SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : FOLLOW-UP TO: "The Fatal Trap of Holiness Preaching"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
Forevidence
Member



Joined: 2004/7/29
Posts: 711
Riverside

 Re:

Quote:

Christisking wrote:
Quote:
Do you know actually anyone who believes in 'sinless perfection'?



Yes, actually both Jesse Morrel and Giancarlo (Forevidence)who is, believe it or not, a moderator on sermonindex claim to believe in sinless perfection.


Patrick
www.revivalarmy.com



Don't forget George Fox too...

"But they could not endure to hear of purity, and of victory over sin and the devil. They said they could not believe any could be free from sin on this side of the grave. I bade them give over babbling about the Scriptures, which were holy men's words, whilst they pleaded for unholiness. Then I bade them forbear talking of the Scriptures, which were the holy men's words; "for," said I, "the holy men that wrote the Scriptures pleaded for holiness in heart, life, and conversation here; but since you plead for impurity and sin, which is of the devil, what have you to do with the holy men's words?"

-George Fox

And Wesley, Samuel Brengle, Daniel Steele, John Fletcher, James Caughey, William and Catherine Booth and the whole Salvation Army, Charles Finney,Phoebe Palmer, Martin Walter Knapp, Madame Guyon, Fenelon, Augustine(?-yep!), Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Andrew Murray, Asa Mahan, G.D. Watson, Adam Clarke, William Seymour, Samuel Chadwick, Peter Cartwright, Duncan Campbell, Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross the whole Nazarene Church, Wesleyans, all Pentecostal Holiness Churches and all the other Holiness groups. Many of these people are respected people here in Sermonindex.net.


_________________
Giancarlo

 2007/6/29 12:10Profile
Christisking
Member



Joined: 2005/7/20
Posts: 672
Los Angeles, California

 Re:

Quote:
I suspect that you would think I preach 'sinless perfection' too. I believe a man or woman ought and can live a life which pleases God all the time. I believe a man can live free from sin. I believe God has given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, but then again so did Peter.

Do you think this is 'sinless perfection'?



Of course not - this is what I preach all of time - the majority of what I preach is freedom and victory over sin - but the sinless perfection that some preach says that original sin can be completely eradicated and one can walk on the same level of God - not falling short of the Glory of God in any way shape or form both willful or unwillful. That not only all willful sin is eradicated (which is what I believe and preach) but also all unwillful sin is completely eradicated and that anyone who has not achieved COMPLETE ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION is an apostate and enemy of God. This hyper insane type of sinless perfection goes miles beyond what Fox or any of the others mentioned below preached.



Patrick
www.revivalarmy.com


_________________
Patrick Ersig

 2007/6/29 12:20Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Here is how a man is sinless before God...

Christ Alone

Either His work upon the cross, and His sinless life has been imputed to our account, or it has not. If not, then we are all in trouble.

If you say only the work of the Cross was put to our account, then who fulfills all the broken laws? Certainly not us as by the deeds of the law no flesh can boast! So someone has to live a sinless life to allow us into Heaven.

So do you see brethren, all our acceptance is based upon the merit of Christ, and Christ alone.

Now here is where I will receive much scorn, but truth must be told. The majority of Arminian, Wesleyan, Pentecostal Holiness, and the endless varieties of "sinless" groups make grace of no effect, because they say it is grace plus works to be justified. This is a lie, and a horrible blurring of justification and sanctification.

Because of a low view of Christ's work, and for a seeking of a greater gift than Christ, many are defeated, and weak because their acceptance with God is based upon their obedience.

You will never have a greater righteousness before God than Christ, and if you are in Him, you need not seek to add to His work, but rather glory in what He has accomplished on your behalf.

I hear the cannons being loaded with the questions of antinomianism even as I type this, but those who are truly justified will be sanctified, but will not be sinless until they are glorified. Anyone who uses justification by faith alone to live a careless life needs to evaluate their standing with God. But, if there be even the smallest bit of life, who are we to quench it? when a bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/6/29 12:41Profile









 Re:

Philogos,

Patrick and I have both been ministering together for about the past year and a half on the streets of Detroit. We have always preached a very strong repentance and holiness message of victory over ALL known sin and freedom from the bondage of the Devil through Christ as the normal Christian life. And jimdied2sin can confirm this as well. You can listen to our messages on www.revivalarmy.com under "multimedia resources" and "holiness sermons". You can also view our videos at www.youtube.com/obeyjesus and listen to the message we preach to verify this.

