Are Ananias and Sapphira in heaven?

DHK: You need a Greek lexicon to look up the word "telios" or "perfect.' It is the same word used in 1Cor.13:10, over which there is so much debate. In Old English, as well as in the Greek it does not have the same modern day meaning of our word perfect. It means complete.

HP: What or how is something complete? If I tell you have a perfect car, am I trying to tell you that you have a junker with every worn out part? If I tell you the team played a perfect game, am I just trying to relate to you that they played a complete game regardless how they played it? If I told you that they have a perfect marriage, am I saying that a man and a wife is that which makes a marriage complete, so every marriage is a perfect one?

If one will read what the lexicons say about the word, instead of picking a couple of words out of it that fits their preconceived notions, one will discover that the word perfect in the Gk does not mean simply mean ‘complete.’ That is a misrepresentation of the facts. It is true that the word perfect carries the meaning of ‘complete’, “IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS of labor, growth, mental and moral states.” (Strongs, EM) It comes from the word, ‘telos’ meaning “to set out for a definite point or goal,” “ the conclusion of an act or state.” “Finally, uttermost.” (Strongs)

Perfect carries the idea of completeness in relation to something. I can see no difference in the meaning of the GK and what we understand the word today as meaning. When we think of perfect we think of something being complete in relationship to something else, just as the Greeks did. There is not a shred of evidence that the word ‘perfect’ had a completely different meaning to the authors of Scripture than it does to us. The only ones that would try and separate our understanding from their understanding of the word are those that have an agenda to uphold and promote.



DHK: Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Be honest. Are you as perfect as God is perfect? Are you just as holy and perfect as God is? Are you??

HP: Somehow I expected you to ask such questions. If all the word perfect means is complete, why would I not be as complete in the sense of being a ‘complete man,’ as God is complete in being a ‘complete God?’ Now you should be the first to admit and believe in perfection if it means nothing more than you claim it does. Are you not complete? If not, what are you missing, a limb or an kidney or something?

God does not require me to be perfect in the same sense and in the same manner as He is. That is a misinterpretation of this Scripture to imply that as you have done. God commands us to be perfect with all OUR strength, with all OUR might, with all OUR heart and soul, (not to mean in any way that there is any separation between our heart and soul) and all OUR abilities, not those of an angel, or anyone else,…..just all of what I possess and am capable of in the understanding I possess.

If I was to admit that I was not perfect in the sense that God demands out of me, what would that prove, other than I was less than perfect as God requires of me? If the whole world was living below the state of perfection God requires, would that prove that no one could? Such a conclusion utilizes flawed logic. If no on ever has climb a certain mountain, does that prove it is impossible to climb? No way. Now let’s quote a Scripture that has been used out of context, in its ‘proper context.’ “Let God be true and every man a liar.” If God requires it out of man, He is no taskmaster, and requires nothing impossible for us to do.



DHK: You would be a fool to answer yes, wouldn't you? Only God is perfect. Only God is perfectly holy. Only God is perfectly sinless. Only God is perfect in all his ways. Satan said he was perfect and was cast out of heaven. Are you making the same mistake as Lucifer did? Are you saying that you are perfect? Really? Then it is a satanic lie.

HP: I need not answer a man according to his folly. You are putting up paper ducks that do not have an ounce of validity in them. You are suggesting that God requires us to be as perfect in every way as He is. What a total misrepresentation of the commandments of a Just and loving God. Your taunting accusations are without a shred of fairness, in relationship to God and His commandments as well as myself personally.



DHK: You are not perfect. But you can be complete. You need to understand what the Bible is teaching in these verses.

HP: I have never made any statements concerning myself to you. One thing I do not need is your accusations. God is my judge. I will tell you that it is my hearts desire to walk perfect before the Lord with the help of the Holy Spirit. I cannot imagine any Christian not having that as a supreme desire and ultimate intention.

DHK: Job was not a perfect man. No one is. He was complete in all his ways. He was a mature man. Study the Bible. Find out what these words mean. No man is perfect.

HP: You will have your day in a heavenly court to instruct God as to the meaning of His Word.

DHK: Completeness and maturity are the idea behind the verse, not perfection in our modern understanding of the word.

