Can Change the World Again.
| | Can Change the World Again. | |
Biblical Response to CRI's
"The Error of Perfectionism."1
Presumptuous Perfectionism Reacts against Sinless Perfectionism.
It is not desirable to spend all our days hunting for heretics, nor do we feel lead to be the corrector of every errant teacher. But when popular teachers who generally defend important essentials of the faith, venture off into condemning biblical terms and important doctrines of the bible, it becomes the Christian community to help ''The Bible Answer Man" come back the bible. When we consider that our friends have taken the text of Jude 3 to be an important basis for their polemic missions, we will take the context of this verse, which includes more importantly verse four, to be our text:
"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt compelled to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 3, 4.
We note first that the contending for the faith by Jude was not primarily an intellectual concern as much as a heart problem. It is true that one must have the correct doctrine of grace and godliness in order to experience these gifts of God—and so far must they intellectually be correct. Jude's concern and appeal here is not about earnestly contending for everyone to have every fine detail of theology identical to some master creed, or that Christians should make every issue as important as any other; but his appeal is rather against the primary issue of ungodliness, which is the foundational problem with all heresy and almost every problem in the church. After years of not making this the beginning issue myself, I well understand the error of trying to correct ungodly people intellectually and theoretically before they are godly and unprejudiced. Right doctrine is important, but there is an order to approaching it. Also if a man understands and believes all mysteries and has all knowledge but does not have the love of God that is unprejudiced, godly, and sincere, all that knowledge will only harden his heart and stand against him on the day of judgment. We must "receive the love of the truth to be saved" (2 Thess. 2) and not just "hold the truth in unrighteousness" in which "the wrath of God will be revealed against us" (Rom. 1:18). Our object is not therefore to make doctrinally correct disciples but rather sincere lovers of God who thus become godly by His grace. When Jude saw that many slipped in to fellowships who no doubt admitted in creed what the others did, but nevertheless were ungodly—men who believed in the grace of God but lived as if they had a license to sin—he appealed to the church at large to make a thorough investigation of this matter and not tolerate this any further. The state of things today is only worse and calls for an even deeper contending for the faith. For the most vocal defenders of "the grace of God" today practically turn it into licentiousness (they perhaps feel that their using the term so frequently and loudly will excuse their admitted sin and ungodliness). And most of the defenders of holiness have such shallow views of grace and sin that the objectors to holiness and perfection in this life want nothing to do with that kind of religion. The modern perfectionists today also react against licentious "grace" teachers today, and seem most often to neglect to receive the grace of God lest they fall into that cheap and heady spirit. Unfortunately both kinds of reactional religion miss the true religion of the bible.
Before we proceed to examine one such reaction let us consider what the bible clearly states in harmony with Jude's implications of the grace of God which we are to contend for so that the church of God will be as it should be:
"For the grace of God has appeared, bring salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2: 11-15 (NASV italics added).
We have therefore not only the apostolic authority from Jude but also from Paul to make this issue of holiness a primary concern, and thus to thoroughly expose and correct everything contrary to it. Before we enter into this examination in detail, we ask the reader to consider if the named article and author we are critiquing really is consistent with: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority." We need to ask ourselves whether our author even believes "these things". And if our author does not believe that "the grace of God...instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in this present age," and "redeems us from every lawless deed," then is there any point in considering a perspective of grace that is less than this? But even though our author's thesis itself reveals this, "we felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints", and we desired to be obedient to the spirit of Paul's above exhortation concerning such contrary grace: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority." Let us therefore consider carefully what is true and false with (we will respond line by line outside of the blue quoted text so that you can see the entire article):
"CRI PERSPECTIVE CP0609
(Quoted entirely from their website on Feb 26, 2002)
"THE ERROR OF PERFECTIONISM
"Some people actually claim that they have reached a state in the Christian life where they just don't sin anymore. Wait a minute, doesn't the Bible say that if we actually think something like this we are deceiving ourselves and are, in fact, calling God a liar?"
