Entire Sanctification/Sinless Perfection

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This issue has been raised on differing threads. It would seem appropriate to address this in a thread of it's own. I will start with comments by DHK for another thread and then proceed with comments and questions of my own.

DHK: The "theology" that is being promoted here is one of "sinless perfection" or "entire sanctification," which I believe is unscriptural and impossible to achieve until one gets to heaven.

HP:I have not heard one person use the words sinless perfection in my entire lifetime apart from those opposing a sanctified life. Sinless perfection can mean a lot of different things to different people. Take DHK for instance. I have heard him make comments to the effect that a mere evil thought is sin, and that any violation of civil law is sin. Now using his definition of sin, mistakes, circumstances beyond our control and sheer fleeting or passing thoughts are all classified as sin as I understand him. IF I accepted such a broad and unscriptural definition for sin as DHK seems to hold to, I would have to agree with him that sinless perfection would be a wonderful paper duck to put up to shoot at. Have I misrepresented DHK's definition of sin thus far? Before we engage in any further discussion of sanctification, I would like for DHK and or others to define sin for the list in clear terms so we do not talk past each other in our discussion.

 

[reformedbeliever]

This issue has been raised on differing threads. It would seem appropriate to address this in a thread of it's own. I will start with comments by DHK for another thread and then proceed with comments and questions of my own.



HP:I have not heard one person use the words sinless perfection in my entire lifetime apart from those opposing a sanctified life. Sinless perfection can mean a lot of different things to different people. Take DHK for instance. I have heard him make comments to the effect that a mere evil thought is sin, and that any violation of civil law is sin. Now using his definition of sin, mistakes, circumstances beyond our control and sheer fleeting or passing thoughts are all classified as sin as I understand him. IF I accepted such a broad and unscriptural definition for sin as DHK seems to hold to, I would have to agree with him that sinless perfection would be a wonderful paper duck to put up to shoot at. Have I misrepresented DHK's definition of sin thus far? Before we engage in any further discussion of sanctification, I would like for DHK and or others to define sin for the list in clear terms so we do not talk past each other in our discussion.

Sin is simply falling short of the glory of God. There was only one who did not fall short, and that was Jesus. On our best day, our righteousness is as a filthy rag. Do I need to tell you what kind of rag is being mentioned here? Our righteousness..... our best day..... waking with a prayer on our lips, fellowshiping with God all day, and going to bed with a prayer on our lips, is still like a filthy rag.

 

[DHK]

"Violation of civil law"
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Is breaking the law trivial?
Sin is a transgression of the law.
In Romans 3:23 it is "missing the mark," the mark of God's holiness.
God commands us to keep our thoughts pure (Phil.4:9; 2Cor.10:3-5).
Are these commands of any less value than the other commands of Christ? What are "trivial" commands of Christ to you?
Do you suggest that some sins we just classify as "mistakes" and be like the Catholics who call them venial sins instead of mortal sins?

 

[Claudia_T]

The ten commandments are very broad and far reaching...

 

[Claudia_T]

Jesus said be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, love those who dont love you, pray for those who abuse you...

dont even be angry at your brother

dont even lust after a woman

 

[Brother Bob]

Never heard that "transgression of the Law" meant the civil law? Of course, I misread a lot.

 

[Claudia_T]

Galatians 5:
19: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, when Scripture states that “sin is the transgression of the law” is that moral law, civil law, pirates law or what? Do you make a distinction between moral law and civil law or not?

If I were to say that not all civil law was moral law, and that one can indeed be in direct conflict with civil law without breaking any moral law, at least in some instances, would you agree or disagree?

We are indeed to keep our thoughts pure. None the less, do you believe that a passing evil thought is sin or not?

In moral law, intent is everything. Without intent no violation can occur of moral law. One must have selfish intent to sin. If what you are denoting as a mistakes is an honest unintentional error of judgment, no, I would not believe such mistakes are sin period. It is not a matter of trivializing sin, or making some venial and some mortal, but rather honest mistakes are not sin at all. If there is no intent, there is no sin. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” “…sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

In order for sin to be imputed, there must be knowledge of the law. Knowledge is a prerequisite of sin. There must be an intent formed of selfishness as opposed to benevolence in order for sin to be imputed. Temptation, whether in the form of a mere passing thought, an impulse of the sensibilities, or outward influence, is not in and of itself sin. Sin always is seen in a progression of events as illustrated by James.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There are several good posts I would like to address, but am short on time tonight. I hope to be able to post some tomorrow.

Until then, " 1Th 5:23 ¶ And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "

 

[EdSutton]

What is 'sin'?

I especially like this summary, which says it far better than I ever could.

