Is sinless perfection possible for the believer before death?

[freeatlast]

Just 2 quick questions for you Fal!

Who in the Bible other than Jesus ever claimed that they were without sin?
Who did God say was without sin in Bible?

The bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However just because we have sinned does not mean we have to continue to sin once saved and the thief on the cross certainly seems to have done it and my guess many others have also. There is absolutely no logical or biblical reason to believe that the thief on the cross sinned before he died.

 

[agedman]

Jesus was the lamb of God, who took upon Himself my sins, took my due punishemnt/wrath of God directed against sin BUT

In all of that, he NEVER actual became a sinner, changed His nature from perfect man to fallen sinner, as that would mean that jesus would have ahd to die for His own sins, needed to get born again...

THAT is what word of faith teaches, NOT the Bible!

he was my sin bearer, sin offering on my behalf to God, but NEVER actually became a sinner!

I don't want to derail the thread by spending more time on this than to provide an answer of Jesus taking on the sin with whether he became sinful.

A Scriptural principle is given in the story of the clean and unclean. Do the unclean make the clean cleaner? No. Therefore it is impossible for Christ to have taken on "unclean" and remain "clean."

Further, God cannot look upon sin. When Jesus took upon himself the sin of the world, He saw and cried out about the Father no longer in fellowship with Him. His own Father turning His back is an indication that Christ "became sin for us." Christ became sinful yet had no temptation to sin, but took it freely to Himself.

It was not just that he took our sin, but as the Scripture indicates in 2nd Corinthians, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

So yes, Christ became (made himself to be sin) sinful that the total of the demand of sin (wages) were completed. For having not even the inclination (temptation) to sin - He did not take on sin as a result of temptation and a fallen nature - and the wages being paid, He was able to present himself as the perfect sacrifice to the Father. (See Hebrews 9)

This is also why we stand blameless (sinless) in the view from God's perspective (though we still sin). God does not see our sin but views Christ living in us. If the Father did not view Christ in us, His Spirit would not be able to abide our presence at all, rather He would be obliged by His clean to do as He did his own son, turn His back to us.

If FreeAtLast has any stand for a "sinless" stand it is that of the condition the believer is viewed by God. Not the view of man toward God, but God toward man.

 

[agedman]

The bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However just because we have sinned does not mean we have to continue to sin once saved and the thief on the cross certainly seems to have done it and my guess many others have also. There is absolutely no logical or biblical reason to believe that the thief on the cross sinned before he died.

Again you have used an illustration that you have no right to use.

There is NO Scripture and NO indication in Scripture that the thief spent the rest of his life "sinless."

Assuming that his background was spent in rebellion, on rebellious purpose, with the rebellious people, can there be any doubt that his language was not salted with blaspheming man and God?

So, here his is in deep almost unbearable pain, and then his legs are broken.

I have had broken bones, and it is no easy matter to bear.

His body no longer able to breath unless he push against the broken bones must have been excruciating - probably causing both blood hemorrhage in the extreme, and loosing consciousness.


But all this is pure speculation.

Just as your claim he was sinless until death.

And here I thought that you had moderated you view.

 

[freeatlast]

Again you have used an illustration that you have no right to use.

There is NO Scripture and NO indication in Scripture that the thief spent the rest of his life "sinless."

Assuming that his background was spent in rebellion, on rebellious purpose, with the rebellious people, can there be any doubt that his language was not salted with blaspheming man and God?

So, here his is in deep almost unbearable pain, and then his legs are broken.

I have had broken bones, and it is no easy matter to bear.

His body no longer able to breath unless he push against the broken bones must have been excruciating - probably causing both blood hemorrhage in the extreme, and loosing consciousness.


But all this is pure speculation.

Just as your claim he was sinless until death.

And here I thought that you had moderated you view.

I don't know what you are talking about. Moderated view? As to the thief on the cross I would point you back to my first post on the issue. I would ask you a question. What is the max time a believer can go without sinning?

 

[agedman]

Now with that I can agree. Except the use of the term prodigal. True believers will be confessing and seeking to be set free from the sin that is is hindering their walk with the Lord rather then wallowing in and enjoying their sin.

You don't understand the word prodigal, nor the story of the prodigal son, nor a son wallowing with the pigs.

The son was a son and continued to be a son no matter where in the world's system he live, in what condition he lived, and even if he died in that system.

That is the security of every believer that the Scriptures present.

Your scheme and value of what constitutes a believer and what secures the believer don't provide for such security.

Fact: Sin is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

Fact: How long one continues or falls into sin is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

Fact: The death of a person is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

 

[agedman]

I don't know what you are talking about. Moderated view? As to the thief on the cross I would point you back to my first post on the issue. I would ask you a question. What is the max time a believer can go without sinning?

What a silly question!

