Bible Study The Lie of Sinless Perfection.

[Tenchi]

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

Do genuinely born-again Christians sin?

Some professing believers claim that such a thing is impossible for a truly born-again believer. The person in whom the "seed" of God, the Holy Spirit, dwells is liberated from the power of, and bondage to, sin (Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-4; Romans 8:9-16), only the "fruit" of the "seed" of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their life (Galatians 5:22-23). Any sin in the life of the person claiming to be a child of God, a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), then, is a token of their not being saved; their sin reveals the true nature of their inner-state, you see: A divine "seed" can only bear divine "fruit."

But, then, the New Testament offers to us example after example of born-again believers living in sin. The Christian brethren at Corinth are a prime example. In chapter three of his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul described them as "brethren," "God's field and building," those who belonged to Christ and were in him, and "God's temples" (verses 1, 9, 16, and 23). But, then, in the same chapter, Paul also criticized the believers at Corinth as "carnal," "jealous," living in strife with one another, partisan, and puffed up in their worldly wisdom (verses 1, 3, 4, 18-19). There is no hint in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3 that he thought it was impossible that the believers at Corinth could be both "carnal" and "in Christ." Nothing in Paul's words in the chapter suggest that he was of the view that their being carnal meant that the "brethren" at Corinth were not actually brethren.

In fact, just to hammer home this point, the apostle Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 3:

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, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

But this isn't what Paul indicated. Instead, his remarks to the Christians at Corinth defy the sinless perfection view that comes from overstretching the "seed - fruit" analogy. And severely overstretched the analogy is when the conclusion drawn from it is that a Christian cannot sin. This overstretching is easily exposed by simply pointing out two things:

1.) A human being isn't a plant.
2.) The "seed-fruit" analogy is conveniently restricted to conduct.

A tree, or bush, or grass has no sentience, no self-awareness or consciousness, no soul. As such, it is incapable of choosing what it does, or doesn't do, it doesn't decide whether or not it will produce roses, or apples, or wheat seed; it just does. Like a .45 revolver that can only shoot bullets - not blueberries, or acorns, or bubbles - an apple tree can only produce apples, a rose bush, roses, and wheat grass, wheat seed.

But this isn't the case, obviously, for human beings. They are willful creatures, not puppets (or plants), who choose what they will or won't do, what "fruit" they'll bear in their daily living. There cannot be, then, a strict, mechanical seed-fruit effect that occurs in the born-again person, as happens in the mindless, soulless apple tree, or rose bush, or wheat stalk. No, the born-again person must choose every day how they will live, either submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, or wresting from him the "steering wheel" of their life and “driving” in their own direction. Unlike a plant, one's life will always manifest behavior that corresponds to one’s choice either to submit to God, or not.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of a born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of God’s other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects?

The seeds an apple tree produces contain all that is necessary to make an entirely new apple tree that, in kind, is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined, then, to say that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce the "fruit" of sinless perfection, why isn't one obliged to say this about all that is true of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit? Why over-extend in this one regard but restrict in others?

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not any particular, single act of sin.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

This conforms very well with other things the apostle John wrote that prevent a sinless-perfection construction being placed on his words in the passage above.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It's always baffling - and horrifying - to me that in the face of this explicit, clear declaration from John, sinless-perfection proponents still assert their view. John could not be more plain in his statement here that to claim sinlessness is to make God a liar, to be self-deceived and to be devoid of the truth.

John is not done, though, making it clear that he thought both his readers and himself had, and would, sin as born-again children of God.

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;

In this verse, John plainly identified the object of his words: “my little children.” His remarks, then, in the verse are directed specifically at his spiritual “children.” The apostle Paul explained who such “children” are:

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

So, John is speaking to those he’d brought to faith in Christ and had thus become a “father through the Gospel” to them. In other words, he’s speaking to saved people. To them, to fellow born-again believers, John wrote “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” If sinless perfection is true and John believed it, why would he write to Christians, to his own spiritual children, “if anyone sins…”? He continued, writing, “we have…,” including himself among those who, if they sinned, had a divine Advocate before God. Clearly, John did not believe in the false doctrine of sinless perfection, but understood that both his readers and himself had, could, and would sin and were not, therefore, sinlessly perfect.

It’s in the nature of false teaching, however, to do as Satan did in Eden and say, "Has God said?" Well, in the matter of sinning saints, yes, God has - very directly and unmistakably - stated in His word that saints DO sin and to say otherwise is, essentially, to blaspheme against the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

In demonstration of this fact, the New Testament is filled with instances where the writers of the letters constituting the New Testament address issues of sinful conduct and doctrinal ignorance (two things that often go together) among born-again believers. Why, for example, does Paul explain to the believers at Rome that they ought not to go on sinning that grace may abound (Romans 6)? Obviously, because this was what they were doing. Why did John write to his fellow believers about loving one another if they were already doing so perfectly (1 John 4:7-11)? Again, obviously, because they weren't doing so. What of Peter's words concerning holiness to fellow Christians? Why did he enjoin them to holy living (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 3:11) if he believed they were, simply by virtue of being born-again, already living in sinless perfection? Well, obviously, because he didn’t think any such thing was true of them.

