Morally Pure

They are more accurate in their definitions than yours.

The subject is "morally pure" which you have tried to define by using 1Tim.5:22, and then redefine by saying that it means sinlessness. But you have been proven wrong. For the verse has nothing to do with sinlessness. You simply take a verse out of context and try to use it for your own means. You, in effect, have derailed this thread by making it a discussion over 1Tim.5:22 and are now embarrassed that the verse has a totally different meaning then what you would like it to mean. Instead of admitting that it cannot mean sinless you kept on pressing the issue, when you could have gone on to a different verse but you didn't.

All of those definitions are totally irrelevant if the context is ignored. And that is what you have done. You have tried to use 1Tim.5:22 to prove your point and then various dictionary meanings to define "keep thyself pure," but that doesn't work, for it is the context that defines the phrase, not the dictionary. That is what you have been ignoring. That is why your definitions are wrong, totally wrong.

Keep yourself pure simply means to keep yourself unstained from other men's sins. In the context of that chapter that is what the verse means. It may not mean that all the time; but it does there.

We have a Bible. The Bible is our authority, not Webster or the freedictionary.com. Or have you changed your mind about that? It is the context of the Bible that defines the word. If Webster's definition doesn't fit the context of the Bible then it is wrong.

Phil.3:20 "for our conversation is in heaven"
What does Webster have to say about that verse?
What does "conversation" mean?

The context defines the word, with the help of the Greek.

 

The phrase "practicing sin" or making sin your practice infers intentional choice. Again, you must ignore that the Law of God can be violated apart from intentional choice.

Again, you ignore the problem of the Great Command! Are you going to tell us that you keep this command with 100% of your whole being 100% of the time????? That is precisely what that command requires to obey it!

Why do you keep ignoring this commandment and what it requires if YOU ARE SINLESS or can remain sinless for long periods of time??????

Come on, tell us you keep this commandment with 100% of your being 100% of the time!!!

 

In the sense that we are still in a body that will have desires that we will war against...yes.

Understand, though, I am not saying that we do not have the ability to put this sin away, and to deny ourselves. But I am saying that we as believers, because we have had our eyes opened to understand what sin is (and this primarily through the indwelling Spirit of God, Who both speaks to our hearts as well as teaches us to understand the revealed will of God), still enter into warfare against those things we have taught ourselves before being saved.

This is why we have instruction to put sin away. If it were a matter that after salvation sin was an impossibility, then we either conclude that instruction not to sin is meaningless filler in scripture, or, it is for unbelievers.

I look at it this way: there is One sacrifice that makes atonement for sin, that being the shed blood of Christ which includes His taking the penalty for our sins. Most of us will admit that after we were saved, there were times when we sinned. No matter how small we might try to pass that sin off as, sin is sin. So we must conclude that the sacrifice of Christ, His standing in the place of judgment for us, applies to sin both before, as well as after we are born of God.

If it isn't, then there is a need for another sacrifice, and we already know that concerning atonement for sin, only One sacrifice in scripture is said to make atonement in completion, that being Christ Himself, again, standing in our place to take upon Himself the penalty for our sin.

And we know that the One sacrifice was sufficient. Christ need not die upon the Cross again in order to atone for man's sin.

Now we swing back to the believer. He is saved, and because he is limited in discernment, most understanding their guilt before God and their need to repent and plead for His mercy to be applied to them, and not much more, it is literally an impossibility that one might be saved...never to sin again.

Most are not like Paul, having been born and bread to have knowledge of God, though hypothetically we can look at scholars that have a head knowledge and are actually saved after years of association with the spiritual things of God. I know at least one man that frequents many forums that has exactly that testimony. He spent years intellectually absorbing doctrine, but came to the realization that he himself was not saved. Paul is similar to this man, or, vice versa, really. Having an intellectual knowledge and understanding, but it did not bring him into relationship with God.

But that scenario of salvation stands apart from most, I think. Now these men, after salvation, having a better understanding of God than most that are saved, have a lead on most as far as understanding sin and putting it away, but most are going to be ignorant of many things.

As God teaches us, we recognize things in our lives and are convicted of sin, and at that point begin to deal with that sin.

