SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Exposing Bad Exposition: Answering Opposition to True Holiness

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
Forevidence
Member



Joined: 2004/7/29
Posts: 711
Riverside

 Exposing Bad Exposition: Answering Opposition to True Holiness

[b]This is a rebuttal to all those who misinterpret I John 1:8, and lay a stumbling block for saints on there way to entire sanctification....[/b]


[b]Exposing Bad Exposition:
Answering Opposition to True Holiness[/b]
[i]
By G.A. Jarquin[/i]

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Now some have labored long and hard to overthrow the saints’ holy faith by exclaiming that this passage of scripture is proof that a perfect sinless life is not possible on this green earth. I hope to refute and expose that faulty doctrine by making it plain and easy for all saints to understand this passage of scripture. It is true that there are many hard passages that seem to contradict a holy sinless life after conversion, but these are just that: seemingly hard passages. With a true and unbias look at scripture one is able to come to a conclusion that perfection is God’s heart for all His saints. This verse is one of those seemingly contradictory passages; however with the a brief view of context and proper scriptural exposition, such a fog and smoke screen that has been put up by the devil and mislead men will quickly vanquish as the light and the path of the Just grows brighter and brighter unto the perfect day.

I will begin by stating briefly the belief of those who misinterpret this scripture. Erroneously, some believe that this passage applies to believers always. In other words, that if a believer claims to have no sin, then he is deceived and the truth is not in him. This conclusion is drawn from the following:
1.) That the Greek language is in the present tense; therefore it must mean that we as saints still actively sin whether through indwelling or outward sins,
2.) That because John is the author, the Apostle John includes himself under the category of those who still do sin,
3.) Therefore, this scripture proves perfection to be impossible, and
4.) Anybody to claim they have no sin implies they are deceived.

Now all these statements have scriptural answers and rebuttals and I will get to that before this article is through, but first I want to exposit this text properly so that none are left in the dark and without a hope for a present deliverance from all sin including indwelling sin.

[b]Interpretation of the Verse[/b]

First to understand this verse one must look at the connection that John has just made with the previous verse which says, “1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

Note the end of the verse that states that when we are in the light as He is in the light, we are then able to fellowship with brethren of the household of God, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL SIN.

This is often overlooked by those who would try to use its proceeding verse as a stumbling block for those who are on the highway of holiness. The Apostle clearly taught that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL SIN, including indwelling and outward sins, all sin! So if the Apostle is stating that “we,” including himself, all presently sin, then the Apostle is not only in complete contradiction of his previous statement but also living in sin that very moment. This is a ridiculous conclusion to come to and one that would only be conceived in a heart that is not cleansed completely. If the Apostle John was stating that he too was in sin, then indwelling sin has become the inspiration of this text and not the Holy Ghost. Holy men wrote the Holy Scriptures! Not unholy prideful men struggling with sin who called themselves apostles. Such ministers would be ministers of so called righteousness, when they are nothing but devils in a false light. No the scripture says, “holy” men! Further, a blatant contradiction would be present if the “we” in these verses includes the person who claims to be cleansed. But not so; simply, the connection goes like this: "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, . . . the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
So the question is this: “Is the cleansed person that states ‘we’ actually cleansed or sinning?” Which one is it? John would have never written such a foolish and contradictory statement, and neither would the Holy Ghost. God makes no mistakes. Those who include John in this statement and believe he was in sin, bring down the Apostle to be an absurd writer. Only bad exposition can reduce John to such absurdity. It is like a medic telling all the people in the world that there is a medicine that cures all disease and then he himself is suffering of the same disease. No, the Apostle had experienced perfect love and holiness and could therefore speak of it. He had been cleansed by the blood of Jesus of both inward and outward sins.

So the question remains, “who is John talking about?” I believe that the “we” in the text is speaking of mankind: all those who have come from Adam and Eve. It is important to understand that one of the reasons John wrote this epistle was to come against the heretical teachings of the Gnostics of his day. One of their false teachings was that hey had never sinned. Sin was only a figment of imagination and sin only appeared upon the body but never really touched the soul and spirit. Therefore the soul was free from all pollutions of sin and its nature. Moreover, the Gnostics never really saw their need for a cleansing by the blood of the Lamb. Neither will any person who goes on thinking that they have never ever sinned. One who is like the Pharisees would never admit to committing any sin at all. This brings me to my next point.

