Morally Pure

[Jerry Shugart]

Undefiled does not mean sinless. Are you sinless. You said no. Therefore you are defiled. Right?

I am not defiled at this time because I have confessed the last sin which I committed:

"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).

I am clean from all unrighteousness. Do you believe that a sin defiles a person? If your answer is "no" then please explain how a Christian can be "cleansed" when he confesses if he is not defiled.

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

If your answer is "yes" then tell me how a person can be pure if he sins since any sin causes a person to become defiled and therefore "unclean or impure."

I asked you for a definition of the Greek word translated "pure" with which you are in agreement. You said:

Vine's is fine.

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

If a Christian must confess his sins in order to be cleansed from all unrighteousness then that fact demonstrates the Christian who sins is defiled. Again, the word "defile" means "to make unclean or impure" (Merriam-Webster.com).

From this we can understand that the words "pure from defilement" means that a state of purity end when a Christian is made unclean by his sin.

Therefore a state of purity must be one which is sinless.

 

[The Biblicist]

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).

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).

I don't deny this is one meaning of the term but to suggest it is the only meaning is intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

Why don't you deal with scriptures honestly????? I ask that question because your pick and select method is explicitly, clearly and unambiguously in direct contradiction with Philippians 3:12-14 and 1 Jn. 1:8 and many other scriptures.

Paul and John explicitly and clearly deny the very doctrine you are attempting to FORCE upon them by your selection of this meaning of hagnos when the obvious and general meaning of hagnos clearly contradicts your manufacture doctrine but just as clearly harmonizes with Philippians 3:12-14; 1 Jn. 1:8 and with the context of the very text you are intentionally distorting!!!

When the best you can do is PIT scripture against scripture then that is the trademark of the cultic handling of scriptures!

You simply repeat your vain and contradictory attempts because you cannot honestly deal with the general meaning of the term, its obvious use in that text and the obvious denials by Paul and John! It would seem you would want to be intellectually honest????

You admit all men have sinned! Obviously then, NONE have kept "pure" by your definition! Whey then attempt to enforce an idea that none, no not one, but Christ is??? Anyone who has any observational skills knows that 2-5 year old children are anything but sinless as they are often intentionally vicious toward other sibblings and their parents. Why can't you accept plain explicit denials by both Paul (Philip. 3:12-14) and John (1 Jn. 1:8) that none are sinless or can attain sinlessness??? Why do you continue to pit scipture against scripture? Why do you insist upon ignoring the obvious usage of "holy" in the scriptures??

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't deny this is one meaning of the term but to suggest it is the only meaning is intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

Nothing I have said has been dishonest. Let us see who is telling the truth and who is not. You said:

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.

Quote the Scriptures from the OT where hagnos was used when objects are set apart by God. I quoted verses from the OT which support the meaning I gave for the word hagnos so now it is your turn.

Anyone who has any observational skills knows that 2-5 year old children are anything but sinless as they are often intentionally vicious toward other sibblings and their parents.

You are confused because you are just plain ignorant of what the Scriptures teach. A two year old does not know right from wrong so sin will not be imputed to him when he does things which are not good:

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

You Calvinists have God imputing sin to innocent children for doing things which they do not even know is wrong. That is not something that the loving God of the Bible would ever do.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nothing I have said has been dishonest. Let us see who is telling the truth and who is not. You said:

You are ignoring the fact that Paul and John explicitly contradict your position (Philip. 3:12-14; 1 Jn. 1:8).[/QUOTE]

A two year old does not know right from wrong so sin will not be imputed to him when he does things which are not good:

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

You Calvinists have God imputing sin to innocent children for doing things which they do not even know is wrong. That is not something that the loving God of the Bible would ever do.

You are simply being dishonest! No one is arguing they are held accountable for their sin! That is your straw man escape tactic.

However, to deny that children between 2-5 INTENTIONALLY disobey their parents, INTENTIONALLY are vicious toward their sibblings and parents is only a conclusion of people who lived all their lives deaf, dumb and blind! To deny that such things are fruits of the flesh and listed as such is equally ignorant.

To claim that such INTENTIONAL acts are the consequences of a "pure" nature is laughable.

The INTENTIONAL decision is there irregardless if they comprehend the moral significance or that they are violating God's will.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are ignoring the fact that Paul and John explicitly contradict your position (Philip. 3:12-14; 1 Jn. 1:8).

Why don't you begin to act like a mature Christian or are you incapable of that? Just because two people might disagree on the meaning of a passage from the Bible does not mean that one of them is being dishonest.

You are simply being dishonest! No one is arguing they are held accountable for their sin! That is your straw man escape tactic.

