Jerry Shugart
New Member
"If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Cor.3:14-15).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Theoretical sinlessness
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
Show you another way to put this statement??
Really, Jerry? Is your vocabulary so limited that you have to question the IQ's of others? This is a personal attack, an ad hominem, and against the rules.
Let your speech be always seasoned with grace. You claim we should either be sinless or strive to be sinless. Your statement above broke the rules and is sin. Every personal attack you make on this board is sin. It is breaking the rules. I don't have to show you how to speak with grace. You are a Christian. You know that already. Exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in your posts.
The title of this thread is "theoretical sinlessness."
The verse you are quoting is: "Keep thyself pure."
It does not mean "Keep yourself sinless." Paul would be contradicting the rest of the Bible if that is what he meant. How do you reconcile that with:
(1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
--Is Paul saying to Timothy, "Timothy, I want you to make Christ a liar, and make sure that His word is not in you."
This is the confusion I draw from your interpretation.
No, he is saying to Timothy to keep himself morally pure.
Yes, and thy have nothing to do with sinlessness.
Again, another personal attack worthy of another infraction. It is breaking the rules. It is sin. That is ironic coming from a man who believes we should live sinless lives.
Is this a tape-recording. This is the third personal attack in this post. The third sin, the third violation of the rules.
And this is the fourth time. This time you will get an infraction.
Could you expand on what you believe Paul is saying with these words?
God bless.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
Of course you give no such lectures to those who agree with you on these issues and repeatedly accuse me of lying..
He is speaking about sinning and the Greek word translated "sinning" is in the "past" tense.
If we cannot walk in a "sinless" manner then why would Paul say the following?:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:2).
Here are the Lord Jesus' own words where e describes the righteousness which is demanded under the law:
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mt.22:36-40).
If following what Paul said to do here is a sin then I plead guilty:
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim.4:2-4).
Jerry Shugart
New Member
Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words "reward" and "loss" and then I think you will be able to understand what is being said.
Then you have no further commentary on the verse?
The question was asked for a specific reason, and surely you would assume that I understand what reward and loss refer to?
God bless.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
I think that it speaks for itself. If something about that verse contradicts something which I said earlier then let us hear what that is.
In the top right hand corner there is an icon which means "report post." If you feel that you are being personally attacked unfairly, that the person is breaking the rules, etc. then report the person. I am unable to read every post of every thread that I am a moderator of.
The word for sin is harmartiology.
The word for pure is hagios.
The two words are not even related to each other.
Keep thyself "pure" (hagios) morally pure,
pure from carnality, chaste, modest (Strong's)
--That is what the word means.
It is not in the past tense as you claim.
This is from Robertson's Word Studies. I would rather trust a Greek scholar like Robertson than you.
Wesley says: "Keep thy self pure - From the blood of all men."
John Gill says: "Keep thyself pure; not from his own sins, the sin of nature, indwelling sin, and actual transgressions; no man is, or can be pure, from either of these; nor can any man keep himself; Christ only is able to keep them from falling. But the apostle's meaning is, that he should keep himself pure from the sins of others, by not rashly and suddenly admitting any into the ministry; just as the apostle was pure from the blood of all men, by faithfully preaching the Gospel; so he suggests that Timothy would be pure from partaking of other men's sins, by observing a strict discipline in the house of God. Some refer this to chastity of body, in opposition to the sin of uncleanness, which his youthful age and the temptations about him might expose him to the danger of; and which is scandalous and infamous in a minister of the word. Which sense serves to show the connection of the following words, which otherwise seem to stand unconnected."
Now I have quoted to you: a Greek Scholar, an Arminian, and a Calviinist. And they all agree with each other. Where does that leave you? Obviously with the wrong interpretation
There is no hint of living a sinless life here. What does this verse mean? It is speaking as to quality not as to condition. This is not a condition to salvation, but rather a characteristic. Those who are righteous will walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh. The same truth is taught in verse one. In verse one, the last phrase is not a condition to salvation but a quality of the those that are not condemned. It certainly does not point to sinlessness. It points to those who emulate the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.
