I disagree with his position. And rather than explain or defend my beliefs, I will merely point out his, errrrr, issues in his arguments.
http://fundamentalbaptistchristian.blogspot.com/2011/11/heresy-of-sinless-perfection.html
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Heresy of Sinless Perfection
One of the greatest heresies that really float around is the sinless perfection. The heresy can be understood in two ways each explained:
First off, let's define what a Heresy is. Nothing fancy to it. Heresy is a word that declares you don't believe what I believe. It's ONLY used to show you are different than me in your beliefs. In a room of 100 Christians, if you ask them what the path to salvation is, you'd get 110 answers. And all of them would be heretics but you. None of them will agree with you on everything. The word is pointless. Only God can make the call. Paul discussed the two men regarding meat. For one of them WITH LESSER FAITH it was a sin to eat meat, but the one with greater faith it was not. So if some things are sinful for one and not another, how the heck can you make that judgement call? Therefore how can you proclaim someone else as a heretic? The short answer is, you can't.
Franklin here, and others, do claim people as heretics. They feel it's important to show how they are different and have it right. Heresy is about the most emotionally driven word they can use and still claim to be Christian.
Paul put in Gal 5 that one of the fruits of the flesh, or results of the flesh, is dissensions, factions, etc... When Franklin uses this term, he immediately fragments, causes factions, and dissensions. His very actions, according to Paul, are of the flesh, not of the Spirit. :) My goodness what a doubled edged sword that book he slings around as a weapon is.
He says....These are from that awfully problematic, abrasive, self-righteous crowd who demand the impossible, who put the cart before the horse- in short the WORKS SALVATIONIST!
1) What a hate filled attack.
2) What a claim of supremacy.
3) Sinlessness biblically speaking doesn't have anything to do with works, but with Grace. (More on that later)
He said...That is, these people believe that one must strive to be perfect and stop sinning in order to enter Heaven.
...which is a false claim for the argument of sinlessness, but IS however true of many camps within that topic.
Then he says...Again, it's really questionable as many who say they've never done anything wrong are living their lives like devils, they live like as if they have a license to sin because God's grace is ABSENT in their lives.
The angst is obvious, but I can understand that. I'll agree that many make ridiculous claims. But, only a small group feel that nothing they do is a sin, vs they do not sin. The first one is the group with the "license to sin and God won't call it a sin," group. The other side is one that says at some point in their life, sins stopped happening. The latter is straight up a biblical claim. Not saying it's rock solid but it's more solidly defined in scripture than the Trinity concept is.
He sugests...As said, it's true indeed that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." Is it to maintain salvation?
But, the sinless thing, in the bible, it's not about salvation, but maturation. If you don't understand the difference, you need to back up.
He then goes on to say [paraphrased] that a "works based" salvation is wrong and that salvation is by Grace alone. Which is absolutely true, in those words. He seems to be addressig a limited group of people who claim you have to be sinless to be saved, which isn't even the 4th best argument on the sinless side of the beliefs. But his separation of Grace and Works is disturbing. James makes it fairly clear that you can't separate them. If you don't have works you don't have faith, without faith you can't have grace. If you don't have grace you aren't saved anyway, so why are we talking? Paul said that theology wasn't important, but faith WORKING through Love. Paul also coached his people repeatedly to keep at the good works. NOT to walk through life and let works find you, but to continue to do the good works.
Grace, is like a coin. You have a heads side (pretty side) and a tails side (ugly side). On the pretty side is GRACE, salvific grace. On the ugly side is WORKS, agapao. There are numerous parables in the NT that show any works done are done by GOD through you. Which is not addressed in the claim, works don't save you. Because God working through you aren't your works. I think Franklin agrees with that. However, if you don't have works, you are not saved. I am NOT saying works save you. Read slowly...
Salvation is by grace, through faith, not works so no man can boast.
If you have faith......then you have works.
If you do not have works......then you do not have faith.
If you do not have faith, then you do not have Grace.
If you have do not have Grace, you aren't saved.
Works don't save you.
But someone saved will have works.
Paul writes in Ephesians 4 that THROUGH WORKS, you become as perfect (most translations) or mature (more modern translations and a closer word for today's English) through works, and as mature as the full and complete fullness of Christ's spiritual maturity.
Now, for Franklin to speak so clearly and proudly, that sinless perfection is a heresy, he sure has a lot of explaining to do with the scripture just brought up.
Finally he moves on to a second version of sinlessness.....
The second version is what any immature Christian can embrace that by God's grace they can totally live sinlessly.
This is another error and can cause a Christian to turn into a legalistic believer.
If this version of an immature Xian is done by God's grace, what does that Grace have to do with a person being legalistic. If they are legalistic, then by definition it's not God's Grace that person feels accomplishes things. I daresay Franklin would say Grace saves you no matter if you sin again or not. So if GRACE is the empowering event, and it comes From God, then why would a person not be sinless if it was Grace that kept him from sinning?
It appears Franklin is more interested in winning folks to his belief, than sound arguments.
He then goes on [paraphrase] to say that those people in this scenario judge others, and say things like "carnal Xian" etc... which is rambling with nothing to do with whether they sin or not. Surely, if it was dependant on God's Grace to not sin again, then God is "man" enough to get the job done. But, rather than have an argument that applies to this "grace" position, he chose to attack the people with personal complaints and insults. Which, is a typical fundamental Xian posture to take, unfortunately. Read the book unChristian if you think I'm being personal.
He said... 1 John 1:8 is clear that sin is still present in the believer.
The verse says that every one has sinned. Not that everyone will sin forever. John said a few verses earlier that his walk in life was as Christ's was. I don't see room for that to include sins any longer. He also said to be in fellowship with God, which John said he was, and those he wrote were not, you must have no darkness in you. God is light, then darkness is sin, right? Now, I don't think it's quite as clear as he would imply. In fact, what he implies is beyond improbable to laughable. There is a bunch of versal gymnastics to pull to make the verse imply what he suggests.
He said...What about 1 John 3:9? The new man CANNOT sin but the presence of the old man causes the believer to sin.
It's not new man. It's one born of God. It's the same body, same person, but the sinful nature is removed, and only the Spirit of God resides inside them. I guess if you sin then HE sins against Himself at that point, and that is impossible. If you are born of God you will not continue a walk in the dark, but will walk in the Light as He does, would be a combination of chapter 1 and this verse.
Romans 7:15-19 has the Apostle Paul demonstrating how there is the struggle-
I guess if you ignore the big glaring IF in this hypothetical you could make some claim like this, AND if you ignored that in vs 5 Paul said he was no longer in the flesh. Franklin, apparently studies to make the verses say what he wants them to, not to find out what is actually said.
He said......the side that is born of God (spiritual birth) vs. the natural man therefore showing Christians cannot live sinless but they only sin less.
Well, since this is made up theology, imagined, and not in scripture except with the flimsiest of twists, I have to roll my eyes. Romans 8:9 says, matter of factly, point blank, with no other possible meaning, that if the Spirit of God indwells you, you are no longer in the flesh. They do not reside in your human body at the same time. Period.
And earlier in chapter 8, Paul said that if you are of the flesh, you obey it. If you are of the Spirit you obey it. Do you suppose the Spirit would command you to go and obey the flesh for a while? If not, then how would you get over there to do it? Col 2:11 says that flesh isn't there anymore.
The teaching on this topic is very emotional, and not very rational.
The teaching on this topic is very emotional, and not very rational.
No comments:
Post a Comment