Theoretical sinlessness

[glfredrick]

Here is one Jewish teacher that might disagree with you:


Philippians 3:5-6

King James Version (KJV)

5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.


Of course, it could be argued that he was not a teacher, though I would not.

Biblicist makes an indisputable point, inflection aside: there is none good...among men.

That "In essence Jesus is saying that you cannot enter the kingdom based on works, for no one can be perfect in their works" is also implied is true, but it does not make the point made one that can be contradicted with an additional truth.

That is precisely what I have been arguing... It would be helpful if you took a bit more care in reading posts before you respond, or are you looking for a fight for the sake of the fight?

 

[Darrell C]

That is precisely what I have been arguing... It would be helpful if you took a bit more care in reading posts before you respond, or are you looking for a fight for the sake of the fight?

lol...ease up GLFredrick.

I know what you stated, I did indeed read the posts with care. And I disagreed with your assessment of Biblicists's post.

I have been in agreement with many of your posts (with the exception of the one in "The Word" thread...lol).

I actually stated my agreement, if I remember correctly, that the statement you made I agreed with as well.

I do not "look for fights," but am not afraid to debate, either.

Even if we might be in agreement in most things...lol.

God bless.

 

[Winman]

Was Paul contradicting Jesus? Was salvation earned by a Jew, but a gift for a Gentile? Two different types of salvation?

Jesus was fully man but He was also fully God. It sounds like you are saying Jesus was in every way like us.

Amy, it is no great victory for God to defeat Satan. God had to become a man and defeat Satan as a man. He had to represent us. He had to be like us. And this is exactly what the scriptures teach in Heb 2:16-18, Heb 4:15. To deny this is to deny Jesus came in the flesh as warned against in 1 Jn 4:1-3. It is error to teach that Jesus was different from us. Yes, he is very God, but he emptied himself of these attributes when he was made flesh.

Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

He did not perform miracles until after the Holy Spirit descended on him. This is how he performed his miracles, just as Peter, Paul and the other disciples did. Jesus only did that which his Father told him to do, and was enabled by the Holy Spirit to do, as the apostles did.

It is error to believe that Jesus did not live just as a man can do if he will be obedient to God. But Jesus was the only man who has ever, or ever will be perfectly obedient to God.

When Jesus said with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible, he was saying no man can live perfectly in his own power, but if he lives in complete faith and obedience to God, all things are possible. This is how the prophets and apostles performed miracles.

 

[Winman]

Whenever I hear a Christian loudly proclaim that they sin, I wonder if there is ANY sin that they gave up, not sins they never committed, but sins they actually gave up.

What would you wonder if I loudly proclaimed I never sin?

I try not to sin, but sometimes I still do.

How about you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus is clearly denying what the young man is asserting! The man is asserting he is intrinsically good by nature and therefore he can do something to obtain eternal life. - Jesus denies this

He is asserting he has kept all the commandments from his youth up. - Jesus denies this but admits that being "perfect" is what is required.

The problem is making the young man see he is not instrinsically good by nature and has not kept the law from his youth up.

Christ's solution to confront the young man with this reality is to move the argument from DOCTRINAL to a PRACTICAL demonstration that he is not instrinscially good by nature and has not really kept the commandments from youth up.

How? By making him DEMONSTRATE it by forcing him to making a decision that would expose his true condition.

Sell everything - would require complete love for God and absolute trust in God for sustance

Give to the poor - would require complete self-denial and love for his neighbor as he loves himself

Come and follow me - would require complete trust in Christ and a complete death to self life!

Isn't this the DEMONSTRATABLE application of the two Great Commandments which summarize the whole Law of God????

I believe that my assessment above is irrefutable if honesty is the criteria for determining it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AMY: Nowhere does the bible say or imply we can be, theoretically or otherwise, saved by works.

HP: No one that I am aware of states any can be 'saved' by works. One would not require salvation to enter into eternal life with God if in fact they obeyed His laws and commandments from the first light of moral agency on. The same would have applied to Adam and Eve IF they would have continued in obedience. They would not have needed salvation to simply continue to walk with God until God chose to remove them from this temporal earth.

That possibility of continued obedience could well be the case with both Enoch and Elijah, who did not see death for God simply took them home to be with Him. By no means would I require anyone to accept my theory on those two, neither will I call you a heretic or treat you as being outside the faith because we might disagree.:thumbs:

I personally feel that it is clearly within the framework of logical and Scriptural possibilities, and no other theory as to their flight from this world without seeing physical death has made any sense to my mind anyway.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Winman: No, don't kid around, I take these issues very seriously.

HP: So do I, but a little humor won't hurt either of us and in fact may help us retain our sanity among some we rub shoulders with.

Winman: I don't understand what you mean by this dispensation, please explain.