These are goals which we are to aim for.
But I guarantee you that you do not obey them.
You cannot obey them. You do not love your neighbor as you love yourself. You love yourself too much. Are you willing to give all that you have to the poor so that the poor can live up to the same standard that you are living? Love your neighbor as yourself.
Are you willing to go to the poorest and most neediest nations on the face of this earth, those that have never heard the gospel before--leave the comforts of your own home--that they too might have the opportunity to be saved. Love your neighbor as yourself. Are you really loving your neighbor as yourself. I don't think so.
Paul never said to use "gutter language" or anything that resembles it. If this is your defense you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Paul also said:
(2Ti 2:24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
(2Ti 2:25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
No, the question was not asked to show a contradiction in something previously said, merely to point out that while believers are saved, the reward or loss of reward stands apart from salvation itself.
Because our salvation is dependant upon Christ, and our reward (or lack thereof) is dependant upon our obedience, we distinguish between the righteousness which is temporal and the righteousness which eternal.
God bless.
Your very argument is based upon the presumption that your interpretation is correct! That is circular reasoning!
You make two assumptions in your argument where the latter is built upon the former.
You first assume that fallen man comes into the world like unfallen man - free from sin. However, that is the very subject of our debate and so it cannot be assumed. If Post-fallen man comes into the world spiritually dead as a consequence of "one man's offence" then your presumption is false!
Second, based upon the unsubstantiated presumption that post-fallen man comes into the world as equally free from sin and a sin nature as pre-fallen man was free from sin and a sin nature you argue that sin and spiritual death cannot be attributed to anything but willful sin in either and thus the sin nature is inconsequential to both but only the effect of their own personal willful sins. However, that not only totally dismisses the repeated statement that "by one man's offence MANY be dead....were made sinners" but changes it to mean "by MANY men's offences, MANY be dead.....were made sinners."
Your very argument incoporates your double unproven presumptions which totally ignore the cause found in what one man did in regard to consequences to "many" who are organically united to him by nature. In short, you argument simply dismisses the fact that the human nature in Adam was corrupted by sin and that is the same corrupted human nature inherited by all that are "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22) proven by the fact that "in Adam ALL DIE."
So don't give me that stupid circular argument again because you have not proved either assumption it is based upon!
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Excellent point Jerry.:thumbs:
Biblicist's theory states that one can ONLY act as ones self dictates, and that due to God (being sinless) can ONLY act act according to how His Self dictates. If his theory is correct, sin would have been just as impossible for man as it is for God.
Never forget those sinless angels that fell as well. The philosophical theory Biblicist portrays as truth is inconsistent and contradictory to both reason as well as the revealed Word of God.
They were are created beings; not "born."
They all had the "real" possibility of living forever; we don't.
They were not condemned by a curse; we are.
They made their choice not influenced by outside forces except for Eve., who was deceived and therefore sin was not imputed unto her.
We are all influenced by a depraved nature which makes us prone to sin the minute we are born.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
DHK,
Ealier I quoted the following verse:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).
David Brown writes:
"That the righteousness of the law--"the righteous demand," "the requirement" [ALFORD], Or "the precept" of the law; for it is not precisely the word so often used in this Epistle to denote "the righteousness which justifies" ( Rom 1:17 3:21 4:5, 6 5:17, 18, 21 ), but another form of the same word, intended to express the enactment of the law, meaning here, we believe, the practical obedience which the law calls for.
might be fulfilled in us--or, as we say, "realized in us."
who walk--the most ancient expression of the bent of one's life, whether in the direction of good or of evil ( Gen 48:15 Psa 1:1 Isa 2:5 Mic 4:5 Eph 4:17 1Jo 1:6, 7 ).
not after--that is, according to the dictates of
the flesh, but after the spirit--From Rom 8:9 it would seem that what is more immediately intended by "the spirit" here is our own mind as renewed and actuated by the Holy Ghost" (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on Romans 8).
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Ro.8:2).
