Morally Pure

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

1Ti 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

HP: Many things may be in question, but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.
If words means anything, ' pure' is without fault, blameless, without sin. Sin is blameworthy and no one can keep themselves 'pure' while practicing sin.

 

[DHK]

1Ti 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

HP: Many things may be in question, but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.
If words means anything, ' pure' is without fault, blameless, without sin. Sin is blameworthy and no one can keep themselves 'pure' while practicing sin.

This do. Take up thy Bible and read. Read the First Epistle of Paul to Timotheus, chapter five. Upon finishing thy reading commence meditating on the twenty-second verse. It followeth after the twenty-first. Be thou careful in thy study. The verse doth not say what thou thinketh it saith!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

.....but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

.....but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.

Our discussion centered around 1Tim.5:22.
That verse does not even come close to teaching that.
You may or may not be right. If right, provide Scriptural evidence. You may not use 1Tim.5:22. It has nothing to do with your premise.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please deal with the comments made in post #4, which I have posted a second time for you above.

Here are the comments of which you speak:

keep thyself pure--"thyself' is emphatic. "Keep THYSELF" clear of participation in OTHER men's sin by not failing to rebuke them that sin (1Ti 5:20) JFB

Keep thyself pure. Particularly in regard to participation in the sins of others; generally, in all things--in heart, in word, in conduct. [Barnes]

Keep thyself pure. Free from the sins of other men. [PNTC]

That is their opinion about the meaning of the verse and the following is the opinion of others who disagree with those opinions.

Joseph Henry Thayer, a recognized Greek expert, says the word means "pure from every fault, immaculate...1 Tim, v, 22" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

In a commentary written by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary we read the following commentary on the verse written by A. Duane Litfin: "Timothy was to keep himself free from sin. One cannot deal with sin in another if one's own life is not 'pure' ('hagnon')" [emphasis mine] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 744).


All you prove is that different people have different opinions on the meaning of a particular verse.

Undefiled does not mean sinless. Are you sinless. You said no. Therefore you are defiled. Right?

I am not defiled at this time because I have confessed the last sin which I committed:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).

I am clean from all unrighteousness. Do you believe that a sin defiles a person?

What do you think of Paul's words here?

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor.7:1).

Do you think that a Christian can clean himself from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

But I do believe that verse and any other that uses the word 'pure' in a clearly moral sense as does that verse, is speaking of being blameless, morally without fault, righteous, sinless. I take nothing out of context nor take away from the intended context of the author. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

But I do believe that verse and any other that uses the word 'pure' in a clearly moral sense as does that verse, is speaking of being blameless, morally without fault, righteous, sinless. I take nothing out of context nor take away from the intended context of the author. :thumbsup:

Sorry, no dice. You ignore context; you ignore the meaning of the word.

Phil.3:20 "for our conversation is in heaven"
What does conversation mean, and how do you know?
--Just an example.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Our discussion centered around 1Tim.5:22.

The subject of this thread is the term "morally pure." Here is what you said:

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Here is the definition of "pure" as it relates to morals:

"Free from moral fault or guilt" (Merriam-Webster.com).

Here is another definition in regard to the same thing:

"Free from moral taint or defilement" (World English Dictionary).

And another:

"Untainted by immorality" (Oxford Dictionary).

But you say:

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!

If being "pure" in the moral sphere does not mean "sinless" then why do we read the following definition?:

"Having no faults; sinless" (TheFreeDictionary.com).

Perhaps you are right and all of these dictionaries are wrong?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

.....but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Here are the comments of which you speak:

That is their opinion about the meaning of the verse and the following is the opinion of others who disagree with those opinions.

Previously you were all gung-ho about using Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, but now he is "just another opinion" that you don't respect at all. What has changed your mind about these respected scholars?

Joseph Henry Thayer, a recognized Greek expert, says the word means "pure from every fault, immaculate...1 Tim, v, 22" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Thayer wrote a lexicon, a dictionary. It gives meanings of words, but not in the contexts in which they are used such as the references that I gave you.

In a commentary written by the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary we read the following commentary on the verse written by A. Duane Litfin: "Timothy was to keep himself free from sin. One cannot deal with sin in another if one's own life is not 'pure' ('hagnon')" [emphasis mine] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 744).

himself free from the sin (of others). That is the meaning. Read the context.

All you prove is that different people have different opinions on the meaning of a particular verse.

The more I study the more I am convinced of its meaning--free from the sin of others.