For example, when I was saved, I focused primarily on external sin, such as smoking, drinking, drug use. I thought that if I could put those things away, I would be a "better Christian," more pleasing to God. Well, those things were put away, but I began to recognize sin which was just as bad, probably worse: anger, hatred...things which caused me to sin against God because I sinned against others.

When God begins dealing with our hearts, He does so according to His wisdom, and teaches as we would small children. We do not put 3 year-olds behind the wheel of a car and honestly expect them to drive the vehicle, because they are incapable of understanding how it works, and they are physically incapable of performing that which we ask them to do.

Like wise, new believers are not expected to be knowledgable in all areas whereby they can remain sinless, but they learn as they grow.

Paul instructs that "we should not be many teachers," and couple that with the command not to put immature believers in a place of service, we see a teaching that is meant expressly for the purpose of avoiding sin in the lives of believers. Has that been accomplished in the Body of Christ these nearly 2000 years? No. There have been immature believers stand in the place of teacher who have succumbed to the sin of pride.

We see in scripture detailed instruction that places a responsibility of being perfected on the believer, in that he should be diligent in his desire to please God by foregoing sin in his life, yet we do not deny the power of God as He instructs the believer concerning sin, and ennables him, according to God's empowerment, to actually put that sin away.

Sorry for the length...I am a windbag for sure...lol.

I am. However, we are probably going to view this passage differently.

In ch.7 Paul recognizes his sin through the Law, and admits that at this stage, after he is saved, he can understand that his efforts were meaningless, and that the Law would bring death. I would also suggest that he states that the Law...actually brought about a desire for the things prohibited.

When he states the law is spiritual, and he carnal, he is saying exactly what he will teach the Corinthians...that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of God, much less perform them so as to be able to bypass the penalty which law exacts.

There is much debate whether Paul is speaking of his life before salvation when he says,


Romans 7

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

15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.


I believe he is talking about the fact that he is still in unredeemed flesh, and that he is speaking of his life at the time of this writing.

If we look at his statment concerning his life before salvation, we see that he implies that the law actually caused a desire, as I said, of that which was prohibited.



7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.


He would not have known his coveting was sin except that the law held him guilty.

Did the law cause him to sin? God forbid, he says, that any would think so. Sin, not the law, wrought in him all manner of desire, not the other way around, as has been expressed by some.

In short, Paul speaks of two conditions, that before salvation, and that after. That is his primary thrust here. He was carnal (natural, basically) and found guilty by the law because sin wrought desire in him he could neither confront or master, but it mastered him.

After he was saved, like his analogous wife, he was no longer "married to the law," and that is what needs to be considered carefully: was he saying, "I no longer have to consider the law, because I am dead to it."

No, he is saying, "I am no longer under the death sentence that the law held for me."

When a woman's husband dies, the bond is gone. When a man becomes saved, the penalty the law exacts no longer has a claim to where it can demand payment.


So when we get ready to enter ch.8, we see Paul say...


24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I 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.


Is Paul saying he has forgotten the Gospel? No, he knows exactly Who it is that delivers him.

He is speaking of a general truth in the life of the believer which is, we still have warfare with desires of the flesh, because we are still in unredeemed bodies. This is not Paul saying "I am helpless," merely a recognition that while he has been renewed in the mind, he is still in a body that is still in need of redemption.


Okay, getting too long here, so I will move on.

And, due to length, I will have to continue...

 

Romans 8

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


He does not say, "There is now therefore no sin in them which are in Christ Jesus," but that there is no condemnation. The penalty of law which we owed has been paid, whereby he can say, "O death...where is thy sting?"

If we see his teaching in ch.7 speaking of the natural man and the "spiritual man," we will recognize here that he is contrasting lost and saved, those who are still under condemnation, and those who are not, because they are in Christ Jesus.


2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

We are free from the law of sin and death, not free from the law.

He has given us an entire chapter in which he explains the law of sin and death, and unless we incorporate that teaching into our interpretation of this section, we may come to some conclusions that speak of an entirely different meaning.

Can the law of sin and death have power of those who are in Christ Jesus. No. We are "married" to another, and it is He that will judge us, not entirely divorced from the righteousness which is found in the law, but...we no longer are bound to the law as we were before salvation.


3For 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:

Again, a reference to that which is carnal...the flesh. Because of the flesh, the law could only conclude that which God has already stated, that all men are, outside of Christ...condemned.