Sin, Summary: The literal meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words variously rendered "sin," "sinner," etc. disclose the true nature of sin in its manifold manifestations.
Sin is (1) transgression, an overstepping of the law, the divine boundary between good and evil (Ps. 51:1; Rom. 3:23):
(2) iniquity, an act inherently wrong, whether expressly forbidden or not (Rom. 1: 21-23);
(3) error, a departure from right (Rom. 1:18; I Jn. 3:4);
(4) missing the mark, a failure to meet the divine standard (Rom. 3:23);
(5) trespass, the intrusion of self-will into the sphere of divine authority (Eph. 2:1);
(6) lawlessness, or spiritual anarchy (I Tim. 1:9); and
(7) unbelief, or an insult to the divine veracity (Jn. 16:9).

Sin (1) originated with Satan (Isa. 14:12-14);
(2) entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12);
(3) was and is universal, Christ alone excepted (Rom. 3:23; I Pet. 2:22);
(4) incurs the penalties of spiritual and physical death (Gen. 2:17: 3:19; Ezek. 18:4,20; Rom. 6:23); and
(5) has no remedy but in the sacrificial death of Christ (Acts 4:12; Heb. 9:26) made available by faith (Acts 13:38-39).

Sin may be summarized as threefold: (1) an act, the violation of, or want of obedience to, the revealed will of God; (2) a state, absence of righteousness; and (3) a nature, enmity toward God. (THE NEW SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE - New King James Version - 1989 Edition; Thomas Nelson Publishers; p. 1369, footnote 2)

Works for me.

Ed

 

[DHK]

DHK, when Scripture states that “sin is the transgression of the law” is that moral law, civil law, pirates law or what? Do you make a distinction between moral law and civil law or not?

What civil law is not ordained of God. God ordained government just as he ordained marriage. It is a God-ordained institution, which makes the laws, the laws of God. Am I at liberty to be a law-breaker? Paul endeavored to be a good citizen of Rome, though the laws of Rome were corrupt.
Thankfully God did not ordain pirates. That is a red herring.

If I were to say that not all civil law was moral law, and that one can indeed be in direct conflict with civil law without breaking any moral law, at least in some instances, would you agree or disagree?

If I were to ask you: "Is it right to lie in some cases," would you agree or disagree.

We are indeed to keep our thoughts pure. None the less, do you believe that a passing evil thought is sin or not?

To entertain evil thoughts is sin. The Bible says it is.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
--Do you not endeavor to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ?

In moral law, intent is everything. Without intent no violation can occur of moral law. One must have selfish intent to sin. If what you are denoting as a mistakes is an honest unintentional error of judgment, no, I would not believe such mistakes are sin period. It is not a matter of trivializing sin, or making some venial and some mortal, but rather honest mistakes are not sin at all. If there is no intent, there is no sin. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” “…sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

I believe you used the word "mistake" before I did, thus muddling the conversation. There are some that believe in entire sanctification, but when pinned down on an obvious sin, they revert back to the excuse and say--"oh that was just a mistake." No, such "mistakes" (in that context) are sins. A lie (that you so obviously told by "mistake") is still a lie, and is still sin. My meaning is that "mistakes" can't be an excuse to say that you haven't sinned. Yes there are some honest mistakes. But let's not use the word "mistake" for an excuse for sin.

In order for sin to be imputed, there must be knowledge of the law. Knowledge is a prerequisite of sin. There must be an intent formed of selfishness as opposed to benevolence in order for sin to be imputed. Temptation, whether in the form of a mere passing thought, an impulse of the sensibilities, or outward influence, is not in and of itself sin. Sin always is seen in a progression of events as illustrated by James.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Temptation in and of itself is not sin; true enough. But giving into it is sin. Many peope give into and dwell on their "evil thoughts" That is why the Bible stresses meditation and Bible memorization.
"Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee.

 

[Brother Bob]

What civil law is not ordained of God. God ordained government just as he ordained marriage. It is a God-ordained institution, which makes the laws, the laws of God. Am I at liberty to be a law-breaker? Paul endeavored to be a good citizen of Rome, though the laws of Rome were corrupt.
Thankfully God did not ordain pirates. That is a red herring.

Are you saying the law that allows abortion is of God?

 

[Dustin]

John Wesley was the most prominant proponent of "entire sanctification". He also preached on what he called "Christian perfection", but not sinless perfection that I've ever read from him. He was the father of Methodism, though he never left the Anglican church. From Methodism came the holiness movement, and from that came pentecostalism. Ugh.

History aside, anyone who's looking into to studying these positions would do best to study them straight from Wesley's works. He gives, at least, the best arguments for his position, and the people that came after him went in all kinds of different directions. Wesley's theology was deplorable, it gave way for all kinds of error from hyper Arminian holiness folks like Dan Corner, to Pentecostalism itself. But, I say this (I'm a five point Calvinist mind you), one would have to search very hard for a better source of teaching on practical holiness in the Christian life. I would recommend the Puritans and Wesley's contemperary George Whitefield (a Calvinist Methodist).