HP: The problem lies in the modern day misinterpretation and misapplication of what God demands out of His children. Modern men, as well as many in the past, take what God commands and drive it to the ultimate illogical extreme, and in doing so make God out to demand impossibilities upon the pain of eternal torment. The god you draw a picture of is a hard taskmaster, reaping where he did not sow, requiring of man impossibilities and punishing those that could not do something even God cannot do, overcome necessitated fate. It reminds me of the way the children of Israel acted, by taking the commands of God and then adding to them until it reached the point of absurdity.

There is a vast distinction between a definition of a word and a clearly ‘structured definition’ to suit ones own private interpretational needs. You are structuring a definition to suit your own purposes, while choosing to ignore the obvious. The only light you have shed upon the word perfect, either in the GK or English, is but an infinitesimal ray pricked by the head of a needle through a piece of paper, letting just enough light through to illuminate your private preconceived notions surrounding perfection as it pertains to man in his relationship to God’s law. Your definition is entirely self-serving. The scope and direction of your investigation into the definition of the word ‘perfect’ reminds me of the Platt River in Nebraska. A mile wide and a foot deep.

 

Your arrogance is duly noted.
Now speaking about "choosing to ignore the obvious" let see what the "obvious" meaning of the word "perfect" is:

From Strong's

Now I could keep on quoting other sources: lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, as you like. They all say the same thing. What is it? You against the world? Is everyone wrong and you are the only one that is right. Give me the evidence that your interpretation is the right one. The Greek word translated "perfect" in our Bible means "complete." How many resources will it take to cause you to see this, or are you too stubborn that you won't?
DHK




[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

DHK: Give me the evidence that your interpretation is the right one. The Greek word translated "perfect" in our Bible means "complete." How many resources will it take to cause you to see this, or are you too stubborn that you won't?



HP: I am curious to know, in your estimation, what I represent the word ‘perfect’ to imply. Would you mind defining it, as you see me using the word for the list? Thanks.

 

HI DHK and the list,
See if this helps you any in understanding my position.

Barnes: This word commonly means finished, complete, pure, holy. Originally it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts. Applied to men, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, when no part is defective or wanting. Thus Job (Job 1:1) is said to be perfect; that is, not holy as God, or sinless--for fault is afterwards found with him, (Job 9:20; 42:6) but his piety was proportionate--had a completeness of parts--was consistent and regular, he exhibited his religion as a prince, a father, an individual, a benefactor of the poor. He was not merely a pious man in one place, but uniformly. He was consistent everywhere. (Barnes)

HP: I appreciate Barnes in what he has to say. I am in full agreement with the word ‘perfect’ meaning “finished, complete, pure, holy.” I agree fully with him in that “He was not merely a pious man in one place, but uniformly. He was consistent everywhere.” If you read Barnes carefully, he does not state that Job was not holy, or living without sin at this time in his life, but rather that he was not “holy as God,” or as “sinless” as God.” To be ‘holy as God or sinless as God, in an absolute sense, one would have to be seen as never sinning in the past, and be infinite for all a practical purposes. No man could claim this, nor imply this. Just the same, IN A SENSE” we can be perfect and holy as Barnes expresses in the word “proportionate.” Just as I expressed in a former post that we are not required to love God with His capacities, or the capacities of an angel, but rather we are only required to love God proportionately with all the strength, might, power, and understanding that WE possess. We should mirror the perfections of God in PROPOTIONATE measure to our finite state, understanding, and abilities. A four year old child can mind perfectly in proportionate manner to his or her knowledge and strength, just as an adult can mind God in proportionate measure to their abilities and strength. Their obedience will certainly be on different levels, but it can be said of both that they are obeying perfectly, again in proportionate measure to their understanding and abilities. NOT IN RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY ACT IN THEIR LIFE, but rather in relationship to their present walk. In the case of men, no moral perfection can be found EXCEPT as is relationship to the timeframe after conversion. That is not to say that all, or any for that matter, walk perfect and consistent after being saved for any length of time. I believe many have and do mature to the point in their walk with the Lord, that they sin so little, it can rightfully be said of them they do not sin just as the Apostle John related to us in this verse. “ 1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

A man can be said to be ‘perfect’ in a ‘moral sense’ when he is walking holy before God, as Barnes put it, walking uniformly pious, consistent in every aspect of our walk with God. I have expressed nothing more or less than this in my former posts that I can recall. I take exception with those who would claim that in order to be holy as God commands us that we would have to have lived absolutely perfect from our inception into this world, having ‘never’ sinned. To believe such is paramount to elevating the demands of holiness to an absurd and illogical state, and make God out to be ridiculous in demanding such a clear impossibility out of man.

