"Christian's Don't Sin" part 2

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Now for those verses that say that Noah wasn't righteous. We're waaaiiiting.........

HP: We both are waiting. I am waiting for the verse that says 'once declared righteous always declared righteous.' Here is a passage that clearly refutes such a belief in clear language that a wayfaring man, though a fool, could read and understand and not error therin. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Besides, I told you clearly that I do not know if in fact he committed sin or not in his act of drunkenness, DUE TO THE POSSIBLE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF TE DECEITFULNESS OF ALCOHOL AT THE TIME HE LIVED. I would not ague that he was or not in a right state with God at that time. I do not argue from silence that he was not in a state of salvation, nor do I assume OSAS, when the Scripture in question does not establish either point.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: We both are waiting. I am waiting for the verse that says 'once declared righteous always declared righteous.' Here is a passage that clearly refutes such a belief in clear language that a wayfaring man, though a fool, could read and understand and not error therin. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Besides, I told you clearly that I do not know if in fact he committed sin or not in his act of drunkenness, DUE TO THE POSSIBLE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF TE DECEITFULNESS OF ALCOHOL AT THE TIME HE LIVED. I would not ague that he was or not in a right state with God at that time. I do not argue from silence that he was not in a state of salvation, nor do I assume OSAS, when the Scripture in question does not establish either point.

HP, you said:

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
Amy here tries to tell us that Noah was in a right standing before God in his drunken stuper, which is nowhere substantiated in Scripture.

I showed you where it IS substantiated in scripture and you just ignored it. DHK showed you many scriptures that declare that Noah was righteous. You ignored that as well.

I am waiting for you to provide any scripture at all that says that Noah was not righteous because you have said that scripture does not say that he was.

As far as your comment about Noah possibly being innocent of sin while he was drunk, that is just ridiculous. The Bible is crystal clear that drunkenness is sin. Noah had lived in a wicked and perverse society before God judged them. He knew what drunkenness was and he knew it was wine that made one drunk. There is zero evidence that eludes to Noah being innocent. You are bringing that into the text.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I showed you where it IS substantiated in scripture and you just ignored it. DHK showed you many scriptures that declare that Noah was righteous. You ignored that as well.

I am waiting for you to provide any scripture at all that says that Noah was not righteous because you have said that scripture does not say that he was.

HP: Please Amy, you beg the question as to 'WHEN' was Noah righteous or failed to be judged as such. Where does Scripture say that he was or was not at the time he was drunk?? I have ignored nothing of substance. You have not provided one Scripture supports OSAS, or 'once righteous always righteous.' There is no scriptural evidence one way or another that 'AT THE TIME OF NOAH’S DRUNKEN STATE,' God declared him as righteous or unrighteous. Where is the evidence that Noah knew and understood what we in the NT, or even those subsequent to other OT revelations concerning it?? I do not know what Noah knew and understood, nor does Scripture indicate in any way his spiritual standing before God while in that state. If you have some insight into these questions, post your references, and if not, just admit to the silence of Scripture on the issue.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Please Amy, you beg the question as to 'WHEN' was Noah righteous or failed to be judged as such. Where does Scripture say that he was or was not at the time he was drunk?? I have ignored nothing of substance. You have not provided one Scripture supports OSAS, or 'once righteous always righteous.' There is no scriptural evidence one way or another that 'AT THE TIME OF NOAH’S DRUNKEN STATE,' God declared him as righteous or unrighteous. Where is the evidence that Noah knew and understood what we in the NT, or even those subsequent to other OT revelations concerning it?? I do not know what Noah knew and understood, nor does Scripture indicate in any way his spiritual standing before God while in that state. If you have some insight into these questions, post your references, and if not, just admit to the silence of Scripture on the issue.

How about you either admit that you were wrong, and Noah was declared righteous by God before he got drunk, or prove to me that he wasn't righteous.

Scripture is not silent. The scriptures say that Noah was righteous, in many places, as you have been shown. Nowhere does it say that he somehow became unrighteous or unsaved. You are reading that into scripture because of your presuppositions that saints can lose their salvation. The burden of proof is on you, because the scriptures declare repeatedly that Noah was righteous, and do not declare anything to the contrary.

 

[DHK]

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
--from birth to death, so to speak; in all his generation.
That includes the time of his drunkenness.
He was called just and perfect, even at that time.

Why?
Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
--He had found grace in the sight of the Lord.

 

[EdSutton]

Let the reader carefully note that once again we see OSAS inserted as a presupposition, unfounded by the word of God. Amy here tries to tell us that Noah was in a right standing before God in his drunken stuper, which is nowhere substantiated in Scripture. Only as one approaches the story holding firmly the ‘presupposition’ that Noah was still in a right relationship with God in spite of anything or everything that he did or could possibly do, does one conclude that “a righteous person can commit terrible sins and still remain saved” as Amy here establishes with the help of the notion, not in any way established by Scripture, the unbiblical and unfounded presupposition of OSAS.