Robertson’s Word Pictures correlates this verse in I John to a passage that the same author penned years before: “Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” (John 9:41). This word picture is the same word picture that John is using in this First epistle. The Pharisees would never confess their sin to Jesus therefore their sin remained! Some of them were like Paul in believing themselves blameless in light of the Law; therefore were strict in their useless works. They gave their alms, encompassed land and sea to make disciples, believed in the coming of the Messiah, preached, and did all things that seemed good. But their problem was that they had not internal righteousness: they did not have universal conformity to the perfect law of God inwardly. Some were deceived by this and so never sought to be justified by faith alone in prayer to God. The apostle is referring to these. He is talking about those who would never even consider themselves unworthy of coming before God. He spoke of those who looked straight into heaven without a bowing down in penitence; those who would not ever consider themselves sinners. Those are the self deceivers that John warns us against. But those who, like the Publican, were willing to beat their breast at their inward and outward sins, come to Jesus humbly, and confess their sins were cleansed from all sin and all unrighteousness. Precisely what our text in the proceeding verse: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). So not only is our sin pardoned but all unrighteousness is then cleansed, including what some would call indwelling sin. Praise God He does exceedingly far above all we ask or think!

The scripture here clearly states and eradicates the idea that one is able to cleansed from indwelling sin. The verse says that by His blood we are 1. Pardoned of all our sins, and 2. Sanctified by the cleansing of all unrighteousness from our hearts.

This clearly the Apostles intention, for he goes on to say later in the same epistle, that “he who has this hope in him, purifies himself as He is pure.” He also says that, “1Jn 3:5-7 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” What are we to believe but the plain truth of this text. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil which is sin; both and its inward and outward workings. In Him there is no sin, neither indwelling or outward, and the Apostle says that we should be deceived by no one, that he who does righteousness is as righteous as He is righteous, and how was Christ righteous, well He hand neither indwelling nor outward sins. This is our hope and great expectancy in this life, for sin to be rooted out in all its forms. Jesus was not just outwardly righteous as the hypocrites of his day, He was inwardly and outwardly righteous. Perfect righteousness as the one of Christ is what we are to have after we are pardoned and completely sanctified , for as verse 9 declares He cleanses us not only from all our sin, but ALL our unrighteousness, so we can be righteous as He is righteous. Glory!

The next verse states, “1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

This, as many commentators state, is the verse that explains verse 8; it comments on the idea in verse 8 that says, “If we say we have no sin.” Now obviously none could say that; none should dare say. If so, the truth is not in them and the blood cannot atone for them. The blood is not able to cleanse what we are not willing to confess when we come to Christ, but once it is confessed it can be cleansed and pardoned. God can go on to perfect the work in us by cleansing us from all unrighteousness.

The great deception the apostle is writing against is not the so called deception of living a sinless life after believing in Christ. Instead he seeks to destroy the delusion that a man before conversion never has had any sin or any transgression, and therefore has no need of a Savior. But we know that the scriptures have completely confined all men without Christ under sin.

If this is not the plain meaning of text then all the verses written are a contradiction. It is a contradiction to say that all men, especially saints, must confess they have indwelling, and sometimes outward, sin everyday so that the blood of Jesus cleanses those sins but can’t or doesn’t remove the unrighteousness. No, God is able to forgive all sins and remove all unrighteousness. Either we confess everyday to sinning or we confess everyday He is, and He is able to cleanse us from all unrighteousness! I would rather choose the latter: to believe God is able o remove all unrighteousness in my heart, mind, soul, and body. Such faith would not be beyond what the Bible says. Jesus Himself told me to be holy as He is holy. Not to mention that the Beloved Apostle wrote to us so that we sin not! ( I John 2:1). So which one is it? Did he write so that we continue to confess our sin to stay humble? Or did He write to us to not sin? It seems clear that from the rest of the scriptures in this epistle that he believes sin is of the devil and the Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil; that in Him there is not sin, and he who abides in Him does not sin!