In the case of Job, I do not see God claiming that Job had lived sinless from birth, but rather that Job had reached a place in his relationship with the Lord, that he had asked for and received Divine forgiveness for all past sins, and was living holy, without sin, blameless, consistent in every aspect of is life IN PROPORTIONATE MEASURE TO ALL THE LIGHT AND ABILITIES HE POSSESSED AT THAT TIME. It could be said that Job loved and served God holy with all his heart.

It is light of that ‘proportionate measure’ of knowledge, understanding and strength, that I understand it my reasonable service to attain to a holy and sinless life in this present world, in relationship to God and His commandments. My desire is to attain and walk holy, blameless, and circumspectly in a consistent manner before God without sin aided by the power and strength afforded me by the Holy Spirit in this present world. To that high goal I set my sights and no other. To lower my goal to anything less would be to disallow the possibility that God states is fully possible and attainable in this present world and He commands me to strive to attain. “Be ye holy for I am holy.” My God is no taskmaster and has promised to be my help and strength if I will but place my trust in Him and that He promises to afford me with. “There is therefore now no temptation taken us but such as is common to man, but God will with the temptation make a way of escape that each one of us might be able to bear it.”
When and if I am found to have failed God, or God grants to me new light and understanding of areas of my life that need change, I purpose to repent for the failure, to look for His cleansing as I fulfill the conditions of sincere repentance and faith, and walk again with His help in a consistent holy walk before Him, again proportionate to my abilities, strength and understanding. I do not believe God requires anything more or less than that from each one of us.

 

(Bolding mine)
You have taken what Barnes has said further than what he intended. He did not say what you said he did. Again you aim for sinless perfection, or a sort of perfection that is impossible to attain. The Bible does say:
"And if we sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous," John including himself, writing as if he knows that we will sin.
Again he commands us:
"If we confess our sins...he will forgive our sins," John again, including himself, and knowing that we will sin. This seems to be on a daily basis indicating a need for daily cleansing.
The completion that Barnes was speaking of, if you read it again, was "piousness" in every aspect of his life. It is the opposite of the so-called Christian who comes to Church on Sunday, puts on a religious show, then lives like the devil the rest of the week. No, in every aspect of his life he lives a consistent Christian life. That doesn't mean he fails or sins. It means his life is consistent whether at work or in church. That is what Barnes said. Read again:

That is what the "perfect" or complete man was, a consistent Christian, not a perfect Christian in the modern day sense of the word. You take the meaning of the word too far.
DHK

 

DHK: You have taken what Barnes has said further than what he intended. He did not say what you said he did.

Barnes: This word commonly means finished, complete, pure, holy. Originally it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts. Applied to men, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, when no part is defective or wanting. Thus Job (Job 1:1) is said to be perfect; that is, not holy as God, or sinless--for fault is afterwards found with him, (Job 9:20; 42:6) but his piety was proportionate--had a completeness of parts--was consistent and regular, he exhibited his religion as a prince, a father, an individual, a benefactor of the poor. He was not merely a pious man in one place, but uniformly. He was consistent everywhere. (Barnes)

HP: First, Forgive my Platt River remarks and the part about a sliver of light through a piece of paper. I could have made my remarks without those comments. My post would have been better off without them. I would be happy to edit them out, but it appears that I cannot at this time.
You ‘might’ be right in stating that I have taken his assessment of Job and applied his remarks further than he would apply them. On the other hand, I may be found to be right on. I do not have the opportunity at my disposal to question him as to the exact meaning he infers and to what extent he would carry his remarks out to include. I actually see Barnes as ‘possibly’ somewhat inconsistent in one area, although for the most part I again, appreciate what he has to say.