You should be ashamed of yourself for personally attacking those who do not agree with your ideas.
Ealier I quoted the following verse:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).
David Brown writes:
"That the righteousness of the law--"the righteous demand," "the requirement" [ALFORD], Or "the precept" of the law; for it is not precisely the word so often used in this Epistle to denote "the righteousness which justifies" ( Rom 1:17 3:21 4:5, 6 5:17, 18, 21 ), but another form of the same word, intended to express the enactment of the law, meaning here, we believe, the practical obedience which the law calls for.
might be fulfilled in us--or, as we say, "realized in us."
who walk--the most ancient expression of the bent of one's life, whether in the direction of good or of evil ( Gen 48:15 Psa 1:1 Isa 2:5 Mic 4:5 Eph 4:17 1Jo 1:6, 7 ).
not after--that is, according to the dictates of
the flesh, but after the spirit--From Rom 8:9 it would seem that what is more immediately intended by "the spirit" here is our own mind as renewed and actuated by the Holy Ghost" (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on Romans 8).
Of couse it is speaking of a sinless life because when we are walking after the Spirit we are made "free from the law of sin and death":
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Ro.8:2).
Of course it is not about 'salvation" but instead about a Christian's "walk." And not all who are saved walk after the Spirit because the Christian who sins is NOT walking after the Spirit because it is obvious that at that time they are not free from the "law of sin.
I never used "gutter language" and I challenge you to quote me where I ever did such a thing.
You should be ashamed of yourself for personally attacking those who do not agree with your ideas.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: How is sinning on a continual basis in any way shape or form consistent with walking in the Spirit and not after the flesh? When one sins is it not true that such a one is indeed walking after the flesh and NOT after the Spirit? If one can walk after the Spirit while sinning, all sinners could be said to be walking after the Spirit.
I have always wondered how we are to understand who is and who is not born again, if both offer the same testimony, that they both sin ever day in thought word and deed?
Jerry Shugart
New Member
According to your mistaken view "sin has but one source in man-the sin nature."
But Adam was a man and even you admit that he was not created with a sin nature. That is why I said the following to you:
"Neither Adam nor Eve were created with a sin nature but yet they sinned......If you are right then neither Adam or Eve would have ever sinned."
Since you have no answer for your blunder you try your best to change the subject. You say:
I made no argument. All I did was to point out your error.
You did not even attempt to answer my point. If the sins which a man commits can be only accounted for because he has a sin nature then why did both Adam and Eve sin?
Once again you prove that you cannot understand simple arguments against your mistaken views or else you refuse to deal with them in an honest manner.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: What does that matter? Are not all humans, or angels for that matter, created by God?
HP: There is absolutely no indication that Adam, IN THE FLESH, was created to live forever in this physical world. Scripture tells us that EVERYTHING that is seen is temporal, not eternal.
HP: They were condemned for their sin. We are condemend for ours. There was physical consequence that indeed have fallen upon their posterity, but that does not constitute 'sin' as being an 'unavoidable' consequence. Read again the words of God Himself to Cain.
HP: Then Eve did not sin according to you? If sin is not imputed there is not sin. Sin is a judgment of God upon disobedience, not a 'thing." If God does not judge ones actions as sin, it is not sin. When Scripture states that 'sin is not imputed,' it does not mean sin existed but it did not. Either sin exists and it's corresponding penalty, or it does not. No penalty? No sin. Penalty is involved? Sin is involved.
HP: I would absolutely agree with your comment here as it is stated. Our disagreement is in what does that 'depraved nature consist of, and is it in and of itself sin. Being prone to sin is NOT to say that sin is unavoidable. If sin is unavoidable, sin cannot be blameworthy. If God is going to blame a leopard for his spots or the Ethiopian for his skin...... ( I will let you finish that sentence for me.:thumbs: ) How would you finish that sentence DHK?
Last edited by a moderator:
So what is your point? Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown were Presbyterian theologians which believed in the depravity of mankind; did not believe in the sinlessness or even theoretical sinlessness of mankind. So what is your point in quoting them? They believed in original sin--depraved from birth. You have quoted from a very good commentary, but I am not sure why, or what your point is.
