With regard to justification

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Mere men, sinless or not, have any innate ability to forgive the sins of others nor pay for any of their own. Where in the world do you come up with the notion that they could forgive sins if they themselves were sinless?

Amy: I got that notion from you!

HP: If I have not been clear on this point, I may well need to be more careful how I state my beliefs. You have to know that Christ was not a mere man but fully God and fully man. If Christ was not God, He had no power to forgive sins. ONLY GOD has the power to forgive sins, yet another proof of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Amy: Why do you think God Himself had to be our Savior???? Could it be because only He is sinless? There is no other that is qualified. The Lamb of God had to be spotless. Only Christ is spotless.

HP: Not only did He have to be spotless, he had to be God. God had to give of Himself to be a sacrifice for our sins. There are two not one aspects involved in the qualifications and abilities for Christ’s atonement to satisfy the debt of sin owed to the Law of God. He was God and he was spotless even in His humanity.

Amy: I suppose you also believe in the sinless perfection of Mary?

HP: No, I do NOT believe in the sinless perfection of Mary. It is not because I have proof of any sin, but because Scripture does not grant to us that information.






Quote:
HP: Regardless of the clear testimony of God concerning a few in the OT dispensation, all in our dispensation are sinners and in need of a Savior. Ac 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Amy: So in OT times, men were able to achieve sinlessness, never to sin even once in their lifetimes, but human nature changed when Christ brought in the New Covenant and men cannot be sinless now.

HP: First, human nature in and of itself is not sinful. It indeed is laced with a proclivity to sin via the fall and the subsequent depravity of the physical propensities, but that serves as an occasion to sin and is not sin in and of itself.
All men have had the ‘possibility’ exist that they could do something other than what they have done, but Scripture is clear. All in this dispensation that have reached the age of accountability have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is not than men theoretically could not be sinless now but that none are or will.

When you make all sinners from birth, there is but one logical outcome. They are sinners by necessity. If sinners by necessity, they may be pitied but never blamed or punished for a state they had absolutely no choice in. God blames and punishes men for their sin. God is Just and punishes sinful man. I can only conclude that man is a sinner by choice and not by necessity. You of course are free in this world to believe as you so desire. We need to both to consider the fact that beliefs either do or will have consequences. Be certain you are right.

Amy: Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

HP: If you are going to say that all means all, then all of necessity would include the man Christ Jesus. I know you do not believe that so I am merely pointing out that all does not always mean all inclusive of everyone that has ever been born. The verse in Romans is speaking to that dispensation in that all alive under the sounds of his voice, and all are yet to come, would sin and as such be denoted as sinners in need of the gospel.

IF, I repeat IF, any besides Christ lived sinless lives, they would certainly be the far exception and not the rule. I see only two distinct possibilities inScripture,that being Enoch and Elijah for they did not see death as we know it. I make no hard doctrine out of those two, but I do know “the POSSIBITY has to exist,” without which sin is again the results of necessity and as such outside of the realm of moral blame and punishment.

Amy: 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

I guess Jesus didn't die for the sins of Zacharias, since he didn't have any.

HP: Jesus died for all sins. “IF” any man or women lived without sin there was no need for a sacrifice in their cases.

Amy, again, IF sin is necessitated from birth, sin is not a moral issue and is a product of necessity as opposed to choice. If sin is a matter of necessity, no moral blame or punishment can justly be attached to it. The fact that God blames and punishes man for his sin shows clearly that man could have done something other than what he did under the very same set of circumstances, and that sin is indeed a matter of freedom and choice as opposed to necessity.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: HP, I want to make sure that I understand what you're arguing here. Correct me, of course, if I've misunderstood.

If I understand you, you are not saying that there are some who have led sinless lives.

HP: I say that that distinct possibility exists. I see Enoch and Elijah two such possibilities.

TB: Are you saying that there are some who have reached the point of sanctification where they no longer sin?

HP:WITH the proffered help of the Holy Spirit, yes I believe that a sanctified man or women can walk pure and holy before God. I believe I have had the great privilege of meeting a few of those individuals in my life. I might add that I have only known ONE man that testified clearly to living and walking before God depending daily on the Holy Spirit for help and strength to live sinless from the point of his sanctification. I never knew one person that knew this man intimately that stated any doubt as to his personal testimony of the power of God to keep him daily walking above sin. Others I have known and read about may not have personally stated they lived without sin, but their lives testified to the fact of the closeness of their walk with God. God will indeed be the final judge.