There are no doubt many deluded people that suppose they never sin when in fact their definition of sin is so shallow that they only consider the big sins as real sin. It does seem that the question of what sin really is is one of the most primary factors in determining correct doctrine in many issues. Some define it so shallowly and so selectively that they theoretically and practically think they are sinless, while others call everything sin—even being finite itself—so that they theoretically believe it is impossible to be without it and end up practically tolerating most forms of sin in believers. Now it is manifest that our author takes the latter position and is primarily reacting against those of the former.
Let us first consider that a big part of the problem with our author is definitional. If being human or finite means we are sinners (which he obviously does not hold absolutely when he maintains that in heaven we will be sinless), or if sin is outside of intentions, or if a non-sin state is impossible because God's standard is now impossible for His people, then we can all understand why that school of thought adopts their language. If being faulty in judgment, and subject to stubbing toes is sinful, then who would profess to be sinless? If the term sin always means the widest application possible—such as missing the mark in all areas of existence—if it must cover non-moral areas of performance for example, such as not being able to give the service that Adam could have before he sinned, or that we could have before we sinned, then few would consider themselves sinless by such definitions. We stand to be corrected if our author does not believe that we will always be sinful in everything we do because we have once sinned personally and made it impossible to give God the perfect service that He would have expected if we had never sinned. And if he does not hold it himself, most in such camps go a step further, and suppose that because Adam corrupted himself and brought the curse upon the world so that each man could not perform the service now that he could have if Adam had not sinned, that each man is a sinner on account of Adam in this way. These are usually the two forms of non-willful or non-moral sins that people in this camp suppose. We would have no problem in using the word sin to describe this physical depravity and loss to the race and individuals if it did not cause confusion to the church, seeming opposition to the word of God (1 John 3:4), a fundamentally good excuse for willful sin, and an occasion for many to "turn the grace of God into licentiousness."
We will further note that many godly men whom we have made household names and revered fathers, have held to these more extensive definitions of sin, and in humility have thus confessed themselves sinners (while they really meant frail creatures prone to error and mistake and physically corrupted). But we do not hold these men as perverters of the grace of God because of their definitions; for we see that practically their lives and essential preaching contradicted this definition of sin. We note that the same did not tolerate any actual sin, and were thoroughly blameless and godly even though they would not like to call it perfection or sinlessness. Such would use other language to describe the state which we would argue for in this article. They would argue for all Christians to live by the grace of God to their highest present capabilities, and would rebuke anyone who lived lower then they could. While such a state would be complete or perfect, they would shy away from owning such terms for themselves—especially in view of the full knowledge of their former willful sin (which we have no problem in calling ourselves sinners over); and also in view of the heretics who have such shallow views of sin that deceive themselves into thinking "they have no sin."
But whatever men may hold, we are not responsible to make any opinions of men our standard, but rather the bible is to be our rule. And if our English bible translators have used such words as "perfect", and "stop sinning" as applied to saints ("holy ones" in the Greek original) then our friend should rather argue against such translators for using such words. But in fact there is no reason to squabble about words; and there is no reason to fear translating the word perfection for a state of conformity to the will of God, any more than to use the word faith to describe the suitable trust necessary for justification. If many have abused the word faith because they only really have had the faith of devils, it does not follow that we should give the devil the victory and oppose anyone who would use that word to describe a Christian experience.
