

"Free from moral fault or guilt" (Merriam-Webster.com).

Here is another definition in regard to the same thing:

"Free from moral taint or defilement" (World English Dictionary).

And another:

"Untainted by immorality" (Oxford Dictionary).

But you say:

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless.

If being "pure" in the moral sphere does not mean "sinless" then why do we read the following definition?:

"Having no faults; sinless" (TheFreeDictionary.com).

Perhaps you are right and all of these dictionaries are wrong?

 

[DHK]

"Having no faults; sinless" (TheFreeDictionary.com).

Perhaps you are right and all of these dictionaries are wrong?

When the dictionaries start to contradict each other then they all can't be right, can they. The one quoted above isn't right. Pure does not mean sinless.

The most accurate definition that you have quoted is given by the reliable Merrian Webster, which is:

"Free from moral fault or guilt" (Merriam-Webster.com).

In no way does that mean sinless. You can't have it all.

 

[The Biblicist]

The subject we are discussing is the term "morally pure."

The term "pure" in this text simply means to SEPARATE himself from the sins of others:

22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

The Greek term "hagnos" simply conveys the idea of being SET APART. The same term was used repeatedly in the Old Testament for material objects, mountain, vessels, et., as such were simply "SET APART" by God for a particular use.

Paul is simply instructing Timothy to keep himself SET APART from other men's sins - don't partake of such. Their sins could be doctrinal or moral.

However, Philippians 3:12-14 utterly deny that Paul ever perceived himself as personally sinless:

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.

To any reader who really wants to understand or know the truth Paul makes it crystal clear here that he NEVER perceived himself as sinlessly perfect and NEVER will until glorification.

Instead, he used the present tense "I AM the cheif of sinners" when describing how he perceived himself.

1. He was sinless Judicially "in Christ"
2. He was sinless in regard to that aspect of human nature that was born again (Jn. 3:6; 1 Jn. 3:9) - his spirit - as it was created in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)

But in regard to his own condition of soul and body "I AM the cheif of sinners".

Only the lost religious man or the extremely immature Christian would claim they are sinless or can be sinless. If they have an honest spouse such a claim would be the object of a good laugh on the part of their spouse.

The very best that you fellas can do is PIT scripture against scripture and anyone who resorts to that cultic tactic is admitting error on their part.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When the dictionaries start to contradict each other then they all can't be right, can they.

The different defintions which I gave do not contradict each other and you provided no evidence that they do.

The one quoted above isn't right. Pure does not mean sinless.

Just because you say that "pure" in the moral sense does not mean "sinless" means absolutely nothing. Here we see two other sources that say that it does mean "sinless":

"without evil; sinless" (wordsymth.net).

"sinless, spotless, unsullied" (Synonyms; YourDictionary).

The most accurate definition that you have quoted is given by the reliable Merrian Webster, which is:

"Free from moral fault or guilt" (Merriam-Webster.com).

In no way does that mean sinless. You can't have it all.

So according to you one can sin but yet be free from moral fault or guilt? You obviously do not know what the words "free," "moral," "fault" or "guilt" mean.

Here is another definition given by Webster:

"Free from sin or guilt; blameless" (Webster's New World College Dictionary).

Every single definition which I have given proves that you are wrong when you say the following:

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!

It is you who is wrong but of course you think that you know more about the meaning of the word "pure" than do the experts in the English language who write the dictionaries.

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim.3:7).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The term "pure" in this text simply means to SEPARATE himself from the sins of others:

22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

The Greek term "hagnos" simply conveys the idea of being SET APART.

Here is what the Greek experts say as to the meaning of "hagnos":

"Pure from defilement, not contaminated" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

"Pure, undefiled" (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament).

"Pure, chaste, modest, innocent, blameless" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised).

"Pertaining to being without moral defect or blemish and hence pure – ‘pure, without defect’ " (Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains).

The same term was used repeatedly in the Old Testament for material objects, mountain, vessels, et., as such were simply "SET APART" by God for a particular use.