TB: Are you saying that righteous, blameless and sinless are synonymous?

HP: Give me a context or parameters you are speaking within. IF you are speaking of moral beings, I would say that clearly they are very closely related. One cannot be sinless and not be righteous, and if one is righteous they are indeed blameless. I may not be following your specific train of thought. You may have to elaborate.

TB: If yes, what are the implications regarding justification and imputed righteousness?

HP: The implications are that God has imputed his righteousness to us on behalf of sins that are past IF one has fulfilled the conditions of repentance and faith. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

TB: Are you saying that one may reach a point where he no longer must appeal to Christ's righteousness, and no longer needs it because he has achieved his own righteousness?

HP: One will always need to appeal to the righteousness of Christ for sins that are past, and will have to appeal to it again if one sins in the future. If you are asking if it is impossible to do righteousness with the help of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation, I would say absolutely not. If you are asking if one can, subsequent to entire sanctification live without sin as one daily, moment by moment avails themselves to the help of the Holy Spirit, I would say to believe otherwise would be to deny the power of God in the lives of those living and walking in obedience to God. I believe that the promise of God is indeed true Tom. 1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

I might add that I also believe that an individual entiely sanctified, COULD sin and become guilty before God in the end. Entire sanctification does not make sin an impossibility in this world. A sanctified individual needs to continue in sanctification to remain as such. That takes total dependance upon the help proferred by God, moment by moment.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

No man that lives above sin can be said to do it apart from the help of God. Adam had the guidance and help of the God Himself as he walked sinless before God. The angels in heaven that have not fallen have the help afforded them by God. IF ANY MORAL BEING EVER LIVES SINLESS FOR A MOMENT IT IS NOT APART FROM THE HELP OF GOD. No moral being apart from God Himself has anything to boast about if they are walking sinless before God, nor can it be imagined that they do not need the help of God to walk holy before Him. Without God no moral being would have any motivation, in and of themselves, apart from their Creator God, to act in a holy manner. There is NO boasting in righteous behavior period by any but God Himself!

When Adam walked with God he could not boast in his walk. The angels that live holy before God cannot boast in their holiness. To act as if though one walking holy before God could somehow be boasting of such a walk is simply preposterously absurd. To deny that one can walk as holy as God says that one can due to the belief that such a walk might or would promote boasting in the flesh, is sheer folly. Such belief has a show of humility but denies the power of God and the validity of His promises.

 

[Tom Butler]

HP:, thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.

You asked for context to my question if righteous, blameless and sinless were synonymous. The context is from the scripture verses which describe some as righteous, as blameless. I gather from the other answers you gave that in some instances, the answer could be yes. So that begs the question, are there some instances where blameless and righteous are not necessarily synonymous with sinless?

 

[Alive in Christ]

HP...

"HP:WITH the proffered help of the Holy Spirit, yes I believe that a sanctified man or women can walk pure and holy before God. I believe I have had the great privilege of meeting a few of those individuals in my life. I might add that I have only known ONE man that testified clearly to living and walking before God depending daily on the Holy Spirit for help and strength to live sinless from the point of his sanctification."

I believe that man is SUPREMELY decieved. As a matter of fact, he is sinning in making that statement, since the scriptures declare clearly that...

"there is none rightious, no not one".

Man at his best is as filthy rags.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HP...



I believe that man is SUPREMELY decieved. As a matter of fact, he is sinning in making that statement, since the scriptures declare clearly that...



Man at his best is as filthy rags.

I'm not disagree with the position that questions whether man can ever live perfectly while in this body of sin in this sinful world. However, your argument doesn't follow based on the quote of HP or the scripture you used to contest it. Certainly the verse you quote speaks of unregenerate man. HP is speaking of regenerate man guided by the Holy Spirit. Apples and organges. Quote a verse that shows that a regenerate man is incapable of living rightly and without sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: You asked for context to my question if righteous, blameless and sinless were synonymous. The context is from the scripture verses which describe some as righteous, as blameless. I gather from the other answers you gave that in some instances, the answer could be yes. So that begs the question, are there some instances where blameless and righteous are not necessarily synonymous with sinless?