Our author is trying to inform us that the bible teaches that someone believing a certain thing about their state is deceived and making God a liar while they hold to that. Let us consider what are the possibilities of his meaning. First, there could be an individual who is really a hypocrite sinner who merely claims to be without sin. We all can agree that this verse applies to him. But was John referring to merely the Jews and hypocrites in the churches? The most extensive commentaries, and the context of this book, reveal the fact that during the time of this first epistle of John, the church was no longer struggling with Jewish controversies but rather the chief enemy was neo-platonism and gnosticism which viewed all material existence as either unreal or evil. Many of them garbed their philosophy with Christian terms and mixed them with biblical figures and doctrines. Their ideas are extensively exposed by Ireaneus and others in later years. Many of these taught that a divine figure such as Christ came in the flesh only in appearance to give to man the gnosis (secret "knowledge") for their redemption from this flesh. However these Gnostics might have differed in details, many did not suppose themselves to be sinners who had need of the cleansing blood of Christ. It is manifest from the first and second epistle of John that he had some reference to them. Note in 4:2, and 2 John 7 where he actually states that such deceivers do not believe Jesus actually came in the flesh and continues presently in the flesh (the continuing aspect of this cannot be seen very easy in the English, but in the Greek John actually says that Christ came and remains on in the flesh). This reveals not a Jewish enemy as in the earlier books of the New Testament, but a completely different enemy. Church and secular history also reveal that such philosophies were a real threat to the church in that day. We will therefore offer up this possible application without further demonstration that John did have such deceivers in mind in this epistle. Certainly all will agree that verse 10 of chapter one applies to such philosophies: "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." It is very probable then that verse 8 "If we claim to be without sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us", means the same sort of thing.
We need to get away from such rigid reading of verses in the bible—as if God ever actually gave us verses and chapters (these came many centuries after the early church). Each verse should not be looked at so isolated from the one before and after. We do not read letters from other ministers or churches so rigidly today. We would be greatly mistaken if we did this and would jeopardize our relations with such people.
If we look at the context we see a Hebraic parallelism taking place throughout this book. We can see continually an idea presented, and then another following, then follows the first idea slightly modified or stated differently, followed by the second idea stated again but different or slightly modified, etc. Everyone familiar with the Hebrew literature will understand this. This might not take place exactly with verses as they are actually placed (verse numbers are not of course inspired classifications, but only helpful additions to the bible), but with parts of verses, or with groups of verses. Thus we see in the first chapters verses 1:5, 7, 9, 2:1a, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12, etc. almost completely conforming to this idea, while a similar parallelism runs along side in verses 1:3, 6, 8, 10, 2:1b-2, 4, 6, 9, 11, etc. When we consider this it will help us in understanding the context for each verse we are tempted to use as some proof-text. The first set of verses clearly reveal that God walks in and is the Light, and that He has no fellowship with darkness or sin. They also show that his apostles who were the only chosen ones to give us this revelation actually had fellowship with God in the light; and that they were writing to us so that we could have the same fellowship in the light "just as He (God Himself!) is in the light". Further this train of verses show that only through this revealed Light to the world as they knew Him and proclaimed Him, could anyone really walk in the light of fellowship with God and truth and purity, because this was the only light given to men in which they could be brought to God through His method of cleansing and forgiveness. All this the same Gnostics flatly denied, supposing themselves to walk in their own light and that they had no need for the physical sacrifice of God (which taking on of a material body like the Muslims suppose would be abhorrent for God to defile Himself in doing).
The second grouping of verses defines what this fellowship consists of, having primary reference to walking in all truth and purity "just as" God does (not in degree but in kind or type). And it is in this grouping that we find our verse that we are chiefly considering. Let us consider first how God could have fellowship with sinners, while they are presently sinning (not referring to after they have repented) when the context says that "in Him there is no darkness at all", and "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not do the truth." If we can sin and at the same time not be walking in darkness then perhaps we can suppose that men could have fellowship with God while they were sinning. But who shall argue for this?
