Theoretical sinlessness

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Dec 28, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Jerry, HP and others on this forum actually believe that all men can POTENTIALLY obtain eternal life by keeping the Law.

    They use the Lawyer and rich young ruler examples to prove this is a POTENTIAL possibility even though they claim this potential is THEORETICALLY possible but never actually possible.

    However, this theory is not only actually impossible (as they admit) but it is also potentially impossible (which they do not admit).

    1. In both contexts there is no recognition of sinfulness by either party.

    2. In both contexts there is no recognition of Christ as Savior

    3. In both contexts there is no recognition of any need to be saved.

    4. In both contexts they presume they can keep the law for eternal life

    These four factors characterize every single example they use to prove THEORETICAL sinlessness = justification of eternal life by law keeping.

    So, how do you deal with people who do not acknowledge they are sinners, they do not acknowledge Christ as Savior or any need to be saved but presume they can keep the law for eternal life? You send them to the Law to teach them what they are completely ignorant and deceived about - the knowledge of sin and their own sinfulness! You let them beat their head upon that inpentrable wall of sinless perfection.



    How the Lord dealt with the rich young ruler PROVES that Christ did not bellieve in THEORETICAL justification under the law.


    A. The PRESUMPTION OF INHERENT GOODNESS AND ABILITY TO KEEP THE LAW BY THE RICH YOUNG RULER:

    Mt. 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

    Mt. 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21

    1. He claimed to be EQUALLY inheritantly good as Christ - "good Master....good thing shall I do"

    2. He claimed ability to "do" what is sufficiently "good" to obtain eternal life.

    3. He claimed goodness equal to all the laws demands from his youth up "all these things have I done"

    4. He never acknowledged sinfulness

    5. He never acknowledge Christ as Savor

    6. He never acknowledge any need to be saved.


    B. CHRIST'S RESPONSE:

    Mt. 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:

    Mt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect,

    1. Christ denies there is anyone inherently "good" but God - hence, there are none who can THEORETICALLY be justified by law because first one must be POTENTIALLY or THEORETICALLY good to be THEORETICALLY justified by the law as good.

    2. Christ understood His assertion to have kept "all" the law as the claim to be "perfect" in his own eyes and therefore put his self-perception to the test by demanding he sell all that he has and give to the poor and follow Christ to demonstrate his claim of sinless perfection of law keeping!

    3. Christ denies there is anyone inherently good but ONE - hence, infants are not born inherently good by nature.


    There is only one possible way to deal with any human being who:

    1. Acknowledges no recognition of sinfulness.

    2. Acknowledges no recognition of Christ as Savior

    3. Acknowledges no recognition of any need to be saved.

    4. Presumes they are inherently and sufficiently good

    5. Presumes they have and can keep the Law good enough to inherit eteral life

    6. Rejects Christ's claim that there is NONE good but ONE - God

    You direct them to the Law and tell them this is what is required to do what you presume you can do and are asking to do.

    The scriptures clearly teach there is no theoretical possibility to obtain eternal life by law keeping EXCEPT IN THE MIND OF A LOST SELF-RIGHTEOUS HERETIC!

    ".....for IF there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." - Gal. 3:21


    The Apostles "if" denies potentiallity!
     
    #1 The Biblicist, Dec 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2011
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then God giving the Torah to Israel was a sham, a nasty trick?
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Why don't you accept the reason God's Word gives for that???

    Gal. 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;

    Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    The word "if" in Galatians 3:21 repudiates the idea that theoretically it is possible to obtain eternal life by keeping the law!

    These Biblical based reasons are perfectly in keeping with my OP
     
    #3 The Biblicist, Dec 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2011
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am on a phone, so I can't copy and paste, but here is what John Gill said concerning Mat 19:17
    Gill goes on to say if a man does all these things he will attain eternal life. Simply find his commentary and see for yourself. Matthew Henry and Barnes Notes also say the same.