HP: I cannot think of any when the passage speaks of moral agents. If one is a moral agent and blameless, they of necessity would have to be righteous. If one is righteous, one would have to be blameless, for righteousness only would apply to moral agents.

There are no neutral states for moral agents, except for theoretically at the onset of moral agency and before the first moral choice has been made. Subsequent to moral agency and ones first moral choice, one is sinful or they are righteous. Either one is blameless or blameworthy. Either one is sinful or they are holy. I can see where from our finite perspective we may have difficulty for a while discerning the moral state of our actions. Scripture indicates that God knows our heart better than we. We may have to do some serious soul searching in this present world, and seek God to clarify some issues we might be dealing with, but in the end God will show us His will for our lives if we have a heart set on God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Alive in Christ:
I believe that man is SUPREMELY decieved. As a matter of fact, he is sinning in making that statement, since the scriptures declare clearly that...
Quote:
"there is none rightious, no not one".

HP: You are exhibiting a bad case of tunnel vision. Here you take a verse and pit it against dozens and dozens of passages speaking clearly of the righteous and the distinct possibility of others becoming righteous, and God's commands for all to be righteous and holy, without which no man shall see God.

Here is a ‘suggested’ exercise for you. Take a piece of paper and form two columns on it. Do a word search on the word ‘righteous.’ Make a notation in the first column of every verse that states there are none righteous or that it is impossible for man to be righteous. In the second column make a list of all those Scripture refers clearly to men as righteous or clearly suggests that they can be. Report to us your findings.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Is it possible for man to be without sin, to have no sins to their charge? If not why not and if it is possible, is such a man properly denoted as righteous?

 

[Amy.G]

There are no neutral states for moral agents, except for theoretically at the onset of moral agency and before the first moral choice has been made. Subsequent to moral agency and ones first moral choice, one is sinful or they are righteous. Either one is blameless or blameworthy. Either one is sinful or they are holy. I can see where from our finite perspective we may have difficulty for a while discerning the moral state of our actions.

What??????


2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy, if you honestly desire interaction on the issue, you are going to have to take a different approach with your comments.

 

[Gup20]

HP: Mere men, sinless or not, have any innate ability to forgive the sins of others nor pay for any of their own. Where in the world do you come up with the notion that they could forgive sins if they themselves were sinless?

I wouldn't rush to this conclusion, HP. If by one's man's sin, Adam, death is passed to all, then by one man's righteousness, life (justification) can also be passed. Adam was "just a man" yet the consequences of his sin are felt by all. Therefore, it stands to reason that by one MAN's righteousness, the consequences of that righteousness (life) can also be passed.

Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

​

Notice how Jesus appeals to his humanity here, rather than his diety, calling himself the "son of man". Also keep in mind, this healing miracle came BEFORE Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Therefore, it stands to reason the healing Jesus offered was because of his righteousness.

HP: I will let God condemn them if He so desires, but there is not the least ground to stand on, by what is granted to us in Scripture, that either was guilty of sin. If we make it in we will have ample opportunity to ask both them and God. Here again is God’s own testimony of both him and his wife. Lu 1:6 “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

The "commandments and ordinances" did not include the words which would decades later be uttered by Jesus - that to look on a woman with lust was adultery and have hatred in one's heart is murder. Do you think Zacharias was blameless by the standard of works (the law) or by the standard of faith (the heart)?

HP: You cannot have sin and be blameless, walking in all the commandments and even the ordinances of God at one and the same time.

I can go hours without sinning. Does this mean I am not a sinner during those hours? Or am I a sinner walking blameless for those hours? If Zacharias and his wife had ever committed a sin, they were sinners. Are you willing to state that they never, ever sinned - not even once?

Your heart cannot be right and blameless before God while harboring sin.

I don't think Luke tells us if their hearts were blameless, only that they followed the law.

I do agree with others who have posted here, such as Tom Buttler. How do you square the statements of Luke 1:6 with verses such as:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
​

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: Mere men, sinless or not, have any innate ability to forgive the sins of others nor pay for any of their own. Where in the world do you come up with the notion that they could forgive sins if they themselves were sinless?