But what then does "walking in the darkness" mean in this book? First it means apart from God and His people; also, walking contrary to the gospel truth; also, that it therefore makes God a liar—he walks in darkness "and does not know where he is going"; it is "deceiving ourselves"; have no "Advocate with the Father"; it can "hate his brother"; "love the world"; it "commits lawlessness; because sin is lawlessness"; has not its "sins taken away"; "does not do righteousness"; "abides in death" because it "does not love"; and "has no eternal life abiding in him" because it "hates his brother"; it can deny "that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"; it "does not know God, for God is love" and it "does not love"; it "fears"; and does not "overcome the world" through "faith"; it "does not believed in the testimony God has given concerning His Son" in all these matters so as to experience the proper results; finally it "lies under the power of the evil one" for "the one who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. (and) The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." Secondly, it obviously is the opposite to "walking in the light." John defines walking in the light as: "walking in the light just as He Himself is in the light" (not partially but "just as He Himself is"); as being cleansed "from all unrighteousness"; as "keeping His commandments"; as "whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected"; "knows God"; "walks in the same manner as He walked"; "loves his brother"; "abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him"; "his sins are forgiven" and atoned for; "the one who does the will of God lives forever"; they "abide in the Son"; abide in the truth; they have an anointing which they are to abide in; and because "He is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of Him"; they are "children of God"; "everyone who has this hope on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure"; "and in him there is no sin" (which either means He cannot fellowship with sin, or there is no sin in us because He takes it away while abiding in Him); and "No one who abides in Him sins"; and we are told to "make sure no one deceives you: the one who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (which we saw above only those who do righteousness are born of Him); and "No one born of God does sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (while he abides in Christ in that true fellowship he does not and cannot sin—for who could make God's work in us unperfect?); they "do righteousness" if they are "born of God"; they have "confidence before God"; "and do the things that are pleasing in His sight"; and "The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him" (as Ps. 119:11 says "Your word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you"); and "We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us"; they have "overcome" the world; they "confess that Jesus is the Son of God" (and live consistently with His purpose); they have the same love that God has: "for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God"; and "By this, love is perfected in us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love cast out fear"; they "believe that Jesus is the Christ"; and "whoever is born of God overcomes the world" through their "faith"; and finally "We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." This is the context of walking in the light as opposite to walking in darkness. Who shall then attempt to interpret 1:8 contrary to these plain truths?
All who care to read this very basic and foundational book will easily see that there is a continual string of comparisons of mutually exclusive opposites. Just like Proverbs, it compares the saved with the lost, the foolish with the wise. There is little room for third classes in this book. One is either walking with God in purity or walking in darkness in sin. Now we are not at all suggesting that once one has been born of God that it is then impossible to stop abiding in that eternal life. This is clearly not the case as John says in 2:1 that "I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin", and he makes repeated appeals for these children to continue abiding in Christ. If it was impossible to sin then such appeals are false and a waste. Rather he is saying that only while we are walking with God, we "have no sin" and are "righteous just as He is righteous" etc. And we are only "as he is" "in this world" (4:17) while we "abide in Him."
Thus it is impossible to make 1:8 mean what our author in this disputed article thinks it means. And it must be referring to something totally opposite. We can readily see that it is practically identical to verse 10 as directed to those who suppose they never have and still do not have any sin that needs cleansing; to those who suppose they are walking in the light apart from the True Light who is Jesus Christ. It is about the matter of conversion for unbelievers not a statement about perpetual moral depravity in Christians. The context is about what Christ did in the atonement and actual victory over and cleansing from all sin. It is about redemption from the penalty and power of sin for whom Christ died, not perpetual existence of it: "I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin." And those who think they do not need Christ's work deceive themselves in supposing they have no sin that needs his forgiveness and cleansing. The matter is therefore about justification not sanctification.