Let us totally ignore "OSAS", "lose your salvation", "turn or burn," Amy G.'s (out of context) comment "or anything else we can try and read into Scripture, and let Scripture's word speak for themselves, and see what we can discern from Scripture, about Noah. Maybe we can find some Scriptural ideas and 'conclusions' from this.

I'll go first, since it is my post. :type:

Scriptures are from the NKJV (my own personal version of the Bible, that I use), unless noted -

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.Noah Pleases God


9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just ("just" - KJV, DARBY; "righteous" - YLT, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, TNIV), man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (Gen. 6:8-9)
1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.(Gen.7:1)

Noah was twice declared to already be righteous "before" the flood (and before he was drunken), including one time personally by the LORD, himelf. And Noah, along with Enoch, are the only two individuals of whom it is said, that they "walked with God." I'd say that TWO is pretty select company, myself.

“... 14 Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness,” says the Lord GOD.
...
“... 20 even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,” says the Lord GOD, “they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”(Ez. : 14, 20)

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. (Heb. 11:6-7)

Scripture is here 'speaking' long "after" the flood (and Noah's drunken episode), and long after the death of Noah, in both cases. In the first case, "current" righteousness is ascribed to Noah, along with Daniel and Job, Is this "righteousness" any different from the "righteousness" Noah had long before the flood? If so, how? And what Scripture might you have to support any idea that it is different, somehow?? Do you have any Scripture that supports a "gap" in Noah's righteousness?

In the second case, Scripture speaks from a 'current' perspective as to something that happened, earlier, with future implications, or a 'perfect' sense. "He (at that time) became the heir of righteousness by faith, which he preached about, BTW (I Pet. 3:20; II Pet. 2:5). . Again, is this 'heired' righteousness any different? If so, how? And what Scripture do you have for saying this?

Have I offered any presupposition of anything here? Uh- no. I've asked a couple of questions about other's unspoken presuppositions, though. Without any of your own presuppositions in place before reading the Scriptural account, what would you conclude Scripture is telling us about this?

Your turn. :type:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Pure "sludge" is a good description of this!

HP: Sure, but God had not yet came to the knowledge at that point that all any man’s righteousness was a filthy rags……… right? :tonofbricks:

Add me to the crowd that is singularly unimpressed with this post!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Wayuhl! It bein' as you started it...

Let the reader carefully note that once again we see OSAS inserted as a presupposition, unfounded by the word of God. Amy here tries to tell us that Noah was in a right standing before God in his drunken stuper, which is nowhere substantiated in Scripture. Only as one approaches the story holding firmly the ‘presupposition’ that Noah was still in a right relationship with God in spite of anything or everything that he did or could possibly do, does one conclude that “a righteous person can commit terrible sins and still remain saved” as Amy here establishes with the help of the notion, not in any way established by Scripture, the unbiblical and unfounded presupposition of OSAS.

Since you mentioned "unbiblical and unfounded presuppositions", let's check on a couple of 'em plus a couple of pure speculations, plus an allusion to a misquoted Scripture, that I see you have offered. Since, I'm bein' so helpful, I'll even highlight and emphasize these things for everyone, and comment right there on the spot.

I agree fully with that verse, but that does not substantiate the point made that he was in a right relationship with God as a saved individual when he was in his drunken stupor. He might have well been, not knowing what he understood concerning neither the drink he was drinking nor the evil effects of alcohol, innocent in his behavior. [Speculation, at best.] God alone knows all the facts. It is totally possible that he acted in complete ignorance, not understanding the deceitfulness of alcohol. [More guesswork.]

The point I am making is that Scripture in no wise proves that a “a righteous person can commit terrible sins and still remain saved” as Amy stated. [Guess you are not really expecting to see Peter, Paul, Lot, or David in heaven, then, hunh? Personally, I'm expecting to see all of them.] He could have backslid, rejecting the faith he once had. Scripture does not indicate to my knowledge either possibility. [Then why mention this speculation?] One has to approach the passage from a presupposition of OSAS to see it as a proof text for such. I have confidence that regardless of his standing before God in that act, he repented [Scripture does not ever say that any of Noah, Peter, Paul, Lot or David "repented" in the sense I believe you are intending this, that I can find. Wanna' share any verses you found that express this? In fact, I can only find two individuals in Scripture that are ever said to have repented in any way - Job, who didn't need to (Job. 27:6; 29:14; 42:6; Ezek. 14:20; Lk. 5:32; 15:7), and Judas (Mt. 27:3). I do expect to see Job in heaven, but I'm pretty sure Judas ain't gonna' to be there.] and was right with God in the end. (Post #4)

HP: I have witnessed yo-yo salvation in my lifetime. It comes at the hands of false doctrines, doctrines that teach there is no condemnation if you have once believed, without the Scriptural notion that follows that promise, “IF” ye walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. (Post # 19)

Despite the fact that you are offering your own experience, as you have perceived it, have you read either Jn. 5:24 or Rom. 8:1-4? Apparently not (at least not accurately), so I will post them for you.

