ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
elohiym
Well-known member
Assuming that E4E believes what Sozo believes, our views are similar with the distinction that I don't believe a person with a converted heart will do things like murder, steal, commit adultery.godrulz said:
My impression is that they believe a converted person can still do those things. That at least has been my impass with Sozo, but he has acknowledged previously that I make some good points, so I pray that we will see eye-to-eye on this sometime in the future.
Sozo, E4E, and Lighthouse are absolutely correct when they say a believer no longer sins, but I believe they have confused positional righteousness with experiential righteousness. I see them as believing in positional rightiousness, or a subtle form of it. I believe in experiential righteousness by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Anyway, they can speak for themselves. It's just my perception.
Last edited:
I agree that positional righteousness should be evidenced in experiential righteousness. It is frustrating when they imply that one can be a dirty rotten sinner in an act and still be righteous in those acts? This is contradictory and contrary to reality.
The Bible has examples of godly believers who gave into temptation. Church history also has many examples of this. Why is it not possible for a godly leader for decades to give into a lustful woman? It is simplisitic to say that a true believer would never do that. Christian leaders, singers, biblical giants, etc. did that very thing without negating the validity of their walk with God before the impulsive moment. Many are restored to right standing. If one of your godly children ever fornicates, are you going to automatically state that they must never have been a believer? This is not defensible anecdotally nor biblically.
There is a difference between would not, should not, and could not (the latter would only be true if we were sock puppet robots).
The Bible has examples of godly believers who gave into temptation. Church history also has many examples of this. Why is it not possible for a godly leader for decades to give into a lustful woman? It is simplisitic to say that a true believer would never do that. Christian leaders, singers, biblical giants, etc. did that very thing without negating the validity of their walk with God before the impulsive moment. Many are restored to right standing. If one of your godly children ever fornicates, are you going to automatically state that they must never have been a believer? This is not defensible anecdotally nor biblically.
There is a difference between would not, should not, and could not (the latter would only be true if we were sock puppet robots).
We will not sin in heaven because that which desires to act against God will not be in heaven.:duh:godrulz said:
That which is righteous is incapable of committing unrighteousness. Therefore, that which commits unrighteousness is not righteous. What God has made righteous remains righteous, and therefore cannot commit unrighteousness. That which does was not made righteous by Christ. So, which part of yourself do you identify as?godrulz said:
Christ fullfilled the law, because we can't. But, since He did it, we don't have to. He did it for us. And those who walk according to the flesh are not in Christ.Untellectual said:
Who are you agreeing with?Untellectual said:
fulfill
fulfill
(I mean this to say that I know that Christ fulfilled all righteousness... but there may be something different in what you are saying.)
Why do you say that He fulfilled the law, because we can't?
Shalom,
Jacob
fulfill
Where do you get that Christ fulfilled the law, because we can't?Lighthouse said:
(I mean this to say that I know that Christ fulfilled all righteousness... but there may be something different in what you are saying.)
Why do you say that He fulfilled the law, because we can't?
Shalom,
Jacob
Lighthouse said:
Any given thought, motive, deed, or act is vice or virtue, righteous or unrighteous. You are talking globally (forest) and I am talking locally (trees). We are righteous in Christ, but that does not make adultery neutral or righteous. By definition, it is an unrighteous sin, regardless of who does it or what dispensation it is done in. The will, not a positional standing, determines the nature of any one choice in one brief moment of time.
Lighthouse said:
Paul said a believer can yield to the spirit or the flesh. Those who continuously walk in the flesh are not in Christ. If those in Christ commit a fleshly act/lapse, they are in the flesh in that one act and need to return to spirit submission.
Has a Christian ever been jealous or had a fit of rage (I have). This is in the list of the acts of the flesh (Gal. 5 vs fruit of Spirit).
Romans 6:13 (to believers) "Do not (command) offer the parts of your body (same word as flesh) to SIN (talking to believers)...v. 12 (imperative) Do not let sin reign in your mortal body/flesh so that you (believers) obey its evil desires...
This is not your view of sinless perfectionism.
to be free indeed
to be free indeed
Shalom,
Jacob
to be free indeed
I don't know who you are talking to about sinless perfection... lighthouse or me? He responded to what I said. what about what I said then?? how is the requirement of the law fulfilled in you? not by those who walk according to the flesh. that's a good start for an answer as I see it. i'm still trying to figure this out myself. yes, the things I don't and the things I do. When does Christ set me free? see? that's the subject of this thread so that is why I say that there is something here that we shouldn't miss.godrulz said:
Shalom,
Jacob
Last edited:
LH and sozo have a sinless perfectionism view that is not in step with traditional views about sanctification.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/falseviews-sanctification.html
This is from a quick google as an example of some concerns with these views. I did not read nor would likely agree with everything on this link.
CRI:
http://www.equip.org/free/CP0609.pdf
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/falseviews-sanctification.html
This is from a quick google as an example of some concerns with these views. I did not read nor would likely agree with everything on this link.
CRI:
http://www.equip.org/free/CP0609.pdf
sanctification
sanctification
k.
sanctification. so many views.
traditional views by large have worked into the conscience as psychology or intellect
Important to get it right and not feed off of falsehood.
there is a "sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord. etc.
yeah, i'm not really knowing about these other guys and their views. a little out of step with the thread, you are probably right. still, some arguing may not have been testing against God's word. The point I see is that somehow we become free and sin is not the key to that. Accepting sin is not the key to being free. To be under the Law means that you are not fulfilling it, right?
Shalom,
Jacob
sanctification
godrulz,godrulz said:
k.
sanctification. so many views.
traditional views by large have worked into the conscience as psychology or intellect
Important to get it right and not feed off of falsehood.
there is a "sanctification" without which no one will see the Lord. etc.
yeah, i'm not really knowing about these other guys and their views. a little out of step with the thread, you are probably right. still, some arguing may not have been testing against God's word. The point I see is that somehow we become free and sin is not the key to that. Accepting sin is not the key to being free. To be under the Law means that you are not fulfilling it, right?
Shalom,
Jacob
Ecumenicist
New member
elohiym said:
Quote scripture all you want, to deny our sinful nature is to deny reality. Even in salvation
Paul said that even though he wants to do the right thing, his flesh directs him to the
wrong things. And Paul knew Christ personally. If anyone was saved, Paul was.
How do we resolve this, "sinless yet sinful" conflict? By being Sozophrenic? No,
because history (and Sozo) reveals the absolute horror that can arise from accepting
this stance.
I suggest that an understanding which includes "perpetual healing" can resolve this,
in a way that is both humble and liberating.
elohiym
Well-known member
What you are implying is that YOU deny scripture because it is evident to YOU that YOU have a sinful nature. To say "our sinful nature" is to include me in your statment, but you don't know me. So please speak for yourself.Dave Miller said:
My renewed spirit is from God, and His spirit IS sinless. My old man (the sinner) is dead. I am a new creation.
Jesus was speaking to men like you when he said: "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. That means you are blind to faith, and you are not blind to the letter of the law. You needs eyes of faith, and need to be blind to the letter of the law. We walk by faith (spiritual sight), not by sight (spiritual blindness).
Paul was a Jew, born and raised under the law. When he became unclean according to the ritual, ceremonial laws, he didn't want to be unclean, but he had no control over it. Haven't you noticed the difference between violations of the law due to being a human being (ie., Leviticus 15:16-18), and violations of the law which had no sacrifice, only the penalty of death (murder, adultery, etc.)? Paul was not saying he still murdered and commited adultery; he was referring to the ritual ceremonial laws that he could never keep due to his mortality.Dave Miller said:
You've apparently reduced the truth to a personality struggle between you and Sozo. Too bad.Dave Miller said:
In post #82 I offered a resolution.
Perpetual healing requires perpetual sickness. If you are truly healing, and God is the physician, you will eventually be healed (perfect). You seem to be denying that obvious conclusion because you are not yet healed. I strongly suggest that you stop implying that noone is healed just because you're not. It's an unreasonable position.Dave Miller said:
elected4ever
New member
Romans 8:9 *But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 *¶And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 *But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
argue wit that idiots.
10 *¶And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 *But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
argue wit that idiots.
Spitfire
New member
As with the most of the rest of the Bible, you can interpret that any way you want to. This particular part is one reason why Catholics say that the eucharist is so important. We are made more like Christ when we partake of him through the blessed sacrament, it causes God to dwell within us, fortifying us against further sin, until finally after much perserverence and with the help of God's grace our sinful, mortal nature becomes more and more supplanted by Christ's nature.elected4ever said:
elected4ever
New member
That verse has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a remembrance and not literal body and blood anyway. If you have believed Christ you are partakers of Christ. His body and His blood.Spitfire said:
In your signature line I don't understand a word of it. So how can I say amen to it. Please write it in understandable English for my sake. Will you please.
Spitfire
New member
I said it's one reason why, of course there are many others. Jesus' own declarations are far more telling of the importance of the eucharist but this is one of the implications thereof - that we need spiritual nourishment so that God will dwell within us uninterruptedly.
And you never complained about my other German signatures! Though I will change it if it really bothers you. So long as you know it is from the Bible you should be able to say "amen" to it, shouldn't you?
And you never complained about my other German signatures! Though I will change it if it really bothers you. So long as you know it is from the Bible you should be able to say "amen" to it, shouldn't you?