Let us consider one final negative proof that will absolutely prove that this verse cannot mean that Christians will always have present sin in this life. We trust that all the above has not only made it perfectly conceivable to suppose this verse to be applying to people rejecting the atonement and a sinful state of humanity before conversion (total moral depravity), but that it is positive proof that cannot be countered (yet any verse that can fairly be taken two or more ways cannot be used as a conclusive proof-text). But consider that if this verse meant what our friend supposes—that if Christians (who have been "cleansed from all sin") claim to be without personal present sin, then they make God a liar and are deceived—then there is no option for the Christian but to be deceived and make God a liar. For every time we sin we deceive ourselves about God, his kingdom and reality; that is if you define sin in the sense described in this book: "Everyone who commits sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." 3:4 Of course the disputed verse is found in this book and therefore should be subject to the clear definitions of sin in this book. In our positive evidence we have seen that "No one who abides in Him sins" and "We know that no one who is born of God sins" or so many statements that have amounted to the same thing. This is contrasted with those who are not "born of God" throughout this book. Such are anyone "who does sin" (however people like to confuse English readers with the word "practice" instead of "commits" or "does"—yes practice can have the true meaning, but people often interpret the word to mean habitual which is clearly not the meaning). Everywhere in this book we see that sin blinds the individual from fellowship with God, the truth, proper goals, God's love, their own state, etc. Thus we see that if we sin we deceive ourselves about God's requirements, person, and ourselves, and for the time being our unbelief in His grace to help us overcome the temptation means that we make God a liar practically speaking. So is the difference between such a sinner who deceives himself and the other person who so "walks in the light as God is in the light" so that "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses them from all sin" who because he "abides in Him" "cannot sin", who is "righteous just as He is righteous" and "as He is so are they in this world", and who then claims these things as true? Our friends would have us believe that the first position is better to be in than the second. Now what is the biblical doctrine? Perhaps we will be asked to consider other far removed portions of other books of the bible for the response to this plain doctrine as revealed in this book, or perhaps we will be pressed to accept what some historical creed has pronounced. But we will hardly find an argument from the context of this chapter and book to support this doubtful interpretation. Not only this, but notice that when such people see this they will hardly ever refer to or explain the meanings of all these scriptures that reveal sin is absent when we abide in Christ.
Let us read further.
"Sinless perfectionism is not biblical doctrine. 1 John 1:8 clearly states: "If we claim to be without sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." While willful sin ought not to characterize our life, sin will remain a part of human experience until we lay aside our physical body at death (Rom. 7). In fact, the wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) said: "Who can say, I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?"
Here we see that our author has not clearly defined what he means by "sinless perfectionsim." Yet he is not only arguing that we sin always in non-willful sin but also in willful sin. It would be one thing to have a definition of sin that says just being human is being a sinner. But here our author implies that even though "willful sin ought not to characterize our life, sin will remain a part of human experience..." It might be somewhat ambiguously stated so as to suggest we will not sin all the time, and that non-sin is the habitual experience of the Christian, while sin is only the exception. But this would contradict our author who interprets 1 John 1:8 absolutely to apply to Christian experience. Some people might actually believe "willful sin ought not to characterize our life, sin will remain a part of human experience" and mean that sometimes they sin and more times they do not. If this is what our author meant then we would not have written this response. We do not object to this as common Christian experience. But our author actually denies that we will ever have a moment on earth without willful sin (not even at the moment of justification). He might not state it so obviously here, but it is clearly what we shall see below. By willful we do not suggest that he or we would mean trying to sin against God, but rather to sin in reference to our wills as giving God less than we should, or willfully neglecting what we know we should do.
In response to Romans 7 as proof that we will always continually sin without interruption, I will briefly state that such is taking the chapter out of context to chapters 6 and 8. If Paul was arguing that this was his present state (which would be a continual state of sin), how is it that he shared that chapters 6 and 8 were the Christian experience? How is it that they stand as complete opposite states? The only answer is that Romans 7 is describing the legal experience as contrasted with the gospel experience of 6 and 8. As for Solomon's utterance, we have no trouble with the statement, and it has nothing to do with whether Christians have present sin in their lives. If it does, it becomes our author to show this.
"Many who believe that they have reached sinless perfection actually have a very narrow and limited view of sin. Some actually argue that only deliberate disobedience to God's will is actually sin. However, this is not the way the Bible describes sin at all. Sin can be committed in thought, word, and deed, and, of course, there are sins of commission as well as omission. To be truly sinless means that you love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and, of course, that you love your neighbor as well. To be perfect in a biblical sense means that you mirror the very image of Jesus Christ Himself. This will take place in heaven, but certainly not here on earth."