What is the underlying motive for holding to a sinless perfection view? What could possibly attract anyone to so patently false a doctrine?

For some, it's fear - fear of themselves, of their weakness against the power of sin, that makes them take up this thinking. They're like the fearful boy who is accused of being afraid, who cries out in denial, "No I'm not! I'm not afraid at all!" It's precisely because the boy is very afraid that he is compelled to say he's not. So, too, some of those who hold to the sinless-perfection view. It's precisely because they know, and are afraid of, their sinfulness that they seek refuge from it in flat denial.

For others, it's self-righteous piety and legalistic self-effort that create an attraction to the false doctrine of sinless-perfection. What more pleasing an idea to the self-righteous than instantaneous moral perfection? What higher plane from which to look down on others than that of utter sinlessness? What more rarified a state can the pious and legalistic enjoy than that of unadulterated holiness? From such a place, they can declare, "You're in. You're out," making themselves and their understanding of what "perfection" is the Final Arbiter of who is truly God's and who isn't.

Of course, in my experience, when you press these self-righteous legalists to explain what perfection is, not actually knowing what it is, they deflect, and squirm, and dodge, offering platitudes and prooftexts, as though in these things it's just utterly obvious what perfection is. If you can't see what they see in their slogans and misuse of Scripture, well, you need to be saved so that you can. This is to argue in a circle, however: If I see that I'm perfect, I'm truly saved, and I'm truly saved if I see that I'm perfect.

What is it, though, to be truly sinlessly perfect? The sinless perfection advocate will point to Jesus and say, “There! Jesus is perfect. We see his perfection in Scripture and so we understand what sinless perfection is.” Well, I can listen to, and watch, a world-class concert pianist playing the piano and hear his fellow, world-class concert pianists all declare, “He played that piece perfectly!” Do I understand, then, the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance? Of course not.

Though I might be able to point to the concert pianist’s performance as an example of perfect piano playing, I don’t really have any idea what that perfection fully entails. I don’t understand the lifetime of practice systems the pianist used to arrive at his perfect performance, or the mechanics of his posture, and fingering of the keyboard, and use of the piano’s foot-pedals. I don’t understand the nuances of his “interpretation” of the piece of music he played, the particular pressure he applied to various keys at certain times, the precise expressive timing he used, the pattern of his breathing, the pianist’s thinking and emotions as he performed, and so on.

It doesn’t help me, then, in understanding what perfect piano playing is to have heard the pianist’s perfect performance. Having done so, I still can’t say, “I understand what perfect piano playing is!” Not hardly. I have, actually, only the tiniest fraction of understanding about what it is to play the piano perfectly, though I’ve heard the concert pianist do so.

So, too, with the moral perfection of Christ. Though I can observe his perfect “performance” of sinlessness in the Gospels, I don’t truly understand what that perfection actually entails any more than I do the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance. But the sinless perfection advocate would have you think that he does understand; after all, he claims that he is himself sinlessly perfect. This claim necessitates, however, not only a complete understanding of Christ’s sinless perfection, but a replication of this state in his own life.

It is the height of self-deception, then, for the sinless perfection proponent to say “I am sinlessly perfect.” He cannot know what sinless perfection actually is and so cannot ever know when, or if, he has achieved that state himself. He is, therefore, lying to himself when he pretends to sinless perfection, and so, is exactly the person the apostle John said he would be: deceived and devoid of truth (1 John 1:8).

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Finally, it is very useful in exposing the error of the sinless perfection view to consider the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. Except for the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia, the Spirit criticizes each church, saying things like:

Revelation 2:2-5
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.
4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first…

Revelation 2:13-16
13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
15 'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
16 'Therefore repent…

Revelation 2:19-20
19 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.
20 'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Revelation 3:1-2
1 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

Revelation 3:15-19
15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

In almost every instance above, the Spirit compliments the church, acknowledging its various good points. But, then, the Spirit also highlights in each church areas of moral/spiritual failure – aka sin – and commands repentance. How can such a state-of-affairs obtain in churches of God if all Christians are sinlessly perfect? How can the Spirit compliment the saints on their successes and also criticize those same saints for their failures if they are perfect in their moral condition?