In this I find Barnes to be ‘possibly’ inconsistent. He defines perfect as being pure and holy, and states on one hand that Job was “uniformly pious,” and “consistent everywhere.” Then he states in relation to Job that “for fault is afterwards found with him.” What exactly does Barnes see as a ‘fault?’ Does he feel that it was ‘sin,’ chargable to Job’s account at the time when God called him ‘perfect’ or just ‘human error’ or sin ‘in the past’ due to former disobedience? Could Barnes have termed it ‘fault’ as opposed to ‘sin’ due to the fact that it was not sin but rather only the results of Job’s actions 'proportionate to the understanding and abilities' he possessed at the time? I wish I could ask him, although it does not really matter. None of us are bound to the opinions of men, although we find much help in a multitude of counselors.

First, as I have tried to point out, all men have sinned in the past. When God said that Job was ‘perfect’ it was not in relation to having been perfect morally from birth, but rather that he, 'subsequent' to forgiveness of sins that are past and faith, had walked in such a way that God called him ‘perfect,’ obviously doing so in a moral sense.

Barnes states that two verse prove that Job had “faults.” Again, Barnes stops short of calling them sin, but one might understand him as inferring sin, or one might not. The truth is we do not know exactly what Barnes felt from the words he used. IF he inferred those faults were ‘sin,’ and actively credited to his account as such at the time God called him ‘perfect,’ I for one would take exception to that and see that as an inconsistency in Barnes other statements. If one is holy, uniformly pious, and consistent everywhere, he could not have been sinful on one hand and holy on the other. The two states are opposed to each other and at antipodes to each other, Either you are sinful or you are holy, but you cannot be both at the same time in the same sense. Jesus said, you are either for me or against me. “Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (It does not say that a tree is known by the imputed righteousness of Christ) James asked, “Jas 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?”

I only took Barnes words futher than he went 'IF' in fact the ‘faults’ Barnes spoke of were thought of him to be sin. Because he does not say ‘sin’ I can only believe that Barnes and I may in fact agree. Nowhere does God accuse Job of sinning that I have read. Again, this is not to say that at some point Job had sinned, but that Job, at the time of God’s pronouncement of him being ‘perfect,’ was indeed living holy and righteous before Him walking in a consistent and pious manner.

 

I believe the edition of the "1611 KJV" that we use is the 1769 edition. Barnes lived between 1798- 1870. Thus his style of writing would be very similar to the style used by the editors of KJV that we have. Words like "religion" are often used interchangeably with Christianity. A saint is a Christian. A Christian is one who lives a pure and holy life, or at least that is the fruit of a Christian's life. Pious, saintly, and religious. We are looking at a language of over 200 years ago, and I think that you are allowing yourself to be confused by the way that Barnes is using some of these nouns and adjectives because we wouldn't use them in the same way that he does.
"Holy" If I am a Christian I am holy in my standing before God. The word means set apart. We are commanded to be holy. "Be ye holy for I am holy." The words: holy, saint, sanctified, set apart, all come from the same root word.
"Pure" Frist, again in my standing before God I am declared pure--washed in the blood. In my day to day walk with Christ I must go through a daily cleansing by the washing of the Word and a cleansing of the blood. The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (1John 1:7). When our thoughts are focused on the coming of Christ, we remain pure (1John 3:1-3). Purity does not mean perfection. Holiness does not mean perfection.

No, he was as Barnes said, complete in every aspect of his life. He was consistent. Then Job got too righteous for his own good. God rebuked him thoroughly for his sin. Read chapter 38

Job 38:1-3 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

You take exception because your definition of "perfect" is wrong. The word means complete, not sinless or anything remotely close to it. Certainly he had his faults, shortcomings, and sins. The faults were indeed sins. He was a complete man, completely consistent in keeping the commands that God had for him. (This is pre-law, so it wasn't the Ten Commandments). It was the light that God gave him at that time.

Why? I consider myself holy. God declared me to be so. I also have "set apart" my life unto God. That is what "holy" means--to set apart. Does that mean that I am sinless? No, of course not. I would be foolish to make such a claim. Only God is without sin.

The verses I agree with. Your application of them I don't. I am sinful and holy at the same time. For I am a sinner saved by grace. Have you never sung the hymn:
Only A Sinner Saved By Grace?

Naught have I gotten but what I received;
Grace hath bestowed it since I have believed;
Boasting excluded, pride I abase;
I’m only a sinner, saved by grace!


