In a post by Richard Rutledge on "Sinless Perfect".....he points out that he is hearing some Christians say that after baptism that they are perfect and therefore do not sin.

Richard had a problem with this in light of at least two scriptures that he read that point out we are continually in need of God's grace due to our sinful nature which we continue to battle all our life.

This other gospel is originating from a definite source. I'm not going to post it, but if you do your investigating, you can find out.

Anway, I've heard of it going on for about a year. It came to a head this last Friday during a phone call with brother George Faull of Summit Theological Seminary. He told me that it has gotten to the point that it is splitting the conservative element of the brotherhood over this other gospel. Long time friends have parted.....and famous preachers will not preach in certain churches where they know this stuff is going on.

In other words, it is a "real and present danger."

The gist of the doctrine goes like this. Their base Scripture is in Matthew 5....."Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Essentially, they teach that Jesus died on the cross so that we could live by grace until we reach the point of sinlessness in our life, which, according to them, we have the potential to do.

I think it was John Wilson in the other thread that pointed out that this sounded like "Wesleyianism." I pointed this out to George Faull but he pointed out the big difference. At least in Wesleyianism it takes a "second work of grace" (i.e. a miracle of God) to be sinless. In this new "other gospel"......it is taught that we reach perfection on our own. This is surely the seedbed of pride.

I was hoping that this was just some fringe idea out there. But it seems to be perisistent and growing somewhat and probably will as long as the source continues to push this false gospel.

This "other gospel" conpletely destroys the doctrine of grace.

This my good friend and brother John Wilson, is why you should save your label of legalism for those who deserve it.....and not me or Lee simply because we emphasize that which Jesus said we must do.

This "other gospel" is legalism at its best...i.e., salvation by my own righteousness.

BTW Richard, you were right to be suspicious. You had it exactly right.

"Be on guard for the flock."

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

Answers

My apologies John.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

DBVZ.....

1) The Christian Church has no doctrine that is supported by "one verse"....therefore, I'm not sure of the question.

2) No where, have I or anyone stated that it is the water that washes our sin aways. That would be known as "water regeneration" and the Christian Church vehemently rejects that false doctrine. The blood of Jesus is the only thing that washes sin away. The act of submission in baptism is simply an act of agreeing to the terms of the N.T. Covenant, i.e, the sacficial death by Christ on the cross of Calvary. Salvation is wholly of God. Baptism is simply the act of accepting the terms, in the same way anyone must accept a gift that is offered.

The N.T. teaches we are baptized into a "state" of salvation...i.e., Romans 8:1...."There is therefore, now, no condemnation to those who are in Christ." Gal. 3:27...."For as many of you who have been baptized into Christ...."

We remain in the relationship and under the blood of the Lamb as long as we desire to be there.

Not really wanting to be critical, but your post again continues on your trend of the past, i.e., misrepresentation of our position.

Glad you are feeling better.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Yes....BVD's.....are drawers.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Matt....

Your 2 Peter 2:9 passage was an interesting selection.

The context is the use of the analogy of the Lord's rescue of Lot from Sodom and Gomorrah.

I find verse 7 extremely interesting where Peter refers to Lot as "righteous Lot."

From a human perspective, in my mind, Lot fell far short of my understanding of righteousness. In fact, most of his choices in life.....were worldly.

He chose the wrong place to live, his witness was obviously so weak that none of his family took him seriously when he begged them to leave, he offered his daughters as virgin "living sacrifices" in an attempt to appease the perverts of Sodom, he called the men of the city "his brethren".....and then....to top it off his witness was so poor that the lifestyle of Sodom had more affect on his daughters than him (i.e., the plot to get him drunk and sleep with him).

All of this....a man who obviously did not seek the "escape route" very often....and yet the Holy Spirit inpired writer calls him "righteous."

This is the grace of God for which I am infintely thankful. It is that desire, i.e., the motivation of thankfulness, that drives me to attempt to live godly.

