Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228599 | ||
Tim, Forgive me if some of what I ask or say has been well delt with in the past, as I have had little opportunity to speak about this topic with people who even use words as large as "sanctification." So I may be in need of hearing old well tested answers for the first time on some things. My question is first about your concept of entire sanctification. It seems to me this would mean entirely sanctified. This brings up the question of what is considered a sin. Is wrong thoughts a sin? What of wrong desires? Is the fact that I very much desire something wrong but yet I successfully resisted the desire, is that sin? My understanding of sin is such that even though one does well to resist a temptation, having that wrong desire is in and of itself sin. I don't think my mind will change on this, but perhaps one could make a case against it leaning on James 1:15. But even though I disagree, let us grant hypothetically for the sake of arguement that it is only the actual acting that is considered sin in God's eyes. Therefore we would be able to suggest sinless life is possible for those lead by the spirit in this life. But yet even should we grant all of that, do you not think that one day we will be entirely sanctified to the point of no longer even desiring? And if we will be, should not that be what entirely sanctified means? Ought entire sanctification mean one thing now and something different in heaven? Now that is what I think the phrase "entire sanctification" ought to mean. That even our desires for sin is removed such that it no longer even carries any appeal to us but rather every sin is as loathsome to us as it is to God. However, let me then deal with what you said so that I don't simply set up a straw man. I think we ought to let a man define his own terms and deal with what he is actually saying. It would be a farce to take your words and give them my definitions in order to refute you. You have said, "What the doctrine does teach is that it is possible for a Christian to live holy." I struggle with this definition. Not because of any disagreement, but do we not all agree on this? I assume, and I feel it is safe to based on your post, that you teach that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit working to put sin to death in us that we may do so. But if that is the case then where is the conflict? I agree that it is possible to live holy, yet at the same time possible for a Christian to live not holy. Are we truely so close that if you simply called it holy living rather than entire sanctification that we would be in agreement? I can't help but to doubt that, yet I can not see our difference. Perhaps if you shared with me what you mean by it being possible for a man to live holy? I will attempt to define it by what I mean, and once again, forgive me as I've had little opportunity to try to do so before and therefore my definition will not be refined by past corrections and rebukes. It is possible for a believer to live holy in that through the spirit's sin removing, Christ conforming work in us, no individual sin is impossible for a Christion to overcome in a temporary sense. (By temporary I only mean to highlight that complacency as if we are beyond that sin can lead to falling back into it.) Not only may we overcome the practice of any given particular sin, we may adopt a godly attitude towards that sin, coming to view it as God views it which is to say as a loathsome thing to be rejected. However, because the human heart is so wickedly deceitful by its fall, and because God has not yet in this live deemed to completely give us that transformation we will receive upon seeing him, and because we are still in the flesh and satan continues to tempt, and the world continues to try to lead us astray, no matter how sanctified we become, new and returning old temptations and ungodly attitudes continue to rise which again and again must be slain by submission to God's word and His spirit. Therefore a man can never become beyond sin in this life as they are in the next life. Now the last sentence is key to me. I think the "entire sanctification" in the age to come will place us beyond sin such that even under the worst trials we would not have any desire for it. We will never be such in this life but rather must constantly be weeding the garden as new sins spring up. And indeed, this all assumes we can rightly see all our sin which in itself would be a remarkable grace. Does this sound in accord with your thoughts? I do hope you can see the sincerity of my post, I am not "hunting for arminians" in order to slander or shame them, though I confess myself to be a calvinist. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Morant61 | 228606 | ||
Greetings Beja! I was just heading to bed when I saw your posts. :-) I'll try to address your main points without being overly long winded. 1) Temptation/Sin: I would distinguish between temptation and sin. I would not see temptation as being sin, but giving into to temptation would be sin. But, since your post doesn't depend upon that distinction, we can go on. 2) One would think that all Christians would agree that we are able to live holy here and now. But, many Christians view Rom. 7 as normative for Christian living and see any suggestion of true freedom from sin as being unbiblical. What you are calling entire sanctification, I would call glorification. The difference primarily being one of degree. Those who are sanctified CAN still sin, but those who are glorified CANNOT still sin. Sanctification is tough to define precisely because Scripture speaks of it in so many different ways. Scripture speaks of it as an accomplished past act: 1 Cor. 6:11, Heb. 10:29, 1 Cor. 1:2, and others. Scripture also speaks of it as an ongoing process: Heb. 10:14. Scripture also speaks of it as a future act as well: Rom. 6:19, and 6:22. The easiest explanation that I can think of at this moment is that sanctification has to do with a believers relationship to the flesh (or Sarx). Some believe that Christians live life day by day with competing impulses from the Spirit and from the sarx. Sometimes we follow the Spirit, and sometime we follow the sarx. In this view, sin in inevitable until glorification takes place. My understanding of Scripture is that the sarx is truly dead for a Christian and we no longer have to listen to it. Ephesians 2:3 describes the lost as 'gratifying the desires of the sarx'. But, Rom. 8:9 says of Christians - “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” Gal. 5:16 makes it clear that anyone living by the Spirit will not gratify the desires of the sarx. In short, I believe that Sanctification refers to God's act of recreating us so that the old man is dead, and we are new men able to obey Him. (Rom. 6:6, Col. 3:9, and Eph. 4:22). As you pointed out, we can also disobey Him. But, this is a huge change because before Christ, we could only disobey Him. :-) I hope this helps answer some of your questions. If not, let me know and I'll try to be more detailed when I am more awake. ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | EdB | 228614 | ||
Tim You make the statement above that "My understanding of Scripture is that the sarx is truly dead for a Christian and we no longer have to listen to it." I'm not trying to be cute or argmentative but if sarx was dead for a Christian wouldn't it be silent? When something is dead it no longer communicates or in this case tempts. We say we are free from sin but we still talk about how sin tempts us. Frankly on this issue I never understood because to me sin before I gave my life to Christ acted the same as it does now. The lust of my flesh is still very real, the lust of my eyes is still very real and pride of life is still very real. I would think if I was truely dead to sin nothing of these would be able to talk to me. |
||||||