You accuse me of being dishonest even though I did nothing but answered what you said here:

Anyone who has any observational skills knows that 2-5 year old children are anything but sinless as they are often intentionally vicious toward other sibblings and their parents.

If you are right and they are not sinless that can only mean that sin has been imputed into their account.

But that will not happen unless they know that what they are doing is wrong:

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

However, to deny that children between 2-5 INTENTIONALLY disobey their parents, INTENTIONALLY are vicious toward their sibblings and parents is only a conclusion of people who lived all their lives deaf, dumb and blind! To deny that such things are fruits of the flesh and listed as such is equally ignorant.

To claim that such INTENTIONAL acts are the consequences of a "pure" nature is laughable.

What is laughable is to suppose that children come out of the womb spiritually dead bearing the guilt of the sins of Adam and Eve are are children of wrath.

The Lord Jesus did not share your beliefs about this because he compared little children to the kingdom of heaven:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are "children of wrath" but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not! Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

You continue to accuse me of being dishonest. Earlier I said the following to you:

Nothing I have said has been dishonest. Let us see who is telling the truth and who is not. You said:

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.

Then I said:

Quote the Scriptures from the OT where hagnos was used when objects are set apart by God. I quoted verses from the OT which support the meaning I gave for the word hagnos so now it is your turn.

You quoted no verses from the OT to demonstrate that you are telling the truth. Why not?

Surely you did not just make that up, did you?

I will wait for your evidence.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are to keep ourselves "pure" but the fact of the matter is that we don't and so "if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us." This very provision demnstrates that Christians do not attain sinless perfection.

Sins of omission are always present. We are commanded to love the Lord our God with 100% of our being 100% of the time. Are you really going to tell us that you actually obey this command according to that criteria???:laugh: Do you allow your wife and children the freedom to be honest with you how they perceive your sinless perfection:laugh:

Hence, you are failing to recognize exactly what Paul explicitly states to be true concernng even an apostle and that is he never attains sinless perfection but nevertheless that is the only reasonable goal to "press" toward (Philip. 3:12-14).

Why don't you begin to act like a mature Christian or are you incapable of that? Just because two people might disagree on the meaning of a passage from the Bible does not mean that one of them is being dishonest.

Again you accuse me of being dishonest even though I did nothing but answered what you said here:

if you are right and they are not sinless that can only mean that sin has been imputed into their account.

But that will not happen unless they know that what they are doing is wrong:

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

What is laughable is to suppose that children come out of the womb spiritually dead bearing the guilt of the sins of Adam and Eve are are children of wrath.

The Lord Jesus did not share your beliefs about this because he compared little children to the kingdom of heaven:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are "children of wrath" but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"? Of course not! Children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

You continue to accuse me of being dishonest. Earlier I said the following to you:

Nothing I have said has been dishonest. Let us see who is telling the truth and who is not. You said:

Then I said:

Quote the Scriptures from the OT where hagnos was used when objects are set apart by God. I quoted verses from the OT which support the meaning I gave for the word hagnos so now it is your turn.

You quoted no verses from the OT to demonstrate that you are telling the truth. Why not?

Surely you did not just make that up, did you?

I will wait for your evidence.

 

[DHK]

From this we can understand that the words "pure from defilement" means that a state of purity end when a Christian is made unclean by his sin.

Therefore a state of purity must be one which is sinless.

But you are wrong. You are wrong because you fail to address the context of the verse in question: 1Tim.5:22

"Keep thyself pure."

Why did you never respond to my post on the first page, post #4?
That gave the real meaning of the verse, and what the phrase means.
Here it is again:

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.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1783599&postcount=4

The definitions given by other scholarly men that pertain to the Greek usage of this phrase used in this context are far better than any attempt at modern English or even out of context Greek words that you have given.
Play close attention the above meanings.

__________________

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But you are wrong. You are wrong because you fail to address the context of the verse in question: 1Tim.5:22

In a commentary written by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary we read the following commentary on the verse written by A. Duane Litfin:

"Timothy was to keep himself free from sin. One cannot deal with sin in another if one's own life is not 'pure' ('hagnon')" [emphasis mine] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 744).

At the time Dr. Litfin wrote those coments he was the President of Wheaton College and a former Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Undefiled does not mean sinless. Are you sinless. You said no. Therefore you are defiled. Right?

I am not defiled at this time because I have confessed the last sin which I committed:

"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).

I am clean from all unrighteousness. Do you believe that a sin defiles a person? If your answer is "no" then please explain how a Christian can be "cleansed" when he confesses if he is not defiled.