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment (condemnation - KJV), but has passed from death into life. (John 5:24)

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

There is not any "if" in either of these two verses, that I can see, in any version I checked. Nor is there any additional 'qualifier' of any kind in John. 5:24, to "believe".

What version are you reading "if" from, anyway??

Ed

 

[steaver]

HP,

The mistake you bring into these discussions is that you make sinlessness the requirement for salvation. God's word declares "faith" the requirment. You believe that when a person sins that their sin negates their faith. Sin is a transgression of the law, there is no other definition given in scripture for sin. Paul makes it crystal clear that the law cannot disannul faith....

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Salvation is ALL about faith. The law, or the breaking of the law, does not cancel God's promise.

You need to study and understand the purpose of the law, it is to condemn, that salvation may stand by the promise of God alone.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

This have been argue about security salvation.

Many saying that scripture declared us that Noah was still righteous even he was drunkward after flood.

Remember that, one small sin or one time event of fallen sin do not mean that it would cause our righteous or salvation away immediately.

I agree that Noah, Daniel, and Job, were all rightesous. Because of their testimony and faith in their life. Nowhere in scripture telling us that they did sinned toward their death. No doubt, I believe that they did walked in their faith till their death. That how the Scripture declared them that they are rightesous in Lord's sight.

Just after flood occured. Noah was being as farmer, he planted vineyard. He made them into wine. He became drunk. I think, the taste of wine(juice) was so delicious for him. Made him drinking lot. Strange, during that period of Noah's time. there was NO law for against being drunk. Didn't you realize that the law was not yet establish about against being drunkward? The law was not yet written till over 500 years later after Flood!

So, my point is, probably, Noah didn't aware that being drunkward was sin. Because he just drank wine. 'Drink' was not consider sin to Noah.

While Noah became drunkward, I am sure that he was lost in control with mind and physical. He was immediately fell alseep and naked. Drunkward caused him asleep and naked. But he did not commit sin against any person or God either. Wine caused him into drunkward. Noah was not do any evil things toward people or God either.

While Noah sleeping, Ham, Noah's son, saw him naked. and Ham wanted to sleep with him. The other two sons saw them sleep together, they separated them aparted. Then, when Noah wake up, and became very angry with Ham. I believe Noah was innocence for not wrong doings. Ham was wrong doings toward Noah. Ham knew Noah was nake, Ham knew sleep with Noah as man with man is wrong. Although Ham go ahea dfor do it. That is sin against Noah and God too.

Noah cursed against Ham, for doing wrong thing.

No doubt, I do believe Noah was truly still righteous while he was drunk, because he drank wine, during in his time, the law was not yet written. So, there was no law about being drink wine.

Also, in my opinion. Before flood came. There was no rain for 1,500 years. The grass was growing by being mist. My opinion, there was NO garden or crop or farm either!!! I believe they ate fruits from trees, because mist cause trees growing. Probably, during in that period, before flood, no one make fruits into wine. Because, there was no rain in his time before flood. When after flood occured. The weather conditions has changed dramatically. There were rain occured often after flood era. Word, 'wine' was not first appear till Genesis chapter 9. So, my opinion, wine was not yet exist during Noah's time before flood. So, there was no reason why should Noah do commit sin against God and people when he made vineyard into wine after flood occured, because the law was not yet written till 500 years later. Therefore, I believe Noah was still righteous in Lord's sight.

Your argument on Noah being drunkward as 'commit sinned' while he was still righteous,- 'still saved' as security salvation is no point.

Also, another question is.

Does the scripture saying anything that Noah WILL become drunkward again AFTER Noah realized that he was sleep with Ham? Silence.

I believe Noah never become drunk again afterward in his lifetime till hos death. So, therefore, he was still truly righteous in Lord's sight.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[EdSutton]

This have been argue about security salvation.

Many saying that scripture declared us that Noah was still righteous even he was drunkward after flood.

Remember that, one small sin or one time event of fallen sin do not mean that it would cause our righteous or salvation away immediately.

I agree that Noah, Daniel, and Job, were all rightesous. Because of their testimony and faith in their life. Nowhere in scripture telling us that they did sinned toward their death. No doubt, I believe that they did walked in their faith till their death. That how the Scripture declared them that they are rightesous in Lord's sight.

