The subject was discussed in another arena, the hc-talk list in June and July of 2003, and some of the posts originated there.

Administrator

Hello brother in Florida, peace be also to you!

God's revelation through Scripture, nature, and through one another is a
truly multi-dimensional one. He is one - yet exists as Father, Son, and
Spirit. The Scriptures contain the words of God as well as the words of
men, in that men wrote as they were led. He who calls us to himself also
declares that we are unable to even respond without Him. Etc.

Most errors occur when we fail to pray and fail to comprehend all the
relevant data. The history of heresy is the history of people picking up
one group of verses and pretending another group does not exist.

He who calls us to perfect holiness and purity also commands us to pray
DAILY to: "forgive us our debts..." He reminds us that we "have not
resisted unto blood in our striving against sin" and that if he "does not
chasten us - we are bastards." Hebrews 12 certainly does not refer to a
life of unbelief nor does Romans 7, in which Paul "delights in the law of
God."

"Wretched man that I AM" - not "wretched man I used to be."

Hebr. 12:4-6: Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto
children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint
when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and
scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

The overwhelming testimony of the saints down through the millennia
concurs with that of the aged apostle: For the good that I would I do
not: but the evil which I would not, that I DO. Present tense, again.

Every sin does not bring with it the same external consequences but God
is looking upon the inward disposition so that hate becomes in the heart -
murder and lust becomes adultery. As James also wrote: For whosoever
shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all.

We know that we'll all be tempted. So, this isn't about temptation.
David, do you believe that you are without sin? Is there a battle between
good and evil, self and selflessness, going on in your mind? Is the
battle going on and you always claim the victory? I may have missed your
answer and recall that you mentioned several days ago about "sinning
presumptuously" with respect to others.

Though none (?) of us is sinless, except in Christ - all of us can and
should sin less, by his enablement. If we will not acknowledge our sins
now, later we shall.

I'll be the first to agree with you that many are way too careless about
the subject. Sin, unchecked, ultimately hurts us, hinders us, and makes
the church look phony.

Pray for us, no one (total of 8) at our house has yet attained,

David Anderson

> I thought we might be on the same page until Jim posted his most recent
> thoughts, which included an innuendo that Christian men lust after women
> and are as guilty as adulterers. He also seemed to communicate the idea
> that those who discern right from wrong are legalists, and implied that
> I was a legalist for bringing our attention to the apostolic teaching
> that we should turn away from sin and not fellowship with believers who
> continue to sin.

Good morning, Brother David.

I hardly know how and where to begin.

First, let me assure you that while I do oppose some of what you say, that I do not oppose you at all as a brother and fellow believer -- one who I believe is striving with all his might to do the right thing in order to please the Lord. Our Lord Jesus binds us together, David, and not our understandings of sound doctrine. Jesus puts both of us in the same church, which is His body.

There was no innuendo intended in any of my comments. The "implication" that a man might be guilty of lusting after a woman in his heart was made by the Lord Jesus Himself, not by me, by a Luther, or some other guy in the church. I merely pointed back to the Lord's own teaching.

Jesus tells us the truth about ourselves. He does not leave a lot of room for self-righteousness or for the idea that sin is an ok thing.

The simple fact is, when any man (believer or unbeliever) looks on a woman with lust, that man is as guilty of adultery as the man who commits the act. And that is why pornography is an evil thing, and why so much of our culture is poisonous to anyone. TV ads, songs on the radio, movies and other drama that exalts lusting and so on. We are always being baited to take another look, think about this situation, etc.

And I tried very hard to show in my post to Gail that any of us -- regardless of our particular doctrinal stance -- can be so caught up with the idea of ìpersonal purityî (from ICism, from tradition, from sin, from error, from "holier-than-thou"ism, or whatever) that we can be effectively a legalist or purist. In other words, a Pharisee.

Because of your cause, as you see it, you probably cannot see the things you say, or how they communicate (in some instances), not Christ, but old-fashioned law. This is not to say that you are wrong to hate sin, or to warn others away from sin. But we must also be honest.

I remember reading a sermon of Spurgeon once, where he said something about how believers sin thousands of time a day, or maybe even thousands of time an hour (I don't recall the exact words). I thought to myself "What a needless exaggeration!" Who can do ANYTHING thousands of times in one day?

But it all has to do with how we see holiness and righteousness from God's perspective. If we think that our own sins are excusable and justifiable (just human nature, as in, "I was right to be angry with my brother -- it was not without cause!") then we can get through whole days, and then weeks, and even months without thinking that we have sinned.

I know. I was once of that kind of "holiness" persuasion. And I have many brothers & sisters of personal acquaintance who still hold to such beliefs.

But if we see God as truly and inhumanly holy, absolutely without any unrighteousness at all -- and we then draw near to His own brilliant Presence, where all our own imperfections suddenly become perfectly visible, then we soon realize that we will never measure up. We are only sinners saved by grace.

You keep pointing back to the situation in Corinth, where Paul rebuked the fellowship there for truly glorying in their ability to sin and to overlook sin. Brother, that was quite a situation, and not one that I have seen duplicated on this list in any way by anyone.

To rebuke a sister who is being honest, and to imply that you might not be able to fellowship with her, when all she did was say that her sins are just as bad in God's eyes as the sins of an actual murderer or adulterer, shows to me a preoccupation with yourself. (It is a sin that many men (males) have to struggle with. I struggle with it everyday.) She was merely applying Jesusí teaching to her own life.

And Jesus did in fact sit down with common and well-known sinners. He even sat down and ate with self-righteous Pharisees. Which sin is worse, the sin of adultery or the sin of self-righteousness? The correct answer, Brother, has to be that each is just as destructive and evil in its own way. Each sin places the sinner's own self above what is fair, right and good for others. It makes other people to be of lesser importance than our own lives.

Yet Jesus laid down His life for us.

If I say that you are legalistic, it is not because I think I am not of the same material. I think we both have much to learn from Jesus in how to love people with His own true and perfect love. And we need to be careful of placing our doctrines or our own ideas of personal purity above the needs of the people around us.

Jesus walked among us, John says. And we saw His glory. To walk among the people of this planet is to be among sinners, for we are all sinners.

Sin, like common dirt, is always going to be around. But we still go to work, care for our families, eat meals, and do whatever needs to be done each day. So also, when one member struggles with sin or guilt in any way, we must be the first to stand with them -- not opposed to them. We are sinners, too.

Should we justify sin, or excuse it? NO. Should we say it doesn't matter, that it will not really hurt anyone? Of course not. Sin is always evil and deadly. But if we wall out all who are sinners, who will be left?

If all we did with a sick person is isolate them, locking them out of the city, we would soon have no city, for we are all of us sometimes ill. No, it is better to care for the sick, and to visit them, and assure them of our love. Who among us is never ill?

Many years ago, I heard a preacher stand in the pulpit and say, "I don't want any sinners in my church!" And so we left and never returned. And whoever did continue there had to either be a hypocrite or very ignorant. Most of the folks, I knew. And they were sincere people, simply ignorant of God's grace.

To say I have no disease does not make me well. To bring my disease to the Healer means that I will go home clean. It does not mean that I will never be ill again, or that a healed person is never ill. It simply means that when I am ill, I should seek to get well.

So also, pretending that we have no sin does not make us pure. It makes us foolish and in danger of great hypocrisy. It is just as bad as pretending that ìSin is ok, so why bother to be holy?î Both ideas lead to delusions and spiritual death.

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But if we confess our sinsÖ And of course the objective is not to sin at all, but to follow the Lord Jesus, and do whatever He does.

Jim
goodwordusa AT att.net

David Anderson wrote:
> He who calls us to perfect holiness and purity
> also commands us to pray DAILY to: "forgive us
> our debts..."

Yes, we have all sinned and need Christ's forgiveness in accordance to
how we forgive those who have sinned against us.

David Anderson wrote:
> He reminds us that we "have not resisted unto blood
> in our striving against sin"

Amen. He is referring to how Jesus Christ himself resisted unto the
death of the cross, striving against sin. May we all walk in the
example of Jesus Christ in striving against sin.

David Anderson wrote:
> and that if he "does not chasten us - we are bastards."

Yes, when we are children, we might stumble or start heading the wrong
direction. Our heavenly Father responds by spanking us, to keep us from
going into the clutches of sin. God disciplines his children that they
might not continue in sin. And if any man does sin, God will not just
be there to hold us and make us feel good, but he will rebuke and spank
us that we might not continue in sin. Amen. We agree here.

David Anderson wrote:
> Hebrews 12 certainly does not refer to a life
> of unbelief nor does Romans 7, in which Paul
> "delights in the law of God." "Wretched man
> that I AM" - not "wretched man I used to be."

Many religious men delight in the law of God in the inward man. The
Pharisees certainly did.

Careful about your exegesis of Romans 7. Tense is not the only thing to
look at. I might tell you about my trip to the grocery store and speak
about it in present tense. For example: "I'm going down aisle 7 and I
see Mark, so I say to Mark, 'come with me to Bible study tonight,' and
he says, 'Sure, I'm just picking up some milk right now and I will see
you over there later.'" I speak in present tense all the time when
speaking about theological things when I might also speak about them in
past tense. I might speak about an act of repentance by saying, "As I'm
praying on my knees, I see all my sins clearly, and I say to the Lord,
'oh wretched man that I am.'" This doesn't mean that I'm presently
going through this. I'm just condescending to those who I speak to so
they can better grasp what I'm trying to communicate. I'm pulling the
reader into my experience so he can relate to it.

In Romans 7, pay close attention to chapter 6, which speaks very
straight forwardly about not continuing in sin.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you ...

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin ... God forbid.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to
obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or
of obedience unto righteousness?

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin ...

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin ...

Notice verse 19 where Paul says, "I speak after the manner of men
because of the infirmity of your flesh." In other words, he is
preparing the readers for his approach in chapter 7 and then chapter 8.
He is going to explain what he means by, "even so now yield your members
servants to righteousness unto holiness" and "But now being made free
from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness,
and the end everlasting life."

Paul then starts Romans 7 out by speaking about the law and those under
the law. He speaks about becoming dead to the law by the body of Jesus
Christ. Then Romans 7:5 speaks past tense, "For when we were in the
flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our
members to bring forth fruit unto death." Romans 7:6 says, "But now we
are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that
we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the
letter." Read the rest of the chapter, and you will clearly see that he
is expounding upon what it is like being under law. He is explaining
how the commandment of the law makes sin exceedingly sinful. This
brings condemnation. The law brings condemnation, not the spirit.

Rom 7:9 For I WAS alive without the law once: but WHEN THE COMMANDMENT
CAME, sin revived, and I died.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be
unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and
by it slew me.
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just,
and good.

Notice the subject here. The commandment brought death in the form of
condemnation.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is
good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The purpose of the commandment was to work death in him that the sin
might be exposed and dealt with. When the law is laid aside, men don't
come to grips with their sin and they don't deal with their sin.

Now notice that up to verse 13, he had been speaking in past tense. Now
he switches to present tense in verse 14, not because he is presently
experiencing this life of condemnation, but rather because, as he said
earlier in chapter 6, "I speak after the manner of men because of the
infirmity of your flesh." Paul is condescending so that he doesn't have
a "holier than thou" attitude as he deals with this subject.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold
under sin.

This is the root of the problem. Men are carnal and cannot endure that
which is spiritual (namely, the law).

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I
not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law
that it is good.

Notice that Paul is still talking about the law, even though he is
speaking in present tense. The present tense serves two things: 1) it
condescends to men who are in the flesh so they can relate, and 2) it
reinforces to us that we are all still living in the flesh and can turn
back to being under law at any time. The problem is not that the law is
bad and Christ is good. The problem is the flesh versus the spirit, and
he is leading us through using the present tense so that we might
acknowledge the dual nature of man, that being under the law, we might
serve God with the mind but with the flesh we serve sin.

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in
me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is
good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would
not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but
sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present
with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in
my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body
of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This sums up life under law. The law brings the knowledge of God, and
man might in his inner self, in his mind, delight in the law, but
because of his flesh, his life becomes a life of condemnation. This is
not New Covenant living. This is life under the law. Notice the
transition in Romans 8 where he describes New Covenant living.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What a contrast. He just got done describing a life of condemnation.
Now he is reversing himself, and showing that while life under law
brought condemnation, life in the Spirit brings no condemnation, because
while under law one walks in the flesh and does those things that he
does not want to do, those in Christ Jesus do not walk after the flesh,
but after the Spirit. Therefore, those in Christ no longer experience
what he just described in Romans 7. There is no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
...
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his.
...
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye
through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons
of God.

So David, if you read Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8 carefully, together as
a unit, and do not split them up, you will clearly see that Romans 7
describes life under law, life in the flesh, and not life in the Spirit
of Christ.

David Anderson wrote:
> The overwhelming testimony of the saints down through
> the millennia concurs with that of the aged apostle:
> For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which
> I would not, that I DO. Present tense, again.

Is this determined now by popular vote? Have you not read John Wesley
or Charles Finney or the apostle John or the other writings of the
apostle Paul?

David Anderson wrote:
> David, do you believe that you are without sin?
> Is there a battle between good and evil, self
> and selflessness, going on in your mind? Is the
> battle going on and you always claim the victory?

Yes, David, there is a battle, but the battle within me is not nearly as
great as the battle between me and the spirits behind ungodly men. I am
a man of flesh and blood, and so like other men, I am tempted in the
same way as other men. Nevertheless, I find peace in the Spirit and at
times give no thought to the need to resist anything, yet other times I
go through trials, normally brought about by other people, and must
resist sin. I take great solace in the passage you shared from Hebrews
12, "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against
himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet
resisted unto blood, striving against sin." I believe 1 Cor. 10:13,
"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." I trust fully in Christ to finish the work in
me that he has begun, and I do not expect Jesus Christ or the Holy
Spirit to ever lead me into sin. As I trust in Him, I expect to be
victorious through all trials.

David Anderson wrote:
> Well, despite the dogged reality of indwelling corruption,
> still the apostle would have us temporarily withdraw from
> certain ones. It is not very easy for me to reconcile all
> the Scriptural truth at this point. It appears to me that
> those who are to be shunned are, for the most part,
> glaringly external in their conduct.

I don't think the Scriptures are that hard to reconcile at all. I'm not
sure that the external nature has so much to do with discipline as the
heart of the person who has sinned. Those believers to be shunned are
those who do not repent of their sin.

If a brother comes to me and says, "I'm sorry, brother, but I talked bad
about you behind your back, and I told these brothers and sisters you
were a sinner of the worse kind," then I can continue in fellowship with
that brother. His heart is remorseful and he acknowledges that this was
not walking in the Spirit. On the other hand, if a brother is in
fornication, and I address it with him, and yet he keeps doing it and
thinks that his sin is no worse than others and that believers should
not judge him about his private life, then that brother is glorying in
his sin. He should be disciplined. This seems pretty straight forward
to me, and I have no difficulty at all reconciling it with the rest of
Scripture.

Jim wrote:
> And I tried very hard to show in my post to Gail that
> any of us -- regardless of our particular doctrinal
> stance -- can be so caught up with the idea of
> "personal purity" ... that we can be effectively a
> legalist or purist. In other words, a Pharisee.

Were the non-Biblical Sadducees any better off than the Pharisees? Did
Jesus ever rebuke the Pharisees for knowing the Scriptures? Wasn't the
problem concerning what they did with what they learned through study?
Studying the Scriptures diligently and understanding their application
to our lives is not a sin. Right?

Jim wrote:
> Because of your cause, as you see it, you probably cannot
> see the things you say, or how they communicate (in some
> instances), not Christ, but old-fashioned law. This is
> not to say that you are wrong to hate sin, or to warn
> others away from sin. But we must also be honest.

I recognize that some people confuse the quotation of Scripture with
legalism. I also recognize that a call to holiness for some people is a
call back to bondage.

I have no problem with your idea that a man who looks at a woman to lust
after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. What I
had a problem is how you use this knowledge to intimate things that you
don't actually come right out and say. It seems to me that perhaps you
might be among those who read Matthew 5, and when you see that Jesus
condemns the man who is guilty of heart lust, that you think, "oh well,
there you have it, everybody is guilty and nobody is better than anybody
else." When I read this same passage in Matthew 5, I'm saying, "yes
Lord! Glory! Take out the sin by its very roots. Not only are you
promising no more adultery, but no more lust in my heart, and no more
hatred and no more anger without a cause. Glory! The kingdom of God is
here, right now. Now we can be pure in heart and not just outwardly.
Hallelujah!" And you know what? This kind of power in Christ is
priceless. It is worth everything in the world.

When Jesus introduced this line of thought in Matthew 5, he said:

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So when someone says to me that their righteousness is no better than
Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler or some other wicked person, I fear for them
and the coming judgment. Anybody who looks at a woman with lust in his
heart, or who hates his brother, or who is angry with his brother, had
better fear Jesus Christ on judgment day. Jesus made it very clear that
if their righteousness was not better than the scribes and Pharisees,
they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jim wrote:
> To rebuke a sister who is being honest, and to imply
> that you might not be able to fellowship with her,
> when all she did was say that her sins are just as bad
> in God's eyes as the sins of an actual murderer or
> adulterer, shows to me a preoccupation with yourself.
> (It is a sin that many men (males) have to struggle with.
> I struggle with it everyday.) She was merely applying
> Jesus' teaching to her own life.

Following is the post you are talking about:
--------------------------------------------
Gail wrote:
>> I think my sin is no different than Ted Bundy's.
>> Im a murderer..Ive hated my brother, Im an adulterer...
>> Im a thief...Ive stolen from Christ ... Im definitely
>> a liar. A filthy liar...yep..

David Miller wrote:
> To glory in sin is not good. If I'm understanding
> what you are saying here, that you continue in these
> sins, then I would be in that awkward position of not
> being able to fellowship with you. I would not attend
> home church with you, nor eat with you, nor invite you
> into my home.
> <...snip...>
-------------------------------------------

I stand by what I said. If she continues in these sins that she boasts
about, she is not walking in Christ. She should not be glorying in sin.
I pray for the day that she can glory in testifying to others how Christ
delivered her from these sins.

I pray for Gail. I don't know her. I've never met her. But in my
spirit, I see someone trodden down and rejected. I see someone who
suffers a lot. Unfortunately, much of her suffering is needless, being
self inflicted because of sin and the sin environment in which she
lives. When a pig wallows in the mire, sometimes you have to get the
pig out of the mire in order to clean it up. If a person gets into the
mire with the pigs, that person will get dirty. For the person to enjoy
the blessings of a clean life, that person will have to get out of the
mire sometimes. I desire to see her get out. Do you understand what
I'm saying?

I get concerned when I see others pat people on the back when they glory
in sin. That is not true agape love. People in the world system do
this. People in the world system do not rebuke sin because they don't
want to make anyone feel bad. Unfortunately, this attitude is like a
parent who refuses to discipline his children because he doesn't want
them to feel sad and cry.

Jim wrote:
> And Jesus did in fact sit down with common and
> well-known sinners. He even sat down and ate
> with self-righteous Pharisees.

Sure he did, and I do too. I have had complaints from all manner of
Christians about how I associate with bums and wino's and I even let
homosexuals come to the Bible studies! The thing is, Jesus did not
engage in their sin just because he associated with them, nor did he
condone their sin. What did he tell the woman caught in adultery? He
said he didn't condemn her, but he also told her to go and sin no more.

I condemn nobody, but I do tell others to go and sin no more. Sinners
naturally feel condemned when you hold up the standard of Jesus Christ.
They don't need anybody else adding to their shame.

What I see as the worse kind of self-righteousness is not the person who
thirsts after righteousness and studies the Scriptures, but the person
who thinks they are righteous in their own selves because they belong to
some Christian club. Some people think they are righteous just because
they are called by the name of Christ, even though they know, like the
Pharisees knew, that they transgress the commandments of God. This
becomes especially obnoxious when they glory in their sins and say
things like, "Christians aren't perfect, only forgiven" or "there is no
difference between me and Adolf Hitler; we are all sinners." Such
statements are in stark contrast to the doctrine of Christ which says
that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now there is a difference between the self-righteousness of the Pharisee
and the self-righteousness of the Sadducee, but they are both bad.
Unfortunately, some self-righteous Sadducees think only the Pharisees
are guilty of a self-righteous heart, and some Sadducees mistakenly
thought Jesus and Paul were self-righteous men.

Jim wrote:
> To say I have no disease does not make me well.
> To bring my disease to the Healer means that I
> will go home clean. It does not mean that I will
> never be ill again, or that a healed person is
> never ill. It simply means that when I am ill,
> I should seek to get well.

Agreed. Denial is a bad thing. But there is also such a thing as a
hypochondriac. That would be the person who no matter how well they
are, they keep going back to the doctor because they like the attention
and sympathy of being sick. God forbid that any of us promote
hypochondriac Christianity! :-)

Jim wrote:
> So also, pretending that we have no sin does not make us pure.
> It makes us foolish and in danger of great hypocrisy. It is
> just as bad as pretending that "Sin is ok, so why bother to be
> holy?" Both ideas lead to delusions and spiritual death.

Agreed. A person who is cleansed by Christ needs to experience this
cleansing in deed and in truth, not in ideology only. Nobody should
pretend that they have been set free through Christ when they have not
experienced this.

Whew... this post is way too long. Sorry about that. It doesn't look
like I will be able to have time to answer everyone thoroughly. Sorry
about that too. There is just not enough of me to go around. :-)

I now understand your position a little better and desire for you to
clarify a few other things. Thank you. But first, a little more
interaction. You wrote:

>So David (Anderson), if you read Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8 carefully,
>together as a unit, and do not split them up, you will clearly see that Romans 7
>describes life under law, life in the flesh, and not life in the Spirit
>of Christ.

Hmmm, Paul uses the present tense when he really means the past? Well, I
ask, how do we know that he does not use the past tense in his other
letters when he really means the present or future tenses? This is a very
slippery slope, indeed.

So, I am to believe that Rom. 7:22 concerns a LOST person who cries: "For
I delight in the law of God AFTER THE INWARD MAN." ?????

Furthermore, no Pharisee is said to have spoken thusly. The Pharisees did
not understand the law, much less obey it. Jesus was continually reacting
against their private and unspiritual interpretations of it. "Ye have
heard, but I say..." Their delight was "to be seen of men." Nowhere is it
suggested that they obeyed the law in it's internal scope. Their
interests were chiefly external which is why they were called
"white-washed tombs."
>
>David Anderson wrote:
>> The overwhelming testimony of the saints down through
>> the millennia concurs with that of the aged apostle:
>> For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which
>> I would not, that I DO. Present tense, again.
>
>Is this determined now by popular vote? Have you not read John Wesley
>or Charles Finney or the apostle John or the other writings of the
>apostle Paul?

Only two notable figures in the entire history of the post-apostolic
church? Very interesting, that's about 1 for every 1 thousand years. Yes,
I have studied their doctrine of "sinless perfectionism" via the "second
blessing." I have not found the arguments to be very compelling but I do
regard them as children of God. Few Methodists - even the very
conservative ones - espouse sinless perfectionism anymore, for what that
is worth.

The apostle John? 1 John 1:8 If we say that we HAVE no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth IS not in us. 1 John 2:1 My little children,
these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, WE
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

The apostle Paul? Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by
Christ, WE OURSELVES ALSO ARE FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the
minister of sin? God forbid.

>David Anderson wrote:
>> David, do you believe that you are without sin?
>> Is there a battle between good and evil, self
>> and selflessness, going on in your mind? Is the
>> battle going on and you always claim the victory?
>
>Yes, David, there is a battle, but the battle within me is not nearly as
>great as the battle between me and the spirits behind ungodly men. I am
>a man of flesh and blood, and so like other men, I am tempted in the
>same way as other men. Nevertheless, I find peace in the Spirit and at
>times give no thought to the need to resist anything, yet other times I
>go through trials, normally brought about by other people, and must
>resist sin. I take great solace in the passage you shared from Hebrews
>12, "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against
>himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet
>resisted unto blood, striving against sin." I believe 1 Cor. 10:13,
>"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." I trust fully in Christ to finish the work in
>me that he has begun, and I do not expect Jesus Christ or the Holy
>Spirit to ever lead me into sin. As I trust in Him, I expect to be
>victorious through all trials.

Regrettably, I do not interpret your otherwise excellent remarks as a
definitive answer to my simple inquiry. Just with a "yes" or a "no," -
three questions I now ask. 1) Are you, David Miller without sin? 2) Have
you sinned within the last week or month? 3.) Can your immediate family
and church members verify the answers to 1 and 2? Please reply according
to the biblical definitions of sin rather than the watered-down Wesleyan
version.

To God be the glory!

I apologize for the length of this post. If you choose not to read it, I can
hardly blame you. I assume that you also have an actual life to live, and
better things to do than sit at the computer all day long.

OTOH, sharing with brothers in Christ is sharing, even if it must be by
keyboard and monitor.

Regarding my comments:
> > And I tried very hard to show in my post to Gail that
> > any of us -- regardless of our particular doctrinal
> > stance -- can be so caught up with the idea of
> > "personal purity" ... that we can be effectively a
> > legalist or purist. In other words, a Pharisee.

You said:
> Were the non-Biblical Sadducees any better off than the Pharisees? Did
> Jesus ever rebuke the Pharisees for knowing the Scriptures? Wasn't the
> problem concerning what they did with what they learned through study?
> Studying the Scriptures diligently and understanding their application
> to our lives is not a sin. Right?

and regarding these words:
> > Because of your cause, as you see it, you probably cannot
> > see the things you say, or how they communicate (in some
> > instances), not Christ, but old-fashioned law. This is
> > not to say that you are wrong to hate sin, or to warn
> > others away from sin. But we must also be honest.

You responded:
> I recognize that some people confuse the quotation of Scripture with
> legalism. I also recognize that a call to holiness for some people is a
> call back to bondage.

You are mistaken, David, in thinking that I am opposed in any way to the sharing of Scripture. I am often criticized myself for my love for God's Word and my own sharing of the Scriptures.

And I am certainly not opposed to any call to the righteousness of God (which is Jesus Christ) or to true holiness and purity of life. Nor am I opposed to a godly call to good works, as we are urged in the Scriptures to provoke one another always to good works.

And finally, as I said to you in my last post, I am not opposed to you as a brother, or to your heart's desire for godliness and true meaning in your life. It is a good thing for any of us to want our lives to count for Christ and the Gospel, and for us to always be ready to take a godly stand for the Lord.

But everywhere in your posting you write as though everyone who shares a differing take on the Scriptures, or on any aspect of the faith, is your opponent. You do not seem to see that we are your family, not your enemies. We respond in many of the same ways you do to God's message in Scripture, and we all -- whoever knows the Lord -- have the same Spirit at work in our lives, changing us daily from within.

We are all in this together, Brother David. And the same Christ who saves us is also returning for you one day (hopefully soon). Whenever two brothers disagree on some point, and almost all brothers will disagree on some point, that does not mean that one has become the enemy of the Gospel while the other is a champion for the truth. Such could very well be the case, but it is not usually the case.

Iíve seen no one on this list promoting sin in any way. I have seen no one posting to the effect that they do not care whether or not they sin. I have seen people sharing their honest realization that their own struggles with anger, greed, lust, and whatever, mark them as having the same basic nature as the worst of sinners. They see their weakness, and their total dependency on Christ Jesus.

Yet you rise up at our sharing such things, and want us (it seems) to stop admitting the fact that Christian men and women, real born-again believers, have any struggle at all with sin. There is a proper time to use a hammer, a sword, or a soft cloth. We do not wipe a neighbor's face with a hammer or sword.

At some point in some post, I believe you referred to yourself as a prophet. One who speaks by Godís Holy Spirit should know what to say to whom, since God knows the hearts of all people. Yet you seem to be caught up in defending an interpretation at any cost. That practice is common in the denominational schools, but should not be common among Godís people.

Regardless of our differing points of view, everyone who knows and loves the Lord Jesus will hate sin. And we all want to stay away from sin: the acts, attitudes and desires that hurt others, and that weaken our own faith, and that bring shame on the name of Jesus. Weíre all growing up in the same grace of God that changes us from glory to glory, as Paul said.

But real sin is also a very real part of our lives -- as believers. Sin is not just an act or a decision that we might make -- it is every imperfection we have in us that marks us as fleshly and unChrist-like. And that has been our true condition since Adam and Eve partook of the tree God that told them to leave alone.

Any man can say that he never looks on a woman with desire stirring in him, for instance. And anyone can say that they have no longing, no desire for things that belong to someone else. We can say we never struggle with pride, with ego, with ambition, with any of the things that people have come to recognize as human nature. But to say such things does not protect us from sin.

Such denial of the facts was the message proclaimed by Jimmy Swaggart until he was publicly exposed as a common and very foolish sinner. He had allowed people to believe that he was living ìabove sinî until his own continuing secret sin was judged by God.

And God judges all sin. And the Lord chastens all of His children when they continue to ignore His Word in their lives. If we refuse to face the truth about our lives, and ourselves God will help us and correct us. This is true of those who claim not to sin, as well as those who claim that sin is ok.

I mentioned Swaggart because he really believed, just as you do, that men of God do not lust after women, and men of God do not covet money, etc. He really believed that true believers do not sin. And yet as he made more and more excuses for his sins, the greed and finally the sexual impurity took full control of his life. And such sins can take any of us captive if we dance with the devil and/or pretend to be without sin.

Men (believers, as well as unbelievers) do have desires for women. And people do want what is not theirs, and we do catch ourselves telling less than the perfect truth. And we do become angry, sometimes even hating, and certainly carrying bitterness in our hearts. Though we may reject these things a million times, and be successful in not acting on them, the struggle is still there.

Only Jesus could be tempted in all things, just as we are, and yet remain without sin. We are like Israel in the Book of Judges. We all have things in our lives from the past -- and sometimes new things -- that remain with us to test us. And that "testing" does not always mean just a little temptation. It means a roaring furnace purging us to the very core of our being -- a purifying and proving of our faith by fire.

Looking at my life, I know that I sin every day. I am always seeing in myself a word or attitude or remark or act that is not of the Lord Jesus, something that is not pure. I sense in myself desires and longings for many things that have no merit, no good in them for the kingdom of God. And even when I do not act on the wrong desires or anger or whatever, that does not make me truly pure of heart. I feel strongly the need to confess what I see in me.

If I excuse my wrong desires, my thoughts to lie, my desire to cheat or cut corners, or whatever, then those desires find a home in me and stay, and grow, and they will produce fruit when they reach maturity.

But even in the middle of my fighting with these common things, there other things that just sail in on the wind, it seems, and take me by surprise. And I see myself once more for what I really am -- a sinner, saved by grace alone.

Just as Peter said, regarding the Law and the Gentiles, we are all saved by grace alone, and not by the righteous things we want to do. We all fail to be perfect -- except as we are already made perfect in Jesus Christ. Regarding the Gentiles and the Law, Peter said this: ìNow therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Acts 15:10,11)

David, had the apostles and believers in Jerusalem been able to live without any sin, then keeping the Law would not have been a problem. But Peter says that it was ìa yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear . . .î And then he says, of the new believers who have just come out from under paganism, ì. . . we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Yes, if I make up my own rules, then I can say that I live without sin. And yet God will judge even those who live by their own rules, for no man is able to do even that much perfectly. We must keep changing the rules, adding modifications, exclusions and exceptions, etc.

The Lord by Isaiah said, ìBy myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ëTo me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.í Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; all who were incensed against him shall come to him and be ashamed.î (Is. 45:23,24)

Later, Jeremiah prophesied, ìThe days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. . . . And this is the name by which he will be called: "The LORD is our righteousness." (Jer 23:5,6)

And Paul tells us that the words of both Isaiah and Jeremiah are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, for only in Him are we made righteous (2 Cor 5:21). The Lord Jesus is our righteousness. Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.

He does deliver us and make us able to stand against the evil that wars against us ñ even the evil of our flesh. But none of us are always perfect in those battles. Only in Jesus are we really righteous at all.

Finally, Brother David, as believers, we are not to join forces with the world or to absorb the message/thinking of the world. But all believers are already one body in Jesus Christ. We must therefore realize, at some point, that the rest of the body is not our enemy, but is our legitimate family in Jesus. And if we seem to oppose everyone else in the body, then we ourselves must consider how we are in error. We must hold on to what God has shown us and done for us, and yet join that together with what He is giving to others in the same body.

The temptation, of course, is to break away and go start another body, one that we will like better. Or else we just keep fighting the whole body of Christ, trying to change them all. But no one man or group has the whole picture of Godís work in Christ. We each have our little portion, and as we share that with all the others, all are able to grow up in Godís grace. As we put what we see together with what others see, the real picture begins to emerge.

As DavidA clearly pointed, I think the Romans7 does a perfect - heaven forbid, the Bible
is perfect? - job expressing what you express - that you are capable of sin. Ro8 does not
necessarily express our life in Christ 100 percent of the time, or else we would each say
we are sinless as indeed we walk in the Spirit at all times. When I sin, while found in
Christ, I am under law and it does condemn me as it should, therefore Ro7 is the perfect
description of when I sin as one found in Christ. Yep, I am not walking in the Spirit
when I sin, I am under the law (so to speak - actually, its more accurate to say that I am
not in the Spirit).

:-) I did not say he really means the past. The Scriptures were
inspired by the Holy Spirit and the tense used is exactly what is meant
to be used. What I was trying to communicate is that you have to look
at more than just the tense of a word to understand the time frame being
talked about. This is especially true of prophetic Scripture which
often speaks in present tense about things in the future. Matthew 8:17
is one passage that has received considerable attention because of the
aorist subjunctive tense of the verb for "fulfilled." Although this is
a kind of past tense statement, many consider it not restricted to past
fulfillment only. Rather than get into a long diatribe, I refer you to
Ross Purdy's post which was a much more clear post than anything I have
said.

David Anderson wrote:
> So, I am to believe that Rom. 7:22 concerns a LOST person
> who cries: "For I delight in the law of God AFTER THE INWARD
> MAN." ?????

Not everyone under law is a lost person. Many people under the law were
ordained to eternal life, including Moses himself. I suspect most
Christians relate to Romans 7 as their everyday experience because it is
much easier for people to follow the letter rather than the spirit.
Therefore, I think it would be better to say that the legalist
experiences Romans 7 while the one walking in the spirit does not. He
that is freed from the law is not condemned by the law; rather, he
fulfills the law in his heart, in his thoughts, and in his deeds.

David Anderson wrote:
> Furthermore, no pharisee is said to have spoken thusly.
> The pharisees did not understand the law, much less obey
> it.

I think my thoughts diverge from yours here. Consider what Jesus taught
us:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The
scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever
they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works: for they say, and do not." (Matthew 23:1-3)

Now if the Pharisees did not understand the law, why would Jesus tell
his disciples to do whatever they bid us to do? I grant you that there
is an understanding that they lacked concerning the law, but the real
problem is that they did not keep the law themselves.

I'm certain that if you asked any Pharisee if he was blameless and never
broke the law, he would reply that he was not. In fact, it may have
been a Pharisee who struck Paul for basically saying that he did not sin
(Acts 23:1). The Pharisees were very conscious of the fact that they
were guilty of breaking the law. This is why the apostles harped on the
idea that if you have broken it in one part, you have broken it all.
The Pharisees knew this very well. Even today, ask an Orthodox Jew if
he keeps all of Torah. You will hear the same answers that you hear in
much of Christianity, that nobody can keep it all. The most you can
hope for is to try your best.

David Anderson wrote:
> Jesus was continually reacting against their private
> and unspiritual interpretations of it.

Not so much "private" interpretation but popular interpretation. We are
talking about the oral traditions that evolved over hundreds of years,
the teachings concerning ways of being sure to be in compliance with the
law. More generally, I think Jesus was concerned about how their
theology was put into practice rather than their theology being wrong.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, are the ones who had bad theology. I
would say that Jesus seemed somewhat in agreement with the Pharisees in
theology, but in disagreement with the Sadducees in theology.

David Anderson wrote:
> Their delight was "to be seen of men." Nowhere is it
> suggested that they obeyed the law in it's internal
> scope. Their interests were chiefly external which
> is why they were called "white-washed tombs."

Right. If you think about this, it really has to do with "practice"
rather than "theology" or "teaching." The term "white-washed tombs"
refers to hypocrisy, getting their outward aspect in line, but
neglecting the heart of the matter. I admit, some of the teachings of
the Pharisees crossed the line and Jesus at times addressed this, but
the main fault of the Pharisees was their doing, and the main fault of
the Sadducees was their bad teaching.

David Anderson wrote:
> Only two notable figures in the entire history
> of the post-apostolic church? Very interesting,
> that's about 1 for every 1 thousand years.

LOL. Surely you don't think I was making a comprehensive list of those
who believed in holy living, do you? You were arguing that majority
opinion was on your side. My point is that majority opinion isn't
always right. In fact, concerning the things of God, it is usually
wrong. Now when you use the term "post-apostolic church" that should be
a big red flag that the church you are talking about might not be
Christ's church. Jesus established apostles in his church, so any
"post-apostolic" church is the apostate church, is it not? Yet even in
the apostate churches, God has a remnant and has raised up a testimony
unto Christ and called men unto holiness. There are many in history,
from the Anabaptists to the Quakers, to Methodists, Nazarenes, and
Holiness Pentecostals, who have carried the torch of the testimony
concerning holiness in Jesus Christ.

David Anderson wrote:
> Yes, I have studied their doctrine of "sinless
> perfectionism" via the "second blessing." I have
> not found the arguments to be very compelling but
> I do regard them as children of God.

If you had studied the teachings of John Wesley and Charles Finney
(which were somewhat different, by the way, but they agreed upon the
basic idea of living above sin), you would know that they took pains to
distance themselves from the teachings of "sinless perfectionism" which
was a counterfeit teaching that existed in their day. Furthermore, John
Wesley did not teach this as a "second blessing." Wesley taught that
even babes in Christ do not commit sin, from the moment they are born
again. Consider the following quote from John Wesley:

John Wesley wrote in his "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" the
following:
---------------------
In what sense then are they perfect? ... even babes in Christ are so
far perfect as not to commit sin. This St. John affirms expressly; and
it cannot be disproved by the examples of the Old Testament. ... from
Solomon to Christ there was then no man that sinned not... we may safely
affirm with St. John, that, since the gospel was given, 'he that is born
of God sinneth not.' ... IN CONFORMITY, THEREFORE, BOTH TO THE DOCTRINE
OF ST. JOHN, AND THE WHOLE TENOR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WE FIX THIS
CONCLUSION: A CHRISTIAN IS SO FAR PERFECT AS NOT TO COMMIT SIN.

This is the glorious privilege of every Christian, yea, though he be but
a babe in Christ. But it is only of grown Christians it can be affirmed
they are in such a sense perfect as, Secondly, to be freed from evil
thoughts and evil tempers. ...

Thus doth Jesus save his people from their sins; not only from outward
sins, but from the sins of their hearts. 'True,' say some, 'but not
till death, not in this world.' Nay, St. John says, 'Herein is our love
made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because,
as he is, so are we in this world.' The apostle here, beyond all
contradiction, speaks of himself and other living Christians, of whom he
flatly affirms that, not only at or after death, but 'in this world,'
they are 'as their Master.'
--------------------

David Anderson wrote:
> Few Methodists - even the very conservative ones -
> espouse sinless perfectionism anymore, for what that
> is worth.

I myself have a Methodist background and know many Methodists who
believe in holy living. Nevertheless, like in all denominations, wolves
have ravaged the denomination and brought in damnable heresies. This
has resulted in the Methodist church splitting many times over the issue
of holiness, and the Wesleyan Holiness denomination being yet another of
the many holiness groups that sprang up more than a century ago.

David Anderson wrote:
> The apostle John? 1 John 1:8 If we say that we HAVE no
> sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth IS not in us.
> 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I
> unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, WE
> have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
> righteous:

Notice what you quoted there, David. John says, "I write this to you
that you SIN NOT." Keep reading the next few verses:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is
a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God
perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk,
even as he walked.

If you think John is excusing sin, I'm sorry, but I don't see it. He
says that those who say they know Christ and break his commandments are
liars. He says that when love is perfected in us, we know that we are
in him because we do not sin. Furthermore, look at verse 6. We are to
walk just as Jesus walked. So much for the false doctrine, "nobody is
perfect except Jesus Christ."

David Anderson wrote:
> The apostle Paul? Gal. 2:17 But if, while we seek
> to be justified by Christ, WE OURSELVES ALSO ARE
> FOUND SINNERS, is therefore Christ the minister
> of sin? God forbid.

Keep reading, David. You do yourself a disservice when you pull
passages out of context and miss out on the explanation given in the
subsequent verses.

Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make
myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live
unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I,
but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I
live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for
me.

Notice what he says is the case if you are found to be sinner while
trying to be justified by Christ? He says, "*I* build again the things
which I destroyed." In other words, when a person goes back to being
under law, he will find himself sinning again. Paul says, "I make
myself a transgressor." It is not Jesus Christ who would cause a
disciple to sin. If a disciple finds himself to be a sinner, he is not
walking the normal Christian life. He is going back to the former kind
of religion based upon the letter and not the spirit. He makes himself
a transgressor because he is resurrecting an old religious way of doing
things.

David Anderson wrote:
> Regrettably, I do not interpret your otherwise excellent
> remarks as a definitive answer to my simple inquiry. Just
> with a "yes" or a "no," - three questions I now ask.
> 1) Are you, David Miller without sin?

I can't answer this definitively with a "yes" or "no" because it seems
to me that this is something that God judges, not man. I cannot and do
not judge myself in this manner, nor do I judge others in this way. The
best I can do is be committed to walk in Christ, keep my eyes on Christ,
and be open to correction from my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Another problem with me answering with a simple yes or no is that people
have different ideas about what sin is (is sin an action, a disease, a
condition, a noun, a verb?). So any yes or no answer might be
misunderstood.

I feel very free to explain that there is definitely a sin principle
residing in my flesh (my physical body), which tempts me toward sinful
actions (selfish interests). I don't believe that this source of
temptation will leave until the resurrection. Nevertheless, I
continually experience the grace of Christ washing me in his blood.
Dying to self is a daily process, but it can be done and should be done
by every follower of Jesus Christ.

David Anderson wrote:
> 2) Have you sinned within the last week or month?

No, not to my knowledge. You might want to ask my wife though. :-)
Maybe I can get her to post on the list for you all. :-)

David Anderson wrote:
> 3.) Can your immediate family and church members
> verify the answers to 1 and 2?

Yes.

David Anderson wrote:
> Please reply according to the biblical definitions of sin
> rather than the watered-down Wesleyan version.

What do you mean by "watered-down Wesleyan definition of sin"? Is there
some sin that you consider a sin that John Wesley did not consider sin?
Do you feel that Charles Finney also had a watered-down understanding of
sin?

I'm very interested in your answers to these questions because it has
been my experience that legalism leads to the attitude that nobody can
live without sinning.

First, I do not maintain that the indwelling sin topic is an easy one.
For those wanting to know more, I would recommend BB Warfield's (of
Princeton) "Perfectionism." It looks to be about a thousand pages in
length. Read the original sources, too.

And truly, many church people do not take sin very seriously... to their
own peril and to the hurt of others.

The lines of argumentation of the Perfectionistic School, be it Wesleyan,
Oberlin, Higher Life, go something like this: Since God commands perfect
obedience - then perfect obedience is going to be. Others, btw, have used
this same method to claim healings since Jesus took on all our
infirmities. And, since God would have all men to be saved, universal
salvation will also come to pass.

David, my brother in the faith, for you to write as if only your side is
"interested in holy living" is a ridiculous presumption. Nothing I wrote
could have led to such an unwarranted conclusion. There is, of course, no
question as to what God COULD do with respect to any situation. He could
even eradicate totally what you call the "sin principle." Also, he COULD
cure every disease of every saint. Etc. No doubt.

>David Anderson wrote:
>> Regrettably, I do not interpret your otherwise excellent
>> remarks as a definitive answer to my simple inquiry. Just
>> with a "yes" or a "no," - three questions I now ask.
>> 1) Are you, David Miller, without sin?
>
>I can't answer this definitively with a "yes" or "no" because it seems
>to me that this is something that God judges, not man. I cannot and do
>not judge myself in this manner, nor do I judge others in this way. The
>best I can do is be committed to walk in Christ, keep my eyes on Christ,
>and be open to correction from my brothers and sisters in Christ.

We ARE to examine ourselves, to prove ourselves, to know ourselves, and
to judge ourselves lest we be judged. In this same message you stated
that you had not sinned in a month - now you act as if somehow "you can't
judge" such a thing in the present. How self-contradictory can you be? I
am disappointed.

And how dare you write that "you do not judge others in this way?" Your
sojourn on this list is, for the most part, jumping out from behind the
bushes to accuse others in an attempt to draw them into the ole
Perfectionism debate. They become a part of the "hypocrite church" if
they don't swallow the bait. You should have been a frequent encourager
instead of a frequent accuser. I hope you will. Btw, in your list of
passages about rebuking others, you left out the one in Galatians about
operating in meekness. Several have noticed that you also leave it out in
your actual reproofs as well.

>Another problem with me answering with a simple yes or no is that people
>have different ideas about what sin is (is sin an action, a disease, a
>condition, a noun, a verb?). So any yes or no answer might be
>misunderstood.

Who cares about people's different ideas about what sin is? Evil is good
and good is evil as far as "people" are concerned. When did "poeple's
different ideas" become a criteria, anyway?

>I feel very free to explain that there is definitely a sin principle
>residing in my flesh (my physical body), which tempts me toward sinful
>actions (selfish interests). I don't believe that this source of
>temptation will leave until the resurrection. Nevertheless, I
>continually experience the grace of Christ washing me in his blood.
>Dying to self is a daily process, but it can be done and should be done
>by every follower of Jesus Christ.

What, a sin principle residing in your flesh? Are you suggesting that the
Holy Spirit didn't really do the job at first? I thought Christians were
totally dead to sin? Oh, so now sinlessness means a continual process and
repeated washings. Brother, once you are sin-free, you will need no more
washings according to Hebrews. However, if you are not sin free, you
should apply to Jesus to wash you all over, not just your feet.

>David Anderson wrote:
>> 2) Have you sinned within the last week or month?
>
>No, not to my knowledge. You might want to ask my wife though. :-)
>Maybe I can get her to post on the list for you all. :-)

I take it that you love her and sacrifice yourself for her just as Christ
loved the church and gave himself up for it. That you love your neighbor
as yourself. That Jehovah alone is the great desire of your heart, soul,
mind and strength, 24/7.

That every thought of every hour's minute is being redeemed - never
wasted - and consciously made captive to Jesus Christ. That every act,
every motive is unto his glory and in his name. That you are praying
without ceasing. That you are esteeming others better than yourself. That
you readily lay down your life for other believers. I John 3:16

I take it that you are aware that ignorance of any commandment,
responsibility, or duty is inexcusable. That any deviation from God's
requirements constitute sinfulness and rebellion. That that which is not
of faith is sin. That the belief of any false teaching constitutes a
violation of God's revealed will. That sins of omission are marked by God
and can and do result in ultimate damnation. Matt 25:42. And, that since
charity is the fulfillment of the law and the greatest virtue, then the
--lack-- of charity is an extreme moral violation.

I presume that in the achievement of perfection you have given all that
you have to the poor, per Jesus. That you have sought the welfare of
others before your own interests. I assume that you are aware of the fact
that those who came to Jesus, claiming perfection, greatly embarrassed
themselves in doing so. Doubtless, you recall the words of Him to regard
ourselves as unprofitable, after having done all. Luke 17.

I take it that you are aware that godly Paul claimed not to be perfect
nor to have attained. I take it that you are aware that the Perfectionist
groups which you mentioned are miles apart on other major doctrinal
issues, which in and of itself, renders their "perfection" a certain
impossibility and dubious claim.

I take it that you do not participate in mutual confessions of sin which
are commanded of the saints. "Confess your transgressions one to
another." (Young's translation, James 5.) I take it that you do not pray
the Lord's Prayer and that you are exempt from his chastisements for sin.

I trust you are aware that the aged John, writing to the SAINTS, informed
them that if they claimed to be without sin, they were liars. And that
upon this very question he expressly warned that self-deceit was both
possible and actual.

David, put "whatever other people think about sin" aside and just answer
the question according to God's unmistakable terms. In reality there are
no other terms.

Are you without sin?

David Anderson

Hi Dan. Just when I thought I might get a break, you bring up a very
important question. :-) LOL. I must at the very least give a brief
answer to your query. I hope everyone is patient and will bear with me.
:-)

This is really a most excellent question you have raised, Dan. Most of
the specific examples you gave would be sin and incur guilt in the
person who did it, but I'm not sure that all of your examples would.
There are different categories of sin and the consequences of sin are
different depending upon what we are talking about.

For example, the Scriptures say that Jesus Christ became sin (2 Cor.
5:21). Does this mean that Jesus was a sinner or that Jesus was guilty
of sinning? I don't think so. Therefore, we must acknowledge an aspect
of sin as a noun (something that is) rather than as a verb (something we
do). This understanding provides a foundation for considering the
concept of original sin, that evil nature with which every man is born,
and which Romans 7 indicates resides and operates in the flesh (our
physical bodies). Therefore, we begin to understand that sin is also
something inherited physically, genetically, from our ancestors, and
hence Jesus is said to have been sent in the likeness of sinful flesh
(Rom. 8:3).

The concept of original sin is hotly contested and debated in history.
There have been some who deny it completely, such as Pelagius, Finney,
and the moral government adherents. Augustine argued against Pelagius,
I think rightly so, that such a view undermines grace. Others have
acknowledged original sin, but the popular notion of original sin
perceives that guilt and condemnation is associated with it. Roman
Catholicism embraced this concept, as did the majority of the Reformed
churches, and even John Wesley believed this. We find in these circles
the urgent need for infant baptism, because if infants are born with
original sin, and if original sin incurs guilt, then infants are guilty
and damned to hell the moment they are born. Infant baptism sprung from
this understanding as being a way to keep your children safe from
eternal damnation, and the Torah teaching of circumcision on the 8th day
after birth, along with covenant theology, was the Scriptural
justification for infant baptism.

My perspective is somewhat between these extremes. I disagree with the
Pelagian viewpoint in that I acknowledge merit to the idea of original
sin, but I'm not in full agreement with Roman Catholicism on this point
because I have difficulty perceiving that personal guilt is associated
with a person inheriting this sin principle from their ancestors. They
might indeed be destined to become guilty, but I do not see how that
guilt can be imputed until after a person actually acts upon his sinful
nature. Ezekiel 18 indicates that a man accounts to God for his own
sins, not for the sins which his father does. This passage must be
reconciled with Paul's statements about condemnation coming upon mankind
through Adam, and I believe it can be very easily, but this is going too
far outside the question before us right now and so I will not address
it at this time.

What I have shared up to this point should help us see that from my
perspective, there are elements of sin as a noun which does not in
itself directly bring guilt. Rather, it is a source of temptation.
James best describes the process of temptation which leads to sin in the
following passage:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own
lust, and enticed.
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Notice that James indicates man to have lust within him BEFORE sin is
conceived. Temptation and sin are not the same thing. Some Christians
have been taught that anytime they have a bad thought, they have sinned.
This is not true. Jesus Christ had bad thoughts, but he did not sin.
Jesus was tempted in every way that we are tempted, yet he never sinned.
The victory comes from rejecting the bad thoughts, from not following
the temptation presented before us. There is absolutely no way for us
not to face temptation. Temptation is promised to us as surely as
eternal life is promised to us. We cannot enter the kingdom of God
without temptation. But never are we assured that in Christ we will
sin. Time and time again, we are promised in Scripture, that we have
victory in Christ over every temptation and every trial.

According to the passage in James, the process of sin is first
temptation, from lust within us tempting us, then if we give heed to
that temptation, lust is conceived and brings forth sin. The flip side
to this is that if we conquer the temptation, as Jesus did in the
wilderness temptation and many other times, sin is never conceived.
Although we might have underwent a struggle in resisting the sin, we
were victorious in Christ and did not sin. Glory to God! Note that
there can be no victory over sin unless there is temptation to sin.
Therefore, temptation, not sin, is the plan that God has for our lives
in Christ.

Let me give you a specific example of how this works from our Lord's
sermon on the mount:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

Now some people carelessly interpret this passage to mean that the
desire for a woman itself is sin that incurs guilt. As we saw from our
examination of James, this is not true. The natural desire is
temptation. What Jesus says in this passage is that if a man looks upon
a woman "to lust after her," then he has committed adultery in his heart
already. To look in order to lust after a woman would be sin. In
practice then, if a woman comes into your presence and as you behold her
you feel desire for her because of an innate attractiveness to her, this
in itself is not sin. It is temptation. If you continue to gaze upon
her in order to lust after her in your heart, then you are committing
sin. On the other hand, if you recognize the temptation before you and
you turn your eyes away and turn your attention to the things of the
Spirit, then you have just been victorious over the temptation and lust
never conceived in your heart to become sin.

The same thing applies to our thought life. Some people have been
taught erroneously that if you have an evil thought, you have sinned.
Careful study of Scripture will reveal this to be an impossible concept.
Jesus clearly had evil thoughts enter his mind when the devil tempted
him in the wilderness. Whether you interpret his temptation as
something internal or as a physical presence of the devil speaking
audibly to him, it does not matter. Whichever happened, when Jesus
considered what the devil said to him, they were evil thoughts. Jesus
heard and entertained these thoughts, and then he responded with
righteousness by rejecting the evil thoughts and quoting the Word of God
that pertained to the situation.

So just because a person has a thought of evil, it is not sin.
Nevertheless, the Scriptures also teach that the thoughts of the wicked
are an abomination. This speaks about the meditation and consideration
of evil things being sin. It is exactly like the Mat. 5:28 above. To
have an evil thought is not sin, but if you dwell on that thought and
conspire in your heart and makes plans with it, such thoughts and plans
are sin in themselves.

I realize this is a hot topic for some, and some may interpret my
comments as watering down sin, but it truly is not. My understanding of
sin comes strictly from the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Holy
Spirit as I have pursued holiness in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our
example in all these things. As we seek to know and understand him, and
to walk as he walked, his righteousness becomes manifest through our
weak and frail earthen bodies, and our understanding of sin and
righteousness becomes more clear.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each
other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful
and effective.

In view of original sin, total depravity etc, "there is none righteous, no
not one," who then can pray effectively?

And who are the "righteous who live by faith?" and what of Job, who was
perfect in his generations? Who were these people that Jesus spoke of that
came before Him and His atoning work?

Mat 13:17 "For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men
have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and
to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them."

These and many passages should temper conclusions we have drawn from other
statements of Scripture. Not that they contradict one another, but they
supply more information for us to consider.

Greetings, Dick. While I agree with most everything you wrote, there is
a little bit more to the message of John's letter. Therefore, I would
like to make a few comments for your consideration.

First, there is a sin which leads to death. In the end of the letter,
John says not to pray for those who commit this kind of sin (1 John
5:16). Jesus said that anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never
be forgiven (Mat. 12:31). Therefore, the work of Christ is not a
panacea for every possible sin and transgression. While some sins may
be covered in the manner that you described, other sins are not.

Second, while I think it is important to recognize that the first
chapter of John's letter establishes that everyone must recognize that
they have sinned, the rest of the letter appears devoted to the concept
that believers who continue to sin do not have the truth in them. There
is a transition that must be recognized. We were at one time sinners,
and this means that Satan was our father. Satan is a sinner; therefore,
we sinned when we lived in his domain. In Christ, however, is no sin.
Therefore, when we are in Him, we do not sin.

Some Christians erroneously teach that Jesus Christ was the only perfect
man who ever lived. They teach that nobody but Jesus Christ can live a
life that does not include sin. While it is true that nobody outside of
Christ has lived free of sinful action, being in Christ becomes a
completely different story. Because Jesus does not sin, when we are in
him, we do not sin.

John writes:

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 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)

Therefore, John calls attention here to our works to determine whether
or not we are walking in the light and whether or not we have the truth
abiding in our hearts. If we continue to sin, we can be assured that
our Father is still Satan. We do not have the truth in us. On the
other hand, if we keep Christ's teachings and commandments, we can be
assured that we are indeed in Christ, and that the truth is abiding
within our hearts.

I realize that this goes contrary to the Christian teachings that many
have sat under, but this is clearly what the Scriptures teach. The only
way around it is to twist and wrest the Scriptures to make them say
something other than what they are saying.

Hear the beauty of the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ:

"He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none
occasion of stumbling in him." (1 John 2:10)

Do you see that there? There is no occasion for stumbling when we love
our brother and abide in the light. Glory to God! May we all believe
the gospel that has delivered us from the slavery of sin and brought us
into a new domain of God, created in righteousness and holiness, where
we experience righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

>Second, while I think it is important to recognize that the first
>chapter of John's letter establishes that everyone must recognize that
>they have sinned, the rest of the letter appears devoted to the concept
>that believers who continue to sin do not have the truth in them. There
>is a transition that must be recognized. We were at one time sinners,
>and this means that Satan was our father. Satan is a sinner; therefore,
>we sinned when we lived in his domain. In Christ, however, is no sin.
>Therefore, when we are in Him, we do not sin.

If you do not sin, then step up and tell us. Then, you can honestly thank
God you are not as other men... Just say the word and we'll be the first
to congratulate you.*** You seem to be suggesting something for us that
you have not attained, yourself. Your trumpet made this uncertain sound
on 5/1/03:

>I can't answer this definitively with a "yes" or "no" because it seems
>to me that this is something that God judges, not man. I cannot and do
>not judge myself in this manner, nor do I judge others in this way. The
>best I can do is be committed to walk in Christ, keep my eyes on Christ,
>and be open to correction from my brothers and sisters in Christ.
>
>Another problem with me answering with a simple yes or no is that people
>have different ideas about what sin is (is sin an action, a disease, a
>condition, a noun, a verb?). So any yes or no answer might be
>misunderstood.

????????? No, you will not be open to correction because perfection
renders correction null and void. Think about it.

In another context you reported:

>One of the workshops I attended was by Paul Strickland and was exactly
>about this subject of whether Apostolic traditions are mere description
>or prescription.

First, thanks for the conference report and for your analysis of the
events!

Now, can you apply this same concept to the text from 1 John which you
keep mentioning? You've been real keen with:

---- 1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;

But not very forthcoming with this verse which appears in very close
proximity:

---- 1 John 1:8 If we say that we HAVE no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us.

1 John 3:6 is indeed prescriptive, just as if a father would say to your
son: "Good boys do not tell lies." That's the ideal but it's not always
achieved in this life or at once.

The most holy men and women consistently regard their holiness as unholy
and incomplete. Isaiah looked pretty good to those around him but when he
personally encountered God, out comes the truth: Woe is me! for I am
undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a
people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of
hosts. Isa. 6:5 He must increase, we must decrease.

God is just as interested in what we have not done, which often speaks
more loudly than what we say or do. Does Wesley's famous sermon on
perfection address sins of omission? John, the apostle, certainly does: 1
John 3:17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have
need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the
love of God in him?

One other thing about your unconditional, literal translation of 1 John
3:9, particularly the second (2nd) part. According to your method of
interpretation, this can only mean that a Christian can NEVER sin.
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in
him: AND HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God." You must conclude,
David, that 1) Christians do not ever sin and 2) they cannot EVER sin. A
big stretch just got bigger.

So, with just a YES or a NO, do you believe that a Christian cannot sin?

For you to have construed from my previous post that I was attempting to
"excuse sin" is to do great violence to my words. But hey, it happens all
the time. To acknowledge is not to excuse. On this we agree: these things
were written to encourage us not to sin. May God help us.

Cheers to the Lamb, your brother,

David Anderson

***
I have heard of some professors who dream that sin is utterly destroyed
in them, and that they have no more evil tendencies and desires. I shall
not controvert their notion. If it be so, I congratulate them, and
greatly wish it were so with me. I have, however, had some little
experience of perfect people, and I have generally found them the most
disagreeable, touchy, and sensitive persons in the world, and some of
them have turned out to be such detestable hypocrites, that I am rather
afraid of a person who has no imperfections.

The Dual Nature and the Duel Within
C. H. Spurgeon

Your original question that I was answering in this quote you present
was a little different from your present question. You asked, "Are you,
David Miller without sin?" That question would be difficult to answer
without defining terms and getting God's judgment in on the picture. On
the other hand, your present question of whether I sin (a verb) is
easily answered just like Job answered his accusers. No, I do not sin.
I live in all good conscience before God and men.

Sin exists as an action (something a person does), also as a thing (a
noun), also as a characteristic quality, and also as a power. Like Job,
I cannot say that I am perfect (Job 9:20), neither can I say that I am
without sin, but I can say that Jesus has delivered me from the power of
sin and that by the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ I do not commit sin.

David Anderson wrote:
> ????????? No, you will not be open to correction because
> perfection renders correction null and void. Think about it.

Perfection is not understood in only one absolute sense of the word.
You indicated that you had read Wesley's Christian Perfection, so I
assume that you know this. Wesley spent quite a bit of time defining
what is meant by "perfection" and by explaining all the ways in which we
are not perfect. I'm in good agreement with him concerning his comments
along these lines.

A person who is not open to correction is not perfect, because our
fallen state and feeble condition requires us to be open for correction.
In our present depraved condition, we continually grow and so even when
we walk in Christian perfection, we grow and perfect holiness. We have
not arrived and we are not perfect in that absolute sense of the word of
being finished. Jesus was not perfect in that absolute sense of the
word either. The Scriptures say that he learned obedience by the things
that he suffered (Heb. 5:8). We can be perfect as Jesus was perfect
when he lived as a man, but we cannot be perfect as he is now in his
glorified state.

David Anderson wrote:
> You've been real keen with:
>
> -- 1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;
>
> But not very forthcoming with this verse which appears
> in very close proximity:
>
> ---- 1 John 1:8 If we say that we HAVE no sin,
> we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

There is a lot that can be said about this and I didn't
want to take too much time with something that might be a little off
topic. In brief, one who says he has no sin problem that needs dealing
with by the blood of Jesus Christ is deceived. This is the context of 1
John 1:8. It speaks of sin as a noun, not a verb, and when he switches
to the verb form in verse 10, he also switches tenses to past tense. We
all have a sin nature residing in our flesh. I have this sin nature
within me right now. This sin nature is not eradicated until the
resurrection of our bodies. It will be a constant source of temptation
to us, just as it was to Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, here is the
victory that overcomes it: even our faith.

David Anderson wrote:
> So, with just a YES or a NO, do you believe that
> a Christian cannot sin?

YES

David Anderson wrote:
> May I humbly advise you not to turn this list into
> another opportunity after another to promote "Christian
> Perfectionism." People do not join list such as this
> to repeatedly entertain such questions, according to my
> extensive research.

It certainly is not my intention to post off topic. I only address the
subject right now in this post because you have asked me some questions.
Nevertheless, I consider the subject of holiness to be much more
foundational and important that the subject of meeting in homes, so when
believers think they can live like the devil when they profess to be in
Christ, I'm likely to say something about it.

David Anderson wrote:
> Perhaps you should start a Yahoo Group for those
> interested in perfectionism if one does not yet
> exist.

Perfectionism is not a pet doctrine of mine, nor is it something I'm
interested in trying to promote by having a list specifically dealing
with it. Nevertheless, I do manage a list called TruthTalk where any
subject dealing with Truth is allowed. We have dealt with this subject
of holiness from time to time. Anybody can join the list by sending an
email to JoinTruthTalk@InnGlory.org.

David Miller replied:

>YES

If a Christian cannot sin, why does/would John, writing to Christians,
even entertain that possibility? 1 John 2:1 My little children, these
things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if ANY MAN SIN, we have an
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Why did James entertain the same possibility? James 3:2 For in many
things WE OFFEND all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a
perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

The writer of Hebrews? Hebr. 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed
about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight,
AND THE SIN WHICH DOTH SO EASILY BESET US, and let us run with patience
the race that is set before us.

David, are you saying that those who do sin are not believers, having
just asserted that a Christian "cannot sin?"

David Miller replied:
>> YES

David Anderson wrote:
> David, are you saying that those who do sin are
> not believers, having just asserted that a Christian
> "cannot sin?"

No. I so desired to add more commentary before, but you asked me to
answer this question with just a YES or a NO, so I did.

I do not mean that sin is an impossibil