| Re: |
I agree with everything in that post Brenda! Whole-heartedly! Amen & praise God for Christ in Us the Hope of Glory. The overcomers! Amen, hallelujah & praise God! I would NEVER make excuse or place for sin in my theology (& Lord willing in my life!)! I am staunchly a "holiness" guy.
Now, "sinless perfection doctrine" (this side of glory) I can not agree with, sorry. The one who doesn't know the level or degree of sin within, etc. should be equally aware that they will not achieve their theology in practice, but that's not making an excuse for sin - that's just the reality of it, sorry.
And the kingdom is in its fullness & victory now, this is it now, satan has already been bound, & everything that is prophesied for the end has already happened except the day of the Lord (basically a 95% Preterism stance), I am also sorry - I cannot agree with. A foretaste of the kingdom now within the Body! Yes and amen! But the fullness of the eternal kingdom in place as I watch brethren get their heads chopped off & sin abounding in the earth? No. I'm sorry. Now (a taste) & not yet (the full manifestation of the prophesied eternal kingdom reality in its fullness forever). Matthew 25 says "WHEN he sits on His glorious throne..." & Revelation 17-21 doesn't match that. Not much of Acts. Nor church history. Neither church historical doctrine (outside maybe of Augustine/Origen & those who followed them and read their words as if they were inspired). I hope I am being clear & not leaving room for confusion of what I am and am not saying. The wedding has not yet been consummated at the regeneration of all things. We are betrothed to the Bridegroom, but His father has not yet made the call to bring us in and shut the door once and for all! This is clear in the NT (& OT) as a whole I think. And the whole "secret keys" thing often has such a weird taste to it. The fact is, Christ in Us the hope of glory is not a secret! It's basic NT Christian Doctrine 101! We are overcomers! Amen! But there is still more to come and change greatly in terms of the once and for all eternal kingdom.
Anyways, I'm done repeating that. I feel it's important. May God bless you richly sister!
| 2016/7/30 13:52|
| Re: |
Jeff, if you agree with what l have said, then the only disagreement is regarding the extent to which we are able to turn from sin. We are in agreement that it is through the power of God, and that power cannot be insufficient in any way. So the fault must lie with us.
To say that because you find yourself lacking in ability to use the power of God at times, and then assume it is the same for everyone, is to make a unreasonable assumption.
What is the thought that comes to you when you are at that point? I don't mean for you to repeat it on here, just try to remember it. Now, do you think it is from you or Satan? And does it spoil your witness? Again, no need to reply.
At that point, it depends on how much we hate our sin. If it has brought us to the depths of despair in our desire for holiness then we will be done with it and no longer find an excuse or reason rather as we will call it.
Finding victory here, changes the way we see everything. It only takes proof of being wrong over one thing, and our whole perspective can change and expand. Bless you brother.
| 2016/7/31 1:28|
| Re: |
That sounds good and all at first glance, but sinless perfection is something neither the apostles nor early church knew of. Who is it you know who actually achieved sinless perfection in this life?
| 2016/7/31 1:53|
| Re: |
Iv noticed that the only way this sinless perfection is attained,is through the redefinition of sin , weasly cleary defined sin differently from whitfield ..
One must begine to call certaint types of sins as mistakes ,and unwillfull sin ,which then is not classed as real sin ,
Most people iv debated regarding this subject ,often if not evey time fell in to sin ,just trying to win the argument , with clear lack of love , possesing the idea that they are more spirtual then the others , whn paul clearly taught , the opasite ,and regard others more highly ...
| 2016/7/31 2:11||Profile|
| Re: |
By leo g cox
Here is what Wesley wrote,
I still say, and without any self-contradiction, I know no persons living who are so deeply conscious of their needing Christ both as prophet, priest, and king as those who believe themselves and whom I believe to be cleansed from all sin; I mean, from all pride, anger, evil desire, idolatry, and unbelief. These very persons feel more than ever their own ignorance, littleness of grace, com- ing short of the full mind that was in Christ, and walking less accurately than they might have done under their divine pattern, are more convinced of the insufficiency of all they are, have, or do to bear the eye of God without a mediator; are more penetrated with a sense of the want of Him than ever they were before.
Here are persons exceedingly holy and happy; rejoicing evermore, praying without ceasing, and in everything giving thanks; feeling the love of God and man every moment ; feeling no pride or other evil temper . . . . "But are they not sinners?" Explain the term one way and I say yes; another, and I say no.32
| 2016/7/31 4:59||Profile|
| Re: |
Gerorge whitfield ,who never believed in entire sangtfication, says some things that sound like weasly , who called it the latter ,
Me speaking ,,,,,,,,,i dont post this to debate , so please reframe from debating if you have the grace to do so , i just post this to show that when it comes to weasly and Whitfield who were opponents in doctrines ,and regarding intire sangtfication, which whitfield didnt teach , what they taught was verry similar ,due to the fact that they defined sin in a different way .....
Whitfield said !
FOURTH argument, because Christ's redemption will not be complete in us, unless we are new creatures.