It isn’t that the saints in the various churches are afflicted with false brethren who are doing all the sinning but that the saints themselves are under criticism by God. The Spirit says, for example, to the church at Ephesus:

2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.
4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first…

The “you” who “cannot tolerate evil men,” who carefully test those who call themselves “apostles” and who are commendable in their perseverance in the faith are also the “you” about whom the Spirit said, “You have left your first love.” Nothing in the grammar of the above quotation suggests that the “you” ever refers to two different groups of people, the truly saved and the false convert. No, it is only one group of people who are worthy of both praise and criticism by the Holy Spirit: the saints of God. This fact is true of all of the five churches under God’s criticism, powerfully denying the idea of sinless perfection.

Thus it is that, under a relatively simple analysis of the New Testament, the mistaken idea of the sinless perfection of the born-again person cannot be biblically sustained. The truth is that genuinely born-again children of God do sin - and sometimes quite a lot (See the church at Sardis or Laodicea). Beware, then, the false teacher who urges you to take up the sinless perfection error. He won’t tell you that, in doing so, you adopt his condition of self-deception, you make God a liar and yourself as devoid of truth as he, the false teacher, is.

 

[hawkman]

Who's fault is it that you still sin ?

 

[KV-44-v1]

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, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

How do you know those burnt works are works of sin in the saved believers life? They could be non-sinful, but unproductive works in the saved condition, and sin in the believer's pre-saved condition.

I'm still on the fence on "sin stuck Christians" vs "sin no more Christians", but your arguments are compelling for the former camp.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of a born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of God’s other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects?

I think its because Christians "sin no more" is enough. God doesn't want to give us His power.
A fraction of infinity is infinity, mathematically.

evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

Why is it arbitrary?
Besides the fruit tree analogy, why is it inconsistent?


Wouldn't their 'deflection to John' be their reliance on the Bible for their doctrine?

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not any particular, single act of sin.

So your position is that when we are saved, we only occasionally sin, but nowhere near as sinful as our past self.

What do you think of "no one can serve two masters, one will serve one and hate the other"?
"Sin no more" can use that as evidence of their position.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Past and present.

If we say "we won't sin in the future after being saved" then we don't decieve ourselfs?
If "Saved people sin no more" is wrong, then why doesn't the Bible include a future tense?
And what if those who "sin no more" after being saved never SAY anything along those lines?

It doesn’t help me, then, in understanding what perfect piano playing is to have heard the pianist’s perfect performance. Having done so, I still can’t say, “I understand what perfect piano playing is!” Not hardly. I have, actually, only the tiniest fraction of understanding about what it is to play the piano perfectly, though I’ve heard the concert pianist do so.

So, too, with the moral perfection of Christ. Though I can observe his perfect “performance” of sinlessness in the Gospels, I don’t truly understand what that perfection actually entails any more than I do the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance. But the sinless perfection advocate would have you think that he does understand; after all, he claims that he is himself sinlessly perfect. This claim necessitates, however, not only a complete understanding of Christ’s sinless perfection, but a replication of this state in his own life.

The "sin no more" side could argue that God guides or steers us away from sin somehow. So we "sin no more" because of God. I doubt they claim Born Again Believers sin no more, on their own.

4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.

Mabye intentional sin. What if "sin no more" is true, but only extends to un-intentional sin?

 

[Tenchi]

Who's fault is it that you still sin ?

??? This isn't obvious?

James 1:14-16.

 

[hawkman]

??? This isn't obvious?

James 1:14-16.

Ok . You need to stop before the conception takes place .

Though I can observe his perfect “performance” of sinlessness in the Gospels, I don’t truly understand what that perfection actually entails any more than I do the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance.

Do you strive to be sinless or do you give the excuse of not understanding what sinlessness is ?
Have you prayed for God to give you the understanding you lack ?

 

[Tenchi]

How do you know those burnt works are works of sin in the saved believers life? They could be non-sinful, but unproductive works in the saved condition, and sin in the believer's pre-saved condition.

Two things: 1.) The man's works are destroyed, not simply discarded as useless. 2.) The man gets into heaven "by the skin of his teeth" or, as Paul put it, "so as by fire." If his works were merely useless, why would his entrance into heaven be so narrow a thing? We aren't saved by our works, after all (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). In light of this, it seems to me that the "smokiness" of this man's entrance into God's heavenly kingdom suggests that his works were more than merely useless to God but an offense to Him.

What man, though, would produce such God-rejected works who was perfect in his righteousness? How could this man be perfect - which is to say, as God is - in his righteousness and only just squeak into God's kingdom? Does this not strike you as extremely odd? It certainly does, me (if sinless perfection were true).

Also, the person Paul described whose works were burned up was a person who was building upon the foundation of Christ (vs. 11-12) and wouldn't, then, have been an unsaved person.

I think its because Christians "sin no more" is enough. God doesn't want to give us His power.

God has given us Himself in the Person of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-16; John 14:26; 1 John 4:13). All of God the Father's essential divine nature is possessed of the Holy Spirit, who is God. So, then, God does want to give us His power and has done so by way of the Holy Spirit taking up residence within each born-again believer. But just as the Spirit's presence within us doesn't make us omnipotent, or omniscient, or omnipresent, his presence inside of us doesn't make us perfectly righteous, either. We progressively "partake in his divine nature" as he is, by our constant submission to him, permitted to express himself more and more completely within us. But this is a process described as growth and maturation from infancy to adulthood spiritually in Scripture (Ephesians 4:13-16; 1 Peter 2:2; 1 Corinthians 3:1, etc.) during which the believer is initially stumbling and wayward but, as they come under the Spirit's control more and more, are made by him stable, strong and conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).

Why is it arbitrary?
Besides the fruit tree analogy, why is it inconsistent?


Wouldn't their 'deflection to John' be their reliance on the Bible for their doctrine?

I think the rest of my OP answered your questions, here. I hope it did, anyway.

So your position is that when we are saved, we only occasionally sin, but nowhere near as sinful as our past self.

Sort of. See above.

What do you think of "no one can serve two masters, one will serve one and hate the other"?
"Sin no more" can use that as evidence of their position.

God's word clarifies and qualifies itself. When "go and sin no more" is put in the context of all of the New Testament, a sinless perfection construction can't be placed upon it. The rest of NT Scripture confounds such an interpretation of Christ's words, as I showed in my OP.

It's true that I can't serve myself and God at the same time. But a Master's servant who serves himself doesn't instantly cease to be a servant of his Master, or demonstrate in his service of himself that he isn't, and was never, his Master's servant. This is, though, what the sinless perfection advocate is putting forward as the case spiritually.

Past and present.

If we say "we won't sin in the future after being saved" then we don't decieve ourselfs?
If "Saved people sin no more" is wrong, then why doesn't the Bible include a future tense?
And what if those who "sin no more" after being saved never SAY anything along those lines?

I'm not sure I'm following you here...

1 John 1:7-10
7 but if we walk [present progressive/active subjunctive tense, indicating an ongoing action] in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have [present active/progressive indicative tense] fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses [present active/progressive verb tense] us from all sin.

John is saying here that if our present, ongoing character of living is "in the Light," we have fellowship with other believers who are doing the same. Though, John wrote also that "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin." He goes on to explain that this happens when a believer confesses their sin (vs. 9). So, then, John appears to me to be indicating in verse 7 that those who make a practice of walking in the Light don't escape occasions when they must be cleansed of the stain of their sin. This dissolves a sinless perfection view.

8 If we say that we have [present active/progressive verb tense indicating continuing action] no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

" We have" is in the present continuous, or progressive, or active tense which means that John thought that both his readers and himself could not say they were without sin in the present or future. To do so would be to deceive oneself and become devoid of the truth, he wrote.

9 If we confess [present active/progressive subjunctive tense] our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Following John's thought into this verse, it is reasonable to think he was offering the remedy to sin that would crop up in the present and future which is confirmed, I think, by his use of "we confess." This verb phrase is also in the present continuous/progressive/active tense indicating a current and ongoing action, not an action one performed in the past.

The "sin no more" side could argue that God guides or steers us away from sin somehow. So we "sin no more" because of God. I doubt they claim Born Again Believers sin no more, on their own.

But when a person says they are sinlessly perfect, how do they know they are? If they don't know what the sinlessly perfect state is, how can they say they occupy it? Well, as my explanation pointed out, they can't.

Yes, God does move us into an increasingly holier life; He's the only One who can. But this is a process, not an instantaneous event, practically-speaking.

 

[Tenchi]

Ok . You need to stop before the conception takes place .

Yup. By the Spirit's enabling you to do so.

Do you strive to be sinless or do you give the excuse of not understanding what sinlessness is ?
Have you prayed for God to give you the understanding you lack ?

In all of what you've read of what I've written on CF.net, have I ever indicated that I want to give excuse for sin and have no interest in being holier?

I pray daily that God would illuminate my mind and heart more and more to His truth and I walk daily in submission to Him so that my prayer might be answered. How about you?

 

[Hopeful 2]

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

Do genuinely born-again Christians sin?

Some professing believers claim that such a thing is impossible for a truly born-again believer. The person in whom the "seed" of God, the Holy Spirit, dwells is liberated from the power of, and bondage to, sin (Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-4; Romans 8:9-16), only the "fruit" of the "seed" of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their life (Galatians 5:22-23). Any sin in the life of the person claiming to be a child of God, a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), then, is a token of their not being saved; their sin reveals the true nature of their inner-state, you see: A divine "seed" can only bear divine "fruit."