HP: The OT being one and the NT being another. Christ and others made comments that may only apply to those living in one era as opposed to the other. While some may have in fact lived righteous before God from first light of moral agency until God took them, it is certainly not the case for those living in the NT era. God calls all men everywhere in the NT to repentance.

Winman: I can tell you right now that I believe the scriptures teach that 100% of men who have or will ever live will sin, except of course Jesus.

I do not believe in sinless perfection whatsoever.

HP: You are certainly entitled to your ideas on that point. As I have stated, the only 'possible' exceptions in my own mind are Enoch and Elijah and Christ of course. God certainly dealt with the homecoming of Enoch and Elijah in manners not in keeping with the physical death of all others, the rapture aside.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: No one that I am aware of states any can be 'saved' by works. One would not require salvation to enter into eternal life with God if in fact they obeyed His laws and commandments from the first light of moral agency on. The same would have applied to Adam and Eve IF they would have continued in obedience. They would not have needed salvation to simply continue to walk with God until God chose to remove them from this temporal earth.

That possibility of continued obedience could well be the case with both Enoch and Elijah, who did not see death for God simply took them home to be with Him. By no means would I require anyone to accept my theory on those two, neither will I call you a heretic or treat you as being outside the faith because we might disagree.:thumbs:

I personally feel that it is clearly within the framework of logical and Scriptural possibilities, and no other theory as to their flight from this world without seeing physical death has made any sense to my mind anyway.

First, the scriptures do not explicitly state anywhere that it is theoretically possible to obtain eternal life by law keeping

Second, You demand that this is theoretically possible based upon the very ASSUMPTION that Christ and Paul repudiate is true. You infer it is theoretically possible because you believe man is intrinsically good by nature.

Third, The very ASSUMPTION upon which you infer that to be theoretically possible is precisely what Christ and Paul explicitly repudiate:

"There IS NONE good but ONE and that is God" "with man it is IMPOSSIBLE"

"There IS NONE good, no, NOT ONE"

Since the bible repudiates the intrinsic goodness of human nature it repudiates the possible inference that theoretically man can obtain eternal life by law confirming his goodness.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe that my assessment above is irrefutable if honesty is the criteria for determining it.

I believe that someone who is delusional cannot rightly judge what is intellectually honest and what is not. Your following statement is a perfect example of what I am speaking of:

Indeed, Christ said it was not possible but "IMPOSSIBLE."

So when the Lord Jesus said the following to the rich man He was telling him that it is impossible to enter into life by keeping the commandments?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

All you do is prove that you are able to delude yourself into believing the most ridiculous things!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry, it shows clear deception. There will be a lot of that in the end times. I for one believe we are knocking on that door.

 

[Moriah]

What would you wonder if I loudly proclaimed I never sin?

I try not to sin, but sometimes I still do.

How about you?

Just like I said, "Whenever I hear a Christian loudly proclaim that they sin, I wonder if there is ANY sin that they gave up, not sins they never committed, but sins they actually gave up."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sounds to me like some may have been only trying to obtain fire insurance, not salvation from sin.

 

[Winman]

Just like I said, "Whenever I hear a Christian loudly proclaim that they sin, I wonder if there is ANY sin that they gave up, not sins they never committed, but sins they actually gave up."

Nice attempt at evasion. Once again, what would you wonder about me if I loudly proclaimed that I never sin?

Please answer that question.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Wiman: Nice attempt at evasion. Once again, what would you wonder about me if I loudly proclaimed that I never sin?

HP: I personally have only met one man in my life that publically claimed he walked so close to God that he did not sin. I never heard one person that knew that man take him to task or suggest he was deceived that knew that godly man personally. He certainly walked with God from every outward appearance. I fully expect to see him close to his Lord in the resurrection.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that someone who is delusional cannot rightly judge what is intellectually honest and what is not. Your following statement is a perfect example of what I am speaking of:

So when the Lord Jesus said the following to the rich man He was telling him that it is impossible to enter into life by keeping the commandments?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

All you do is prove that you are able to delude yourself into believing the most ridiculous things!

Your real good at insulting people but not too good at anything else.

You simply dodged the problem I put before you!

You have to INFER it is theoretically possible to live above sin because Christ does not say so explicitly. However, he does repudiate such an inference does so explicitly "There is NONE good but one and that is God."

 

[David Lamb]

Nice attempt at evasion. Once again, what would you wonder about me if I loudly proclaimed that I never sin?

Please answer that question.

I know this was only a "what if?" situation - you (Winman) don't loudly proclaim that you never sin, but if you did, those very words would be examples of such sins as boasting and lying!

No one can proclaim (loudly or quietly, it makes no difference): "I never sin," without sinning by doing so.