If we reflect indeed on the first and chief end of our blessed Lord's coming, we shall find it was to be a propitiation for our sins, to give his life a ransom for many. But then, if the benefits of our dear Redeemer's death were to extend no farther than barely to procure forgiveness of our sins, we should have as little reason to rejoice in it, as a poor condemned criminal that is ready to perish by some fatal disease, would have in receiving a pardon from his judge. For Christians would do well to consider, that there is not only a legal hindrance to our happiness, as we are breakers of God's law, but also a moral impurity in our natures, which renders us incapable of enjoying heaven (as hath been already proved) till some mighty change have been wrought in us. It is necessary therefore, in order to make Christ's redemption complete, that we should have a grant of God's Holy Spirit to change our natures, and so prepare us for the enjoyment of that happiness our Savior has purchased by his precious blood.
Accordingly the holy scriptures inform us, that whom Christ justifies, or whose sins he forgives, and to whom he imputes his perfect obedience, those he also sanctifies, purifies and cleanses, and totally changeth their corrupted natures. As the scripture also speaketh in another place, "Christ is to us justification, sanctification, and then redemption." But,
| 2016/7/31 5:16||Profile|
| Re: |
Forgive me for posting a litle more of what whitfield said , but it so edafiying that i cant help it , lets all seek to be filled with the spirit and make our calling and election sure , and test to see wether we are in the faith ....
The sum of the matter is this: Christianity includes morality, as grace does reason; but if we are only mere Moralists, if we are not inwardly wrought upon, and changed by the powerful operations of the Holy Spirit, and our moral actions, proceed from a principle of a new nature, however we may call ourselves Christians, we shall be found naked at the great day, and in the number of those, who have neither Christ's righteousness imputed to them for their justification in the sight, nor holiness enough in their souls as the consequence of that, in order to make them meet for the enjoyment, of God. Nor,
THIRDLY, Will this doctrine less condemn those, who rest in a partial amendment of themselves, without experiencing a thorough, real, inward change of heart.
A little acquaintance with the world will furnish us with instances, of no small number of persons, who, perhaps, were before openly profane; but seeing the ill consequences of their vices, and the many worldly inconveniencies it has reduced them to, on a sudden, as it were, grow civilized; and thereupon flatter themselves that they are very religious, because they differ a little from their former selves, and are not so scandalously wicked as once they were: whereas, at the same time, they shall have some secret darling sin or other, some beloved Delilah or Herodias, which they will no part with; some hidden lust, which they will not mortify; some vicious habit, which they will not take pains to root out. But wouldst thou know, O vain man! Whoever thou art, what the Lord thy God requires of thee? Thou must be informed, that nothing short of a thorough sound conversion will fit thee for the kingdom of heaven. It is not enough to turn from profaneness to civility; but thou must turn from civility to godliness. Not only some, but "all things must become new" in thy soul. It will profit thee but little to do many things, if yet some one thing thou lackest. In short, thou must not only be an almost, but altogether a new creature, or in vain thou boasteth that thou art a Christian.
| 2016/7/31 5:28||Profile|
| Re: |
Jeff here is the list:
Just a few.
| 2016/7/31 5:31|
| Re: |
Respectfully, I'm sorry, but I just don't think so. I have read & studied the Biblical accounts of Job, Noah Hezekiah, & Abraham, & the actual Biblical Doctrinal epistles of Paul, James, etc. And I have read about the lives & ministry of Finney & Fox. I didn't see "Sinless Perfection". That is a doctrine of twisting the words of scripture to "shoe-horn" such a doctrine to try to fit reality. It involves changing the definition of words. And I believe it usually/can involves a sense of overly self-confident trust in one's own true condition through & through (which is just a sneaky form of pride).
Now do I believe one can walk free from sin? Yes. Do I believe believers can overcome sins that are besetting to them & walk in a clear conscience before God with peace & open fellowship with God & man? Yes. But I do believe one can achieve "sinless perfection" of guaranteed absolute perfection (in the sense of the word meaning "flawlessness", not where it's translated that way for "maturity") in every word, thought & deed for the rest of their life while still in this Body of flesh? No I do not. Even the apostle Paul in scripture in 1 Corinthians 4 stated:
"3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.5Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
6I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Not even Paul was a proponent of "sinless perfection", unless by saying "sinless perfection" you mean something other than "sinless perfection". In which case such people should call it something else as it is deceiving and a self-puffing doctrine that I believe is delusional & twists scriptures and the definitions of words.
Anyways, I will not commit any more time to this subject. I think an honest look at it Biblically speaks for itself. I pray that such teaching eventually (if not immediately) gets exposed through inner checks by the Holy Spirit & the Word of God IN ITS FULL CONTEXTUAL MEANING moves people of this persuasion out of it. Read 1 John 1:26-27. Again, I believe in walking in victory & freedom from sin, conquering as an overcomer in Jesus, & the reality of a place where we can walk with no known sin between us and God or us and man. But I do not believe the Bible teaches "sinless perfection". Only one ever pulled that off & His name was Jesus. And that's why we need His blood to wash, purify & atone for our sins, past, present & future.
| 2016/7/31 11:42|
| Re: |
It seems to me that "sinless perfection" doctrine is historically founded as a "reactionary theology" response to the opposite extreme error of anti-nomianism. Fact is, they are both wrong, unbalanced & unscriptural. A "case" can be made for both using isolated scriptures out of context and straw-man arguments, both they are both wrong. Reactionary theology (a theology based out of a reaction to one error swung hard the other way) always tends to be that way.
| 2016/7/31 12:00|