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

If your answer is "yes" then tell me how a person can be pure if he sins since any sin causes a person to become defiled and therefore "unclean or impure."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We are to keep ourselves "pure" but the fact of the matter is that we don't and so "if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us." This very provision demnstrates that Christians do not attain sinless perfection.

I never said that a Christian can obtain sinless perfection. Instead, I said that a Christian can go for long periods of time withut sinning.

Now back to what I said earlier and you non-response. I said:

Nothing I have said has been dishonest. Let us see who is telling the truth and who is not. You said:

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.

Then I said:

Quote the Scriptures from the OT where hagnos was used when objects are set apart by God. I quoted verses from the OT which support the meaning I gave for the word hagnos so now it is your turn.

You quoted no verses from the OT to demonstrate that you are telling the truth. Why not?

Surely you did not just make that up, did you?

I will wait for your evidence.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said that a Christian can obtain sinless perfection. Instead, I said that a Christian can go for long periods of time withut sinning.

You ignored the Great command to love the Lord your God with 100% of your being 100% of the time.

Are you telling us that you can keep this command for long periods of time?

I don't believe you can keep this command for any period of time.

Paul did not say he had attained perfection for long periods of time but flatly denied he had attained perfection period. It was something he continued to press toward but never attained.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why don't you begin to act like a mature Christian or are you incapable of that? Just because two people might disagree on the meaning of a passage from the Bible does not mean that one of them is being dishonest.

I never charged you for being dishonest because we disagree on the interpretation of a text. I charged you with being dishonest because you intentionally and repeatedly simply PITTED scripture against scripture rather than dealing with scriptures forthrightly. I charged you with being dishonest because you ignored scriptures repeatedly and because you created straw man arguments while ignoring scriptures that repudiated your position.

In this very post you continue to PIT scripture against scripture instead of HONESTLY dealing with the scripture that opposes your theory.

There is no "if" concerning willful defiance, willful viscious attacks by children against sibblings. If you are ignorant of this you have no business even discussing the issue as you are clearly either deaf, blind, dumb or intentionally deceptive.

 

[DHK]

In a commentary written by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary we read the following commentary on the verse written by A. Duane Litfin:

"Timothy was to keep himself free from sin. One cannot deal with sin in another if one's own life is not 'pure' ('hagnon')" [emphasis mine] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 744).

At the time Dr. Litfin wrote those coments he was the President of Wheaton College and a former Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Please deal with the comments made in post #4, which I have posted a second time for you above. Why do you keep avoiding them? Answer what the other commentaries say about the true meaning of the verse.

 

[DHK]

Please deal with the comments made in post #4, which I have posted a second time for you above. Why do you keep avoiding them? Answer what the other commentaries say about the true meaning of the verse.

Here are three other well known commentaries to add to the list:

Here Timothy is warned against haste in recognizing newcomers. Neither should he identify himself with men whose characters are unknown to him, lest in so doing he share in their sins. Not only is he to keep himself morally clean but also pure in the sense of free from association with the sins of others. (Believer’s Bible Commentary, MacDonald)


1Tim.5:22 “Lay hands suddenly on no man” cautions Timothy against hastily ordaining a man as elder. Otherwise Timothy will be partaker of this unqualified elder’s sin if he acts irresponsibility in office. Timothy can keep himself pure by not putting such men into office prematurely. (KJV study Bible)


“Keep yourself pure” Some versions translate pure as “free from sin.” Paul wanted Timothy, by not participating in the recognition of unqualified elders, to remain untainted by others’ sins. The church desperately needed qualified spiritual leaders, but the selection had to be carefully executed. (MacArthur)

You have ignored context. Timothy is to keep himself untainted from the sins of others. That is what the verse means. It has nothing to do with sinlessness.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: There is no "if" concerning willful defiance, willful viscious attacks by children against sibblings. If you are ignorant of this you have no business even discussing the issue as you are clearly either deaf, blind, dumb or intentionally deceptive.

HP: As a father of many children and grandchildren, and in an immediate family of over 150, I have never saw, or heard of any such willful vicious attacks of children on siblings. Sibling rivalry? Certainly to one degree or another. Viscious attacks upon each other? That is certainly not normal nor should it be allowed to happen.

I for one, am not blind, deaf, or intentionally deceptive, and my guess is that neither is Jerry.:thumbs: What I am seeing is a pattern in your own behavior of attacking others at will and without cause. That should not be normal behavior for even adults, and certainly should not be norm for Christian adults on a discussion forum. Do you have anger issues?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK in response to Jerry: You have ignored context. Timothy is to keep himself untainted from the sins of others. That is what the verse means. It has nothing to do with sinlessness.