I can see it now. Using your example of the thief.

Both thieves have died. One in is paradise and the other in hell.

"I don't belong here if that man gets to enjoy paradise. After all he remained sinless only a split second before he used words of blasphemy. I heard him! He can't be saved! He passed out before he could repent! I saw it. It happened just a minute before they broke my legs and I passed out. Come on, this just isn't fair."

Such silliness that you would even ask that question. Nothing but you trying to bring vain imagination to prove what you desire. It serves to no profit.

 

[freeatlast]

You don't understand the word prodigal, nor the story of the prodigal son, nor a son wallowing with the pigs.

The son was a son and continued to be a son no matter where in the world's system he live, in what condition he lived, and even if he died in that system.

That is the security of every believer that the Scriptures present.

Your scheme and value of what constitutes a believer and what secures the believer don't provide for such security.

Fact: Sin is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

Fact: How long one continues or falls into sin is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

Fact: The death of a person is not an indication of a person being saved or not.

The prodigal son is not about someone who is saved. You need to read the text. It clearly states he was lost. The story is about two sons not one and both are relating to Israel not the church.

 

[freeatlast]

What a silly question!

I can see it now. Using your example of the thief.

Both thieves have died. One in is paradise and the other in hell.

"I don't belong here if that man gets to enjoy paradise. After all he remained sinless only a split second before he used words of blasphemy. I heard him! He can't be saved! He passed out before he could repent! I saw it. It happened just a minute before they broke my legs and I passed out. Come on, this just isn't fair."

Such silliness that you would even ask that question. Nothing but you trying to bring vain imagination to prove what you desire. It serves to no profit.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[agedman]

Well we do not have sin natures if we are saved. Our new nature is one of righteousness , but we are left with a fallen body to battle and take victory over.

Are you saying that when a person is saved, they are perfect?

Paul speaks that the believer is both an old nature and a new nature and that a war of the wills takes place between the two natures.

See Romans "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

If Paul spent his life in such a condition, are you greater than Paul?

By your standard of sinless perfection Paul was both a heretic (fraud pretending to be a believer but continued in sin) and is now in hell proved because he had a besetting sin that he battled and God didn't take away.

 

[freeatlast]

Are you saying that when a person is saved, they are perfect?

Paul speaks that the believer is both an old nature and a new nature and that a war of the wills takes place between the two natures.

See Romans "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

If Paul spent his life in such a condition, are you greater than Paul?

By your standard of sinless perfection Paul was both a heretic (fraud pretending to be a believer but continued in sin) and is now in hell proved because he had a besetting sin that he battled and God didn't take away.

To your question, no. I have never made that statement.
To your statement no the bible never teaches we have two natures.

 

[agedman]

The prodigal son is not about someone who is saved. You need to read the text. It clearly states he was lost. The story is about two sons not one and both are relating to Israel not the church.

Your statement that the story is about Israel, doesn't remove the son was a son no matter the condition of living or where he lived.

If applied to Israel, God's children who are called by His name don't have their name changed merely because of sin, dispersion, or their return.

If applied to the church, the bride of Christ remains the bride of Christ no matter what place or condition the bride lives.

A son is a son and remains the son.

The father didn't reject the son and never disowned the son.

The father looked and longed for the son's return.

It was the son who disassociated himself from the family. The son who purposed to travel to the far country and live in rebellion. The son who would have died in that country. The son who returned home penniless and humbled. But he remained the son, even if he were declare he was not to be called by that name.

Never was he not the father's son.


The believer is a believer and always will be a believer not matter the conditions of living or the any of the above effecting the son.

You saying it does, isn't the truth.

 

[12strings]

1. In you poster referring to Satan accusing the saints of things that are not sins, I agree this can damage our walk with God, but in seems in scriptures the result of such things is generally legalism, thinking things like marraige, or certain foods, or any pleasure at all, are sins. It does not generally result in a person accepting their sinfulness and continually leaning on the grace of the cross to deal with it.
-I would ask, related to this, are you saying that I may at times NOT be loving God with all of my heart, soul, mind, & strength, and yet also not be sinning?


2. Here's a point you have made several times that I do not see scriptural evidence for:

Well we do not have sin natures if we are saved. Our new nature is one of righteousness , but we are left with a fallen body to battle and take victory over.

I Think someone else may have said something like this before, so I'll try to word my statement carefully, but here goes: You are saying that the reason we sin is COMPLETELY due to our body? That our immaterial part (call it spirit, soul, whatever) is COMPLETELY sanctified and has no sinful desires? That my immaterial part has no pride left, no selfishness? If this is what you are saying, it seems to be very close to the gnostics who said that it is spiritual is good, what is material is bad. I'm not saying you are a gnostic, but if your beliefs are what I percieve them to be, you sound like you are saying some of the same things.