And when we fail, which we will according to 1 John 1.....to say otherwise is to make God a liar.....as you pointed out....we have an Advocate......2 John.

The civil war that goes on in my body and soul is at the heart of Paul's heartfelt confession in Romans 7.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Whom was I labeling? I assume you are referring to the remark I made in the 7th day thread? I was just referring to their denomination's penchant for legalism, I wasn't making veiled aspursions (sp?) on anyone.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

no prob =)

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

Danny Gabbard SR.:

I fully agree with you on the problems presented by those that believe we can achieve perfection in this life. I have two questions, if you will answer:

1. How does the Restoration Movement establish and maintain doctrinal unity on such an important matter, when you have no doctrinal standards? They have one verse at least that seems to support the position they state, and even though the rest of the Christian churches would agree with you that it is the wrong interpretation, how does a denomination without standards maintain orthodox doctrine?

2. How does this relate to your understanding of baptism, for the remission of sins? If baptism literally washes away sin, does that make those baptized perfect before God at that moment, so that if they can avoid sinning after baptism they remain perfect? Can they be baptized weekly (or daily) just in case?

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2000

Danny,

I am not a greek student, but doesn't the word in Matthew translate to "mature or complete" rather than "perfect"? And if that is the case, how does that relate to the interpretation of being perfect (therein defined as without sin)?

Following through with the thinking that Jesus would not make an imperative statement: "Be ye perfect (mature or complete) as your Father in heaven is perfect (mature or complete)", without believing that it is possible by some means, would not this definition make more sense?

Note that the possiblity is not stated as being by man's actions. Would it not be in keeping with the remainder of New Testament thought that the work of the Holy Spirit is to bring man toward this maturity ie: to bear the fruit of the Spirit? Along with this from Galations 5, does not Ephesians 4 teach what leads the Christian to maturity?

Just some thoughts that crossed my mind as I pondered this thread. Dave (still studying):)

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

DBVZ:

You asked Danny the following question:

How does this relate to your understanding of baptism, for the remission of sins? If baptism literally washes away sin, does that make those baptized perfect before God at that moment, so that if they can avoid sinning after baptism they remain perfect? Can they be baptized weekly (or daily) just in case?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), April 02, 2000. Now I do not know if you read the original thread by Richard that brought this subject to our attention but if you did you would have already had your answer to the above ignorant and deliberate misrepresentation where you claim to think that we would expect people to be baptized weekly or daily just in case. Now I think that you did read that thread but you deliberately ignored my post, which covered this matter and the teaching of the word of GOd concerning it in some detail. But you chose to deliberately ignore it and press on with a question that you knew to be misrepresenting the way we view the matter. Now Honesty is a vital part of reasonable communication among those who sincerely seek the truth. You lack this honesty. However, I will repeat my post in this thread so that you, at least, cannot continue to misrepresent us in this matter in this thread. The following is the post that you either ignored or refused to read. That post I now quote as follows:

Richard: You said: "I have been hearing from some dhristuans that when a person is baptised for the remesion of there sins that they are sinless perfect, that they say they are perfect and can not sin." You surely have not heard such nonsense in this forum! THe scriptures do teach that we must be baptized for the remission of our sins. " Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. Jesus said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark 16:16. And Saul was told, "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord" Acts 22:16. Peter told us, " The like figure whereunto baptism doeth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ." (1 Peter 3:21) And the scriptures show that the "circumcision of Christ" by which He removes our sins from our souls takes place when we are buried with him in baptism. (Read Col. 2:11-13). Now these verses refer to the forgiveness of our past sins and the obtaining of mercy from God. When we have believed in Christ (John 3:16) repented of our sins (Acts 3:19) Confessed Christ (matt. 10:32-33; Romans 10:9,10) and been baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38; mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-6, 17; Col2: 11-13; Heb 10:22; Eph. 5:25; Titus 3:3-5; John 3:3-5) we are born again of water and the spirit we are in Christ (Gal 3:26,27) and all things have become new (1 Cor 5:17).