Here is Wesley on Christian Perfection: http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/40/

Whitefield to Wesley on the doctrine of Election: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Allan]

Are you saying the law that allows abortion is of God?

No Bob, We are to abide by the civil laws unless they are in direct violation of God's established laws.

Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Tts 3:1 ¶ Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

1Pe 2:13 ¶ Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1Pe 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using [your] liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Why would a so called christian not following the laws established over the land but resisting them be under damnation?? Because they are living lives of lawlessness or better living as one in rebellion against that which God has placed there! For one to live in a state of rebellion by not abiding by the laws of the land shows a complete contradiction to the nature and charactor of a Child of God.

As I stated however, when the laws of God come into conflict with the laws of men, then it is the Law of God that reigns supreme for we are to honor Him above all else.

 

[Shiloh]

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
This young fellow was relying on "doing" to get the Heaven.
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

A man may be free from gross sin, and yet come short of grace and glory. His hands may be clean from external pollutions, and yet he may perish eternally in his heart-wickedness. Note:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It is possible for a Christian to grieve the Holy Spirit,
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I don't understand why these Scriptures are so hard for people to understand.....

I as a Christian we don't sin, what about ICor.3? I have dealt with this passage in depth and his argument was "there is no such thing as a carnal Christian." WHAT? Let me read it real slow this time..... And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. ..........vs.3 For ye are yet "carnal:"

Our Salvation is by Grace through Faith(.) Not like some on here try to promote a Grace through Faith + Works. Tafalse doctrine and will result in the same salvation the young fellow had in Matt.19.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Are you saying the law that allows abortion is of God?

No Bob, We are to abide by the civil laws unless they are in direct violation of God's established laws.

I agree Allan and have never said any different but I don't say the civil laws are ordained of God and don't believe they are. Jesus said they were Ceasars.

 

[Brother Bob]

1Jo 2:4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[reformedbeliever]

What is 'sin'?

I especially like this summary, which says it far better than I ever could.


Works for me.

Ed

Number 4 pretty well sums it up as far as sinless perfection goes. There are none who are perfect.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: (4) missing the mark, a failure to meet the divine standard (Rom. 3:23);

HP: I would like to address this point in particular as it has been raised twice. This begs the question as to ‘what is the divine standard?’ If we are to place in our minds any proper semblance of entire sanctification, we must first not only understand the nature of sin but have a Scriptural idea of the Divine standard.

Jesus said all the law can be summarized into two ideas, love towards God and love towards our fellowman. We are told that his commands are NOT grievous, i.e., beyond our abilities, but rather are nigh unto us. There is not the slightest indication in Scripture that would place God’s demands upon man above that of the capabilities He has given to man or promises to supply to those that diligently seek Him. The Divine standard is nothing more or less than to obey God with all the knowledge, strength and abilities we have. God is NOT a taskmaster, reaping where He has has not sown, or demanding impossibilities from man.

The Divine standard is fashioned for the subjects it commands. God has not commanded man to obey Him with the heart and strength of angels, or other sentient beings including other men or women, but rather His commands to man are formed within the boundaries of our individual capabilities to understand, comprehend, and carry out.

In summary, God requires NO impossibilities from man. His Divine standard for man is simply to apply the strength, wisdom, and knowledge one possesses to the best of our individual abilities.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Lets say that one is on a firing range and fires a shot at the bullseye. If one ‘missed the mark’ and one discovered that the bullet was loaded without powder and that only the primer launched the bullet, could you praise such a one for missing the target, and would he be disappointed in himself for missing the intended target under those circumstances? Why or why not.

Sin is blameworthy and is justly punishable. It is not a mere missing of a mark, but a willful choice of selfishness in opposition to benevolence.

Let me illustrate my point on why sin is not a mere missing of the mark another way. A man stands on the firing line in a competitive shoot. As he bears down on the target an opponent bumps into him just as he squeezes the trigger. The bullet fails to hit its mark due to the coercive bump he received. Who, in fairness and a just frame of mind, would penalize the shooter for missing his mark when there was obvious coercive interference?

Sin is not just ‘missing the mark.' Sin is blameworthy. Sin is a violation of moral law. Strictly speaking, moral law governs over intentions alone. In the absence of selfish and evil intention, no violation of moral law can be predicated.

There can be a thousand reasons why a marksman may miss their target without rightfully and justly incurring anything closely associated with blame. Sin always and rightfully incurs just punishment, personal guilt, and just blame. Sin always involves selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Strictly speaking, missing the mark does not speak to the core prerequisites that must be predicated of any intent or subsequent action denoted as sin. Sin is a moral issue, and moral issues always involve willful intents in direct opposition to known commandments of God. Such is not the case with the sheer missing of the mark.