HP: Sorry Gup. My mistake in allowing this to slip past my editing. It should have read, “Mere men, sinless or not, ‘do not’ have any innate ability to forgive the sins of others nor pay for any of their own.”

Gup: I wouldn't rush to this conclusion, HP. If by one's man's sin, Adam, death is passed to all, then by one man's righteousness, life (justification) can also be passed. Adam was "just a man" yet the consequences of his sin are felt by all. Therefore, it stands to reason that by one MAN's righteousness, the consequences of that righteousness (life) can also be passed.

HP: God alone has the ability to set aside the demands of the law. If Jesus was not God He would have no power to forgive sins either. Do you really desire to be seen refuting this?

Gup: Notice how Jesus appeals to his humanity here, rather than his diety, calling himself the "son of man". Also keep in mind, this healing miracle came BEFORE Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Therefore, it stands to reason the healing Jesus offered was because of his righteousness.

HP: Jesus was righteous but His ability to forgive sins was Divine. No one besides Christ ever forgave men their sins. Christ did delegate some miracles to other men, but again no one but God has the right or ability to forgive men their sins. If there was ever a conclusion to rush to it would be this one.
Quote:
HP: I will let God condemn them if He so desires, but there is not the least ground to stand on, by what is granted to us in Scripture, that either was guilty of sin. If we make it in we will have ample opportunity to ask both them and God. Here again is God’s own testimony of both him and his wife. Lu 1:6 “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Gup: The "commandments and ordinances" did not include the words which would decades later be uttered by Jesus - that to look on a woman with lust was adultery and have hatred in one's heart is murder. Do you think Zacharias was blameless by the standard of works (the law) or by the standard of faith (the heart)?

HP: Gup I did not make the statement concerning them. It was God. Ask him. God knew what He was speaking about and I simply accept it as written. If God says that I am righteous and blameless, that is good enough for me. God had no issues with them in the least. They were chosen and accepted vessels.

Do you desire to find fault with them? Go ahead, but you may be told to apologize one day by God Himself, much as the false accusers of Job were told to do. As for me, I will just believe God and accept His testimony of them.

Quote:
HP: You cannot have sin and be blameless, walking in all the commandments and even the ordinances of God at one and the same time.

Gup: I can go hours without sinning. Does this mean I am not a sinner during those hours? Or am I a sinner walking blameless for those hours?

HP: If you have sin in your life for which you have not repented, you are not blameless regardless of how long you go without committing another sin.

Gup: If Zacharias and his wife had ever committed a sin, they were sinners. Are you willing to state that they never, ever sinned - not even once?

HP: Do you think I am God? You are asking me, a mere finite man, to pass judgment upon two individuals that only God knew their heart, and to which He has already made His judgment and written it in His Word. Why will not you be satisfied with the Words of God Himself? Shall I usurp the Word of God? No thanks.

Quote:
HP: Your heart cannot be right and blameless before God while harboring sin.

Gup: I don't think Luke tells us if their hearts were blameless, only that they followed the law.

HP: Read it again. Does ‘blameless mean blameless or are you going to tell us the translation is in error? Lu 1:6 “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS.”

Gup: I do agree with others who have posted here, such as Tom Buttler. How do you square the statements of Luke 1:6 with verses such as:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

HP: Christ was a man and He did not sin. Two others in the OT did not see death, and there is absolutely no indication that either of them sinned.

Gup: Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

HP: The same applies as written concerning the last passage.

Gup: Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

HP: There are multitudes of passages speaking about the righteous. I explained this in a recent post so I will not reiterate it now.

Gup; Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

HP: Tell me who the ’every one of them’ are. It is good to know that you must believe one can ‘go back’ or backslide as this is indeed a Scriptural principle. All are not filthy as stated by God on several occasions. Many are righteous and do good again as testified by God concerning them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gup brings up Ps 53 as if though it was a universal statement of the sinfulness of all men. He apparently uses it as a proof text in support of original sin. The question is, is it?
Notice that in Psalms 53 he makes this comment. Ps 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.
This Psalm is very much like Psalms 58 that is often used as a proof text to support original sin, but the fact is that he is pitting one group of people against the other, i.e., the sinful and wicked against the righteous. Psalm 53 is almost a mirror of psalms 14. Listen to verse 5 of that Psalm. Ps 14:5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Let me ask you Gup, who were the generation of the righteous the author of the Psalm spoke about? If all are gone astray, all are corrupt and none that doeth good in some universal sense, what is this about the ‘generation of the righteous?’