All this is correct except the very last six words. We certainly agree that many deceive themselves, such as the holiness hypocrites and Gnostics of old—even many Jews believed such things (that they were saved because they were Abraham's children). And yes sin is more than just deliberated action against God. Men far more often sin without any consideration of God at all. It is also agreed that sin can be in thought word and deed, and that it consists in commissions and omissions (although there is no commission without an omission, or vise versa). Next we see our author's definition of sinless which we readily agree with. We have seen that John has told us that only those who do this are born of God: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 4:7-8. This love is nothing less than God's love even though it is infinitely less in degree. Our authors no doubt misses the little word he uses (which God carefully included in His great law)—"our". He really does not suppose we are only to love God and mankind with only "our" present capabilities. He supposes either we are to love with more than "our" ability as humans existing after the fall, or more than "our" present ability after we have sinned. Otherwise he would have not made it impossible for Christians to do. But God's "commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3) as he would suppose. In fact Jesus revealed after the lawyer told him what the law required in Luke 10—that we are to love God and our neighbor with all of our being, and that in order for the man to "live" he must do this. We anticipate that our author might say that he was only being sarcastic or pushing him to his own conclusion, but Jesus said his statement was true, and who will dare say that if God has commanded something that men have no choice but to resist His will? God's commandments are all graceful promises that are not lies. To suppose the opposite would be the same as to suppose God to command an aunt to carry a mountain while He did not give it the power to do so. But on the contrary, when God commands He always gives grace to perform His will and does not make it impossible to resist His will. Notice also that Jesus Himself also states in the sermon on the mount (5:43-48) that we are to love in such a way as our Heavenly Father perfectly loves so that we may be His children. Thus if we do not love as our Heavenly Father then who can suppose we are His children? Notice also Paul in 1 Cor. 13 states a profound definition of love, but before all this he says that if we do not have this love we are nothing. In Romans 13 he reveals the same things and states that love is the fulfilling of all laws of God. Yet in numerous places throughout the bible we see that the saints did actually love God and each other. Indeed, we have seen above in 1 John that if we do not love we are not born of God. We therefore see simply that there is no love unless it is the required love of God. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us" (see Duet 30) so that we cannot be saved and live as God desires us. "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, an death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live..." Now we fully understand that merely doing this after we have transgressed will not save us (as the book of Galatians proves) and that we need the atonement of Christ to pardon such violations. But who will dare to tell us when God commands with such reasonable appeals that also determine our destiny that none can do God's will as He commands us to?
Our author then says we are to mirror the image of Jesus. This is very true. And if he had considered 1 John 1:8 in context he might have realized that not only is it possible for Christians to walk as Jesus walked but that if they do not then they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them:
"The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought to walk just as He walked." 2:4-6.
How do we know we are in Him? Is it by our creed or acceptance in a church? Are Christians only to know about the historical Jesus? No rather it is determined at least by the fact that we keep His commandments and word, have perfected love, and actually walk just as He walked. Again 4:17 says "as He is, so also are we in this world." And all these refer to the love we are to have to God and man. These are the very opposite to what our author states because of his isolated interpretations of 1:8 and Romans 7. There is no clear teaching in the bible that suggests as our author that it is impossible to love and obey God as He desires us in this world. He tells us that it certainly cannot take place but does not offer any proof that it cannot, nor does he explain why it must be so."
"While the Christian is never intrinsically perfect in this life (or completely sanctified), we have been justified because of the work of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). So positionally we're declared righteous (in Christ) though practically we still wrestle with sin. Our confidence, however, is that we are considered perfect in the sight of God because we are united with the Lord Jesus Christ through faith."