Refrain
Only a sinner, saved by grace!
Only a sinner, saved by grace!
This is my story, to God be the glory—
I’m only a sinner, saved by grace!


Once I was foolish, and sin ruled my heart,
Causing my footsteps from God to depart;
Jesus hath found me, happy my case;
I now am a sinner, saved by grace!
(Words: bio("James M. Gray","g/r/a/gray_jm")James M. Gray, 1905.)


http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onlyasnr.htm

Notice Gray's testimony: Once...sin ruled my heart...Jesus...found me...I now am a sinner saved by grace.
We still sin. We always will until we meet the Lord. Being holy does not mean being sinless. One can be holy and still sin as contradictory as that may sound. If it weren't true then you may as well believe in Benny Hinn theology and say that we are all gods, little deities running around on this earth. Only God is without sin. Only He is perfect.

When Barnes says faults I believe he has the meaning of sins in mind.
DHK

 

I find it instructive that DHK actually enjoys looking at what Barnes has said on "this" thread. As if "it is a good thing". Kinda the way I was looking at Barnes on another thread.

 

DHK:When Barnes says faults I believe he has the meaning of sins in mind.

HP: When God says a man is perfect, I just take him at His word that there is no sin laid to his charge. When God says that “Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.” I just believe God’s Word that again no sin charged to Job’s account. I would rather believe God than all the commentators and theologians of the world, even in light of how much I appreciate the theologians and the commentators. If I was the only one in the world that believed Scripture, in that God declared Job to be morally perfect and without sin, I would still stand by the testimony of Scripture. “Let God’s Word be true and ever man a liar.”

 

What is it that we are so afraid of? Why does the simple testimony of God concerning a man send men chasing after every shred of conjecture in order to prove that a man cannot love God with their whole heart, and their neighbor as themselves? Poor old Job, the theologians boogie man, a man with a pure heart!


There are many words and phrases used in Scripture to depict a man that God would call a man that has been forgiven of sins that are past and is walking in present obedience. Perfect is only one of them. Here is a short list. Free from sin, without offense, without rebuke, blameless, upright, void of offense, holy, righteous, pure, unreprovable, unrebukable, in nothing shall I be ashamed, without fault, dead to sin, undefiled. I am sure there are more, but this was a brief word study I compiled.

How about another testimony of God concerning two other individuals? Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

What about this testimony of God concerning these two individuals “walking in all the commandments of the Lord, blameless.” ? Who on the list would like to start laying sin to their charge as some have done to brother Job? Is this just another case of not being able to understand the words "walking in the comandments and ordinances, blameless" today as God wrote them two thousand years ago, as was stated concerning the word 'perfect' in relationship to Job?

 

In other words you twist what the Bible says and add to the Word of God your opinion instead of reading just what it says. Not good heremeutics. What does the Bible say in Job 1

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God, and turned away from evil. (WEB)

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil. (1899 Douay-Rheims)

1:1There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. (NRSV)

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil (NKJV)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Job 1:1[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.[/FONT] (NASB)

1:1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. (NIV)

Did you say that the Bible said Job was perfect? I don't see that word mentioned in the above Bibles. I guess he wasn't as perfect as you thought.
DHK

 

same

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Well, in one sense you are correct. If someone never embraces Christ, every sin will indeed be "held against" them when they stand before God. The scriptures tell us that every lost person will be judged according to their works, and found wanting.

On the other hand, when a born again person stands before God, the sins they commit...and every one of us still commit sins after being born again...will not be held against them in any way, because the death penalty for those sins has taken place. Christ took it, securing us for heaven. We are seen as perfect in Gods eyes only in the sense that Christs perfection is what God sees when He looks at us. So in that sense you are correct.

However, from reading your posts it appears you are in the same error that a few others on this thread are...actually thinking that they can cease all sinning while still living in the flesh down here on earth.

That can never be. Sure...we "clean up" when we are born again. I personally have had a great change of attitudes and lifestyle since being born again. I'm a "new man" now. But I'm still not perfect, just as none of us are.

