Is to be Cleansed or Free From All Sin, Sin?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

While discussing the word sanctify and holiness on another thread, we have stumbled upon a novel doctrine brought to light by DHK. It is a doctrine that basically is evidently expressed by the following words. It is sin not to sin. Although I have known for some time that some must believe in such a notion I had never seen it so plainly stated until DHK made the following comment: :

DHK: But the claim of sinlessness is sin, in and of itself.

HP: If sinlessness is sin, it is a sin for Christ to cleanse one from all sin?

Do some really consider what they are espousing seriously before they make such a comment? Are we purified and made holy at salvation, or does our sin remain? Are we purified by faith, the blood cleansing us from all sin at salvation, or it the blood unable to do what Scripture says it does. Is the efficaciousness of death greater than the blood of Christ? If it is we should all be praising death, but Scripture calls it the last enemy, not ones savior from sin.

Does death save us from our sins or does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Where in Scripture does it say that one coming to Christ has to wait until death to be made holy and pure?

When the apostle Paul made a reference to being made free from sin, was he speaking in the present or past tense forms, or was he speaking of some 'after death' experience?

If to say one is without sin is sin, were the accusers of Christ wrong or right when they called him a blasphemer? Where is the explanation of Christ to those accusers, that indicated that they really were expressing truth for a man, but He could not have and was not a man, for if a man claims to be without sin, according to DHK, that is sin in and of itself?

 

[The Biblicist]

While discussing the word sanctify and holiness on another thread, we have stumbled upon a novel doctrine brought to light by DHK. It is a doctrine that basically is evidently expressed by the following words. It is sin not to sin.

You pervert the scriptures and you pervert DHK's statement. He did not say it is "sin not to sin." He said it is sin to CLAIM you are sinless. Big difference. DHK's statement had to do with the nature of ones PROFESSION in keeping with 1 John 1:8 and many other scriptures that support his statement.

Your perversion of his words put words in his mouth he never said or meant and words that are not synonomous with what he said and meant.

 

[DiamondLady]

You pervert the scriptures and you pervert DHK's statement. He did not say it is "sin not to sin." He said it is sin to CLAIM you are sinless. Big difference. DHK's statement had to do with the nature of ones PROFESSION in keeping with 1 John 1:8 and many other scriptures that support his statement.

Your perversion of his words put words in his mouth he never said or meant and words that are not synonomous with what he said and meant.

May I ask you, please, why you find it necessary to verbally attack the OP, calling his questions perversion? Do you not believe it might be better to give him the benefit of the doubt and correct him gently, thinking that perhaps he misunderstood or he needs clarification rather than attacking him headlong?

By the by, I happen to agree with DHK that it is sin to CLAIM that one is sinless. We will always have sin until we draw our last breath on this plain and enter into eternity.

 

[savedbymercy]

Everyone Christ died for is washed from all sins by His Blood alone, even before they believe. If He Loved them, then He washed them with His own Blood. Rev 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince over the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

The faith of one has nothing to do with it !

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: If sinlessness is sin, it is a sin for Christ to cleanse one from all sin? [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Christ's cleansng from all sin was LEGAL and POSITIONAL or "in Christ." He did not cleans your actual PERSON from all sin. If he had cleansed your actual person from all sin you would be glorfiied instantly as that is exactly what occurs at glorification. At glorification the very PERSON of the saint is cleansed from all sin.

Are we purified by faith, the blood cleansing us from all sin at salvation, or it the blood unable to do what Scripture says it does. Is the efficaciousness of death greater than the blood of Christ? If it is we should all be praising death, but Scripture calls it the last enemy, not ones savior from sin. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Does death save us from our sins or does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Where in Scripture does it say that one coming to Christ has to wait until death to be made holy and pure?

The term "saved" is found in three different tenses in scripture. If your view were correct it would be found only in the past tense "saved" from sin. However, it is found in the present and future tense demonstrating that in regard to your very Person there is a past completed action as well as a progressive and future application of salvation from sin.

The past completed action includes our LEGAL and POSITIONAL salvation from sin or justification by faith and imputation of the righteousness of Christ and remision of sins "in him."

The present tense "save" refers to the progressive application of our position to our very person where spritiual GROWTH is occuring where we are OVERCOMING the world but have not yet overcome the world and have not yet fullness of growth in dealing with sin in our life. Spritual growth is not to be restricted to mere knowledge but includes practice and application of knowledge in our own life as well. Sin is "COMING SHORT" of the glory of God in YOUR LIFE! The glory of God is His state of sinless righteous holiness.

Death is part of the process. Present death - picking up the cross and DYING to sin and self is part of the process. Physical death is part of the process of salvation being freed from PRACTICAL influences of sin. It is not death pitted against the blood of Christ but death included OR ELSE NO CHRISTIAN WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DEATH AT ALL. Think your own argument through to its logical consequences as you are PITTING death against the blood of Christ!