As Paul always does, he gives God the glory for our "rescue" from the conclusive, inescaplable judgment of teh law concerning the natural man.


4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


That the righteousness, which is in the law, though natural man could expect only negative judgment, might be fulfilled in us, who...are in Christ Jesus.

If we take the view that this speaks of our efforts, as some do, we deny that Christ and Christ alone made it possible for us to be redeemed.

I do not view this in the sense, "Right now I am walking in the Spirit, though when I sin, I am walking in the flesh."

I view this as "I was in the flesh, natural, before salvation. I am now walking, not in the flesh, but I am walking in the Spirit, because I am in Christ."

Paul rebules the Corinthians for behaving carnally, then exhorts them to share in their carnal possessions. He is speaking of the natural state of man as opposed to man who has been saved, and is now in Christ.

And the glorious truth that is usually missed here is that there is now therefore no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus.

Who are not natural any longer, and are no longer condemned.

Yes, I do. Absolutely.

But not in perfection. I know for myself, as I look back at my walk with the Lord, I can see how His hand has led me in my pursuit to please Him. Many things that I have and seek to put away I would not have even recognised as sin when first I was saved.

And I believe that there is still things in my life that while I do not consider it sin at this point, I will, in the future, recognize it as sin, and seek to put that also away. But there is enough for me to concentrate on now as it is. There are so many areas of my life that I can judge and see room for improvement.

Obedience to the "law" begins first with recognition. One example might be my time on forums. If you go back to when first started engaging in doctrinal discussions, you might be surprised at some of the things I said. My heart, when I look back on those conversations, was not as I believe the Lord would have me conduct myself, and instead of being a picture of Christ, I feel that I was merely a picture of someone that had very little love in his heart for others.

I still work on that, but, there has been a little improvement, I hope.

Okay, sorry for the length. I know that few take the time to read long posts, which in certain cases actually works out for the better, in that a conversation stays more personal. But, this is what happens when I try to post with less than two cups of coffee...lol.

God bless.

 

The real issue here is the definition of sin. Do you define sin as only willful transgression of the law (1 Jn. 4:6)? That is indeed ONE biblical way the law can be transgressed but not the only way. Do you acknowledge other ways the law can be transgressed?

1. Sins of ignorance - still sin
2. Sins of omission - "come short"
3. Sins contrary to faith - "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"

Do you recognize these are ways to violate God's Law??

Both you and HP keep on ignoring the two Great Commandments given by Jesus that He said the whole law consisted of.

Do you love God with 100% of your whole being (internally as well as demonstratably externally - words, actions) 100% of the time?

Remember, a lustful look, unjust anger, covetous heart are all "evil thoughts" and all violate the law IN YOUR HEART.

When you say you can live sinlessly for "long periods of time" are you saying that for "long periods of time" you can love the Lord your God with 100% of your whole being (nternally as well as externally demonstratable) 100% of that time including loving your neighbor as yourself?

How do you know when you come short of that command? By a lustful look? By unjust Anger? By coveteousness? By coming short of what Christ would either think, say or do in that given time???

Are you defining sinless for such "long periods of time" as simply periods where you do not commit WILLFUL acts of sin? If that is your meaning, then, I can accept that idea.

 

Some of what you say is true; some is not.
One thing stands out.
You cannot substantiate any of what you say by 1Tim.5:22.

That is what you have been trying to do.
That is like teaching that the Bible says "There is no God," as it does in Psalms 14:1. You ignore context completely. This is what you are doing in 1Tim.5:22. You are ignoring context completely. If you want to teach some of your "morally pure" doctrine do it from other passages, not from 1Tim.5:22. It means something entirely different.

The great majority of commentaries attest that it means "Keep thyself pure (from the sins of others). It has to do with setting himself apart from defilement of other wicked men. It does not have to do with his own purity. Thus this verse has nothing to do with Timothy's own state of "purity," as you would like to demonstrate, just as Psalm 14:1 really doesn't teach "there is no God," even though it says it.

 

I never brought up this verse. Why would I? I am not the one defending your doctrine.

I have pointed out this before. Have you confessed all the sins of omission as well. Have you confessed your lack of obeying: the Great Commission, and the first and second Great Commandments that Christ gave. These two commands are impossible for any man to keep. I have already demonstrated this.

