SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Grow In Holiness

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Paul

John 8:46

Adam Clarke writes that the verse is about falsehood rather than sin :

“It is probable that ἁμαρτια, sin, is put here in opposition to αληθεια, truth, in the same verse, and then it should be rendered falsehood. The very best Greek writers use the word in the same sense: this, Kypke proves by quotations from Polybius, Lucian, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Plutarch, Thucydides, and Hippocrates. Raphelius adds a pertinent quotation from Herodotus, and shows that the purest Latin writers have used the word peccatum, sin, in the sense of error or falsehood” (Commentary)

The discourse was concerning the truth. What you say makes no sense because they had seen that Jesus and His disciples had eaten from the crops on the Sabbath and He had healed on the Sabbath. There must have been many more occasions where they interpreted suchlike behaviour as sin. They wanted to arrest Him for blasphemy and for claiming He was equal to God as that held the death penalty but eating the crops on a Sabbath, I assume did not. They wanted Him arrested for the 'big stuff' not the small stuff.

Acts 16:3

Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.” Certain Jewish practises moreover were allowed to continue such as attending the synagogue on the Sabbath which even Jesus practised in order to teach.

Trying to prove that Paul or the other apostles sinned, does not however disprove holiness doctrine (Peter sinned when he feared the Jews) As Peter fell, but was confronted by Paul and restored, many men in fact all of them who have been baptised into holiness, do experience a fall or two before they learn how to abide. The fall is usually caused by using their own understanding instead of walking in the Spirit. Wesley commented on it in countless places.

Paul committed this fault when he refused to listen to the Holy Spirit and went ahead into Jerusalem where he was arrested. He was too preoccupied with visiting the brethren to hear the Spirit. This fault will lead to sin.

Acts 23

Paul may have not recognised the high priest due to his eyesight problems.

“What testimony did a Quaker have in jail from a refusal to pay his taxes? Even heathen hate to pay their taxes!”

It has always been well known that Quakers refusal to pay war tax is on the grounds of their peace testimony and the command to love our enemies not kill them.

“This one statement opens an entire Pandera's box and is a very convenient fortress to hide behind.”

It is not a fortress, it is the difference between man not having divine knowledge and purity of heart and of course what I have said, that a man may fall from holiness for a season, then hopefully restored, but it is not the same thing as the average walk of believers as they are opposing the power of God in saying they cannot cease from sin. The fallen spiritual one does not deny the power of God over sin.

"But I don't think he had "light" in these areas. But who has total light apart from the "dark glass" this side of eternity?"

A man is given degree of light agreed meaning knowledge, but as far as sin goes, the power of God enables him to walk as Christ walked.

 2013/7/14 3:26









 Re:

amrkelly

We are not told to understand and be patient with heretics, but to admonish them twice then reject them Tit 3:10 so I am surprised that you inhabit a forum that publishes the writings of a man (and others) who clearly taught the doctrine you oppose and therefore guilty of causing stumbling in your eyes.

On the contrary, those who taught the doctrine of entire sanctification, were all greatly use by God and led thousand upon thousand to Christ, led revivals and fired the missionary movement and it is those who say that the power of God cannot deliver a man from sin who are denying the gospel and are heretics..

There are only two types of believer, those who say man cannot live on this earth without sinning as his normal condition and those who say that with God all things are possible and Christ came to save us from sin.

The fact that there are writings on this site which contradict the doctrine you espouse of a gradual sanctification but was not noticed previously apparently, does demonstrate whether one has discernment which only comes when one has truly been baptised in the Spirit.

"This is to deny that the one who sins is born again."

Brother, I will deal with this one in another post.

 2013/7/14 4:04









 Re: WHAT SHALL WE DO TO BE SAVED?

Peter said to them 'repent and be baptised' and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost' Acts 2:38


'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved' Mark 16:16

'In the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water, the like figure, whereunto EVEN BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ' 1Pet 3:20-21

And what of the man who is in the kingdom? Shall he still sin? No said John 'Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not' not just according to the light he has been given,

'He that doeth rightousness, is righteous EVEN AS HE IS RIGHTEOUS Be ye holy He said As I am holy. There is no gradual sanctification.