 

[convicted1]

Jerry, HP and others on this forum actually believe that all men can POTENTIALLY obtain eternal life by keeping the Law.

They use the Lawyer and rich young ruler examples to prove this is a POTENTIAL possibility even though they claim this potential is THEORETICALLY possible but never actually possible.

However, this theory is not only actually impossible (as they admit) but it is also potentially impossible (which they do not admit).

1. In both contexts there is no recognition of sinfulness by either party.

2. In both contexts there is no recognition of Christ as Savior

3. In both contexts there is no recognition of any need to be saved.

4. In both contexts they presume they can keep the law for eternal life

These four factors characterize every single example they use to prove THEORETICAL sinlessness = justification of eternal life by law keeping.

So, how do you deal with people who do not acknowledge they are sinners, they do not acknowledge Christ as Savior or any need to be saved but presume they can keep the law for eternal life? You send them to the Law to teach them what they are completely ignorant and deceived about - the knowledge of sin and their own sinfulness! You let them beat their head upon that inpentrable wall of sinless perfection.



How the Lord dealt with the rich young ruler PROVES that Christ did not bellieve in THEORETICAL justification under the law.


A. The PRESUMPTION OF INHERENT GOODNESS AND ABILITY TO KEEP THE LAW BY THE RICH YOUNG RULER:

Mt. 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Mt. 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21

1. He claimed to be EQUALLY inheritantly good as Christ - "good Master....good thing shall I do"

2. He claimed ability to "do" what is sufficiently "good" to obtain eternal life.

3. He claimed goodness equal to all the laws demands from his youth up "all these things have I done"

4. He never acknowledged sinfulness

5. He never acknowledge Christ as Savor

6. He never acknowledge any need to be saved.


B. CHRIST'S RESPONSE:

Mt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:

Mt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,

1. Christ denies there is anyone inherently "good" but God - hence, there are none who can THEORETICALLY be justified by law because first one must be POTENTIALLY or THEORETICALLY good to be THEORETICALLY justified by the law as good.

2. Christ understood His assertion to have kept "all" the law as the claim to be "perfect" in his own eyes and therefore put his self-perception to the test by demanding he sell all that he has and give to the poor and follow Christ to demonstrate his claim of sinless perfection of law keeping!

3. Christ denies there is anyone inherently good but ONE - hence, infants are not born inherently good by nature.


There is only one possible way to deal with any human being who:

1. Acknowledges no recognition of sinfulness.

2. Acknowledges no recognition of Christ as Savior

3. Acknowledges no recognition of any need to be saved.

4. Presumes they are inherently and sufficiently good

5. Presumes they have and can keep the Law good enough to inherit eteral life

6. Rejects Christ's claim that there is NONE good but ONE - God

You direct them to the Law and tell them this is what is required to do what you presume you can do and are asking to do.

The scriptures clearly teach there is no theoretical possibility to obtain eternal life by law keeping EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF A LOST SELF-RIGHTEOUS HERETIC!

".....for IF there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." - Gal. 3:21


The Apostles "if" denies potentiallity!

If the Law could give eternal life, then Christ died in vain.

Gal. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


Gal. 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


When Jesus fulfilled the works of the cross, it was "Out with the Old, and in with the New".

 

[Winman]

I know this was only a "what if?" situation - you (Winman) don't loudly proclaim that you never sin, but if you did, those very words would be examples of such sins as boasting and lying!

No one can proclaim (loudly or quietly, it makes no difference): "I never sin," without sinning by doing so.

Exactly. So this fellow who is new here on BB and doesn't know me is going to find fault no matter what I say.

We already have a regular member here who thinks he never sins, but welcome to BB Moriah, there is always room for one more hypocrite.

 

[Rippon]

HP: I personally have only met one man in my life that publically claimed he walked so close to God that he did not sin. I never heard one person that knew that man take him to task or suggest he was deceived that knew that godly man personally. He certainly walked with God from every outward appearance. I fully expect to see him close to his Lord in the resurrection.

A public proclamation that he walked so close to God that he did not sin. And that was the clincher --his proclamation. In-credible --that is,not credible. It is downright sinful.

John Wesley said he thought his friend and fellow-laborer John Fletcher fit the bill. But Fletcher knew better. Fletcher was godly,not sinless. The moment anyone would dare to say they were sinless --I would think of that person as rather wretched.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon, just curious. What was John Fletcher's testimony? What was his comment(s) concerning Wesley's supposed remark concerning him?

What about God? Was He lying or confused about His remarks concerning his servant Job?

Job: 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?


What about Scriptures testimony of Zacharius and Elizabeth?

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The point is not if one of these mentioned had never sinned, but there obviously was a period of time they did not sin, not according to myself, but according to God's Word.