    So, it is theoretically possible, but practically it is impossible.
     
    #4 Winman, Dec 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2011
  5. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    You have to back waaaaaaaaaay up! The Gospel is Everlasting. Before anything was ever created the Gospel was and is.

    1) It was not possible for Adam to NOT sin
    2) It was not possible for Jesus TO sin
    3) and it is not possible for any other human being to ever NOT sin.

    Theoretically does not apply to what has been written before the foundation of the world. Just fasten your seatbelts and hang on for the glorious ride of a lifetime! Praise Jesus and glorify His name!
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    Great men make great mistakes! I will take Christ's word on this - "There is none good but ONE and that is God" - That rules out all theoretical nonsense.

    If that is not sufficient, Christ concluded this story with these words "with man it is IMPOSSIBLE" - not theoretically possible but "IMPOSSIBLE"
     
  7. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not on a phone, :) so I can cut and paste. Here is what Gill went on to say about the same verse (my emphasis):
    This Christ said, in order to show, that it is impossible to enter into, or obtain eternal life by the works of the law, since no man can perfectly keep it; and to unhinge this man from off the legal foundation on which he was, that he might drop all his dependencies on doing good things, and come to him for righteousness and life.

     
  8. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, but that is not the issue. The question is whether it is "theoretically" possible for man to earn salvation. Gill, Henry, and Barnes all said that "if" a man were to perfectly keep the law they would attain salvation.

    And from what I have read, when Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, this was a popular saying of the day that meant something wasn't absolutely impossible, but was nearly impossible to do.

    That said, the scriptures are clear that no man (except Jesus) has ever, or will ever, perfectly keep the law.

    So, theoretically it is possible, but in practical reality it is impossible.
     
  9. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    These men were not in error, they correctly interpreted what Jesus told the rich ruler and the lawyer. Jesus was not lying when he told them that if they perfectly kept the law they would earn salvation. That is true.

    But in reality, no man has ever, or will ever, perfectly keep the law.

    All I know is that I personally have not kept the law, and that I need the blood of Jesus to wash away my sins.
     
  10. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what Barnes wrote on Mat 19:17;

    (Emphasis mine, I also shortened the scripture references for brevity only)

    I can understand why some would reject this interpretation (which is correct), because it refutes that a man is dead in Adam's sin. Nevertheless, this is what the scriptures teach.
     
    #10 Winman, Dec 29, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2011
  11. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Adam made that evident. The flesh is too weak ! 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:

    We have man at his best state in adam, but adam was only flesh, he was given the Law of God, and what happened ?

    You see, the Law was spiritual Rom 7:14

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

    adam was not even at his creation, he was still only carnal ! The word carnal means

    sarkikos:

    fleshly, carnal

    a) having the nature of flesh, i.e. under the control of the animal appetites

    1) governed by mere human nature not by the Spirit of God

    2) having its seat in the animal nature or aroused by the animal nature

    3) human: with the included idea of depravity

    b) pertaining to the flesh

    1) to the body: related to birth, linage, etc


    That adam had a nature at creation subject to the weak flesh is seen in eve's reaction to temptation Gen 3:1-6

    1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

    4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

    5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    The flesh was weak as stated in Rom 8:3..


    Those who believe that God gave the Law as a means of life possibly, do not understand the scriptures.
     
  12. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus came in the flesh and had the same exact nature as the seed of Abraham and perfectly fulfilled the law.

    Perhaps it is you that does not know the scriptures.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
     
  14. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Law prior to Christ pointed out the same need it does post Christ. That one cannot live it perfectly and that salvation comes by faith in Messiah. Same OT as NT. A part of the Law was the Genesis 3 incident where God pronouced the curse, and with that also pronounced the coming of one who would break that curse. Every OT individual under the Law knew that promise and there is where their faith stemmed.

    "The just shall live by faith..."
     