Here are a few great men who believe and interpret verse 9 in the same way…
John Wesley in his book Plain Account of Christian Perfection wrote:
“But St. John himself says, 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves;' and, 'If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.'
"I answer, (1.) The tenth verse fixes the sense of the eighth: 'If we say we have no sin,' in the former, being explained by, 'If we say we have not sinned,' in the latter, verse. (2.) The point under consideration is not, whether we have or have not sinned heretofore; and neither of these verses asserts that we do sin, or commit sin now. (3.) The ninth verse explains both the eighth and tenth: 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.' As if he had said, 'I have before affirmed, The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.' And no man can say, 'I need it not; I have no sin to be cleansed, from.' 'If we say, we have no sin, that 'we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves,' and make God a liar: But 'if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just,' not only 'to forgive us our sins,' but also 'to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,' that we may 'go and sin no more.' In conformity, therefore, both to the doctrine of St. John, and the whole tenor of the New Testament, we fix this conclusion: A Christian is so far perfect, as not to commit sin.
"This is the glorious privilege of every Christian, yea, though he be but a babe in Christ. But it is only of grown Christians it can be affirmed, they are in such a sense perfect, as, Secondly, to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers. First, from evil or sinful thoughts. Indeed, whence should they spring? 'Out of the heart of man,' if at all, 'proceed evil thoughts.' If, therefore, the heart be no longer evil, then evil thoughts no longer proceed out of it: For 'a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.' -John Wesley
Adam Clarke also agreed in his Commentary of the Epistle of St. John and wrote the following:

“1Jn 1:8 -
If we say that we have no sin - This is tantamount to 1Jo_1:10 : If we say that we have not sinned. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; and therefore every man needs a Savior, such as Christ is. It is very likely that the heretics, against whose evil doctrines the apostle writes, denied that they had any sin, or needed any Savior. In deed, the Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the Aeon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews; and he, being but a common man, his sufferings and death had neither merit nor efficacy.
We deceive ourselves - By supposing that we have no guilt, no sinfulness, and consequently have no need of the blood of Christ as an atoning sacrifice: this is the most dreadful of all deceptions, as it leaves the soul under all the guilt and pollution of sin, exposed to hell, and utterly unfit for heaven.
The truth is not in us - We have no knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus, the whole of which is founded on this most awful truth - all have sinned, all are guilty, all are unholy; and none can redeem himself. Hence it is as necessary that Jesus Christ should become incarnated, and suffer and die to bring men to God.”-Adam Clarke

Charles Finney, a great advocate of sanctification, believed the same. In answering objections to perfection and sinless living in his Systematic Theology, stated:
“6. Another objection is founded upon 1Jo_1:8 : "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Upon this I remark:
(1.) Those who make this passage an objection to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, assume that the apostle is here speaking of sanctification instead of justification; whereas an honest examination of the passage, if I mistake not, will render it evident that the apostle makes no allusion here to sanctification, but is speaking solely of justification. A little attention to the connexion in which this verse stands will, I think, render this evident. But before I proceed to state what I understand to be the meaning of this passage, let us consider it in the connexion in which it stands, in the sense in which they understand it who quote it for the purpose of opposing the sentiment advocated in these lectures.
They understand the apostle as affirming, that, if we say we are in a state of entire sanctification and do not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Now if this were the apostle's meaning, he involves himself in this connexion in two flat contradictions.
(2.) This verse is immediately preceded by the assertion that the "blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." Now it would be very remarkable, if immediately after this assertion the apostle should mean to say, (as they suppose he did,) that it does not cleanse us from all sin, and if we say it does, we deceive ourselves; for he had just asserted, that the blood of Jesus Christ does cleanse us from all sin. If this were his meaning, it involves him in as palpable a contradiction as could be expressed.
(3.) This view of the subject then represents the apostle in the conclusion of the seventh verse, as saying, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; and in the eighth verse, as saying, that if we suppose ourselves to be cleansed from all sin, we deceive ourselves, thus flatly contradicting what he had just said. And in the ninth verse he goes on to say, that "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;" that is, the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin; but if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Now, all unrighteousness is sin. If we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, we are cleansed from sin. And now suppose a man should confess his sin, and God should in faithfulness and justice forgive his sin, and cleanse him from all unrighteousness, and then he should confess and profess that God had done this; are we to understand, that the apostle would then affirm that he deceives himself, in supposing that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin? But, as I have already said, I do not understand the apostle as affirming anything in respect to the present moral character of any one, but as speaking of the doctrine of justification.
This then appears to me to be the meaning of the whole passage. If we say that we are not sinners, that is, have no sin to need the blood of Christ; that we have never sinned, and consequently need no Saviour, we deceive ourselves. For we have sinned, and nothing but the blood of Christ cleanseth from sin, or procures our pardon and justification. And now, if we will not deny, but confess that we have sinned, "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." "But if we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and his word is not in us."