As he says "our own mind is renewed and actuated by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Apostle Paul gives the command to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Neither of these give any indication of being sinless.
Now wait a minute. To follow JFB, he says about "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free." He doesn't go any farther than that. And then he says:
--"referring to the time of his conversion, when first he believed."
You got this from him, but then twisted what he said.
Why didn't you read further from JFB?
If this be the apostle's meaning, the whole verse is to this effect. That the triumph of believers over the inward corruption, through the power of Christ's Spirit in them, proves them to be in Christ Jesus, and as such absolved from condemnation. But this is now explained more fully (in the following verses).
He rightly indicates that the meaning is a struggle between two natures: a depraved nature from birth, and a new nature from Christ. Don't quote him out of context.
Here it is:
Just from one post Jerry (#282), this is what you said:
It is right from the gutter of your own heart. One insult after another. This is a debate forum. You lost the debate when you posted right there. You couldn't answer me, so you attacked me. You ended up with an infraction because five times you answered with five personal attacks instead of answering with a civil answer.
Tell me, Did Jesus ever answer a Christian brother like that?
Did Paul ever advise Timothy to use language like that?
A poster was recently banned for the continuous use of insulting language.
If I were to apply the same standard to you, how would you fare?
The standard is the truth of the word of God.
Even the people you quote, like Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, stand against you.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
Please pay attention to what we are discussing because we have been talking about the "walk" of those already saved and whether or not they can live lives that can be described as "holy":
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Ro.12:1).
Now let us look at what David Brown said about the following verse:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).
He says that the phrase "the righteousness of the law" is in regard to the " the practical obedience which the law calls for."
What is the practical obedience which the law calls for?:
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mt.22:36-40).
Then Brown says that the words "might be fulfilled in us" means to be "realized in us."
So Paul is saying that the things which the law demamds (loving God with our entire being and loving our neighbors as ourselves) can be realized in us and are realized in us when we are walking after the flesh. So what David Brown said is in complete agreement with my views and it completely contradicts your mistaken ideas.
You may consider them insults but I am doing nothing but questioning your judgment and your ability to reason out of the Scriptures.
You remain absolutely silent when those who agree with you question my honesty and my motives. That is truly revolting but you remain silent when those things are said.
Why shouldn't I question your judgment" or ability to reason out of the Scriptures"?
Let us look at your remarks in regard to the following verse which proves that a man's sins defile him:
"And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man" (Mk.7:20-23).
To this you said:
That makes absolutely no sense. How can a person be "morally pure" but yet continue to sin? Do you not realize that once a person sins by breaking a moral law that he can no longer be considered to be 'morally pure"?
I am question your "judgment" about these things and they should be questioned. You should be rebuked when you insult my intelligence by saying such inane things. You get all indignant when I point out that what you say is illogical.
Then you punish me for saying things that are completely true and should be pointed out while at the same time you allow others to attack the honesty of those who do not agree with you.
If you think that what I quoted from David Brown stands against me then you are once again demonstrating that your "judgment" about these things is seriously flawed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not going to answer the whole post as this is the crux of the whole matter right here.
Get it into your head that "morally pure" is not the same as being sinless.
Do what you have to do. Consult dictionaries, other commentaries, encyclopedias, etc. Being morally pure is not the same as sinless. On this point you stand absolutely wrong!!
We are speaking of "the Christian walk." Where did I say that a Christian, in his Christian walk sins continuously? Why do you continuously misrepresent what I say? The passage is Romans 7 Paul describe a continuous battle between his old nature and his new nature. Sometimes he doesn't win that battle.
Yes, it is true that when one sins they walk after the flesh.
Since no one is sinless, no one can walk after the Spirit all the time.
Why do you need to understand this.
The Lord knows them that are his. That is what is important.
We are to minister to each one's spiritual need as we discern what they are. Everyone is different.
It is not yours to make blanket judgments upon people.
- Status