  15. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have been found cherry picking Gill to get the words that support your case. A further cite of the rest of Gill's thoughts on the issue refute your position.

    As a side note, many writers will play "devil's advocate" with a thought as they explore the ramifications of that thought (or passage, etc.). They then go on to modify that statement with something that in effect negates it. Paul did that when he spoke of the issues of the Law, sin, and grace, stating what many in his hearing would have said, if sin abounds grace abounds all the more, so in essence, let's go and sin more... To which he responded, "By all means not!"

    True that. He went on to say, "But with God all things are possible." He DID NOT SAY "With man all things are possible." There is your error. With God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. With man, not so much...

    Theoretically it was only possible with first man, Adam, who was born without an innate sin nature and with Christ, who was concieved by the Holy Spirit.

    Additionally, one had to keep the Law both actively and passively, doing ALL that it said, and all that without not doing what it did not say. With humans this is impossible. That God instituted the sacrifice of atonement to demonstrate this point every year in the Jewish calendar ought to be a big clue for you. There is no theoretical possibility that a man, born after Adam, could be without the sin that separates that man from God. We are born with that sin. From that sin we commit sins that further our problems.
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, you can falsely accuse me of anything you want. When the rich ruler and the lawyer asked Jesus what they must do to attain eternal life, Jesus plainly told them they must keep the commandments. That this is impossible for a man to do does not negate that Jesus gave them a truthful answer. This is what these scholars said. I only quote them because I knew you would not listen to me.

    Jesus came in the flesh with the nature of the seed of Abraham. He lived as a man under the full influence and trust of God and was able to keep all the law. The problem with us is that we do not fully obey or trust God at all times and so fail.

    If you have already made up your mind, why did you start a thread on this subject?
     
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    GLF, I disagree with your point about it only being theoretically possible for Adam for two reasons.

    #1 Jesus did not say that. He plainly told two men who were post-fall that they must keep the commandments. Jesus does not make misleading statements, he could have easily told them it was impossible for them to attain life. Jesus was telling the truth that if any man kept the law perfectly he would be saved.

    #2 Jesus came in the flesh and had the nature of the post-fall seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16) and perfectly kept the law. Now he did this under complete reliance on God, thus his statement that it was possible with God. If a man relies on himself he will surely fail, but no man can sin when he is relying upon and trusting God (1 Jn 3:9).

    There is a huge issue here, the scriptures say Jesus came in the flesh, and that any spirit that denies this is the spirit of antichrist. (1 Jn 4:1-3)
     
  18. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Suppose a person heard the following conversation between the lawyer and the Lord Jesus:

    "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

    Then suppose that person came over to the Lord Jesus and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

    After all, that would be the logical inference anyone would draw from hearing that exchange between the two men.

    In your opinion what would be the Lord Jesus' answer?
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    No one is disputing his answer was truthful! We are disputing that Christ or any other Biblical writer regarded it to be potentially possibly!

    Jesus flatly stated it was not theoretically possible:

    1. "There IS none good but one and that is God"
    2. "with men this is IMPOSSIBLE"


    There is only one kind of mind that believes it is theoretically possible - the mind of heretics - like those Jesus dealt with!

    The only reason you believe it is theoretically believe it is possible is because you deny what Jesus said to be comphrensively true.

    He says there "IS none good but ONE" and you demand there "IS millions intrinsically good" and therefore it cannot be restricted to but "ONE"

    He says this is "IMPOSSIBLE with men" but your theological position demands it is POSSIBLE with man".
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    207
    The only persons in scripture that believe this is THEORETICALLY possible are self-righteous lost religious hypocrits! - Period!

    Jesus said it was "IMPOSSIBLE"

    Jesus said "there IS NONE good, but ONE"

    You dispute the word "IMPOSSIBLE" and you dispute the word "NONE" and you dispute the limitation "BUT ONE"

    This idea of theorecticall possibility is NEVER affirmed by New Testament writers but ALWAYS denied.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...