Finney summarized and defined what he believed the inspired author was saying in the last part of the verse. If that is not clear enough, I think John Fletcher paraphrased best when he said,

“…It appears that the text so dear to us, and so mistaken by our opponents, has this fair, Scriptural meaning: -- "If we [followers of Him who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance] say, We have no sin [no native depravity from our first parents, and no actual sin, at least no such sin as deserves God's wrath; fancying we need not secure a particular application of Christ's atoning and purifying blood] we deceive ourselves, and the truth [of repentance and faith] is not in us."

This statement is what I believe, the whole meaning of the text and nothing else. It is clear that John was not stating that a saints sins all the time, nor seven times a day, nor anything of the sort. Instead he is upholding the truth of the gospel within the doctrines of justification and entire sanctification as a true holiness preacher would. A true holiness preacher would uphold the standard of living without inward and outward sin. All the previously quoted preachers were men that preached holiness. They never interpreted this passage of scripture any other way. Only those that deny a complete victory over all sin use 1 John 1:8 to propagate their views to say that it is not possible to live without sin in this life.

There are many others who viewed this scripture verse the same way, but I will not continue to quote preacher after preacher since it is clear that: 1.) John would never contradict himself so clearly while writing holy scripture, 2.) Jesus blood is efficient enough to cleanse of all sin and eventually all unrighteousness, and 3.) Those who are deceiving themselves are those who will not confess their sin and come to Jesus for justification.

[b]Other Truths to Consider[/b]

If this scripture (verse 8 ) is understood to teach that Jesus just covers our sins and is not efficient to sanctify us inwardly in all parts, then you have trampled already on the blood of the everlasting covenant. It is to say that Jesus is presently here and able to heal all our diseases, but even as people go to reach out to Him to receive some virtue flowing from Him their sickness is only suspended outwardly and under their body lies festering poisonous viruses that will not be removed until they die. No, when God heals, He heals to the uttermost removing all leprosy, and when God saves He saves to the uttermost.

If this scripture (verse 8 ) definitely confines under indwelling sin, then what will cleanse all our sin? Death is not able to purify us, and get rid of the indwelling sin. According to the following verse it is the “blood of Jesus that cleanses us (presently) from all sins and all unrighteousness,”

To further clarify, the ‘we have no sin’ has a different meaning than what is normally understood. It does not at all imply the act of sin, but instead it is the idea of guilt when examining the original language. This knowledge throws in a new spin on the whole text. In light of this, the verse could be interpreted to say, those ‘who say they have no guilt are deceived and the truth is not in them.” This view is clearly seen through the Greek word picture that only John uses in his writings and can be found to be used by no one else is the New Testament. Daniel Steele better explains the text in the following exposition,

“Bishop Westcott, the great English scholar, whose commentary on this Epistle [of First John], on which he spent most of his life, takes rank with the commentaries of Bishop Lightfoot, as most thorough and exhaustive, exceeding even German accuracy, and used by German professors themselves -- this exegete proves beyond all contradiction that the phrase, "to have sin," used only in two other texts in the Bible (John 9:41,15:22, 24) [I have quoted 9:41 earlier, here is John 15:22 ‘If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.’ and John 15:24 ‘If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.’], and only in John's writings, always signifies, not a guiltless evil tendency, but guilt. "Like corresponding phrases, to have faith, to have life, to have grief, to have fellowship, it marks the presence of something which is not isolated, but a continuous source of influence. It is distinguished from 'to sin,' as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act itself." "To have sin" includes the idea of "Personal Guilt." Bengel says, "not to have sin denies guilt." With this light thrown upon the text, let us read it again: "If we say that we have no personal guilt at the present moment, although the blood of Jesus Christ has just this hour cleansed us from all sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." According to this, every testimony to the remission of the guilt of sin is a deception and a falsehood.”

