Expert: Marvin Howard - 9/8/2007

Question
QUESTION: Marvin,

In a previous answer to a poster you stated:

"Obviously the only way anyone could ever earn their salvation is by living a perfect and sinless life from beginning to end. We all know that is not possible. If it were, there would have been no need for Jesus to come in the flesh and die on the cross."

My first question is this:  

If it is true that it is impossible for a human to "live a perfect and sinless life from beginning to end", is it not the case, then, that Jesus, who was fully human and MUST have lived as we do for his sacrifice to be valid, did not live a perfect and sinless life from beginning to end?

OR

If it is the case that Jesus, who was fully human and MUST have lived as we do for his sacrifice to be valid, lived a perfect and sinless life from beginning to end, then it is the case that it is possible for we, as fully human, to do so as well?

In Truth and Love,

Ernie




ANSWER: Hi!

Brother Ernie, let me apologize. The questioner from that question is refusing to listen, and gave me bad ratings for that answer. I thought you were him again, as he already sent me one follow-up question. I was considering how to handle the situation, and decided to send it to our question pool. Now any of the experts in our category may answer. I am happy that I found your name on the question in the process, and was able to differentiate and answer you.

Now, let me focus on your question.

Your premise is faulty. Christ never had to "live as we do." I believe you are confusing living and temptation. Here is the passage to which I believe you make reference.

Hebrews 4:15, "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Christ had to face each temptation we face. We know that there was no temptation to misuse a car in the days of Christ, as there were no cars. Therefore, we need more Bible help to interpret this passage.

1st John 2:16, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

The Hebrews passage is not speaking of specific, individual sins. Rather, they are lumped into three categories. We have record of Christ facing them all in Matthew 4:1-11. The temptation to change the stones was lust of the flesh. The pinnacle of the temple was the pride of life. The mountain was the lust of the eye.

Jesus had to be tempted like us to know what we face. Yet, He did not live like us. Moreover He could not live like us, or the sacrifice would be worthless.

Yes, Jesus was fully human to face the temptations. At the same time, He is fully God. This gave Him the strength that we do not have; to find the way of escape always offered in 1st Corinthians 10:13. This lack of strength makes our sinless life impossible.

It is a hard concept for our mortal minds to grasp, and one I have come to believe will be answered at the resurrection. Jesus was fully God. Jesus was fully human. Neither can be separated from the other by normal means that we can comprehend, yet they were separated.

I hope this helps settle it in your mind to some degree.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: So then you imply that it is a forgone conclusion that a human being absolutely will sin once they reach an accountable age?

ANSWER: Hi!

Brother Ernie, examine these Scriptures.

Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

1st John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

According to these passages every man is a sinner. We suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, in that we learned from our parents, all the way back to the Garden, the knowledge of good and evil. Having this knowledge, we sin when we know to do good and don't (James 4:17). Nevertheless, we suffer the guilt of our own sins, but not Adam's (Deuteronomy 24:16, 2nd Kings 14:6, and 2nd Chronicles 25:4). Not a single man can deny it without being a liar and committing further sin. Yes, it is a foregone conclusion. Yet, God is not unjust to condemn sinners to Hell.

We must factor the following passage into the equation:

1st Corinthians 10:13, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

God will hold mankind accountable for sin, as a way to prevent sin has been provided. Yet, God knows the frailty of man; that we will not always use that avenue: and even one sin will condemn one to Hell. People unfamiliar with God will use it less, and Christians will use it most. There is a correlation to our level of belief and how concerned we are about what we do; whether right or wrong.

Romans 6:2, "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

This is the passage quoted by many saying that Christians no longer sin. It is the basis for the OSAS Doctrine. When taken as a whole unit, rather than piecemeal, this is not the teaching of Paul. Let's turn Back to the teachings of John. In the same context where John says we all have (not had) sin, we find his remedy. Remember, Christ's blood never works without one keeping His commandments, so those who refuse or fight them are never covered. The difference between "sinning" and "living in sin" (John vs. Paul) is one of attitude and habit.

1st John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

1st John 2:1-6, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

Mankind is going to sin. Period. Even Christians are going to sin. However, that is part of the reason Jesus came. He came to save the alien sinner, and He came to cover the accidental sins of Christians who are trying to do right. However, if a Christian sins intentionally we find this:

Hebrews 10:26, "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

Once a Christian sins intentionally, Jesus' blood ceases to be the atoning sacrifice for that person.