Here we can see how te Greek word "hagnos" was used in the Greek Version of the New Testament (LXX):

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse (hagnos) by taking heed thereto according to thy word" (Ps.119:9: LXX 118:9).

"The way of man is froward and strange: but as for the pure (hagnos), his work is right" (Prov.21:8).

"The words of the LORD are pure (hagnos) words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times" (Ps.12:6).

"The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure (hagnos) are pleasant words" (Prov.15:26).

 

[DHK]

Words have meanings. Most words have more than one meaning. Meanings are determined primarily by context. It is foolish to take one obscure meaning of a word and try to make it fit every situation. That is often what cults do.
As it has been shown, "Keep thyself pure," is speaking of keeping himself pure and untainted from the sins of other men. He needed to "set himself apart" from the ungodliness of others.

The vessels of the Temple were pronounced holy. That is they were "set apart" for the service of God. That doesn't mean they were sinless. They were inanimate objects. The word holy can refer to a thing as much as a person. It simply means set apart. That has nothing to do with sin.

Likewise Timothy had to set himself apart from the sins of others.
In that way he would keep himself pure.

I like a good cup of coffee with a teaspoon of sugar in it. The sugar adds to the flavor but does not contaminate the coffee.
One day, my children deciding to play a joke on me, served me coffee with a teaspoon of salt instead of sugar. Now the coffee was defiled. I spewed it out of my mouth! It was horrible! It had been contaminated. Salt does not taste the same as sugar.

In the same way we are to keep our lives from being contaminated with the things of this world. Keep yourselves pure. It does not give any sense of sinlessness. The salt came from the outside. There could have been some impure beans on the inside but they wouldn't have affected the taste of my coffee.
A bad thought, an angry moment, a lie will not cause one to be morally impure. Keep yourself pure. Don't allow yourself to be contaminated with the sins of others. That is the meaning of the verse.

Don't go sticking your one-word dictionary meaning of "sinlessness" into every contextual occurrence of the word pure. Good hermeneutics doesn't work that way. Context gives the meaning of the word.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Words have meanings. Most words have more than one meaning. Meanings are determined primarily by context. It is foolish to take one obscure meaning of a word and try to make it fit every situation. That is often what cults do.

The leaders of cults are masters of deceiving people unto believeing things which are not true. According to you the word "pure" in the moral sphere does not speak of "sinlessness":

The one quoted above isn't right. Pure does not mean sinless.

Then when confronted from the evidence provided by those who are experts in regard to the meaning of English words you assert that the meanings of these learned men are nothing but "obscure" meanings. Thesemeanings are not 'obscure" by any stretch of the imagination but can be found by any search engine which you might choose:

"without evil; sinless" (wordsymth.net).

"sinless, spotless, unsullied" (Synonyms; YourDictionary).

"Free from sin or guilt; blameless" (Webster's New World College Dictionary).

"Having no faults; sinless" (TheFreeDictionary.com).

Since these definitions contradict your ideas you must somehow convince others that they do not reflect the truth and all you can think of is to say that these meanings are "obscure."

That is exactly the type of tactics the leaders of cults employ. There is nothing that even hints that these definitions are "obscure" in any sense. It was you who said that I could not support my view even if I used a dictionary:

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

I did that very thing and when you are presented with that evidence you say that we cannot trust those sources!

Likewise Timothy had to set himself apart from the sins of others.
In that way he would keep himself pure.

The Greek word translated "pure" at 1 Timothy 5:22 is hagnos and here is what the Greek experts say as to the meaning of that word:

"Pure from defilement, not contaminated" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

"Pure, undefiled" (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament).

"Pure, chaste, modest, innocent, blameless" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised).

"Pertaining to being without moral defect or blemish and hence pure – ‘pure, without defect’ " (Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains).

Of course you can always say that these definitions are also "obscure" and we really shouldn't believe them. If we are to believe your ideas we must throw our reason to the wind and trick our minds into believing that you are the real expert on the meaning of the English word "pure" and the real expert on the meaning of the Greek word hagnos.

According to you we must just ignore what the recognized experts say!