That little bit of light changes the whole meaning of the text and not because we have added to it, but because a proper exegete shows that this is the true meaning of the author.

[b]Objections Answered[/b]

No matter what the objections to this doctrine of Christian Perfection are, and no matter which new ones come forth, it is plain to see that whatever might be designed by antinomians or whatever is constructed by mislead believers to make these passages say that this I Epistle of John is confining and restricting all under sin, we know (As I’ve previously discussed) that this is not so. To condescend and accept such a teaching would be to destroy the three legs that hold up this epistle: 1.) John’s purpose in writing the Epistle: “I write to you that ye sin not,” and against Antinomian heretics like Gnostics, 2.) to the context of chapter, and 3.) The pure and strict doctrine which he enforces in the rest of the Epistle which is mainly that light and darkness are separate, and that righteousness and sin are as far apart from each other as Jesus and Satan. But for the sake of clarity, let’s discuss some common objections.

“ All Greek Scholars state that this ‘we’ is in the present tense, therefore sin is in John and all believers through indwelling sin.” This is not true since I have quoted some scholars that do not believe that. “To have sin” is not an act of sin, but guilt. Guilt must be admitted by Pharisee, Publican, and any other type of sinner before he can come to Christ. If not their ‘sin’ or ‘guilt’ remains as Jesus stated in John 9:41. As I have already brought out, this clearly shown along with the very words of Jesus in the Greek word picture that is found only in two places in the New Testament: in John’s gospel and in his Epistle.

To further answer this good question, I would I would like to draw your attention the original language. Anyone that is familiar with Greek, would know that the ‘present tense’ in the Greek is not the same type of present tense we use in the English language. Actually, it is very different. It actually expresses a ‘present continuous’ action and not a single act. This would causes a huge problem since the rest of the epistle rebukes all continuous acts of sins, and according to this bad exegete, John would be saying “He who says he has no ‘present continual’ sin is deceived and the truth is not in him.” This is horrible, especially since he says to not be deceived, “he who does righteousness is a righteous as He is righteous, He who sins (continually) is of the devil!” This is utterly ridiculous as you can see. The present tense in fact brings more support to those who believe that verse 8 says “if we (continue to) say we have no sin (guilt) are deceived.”

Further, the word is not even a verb! What?!?! Most will say, that is right the word “αμαρτιαν266 N-ASF” is parced not as a verb but a noun. Now what does that mean? That means that the phrase “to have no sin” is a thing, and is describing not continual present acts of sin but instead it is describing a sin principal, indwelling sin, or the principal of guilt. This means that John, like all believers, is rightly expressing that he was guilty of crucifying the Lord of glory but not stating that he was indwelled by sin or committing sin outwardly. Truthfully, because we all have sinned in times past, and because of our sins it is that the Lord of Glory died. It was our fault! When there is a full acknowledgment of personal guilt, then the Lord cleanses from all sins and guilt, so that their no longer remains condemnation for those in Christ Jesus! We could and should say, ‘we all have guilt (to have sin)’ and remain without sinning that very moment. Which leaves room for the possibility in the rest of their lives to be without acts of sin. This many of the Greek scholars know, but will not point out to the public because of their bias. But praise God that the scripture is still God’s words not men’s!


“The Apostle John includes himself under category of those who still do sin.” This is absurd with such light that has been shed abroad on the subject already. John has not admitted to acts of sin, but instead the very opposite: that he is in perfect love and that he keeps all of God’s commandments. The only claim that can be rightly attributed to John by those who oppose this view is that John is admitting guilt of having sinned in times past, and not in the present. John was a holy man and would not live contrary to his own writings; He loved God with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength.