-In regard to this idea, I do not believe that everytime a biblical writer uses the word "flesh" he is refering only the material part of man.
-If I desire to give God glory through music, and also desire to gain glory for myself, are you saying that it is my completely sin-freed spirit that wants glory for God, and my electronic brain cells, or frontal lobe that is wanting glory for self?

 

[agedman]

To your question, no. I have never made that statement.
To your statement no the bible never teaches we have two natures.

You deny what Paul was declaring about his own condition?

 

[12strings]

FROM AGEDMAN: Is FreeAtLast changing his view?

On other thread(s) which prompted this thread, he held that a believer could live sinless and that anyone who sinned was not a believer. He consistently pointed to 1 John.

Although multiple posters showed both from practical living and from Scriptures that his view was askew from the truth, he clung to it as the proving stick for all believers. In effect he stated that if a person sinned they were not saved.

There was no clarification about a temporary moment, a short time, a bit of a stumble. He placed his remarks in such terms that any sin at any time indicated the person wasn't a believer.

Agedman, These bolded sentances do not represent what FAL has said. Why do you think he posted the word "practice" 300,000 times?

 

[freeatlast]

Your statement that the story is about Israel, doesn't remove the son was a son no matter the condition of living or where he lived.

If applied to Israel, God's children who are called by His name don't have their name changed merely because of sin, dispersion, or their return.

If applied to the church, the bride of Christ remains the bride of Christ no matter what place or condition the bride lives.

A son is a son and remains the son.

The father didn't reject the son and never disowned the son.

The father looked and longed for the son's return.

It was the son who disassociated himself from the family. The son who purposed to travel to the far country and live in rebellion. The son who would have died in that country. The son who returned home penniless and humbled. But he remained the son, even if he were declare he was not to be called by that name.

Never was he not the father's son.


The believer is a believer and always will be a believer not matter the conditions of living or the any of the above effecting the son.

You saying it does, isn't the truth.

The story is not about someone who is saved. it says he was lost. Your not understanding the story.

 

[freeatlast]

You deny what Paul was declaring about his own condition?

What condition?

 

[freeatlast]

1. In you poster referring to Satan accusing the saints of things that are not sins, I agree this can damage our walk with God, but in seems in scriptures the result of such things is generally legalism, thinking things like marraige, or certain foods, or any pleasure at all, are sins. It does not generally result in a person accepting their sinfulness and continually leaning on the grace of the cross to deal with it.
-I would ask, related to this, are you saying that I may at times NOT be loving God with all of my heart, soul, mind, & strength, and yet also not be sinning?


2. Here's a point you have made several times that I do not see scriptural evidence for:


I Think someone else may have said something like this before, so I'll try to word my statement carefully, but here goes: You are saying that the reason we sin is COMPLETELY due to our body? That our immaterial part (call it spirit, soul, whatever) is COMPLETELY sanctified and has no sinful desires? That my immaterial part has no pride left, no selfishness? If this is what you are saying, it seems to be very close to the gnostics who said that it is spiritual is good, what is material is bad. I'm not saying you are a gnostic, but if your beliefs are what I percieve them to be, you sound like you are saying some of the same things.



-In regard to this idea, I do not believe that everytime a biblical writer uses the word "flesh" he is refering only the material part of man.
-If I desire to give God glory through music, and also desire to gain glory for myself, are you saying that it is my completely sin-freed spirit that wants glory for God, and my electronic brain cells, or frontal lobe that is wanting glory for self?

1) I am simply saying that satan says some things are sin when they are not and a Christian cannot possibly be sinning every moment as you claim to be based on scripture.

2) We do not have an old sin nature. While lost we had one nature and while saved we have one nature. Romans 6:6 we died in Christ. All things are now new. 2Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I am just saying that satan calls things sin that are not always sin. If someone was battling porn on the computer I would tell them to get rid their computer even if it was their livelihood. If you are battling desiring glory that God should have I would tell you to get away from the thing that is tempting you.
Matt 5:29,30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.

In other words do what ever it takes to get sin out of your life.

 

[agedman]

Agedman, These bolded sentances do not represent what FAL has said. Why do you think he posted the word "practice" 300,000 times?

Because I think that is exactly his intent.

For instance I have listed below all the posts in this thread that Freeatlast has discussed the OP up to this time. Those posts left out were dealing with other than the OP.

Freeatlast: “It is not that I believe we can I know we can and I gave an example, by any reasonable assumption, of someone who did.”

Freeatlast:
“Absolutely! I know of some that has. I think I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt if you are interested. Of course if you have made up your mind I won't be able to prove anything even in the slightest of way. By the way I am not one of them who has, but tomorrow is a new day.
And I certainly can show you where we are commanded to do it.”