When Christ said "therefore you shall be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" in the sermon on the mount, he was trying to kill the prideful self rightiousness in everyone who thinks they are actually walking pleasing to God in all ways...their every action, motivation, attitudes of the heart and inner thought life.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

D29Guy: Well, in one sense you are correct. If someone never embraces Christ, every sin will indeed be "held against" them when they stand before God. The scriptures tell us that every lost person will be judged according to their works, and found wanting.

On the other hand, when a born again person stands before God, the sins they commit...and every one of us still commit sins after being born again...will not be held against them in any way, because the death penalty for those sins has taken place. Christ took it, securing us for heaven. We are seen as perfect in Gods eyes only in the sense that Christ’s perfection is what God sees when He looks at us. So in that sense you are correct.


HP: The problem I see with your logic, it is that are addressing things from two complete different perspectives. Here and now we are locked into the understanding and assurance of our salvation by faith. At the judgment, we will have absolute knowledge. You are trying to hold your understanding of salvation now by the absolute knowledge we will have at the judgment. You cannot have it both ways. Either you hold your salvation now by faith, or you hold it by absolute knowledge. Which is it?

It is a given that WHEN we stand before God in judgment, that every sin of the past (which all by the way at that time will all be in the past) will have been atoned for or forgiven if one is found in Christ. It is fallacy to believe that in this world you can presume upon the grace of God, in that all FUTURE sins are in fact forgiven, and that you know that by absolute knowledge. If you could know that, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to hold your hope of salvation by faith or to walk by faith.

Your logic flip flops between the faith God has locked us into in this present world, and God’s infinite perspective from which none of us are privy to in this world. You cannot have it both ways. God has not allowed us to view our eternal destiny from His perspective, one of absolute knowledge, in this present world. The possibility has to exist that you can be deceived as to your standing before Him in the last day. It is presumptuous, and without the least shred of scriptural evidence, to believe that God has now, presents tense, forgiven you for future sins and that you can have absolute knowledge that it has already been accomplished. The only way we can be sure, in this present world, locked into our assurance of hope of eternal life with Christ by faith, that any sin has been forgiven and is under the blood, is to fulfill the conditions for forgiveness of sin. i.e., repentance and faith, without which no sin can or will be forgiven.

It is just as much a fallacy to believe that all past sins are already forgiven, and that we can know that absolutely, as it would be for the criminal to believe that once he received a pardon for specific crimes, that such a pardon would atone for any future crimes as well.

 

Where would Annanias and Saphirah fall in this quote?

Where would they fit here?

 

BR: Where would they fit here?
HP: I have heard a lot say, early rewards. Strange answer to me.

 

I agree. Being cast out of the vine of Christ seems like a John 15:1-8 problem that is "bigger" than missing out on a few "rewards".

 

There is one penalty and one penalty only for sin according to Scripture. It is eternal separation from God. Loss of rewards is never shown to be a penalty for sin in Scripture. That is entirely a Scripturally unfounded opinion of some men.

 

Mike,

Alot of Christians seem to have this idea that the only reason God commands us to do things is so that we will sit around pondering our inability to actually be able to do them.

But when Jesus said that many will come on that day thinking they are going to be allowed in but He will say to them "Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (iniquity meaning Lawlessness)... don't you think there are going to be a whole lot of very surprised professed Christians then? Maybe then they will finally realize that God means exactly what He says.

Compare, and notice the idea "He that overcomes" (sin, of course)

Revelation 3:

5: He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

15: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16: So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17: Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19: As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Claudia

 

Welcome back Claudia:applause:

 

D28guy said "and every one of us still commit sins after being born again"

ack! then we are headed for destruction! that is if i understand what you are saying there.
we all sin after we have come to Christ.
doesn't that sound like an oxymoron?
sure does to me. and it sure is to the bible.

listen up:
1John 3:6 "6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

woah. so for us to abide in Christ - we must be sinless. but its impossible to be sinless! really? why did Christ tell the woman caught in adultery to go and "sin no more" instead of saying "go and sin much less" ?

because it is possible with Christ.
---

now. i may sound like a radical. throw stones at me if you wish - but i believe that true christians fall into sin.
but false christians die in sin.

the difference? fall into sin - meaning that we hate sin - yet we do it anyways - but it is not us doing it - it is our sin nature - our flesh.
die in sin - meaning that we dont really hate sin - because we find sin pleasurable - and so do it out of freewill.
---