The scripture could not be clearer, the one baptism (one Lord, one faith one baptism) that Protestants believe in, not the baptism of water, saves a man that is, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, saves man and delivers him from sin, not as a process, but as an event, and furthermore, it says in Galatians 3:27 that

'as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ'

So there is no putting on of Christ without baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the event of baptism of the Holy Spirit a man puts on Christ and is delivered from sin.

Does this occur when we first come to Christ for forgiveness? Lets look at the disciples. Did the Holy Spirit fall on them when Jesus first called them? No it happened at Pentecost where they were made holy, Before that they were immature and full of doubts and fears.

As carnal believers they needed another work of God and that occured when He rose from the dead and found them cowed and afraid. He breathed the Holy Spirit on them sanctifying them and enabling them to be bold and in agreement so they gathered in the upper room waiting for the promised baptism of the Spirit which absolutely and utterly changed their characters in one fell swoop. No process of gradual sanctification. They became holy because the HOLY Spirit baptised them.

 2013/7/14 4:08
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
What you say makes no sense because they had seen that Jesus and His disciples had eaten from the crops on the Sabbath and He had healed on the Sabbath.


This is why I said they could only get him on on the technicalities of violating their own traditions. Healing on the Sabbath was not a real sin in God's eyes, nor was eating grain on the Sabbath, as Jesus proved from David's account with the showbread in scripture. These were all trumped-up charges based upon their own traditions, of which he had already refuted and rendered his accusers speechless. He knew they could not charge Him with legal, God-sanctioned sin. This was why they needed to find false witnesses for His trial.

Quote:
It is probable that ἁμαρτια, sin, is put here in opposition to αληθεια, truth, in the same verse, and then it should be rendered falsehood.


I prefer not to entertain "probables" when the the actual meaning is black and white and staring right at me in the Greek. The position of Christ's observable perfection supports itself in life all the way to His scandalous trial and execution based upon a rigged political agenda.

His real perfection was in stark contrast to Paul's limitations of the flesh. Observe, for example, the discourse for both Jesus and Paul with a High Priest during interrogations. At one point, Caiphus ordered Jesus to be struck. Jesus' response was unreproachable. Ananias likewise ordered Paul to be struck. Paul's response necessitated repentance. This incident, by the way, was near the end of Paul's life - after years of walking in so-called "sinless perfection".

Quote:
Paul may have not recognised the high priest due to his eyesight problems.


Sinless perfection should be sinless perfection, regardless of one's eyesight. Paul sinned, and admitted it. Can a physical disability temporarily override Holy Spirit discernment and cause a man to stumble? Either way, a sinlessly perfect man would not revile another human being, High Priest or not. Would Jesus revile anyone?

Quote:
It is not a fortress, it is the difference between man not having divine knowledge and purity of heart and of course what I have said, that a man may fall from holiness for a season, then hopefully restored, but it is not the same thing as the average walk of believers as they are opposing the power of God in saying they cannot cease from sin. The fallen spiritual one does not deny the power of God over sin.


Does this "falling for a season" preclude his sinless perfection for a season? I hope you can see that falling, even once, is not a sign of perfection while the falling is occuring (unless you mean perfection in the positional sense). I do not doubt you can be restored to victory after a fall through grace, but this is not sinless perfection. You know I teach it is possible to overcome sin through grace, and to walk in total victory over all deliberate, conscious sin. But this is effectuated by grace, through humility, and not a one-time experiential innoculation.

Brenda, this has been my whole purpose in confronting you here, as I believe your delusion can be very dangerous and misleading to young believers. They need to see that the Lord indeed is able to keep them from falling and show them how to mortify and take all thoughts captive and keep themselves as a vessels of purity in collaboration with leadings of the Holy Spirit, but there are no short-cuts or magic experiences of finality. The possibility for any believer to fall is ubiquitious through budding pride and a gradual neglect to walk in the spirit, and spiritual darkness is opportunistic.

Quote:
It has always been well known that Quakers refusal to pay war tax is on the grounds of their peace testimony and the command to love our enemies not kill them.


I am not talking about war tax. I am talking about mandated taxes to the church of England, and a failure to remove their hats before their superiors. This violates scripture in "rendering honor to whom honor is due" and in paying tribute to the government, through which the Church of England was lawfully established. It was the "temple tax" of the day.