“This scripture proves perfection impossible.” This is not true since the premise is wrong. To say he was in acts of sin in verse 8 is incorrect. He said no such thing. In fact, he states the opposite throughout the whole epistle and is one of the strongest advocates of perfect holiness in the whole New Testament. He constantly talks about the perfect love that God gives and of the one we return to him. Love is that moral action of God towards all his creatures, and we can exemplify and be imitators of God in love.

“For anybody to claim they have no sin implies they are deceived.” This point also falls apart because it is based on a false premise that implies that John is in sin in verse 8. The only ones that are deceived are those who never admit their guilt and need for a suffering Savior to atone for their sins and unrighteousness. These types of people exist amongst us today. People like the Christian Scientist’s deny sin and original sin, thus deny the need for Jesus’ atoning blood and sacrifice. They deny that His blood is needed to cleanse us of sin, which to them does not exist. There are also many Jews and Pharisees that deny their guilt in the shedding of Jesus’ blood. They deny their guilt and wash their hands free of the blood of Jesus as if water were enough to cleanse. These will not be atoned for by His blood, and will not have all their unrighteousness removed unless they repent. Christians are not to be scared away by this fall understanding of verse 8. Instead they are to earnestly perfect their holiness, and then confess it boldly when it is accomplished in their souls, for it is as much a work of God as justification.


[b]The Motive of Misinterpretation[/b]

Why would anybody misinterpret these scriptures? I believe I have a few answers such a question which of none are fitting for anyone who call themselves a saint.
[b]
1. Ignorance[/b]- in the day that we are living in, we have many apostate teachers who go forth to discourage and poison the minds of sincere believers by propagating views they don’t even know where they originated from. Some sincere Christians hear the accusing words of ‘sinless perfection’ and they are repelled by it because many so called teachers preach a watered down sanctification message. Others don’t know what they are saying or have never really studied it out for themselves. Living a sinless life was taught by many saints throughout the world, and I believe is clearly taught in scripture. It comes down to ignorance of the ‘scriptures and of the very power of God.’

[b]2. Indwelling Sin[/b] –Most believers want to excuse sins that are in their hearts and minds. They know they are saved and justified but how to overcome such wretched filthiness within them they do not know or are falsely taught by so called leaders of their church. They struggle with thoughts of sin and begin to form carnal doctrines to accommodate their sin and state that sin is within us and will not be removed until we die. Those who know the workings and the power of the Holy Ghost would never quench or grieve Him by saying such things. Only the heart that is still not completely controlled by the Spirit can muster up such justifications and we will sin until we die. I believe that those who write such things are not writing under inspiration of the indwelling Holy Ghost, but under the gall of bitterness of indwelling sin still seeping through their members.


[b]3. Bad Hermeneutics[/b]- We so often interpret scriptures with bad hermeneutics (a harmonizing of scripture) and that is not always our fault but rather just a lack of study and diligence to look at what the whole counsel of God’s word says. We can see clearly that the rest of the word of God resists sin and stands for holiness. It is especially seen in this epistle. It is so clear that John never contradicts himself throughout the whole epistle. He clearly says that all sin, indwelling or outward, is of the devil, and must be dealt with by the all cleansing blood of the Lamb. The scriptures clearly teach that one sin can cut us off eternally from God and that if we are true children of God, it can destroy our fellowship with our Father in heaven, and eventually lead to perdition because there is a sin that leads unto death, but not all of sin does. We must with the utmost faith believe that He is able to save to the uttermost all who call upon Him. So many people have not come to Christ for this thorough cleansing because so called leaders out there misuse and misunderstand the scripture as in this case. Many have been deceived to think that inward and outward sin is tolerated by God. Many saints have had to live with the idea that there is no cure for their inward struggles and indwelling sin, but according to the word of God, there is.

[b]
Conclusion[/b]

Many have been deceived to think that inward and outward sin is tolerated by God. Many saints have had to live with the idea that there is no cure for their inward struggles and indwelling sin, but there is according to the word of God. When unbelievers and believers look at this verse, unbelievers are strengthened in their sins, and believers get too comfortable in their indwelling sin. God is calling us to be cleansed of all sin and all unrighteousness.

