It is more ridiculous to assume that we can just replace words based on what WE think the speaker meant. Jesus knew how to choose His own words.

When a carpenter has a hammer and a screwdriver at his disposal, and he picks up the screwdriver, that gives me an idea as to his intent. Sure, he might use the screwdriver to do the hammer's job, but not if he's a competent carpenter.


"Articulated" would not have articulated my intent; too ambiguous. I prefer "enunciated" in this case.

Granted, I sometimes choose the wrong word. I'm not that eloquent. But I won't make that same assumption about Jesus.


In my usage, no. One can be fully justified, but not fully experience salvation. A justified person can still be unwittingly doing Satan's will.


I will speak plainly now: Modern defenders of Jones and Waggoner often accuse those who disagree with them of rejecting the precious truths of 1888, even though the "precious truths" were never explicitly defined.

In fact, we have an example below.


It does follow that. But I don't believe premise #2 is true, making the argument unsound. I have met people who have a profound experience in righteousness by faith, but wouldn't know the difference between a postlapsarian and a postman.

We sometimes get so full of ourselves and our theological wrangling that we forget the simplicity of the euangelion: If we die with Jesus, we will live with Him. You want to know who really understands righteousness by faith? It is the one whose faith lays hold of Christ's righteousness, transforming him into the same image.

In 1 John 3:6-9 John is describing the sinless condition of those believers who have learned how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded. Of course it is only true of their experience while they are abiding in Jesus. Such sinlessness is available here and now. People have reached it in every generation since the Fall of A&E. It is not unique to the 144,000. The only things unique to the 144,000 is the fact they will experience the investigative judgment of the living; pass through the plagues; endure JTOT; and be translated alive. A wonderful thing, to be sure.

Yes, I believe 1 John 3:6-9 describes my current condition and experience while I am abiding in Jesus. Yes, I still have defects, weaknesses, and imperfections I must work constantly to rein in, to keep under the control of a sanctified will and mind in order not to act them out and incur guilt. Yes, I would be able to go through the experiences of the 144,000 if things were to unfold right now. Yes, I have endless room to grow in grace and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Such growth and maturation involves "perfecting holiness" and constitutes the eternal process of sanctification. It's what Jesus demonstrated while here in the flesh.

Do you agree that 1 John 3:6-9 describes the sinless condition and experience of those believers who are abiding in Jesus and who have learned how to live in harmony with everything Jesus commanded? Or, do you think it implies believers "have sin" and continue to sin ignorantly? If so, do you know of any passages that describe believers who are free from sin and who do not sin?

Here's what she wrote: "I don't think it's ludicrous to believe that such an experience is possible right now. . . I believe it's possible in this lifetime to reach the point where the Christian's thoughts, words, and deeds are in perfect harmony with God's will. . . However, until the Christian is mature enough to reach this point, Jesus makes up for his unavoidable sins and it is in this sense that God considers him sinless and safe to save. I must assume you disagree with this."

She says it's possible now but then goes on to say it is reached at some point in the future. Before that point is reached they sin unavoidably. If it is possible "here and now", as you put it, why doesn't she think it happens until sometime in the future?


By "err" do you mean I sinned in assuming you meant something you didn't? Just curious since the word "err" came up in one of the SOP quotes. By "claiming the promises of God" I mean experiencing them. That is, they are a reality in our life while we are abiding in Jesus. Do you think it is "dangerous" to claim the promises of God here and now, to believe they describe your experience while you're abiding in Jesus?


Yes, I believe with all of my heart and soul that 1 John 3:6-9 describes my experience while I am abiding in Jesus. Of course it doesn't describe my experience while I am *not* abiding in Jesus.

Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In the passage above John describes what it means to be born again. "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."

For you to say you have not reached this point is to say you have not experienced rebirth. If you have not been born again then you cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. I am not saying you are unsaved, teresaq. I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion of the view you hold. Do you think it is possible that the promises of God mean exactly what they say, that is, born again believers who are abiding in Jesus do not and cannot sin?


I’ve met people who think the verses you posted above make it clear born again believers will continue to sin until the day Jesus returns. What do you believe John is conveying? What do you think he means by the following expression?