I actually find it quite absurd and heartbreaking that I have to be contending for what I am right now. This is the VERY LAST THING I want to contend for because I'm a holiness preacher and by the grace of God I do not ever intend of backing down from my stance on holiness. But this sinless perfection stuff has just gone too far.

And yes, For_evi_dence, who is a moderator here on sermonindex, believes in the heresy of sinless perfection.

Quote:
Here is how a man is sinless before God...

Christ Alone

Either His work upon the cross, and His sinless life has been imputed to our account, or it has not. If not, then we are all in trouble.

If you say only the work of the Cross was put to our account, then who fulfills all the broken laws? Certainly not us as by the deeds of the law no flesh can boast! So someone has to live a sinless life to allow us into Heaven.

So do you see brethren, all our acceptance is based upon the merit of Christ, and Christ alone.



Amen, Roaring Lamb.

 2007/6/29 13:48









 Re:

Quote:
I ask you again. You said you had not reached this state of total sactification. You also said if a person had not reached it and died they would go to hell. So if you died today you would be in hell right? Yes..no?



Very good question. I, too, would like a YES/NO answer. (please don't talk in circles around it, just answer it)

[b]Forevidence[/b], you claim that to be holy according to the scriptures, you must be sinlessly perfect with not even a single unChristike thing or "unwillful" ignorant sin you are not aware of and being perfect in love, faith and hope. But, you admit you have not entered into such a state of sinless perfection. Therefore, according to your own words, you are not holy. And without holiness no man shall see the Lord -Heb12:14.

[b]Does this mean that if you die in such an "unholy" state (as you said in your own words) that you will go to hell? Please answer: YES/NO[/b]

 2007/6/29 13:57
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
but the sinless perfection that some preach says that original sin can be completely eradicated


I don't use the language of eradication but I am pretty close to those who do. To 'eradicate' literally means to remove the 'root'. To speak of 'original sin' as a root is very common among many but I don't see it in the scripture.

However, I do believe in a co-crucifixion of the old man which leaves him utterly sterilised and unable to reproduce. That does not mean I cannot sin but it does mean that the ground of sin has been altered. In your terminology, I do believe that there is a present remedy for original sin which is not in counteraction and repression but in regeneration.

The Finney view of justification by sanctification is indeed a snare and I know that we have advocates of that view here on SI. However I do believe that God is able to save to the uttermost and that normal Christianity is the pattern of life in which one lives in no conscious sin.

As I have often said in these forums, the Finney route leads to justification by sanctification as is unscriptural. The notion that a man might live a godly life and yet dies with a single unconfessed sin which condemns him to hell, is perverse.

I have entered this thread because I do believe in present perfection, not sinless perfection, but Christian perfection in which a man lives at ease with his cleansed conscious and in the continuing grace of God. I preach 'perfection'. I am certainly not going to preach 'imperfection'. I also preach honesty and if we adopt a theology which says a man cannot sin we condemn that man to unreality. How is he to describe sin if it has become impossible to him? He will evade the honest conviction of his heart and find refuge in a doctrine. I have met such folk. Perhaps it is these you have in your crossed hairs?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/6/29 14:27Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Ron's: However, I do believe in a co-crucifixion of the old man which leaves him utterly [u]sterilised and unable to reproduce[/u]. That does not mean I cannot sin but it does mean that the ground of sin has been altered. In your terminology, I do believe that there is a present remedy for original sin which is not in counteraction and repression but in regeneration.



By 'sterilised' and unable to reproduce I am assuming you are referring to:

James 1:12-15

Blessed is the man that [u]endureth temptation[/u]: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
KJV

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I am thinking now of 'agents of temptation'. We see 'agents of temptation' that beguile unstable souls and 'allure through the flesh' in II Peter 2:14, 18. Our passages states that God is not the agent of temptation in verse 13. In verse 14 and 15a we are told that every man is tempted [i]when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin:[/i]. But the passage does not say who or what is doing the 'drawing away'. In other words something or someone appeals to man's lust. And if that 'appeal' or temptation conceives- sin comes forth.

It seems that you are saying that our Old Man is sterilised to [i]tempt[/i] to sin. The Old Man cannot be the [u]agent[/u] of temptation if we are dead to him. So if a regenerated person does commit a sin they did not do it as a result of being tempted from within (i.e. their Sin Nature). The agent has to work 'externally'. This is the enemy on the "outside looking in" as opposed to being on the 'inside'

Who would that agent be? II Peter 2:14, 18 tells us it is false preachers or teachers. We know in other places that Satan will come and tempt for our lack of self-control. Folk can still be tempted to sin, but that temptation does not originate inside them- it has to come from without.