You confuse words. You confuse meanings. We started out with the word pure, which does not mean sinless. Neither does undefiled necessarily mean sinless. It has the connotation of meaning unstained with the pollutions of the outside world.

Depending on what context you find the word, it is often the pollutions of the outside world that defile us. Read 2Cor.6:14-17 on this. Then John 15:3, Jesus says: You are clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you. It is the Word of God that cleanses us. See also Psalm 119:9,11.

Again, it depends on the context in which the word is used. Give me the context in which the word is used. Context defines the word, not the dictionary.

 

That is deceitful Jerry. The first thing you say in your OP is this:

You have carried this thread over from another one. What you quoted in your OP was in response to 1Tim.5:22 which you first quoted in a previous thread--the "another thread DHK said the following..."

Are you? 1John 2 tells us that the mark of Christian is he who keeps his commandments. Yet you fail in the Great Commission, in loving your neighbor as yourself, in loving the Lord your God with all your strength, all your soul, all your mind, etc. You fail in these things. Do you confess them? But you still fail.

No it isn't. Dictionaries don't define words. The context of the Bible defines words. Unless you can provide the context that the word is used in, then this conversation is meaningless and the thread should be closed.

I refuse to look at definitions that are not Biblical. Provide context which words are used in or this conversation is over.

I have news for you: Paul didn't speak English.

Your whole argument is non-existent for you refuse to deal with the Bible. You have set the English dictionaries up above and beyond the authority of the Scriptures. I refuse to deal with an authorities that you have set up higher than the Bible. I consider that heresy. My basis for debate is the Bible. When you get to that place then we have something to discuss. Until then I will consider this conversation over.

 

The Holy Spirit has not glorified his personal condition but merely overuled it. The Holy Spirit has enabled the inward man created in true holiness and righteousness to willfully manifest itself. Hence, Paul is talking about the willful acts rather than the condition or state of the unglorified nature of man which continues in a state of PASSIVE sin (omission) even when being overruled by the Holy Spirit. The absolute proof it is still continues in a PASSIVE state of sin is that it continues to manifest itself whenever the Holy Spirit is not consciously submitted unto by the believer.

Man has not become sinless in regard to his condition when under the leadership of the Spirit. What has occurred is that his WILLFUL manifest life is fulfilling the Law of God by the power of the Spirit of God. However, his human condition is still unglorified and passively sinful and repetition of its manifest emergences proves it as well as physical death.

Hence, Philippians 3:12-14 and 1 John 1:8 still deny sinless perfection in regard to the whole man at any point this side of glorification. You may continue without WILLFUL sin for a period of time, and then only under the power of the Holy Spirit but you cannot exist without sin of ommission at any point of your time prior to glorification.

 

HP: Scripture itself in no wise refutes the notion of the word 'pure' as being sinless. It is sheer arrogance for you to act like all your philosophical notions are deduced from Scripture alone, and that anyone that dare disagree with your interpretations of Scripture are heretical. You are simply deceived as to the basis of some of your beliefs and think too highly of others.

 

Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Dictionaries don't define words in a vacuum. You need context.
My water is pure; my water is not sinless.

 

Where does it talk about keeping your water pure?

 

The word pure is meaningless without context.
Dictionary definitions are meaningless without context, the context in which the word is used in the Bible. This thread "morally pure" is meaningless unless "pure" is defined by the context of the Bible, not by dictionaries.
Is the water pure, the vessel pure, the soul pure? What is the context of the word? Without context we have nothing.

 

There are but two possible moral states, either sinful and evil, or holy and as such pure. In the case of the word 'pure', you are try to use 'context' as a convenient means to hide or confuse clear moral truth.

 

Not at all. The first verse that Jerry brought into this discussion, (in another thread) was 1Tim.5:22) was "...keep thyself pure." It has nothing to do with sinlessness or even "morally pure." It has to do with keeping oneself pure from the sins of other wicked men, as in separating from them. Keep your distance from wicked men. That is what the verse means. He brought in a verse, trying to prove his point, that meant absolutely nothing related to what he was trying to prove. Context is everything.
If you are going to prove your case use the Bible. The context defines the word.

 

Or an entirely different meaning. Only the context can give the meaning. Words cannot be boxed in so easily in one's imaginary box of meanings.