I would like to encourage all those who are defenders and diligent studiers of truth to really look into this verse for themselves and that they be more noble minded like the Bereans, and to not just take carnal men’s doctrines to confine them under sin their whole lives. I pray that God will bless you all in your diligent study of the word of God. I would also like to end by quoting John Fletcher, “This doctrine of St. John is perfectly agreeable to that of our Lord, who said that ‘Judas had a devil,’ because he gave place to the love of money; and who called Peter himself ‘Satan,’ when he ‘savored the things of men,’ in opposition to ‘the things of God.” I hope that none fall into that snare that the devil has laid for all of us to excuse one sin or any sin.


_________________
Giancarlo

 2007/6/21 20:11Profile









 Re: Exposing Bad Exposition: Answering Opposition to True Holiness

Forevidence, are you believing that it's either the Sinless Perfection Doctrine or blatant Antinomianism ?

That is what I'm getting from G.A. Jarquin.

We covered these verses in 1John in our Greek class and since then have yet to find many who hold to the Sinless Perfection Doctrine.

I posted my thoughts on that other thread, that we are to even take "every thought" captive to the obedience of Christ and though I don't watch TV or read secular things and try to give each day to whatever I feel The Lord is telling me to do and nothing wanting to do with grieving the Holy Spirit ... yet I know from many years of researching this from every Expositor that I can find, that the doctrine of Sinless Perfection is a heresy. It would do no good for me to dig into the Greek to counter this article if this is where you firmly stand.
Just the simple e-sword alone, will prove this man has pulled what he's wanted from those he quotes, such as A. T. Robertson, etc..

Does that give one the excuse to "sin more so that grace more abounds - God forbid!"

There is much to counter in this Rebutal of Mr. Jarquin, but I believe just a google search on Sinless Perfection should suffice or just an e-sword for that matter.

No offense to you at all brother, but this doctrine leads to much spiritual pride and that is the most subtle and dangerous of all sins.
This is "Bad Hermeneutics" and not fair Greek exegesis. The Greek and it's tenses and grammar are all that matters in this discussion of opinions.

In Peace.
Annie

 2007/6/21 21:17
Forevidence
Member



Joined: 2004/7/29
Posts: 711
Riverside

 Re:

Quote:

GrannieAnnie wrote:
Forevidence, are you believing that it's either the Sinless Perfection Doctrine or blatant Antinomianism ?

That is what I'm getting from G.A. Jarquin.

We covered these verses in 1John in our Greek class and since then have yet to find many who hold to the Sinless Perfection Doctrine.

I posted my thoughts on that other thread, that we are to even take "every thought" captive to the obedience of Christ and though I don't watch TV or read secular things and try to give each day to whatever I feel The Lord is telling me to do and nothing wanting to do with grieving the Holy Spirit ... yet I know from many years of researching this from every Expositor that I can find, that the doctrine of Sinless Perfection is a heresy. It would do no good for me to dig into the Greek to counter this article if this is where you firmly stand.
Just the simple e-sword alone, will prove this man has pulled what he's wanted from those he quotes, such as A. T. Robertson, etc..

Does that give one the excuse to "sin more so that grace more abounds - God forbid!"

There is much to counter in this Rebutal of Mr. Jarquin, but I believe just a google search on Sinless Perfection should suffice or just an e-sword for that matter.

No offense to you at all brother, but this doctrine leads to much spiritual pride and that is the most subtle and dangerous of all sins.
This is "Bad Hermeneutics" and not fair Greek exegesis. The Greek and it's tenses and grammar are all that matters in this discussion of opinions.

In Peace.
Annie



Google search...

Quote:
Sinless perfection is a term that is some times use to describe the Wesleyan teaching of Christian perfection by the opponents of this doctrine. John Wesley himself didn't use this term and noted in his book A Plain Account of Christian Perfection that "...sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself."[1]

However John William Fletcher, a key interpreter of Wesleyan theology in the 18th century used the term evangelically sinless perfection or evangelically sinless but notes in his book The Last Check to Antinomianism that "With respect to the FIRST, that is, the Adamic, Christless law of innocence and paradisiacal perfection, we utterly renounce the doctrine of sinless perfection."[2]



You calling the Wesleyan Holiness people heretics? They believed that doctrine?