1. “Have no sin” and “Have not sinned”
2. “Cleanse us from all unrighteousness”
3. “That ye sin not”
4. “If any man sin”

Here’s what I think he means:

1. To say I “have no sin” or I “have not sinned” is to say I have never sinned. People who believe such nonsense are deceived and do not understand the truth about it. They are in essence calling God a liar, who said, “All have sinned.”

2. The moment we confess our sins and experience rebirth, Jesus forgives us, justifies us, and cleanses us from “all sin” and unrighteousness.

3. John wrote out the truth and it is the truth that enables believers to “sin not”, to “go and sin no more”.

4. Sinning is not inevitable. John did *not* say “when you sin we have an advocate with the Father”. Instead, he very clearly said, “if we sin”, which means it is not inevitable.

Mike,

What I'm saying is, you can abide in Jesus during 23 hours and 55 minutes in a day, but if you fail to abide in Jesus during 5 minutes and commit a sin, your condition can't be described as sinlesness. This kind of "sinlessness" will not do for the time of trouble. The time of trouble will require a sinlessness which means abinding in Jesus 100% of the time and thus never committing any sin. This is the kind of sinlessness we don't possess today. If heaven ever considers us sinless today, it's on the basis of Christ's righteousness making up for our sins. So when I ask you if you are sinless, I'm asking if you never commit a sin.

i can agree with that.

This is the same error as before. We are limited to choosing a word a time. There are many synonyms available. The fact that we choose one instead of another doesn't necessarily mean anything, regardless of how skilled we are at using language.

That Jesus Christ said "this one went to his house justified" in no way implies that He didn't mean "this one did not go to his house saved."



You seem to be missing the point. It has nothing to do with eloquence, but with improper inference, and the necessity of choosing one word at a time. Because you said "enunciated" instead of "articulated" might be meaningful, or it might not be. It would be wrong for me to conclude that because you used "enunciated" instead of some other word that any other word other than "enunciated" would have meant something other than what you wished to say.



Can you be more specific please? What do you mean "unwittingly doing Satan's will"? I'm assuming that, by your usage, a sanctified person could not be so classified. That is, a justified person can unwittingly do Satan's will, but not a sanctified person. Would keeping the Sabbath fall in this category? So not person who keeps Sunday could be sanctified?

I'm not arguing anything here; I'm just trying to get a handle on what you mean.



This same thing happened in 1888. Those who disagreed with Jones and Waggoner then did so with the same argument. Santayana lives on.



If you just look at the arguments people make in regards to justification/sanctification/salvation on this very thread, you can see the impact that believing in original sin has. There are two different gospels involved depending on the position one takes.

You're saying you don't see this?



Which has nothing to do with the point. I've met a Jehovah's Witness I was convinced was converted.



Isn't this a red herring? They're are people on the wrong side of theological issues who are genuine Christians. There are 5 point Calvinists who are wonderful Christians. Should we therefore conclude that believing in double predestination does not have a profound impact on one's understanding of righteousness by faith?

If I may, I would like some clarification. Are you saying 1 John 3:6-9 describes your experience while you are abiding in Jesus? And, does it include sinning ignorantly?

You seem to be saying the sinless experience you described above is not possible now. Did I understand you correctly? Do you think only the 144,000 are capable of reaching this kind of sinlessness? If so, what makes it possible for them then but not for us now? What is lacking that prevents us from being like Jesus now?

You asked, "So when I ask you if you are sinless, I'm asking if you never commit a sin." According to 1 John 3:6-9 I do not and cannot commit a sin while I'm abiding in Jesus? Are you also asking if I ever neglect to abide in Jesus and that if I do it is proof I cannot be like Jesus until the day He returns, that only the 144,000 can?

i dont understand the need to push the point. i believe that it is possible to be sinless here and now, but i have met people who honestly believed they were sinless while those of us around them knew them to be emphatically not sinless. their list was too small, i would say.

instead of getting so minute, i would think it would be better to be studying about Christ and let Him worry about whether im sinless at the moment or not.

You said, "'Salvation' is a broader term than 'justification.'" If that is correct, then your edit of Christ's words would have Him saying more than He actually said. While your suggestion may be true, it is not what Jesus said.

But to say that "justified" and "saved" are synonymous enough in this instance to allow a simple replacement is a case of FOTAP.