When the apostle Paul made a reference to being made free from sin, was he speaking in the present or past tense forms, or was he speaking of some 'after death' experience?

If your argument was true then no christians should suffer physical death since they have been made "FREE" from sin and the consequences of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Obviously then, that is not the case, and thus Paul was speaking of our POSITION in Christ where no sin exists or can exist as Christ is without sin. That is our LEGAL FREEDOM from sin by justification through faith "in Christ."

If to say one is without sin is sin, were the accusers of Christ wrong or right when they called him a blasphemer? Where is the explanation of Christ to those accusers, that indicated that they really were expressing truth for a man, but He could not have and was not a man, for if a man claims to be without sin, according to DHK, that is sin in and of itself?

.

First you pervert DHK's words when you say "If to say one is without sin is sin" as DHK never uttered such nonsense! He did not say "one is without sin is sin" those are your words not his. If he had said those words he would have accused Christ of sin because Christ was without sin.

Then you rightly state DHK's words in the last part of your argument "if a man CLAIMS to be without sin, according to DHK, that is sin in and of itself" which is exactly what John is claiming about "US" (1 Jn. 1:8) but NOT ABOUT CHRIST (1 Jn. 1:1-3).

Your logic is twisted just as your misrepresentation of DHK's words are twisted.

 

[mandym]

While discussing the word sanctify and holiness on another thread, we have stumbled upon a novel doctrine brought to light by DHK. It is a doctrine that basically is evidently expressed by the following words. It is sin not to sin. [/COLOR]

What a misrepresentation of his words. The claim to not sin is a sin.

When one claims such silliness they are a liar.

 

[The Biblicist]

May I ask you, please, why you find it necessary to verbally attack the OP, calling his questions perversion? Do you not believe it might be better to give him the benefit of the doubt and correct him gently, thinking that perhaps he misunderstood or he needs clarification rather than attacking him headlong?

By the by, I happen to agree with DHK that it is sin to CLAIM that one is sinless. We will always have sin until we draw our last breath on this plain and enter into eternity.

Read HP's illustration of his argument as he applies it to Christ! He knows exactly what he is saying. Twice he correctly quotes DHK and emphasizes that DHK said "CLAIMS" but twice applies it by the very same wording that omits the word "claims." He is perverting and distorting the words of DHK and then accusing DHK of making Christ a liar.

Instead of trying to correct me why don't you deal with OP or simply mind your own business?

 

[The Biblicist]

Read HP's illustration of his argument as he applies it to Christ! He knows exactly what he is saying. Twice he correctly quotes DHK and emphasizes that DHK said "CLAIMS" but twice applies it by the very same wording that omits the word "claims." He is perverting and distorting the words of DHK and then accusing DHK of making Christ a liar.

Instead of trying to correct me why don't you deal with OP or simply mind your own business?

Anyone who has been following HP in this discussion about living above sin knows fully well that HP knows exactly what he is saying. We have debated the meaning of 1 John 1:8 many times with HP and He knows exactly what DHK meant and even emphasizes the word "caims" in his argument and yet intentionally omits it in his designed application. What he is doing is devious distortion and for someone to suggest HP has misunderstood DHK must come from someone who has not been following the subject very well or wants to play Moderator when it is not their business to do so.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just a thought to interject into the discussion do you remember Jesus' teaching where he said

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

Do you think this applies to this topic?

 

[The Biblicist]

Just a thought to interject into the discussion do you remember Jesus' teaching where he said Do you think this applies to this topic?

If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains

There is a time in the life of a person when they are truly blind to sin. They cognitively are not aware of what sin is. They do not understand the experience of conscience.

However, this is not the case with the religious crowd before Jesus by their own professsion. They claimed to be teachers of the law discerning good and evil. They witnessed the miracle of Christ and yet refused to believe it or in Him.

 

[savedbymercy]

bib

There is a time in the life of a person when they are truly blind to sin. They cognitively are not aware of what sin is.

Are they still Guilty of it before God anyway as a Law Breaker ?

 

[savedbymercy]

The elect, before they are even born as sinners, have already objectively been cleansed from all sin they shall ever commit before God's Law and Justice, by the Blood of Christ !

They were purified from their sins, and then He sat down at the Right Hand of God having accomplished that ! Heb 1:3


3who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

All the guilt of sin has been removed by Christ. The word purged here is the word katharismos and it means:


a cleansing, purification, a ritual purgation or washing

a) of the washing of the Jews before and after their meals

b) of levitical purification of women after childbirth

c) a cleansing from the guilt of sins wrought by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ

So as a result, everyone born into the world that Christ died for, though born sinners, we deny not that, yet are they born free from the Guilt of it against His law and Justice ! To deny this is to deny Christ.