You should really read the article before you answer too quick.
Pro 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.


_________________
Giancarlo

 2007/6/21 21:22Profile









 Re:

Brother, I started my post with a question that was in the Article.

I'll repost the question.

Forevidence, are you believing that it's either the Sinless Perfection Doctrine or blatant Antinomianism ?

I have friends in the Weslyan Church and know they are not teaching the Sinless Perfection Doctrine, but the Nazarenes do ... mostly anyways.

Just was wondering about where you draw the line within the question posed.

Peace to you.
Annie

 2007/6/21 21:37









 Re:

I did the Google search on this a couple of times years ago and again now, but if I post the results, I can't shorten the URLs anymore.

Not sure why.

Edit: I found one that isn't too long yet covers even other threads that are going on right now on other topics, which I thought may even benefit those discussions somehow.

http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/taylor-larry/text/cva.htm

 2007/6/21 21:40
andres
Member



Joined: 2005/6/17
Posts: 285
texas,brownsville

 Re:

so let me get this right(please correct if i am wrong)
1) once a man confesses his sin then God can Forgive that man.

2) once that man is forgiven he is imputed the righteousness of Christ.

3) that man is now to live a sinless life, never to sin again.( how does this man do this?)

4 what happens if he does sin?

5) forevidence, are you sinless?

6) Forevidence have you ever met anyone who was sinless?

love
andy


_________________
andy

 2007/6/21 22:17Profile









 Re: Allistair Begg

Every week-night at 10 pm, I listen on the radio to my favorite expositor.

He's doing a fantastic series that can be heard also at his website.

The series is called "Right with GOD".
Tomorrow is to be excellent also.

http://www.truthforlife.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lst_overview

 2007/6/21 22:30
Forevidence
Member



Joined: 2004/7/29
Posts: 711
Riverside

 Re:

Quote:

andres wrote:
so let me get this right(please correct if i am wrong)
1) once a man confesses his sin then God can Forgive that man.

2) once that man is forgiven he is imputed the righteousness of Christ.

3) that man is now to live a sinless life, never to sin again.( how does this man do this?)

4 what happens if he does sin?

5) forevidence, are you sinless?

6) Forevidence have you ever met anyone who was sinless?

love
andy



1. If a saint sins, he has an advocate with the Father and is able to be restored.

2. I have yet to attain entire sanctification, but I believe God will do that work in me.

3.Yes, I have met many saints who are sinless and are living in this day.


_________________
Giancarlo

 2007/6/21 23:10Profile
andres
Member



Joined: 2005/6/17
Posts: 285
texas,brownsville

 Re:

1)now if a man is able to be "entirly sanctified" or attain "sinless perfection", can he sin again?

2) and if he does sin then you might say that he was not really perfected after all because he had some evil desire that came from within to sin. would you agree?

thanks for answering my questions, alot of times we will spout off a point of doctrine but we have no earthly idea what it truly means, kind of like parrots,( they can talk but dont know what they are saying) and as Christans we know the right things to say but dont truly understand what and how a point of Doctrine effects out lives. so thats why i m asking you questions, to see what you believe and how do you live it out?
good nite God Bless
love andy


_________________
andy

 2007/6/21 23:33Profile
Forevidence
Member



Joined: 2004/7/29
Posts: 711
Riverside

 Re:

Quote:

andres wrote:
1)now if a man is able to be "entirly sanctified" or attain "sinless perfection", can he sin again?

2) and if he does sin then you might say that he was not really perfected after all because he had some evil desire that came from within to sin. would you agree?

thanks for answering my questions, alot of times we will spout off a point of doctrine but we have no earthly idea what it truly means, kind of like parrots,( they can talk but dont know what they are saying) and as Christans we know the right things to say but dont truly understand what and how a point of Doctrine effects out lives. so thats why i m asking you questions, to see what you believe and how do you live it out?
good nite God Bless
love andy



When one is entirely sanctified, he is able to fall back into sin.

But that does not prove that he was not perfect.

Adam was perfect and fell, so is the Christian if he falls from perfection, but God is able to restore him to it again.


_________________
Giancarlo

 2007/6/21 23:37Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy