As far as I'm concerned, only one person who walked this earth could make the claim to be sinless.... Jesus. Not even believers receiving the HG. We received the HG, but we never stopped being human. I'm not trying to justify sin at all.......I'm just trying to put things into perspective and be real, if we could be sinless I guess you'd say you don't need an advocate after all......
Someone else on another thread alluded to be sinless ever since receiving the HG.....I asked them 3 times in the thread if they'd directly admit to being perfectly sinless since recieving the HG as they'd alluded to, and they wouldn't respond. I'm not a hippocrate and I wish everyone the best in their walk........
but only one was truly capable of a sinless life imho.
One of the issues I have with the notion of man being able to be sinless is exactly that, we wouldn't need Jesus. The notion really puts the focus on man and man's ability... not Christ's redemptive work upon the cross. Show me a man who thinks he's sinless or can be and I'll show you a man who's performance is the center of his faith. Show me a man who admits to never being able to be sinless and I'll show you a man who's focused upon the cross and Christ's redemptive performance.
I've often looked at it like this... we're sinless... in Christ. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Not that we can be sinless just as he was once we receive the Holy Ghost, but judicially God has dropped all charges and declared us sinless according to the Law... Jesus paid it all for every sin committed, currently being struggled with, and every sin that we will commit. Jesus paid it all. It is "finished". Done.
One of the issues I have with the notion of man being able to be sinless is exactly that, we wouldn't need Jesus. The notion really puts the focus on man and man's ability... not Christ's redemptive work upon the cross.
You side this a minute after I did, but with more words. Bravo!
The issue of Christ's imputed righteousness is based upon Adam's imputed sin.
Also, Paul spoke as though it was granted that no one can serve God sinlessly aside from the cross when Paul wrote this:
Galatians 3:10-11 KJV For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
If one is cursed due to not fulfilling all the works of the law, then one might say, "Oh well, too bad for those who cannot fulfill it." But Paul said every one under law is automatically cursed. IOW, no one can possibly live sinlessly by knowing what to do in order to be sinless. All under law are cursed - period. Why? No one can keep it. This assumes no one can.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
You side this a minute after I did, but with more words. Bravo!
The issue of Christ's imputed righteousness is based upon Adam's imputed sin.
Also, Paul spoke as though it was granted that no one can serve God sinlessly aside from the cross when Paul wrote this:
Galatians 3:10-11 KJV For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
If one is cursed due to not fulfilling all the works of the law, then one might say, "Oh well, too bad for those who cannot fulfill it." But Paul said every one under law is automatically cursed. IOW, no one can possibly live sinlessly by knowing what to do in order to be sinless. All under law are cursed - period. Why? No one can keep it. This assumes no one can.
"No matter what you buy your wife for you anniversary, you will find it 50% off the day after. Corollary: If she see's it, she'll assume you bought it because it was cheap."
The same law that proposed holy days and months and years -- in Gal 4. the law that Paul said was for Jews before Christ came in 3:23-24.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
The same law that proposed holy days and months and years -- in Gal 4. the law that Paul said was for Jews before Christ came in 3:23-24.
I ask this because there is the Law of God (the Ten Commandments) and the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law). Essentially God inspired Moses to codify how their society was to keep and obey the Law of God. While the Law of Moses is definately no longer applicable and definately doesn't apply to the Church, the question is... how do we relate to the moral Law of God? Most of us lump the Ten Commandments in with the Law of Moses and assume it's all the same and all put away. I don't believe that's so. I believe the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, are still commandments to be obeyed. We are simply not bound to obey them in the way ancient Israel did via the Law of Moses. I believe that the Ten Commandments are eternally binding and set the standard of what God expects from all mankind:
I ask this because there is the Law of God (the Ten Commandments) and the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law). Essentially God inspired Moses to codify how their society was to keep and obey the Law of God. While the Law of Moses is definately no longer applicable and definately doesn't apply to the Church, the question is... how do we relate to the moral Law of God? Most of us lump the Ten Commandments in with the Law of Moses and assume it's all the same and all put away. I don't believe that's so. I believe the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, are still commandments to be obeyed. We are simply not bound to obey them in the way ancient Israel did via the Law of Moses. I believe that the Ten Commandments are eternally binding and set the standard of what God expects from all mankind:
III
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord
thy God in vain, for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain
IV
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
V
Honor thy father and thy mother,
that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee
VI
Thou shalt not murder
VII
Thou shalt not commit adultery
VIII
Thou shalt not steal
IX
Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor
X
Thou shalt not covet
If an action doesn't break one of these in some way, it's not sin. That's just my take on it.
I believe Mosaic law and the ten commandment are one and the same. The entire detailed law is simply encapsulated in the Ten.
No man was ever able to keep the Ten but Christ.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
One of the issues I have with the notion of man being able to be sinless is exactly that, we wouldn't need Jesus. . . .
What do you mean "we"? Presumably, if it were possible for some to be sinless all their lives, those would be very rare exceptions.
Anyway, what would be so horrible about some very few people being perfect and not needing Jesus? It certainly wouldn't bother Jesus himself, would it? Sure, he gave himself as sacrifice for "all" mankind, but would it really bother him for some reason if there were a couple of us that didn't need that sacrifice?
And it would not mean Jesus died for no reason: there is still the other 99.99999% of us that needed that sacrifice!
Would Jesus actually be angry at those perfect ones? The thought of that is ludicrous, when you think about it.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Presumably, if it were possible for some to be sinless all their lives, those would be very rare exceptions. 
Hybrid Mode