Quote:
A man is given degree of light agreed meaning knowledge, but as far as sin goes, the power of God enables him to walk as Christ walked


Light is knowledge, I agree. It was a play with the Quaker term of "inner light", showing that "light" obviously wasn't given to them in the areas of taxes and simple deference.

Is George Fox the only name you have? Are there any others to look at?


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2013/7/14 6:26Profile









 Re:

Brenda why don’t I cut right to the chase and say what I mean about what you are saying.

First of all sister this business of entire sanctification is a complete ruse. I don’t doubt you have laid hold of a reality as far as understanding Romans chapter six is concerned. It is a great passage of scripture and by it many believers have found both a hope and an experience of resting from trying to live sin free and actually experiencing a sinless life in seasons of obedience by faith. But this is not where you are at. Your belief, which you insist is the work of other “great men” is far more significant than this even with regard to entire sanctification. You are in this regard about sinless perfection. You have said so plainly and if you want me to find the quotes and post them all I will do.

I have to say however that I am not even slightly interested in this doctrine of entire sanctification or sinless perfection it is but the toys of children compared to that which truly concerns me. It requires a form of gnosticism to even begin to make sense of it. Sister I have an occult mind in the flesh and so when the Holy Spirit teaches me I can make a very good and sharp distinction between the nature and source of revelation of God and occidental and oriental knowledge which leads to gnosticism. Please don’t misunderstand me Brenda. Believe what you will. No doubt given the great length of time you have been processing these things you have a mind made up in any event.

Just a few days ago in a post you sought to assert that teachings about the book of Revelation were essentially a work of Satan. Again If you want me to produce the posts I will do. In that OP I raised this deeper concern of mine with your presentation and the likely effect your teachings were going to have. Another brother agreed with me and I have no doubt this is because he saw the very same thing. You replied to my post by simply quoting one line of what I said and made no substantive reference to the clear and unequivocal meaning of my words. I can press this sister more fully than you realise. But to what end I ask myself? Well if for one purpose it is fruitful then it must be fruitful. This is to protect those believers who come here to seek out an understanding of those things which they are thinking about. If in the course of this these brethren are led astray because they are not able to discern spiritual deception when it is woven into the fabric of others posts then the cost may not be known here, but it will be real in their lives regardless and will lead at least to unnecessary suffering and heartache.

So to that end sister I post something you have written on another site and by it make perfectly clear where you do in fact stand and precisely why it is gnostic and heretical.

“Perfection is what true Christianity is all about. But the church does not see it. That's because they are not willing to give up ALL of their sins. And what is the point if God cannot help us with our biggest problem ie sin which is caused through living in a sin filled world, although we are born innocent (I do not accept that we have to suffer for Adam) and having had emotional damage done to us from our parents onwards. We are damaged so we cannot love properly. God can fix this problem easily as He just has to heal the damage to the soul. All of the promises are for this life not the next (I'm not sure I believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus did not have a solid body). Once one is willing to give up all rights to ourselves and submit fully to God and accept anything that he does with us in the future then He can deliver from sin totally. It usually happens somewhere along the line when we find out just how corrupted we are and how even our most selfless act is full of self actually and how much pride we have.

So the church twists and turns and tries to make perfection into something that looks like it, but is not. Read 1John. Whosoever sins is of the devil. Period. But the church has to make this into something else like habitual sin. Wrong. The scripture means what it says simply and strightforwardly. If we are in Christ we do not sin and I have not found any one person today who claims this. But there were some in the past like Wesley and George Fox who started the Quakers with this doctrine.”

You wrote this Brenda eight years ago. I can post as many similar things, though less explicit, which you have posted on this site in the last few weeks which clearly demonstrate that you hold the same understanding today.

I have watched your posts over the last few months and seen an increased boldness to express this gnostic heresy and it is because of this increase that I have posted as I have lately. Sister if by your own admission what you believe is rejected by all other men do you not think that at very least you ought to re-examine what it is you have believed and regardless as to the seeming meanings prescribed by forms of words, recognise that in the midst of it is true and dangerous heresy? Please forgive me for writing this but you have set your face and have wilfully withstood the clearest presentation that your teachings are not about sanctification but are gnostic and mystical. I have stated it clearly several times Brenda in such terms that knowing what you know of your own thoughts could not have been a mere passing conception or an argument. Why did you not comprehend this and draw back?