 

[DHK]

I did that very thing and when you are presented with that evidence you say that we cannot trust those sources!

1. Out of a dozen or so dictionaries you pick the ones that suit you, and then the secondary meanings of the word.
2. You are right; we can't trust those dictionaries. You are catching on. Are you one of the ones that proclaim: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul then it is good enough for me." It sounds like it. As I explained before you cannot depend on English dictionaries for definitions of words written in NT Greek.

The Greek word translated "pure" at 1 Timothy 5:22 is hagnos and here is what the Greek experts say as to the meaning of that word:

"Pure from defilement, not contaminated" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

"Pure, undefiled" (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament).

"Pure, chaste, modest, innocent, blameless" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised).

"Pertaining to being without moral defect or blemish and hence pure – ‘pure, without defect’ " (Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains).

Of course you can always say that these definitions are also "obscure" and we really shouldn't believe them. If we are to believe your ideas we must throw our reason to the wind and trick our minds into believing that you are the real expert on the meaning of the English word "pure" and the real expert on the meaning of the Greek word hagnos.

According to you we must just ignore what the recognized experts say!

Notice the commentaries, commenting on the Greek word for "pure" not once use the word "sinless." Thus you must go to English to derive such a wrong use of the word. It does not mean sinless. Only in your imagination can you get such a meaning. The commentaries do not say that do they? You are not even honest with yourself.
--pure, chaste, modest... and you say it means sinless???

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Notice the commentaries, commenting on the Greek word for "pure" not once use the word "sinless."

So a person can commit a sin and remain "undefiled"?:

"Pure, undefiled" (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament).

The word "defile" means "to make unclean or impure" (Merriam-Webster.com).

So in order to be UNdefiled a person cannot do anything which makes him unclean or impure. We know that when a Christian sins that sin makes him impure and unclean or else this verse would make no sense:

"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).

So in order for a Christian to be "undefiled" he must remain sinless. And the following definition is saying the same thing:

"Pure from defilement, not contaminated" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

Out of a dozen or so dictionaries you pick the ones that suit you, and then the secondary meanings of the word.

Please choose any dictionary you want and give the "primary" meaning of the word "pure" as it relates to the moral state of a person.

You are right; we can't trust those dictionaries. You are catching on. Are you one of the ones that proclaim: "If the KJV was good enough for Paul then it is good enough for me." It sounds like it.

I will ask you to cease from putting words in my mouth that I never said and you know I never said.

That type of behavior is deplorable and you should be ashamed of yourself. You were the one who first said anything about dictionaries, not me:

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Now when the evidence proves that you are wrong you suddenly have no use for dictionaries.

As I explained before you cannot depend on English dictionaries for definitions of words written in NT Greek.

Then please quote a Greek expert as to the meaning of the Greek word hagnos where that meaning matches the one which you have tried to force on that word.

 

[DHK]

So a person can commit a sin and remain "undefiled"?:

In the context of 1Tim.5:22, yes.

"Pure, undefiled"

(Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament).

The word "defile" means "to make unclean or impure" (Merriam-Webster.com).

So in order to be UNdefiled a person cannot do anything which makes him unclean or impure. We know that when a Christian sins that sin makes him impure and unclean or else this verse would make no sense:

It makes perfect sense in the context of 1Tim.5:22. That is what we were considering and that is what you are ignoring. Undefiled does not mean sinless. Are you sinless. You said no. Therefore you are defiled. Right?

"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).

So in order for a Christian to be "undefiled" he must remain sinless. And the following definition is saying the same thing:

"Pure from defilement, not contaminated" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

But it doesn't say sinless, does it? You are reading into this more than it says.

Please choose any dictionary you want and give the "primary" meaning of the word "pure" as it relates to the moral state of a person.

Vine's is fine.

Now when the evidence proves that you are wrong you suddenly have no use for dictionaries.

Then please quote a Greek expert as to the meaning of the Greek word hagnos where that meaning matches the one which you have tried to force on that word.

Vine's and most of the other Greek sources do not say sinless do they?