But this does not mean that we cannot sin after having been born again as you have so clearly pointed out. For indeed we can and do sin after having been born again. In fact we have an example in Acts 8. Simon of Samaria was baptized into Christ and so were many of the Samaritans. Then when Peter and John came to lay hands on the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit Simon offered them money saying, "Give me also this power that on whomsoever I lay my hands he may receive the Holy Spirit". This was a sin that he had committed for trying to buy the gift of God with money. Peter even told Simon that he was in the "gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity". Now this shows clearly that one can sin after being born again of the water and the spirit. It also shows what Christians can do if they do sin. Peter told this Simon to "repent and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart might be forgiven thee". (Acts 8:18-22). So when those who have been born again of the water and the spirit (John 3:5) and are thus new creatures in Christ and have obtained the forgiveness of their past sins thereafter commit a sin against God they are to "repent and pray God" for forgiveness. Even 1 John 2:1 says concerning Christians who sin. "These things write I unto you that ye sin not but if any man sin we have an advocate with the father Jesus Christ the righteous. Who is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1John 2:1).

So the truth is that no one in this forum believes that those who have been baptized for the remission of sins are, as you have said, "sinlessly perfect". Now there is a group of Pentecostals that I am aware of who believe in sinless perfection but they do not believe in such because they believe in 'baptism for the remission of sins'.

Now the Scriptures teach us to be baptized for the remission of our sins for this is what puts us into Christ where we enjoy all spiritual blessings (Eph 1:4; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor 5:17; Gal. 3:26, 27). Being in Christ means that we have access to the throne of grace where we can ask in faith through Jesus Christ for forgiveness of any sins that we commit after becoming a Christian.

Now from this post that I have written you can see that there is no need for a person who has been baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26,27) where he then has access to the throne of grace and all spiritual blessings that are found only in Christ (Eph.1: 4; 1 Cor. 5:17)to be baptized again for the remission of sins. For, since he has already been baptised INTO CHRIST (GAl. 3:26,27) he has Christ as an advocate to the father for us and he need only repent and pray to God through Christ for forgiveness of any sins that he might commit after being baptized into Christ. Which is something that he could not do before coming into Christ by faith, repentance confession and baptism. Therefore you can see that no one would even think after reading these scriptures that anyone should have to be baptized weekly or daily just in case" as you falsely imply that we would do!

Now I hope that you are honest enough to read this post and see that such a position as you describe, of requiring people to be baptized weekly (or daily) just in case is not one that we adhere to in any fashion whatsoever. Such a position is absurd and if after reading this you continue to ascribe such a position to us you will be nothing short of completely and deliberately dishonest. But such is your free Choice to either continue to misrepresent or accept that we do not hold any such position. Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

Saffold:

What I read of your understanding of baptism caused me to wonder how that doctrine could have been misunderstood by some of your churches, to mean that they could be perfect in this life. I was not attempting to misrepresent your orthodox position, but rather to understand how it was apparently distorted to reach the conclusion described (and very properly condemned) by Danny Gabbard. I don't know your position on multiple baptisms, and I noted that you do the Lord's Supper every week. My question about multiple (weekly or even daily) baptisms was to try to understand how that distortion of the true sacrament could have been inferred by the accepted practice of the Restoration Movement. Your comments seem to take it for granted that the questions were not genuine inquiry. I know no more of your doctrine than what was posted on the thread about, What the Restoration Movement believes; and in that thread the issue of perfection and multiple baptisms were not addressed at all. From your comments, I still don't know if churches of the movement condone or encourage multiple baptism.

I addressed the questions to Danny Gabbard for a reason. Your style of response is so hostile and offensive that I often just skip over what you write to get to comments of those who are less defensive about any and all questions about your doctrine. Danny has also been a little harsh at times, and dismissive of other views; but his responses are generally a little easier to take. He presented the topic in this thread, and it was his response I asked for.

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

DBVZ:

You said:

Saffold:

What I read of your understanding of baptism caused me to wonder how that doctrine could have been misunderstood by some of your churches, to mean that they could be perfect in this life. I was not attempting to misrepresent your orthodox position, but rather to understand how it was apparently distorted to reach the conclusion described (and very properly condemned) by Danny Gabbard.

Now, DBVZ, your effort to paint yourself as an innocent inquirer after a genuine understanding of just how our orthodox position could have been misunderstood by some of your churches to mean to be perfect in this life is pathetic indeed. It is truly an effort on your part to find another way to fight against the truth that we must be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16) and to obtain the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). You were attempting to leave the impression that the truth that we are teaching concerning baptism is to be faulted for this erroneous doctrine that some have come to believe that they can and do live sinlessly perfect lives after they have been baptized. But that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of baptism for the remission of sins. You would like to make it appear to have had something to do with it so that you could say, as you once said before you see how much trouble you cause by teaching that baptism saves us. And your implication that we believe that "baptism washes our sins away" instead of our repeated affirmation that CHRIST washes our sins away WHEN we are baptized was complete misrepresentation of what we have been teaching and you repeat that same misrepresentation in your post to Danny when you talked as if we are teaching that baptism washes our sins away and you have already been told by me and Danny and others that we do not believe that baptism alone washes our sins away. I even went into detail with you to show that we undergo the circumcision of Christ wherein CHRIST-not the water of baptism-removes our sins from our souls and that this happens WHEN WE OBEY CHRIST IN BAPTISM. (Col. 2:11-13; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Now even though you knew this to be our position, and even though you disagreed with that position, you deliberately continue to speak as if we are saying that baptism itself washes our sins away when we have told you often that Christ removes our sins in baptism or WHEN we are baptized according to his command. But you still continue to deliberately misrepresent us concerning that matter and you were laying the foundation for future misrepresentations with your unjustified implication that we might believe that we should baptize people weekly or daily just in case as if those who accept this legalistic idea that we can live a sinless and perfect life after we are baptized because our position on baptism logically leads to the conclusion that if one did not lead a sinlessly perfect life after baptism he would have to be baptized over and over again because of the fact that Christians do sin and if baptism washes our sins away we must of necessity be baptized often to remove those sins that are committed after we receive the remission of our past sins upon first coming to Christ to be saved. That is the very thing you were trying to do and your pretence that you intended otherwise is mere that a false pretense.

Then you say:

 I don't know your position on multiple baptisms, and I noted that you do the Lord's Supper every week. My question about multiple (weekly or even daily) baptisms was to try to understand how that distortion of the true sacrament could have been inferred by the accepted practice of the Restoration Movement.

Now, DBVZ, you know that such was not your thinking at all. If you know enough about us to know that we do in fact take the "lord's supper" every and the other things thatyou indicate that you know about us leaves the thoughtful one's among us supecting that you know more about us than you "pretend" to know. In fact, we have clearly explained much about what we Belive the scriptures teach about baptism so that you could know if you wanted to just what we think about "multiple baptisms". If you merely wanted to know our position on multiple baptisms you could have simply asked. We would have simply answered. But you did not do that now did you? You did not ask about "mutiple baptisms" you asked about "daily or weekly baptism" which any knowlegable person concerning the history of "Christianity" as you put yourself forth to be would know that no one practices "weekly or daily" baptisms in the history of the the "Christianity in the United States". If we believe such a thing we would be the first one in history to believe it. And you know it.

You had to tie that question to this false doctrine that you already know that we are opposed to so that you could possibly find a way to say again to us, as you have in the past, You see how much trouble you cause by teaching baptism is necessary to salvation? You seem to have forgotten that you have made such accusations against us in this forum and now you complain that we doubt your motives! We have good reason to doubt the motives of one who has established a firm pattern of deliberate misrepresentation of the things that we have said that the scriptures teach.

Then you say:

Your comments seem to take it for granted that the questions were not genuine inquiry. I know no more of your doctrine than what was posted on the thread about, What the Restoration Movement believes; and in that thread the issue of perfection and multiple baptisms were not addressed at all. From your comments, I still don't know if churches of the movement condone or encourage multiple baptism.

This is just more fained ignorance. If you want to know something just ask. But do not pretend that you know nothing other than what was discussed in the thread entitled "what the restoration movement believes. For that simply is not the truth. You know that we take the Lord's supper every first day of the week, now don't you? Tell us just exactly where you learned that such was our practice?

I have clearly stated that your questions are not genuine and given the reasons for my saying so. You cannot persistently misrepresent much of what we have said to you already and expect that we will take for granted that your questions are genuine inquiry. If someone deliberately misrepresented you and persisted in doing so after several efforts by you to correct them and then they suddenly ask a question in a form that would normally be considered a genuine inquiry you would naturally have your doubts as to whether it was just another attempt to find some way to further misrepresent your position. That is the case here only I do not have any doubts whatsoever that misrepresentation was, is and will continue to be your intention in these discussions and until you prove otherwise by ceasing to deliberately misrepresent us that is exactly how I will treat your so-called genuine inquiries". If you do not like that then stop misrepresenting us and I will stop doubting the genuineness of your inquiries.

Then you say:

I addressed the questions to Danny Gabbard for a reason. Your style of response is so hostile and offensive that I often just skip over what you write to get to comments of those who are less defensive about any and all questions about your doctrine. Danny has also been a little harsh at times, and dismissive of other views; but his responses are generally a little easier to take. He presented the topic in this thread, and it was his response I asked for.

When you write in a forum such as this you may get the response that you asked for but you often will get responses from others that you did not ask for. That is the nature of this type of forum. We all have the right to respond to those who post regardless of whose response they particularly ask for. I have no apologies for responding to questions that you asked brother Danny or anyone else. I often respond to people by their names and I am often covered with response from people that I never addressed. I do not complain about that in fact I consider it a very positive thing in this forum that we can all say what we want to say.

Now you do not like the way I respond to you. I can understand, most false teachers do not like it when their devious tactics are continually recognized and exposed. Their only defense is to cry and complain that we are being so hostile and offensive. Now DBVZ, deliberate misrepresentations, no matter how sweet and gently they are expressed are extremely hostile and offensive. Your misrepresentations have that effect but when someone responds to you to expose your deliberate misrepresentations you cry hostile and offensive which is nothing more than a tactic of a false teacher seeking to lead others by an appeal to sympathy to ignore what those who speak the truth are saying. In fact that is exactly what often accompanies these complaints of hostility and offensiveness. Those complaints almost always are followed by a comment that says, I often just skip over what you say and go on to those less offensive. I do not doubt that you do such a thing for they also make fewer difficult arguments that are hard to answer for they do not dare offend you with a strong argument that would put you on the spot and tell you to PROVE your false assertions. But, whether you read my post or not is of little concern to me. For when I have written an answer to your false teaching there are plenty who will read it and who will wait for your response and if they do not see one that is sufficient to answer it then they will not believe your false doctrine and that is my purpose. You are operating on the assumption that my purpose is to persuade you. My purpose is to persuade only those who love the truth for I know that God is sending a strong delusion to those who do not love the truth that they may be damned because they do not love the truth. (2Thess. 1:9-15). Therefore I write to defend the truth of Gods word for the sake of those who wish to learn it, believe it, love it and obey it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who demonstrate a complete disregard for the truth. That lack of sympathy for deliberate deceivers surely comes out for I have no desire to hide it. I want it to be clear that I stand forever opposed to all who oppose the truth. So I have no concern that you do not read my post. That may explain why you have not responed to many of them that were directed toward your false doctrine of faith only. But that is ok by me because those who are seeking the truth can see that you have had no answer to the many arguments from the word of God that oppose your false doctrine of salvation by faith only. That is good enough for me.