Here again it is obvious to me those supporting the Augustinian dogma of original sin are more interested in finding a proof text to support their presupposition of original sin than honestly trying to discern the context in which it is written and the true sentiments being expressed by the author. Every verse they light on is automatically made to walk on all four legs to the drumbeat of original sin in spite of the context to the contrary.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Amy: Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

: If you are going to say that all means all, then all of necessity would include the man Christ Jesus.

Ok - all except Jesus. :smilewinkgrin:

Just like John 12:32 "I will draw all unto Me".

:godisgood:
in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: First, human nature in and of itself is not sinful. It indeed is laced with a proclivity to sin via the fall and the subsequent depravity of the physical propensities, but that serves as an occasion to sin and is not sin in and of itself.

Hi HP.

In your view - is that proclivity to sin that is in ALL as you say - what Paul describes in Romans 3 with his statements on "None righteous no not one"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Why does Paul emphasis doing good? So we come to faith

In the case above - you have to have already come to faith - to have done the good that is listed there.

In Matt 7 it is not the evil tree that "does good and then becomes a good tree". It is the good tree that does good -- and the evil tree does bad.

First comes the New Birth - born again "All things become new" 2Cor 5 so that the saint walk from then on by faith not by sight.

For the evil - or the bad tree - there is only one choice -- choose you this day whom you will serve. Respond to the John 12:32 supernatural "drawing of ALL" .

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Ok - all except Jesus. :smilewinkgrin:

Just like John 12:32 "I will draw all unto Me".

In regard to Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
This verse brings up another interesting twist to Romans 3:23...What of the mentally handicapped...I have an uncle and aunt that are mentally handicapped and require 24 hour care. They are incapable to comprehend and reason with...do they, by no fault of their own, fall short of the glory of God, by being sinners? I pray not.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Hi HP.

In your view - is that proclivity to sin that is in ALL as you say - what Paul describes in Romans 3 with his statements on "None righteous no not one"??

in Christ,

Bob

There is none righteous because all have a sin nature, something HP doesn't accept.

Good to see you back Bob.

 

[Gup20]

HP: God alone has the ability to set aside the demands of the law. If Jesus was not God He would have no power to forgive sins either. Do you really desire to be seen refuting this?

If Jesus says there is no difference between telling someone to "arise and walk" or to say "your sins are forgiven", and then Jesus gives his disciples power to heal all diseases, could it not be argued that Jesus has delegated this part of his authority to his disciples?

Mar 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

Luk 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
​

HP: Jesus was righteous but His ability to forgive sins was Divine.

HP, I agree with you. We have no authority in an of ourselves. Any authority we do have is because of, and directly from, Jesus. It is because he lives in us and is with us that we can do anything in his name.

No one besides Christ ever forgave men their sins. Christ did delegate some miracles to other men, but again no one but God has the right or ability to forgive men their sins.

If death is the judgment for sin, and disease is form of death, then the miracle of healing is essentially a form of forgiveness of sin.

HP: Gup I did not make the statement concerning them. It was God. Ask him. God knew what He was speaking about and I simply accept it as written. If God says that I am righteous and blameless, that is good enough for me. God had no issues with them in the least. They were chosen and accepted vessels.

Indeed I would be content to let it stand that "blameless" is synonymous with "sinless", except that I am also content to let "all" mean all (all have sinned), and I am content to let "none" mean none (none are good, no not one).

Do you desire to find fault with them? Go ahead, but you may be told to apologize one day by God Himself, much as the false accusers of Job were told to do. As for me, I will just believe God and accept His testimony of them.

What I desire is irrelevant. The Bible is true, so if it says all are sinners and none are good, I must interpret Luke 1:6 within this context.

HP: Christ was a man and He did not sin. Two others in the OT did not see death, and there is absolutely no indication that either of them sinned.

1Ki 19:4 But he (Elijah) himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I [am] not better than my fathers.

It is good to know that you must believe one can ‘go back’ or backslide as this is indeed a Scriptural principle.

I didn't say anything about this.