But, then, the New Testament offers to us example after example of born-again believers living in sin. The Christian brethren at Corinth are a prime example. In chapter three of his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul described them as "brethren," "God's field and building," those who belonged to Christ and were in him, and "God's temples" (verses 1, 9, 16, and 23). But, then, in the same chapter, Paul also criticized the believers at Corinth as "carnal," "jealous," living in strife with one another, partisan, and puffed up in their worldly wisdom (verses 1, 3, 4, 18-19). There is no hint in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3 that he thought it was impossible that the believers at Corinth could be both "carnal" and "in Christ." Nothing in Paul's words in the chapter suggest that he was of the view that their being carnal meant that the "brethren" at Corinth were not actually brethren.

In fact, just to hammer home this point, the apostle Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 3:

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, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

But this isn't what Paul indicated. Instead, his remarks to the Christians at Corinth defy the sinless perfection view that comes from overstretching the "seed - fruit" analogy. And severely overstretched the analogy is when the conclusion drawn from it is that a Christian cannot sin. This overstretching is easily exposed by simply pointing out two things:

1.) A human being isn't a plant.
2.) The "seed-fruit" analogy is conveniently restricted to conduct.

A tree, or bush, or grass has no sentience, no self-awareness or consciousness, no soul. As such, it is incapable of choosing what it does, or doesn't do, it doesn't decide whether or not it will produce roses, or apples, or wheat seed; it just does. Like a .45 revolver that can only shoot bullets - not blueberries, or acorns, or bubbles - an apple tree can only produce apples, a rose bush, roses, and wheat grass, wheat seed.

But this isn't the case, obviously, for human beings. They are willful creatures, not puppets (or plants), who choose what they will or won't do, what "fruit" they'll bear in their daily living. There cannot be, then, a strict, mechanical seed-fruit effect that occurs in the born-again person, as happens in the mindless, soulless apple tree, or rose bush, or wheat stalk. No, the born-again person must choose every day how they will live, either submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, or wresting from him the "steering wheel" of their life and “driving” in their own direction. Unlike a plant, one's life will always manifest behavior that corresponds to one’s choice either to submit to God, or not.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of a born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of God’s other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects?

The seeds an apple tree produces contain all that is necessary to make an entirely new apple tree that, in kind, is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined, then, to say that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce the "fruit" of sinless perfection, why isn't one obliged to say this about all that is true of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit? Why over-extend in this one regard but restrict in others?

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not any particular, single act of sin.

Continued below.

Have you given up on breaking the sin-confess cycle you wrote of earlier ?
I truly hope not.

 

[Hopeful 2]

This conforms very well with other things the apostle John wrote that prevent a sinless-perfection construction being placed on his words in the passage above.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It's always baffling - and horrifying - to me that in the face of this explicit, clear declaration from John, sinless-perfection proponents still assert their view. John could not be more plain in his statement here that to claim sinlessness is to make God a liar, to be self-deceived and to be devoid of the truth.

John is not done, though, making it clear that he thought both his readers and himself had, and would, sin as born-again children of God.

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;

In this verse, John plainly identified the object of his words: “my little children.” His remarks, then, in the verse are directed specifically at his spiritual “children.” The apostle Paul explained who such “children” are:

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

So, John is speaking to those he’d brought to faith in Christ and had thus become a “father through the Gospel” to them. In other words, he’s speaking to saved people. To them, to fellow born-again believers, John wrote “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” If sinless perfection is true and John believed it, why would he write to Christians, to his own spiritual children, “if anyone sins…”? He continued, writing, “we have…,” including himself among those who, if they sinned, had a divine Advocate before God. Clearly, John did not believe in the false doctrine of sinless perfection, but understood that both his readers and himself had, could, and would sin and were not, therefore, sinlessly perfect.

It’s in the nature of false teaching, however, to do as Satan did in Eden and say, "Has God said?" Well, in the matter of sinning saints, yes, God has - very directly and unmistakably - stated in His word that saints DO sin and to say otherwise is, essentially, to blaspheme against the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

In demonstration of this fact, the New Testament is filled with instances where the writers of the letters constituting the New Testament address issues of sinful conduct and doctrinal ignorance (two things that often go together) among born-again believers. Why, for example, does Paul explain to the believers at Rome that they ought not to go on sinning that grace may abound (Romans 6)? Obviously, because this was what they were doing. Why did John write to his fellow believers about loving one another if they were already doing so perfectly (1 John 4:7-11)? Again, obviously, because they weren't doing so. What of Peter's words concerning holiness to fellow Christians? Why did he enjoin them to holy living (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 3:11) if he believed they were, simply by virtue of being born-again, already living in sinless perfection? Well, obviously, because he didn’t think any such thing was true of them.

What is the underlying motive for holding to a sinless perfection view? What could possibly attract anyone to so patently false a doctrine?

For some, it's fear - fear of themselves, of their weakness against the power of sin, that makes them take up this thinking. They're like the fearful boy who is accused of being afraid, who cries out in denial, "No I'm not! I'm not afraid at all!" It's precisely because the boy is very afraid that he is compelled to say he's not. So, too, some of those who hold to the sinless-perfection view. It's precisely because they know, and are afraid of, their sinfulness that they seek refuge from it in flat denial.

For others, it's self-righteous piety and legalistic self-effort that create an attraction to the false doctrine of sinless-perfection. What more pleasing an idea to the self-righteous than instantaneous moral perfection? What higher plane from which to look down on others than that of utter sinlessness? What more rarified a state can the pious and legalistic enjoy than that of unadulterated holiness? From such a place, they can declare, "You're in. You're out," making themselves and their understanding of what "perfection" is the Final Arbiter of who is truly God's and who isn't.

Of course, in my experience, when you press these self-righteous legalists to explain what perfection is, not actually knowing what it is, they deflect, and squirm, and dodge, offering platitudes and prooftexts, as though in these things it's just utterly obvious what perfection is. If you can't see what they see in their slogans and misuse of Scripture, well, you need to be saved so that you can. This is to argue in a circle, however: If I see that I'm perfect, I'm truly saved, and I'm truly saved if I see that I'm perfect.

What is it, though, to be truly sinlessly perfect? The sinless perfection advocate will point to Jesus and say, “There! Jesus is perfect. We see his perfection in Scripture and so we understand what sinless perfection is.” Well, I can listen to, and watch, a world-class concert pianist playing the piano and hear his fellow, world-class concert pianists all declare, “He played that piece perfectly!” Do I understand, then, the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance? Of course not.

Though I might be able to point to the concert pianist’s performance as an example of perfect piano playing, I don’t really have any idea what that perfection fully entails. I don’t understand the lifetime of practice systems the pianist used to arrive at his perfect performance, or the mechanics of his posture, and fingering of the keyboard, and use of the piano’s foot-pedals. I don’t understand the nuances of his “interpretation” of the piece of music he played, the particular pressure he applied to various keys at certain times, the precise expressive timing he used, the pattern of his breathing, the pianist’s thinking and emotions as he performed, and so on.

It doesn’t help me, then, in understanding what perfect piano playing is to have heard the pianist’s perfect performance. Having done so, I still can’t say, “I understand what perfect piano playing is!” Not hardly. I have, actually, only the tiniest fraction of understanding about what it is to play the piano perfectly, though I’ve heard the concert pianist do so.

So, too, with the moral perfection of Christ. Though I can observe his perfect “performance” of sinlessness in the Gospels, I don’t truly understand what that perfection actually entails any more than I do the perfection of the concert pianist’s performance. But the sinless perfection advocate would have you think that he does understand; after all, he claims that he is himself sinlessly perfect. This claim necessitates, however, not only a complete understanding of Christ’s sinless perfection, but a replication of this state in his own life.

It is the height of self-deception, then, for the sinless perfection proponent to say “I am sinlessly perfect.” He cannot know what sinless perfection actually is and so cannot ever know when, or if, he has achieved that state himself. He is, therefore, lying to himself when he pretends to sinless perfection, and so, is exactly the person the apostle John said he would be: deceived and devoid of truth (1 John 1:8).

Continued below.

It is written..."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." (1 John 2:3-4)

You are saying you don't know Him, and worse.

It is written..."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,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:24-25)
Amen.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Finally, it is very useful in exposing the error of the sinless perfection view to consider the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. Except for the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia, the Spirit criticizes each church, saying things like:

Revelation 2:2-5
2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.
4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first…

Revelation 2:13-16
13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
15 'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
16 'Therefore repent…

Revelation 2:19-20
19 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.
20 'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Revelation 3:1-2
1 "To the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: 'I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
2 'Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

Revelation 3:15-19
15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

In almost every instance above, the Spirit compliments the church, acknowledging its various good points. But, then, the Spirit also highlights in each church areas of moral/spiritual failure – aka sin – and commands repentance. How can such a state-of-affairs obtain in churches of God if all Christians are sinlessly perfect? How can the Spirit compliment the saints on their successes and also criticize those same saints for their failures if they are perfect in their moral condition?

It isn’t that the saints in the various churches are afflicted with false brethren who are doing all the sinning but that the saints themselves are under criticism by God. The Spirit says, for example, to the church at Ephesus:

2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.
4 'But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first…

The “you” who “cannot tolerate evil men,” who carefully test those who call themselves “apostles” and who are commendable in their perseverance in the faith are also the “you” about whom the Spirit said, “You have left your first love.” Nothing in the grammar of the above quotation suggests that the “you” ever refers to two different groups of people, the truly saved and the false convert. No, it is only one group of people who are worthy of both praise and criticism by the Holy Spirit: the saints of God. This fact is true of all of the five churches under God’s criticism, powerfully denying the idea of sinless perfection.

Thus it is that, under a relatively simple analysis of the New Testament, the mistaken idea of the sinless perfection of the born-again person cannot be biblically sustained. The truth is that genuinely born-again children of God do sin - and sometimes quite a lot (See the church at Sardis or Laodicea). Beware, then, the false teacher who urges you to take up the sinless perfection error. He won’t tell you that, in doing so, you adopt his condition of self-deception, you make God a liar and yourself as devoid of truth as he, the false teacher, is.

Take the warnings to heart, or perish.

 

[Hopeful 2]

How do you know those burnt works are works of sin in the saved believers life? They could be non-sinful, but unproductive works in the saved condition, and sin in the believer's pre-saved condition.

I'm still on the fence on "sin stuck Christians" vs "sin no more Christians", but your arguments are compelling for the former camp.


I think its because Christians "sin no more" is enough. God doesn't want to give us His power.
A fraction of infinity is infinity, mathematically.


Why is it arbitrary?
Besides the fruit tree analogy, why is it inconsistent?


Wouldn't their 'deflection to John' be their reliance on the Bible for their doctrine?





So your position is that when we are saved, we only occasionally sin, but nowhere near as sinful as our past self.

What do you think of "no one can serve two masters, one will serve one and hate the other"?
"Sin no more" can use that as evidence of their position.



Past and present.

If we say "we won't sin in the future after being saved" then we don't decieve ourselfs?
If "Saved people sin no more" is wrong, then why doesn't the Bible include a future tense?
And what if those who "sin no more" after being saved never SAY anything along those lines?



The "sin no more" side could argue that God guides or steers us away from sin somehow. So we "sin no more" because of God. I doubt they claim Born Again Believers sin no more, on their own.

It is written..."There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Cor 10:13)
God provides the escapes, but we have to use them.
And according to the verse, we can.

Mabye intentional sin. What if "sin no more" is true, but only extends to un-intentional sin?

All sin is intentional. (James 1:14-15)

 

[eddif]

Y’all can shure say a lot.

I just look for the one time chance for sinless perfection, and for its end.

Adam and Eve, IMHO, had a chance to physically live forever. Their sin stopped that chance. No more access to the physical tree of life.

Till humanity was only evil continually, physical life continued,
another chance for existence w allowed.

The Law was given till Christ was come.

There is one name for salvation now. Jesus. None of the former ways can be dusted off and be used.

Do I see it all clearly? No.

Mississippi redneck
eddif









M

 

[reddogs]

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

Do genuinely born-again Christians sin?

Some professing believers claim that such a thing is impossible for a truly born-again believer. The person in whom the "seed" of God, the Holy Spirit, dwells is liberated from the power of, and bondage to, sin (Romans 6:1-11; Ephesians 2:1-4; Romans 8:9-16), only the "fruit" of the "seed" of the Holy Spirit manifesting in their life (Galatians 5:22-23). Any sin in the life of the person claiming to be a child of God, a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), then, is a token of their not being saved; their sin reveals the true nature of their inner-state, you see: A divine "seed" can only bear divine "fruit."

But, then, the New Testament offers to us example after example of born-again believers living in sin. The Christian brethren at Corinth are a prime example. In chapter three of his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul described them as "brethren," "God's field and building," those who belonged to Christ and were in him, and "God's temples" (verses 1, 9, 16, and 23). But, then, in the same chapter, Paul also criticized the believers at Corinth as "carnal," "jealous," living in strife with one another, partisan, and puffed up in their worldly wisdom (verses 1, 3, 4, 18-19). There is no hint in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3 that he thought it was impossible that the believers at Corinth could be both "carnal" and "in Christ." Nothing in Paul's words in the chapter suggest that he was of the view that their being carnal meant that the "brethren" at Corinth were not actually brethren.

In fact, just to hammer home this point, the apostle Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 3:

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, but only as through fire.

Here, Paul described a situation where a Christian has built upon the "foundation" of Jesus Christ "wood, hay and straw" which, under the divine, fiery testing at the Final Judgment, is entirely burned up. The Christian man loses all reward as a consequence, but is nonetheless saved though "as through fire" or, put another way, "with the smoke of hell on him." How can this be if the "fruit" of this man's life is "burned up" and destroyed and shown thereby to be not "of the seed of the Spirit"? Surely, since the "fruit" of his life, his works of "wood, hay and straw," show that the "seed" of the Spirit was not in him, he could not, therefore, be saved.