If we consider that the bible says the same things about sanctification as it does about justification, in other words, if we consider that the same faith that sanctifies also justifies, how is it that the one is imperfect and the other is perfect? If our author has proven that we are only partially sanctified, then there is no alternative but to suggest that we are only partially justified presently. But just as a partial justification is nonsensical so is a partial and incomplete sanctification. In fact the gospel does say that in as much as we are saved from the penalty of sin we are equally saved from the power of sin and sin itself: "and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Mt. 1:12 Not in their sins.) We may wrestle with temptation, but we do not wrestle with sin as Christians in the bible (see 1 Cor. 10:13). People choose sin because the prefer it, they wrestle with temptation because the prefer God.
Romans chapter six has shown clearly that if we are positionally righteous, then we are practically righteous: "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Paul says "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts" but our friend suggests that we are still to live under the law of sin found in chapter 7. "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace." We had already seen that this grace saves us from all sin or every lawless deed. But others now tell is this is not so but rather we must have a sinful grace, or a grace that leaves us in the old bondage. We have seen above in 1 John that actually those who are "born of God" are "righteous just as He is righteous." No doubt there are some occasional difficult passages in the bible as Peter says of Paul's writings, that in isolation the ungodly will distort to prove their point, just as others do against the deity of Christ. But when God says that those born of God are "righteous just as He is righteous" who dare say that this is only positional and not practical?
Now the last sentence of our author contradicts the sentence before it. For if God considers us perfect for faith in Christ, and if this faith is as Paul says—"the faith that works by love"—then how is it anything less than God's will for us? How is it sin for us to do what He so desires? And how could we sin while we abide in Him when He says we "cannot"? The only way our author can philosophically suppose this is if he supposes the union with Jesus is only positional, and that the faith is only intellectual agreement with such a creed. In that way we can readily see that merely thinking we are united with Jesus gives the assurance that God does not see our sins and will let us into heaven (somehow changing our selfish hearts through perhaps some purgatory), but this is not the union of the bible. As we have seen, God offers fellowship with Him "in the light" "in this world" as the apostles had. And while we abide in this light we abide in Him in "perfect love". And while we abide in Him we are safe from all temptation and sin. There is no positionalism in this—it is all practical and real. The only positionalism is in God not counting our former sins which we have repented of against us. In this only we are treated as if we never sinned. But it is utterly unbiblical and ungodly to suppose that God can contradict Himself and so change as to pardon unrepented sin while it is being committed and even before it is committed? Would any good parent ruin his family with such a practice? Who could respect any government that allowed such monstrous ideas? No, rather repentance is an essential condition of pardon, or else God has deceived us and promotes lawlessness.
"Look at the people in the Bible. When they were really close to God, they didn't claim to be sinless. Instead, they became increasingly aware of their sin (Isa. 6:5; Dan. 9:4-19; Eph. 3:8). Paul, of course, cried out: "O wretched man that I am." According to R. C. Sproul, the doctrine of sinless perfection is, in fact, perfect error!"