Men still have lusts (strong natural desires) that can be fulfilled in a bad way. They can still be tempted and feel strong temptations towards a sin. However, the temptation, as with Adam and Eve did not originate within them (they had no sin nature); it originated with Satan's lies and enticements (bait and trap). When they took the bait they swallowed the hook. The cross removed the hook.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/6/29 18:54Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
The Finney view of justification by sanctification is indeed a snare and I know that we have advocates of that view here on SI. However I do believe that God is able to save to the uttermost and that normal Christianity is the pattern of life in which one lives in [u]no conscious sin.[/u]



On another thread I found 10 commands that A. Sims considers as sins in need of repentance. This was his view, apparently, in 1886. The list was:

1) Bad habits
2) the cup
3) the pipe
4) dishonest dealing
5) swearing
6) joking
7) sabbath breaking
8) unsaved associates
9) deceptive language
10) fashions of the world

I have actually known of family members to tell other unsaved family members, "You could get saved and come to church if you would give up them cigarettes." Some Christians believe it is OK to drink alcohol now and then; in my circles if you were caught with a beer in your hand you are done for. And what's a bad habit? I mean, what kind of habit could a person have that would be considered a sin and not cross a commandment already laid down in the New Testament? I suppose by swearing he means 'strong language'? Could be the swearing of oaths as George Fox forbade? Finney took an oath in a court room once ([i]The Original Memoirs of Charles G. Finney[/i] Zondervan 1989, 2002 P. 303).

So Finney took an oath and Spurgeon smoked a pipe. We could go on and on. So just what is 'a sin'? Transgression of the law? Without compiling an argument, what law is there against a pipe? I can compile an argument that its a sin to drive a car because it is tempting God with your life. And I am not advocating smoking- or chewing or drinking. I don't or have ever done those things.

How are we ever going to have a clear definition of sin when everyone and their brother preaches their convictions above and beyond the word of God (ed. perhaps some do not)? Some may say, "what ever is not of faith is sin". True. But the how do we endure preachers preaching against things that we have no conviction of- bringing our conscience into toe with their conscience? When we talk about repentance we need to be able to answer these questions. How can I counsel a sinner if I am telling him to turn loose of [u]my[/u] personal convictions?

The person needs to yield to what God is putting [i]His finger on[/i]- not what I'm shotgunning in his ear hoping to hit at least something the man is not in step with. Some people don't believe in liberty of conscience. And they trouble folk and trouble folk with things that have nothing to do with God.

Is there even a list of sins that could be compiled from the NT scriptures for folk to have a biblical basis for their repentance? Is it our job to deliver such a list while preaching the Gospel?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/6/29 19:27Profile









 Re: FOLLOW-UP TO: "The Fatal Trap of Holiness Preaching"


I didn't follow the first thread, but I would like to say just one thing while this thread is at an early stage;

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


Doesn't this mean...

If 'the truth' [u]is[/u] in us, we [i]don't say[/i] 'we have no sin', and we are [i]not[/i] deceiving [i]ourselves[/i]?

 2007/6/29 19:52









 Re:

Quote:
However I do believe that God is able to save to the uttermost and that normal Christianity is the pattern of life in which one lives in no conscious sin.



Quote:
I have entered this thread because I do believe in present perfection, not sinless perfection, but Christian perfection in which a man lives at ease with his cleansed conscious and in the continuing grace of God. I preach 'perfection'. I am certainly not going to preach 'imperfection'. I also preach honesty and if we adopt a theology which says a man cannot sin we condemn that man to unreality. How is he to describe sin if it has become impossible to him? He will evade the honest conviction of his heart and find refuge in a doctrine. I have met such folk. Perhaps it is these you have in your crossed hairs?



Philogos, It appears that our doctrine is very similar. Knowing Patrick, I can say that the both of us believe pretty much the same thing you do. I may differ slightly in my view of original sin and total depravity, but it appears that practically, the same thing is the result from both of our doctrines: walking in no known sin (conscious sin, as you said) and with a pure conscience by the grace of God as essential to true salvation.

I am not combatting men that neccesarily say it is impossible to sin, but ones that say that ultimate justification is dependant on "complete sanctification", in other words, people who are saying that unless you are absolutely sinlessly perfect in thought, word, deed, motive, desire, etc. with not even any unconcious or unknown or ignorant sin, then you are not holy, and if you are not holy, you're not saved. I call this type of psuedo-"perfection" heresy, and this is what I have in my cross-hairs.

It looks like we're in agreement.

 2007/6/29 20:08





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