Freeatlast:
“It simply means we lived with no known sin (James 4:17) just as those before the law ( Romans 5:13) as sin is only imputed when the deed is understood as sin. So yes a person can live without sinning, but few do and most are not interested in seeking such. None the less the thief on the cross I believe lived his life after salvation sinless as well as many others since. So it is not only possible, but I believe it has been done.”

Freeatlast:
“This is about God's law to man and that was not given until Moses in reagrds to living with no sin after salvation. It is possible as I have shown in my first post.”

Freeatlast:
“There are two possibilities here. One is you did not read carefully what I said in that post, or you did not really read the post. It is not that I believe we can I know we can and I gave an example, by any reasonable assumption, of someone who did.”

Freeatlast;
“Wait a minute. Are you not one of those who says it is impossible? Are you first ready to admit you were wrong and that it is possible?”

Freeatlast:
“You claimed it is impossible. I gave an example it has happened. Now you are trying to wiggle out of the facts just like you do with the military debates and make excuses for them. Are you now willing to admit you are wrong on this issue as everyone sees you are?”
Freeatlast: “There was a time when the law entered. That means there was a time when there was no law. The passage is speaking of the written law.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

So to the OP the answer is yes a person can live with no sin after salvation and some have as I have given the example.”

Freeatlast:
“Let me ask all those who believes that it is impossible for a believer to not sin a question.
What is the absolute maximum time that a believer can go without sinning?”

Freeatlast:
“Yes I am aware of what John Teaches on this and actually we are very close if not totally in agreement. The problem may be semantics and my inability to convey my thoughts in type. I can tell you this however with no doubt since you pointed to John. He has never suggested that any person can be a Christian and be sinning almost every moment of every day as you claim you do.

So yes hopefully others who are wise in the Lord will weigh in. I see great danger in anyone who claims they sin almost every moment of the day. It just cannot be supported as someone who is saved from the bible. In your case I pray it just a lack of understanding, but even if that you need to step aside until you understand the truth as you become a target for satan. As I stated I will be praying for you on this. God bless.”

Freeatlast:
“I assure you John means we do not have to sin. He is not speaking in code or some vague manner. Second as long as you hold that Paul is saying in Romans 7 he is struggling with sin then you will never be able to believe what I have been saying or what John has said. Paul was NOT struggling with sin as in sinning a lot.”

Freeatlast:
“The bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However just because we have sinned does not mean we have to continue to sin once saved and the thief on the cross certainly seems to have done it and my guess many others have also. There is absolutely no logical or biblical reason to believe that the thief on the cross sinned before he died.”


Now as I looked through these posts for some qualifier such as the word "practice" and it is not there. Rather he has couched his statements in the extreme to mean that the person is either in a state of grace or a state of loss. No mention of a temporary stumble, or slip, or even a long term addiction problem that might "beset" a believer all their life.

I agree that in previous threads Freeatlast used the word "practice." In this thread, he has been given multiple opportunity to place his responses in such condition. But he has not used any such words (repeated, habitually, ...), in fact, he has boasted of proof to his claim. Not admitting that all proofs having been shown by multiple posters to be inaccurate.

At this time, one could only assume Freeatlast has moderated his view and now embraces what is not Scriptural. Or, perhaps he is engaged in a deceitful hoax which is a sin.

Either way, I wait for his explanation.

 

[agedman]

The story is not about someone who is saved. it says he was lost. Your not understanding the story.

Didn't you just switch who you stated the story was about?

Are you now holding that it is about salvation?

The son was a son before he left, while he was gone, and when he returned.

For you to align this with salvation would be to state the unsaved are God's children.

For you to take the words "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." as proof is like saying the son certainly must have been Lazarus like for he was dead and raised.

This story is about a son, who remained a son throughout his rebellion and return to the father. It is not about salvation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm coming in very late on this thread, and I haven't read through all 11 pages, so it may well be that someone has quoted these verses already, but it seems apposite.

1John 1:8, 10. 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.....If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and the truth is not in us.'

The believer is indeed a new creation in Chrsit Jesus; the old has indeed gone and the new has come, but there remains in our bodies a relic of the old nature, and it will remain there all our lives. 'For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man (the new nature) but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members' (Rom 7:22-23. cf. also 6:12; 7:18). Eleswhere Paul says that, 'The flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these things are contrary to one another so that you do not do the things that you wish' (Gal 5:17).

Therefore our job as believers is to keep down this relic of sin and, 'Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh' (Gal 5:16). 'But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection' (1Cor 9:27).

There is one sense in which believers are sinless. When God looks upon us, He sees us clad in the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ so:-

'When Satan tempts me to despair,
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upwards I look and see His face
Who made an end of all my sin.

Because the sinless Saviour died,
My guilty soul is counted free;
For God the Just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.' Charitie Bancroft

Steve