In the end you have asked me why I post into a forum if there is in its folds heretics? By this you infer my obvious though not then openly stated belief that you are an heretic. Yet you deflect this to mean George Fox. Sister you have no ability to press me in this way as though to make me change my mind. Now you have my answer. I support this forum because I am a beneficiary of its ministry and because I love the truth. I care nothing for debating in an occult way. If you had stated openly what you have in your thinking you would have been supported. As it is your thoughts were hidden and mingled in a garment with a few golden threads of truth and your ambition is that others should wear it.

 2013/7/14 7:08
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 2556


 Re:

I know your right Andrew ,,you could debate and pound this issue with words and scripture and wisdom but what would come from it ,,,,,,,,,,denial of a physical resurrection should make it clear what spirit it being expressed here ,need I say

weasly didn't teach this type of sinless perfection ,and refused to even use that word as a description because it was misleading to what he believed

to be honest iv dialogued with Robert the moderator of sermon index and men like ron baily ,,and the humility is so refreshing tho we may have big theological disagreement but when I come across debates about sinless perfection those who propose the extreme end of this doctrine , seem to me to be the lest humble and most judgmental people ,and love to argue and have the last word ,,,they seem to need to be right ,and every one else is the heretic,,,,,,tho im not speaking about murcol ,,a plesent exception

bless you Andrew kelly and paul west for at least standing your ground ,, I don't feel my contributing further will achieve much ,,,


god help us

brother gary


 2013/7/14 7:40Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Brethren, my aim is to show that although some may teach and preach sinless perfection, no man has ever truly "arrived" at this state. Every proponent of this heresy has either:

1. Demonstrated over time character flaws clearly unchristlike and in violation of scripture.

2. Admitted such a state of perfection is possible but they themselves have not yet attained it.

3. Said they attained it at one time, but are silent about the present for fear of being exposed and measured against the perfection of Christ.

4. Live alone without parents, siblings, husbands, wives, children, neighbors or work associates available to confirm their arrival at perfection.

5. Said they knew someone who had attained it, but the person is now dead and their life is unobservable.

Mature believers who are even moderately well-versed in scripture can decimate this heresy very quickly. Others are taken in through soul power and the writings of fallible men. I hold no animosity toward those entrenched in this error, but I do have a sense of responsibility in warning weaker believers of this heresy, especially on a public form such as this. They should be able to see both sides of the spectrum and judge for themsevles.

Before I exit the discussion, I would still like to see just one example of a man (or woman) who officially arrived at the state of "sinless perfection". Throughout two millenia of church history there should be hundreds of examples to read about in the very least. Where are they?


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2013/7/14 8:26Profile
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1839
Scotland, UK

 Re:

Wow what a lot of posts I don't where to start.

Let me say this for me it’s all about being Holy and having a pure heart so that we can live a Godly life. We have been through it all not that long ago about sin-less perfection but I don’t mind sharing briefly what I have found again.

What I seen through my studying into this subject is this, that there was an element of Gnosticism somehow managed to get into the Holiness movement and that has tarnished it. But that doesn’t mean all the Holiness people practiced Gnosticism.

However we should ask ourselves how Holy and pure can God make a saved sinner?

Can God sanctify a save sinner entirely from sin?

Can we be Holy and pure without touching the occult aka Gnosticism.

Quote by Paul West: Brethren, my aim is to show that although some may teach and preach sinless perfection, no man has ever truly "arrived" at this state. Every proponent of this heresy has either.

In your quest to stamp out the false, be careful that you don't cause damaged to the truth...

Edit: spelling and add Pauls quote.


_________________
Colin Murray

 2013/7/14 12:30Profile









 Re:

Guys please give me time to provide responses before adding any further posts. Thanks.

Quote : Sinless perfection should be sinless perfection, regardless of one's eyesight. Paul sinned, and admitted it. Can a physical disability temporarily override Holy Spirit discernment and cause a man to stumble? Either way, a sinlessly perfect man would not revile another human being, High Priest or not. Would Jesus revile anyone?