There is nothing in any of these references that contradicts what we have shown the bible to declare. All these and the like passages only show that men have sinned. Our author might be arguing against the form of sinless perfectionsim that claims some people actually think that they never have sinned, or that it is impossible for us to not abide in Christ and then fall into sin. Certainly these verse suggest that that idea is wrong. But these verses cannot be used to say that men cannot live a moment on earth without sin. The only thing that these verses show is that men have sinned (and then were cleansed from their sin actually). No doubt as saints grow in holiness they see more and more the evil effects of their former sin (or occasional sin). But this does not mean that they are still unrepentant and continue sinning at every moment. The fact is that Paul gives us all the reason to suppose the opposite about himself in his recommendations about following him "as he follows Christ." Note he also says: "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Now our author would hardly suppose that that "wretched man that" Paul was could hardly suppose himself as one of these things to "dwell on". But in fact in the very next verse Paul actually offers up himself as such an example: "The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you." (Phil. 4: 8-9) Is this the kind of humility that our author suggests for Christians full of sin as he supposes Paul was? Was Paul thus "pure", "lovely", "right", "excellent", "worthy of praise", and should we dwell on the things in Paul if they were not God's standard? Not if Romans 7 was Paul's present experience (and no one supposes the first part of the chapter was his present experience anyway). No rather Romans 8 was Paul's experience and that is why he could suggest others to consider his life in all respects. Our author suggests to us that Paul could not ever do the things he knew he should, while Paul says in the context in chapter 8 that not only he was but that "we are more than conquerers in Him who loved us!" In Romans seven the typical legalist Jew (which he once was, and was magnificently writing against) was conqured by evil desire, in chapters 6 and 8 we read "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." 8:2-4. We could quote the whole chapter and many other chapters, but this alone clearly contradicts our author. He would suppose that we are still under the law of sin, that we rise no higher than the wretched legal motives of Romans 7, that the Spirit of life has not been given to set us free from this state, and that instead of the righteous requirements of the Law being fulfilled in us, he would suppose that it was only positionally so, because in fact we do walk only after the flesh and cannot walk according to the Spirit. But who needs to multiply words when the bible reads so plainly. We can only miss these frequent words and teaching if we study the bible looking for proof-texts to prove our points. People who do this do not read the bible as a book. They stumble at that which has been added to the bible—the separation of the flowing thoughts by the incorrect division of chapters and verses or the poor or limited translations of the English Bibles. If we would read it as given to the common saints in those times and not as if it was written for twenty-first century philosophers who must make so much of isolated verses that they fail to look at the very next verses for the natural contextual meaning, then we will find that it is not such a very difficult book after all and that most of the doctrinal controversies would have no room to cause such schism.
Indeed the doctrine of sinless perfectionism is perfect error if by this it is meant that people suppose they have no sin to be atoned for by Jesus Christ, or if they suppose that God looks at sinful professing Christians as if they were sinless. What fatal delusion. Certainly "they make God a liar" for "the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son." (1 John 5: 10) But it is not because "We know that no one who is born of God sins". (5: 18)
We will rather say that presumptuous perfectionism is perfect error and blind deception. Presumptuous perfectionism turns the grace of God into licentiousness and allows for practical sinfulness on the grounds of intellectual preference for a presumptuous positionalism.
"We seek to live holy lives, not to put God in our debt, but merely to demonstrate gratitude for His unmerited love."
We never truly begin to seek for that which we know is impossible to find. It would actually be contrary to God's will to waste our time trying to seek the impossible. God has promised that "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." Only unbelief will deny what God has said. God has actually called his people saints which literally means "holy ones." He has called them holy not because they are so positionally, but because He has practically given the grace to be so while they walk with Him in the Light holding the figurative hand of Christ. Indeed, when Jesus said, for us to pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", He did not teach us to be hypocrites, but rather to experience such grace. There was no eventually qualifier, for we are to have such fellowship with God in the light in this world. And our seeking to live holy is for much higher reasons than merely for gratitude in the promise of heaven, but in order to agree with and declare His righteousness and to abide in His love that God may receive the highest glory and His subjects may dwell in blessedness.
1
The short article can be found on their web site at: http://www.equip.org/free/CP0609.htm By Rick Friedrich. Printed for tract distribution by Alethea In Heart Ministries 02/2002.
For a more extensive extenisve book on the subject see:
Christian Perfection. By Asa Mahan. and
Misunderstood Texts of Scripture. By Asa Mahan.
Or to see a thorough theological response to anti-perfection theology see:
Lectures on Systematic Theology. By Charles G. Finney.
To order more copies of this tract, ask for (Item # 141). $0.40 + shipping.
For hundreds of works in print, CD, or online on this subject, and true heart religion,
visit our website at: TruthInHeart.com or write us at: TruthInHeart@hotmail.com
. Rick Friedrich 1350 Parkway Dr. NE 303 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 447-8124