What do you think of Paul's words here?

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor.7:1).

Do you think that a Christian can clean himself from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit?

"Having therefore...."
As it is said, Whenever you see a therefore look before to see why-fore the therefore is there for.
Did you do that?

Two verse before 7:1 we find written:
(2Co 6:17) Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

The cleansing is a coming out or separating oneself from the sinful practices of others. You must read chapter six to get a good idea of this.
The perfecting of holiness is in a present continuous action. It doesn't happen all at once. It is a maturing process.

Not merely negative goodness (cleansing), but aggressive and progressive (present tense of epiteleō) holiness, not a sudden attainment of complete holiness, but a continuous process (1Th_3:13; Rom_1:4; Rom_1:6). (Robertson)

 

[Darrell C]

.....but this one thing I know. No man can be said to be keeping himself 'pure' in any moral/ Scriptural sense that is practicing sin on daily basis.:thumbsup:

What is sad is that man does not have to "practice" sin...he is a natural.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

A "natural," I might add...that seeks to be a "neutral."

God bless.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Paul said, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth within me."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

That should be a natural for believers, not a nuetral position to take or leave alone.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Previously you were all gung-ho about using Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, but now he is "just another opinion" that you don't respect at all. What has changed your mind about these respected scholars?

So you think that these men cannot make mistakes? If you want to say that they are infallible then are you willing to take Brown's opinion on a verse which I quoted earlier?

You continue to try to derail this thread. Let us get back to the subject of this thread because you have left some very important questions unanswered. The subject of this thread is the term "morally pure." Here is what you said:

Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc.

Here is the definition of "pure" as it relates to morals:

"Free from moral fault or guilt" (Merriam-Webster.com).

Here is another definition in regard to the same thing:

"Free from moral taint or defilement" (World English Dictionary).

And another:

"Untainted by immorality" (Oxford Dictionary).

But you say:

Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!

If being "pure" in the moral sphere does not mean "sinless" then why do we read the following definition?:

"Having no faults; sinless" (TheFreeDictionary.com).

Perhaps you are right and all of these dictionaries are wrong?

 

[Darrell C]

Paul said, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth within me."

And again we see in the believer's life an accomplishment of the Spirit of God...right?

That should be a natural for believers, not a nuetral position to take or leave alone.

If it were natural, why would instruction such as this...


Colossians 3

1If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.


5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

7In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

8But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

9Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

This is written to believers, is it not?

Good night...and,

God bless.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What is sad is that man does not have to "practice" sin...he is a natural.

Does that include Christians?

Are you not aware that if a Christian walks after the Spirit he is free from the law of sin?:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Ro.8:1-2).

Do you believe that the rightousness demanded by the law can be fulfilled by us when we walk after the Spirit?:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

 

[The Biblicist]

[SIZE=3that is practicing sin on daily basis.:thumbsup: [/SIZE]

That is red herring! Nobody is suggesting that any Christian PRACTICES sin on a daily basis.

Again, you and Jerry deny other fundemental Biblical definitions of sin. Sin is not merely intentional transgression of God's Law (although that is one definition of sin). Your red herring "practices sin on a daily basis" implies willful trangression.

God's law is also violating unintentionally by

1. Omission - "come short of the glory of God"
2. Ignorance -
3. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin

Still neither you or Jerry have addressed the fact that Christ commanded his followers to love the Lord God with 100% of your being 100% of the time.

Are you seriously going to say you keep that command consistently day in and day out for "long periods of time"?????

Again, we are to keep ourselves pure from other men's sin's and from all sin - that is our aim, goal, desire and to strive for anything less is simply not acceptable but that does not mean we attain that goal any more than Paul says he did in Philip. 3:12-14

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul deals explicitly and directly with the very issue you are debating. He explicitly denies he has attained to perfection. He clearly states he is present tense following after that goal and present tense reaching forth toward that goal but has not yet attained that goal.

In contrast, Paul is immature compared to you two, as you both claim you not only can but have attained that goal of perfection and do so for long periods of time.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: That is red herring! Nobody is suggesting that any Christian PRACTICES sin on a daily basis.

HP: If sinning everyday in thought word and deed is not practicing sin, there is not a herring alive that is red.
:thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If you don't sin everyday as some profess, how long is it between the times you do sin? Every other day or so? Maybe twice or so a week? Just how long do you live 'sinless' between sin, on an average of course? If you never have a time of being sinless, how is that not practicing sin? You tell me what I am to think.