For he Way, the Truth and the Life,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 03, 2000

A perfect man in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing; and "a babe in Christ," a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian is another. The New Testament recognizes both the perfect man and the imperfect man in Christ. The former, indeed, implies the latter. Paul commands the imperfect Christians to "be perfect," (2 Cor. 3:11) and says he wishes the perfection of Christians. "And this we also wish" for you saints in Corinth, "even your perfection:" and again he says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect," (1 Cor. 2:6) and he commands them to be "perfect in understanding," (1 Cor. 14:20) and in many other places implies or speaks the same things. Now there is perfection of will, of temper, and of behaviors. There is a perfect state and a perfect character. And hence it is possible for Christians to be imperfect in some respects without an absolute forfeiture of the Christian state and character. Paul speaks of "carnal" Christians, of "weak" and "strong" Christians; and the Lord Jesus admits that some of the good and honest-hearted bring forth only thirty fold, while others bring forth sixty, and some a hundred fold increase of the fruits of righteousness.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Saffold:

You asked where I learned about your practice of the Lord's Supper. I don't believe the subject of multiple baptism came up on any thread I have been following. I DID ask, and got your attack as an answer. This is from the other thread on what the Restoration Movement believes:

"The Lord's Supper

Communion is practiced weekly as was the pattern of the New Testament church. It is open to anyone; each individual must examine himself/herself."

I am still looking for answers to the original questions asked, preferably from someone other than Saffold.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2000

Hi Danny. Nice to be back in touch. The issue that George Faull is dealing with is quite familiar to me. I know the man who is the most responsible for causing the big debate. I have known him very well for the past three years.

I have studied this out for myself for the past three years in depth. I do believe that the argument below is true. I am always open for discussion and correction, but I must insist that you change my mind with a correct understanding of Scripture, not analogies or human reasoning. If it is in the Word, then I will obey. The doctrine that was originally stated is somewhat flawed. Let me sum up what is being taught. The Christian is perfect upon his confession, repentance, and immersion into Christ ONLY by the blood that Jesus shed. The grace that God extended to mankind through washing away our sins makes us perfect. It is imputed. We did nothing to deserve it. We did not earn it.

The christian will live by grace until the day he dies. He will never reach a point of sinlessness where it is impossible to fall away. He will always be able to sin and will never be immune to temptation. However, grace is not an excuse to sin. Paul states that we should not to continue in sin that grace may increase. That is totally contrary to the purpose of grace. The purpose of grace is found in Titus 2:11-12 which states "For the grace of god has appeared bringing salvation to all men, teaching them to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age,".

This is not the second work of grace as Wesely taught. It is very far removed from it. The Christian will always depend on the grace of God to continue to works its intended purpose as Titus 2 stated.

Now along the lines of this being "salvation by my own righteousness." That is not what is being stated at all. I do now that it is being misunderstood as that so I cherish this opportunity to clarify. Me, myself, and I cannot be perfect. My righteousness is as filthy rags as Isaiah said. What is being stated here though is that it is not my righteousness, it is God's. It is His Spirit working through the Word that produces the holiness in me. I simply obey what God tells me to do and He does all the rest. If I sin, I have an Advocate. But God does desire obedience rather than sacrifice so it is better that i obey than sin and need forgiveness.

God over and over again in His word tells us what He wants from us. II Cor 7:1 states that "Therefore, having these promises, (of God dwelling in us and not touching anything unclean), belove, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting (or completing) holiness in the fear of God." Colossians 1:9-11 states "Fro this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened will all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience;" The word worthy means to be weighed in a balance. Paul prayed that we would walk like God. This does not make me God as I am not all knowing, etc, but it does mean I have the potential to walk as He would. James 1:21, "Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls." I John 3:2-3, "Little children, it has not appeared as yet what we shall be, but we know, when He appears, we shall become like Him because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore, whoever has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself just as He is pure." And lastly, Revelation 19:7-8, "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready. And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the rightoues acts of the saints."

These are just a few of the Scriptures that come to my mind. There are many, many more. I know many of you are thinking of Romans 7 and I John 1:8. I will write about those later. My son wants to play. (Hey he is almost 1. Thats what they do!)

Matthew 5:48 is one of the verses that point to this understanding. Perfect may mean complete or mature but did you notice to who it is compared to? We are to be perfect, mature, complete as GOD is perfect, mature, amd complete.

So, I never reach a point where I cannot sin. I do not stop living by grace. On the contrary, I depend on God's grace to strengthen me every day to live the way God wants. I battle with sin and temptation every day as the "wage war" afgainst my soul. But, I have the magnificent promise of God in I Cor. 10:13 which states "No temptation has overtaken you except that which is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it."

I hope this clarifies the question at hand. But Danny you are right, there is much on the line with this teaching.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Matthew Hartford:

A Christians imputed righteousness before God through the work of Christ, is certainly biblical. The phrase "sinless perfect" seems to imply more. "Forgiven sinners" is more accurate, and less likely to cause misunderstandings. The law was intended to teach us how to live, as well as to teach us that we need forgiveness. The Law of Love stated by Jesus, made it clear that before God we are all sinners daily (even moment by moment), in thought if not in word and deed; and he calls us to ask forgiveness of those sins in the prayer he taught his disciples. That is not "sinless perfect", but it is consistent with "forgiven sinners". As you expressed it, the thought behind "sinless perfect" seems to include a touch of superiority, as though the lives of Christians are more acceptable to God; and does not adequately acknowledge that we are still sinners, and but for the grace of God, we would have remained unforgiven sinners.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

dbvz,

I agree with you on the usage of the term "sinless perfect" because it hold a lot of baggage that I do not believe. I prefer to use the terms "holy" and "blameless" which are the words God uses to teach us as to our goal. I would disagree with you that a Christian is nothing but a forgiven sinner. The Christian is called to view himself as dead to sin but alive to God. That is a powerful statement. My mindset must be that I am dead to sin which is what Paul commands me to do over and over again.

I believe I will battle temptation and sin all my life. However, the Bible teaches that God's Spirit working through His Word can empower me to make the right choices. I can choose to take the way of escape in every temptation or I can choose not to.

Thanks for the comments.

Matt.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Matt,

You wrote, "His Word can empower me to make the right choices. I can choose to take the way of escape in every temptation or I can choose not to."

I agree the Word gives us guidence and help; and with the support of the Holy Spirit we are empowered to be more obedient to the Word by being in the Word and being among the Body of Christ and in prayer. My point was that our best efforts still leave us in filthy rags in need of forgiveness. This has been one of my concerns with this forum. As a generalization, it seems most here rely more on what they are doing for the justification of their salvation, than on what Christ has done.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

dbvz,

The Holy Spirit helps us to do much more than to be "more obedient" to the Word. Ephesians 3:16-21 states "that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God. Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. This is stating that this power comes from the riches of His glory. That is powerfull. With that power, it is not just me making the choices, it is Christ in me, the hope of glory.

Paul says it this way in Galatians 5:16, "But I say, walk by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh." So my point is in all of this is that it is not me by myself. If it was, I would agree with you that my rightouesness would be nothing but filthy rags. However it is God's Spirit working through His Word that empower me to do the things that I could not do before...such as being holy. Therefore, there is no room for pride because I cannot do it on my own. Actually the pride rests on those who think they are the ones doing righteous things without the help of God. The arrogance resides on the individuals who believe that it is up to me and me alone to do the things of God. Actually, it is up to the individual and more importantly God to accomplish the things of God.

Good dialogue. Thanks for the great attitude you express in dealing with this very controversial topic.

Matt.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

dbvz:

Yuo say: This has been one of my concerns with this forum. As a generalization, it seems most here rely more on what they are doing for the justification of their salvation, than on what Christ has done.

If that is the impression you get from this forum, then you are not being intellectually honest to yourself, and therefore to anyone you comment to, about what is said here. Time and again, a number of people in this forum have expressly and clearly denied such a position, and for you to continue to represent us in this way is dishonest.

If you want to discuss what is discussed here, you would do well to discuss what is actually written, rather than what you want to believe that we think.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

I'm sorry if I sound a little testy here, but it gets incredibly wearying to be continually misrepresented in these matters.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2000

Sam, It really *is* getting tiresome listening to bvds, Connie, Barry Hanson et al twist our beliefs into these "monstrous perversions"! (quoting Ben Rees in the Sincerity thread).....They have all been around here long enough to know better. Some people just thrive on stirring the pot. It gets old real fast.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Sam and Cynthia,

I am sorry you take it that way. My "concern" is that from my perspective what you have been saying is inconsistent. You don't believe what we are doing will save us, but you believe if we are not doing the right things we can not be saved. You may not see that as a problem, but all your explanations have not convinced me it is not a problem. It seems to me to be a works-based justification of salvation. Your comments have not removed my concern, which is all I said that got you upset.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

PS: It is dbvz, not bvds. Address the issue, not the individual please. My comment was in response to Matt, who said, "His Word can empower me to make the right choices. I can choose to take the way of escape in every temptation or I can choose not to." This is about Another Gospel, and Sinless Perfect, and expecting to be able to live in a way to "escape ...every temptation". I don't believe that is a biblical understanding of either salvation or the Christian life.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

dbvz,

I guess I'm "addressing the person rather than the issue", but it's a suggestion that might aid in communication. I don't know if it bothers you or not, when people address you as "bvds", etc. In the past you seem to have let it go. This time you drew attention to it. I find it hard to remember, and when I respond to a message, all the previous messages disappear except for the opening "question" (unless I open another "window", etc., which is more trouble). Then I find myself wondering, "now was it dvbx, or dbvs, of dvbs, or just what?" If it DOESN'T bother you, then leave things that way, but also don't "correct" people who get it wrong. (MAYBE, with "bvds", some may be doing it maliciously*, but you really can't know that for sure.) (*Are "BVDs" some kind of underwear? Never having lived in the U.S. for very long, I'm not really sure, but I got that impression somewhere.)

If it does bother you, then how about giving us something that we can remember better? It doesn't have to be your real name if you don't want us to know that for some reason, but how about some kind of nickname or "handle"? Or how about explaining what the initials stand for? That might make them easier to remember.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

dvbz,

You stated that expecting to live in such a way as to escape every temptation is not a correct understanding of Scripture. It seems to me that you have not used any Scripture to back up your statement. Well in II Peter 2:9 Peter writes "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation." The one who sins is acting in an ungodly manner therefore he is not relying on the Power of the One who knows how to deliver him. When one sets their mind to do what is right and to pursue righteousness God will empower them to not sin. I am relying on the power of the One who knows what He is doing, not my own power. I am definitely involved, but I am absolutely the minor partner in this relationship. I Corinthians 10:13 you still need to answer. Also, Paul, in the same book, states "Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God." Seems to be pretty straight forward, doesn't it.

Matt

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Hebrews 11 is very instructive on the issue of our status before God. In the list of the hero's of faith, when you read their story in full, you find a lot of disobedience and sin. I noted before that David is listed, with all his faults including adultory and complicity in murder; but because he had faith he is a forgiven sinner in heaven today. I am not saying we are not able to resist the world and temptation with the help of the Holy Spirit; but rather that we remain prone to sin and in need of daily forgiveness for our thoughts, words, and deeds. Being in the Word, in the Body, and in Prayer all help provide the means for the Holy Spirit to work on our obedience. Chapter 12 begins with the great "race" analogy, but it is clear from the prior chapter that we will never be successful at resisting every temptation.

PS: "dbvz" are my initials. It just saves time. My name is Dwight B. Van Zanen

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Mind if we call you Dwight? :-)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

John,

Not at all. 6 letters instead of 4, but it is a more personal greeting.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2000