DHK: You are grasping at straws in defending an indefensible position. To suggest that no man can be sinless is to deny the reality of the work of Christ upon the heart of man. Your insistence that the work of Christ in our hearts and lives is first and foremost a positional matter, is simply not in accordance to Scripture. There is not the least bit of freedom from sin positionally if one is still in the sin business in all actuallity. Try as you may, the conscience will faithfully testify to ones sin and bring condemnation into your heart and life, unless the Spirit has already started to withdraw Himself from such an individual, sending them a strong delusion of deception. If one can sin, and do so without guilt, such a one is walking on mighty thin ice with God. It is not that guilt is not there, but rather that one has trained themselves to act 'as if though' there is no guilt and just condemnation.

When one denies the power of God to help one live above sin in this present world, is that not a direct picture of having a form of godliness (positional righteousness in theory) but denying the power thereof? ( in the present reality of empowering the believer by the help promised by God to keep one from the actual practice of sin.) I would certainly think so.

 

[DHK]

DHK: You are grasping at straws in defending an indefensible position. To suggest that no man can be sinless is to deny the reality of the work of Christ upon the heart of man. Your insistence that the work of Christ in our hearts and lives is first and foremost a positional matter, is simply not in accordance to Scripture. There is not the least bit of freedom from sin positionally if one is still in the sin business in all actuallity. Try as you may, the conscience will faithfully testify to ones sin and bring condemnation into your heart and life, unless the Spirit has already started to withdraw Himself from such an individual, sending them a strong delusion of deception. If one can sin, and do so without guilt, such a one is walking on mighty thin ice with God. It is not that guilt is not there, but rather that one has trained themselves to act 'as if though' there is no guilt and just condemnation.

When one denies the power of God to help one live above sin in this present world, is that not a direct picture of having a form of godliness (positional righteousness in theory) but denying the power thereof? ( in the present reality of empowering the believer by the help promised by God to keep one from the actual practice of sin.) I would certainly think so.

First give me Biblical evidence for your position.
You certainly can't do that from 1Tim.5:22
I have showed you from context, from commentary, from definition, that what is meant there is not sinless. The meaning has to do with "pure or untainted from the sins of other men." This cannot be a proof-text for your position. Try again.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: As a father of many children and grandchildren, and in an immediate family of over 150, I have never saw, or heard of any such willful vicious attacks of children on siblings.

Amazing! I not only have many children and grandchildren and have pastored many families with children but observed children at Walmart and countless other social venues and must conclude you are either an absolute liar or so dense you cannot even perceive reality in front of your nose.

Are there any others on this forum besides HP and Jerry who have not witnessed COUNTLESS times 2-5 year old's being downright mean to their sibblings or down right willfully disobedient to their parents??????? HP and Jerry have a heretical dogma to defend and so I don't expect them to be objective.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I am seeing is a pattern in your own behavior of attacking others at will and without cause. That should not be normal behavior for even adults, and certainly should not be norm for Christian adults on a discussion forum. Do you have anger issues?[/FONT][/SIZE]

You and Jerry have one thing in common besides being heretical, and that is you seem to enjoy turning every issue you cannot respond to in a reasonable fashion a personal attack upon others. Jerry has accused every one who opposes him as being immature, childish, stupid, etc., in a good 90% of his posts.

When you cannot overturn personal observations made by others you simply attempt to make such observations grounds for a personal attack upon the character of the person providing the observations. This is not the first time you have done this.

I would challenge you to take a poll and ask the readers if they have ever experienced willful disobedience and mean attacks by 2-5 year olds upon their sibblings? Of course if you did, I would expect you would make the same personal attacks upon those responding to your polls when they defy your own professed observations.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I would challenge you to take a poll and ask the readers if they have ever experienced willful disobedience and mean attacks by 2-5 year olds upon their sibblings? Of course if you did, I would expect you would make the same personal attacks upon those responding to your polls when they defy your own professed observations.

HP: Challenge yourself to a poll Biblicist. You are the one that made the claim. Prove it is true yourself. Be certain to tell any and all that if they disagree with your stated belief they are (in the words of Biblicist) "clearly either deaf, blind, or dumb or intentionally deceptive." :laugh:

And no Biblicist. I would not believe it in keeping with the rules of this forum, or common Christian courtesy for that matter, to suggest others are as you clearly suggest for disagreeing with your over the top observations of infants and small children.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: you are either an absolute liar or so dense you cannot even perceive reality in front of your nose.

HP: Do you have anger issues Biblicist? Can you make even one post without a personal attack either being made or suggested?