But this isn't what Paul indicated. Instead, his remarks to the Christians at Corinth defy the sinless perfection view that comes from overstretching the "seed - fruit" analogy. And severely overstretched the analogy is when the conclusion drawn from it is that a Christian cannot sin. This overstretching is easily exposed by simply pointing out two things:

1.) A human being isn't a plant.
2.) The "seed-fruit" analogy is conveniently restricted to conduct.

A tree, or bush, or grass has no sentience, no self-awareness or consciousness, no soul. As such, it is incapable of choosing what it does, or doesn't do, it doesn't decide whether or not it will produce roses, or apples, or wheat seed; it just does. Like a .45 revolver that can only shoot bullets - not blueberries, or acorns, or bubbles - an apple tree can only produce apples, a rose bush, roses, and wheat grass, wheat seed.

But this isn't the case, obviously, for human beings. They are willful creatures, not puppets (or plants), who choose what they will or won't do, what "fruit" they'll bear in their daily living. There cannot be, then, a strict, mechanical seed-fruit effect that occurs in the born-again person, as happens in the mindless, soulless apple tree, or rose bush, or wheat stalk. No, the born-again person must choose every day how they will live, either submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, or wresting from him the "steering wheel" of their life and “driving” in their own direction. Unlike a plant, one's life will always manifest behavior that corresponds to one’s choice either to submit to God, or not.

It's also...interesting how the seed-fruit analogy is only over-extended in regards to behavior. Though the person holding to sinless perfection is adamant that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce perfect sinlessness in the one in whom he dwells, they won't typically continue to overstretch the analogy and contend that the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit confers upon the born-again person all the perfections of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

But if there is this one perfect manifestation of the nature of the Spirit in the life of a born-again person, why not also a perfect manifestation of God’s other attributes? If the believer can be made instantly perfect by the Spirit in this one respect, why not in all respects?

The seeds an apple tree produces contain all that is necessary to make an entirely new apple tree that, in kind, is the equal of its predecessor. If one is determined, then, to say that the "seed" of the Holy Spirit must produce the "fruit" of sinless perfection, why isn't one obliged to say this about all that is true of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit? Why over-extend in this one regard but restrict in others?

The sinless perfection advocate who is asked this question, in my experience, anyway, usually takes refuge from the evident inconsistency and arbitrariness of their view, not by offering a reasoned response, but by deflecting to the apostle John's statements:

1 John 3:4-10
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Of course, the sinless-perfection advocate confines his citation of this passage to older Bible translations that neglect to clarify that it is the practice of sin that is in view in the original Greek text (poieo - present, active participle), not a single, discrete instance of sin. The present progressive nature of the verb participle "committeth" in the KJV indicates that it is an ongoing practice of sinful living that John had in mind, not any particular, single act of sin.

Continued below.

The truth from God shows that with His help, we can be perfect and upright and overcome sin...
Job 1:1
1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Y’all can shure say a lot.

?

I just look for the one time chance for sinless perfection, and for its end.

That time is now.
Repent of sin, and be a non-sinner from now on.

Adam and Eve, IMHO, had a chance to physically live forever. Their sin stopped that chance. No more access to the physical tree of life.
Till humanity was only evil continually, physical life continued,
another chance for existence w allowed.
The Law was given till Christ was come.
There is one name for salvation now. Jesus. None of the former ways can be dusted off and be used.
Do I see it all clearly? No.
Mississippi redneck
eddif









M

 

[Tenchi]

I hope it's instructive to those reading this thread how...lame the response is to the OP from the sinless perfection side. There is nothing, really, but false dichotomies, out-of-context manipulation of Scripture, and mere contradiction rather than sound argument in the response. This is fairly typical of false doctrine, however.

 

[reddogs]

Gods truth will stand, we must not allow Satan to give his lies in its place...

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

 

[Tenchi]

Gods truth will stand, we must not allow Satan to give his lies in its place...

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

This reminds of a junior boys football game I watched where a member of the yellow-jerseyed team who'd got hold of the football unexpectedly got turned around in the mid-field melee and ran down the field toward his own goal line. When he crossed into the end zone, he threw down the ball in triumph, raised his arms in thrilled excitement, and began hopping up and down, utterly certain of his success. How sure he was that he'd succeeded marvelously when he'd done exactly the opposite!

 

[jasonc]

This reminds of a junior boys football game I watched where a member of the yellow-jerseyed team who'd got hold of the football unexpectedly got turned around in the mid-field melee and ran down the field toward his own goal line. When he crossed into the end zone, he threw down the ball in triumph, raised his arms in thrilled excitement, and began hopping up and down, utterly certain of his success. How sure he was that he'd succeeded marvelously when he'd done exactly the opposite!

I know of old Saints alive and dead who said they were never sinless..these were saved lbefore I was born .