Just after flood occured. Noah was being as farmer, he planted vineyard. He made them into wine. He became drunk. I think, the taste of wine(juice) was so delicious for him. Made him drinking lot. Strange, during that period of Noah's time. there was NO law for against being drunk. Didn't you realize that the law was not yet establish about against being drunkward? The law was not yet written till over 500 years later after Flood!

So, my point is, probably, Noah didn't aware that being drunkward was sin. Because he just drank wine. 'Drink' was not consider sin to Noah.

While Noah became drunkward, I am sure that he was lost in control with mind and physical. He was immediately fell alseep and naked. Drunkward caused him asleep and naked. But he did not commit sin against any person or God either. Wine caused him into drunkward. Noah was not do any evil things toward people or God either.

While Noah sleeping, Ham, Noah's son, saw him naked. and Ham wanted to sleep with him. The other two sons saw them sleep together, they separated them aparted. Then, when Noah wake up, and became very angry with Ham. I believe Noah was innocence for not wrong doings. Ham was wrong doings toward Noah. Ham knew Noah was nake, Ham knew sleep with Noah as man with man is wrong. Although Ham go ahea dfor do it. That is sin against Noah and God too.

Noah cursed against Ham, for doing wrong thing.

No doubt, I do believe Noah was truly still righteous while he was drunk, because he drank wine, during in his time, the law was not yet written. So, there was no law about being drink wine.

Also, in my opinion. Before flood came. There was no rain for 1,500 years. The grass was growing by being mist. My opinion, there was NO garden or crop or farm either!!! I believe they ate fruits from trees, because mist cause trees growing. Probably, during in that period, before flood, no one make fruits into wine. Because, there was no rain in his time before flood. When after flood occured. The weather conditions has changed dramatically. There were rain occured often after flood era. Word, 'wine' was not first appear till Genesis chapter 9. So, my opinion, wine was not yet exist during Noah's time before flood. So, there was no reason why should Noah do commit sin against God and people when he made vineyard into wine after flood occured, because the law was not yet written till 500 years later. Therefore, I believe Noah was still righteous in Lord's sight.

Your argument on Noah being drunkward as 'commit sinned' while he was still righteous,- 'still saved' as security salvation is no point.

Also, another question is.

Does the scripture saying anything that Noah WILL become drunkward again AFTER Noah realized that he was sleep with Ham? Silence.

I believe Noah never become drunk again afterward in his lifetime till hos death. So, therefore, he was still truly righteous in Lord's sight.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Actually, Noah placed the curse on Canaan, not Ham. (Gen. 9:25-27)

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Does anyone have the definition of righteousness handy? Any insight into the GK definition might be helpful.

 

[Amy.G]

Does anyone have the definition of righteousness handy? Any insight into the GK definition might be helpful.

I think Paul said it correctly.


Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.


Our righteousness is not ours, but God's, who has imputed the righteousness of Christ to us.

 

[steaver]

Does anyone have the definition of righteousness handy? Any insight into the GK definition might be helpful.

dikaiosune....equity (of character or act): specifically (Christian) justification.

equity....1.the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.

justification...1.a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends:

justified....1.to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

:godisgood:

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Tell me the definition what 'faith' means?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: dikaiosune....equity (of character or act): specifically (Christian) justification.

equity....1.the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.

justification...1.a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends:

justified....1.to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

HP: So what is the definition of righteousness?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I think Paul said it correctly.

HP: I simply desired to see some clear definitions of one word, righteousness. The passage you gave us in no wise defines righteousness that I can see. Could you give us a simple definition?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I simply desired to see some clear definitions of one word, righteousness. The passage you gave us in no wise defines righteousness that I can see. Could you give us a simple definition?

I thought Paul made it as clear as crystal, but .

Righteousness is the state of being equal to the holiness of God. Not one person has ever achieved this apart from Christ, so God must impute His righteousness to us. He declares us righteous because of our faith, not because of any works we could do. We all fall short of the glory of God, therefore God must declare us righteous apart from works.........through faith.

This is what Paul is saying.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Righteousness is the state of being equal to the holiness of God.

HP: OK. Do you have any support for that definition from any authoritative source on words such as a common dictionary?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: OK. Do you have any support for that definition from any authoritative source on words such as a common dictionary?

Well HP, I gave you what is my definition of righteousness. But here is a definition according to The King James Dictionary.

RIGHTEOUSNESS, n. ri'chusness.

1. Purity of heart and rectitude of life; conformity of heart and life to the divine law. Righteousness, as used in Scripture and theology, in which it is chiefly used, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law. It includes all we call justice, honesty and virtue, with holy affections; in short, it is true religion