Its a sin against the Body of Christ 1 Cor 11:29, for it is failure to discern properly exactly what Christ did accomplish by His Body for those He died for Rom 7:4

4Therefore, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

 

[Moriah]

Do some really consider what they are espousing seriously before they make such a comment? Are we purified and made holy at salvation, or does our sin remain? Are we purified by faith, the blood cleansing us from all sin at salvation, or it the blood unable to do what Scripture says it does. Is the efficaciousness of death greater than the blood of Christ? If it is we should all be praising death, but Scripture calls it the last enemy, not ones savior from sin.

Does death save us from our sins or does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Where in Scripture does it say that one coming to Christ has to wait until death to be made holy and pure?

When the apostle Paul made a reference to being made free from sin, was he speaking in the present or past tense forms, or was he speaking of some 'after death' experience?

This is so true what you say here. How many times have I read here from people on the board that we are to look to the literal death of our physical bodies before we can be more than just conquerors? We are to look to death. How can they say this since God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:6. God has given us His Spirit, we are children of light, God glorified us, yet people here accuse us of every kind of sin, they even call us sinners for saying sinning is not normal for a Christian.
People here have falsely accused me of saying I was sinless, just because I teach obedience to Christ, and to be perfect, as Jesus tells us to be! Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect, Matthew 5:48. People here accuse me of sinning all day and every day of all kinds and every kind of sin.
In the Philippians 3:12 post I said:
“We are still in human bodies that are slowly deteriorating every day that does NOT mean we sin with our bodies.
Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.”

This is what DHK said in response to what I said:

“Your members (the parts of your body) are instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.”

Who speaks like that to Christians? The only people I hear that kind of speech from are non-Christians. People here that say these types of things to me are the same people who teach that repent does not mean being sorry for you sins. Some of these people also teach that we cannot even repent before Jesus saves us, and that it is impossible. I see something evil at work when I hear such teachings.

 

[Yeshua1]

Mixing apples/oranges here!

Gods point of view is that once saved, we are covered by blood of Christ death upon cross, having imputed to us hs own rightousness, so in that sense are sinless!

To us though, and while in this life, we are still becoming more into image of Christ, and still find ourselves sinning, but hopefully less and less each time!

we will NEVER be in state of sinless perfection, in which our total selves are perfected, until time of our glorification!

 

[billwald]

The sinlessness is a legal fiction which we are awarded when we reach our pie in the sky, by and by.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mixing apples/oranges here!

Gods point of view is that once saved, we are covered by blood of Christ death upon cross, having imputed to us hs own rightousness, so in that sense are sinless!

To us though, and while in this life, we are still becoming more into image of Christ, and still find ourselves sinning, but hopefully less and less each time!

we will NEVER be in state of sinless perfection, in which our total selves are perfected, until time of our glorification!

Just to play the devil's advocate here. Then why try to be holy? Why bother with sanctification as that is hard work. I mean if we're covered by the blood of Christ and we'll never reach perfection then why even try. We can't make it but we covered. So what the point of trying? Lets just keep on sinning as its easier to do and we're covered anyway.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just to play the devil's advocate here. Then why try to be holy? Why bother with sanctification as that is hard work. I mean if we're covered by the blood of Christ and we'll never reach perfection then why even try. We can't make it but we covered. So what the point of trying? Lets just keep on sinning as its easier to do and we're covered anyway.

The new birth is a creative act of God that produces a new WANT TO within the elect that DESIRES to be righteous irregardless of the obstacles so that we are never satisfied with ourselves as we are:


Phlip. 3:13 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 regenerate nature only is satisfied when we are like him:

1 Jn. 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

The obstacle that constantly stands in our way is the indwelling law of sin and progressive sanctification is the struggle between the two and spiritual growth is determined by how much we progress in that struggle.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to play the devil's advocate here. Then why try to be holy? Why bother with sanctification as that is hard work. I mean if we're covered by the blood of Christ and we'll never reach perfection then why even try. We can't make it but we covered. So what the point of trying? Lets just keep on sinning as its easier to do and we're covered anyway.

because the more we allow the Lord to confirm us into the image of Christ here in this life, the more usuable we will be to Him!

We will be able to better use the Gifts He placed in us, and will be able to better reflect Christ unto others!

Also, as the more we think and act as jesus wants us to, the more and better we will be doing the will and plan of God for our lives!

As John the baptizer stated" He MUST increase, while I MUST decrease!"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DiamondLady: May I ask you, please, why you find it necessary to verbally attack the OP, calling his questions perversion? Do you not believe it might be better to give him the benefit of the doubt and correct him gently, thinking that perhaps he misunderstood or he needs clarification rather than attacking him headlong?

By the by, I happen to agree with DHK that it is sin to CLAIM that one is sinless. We will always have sin until we draw our last breath on this plain and enter into eternity.

HP: Well God bless you Diamond Lady. We certainly disagree but I can appreciate your spirit of kindness!

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Well God bless you Diamond Lady. We certainly disagree but I can appreciate your spirit of kindness!

So much for your sloppy agape. In the name of love you perverted DKH words. You know very well he never said or meant what you placed in his mouth.