------------------------------------------------------------
Well this is the problem, how you are interpreting 'sinless perfection'.The usual error is to make it mean one must not 'miss the mark' but in fact it means absolute obedience with a pure heart, but we have human mind still as we develop the mind of Christ.

Wesley explained what perfection means by giving the example of thinking the motives of a man to be better than later proven. We cannot read another's mind so there will always be mistakes in this area. The error is to make the goal post too high. We were not created to be omnipotent.

Paul had come to Jerusalem by walking in the flesh, and therefore at risk of falling into sin and it may well be that he did sin, though Jesus had some very harsh things to say to the Pharisees, 'whitewashed sepulchres comes to mind.

Quote : Does this "falling for a season" preclude his sinless perfection for a season? I hope you can see that falling, even once, is not a sign of perfection while the falling is occuring (unless you mean perfection in the positional sense). I do not doubt you can be restored to victory after a fall through grace, but this is not sinless perfection. You know I teach it is possible to overcome sin through grace, and to walk in total victory over all deliberate, conscious sin. But this is effectuated by grace, through humility, and not a one-time experiential innoculation.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe in a one-time experiential innoculation. It is a moment by moment ability to have the blood of Christ applied so that the power of God can keep our heart cleansed and can only be effective as long as a man depends on the Holy Spirit alone and as soon as he starts to use his human reasoning he is in danger of a fall. And even the most mature can still fall. Like Paul.

Quote : Brenda, this has been my whole purpose in confronting you here, as I believe your delusion can be very dangerous and misleading to young believers.

----------------------------------------------------------


And is George Fox also dangerous and deluded?


Quote : This violates scripture in "rendering honor to whom honor is due"

-----------------------------------------------------------


We are only to obey the authorities so far as we do not disobey God.

Quote : Is George Fox the only name you have? Are there any others to look at?

-----------------------------------------------------------

There are many writers and speakers here who believe in 'second blessing' holiness but not many like the early Quakers who believed in a third crisis where the presence and not just the power of sin is removed.

Quote : Before I exit the discussion, I would still like to see just one example of a man (or woman) who officially arrived at the state of "sinless perfection". Throughout two millenia of church history there should be hundreds of examples to read about in the very least. Where are they?

-----------------------------------------------------------

The second blessing preachers taught that a man can walk in sinless perfection but do not accept that unintentional sin is classed as sin. They say as I am sure you know, that sin is a deliberate transgression. There are writers from the holiness movement and from Wesley's time who taught freedom from unintentional sin (so long as a man is in that state) but I have studied the early Quakers more than any other period.

 2013/7/14 15:12









 Re:

Andrew

Quote : It requires a form of gnosticism to even begin to make sense of it.

------------------------------------------------------------

It is the opposite of Gnosticism which says that a man is pure in his spirit so his body can sin and he remains in the kingdom. Actually gradual sanctification is saying that.

Quote : Just a few days ago in a post you sought to assert that teachings about the book of Revelation were essentially a work of Satan.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You are either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me but what I was saying is that Satan encourages man to see Revelation as a future event only and for men to spend all of their time and energy working it out when the deeper spiritual meaning goes un-noticed.

Quote : (I'm not sure I believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus did not have a solid body).

-----------------------------------------------------------

I DID NOT SAY THIS. I have never believed it. It has been added to my words. Where did you find it?

Quote : Please forgive me for writing this but you have set your face and have wilfully withstood the clearest presentation that your teachings are not about sanctification but are gnostic and mystical. I have stated it clearly several times Brenda in such terms that knowing what you know of your own thoughts could not have been a mere passing conception or an argument. Why did you not comprehend this and draw back?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Andrew what is wrong with saying that a man who believes that Christ will give him the ability to escape all temptation and walk in complete obedience? That is far from any Gnosticism or mysticism.

Quote : As it is your thoughts were hidden and mingled in a garment with a few golden threads of truth and your ambition is that others should wear it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Brother you will have to speak more clearly before I can understand you. I asked you why you support a forum where a heretic is quoted. Accusing a member of heresy is very serious and I question how you are qualified to throw it around when you dont know much about the doctrine I believe in, which you repeatedly show rather than finding out just what I believe by asking questions. Not very loving is it?

 2013/7/14 15:34





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy