Confronting the doctrine of sinless perfection with 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 and Colossians 3:5-10

[leroy]

For your information: you didn't use the quote function correctly so that I didn't get any notification.

Being new on this forum Im really at a disadvantage. I have to apologize for my lack of doing things correctly.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

There is no such thing like “human history within God's book” that is not God's Word! All scripture is given by inspiration of God! All scripture, including James 3:2, is then God's Word!

I assumed that you might see that there is a difference in a clear promise from God for victory and that which is written for edification, correction and reproof

By the was, James 3:2 is not about the example of a particular individual or “human history”. We all stumble in many things is a general statement that applies to us all!

What about the man mentioned in the rest of the verse?
"For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body."

Do you see Jesus-Christ merely as Mary's son? Do you mean that he is just a human like us? That is at least what your choice of words suggests, because you called Him the same way the unbelievers called Jesus (Mark 6:3), while the believers see in Jesus, God's only begotten Son (John 3:16) who has the words of eternal life (John 6:68; comp. Matt 16:16-17)

Did you read the post I wrote for Electedbyhim further up on the page? I gave my understanding from scripture about the nature of Christ and the incarnation. If you did at least skim through it, was there something that you did not understand? Please share if you will.

Should I believe what an anonymous poster says about his own experience? First, it's much easier to pose as a sinless believer in a forum, as in the real life. Second, only God's Word is to be absolutely trusted. It is the yardstick to measure experiences, so that experiences that contradict God's Word are not to be taken seriously.

Jesus was the only sinless one. We have sinned which precludes that title. One who is born again is obedient because he has been crucified and Christ is now living in and controlling both the will and the actions. Gal 2:20 & Phil 2:13 This born again soul is a new creature. 2Cor. 5:17 God dwells in him and is quite able to keep him from falling. Jude 24. According to your faith JJ, be it unto you Matt 9:29 If you want to know the quality of your faith, look at your life.
You're free to disbelieve if you wish but I thought I might reach your heart by sharing what happened to me. I am sorry that it did not hit its intended mark.

 

[leroy]

Do you believe Jesus was fully God and fully human while on this earth?

I would say, just go back and reread what I wrote to you regarding the nature of Christ and the incarnation. I believe the answer is very clear. if there are specific points that you do not understand or can't agree with please let me know. If I am in error please show me in scripture and I will be blessed to know the truth of the matter. Who wants to believe a lie? Not I.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The usage of "the law of sin" is not confusing. It is stating something that happens again and again, the effect that follows a cause, a law or principal. It is not referring to the Decalogue which is the divine mirror and it is that which is written in the heart. "The law of the spirit of life" is a superior and divine law which supersedes and nullifies the law of sin and death. neither of these usages are referring to the Decalogue.

The key to understand the term "the law of sin" is written in Rom. 7:5-6

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

"Sinful passions" therein are referring to our rebellious nature. All laws are chains and shackles, nobody likes to be chained, nobody is naturally obedient, we're born with desires to steal, kill, lust, lie and covet. When you read in the ten commandments that you shall not do these, an unsaved person would be aroused to challenge God's authority - you told me not to? Then that's exactly what I'm gonna do! What I feel good is real good! A saved person understands our sinful nature and the purpose of these laws - which is the spirit, they're mature enough to restrain and overcome these desires with self-control, and live the way God intended for his image bearers to live.

 

[electedbyHim]

I would say, just go back and reread what I wrote to you regarding the nature of Christ and the incarnation. I believe the answer is very clear. if there are specific points that you do not understand or can't agree with please let me know. If I am in error please show me in scripture and I will be blessed to know the truth of the matter. Who wants to believe a lie? Not I.

I was just looking for a simple yes or no answer.

Next time I will be more specific.

 

[Tenchi]

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. (Titus 3:10)

Dear Tenchi, you don't need to try to be smarter than God's word. You exchanged a few words with blinded people like Hopeful 2 to expose the truth? Fine, but it's time to move on. Your time is too precious to be wasted like that. And no, lurkers will not read 9 (!) pages of this back and forth, which isn't stopping because both sides want to have the last word!

I'm puzzled by your remarks, here. Where in all that I wrote in this thread do I indicate that I think I am, or want to be, "smarter than God's word"? Nowhere. Why, then, are you saying that this is my motive in posting? This may be what motivates you, JJonas, but not me. Also, I don't think my time is wasted in my exchanges with Hopeful, or any poster with whom I engage (including you). If I think it is, I leave off talking with them.

In any case, as I pointed out to Carry_Your_Name, if no one else benefits from what I write, I do. The thought, and study of God's word, and rehearsal of His truth involved in posting all serve to improve me, to sharpen my capacity to express my thinking, prompt me into investigation of things in Scripture I might not otherwise consider, and exercise my scriptural recall.

As well, I'm not in my posting provoked by a desire to have the last word (though, you may be). My motives are what I've already explained to Carry_Your_Name, and now to you. Believe me, or not. In either event, I will continue to post in this thread so long as I think that at least I'm gaining from doing so. If you've tired of reading through this and intend to retire from it, go ahead. I wonder, though, why you think others must feel and do likewise or be accused of "trying to be smarter than God's word," or "wanting to have the last word."

 

[Tenchi]

Are you aware of the terms "rebirth", or, "born again" ?

Are you?

Are you aware that nobody who hasn't been reborn will see the kingdom of God ? (John 3:3)

Are you? (Do you see how silly these sorts of questions are?)

As Jesus didn't elaborate on that in John 3, we must look to other scrips' in order to see how rebirth is facilitated.
And what happens to the old "us" ?
1 Peter 1:23 gives us a hint at the answer to the first question..."Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
That incorruptible seed is God's own seed.

So, John 3:3-7 doesn't help you address my question. Why bring it up, then?

And 1 Peter 1:23 is speaking of the word of God, of Scripture, not of some sort of divine inseminating "seed." By means of God's word, of His divine, life-changing Truth (i.e. the Gospel), we are "born-again." Peter is crystal clear about this:

Here's the verse in its immediate context which highlights further that Peter is in referring to "seed" meaning the WORD of God.

1 Peter 1:22-25
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
24 for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

The seed is planted in our heart by Jesus Christ, who is the Word made flesh, who liveth and abideth forever.
It will either bring forth the fruit of God, or it will shrivel in "bad soil".

As Peter wrote quite explicitly, "the word is the good news that was preached to you" (ie. the Gospel), not the Word, Jesus Christ. Of course, the Gospel reveals the Savior to us, but the Good News about him is not identical to Christ himself; they are not one-and-the-same "word." It's evident to me, then, that you've mishandled Scripture here, forcing a meaning into Peter's words rather than accepting the meaning he's given.

And so, you haven't yet explained what you mean by "born of God's seed."

The old "us" ?
Paul tells us in Rom 6:3-6 that the old man is baptized into Christ's death and burial.
Then we are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)
That is rebirth, and the start of our new creature.

Where is "born of God's seed" in all of this? Yes, being united with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection frees us from the power of sin and Self, but how does this union involve birth and God's "seed" being sown in us? Paul never uses the word "rebirth" in Romans 6. He doesn't use the word "seed," either, in the chapter. Why, then, are you referring to this chapter to explain what it never mentions? As far as I can see, my question about what "born of God's seed" actually means remains unanswered.

Yes, you do fight in defense of sinning.

No, I simply maintain fidelity to the explicit declaration of God's word.

Your theme seems to be that nobody can remain loyal to Christ and to his Father and won't quit serving sin.

No, this is just your Strawman version of my view. In reality, I have been entirely biblical in my statements, not forcing into Scripture what I want to see in it, but simply taking it as it is. In doing so, I must acknowledge what Scripture explicitly and repeatedly says, which is that the saints of God do sin, though they can learn to walk with God such that doing so becomes the exception rather than the rule of their living.

It is written..."And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
As you do seem to understand how Mary got pregnant, why do you question from whence the seed that was responsible for Jesus' life came from ?

I'm not asking this question. Try reading again what I wrote.

You don't seem to be able to recognize a slap-down when you read it.
Those people had the choice right then to manifest from Whom they were born.
Did they want to be addressed as men walking after the flesh? Or as spiritual men ?
Because right then, Paul couldn't address them as spiritual men.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't seem to recognize what the passage plainly indicates.

1 Corinthians 3:1
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.

Paul makes a clear distinction here between being "spiritual" and being "in Christ." He could not call his brothers in Christ "spiritual" because they were being spiritually infantile, "of the flesh," which as he explained meant partisan and contentious.

1 Corinthians 3:2-4
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

Like the cat-acting-like-a-dog analogy that I offered to you a post or so ago, these in-Christ brethren in Corinth were acting contrary to their born-again spiritual nature, like the cat behaving as though it were a dog. Neither the cat nor the Corinthian Christians were living consistent with their true nature. And just to make this crystal clear, Paul confirmed repeatedly to the carnal infants in Christ in Corinth that though they were as he described - of the flesh, contentious, partisan - they were ALSO "God's field and building," God's "temple," and the possession of Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16, 23).

Though I have made this observation to you many times, you remain, it seems, utterly unable to acknowledge what Paul plainly, directly states in the chapter. In this blindness of yours to the explicit statements of Scripture, I see a stark example of the terrible danger of taking up a false teaching. Yikes.

What would their fate have been if they ignored Paul ?
It would have been the fate of all the other carnal folks that walk in the "flesh".
Paul was gracefully trying to reel them back in from the precarious point they had fallen to.

Actually, as I already pointed to you from chapter 3, Paul addressed this matter very directly:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—
13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

What would be the "fate" of the Christians in Corinth if they persisted in building upon Christ, their foundation, "wood, hay and stubble"? All of it would be "burned up" and they would suffer the loss of the reward they would have received had they built with "gold, silver, and precious stones." But the loss of this reward did not mean the loss of their salvation. Though everything they'd built be "burned up," they would STILL be saved "yet so as through fire."

So, then, though Paul was "trying to reel them back in" from carnality and the loss of their eternal reward, he was never concerned about their "in Christ" status which, as I said, he confirmed repeatedly in the chapter.

We, and the church John address, have two choices.
Walk in the light-God, or walk in darkness-sin.

Yes. But a born-again saint of God who walks in darkness is not the same as an unsaved person who does so. They are just like the cat who acts like a dog, denying the truth of their "new creature in Christ" condition. An unsaved person, though, is acting in perfect consistency with their sin-nature.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Here is how to tell who is doing which,
Those walking in darkness-sin cannot say they know or have fellowship with God, or that they have no sin.
Those walking in the light-God can say they know and have fellowship with God, and have been washed of all (past) sin by the blood of Christ.
They can say they have no sin because the sin was washed away by the blood of Christ !
How can we be sure that we know God ?
1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

You offer this passage again and again and just as often ignore the context within which John's statements in the passage stand. When you take all of what John wrote in its entirety, your sinless perfection error doesn't emerge - it can't because John explicitly eliminates such a reading of his words:

1 John 1:7-10
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

1 John 2:1
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

These statements of John don't disappear, they aren't negated, by the passage you cited in the quotation above. They must be synthesized with one another, taken together, and when they are, understood within the larger context of all of the NT, sinless perfection just doesn't take shape within them.

You are entitled to have an opinion.

Though you might wish it to be, what I've pointed out from God's word is not "opinion" but the plain facts of the matter.

Amen to that !
What does "set free from sin" mean to you ?

Exactly what Paul said it meant. It was to those to whom Paul wrote:

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

that he also wrote:

Romans 6:11-12
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

As I've pointed out to you before, such statements as these are entirely unnecessary for those who are sinlessly perfect. It seems very plain to me, then, in the remarks of Paul above that he did not think the believers at Rome were sinlessly perfect. In fact, he implied that they were ignorant of their spiritual identity in Christ and so had been living in a way that required "grace to abound." In remedy of this situation, he informed the ignorant Roman brethren (not the yet-to-be-saved) of the facts of their union with Christ and then told them to live by faith ("consider yourselves to be" - vs. 11) in those facts.

What makes you think that everyone who would ever read it was a believer ?

I don't, of course. But when Paul wrote what he did in Romans 6, it's very plain that he believed his readers were fellow born-again people:

Romans 6:11
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:14
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 6:17-18
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:20
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

These are all descriptions, not of what Paul's readers could, or would, in the future be, but of what was true of them at the time Paul was writing to them. Paul, then, did not have unbelievers in view in his remarks in Romans 6.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that Paul is describing how to be free from sin, if nobody could ever be free from sin ?

Is the convict freshly-released from prison, who freely walks the streets of his hometown, not actually free if he commits another crime and returns to prison a month later? God leaves it to us to choose to live in the freedom from the power of Self and sin that is ours in Christ, but if we choose not to do so and live in sin instead, this no more makes us not a Christian than a cat acting like a dog makes the cat not a cat.

We can do exactly as Paul writes, getting baptized into, and partaking of, Christ and His death and burial.
From which we can be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life.
Killed with Him, buried, with Him, and raised with Him.
Now walking in the Spirit, and not in the "flesh".

Yes, we can trust in Christ and submit to him as Lord and he will, in response, give us new life in himself in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But just as we must choose to believe and submit to Christ, we must choose to live in the truth of who we are in Christ. If we don't, if we choose to live in denial of who we've become in Christ, we won't enjoy the benefits of our identity in him. But this doesn't undo what Christ has done in saving us; it merely makes us, spiritually, a "cat acting like a dog."

 

[JJonas]

I am willing to bet if you talk to someone close to them, they would disagree with their theology of sinlessness.

Unfortunately, they could be blind enough to not see their sins. If someone confront them with one of their sins, they may find an euphemism (weakness, accident) to call sin differently.

 

[JJonas]

I assumed that you might see that there is a difference in a clear promise from God for victory and that which is written for edification, correction and reproof

Where does 2 Tim. 3:16 speak about a clear promise from God for a sinnless life? On the contrary, the focus is on doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, because as long as we are waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:23), our beliefs and our walk constantly need correction. This is done by the scripture, but also by the mutual edification in the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-16), so that we may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ (v. 15). See, the Bible testify that our christian walk is a progressive sanctification, where we grow up into Christ, in all things, yes in all areas of our life!

What about the man mentioned in the rest of the verse?
"For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body."

Yes that's true: If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. If we can find any man that doesn't offend in word, we find a perfect man able to bridle the whole body. But scripture cannot cancel scripture. However you want to use scripture (2nd part of the verse) to cancel scripture (1st part of the verse).

Did you read the post I wrote for Electedbyhim further up on the page? I gave my understanding from scripture about the nature of Christ and the incarnation. If you did at least skim through it, was there something that you did not understand? Please share if you will.

No, I didn't. There is too much to read for me, so I mainly read and answer people that responded to me. People can be quick to confess orthodoxy, but lather say something that reveals that their beliefs are not as orthodox as it first appeared. It wonders me why a believer should ever call Jesus the “Son of Mary”. Could you explain why you choosed to call Jesus that way?

Jesus was the only sinless one. We have sinned which precludes that title. One who is born again is obedient because he has been crucified and Christ is now living in and controlling both the will and the actions. Gal 2:20 & Phil 2:13 This born again soul is a new creature. 2Cor. 5:17 God dwells in him and is quite able to keep him from falling. Jude 24.

Everybody here understand that very well, that you don't claim to be sinnless since physical conception, but only since the new birth. And it is just that what we call the doctrine of sinnless perfection.

If you read the Title of the thread of the first posts you will see that it is mainly about how 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 and Colossians 3:5-10 refute the doctrine of sinnless perfection. I wrote that we have to do with “paradoxical truths that are both to be taken seriously”. This is how I formulated the paradox in my 2nd post:

If the Bible tells us so, who are we to oppose it? More accurately, the Bible says that the we are dead, but we still need to put to death our members. No contradiction here, just paradoxical truths that are both to be taken seriously! Here is how I understand it:

• Yes by being planted together in the likeness of [Christ's] death (Rom 6) we are one for all dead.
  • That speaks about an action at the core of the problem of sin. Already done.
• But we are commanded to put our members to death
  • That speaks about action on all the ramifications of sin. To be done everyday. Sanctification as a lifestyle

But I see that you can cope with only a side of the paradox and while you can quote other verses that belong to this side of the paradox (as you just did), you cannot cope with the other side of the paradox, so that you ignore the verses belonging to the other side of the paradox or you make violence against them to force a fanciful interpretation on them.

Therefore, neither you nor Hopeful 2 could give a satisfactory answer to the paradox. If you continue wanting to be close your eyes to the scripture when it doesn't fit with your theology, instead of welcoming any correction from scripture, then we better stop the discussion now!

 

[JJonas]

I'm puzzled by your remarks, here. Where in all that I wrote in this thread do I indicate that I think I am, or want to be, "smarter than God's word"? Nowhere. Why, then, are you saying that this is my motive in posting? This may be what motivates you, @JJonas, but not me. Also, I don't think my time is wasted in my exchanges with @Hopeful, or any poster with whom I engage (including you). If I think it is, I leave off talking with them.

I just quoted a verse that taught that there is a short limit with how long we should discuss with people that are incorrigible. But I read you telling that it is a good thing for you to continue the discussion with such people. That seems to me to be trying to be smarter than God's word.

Now that I explained to you why you seem to me to be trying to be smarter than God's word, could you tell me why the thought came to your mind, that I may be motivated to do the same?

As well, I'm not in my posting provoked by a desire to have the last word (though, you may be). My motives are what I've already explained to @Carry_Your_Name, and now to you. Believe me, or not. In either event, I will continue to post in this thread so long as I think that at least I'm gaining from doing so. If you've tired of reading through this and intend to retire from it, go ahead. I wonder, though, why you think others must feel and do likewise or be accused of "trying to be smarter than God's word," or "wanting to have the last word."

How can a discussion continue going round in circles, unless their protagonists are provoked by a desire to have the last word? Neither you, nor Hopeful 2 moved one inch away from their position. This is not a discussion where people want to learn from another, to let themselves to be corrected by scripture.

I stopped to answer to Hopeful 2 some while ago, as you can see the unanswered questions that he asked me. So I let him have the last word. Then again, how the thought came to your mind, that I may be provoked by a desire to have the last word?

 

[Tenchi]

I just quoted a verse that taught that there is a short limit with how long we should discuss with people that are incorrigible. But I read you telling that it is a good thing for you to continue the discussion with such people. That seems to me to be trying to be smarter than God's word.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't get to tell everyone else the application boundaries of the verse you quoted or who precisely qualifies as a "divisive person." Hopeful 2 is a deeply mistaken person, but I have yet to get the sense that s/he is just trolling to cause a ruckus and disagreement. If I do get that sense, then I'll cease discussion. But that sense is something I come to myself, not something you get to dictate to me.

Now that I explained to you why you seem to me to be trying to be smarter than God's word, could you tell me why the thought came to your mind, that I may be motivated to do the same?

In my experience, when folks criticize others, very often it is criticism of the very thing of which they are guilty. It's called projection. It happens a lot.

You'll notice, though, that I wrote "may," leaving room for it not to be the case that you are projecting.

How can a discussion continue going round in circles

I've been a discipler of men for thirty years, a high school teacher and the chief instructor of a martial arts school. All of these teaching roles have taught me that, perhaps more than anything else, repetition is vital to learning. And the more set in one way of thinking a person is, the more repetition is required to alter that thinking. So, I don't think of discussion with Hopeful 2 as going in circles but merely the necessary repeating of the truth in order that understanding might occur.

Neither you, nor Hopeful 2 moved one inch away from their position.

This doesn't mean God in His own time might do something with the content of the discussion in Hopeful's mind and heart. I don't need to see "movement" in others in order to be faithful in speaking the truth to them. Every pastor alive understands this.

This is not a discussion where people want to learn from another, to let themselves to be corrected by scripture.

In the case of confronting false teaching, the learning can only be one way. I can't yield the truth and accede to Hopeful's error. So, my discussion with Hopeful isn't of the sort where there's a give-and-take of truth. This doesn't mean I shouldn't contend for the truth with him. Both Christ and Paul spent much time in Jewish synagogues doing just this.

I stopped to answer to Hopeful 2 some while ago, as you can see the unanswered questions that he asked me. So I let him have the last word.

And you're entirely free to leave off talking with Hopeful whenever you feel you should. But this is true for me, too.

 

[hawkman]

TOS1.3: Use self control and focus on reconciliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Are you?
Are you? (Do you see how silly these sorts of questions are?)

Your answers lead me to beleive you don't know the answers.
Rebirth follows the death of the old man.
There can't be two of you running around.

So, John 3:3-7 doesn't help you address my question. Why bring it up, then?

That scrip' given no indication of how one is reborn, just that it must ha[pen.

And 1 Peter 1:23 is speaking of the word of God, of Scripture, not of some sort of divine inseminating "seed." By means of God's word, of His divine, life-changing Truth (i.e. the Gospel), we are "born-again." Peter is crystal clear about this:

Why do you minimize what God can or can't do ?

Here's the verse in its immediate context which highlights further that Peter is in referring to "seed" meaning the WORD of God.

Amen to that.
That word has the power to institute rebirth.
But do you know the...mechanics of how ?

As Peter wrote quite explicitly, "the word is the good news that was preached to you" (ie. the Gospel), not the Word, Jesus Christ. Of course, the Gospel reveals the Savior to us, but the Good News about him is not identical to Christ himself; they are not one-and-the-same "word." It's evident to me, then, that you've mishandled Scripture here, forcing a meaning into Peter's words rather than accepting the meaning he's given.

I can't agree with that.

And so, you haven't yet explained what you mean by "born of God's seed."

You just posted your answer..."23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;"
The word of God is the seed.
The word of God has the power to regenerate men dead in trespasses and sin.

Where is "born of God's seed" in all of this? Yes, being united with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection frees us from the power of sin and Self, but how does this union involve birth and God's "seed" being sown in us?

"That" union provides for the destruction of the old man, and the union with Christ in His resurrection from the tomb.
As His resurrection was a sort of rebirth for Jesus, it is a real rebirth from the dead for us.
We are now new creatures that have never before walked on the earth.
Born of God's life giving seed.
We are His children.

Paul never uses the word "rebirth" in Romans 6. He doesn't use the word "seed," either, in the chapter. Why, then, are you referring to this chapter to explain what it never mentions?

Why would he need to ?
Is there any other scripture that refers to us being raised to walk in newness of life ?

As far as I can see, my question about what "born of God's seed" actually means remains unanswered.

The seed is the word, and that word is alive and can regenerate a man.
The word allows us to walk in the Spirit instead of in the "flesh".

No, I simply maintain fidelity to the explicit declaration of God's word.

Really ?
Except for Matt 5:48 ?
And..."Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" (1 Peter 4:1)

"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

“Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" (2 Peter 1:10)

"Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless." (2 Peter 3:14)
Where is your fidelity to those scriptures ?

No, this is just your Strawman version of my view. In reality, I have been entirely biblical in my statements, not forcing into Scripture what I want to see in it, but simply taking it as it is. In doing so, I must acknowledge what Scripture explicitly and repeatedly says, which is that the saints of God do sin, though they can learn to walk with God such that doing so becomes the exception rather than the rule of their living.

That is my view of your position.
Plus, you keep misusing scrips' to prove it.
Your POV flies in the face of 1 John 3:9-10.

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't seem to recognize what the passage plainly indicates.
1 Corinthians 3:1
1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
Paul makes a clear distinction here between being "spiritual" and being "in Christ." He could not call his brothers in Christ "spiritual" because they were being spiritually infantile, "of the flesh," which as he explained meant partisan and contentious.

With the lack of either, one is neither spiritual nor in Christ.
Paul is leaving them a graceful way back to both.

Like the cat-acting-like-a-dog analogy that I offered to you a post or so ago, these in-Christ brethren in Corinth were acting contrary to their born-again spiritual nature,

No. they are not.
A cat can never be a dog, and an adulterous divider of brethren can never be in Christ.
But with a real repentance from their sins, hope is not lost.

like the cat behaving as though it were a dog. Neither the cat nor the Corinthian Christians were living consistent with their true nature. And just to make this crystal clear, Paul confirmed repeatedly to the carnal infants in Christ in Corinth that though they were as he described - of the flesh, contentious, partisan - they were ALSO "God's field and building," God's "temple," and the possession of Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16, 23).

If their natures were not Godly natures, their fate is the same as any other sinner.

Though I have made this observation to you many times, you remain, it seems, utterly unable to acknowledge what Paul plainly, directly states in the chapter. In this blindness of yours to the explicit statements of Scripture, I see a stark example of the terrible danger of taking up a false teaching. Yikes.

You have your own straw man issues.

Actually, as I already pointed to you from chapter 3, Paul addressed this matter very directly:

What would be the "fate" of the Christians in Corinth if they persisted in building upon Christ, their foundation, "wood, hay and stubble"? All of it would be "burned up" and they would suffer the loss of the reward they would have received had they built with "gold, silver, and precious stones." But the loss of this reward did not mean the loss of their salvation. Though everything they'd built be "burned up," they would STILL be saved "yet so as through fire."

If they are sinners, they were never "built on Christ".
Your doctrine is just another accommodation for sin.

So, then, though Paul was "trying to reel them back in" from carnality and the loss of their eternal reward, he was never concerned about their "in Christ" status which, as I said, he confirmed repeatedly in the chapter.

I disagree.
The seed determines the fruit.
Bad fruit comes from bad seed, and will be damned.

Yes. But a born-again saint of God who walks in darkness is not the same as an unsaved person who does so.

Someone has hood-winked you.
It is written..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

They are just like the cat who acts like a dog, denying the truth of their "new creature in Christ" condition. An unsaved person, though, is acting in perfect consistency with their sin-nature.

As the supposed sin nature is one of the things passed away in 2 Cor 5:17..."Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."...your point is moot.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm puzzled by your remarks, here. Where in all that I wrote in this thread do I indicate that I think I am, or want to be, "smarter than God's word"? Nowhere. Why, then, are you saying that this is my motive in posting? This may be what motivates you, JJonas, but not me. Also, I don't think my time is wasted in my exchanges with Hopeful, or any poster with whom I engage (including you). If I think it is, I leave off talking with them.

In any case, as I pointed out to Carry_Your_Name, if no one else benefits from what I write, I do. The thought, and study of God's word, and rehearsal of His truth involved in posting all serve to improve me, to sharpen my capacity to express my thinking, prompt me into investigation of things in Scripture I might not otherwise consider, and exercise my scriptural recall.

As well, I'm not in my posting provoked by a desire to have the last word (though, you may be). My motives are what I've already explained to Carry_Your_Name, and now to you. Believe me, or not. In either event, I will continue to post in this thread so long as I think that at least I'm gaining from doing so. If you've tired of reading through this and intend to retire from it, go ahead. I wonder, though, why you think others must feel and do likewise or be accused of "trying to be smarter than God's word," or "wanting to have the last word."

You are accused of "trying to be smarter than God's word" because God has instructed his disciples to inquire whether their listener is worthy or not before turning on your preaching mode. If not, you ought to leave them for God to judge instead of endlessly lecturing them.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. (Matt. 7:6)

“Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city! (Matt. 10:11-15)

Those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.” (1 Cor. 5:13)

 

[Hopeful 2]

You offer this passage again and again and just as often ignore the context within which John's statements in the passage stand. When you take all of what John wrote in its entirety, your sinless perfection error doesn't emerge - it can't because John explicitly eliminates such a reading of his words:

The context is illustrated in 1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
John is telling the church how to de[lineate between Christians and posers.

These statements of John don't disappear, they aren't negated, by the passage you cited in the quotation above. They must be synthesized with one another, taken together, and when they are, understood within the larger context of all of the NT, sinless perfection just doesn't take shape within them.

I hope some day you can do just that, instead of blending together both those who walk in sin-darkness with those who walk in God, the light.

Though you might wish it to be, what I've pointed out from God's word is not "opinion" but the plain facts of the matter.

Folks walking in sin cannot say they have no sin, or that they have fellowship with God.
Folks walking in God can honestly say both.
I can tell the difference between the reborn and the posers.
You blend them together.

Exactly what Paul said it meant. It was to those to whom Paul wrote:

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

that he also wrote:

Romans 6:11-12
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

As I've pointed out to you before, such statements as these are entirely unnecessary for those who are sinlessly perfect. It seems very plain to me, then, in the remarks of Paul above that he did not think the believers at Rome were sinlessly perfect. In fact, he implied that they were ignorant of their spiritual identity in Christ and so had been living in a way that required "grace to abound." In remedy of this situation, he informed the ignorant Roman brethren (not the yet-to-be-saved) of the facts of their union with Christ and then told them to live by faith ("consider yourselves to be" - vs. 11) in those facts.

Paul's audience was much vaster than just Romans.
God's word reaches out beyond Rome even today.

I don't, of course.

You write as though you do.

Is the convict freshly-released from prison, who freely walks the streets of his hometown, not actually free if he commits another crime and returns to prison a month later? God leaves it to us to choose to live in the freedom from the power of Self and sin that is ours in Christ, but if we choose not to do so and live in sin instead, this no more makes us not a Christian than a cat acting like a dog makes the cat not a cat.

It is pointless to compare worldly events to God's doings.

Yes, we can trust in Christ and submit to him as Lord and he will, in response, give us new life in himself in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But just as we must choose to believe and submit to Christ, we must choose to live in the truth of who we are in Christ. If we don't, if we choose to live in denial of who we've become in Christ, we won't enjoy the benefits of our identity in him.

Finally, some sensible words !
Submit !
Beleive !
Choose !
It is all in our hands, and eternal life is the prize.

But this doesn't undo what Christ has done in saving us; it merely makes us, spiritually, a "cat acting like a dog."

A poser.

 

[leroy]

I was just looking for a simple yes or no answer.

Next time I will be more specific.

I felt I was very clear in my post as to the nature of Christ. For you to pose such a question caused me to wonder if you had read what I wrote. Since my view on the subject has gone through a number of revisions over time, from the typical view held by the general populous of Christians I expect that one like yourself would have lots of questions. So I do look forward to your thoughts.

 

[leroy]

The key to understand the term "the law of sin" is written in Rom. 7:5-6

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

If I understand you correctly, you are not in agreement with my thoughts that "the law of sin" is not referring to the Decalogue but more of an immutable principle that I have no power to escape from. If that is the case look at these 3 verses.
21 "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

Can you see that he is speaking of a law, not the Law, the Decalogue. It is cause and effect; he exhibits an effort and he runs into the same result every time which he describes as a law. like gravity, what goes up must eventually come down.

22 "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:"
Here he is speaking of the Decalogue. He clarifies it by calling it God's law. He has no delight in "a law" mentioned above. These are two different laws.

23 "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

Here he speaks of "another law" which is "in his members" and it is different from the law of God which he delights in. This law is at war with God's law and keeps him from obeying the God's law.
Finally he gives this law which is in his members a name: "the law of sin."

The law of the spirit of life is not the Decalogue. It is a greater law than the law of sin. When God executes His miraculous work and delivers a longing soul by the law of the spirit of life, it brings continual obedience and victory for they are kept by His power as they walk after the spirit.

"Sinful passions" therein are referring to our rebellious nature. All laws are chains and shackles, nobody likes to be chained, nobody is naturally obedient, we're born with desires to steal, kill, lust, lie and covet. When you read in the ten

that you shall not do these, an unsaved person would be aroused to challenge God's authority - you told me not to? Then that's exactly what I'm gonna do! What I feel good is real good! A saved person understands our sinful nature and the purpose of these laws - which is the spirit, they're mature enough to restrain and overcome these desires with self-control, and live the way God intended for his image bearers to live.

My understanding is that the Son becomes so identified with the soul who is surrendered to His death that it is the Son who works in him both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. It is no longer I that live but it is Christ who lives in me. Do we ever be come "mature enough" and have enough "self control" to live as Jesus did? I think not. All self effort to be good is a works religion. Come up higher Carry.

 

[leroy]

Where does 2 Tim. 3:16 speak about a clear promise from God for a sinnless life? On the contrary, the focus is on doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, because as long as we are waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:23), our beliefs and our walk constantly need correction. This is done by the scripture, but also by the mutual edification in the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-16), so that we may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ (v. 15). See, the Bible testify that our christian walk is a progressive sanctification, where we grow up into Christ, in all things, yes in all areas of our life!

I never stated that 2 Tim had a clear promise from God. I was referring to the scriptures I have shared in my previous posts. Such as:
"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2 Peter 1:4
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 2 Cor 5:17
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy," Jude 24
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1John 3:9
That is why I said, "You share the problem and I share the solution God offers"

Yes that's true: If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. If we can find any man that doesn't offend in word, we find a perfect man able to bridle the whole body. But scripture cannot cancel scripture. However you want to use scripture (2nd part of the verse) to cancel scripture (1st part of the verse).

I find this "cancel thing" illogical. I was just reflecting that you have had difficulty believing that God can keep a soul from falling. Here in 2 Timothy it speaks of such an individual and I was just hoping that you might come to a place that continual obedience is a reality. Violating your conscience is not a requirement. Jesus has sinful flesh just as we do and he was kept by the power of God. Why is it difficult to believe that God can keep you. with every temptation he provides an escape. "Sinless perfection" is a demonic term. Anyone will throw the baby out with the bath water when they hear or use that term. We are all sinners but God has covenanted to redeem us from sin and he has promised his Son to be our life so that we can be kept continually.

No, I didn't. There is too much to read for me, so I mainly read and answer people that responded to me. People can be quick to confess orthodoxy, but lather say something that reveals that their beliefs are not as orthodox as it first appeared. It wonders me why a believer should ever call Jesus the “Son of Mary”. Could you explain why you choosed to call Jesus that way?

Simply put, she gave birth to him so she was his mother. Therefore he was her son.
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" Romans 1:3
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Scripture clearly connects Jesus genetically with David. In Luke 3: 23 through to the end of the chapter is Mary's genealogy all the way back to Adam. I think that is significant, as he had to bear all of the inherited traits that his predecessors failed to deal with and he did it through the power of God and overcame all of it.
I used to believe that the Father changed His Son into a human embryo and planted Him in Mary's womb. But if that was the case then His flesh would have come from a different source than ours. Scripture indicates that Jesus flesh originated from Adam on down to Mary. So I came to the conclusion that the Son of God, who is a divine spirit Being, the Creator of all things, inhabited the son of Mary at the point of conception. This is the marriage of the lamb. Human beings are the bride of Christ. The two became one. Jesus is the head of the body of Christ, we are all the other parts. The Son was given to every child of Adam as a replacement for that which died in Eden. Jesus was given a task, a mission to show what it is to have the Son possessing the soul and how we are to die. He didn't die so that we don't have to he died to show us how it is done. The Adam nature must be destroyed it cannot be fixed. This is how we are redeemed the Son is to be our life because we lost ours in Eden. Eternal life is not a substance that God gives us it comes in the person of His Son.
1John 5:11,12 reads, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Everybody here understand that very well, that you don't claim to be sinnless since physical conception, but only since the new birth. And it is just that what we call the doctrine of sinnless perfection.

If you read the Title of the thread of the first posts you will see that it is mainly about how 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 and Colossians 3:5-10 refute the doctrine of sinnless perfection. I wrote that we have to do with “paradoxical truths that are both to be taken seriously”. This is how I formulated the paradox in my 2nd post:


But I see that you can cope with only a side of the paradox and while you can quote other verses that belong to this side of the paradox (as you just did), you cannot cope with the other side of the paradox, so that you ignore the verses belonging to the other side of the paradox or you make violence against them to force a fanciful interpretation on them.

Therefore, neither you nor Hopeful 2 could give a satisfactory answer to the paradox. If you continue wanting to be close your eyes to the scripture when it doesn't fit with your theology, instead of welcoming any correction from scripture, then we better stop the discussion now!

 

[leroy]

Where does 2 Tim. 3:16 speak about a clear promise from God for a sinnless life? On the contrary, the focus is on doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, because as long as we are waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:23), our beliefs and our walk constantly need correction. This is done by the scripture, but also by the mutual edification in the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-16), so that we may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ (v. 15). See, the Bible testify that our christian walk is a progressive sanctification, where we grow up into Christ, in all things, yes in all areas of our life!


Yes that's true: If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. If we can find any man that doesn't offend in word, we find a perfect man able to bridle the whole body. But scripture cannot cancel scripture. However you want to use scripture (2nd part of the verse) to cancel scripture (1st part of the verse).


No, I didn't. There is too much to read for me, so I mainly read and answer people that responded to me. People can be quick to confess orthodoxy, but lather say something that reveals that their beliefs are not as orthodox as it first appeared. It wonders me why a believer should ever call Jesus the “Son of Mary”. Could you explain why you choosed to call Jesus that way?


Everybody here understand that very well, that you don't claim to be sinnless since physical conception, but only since the new birth. And it is just that what we call the doctrine of sinnless perfection.

If you read the Title of the thread of the first posts you will see that it is mainly about how 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 and Colossians 3:5-10 refute the doctrine of sinnless perfection. I wrote that we have to do with “paradoxical truths that are both to be taken seriously”. This is how I formulated the paradox in my 2nd post:


But I see that you can cope with only a side of the paradox and while you can quote other verses that belong to this side of the paradox (as you just did), you cannot cope with the other side of the paradox, so that you ignore the verses belonging to the other side of the paradox or you make violence against them to force a fanciful interpretation on them.

Therefore, neither you nor Hopeful 2 could give a satisfactory answer to the paradox. If you continue wanting to be close your eyes to the scripture when it doesn't fit with your theology, instead of welcoming any correction from scripture, then we better stop the discussion now!

I just noticed that I missed the last part of this post of yours and I would like to give answer to the idea of the paradox. According to Romans six it is God's belief that he crucified our old man that the body of sin might be destroyed. Walking by faith is just believing what God believes. So I accept what God says about me that I am dead and that my life is hidden with His Son secure within the Father.
The witch of Endor conjured up a familiar spirit, supposedly looking like and sounding like Samuel but we all know that it was a demon. I believe that everyone of us comes into the world with a familiar spirit at our side. Note that the word familiar comes from the word family. These are family spirits passed down from one generation to the next. (the sins of the fathers...) Throughout our life this familiar spirit makes suggestions to us in first person so that we think the thought is our own. Following these suggestions created sin. But since I now know that the old man is dead, anything that I see, hear, or feel that comes in the context that the old man is not dead yet, I know very well who is talking.
I went through a three week trial where I felt hatred anger and offense. Wave after wave of these feelings came over me throughout the 21 days. At the end of it I was sitting in my room and it was like I was in the eye of a storm, where it was quiet. I could see everything whirling around me but I could not be drawn into the passion of it. The feelings were gone. And then I quietly heard Father speak to me, "That's not you." I realize that it is the devil who is full of hatred anger and offense. I was simply identifying with his thoughts and suggestions. After that point it was so easy to look at difficult circumstances and see who is behind them all. It's like the curtain is pulled back and they are no longer able to deceive.
Thoughts are suggested and they can arouse feelings these feelings push hard against our belief that the old man is dead. But feelings are temptation to act but they are not sin unless we carry them out. So these spirits are like personal trainers. They placed another 25 pounds of discouragement, fear, lust or offense on our faith and dare us to lift it. The temptation is to believe that the old man is still alive. Should we entertain that thought and yield to temptation, we are participating in the most subtle form of necromancy, having intercourse with the dead.
But if we maintain steadfast our believe in what God has said about us, He provides the way of escape that we may bear the temptation. In doing so we are putting another nail in the coffin of the corpse of the old Man.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

My understanding is that the Son becomes so identified with the soul who is surrendered to His death that it is the Son who works in him both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. It is no longer I that live but it is Christ who lives in me. Do we ever be come "mature enough" and have enough "self control" to live as Jesus did? I think not. All self effort to be good is a works religion. Come up higher Carry.

Think about it in this way - the church is the body of Christ, we as members of the church are representatives or ambassadors of Christ's kingdom, the rest of the world sees Christ through us, our behavior reflects how the character of Christ is perceived in their mind. I repeat - the rest of the world sees Christ through US, not the bible, for more is cuaght than taught! When you're a representative or an ambassador, you are not yourself, you're the face of your organization, which could be your family, your school, your company, your hometown, your state, even your country. You're a window between the rest of the world and your oraganization. If you're on a business trip to meet a client, that client deals not with you personally but with your company, and you ought to follow the order of your boss who sent you, and not your own ideas. If you do a good job and leave your client with a good impression, you'd earn their trust and honor your company, they'll come back next time; but if you do a bad job and leave your client with a bad impression, you'd lose their trust and dishonor your company. Maybe they won't say it in your face, but they'll cross you off quietly in their mind, and next time they'll find someone else to do business with. Likewise, our own reputation affects Jesus's reputation to our mission field. When a pastor or a deacon is caught in a scandal, that's not just humiliation to themselves, but to the whole body of Christ. No atheist tyrant or propaganda machine could cause more damage to the church than an apostate church itself.