God is infinite Justice, and will require the penalty of those deserving it. On the other hand, God is infinite Mercy. He had to devise an intricate plan whereby both aspects of God could be fulfilled.

IF we keep His commandments, we are saved initially. The more practice we have, the more we can do well. Once Jesus' blood saves us fully the first time, it continues to fill in the blanks when we make mistakes. However, as in math, to always reduce something by a percentage, it is always present, no matter how minute the portion that remains.

Salvation is offered, but salvation is not forced. Guess what, Brother Ernie, in teaching God's Word on sin, we just destroyed the Doctrines of Predestination, OSAS, and Total Hereditary Depravity; three-fifths of the T.U.L.I.P. Is it not marvelous how all topics link together so perfectly?

I hope this shed some more light on the subject for you.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Brother Marvin,

This is not the place for a full out debate so I won't respond here to the specific passages you listed, though if we could move to a different venue, I would definitely do so.

My final question to you in this line is, could you define and contrast, from the Greek and from the context of scripture, the terms "sinner" and "saint"?

Thank you so much for your time and effort.  Your work on this site is top notch, even if you and I may have to toss around some of the weightier matters a bit before we head towards speaking the same thing with no division between us.

In Truth and Love and with much respect,

Ernie

Answer
Hi!

Brother Ernie, thank you for the compliment. I will be glad to answer the difference between saints and sinners. I will cite both Strong and Thayer in my response. Please forgive me. This forum does not properly show the declination marks within Greek and Hebrew. The words will not look right. Please rely on pronunciations.

In the Greek, "sin" comes from three words, numbered in concordances consecutively from 264 to 266. Number 266 is used the most, 264 is used almost as much, and I could only find where 265 is used once. Let's get a breakdown of these three words.

264 = ἁμαρτάνω - pronounced "ham-ar-tan'-o"

Here is the Strong's definition for 264:

Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

Here is Thayer:

1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb

265 = ἁμάρτημα - pronounced "ham-ar'-tay-mah"

Here is the Strong's definition for 265:

From G264; a sin (properly concrete): - sin.

Here is Thayer:

1) sin, evil deed
Part of Speech: noun neuter

266 = ἁμαρτία - pronounced "ham-ar-tee'-ah"

Here is the Strong's definition for 266:

From G264; sin (properly abstract): - offence, sin (-ful).

Strong says that this is a derivative of 264, but Thayer is far more comprehensive in scope, showing the kinship with number 264, its root:

1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
Part of Speech: noun feminine

The verb form (264) cites two, additional words as roots. The first (G1) is simply the particle, "Alpha;" the beginning. The second (G3313) is more interesting, in light of Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

Here is the Strong's:

μέρος
mer'-os
From an obsolete but more primary form of μείρομαι meiromai (to get as a section or allotment); a division or share (literally or figuratively, in a wide application): - behalf, coast, course, craft, particular (+ -ly), part (+ -ly), piece, portion, respect, side, some sort (-what).

And, here is the Thayer:

1) a part
1a) a part due or assigned to one
1b) lot, destiny
2) one of the constituent parts of a whole
2a) in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree, as respects a part, severally, individually
2b) any particular, in regard to this, in this respect
Part of Speech: noun neuter

Simply stated, sin is our lot or destiny (c.f., Proverbs 16:25). We have always heard that there are two, basic types of sin; those of omission and those of commission. While we are here, let's take a deeper look at these. Doing so will require a look at the Hebrew, as it made a distinction between the two not made in the Greek. The best way I can think to do this is to give you a sermon I did on the subject.

Sin is quite an involved subject. I will do as much as I can, here, to simplify it, without detracting from the seriousness of it. Many do not understand sin, and this not only involves individuals, but entire religious systems. Nevertheless, the groups that do not understand sin swear up and down that they know how to get rid of it. This is an impossible proposition. If people do not understand sin, they cannot tell you how to get it forgiven. In addition, if they fouled this basic subject, what else is pouring from their mouths in sheer, - see-through - error?

I would like to start by looking at the etymology, which is the root origins, of the word. By itself, the word is not ugly. It will need a context to make it so. The problem is, due to popular usage, the evil context is always added to it, having forgotten its root.

In Hebrew, “sin” is a generic term in regards to religious matters. Before we get to the generic, let us look at two, more specific, Hebrew words that are related.

“Iniquity”
עוון עון
‛âvôn ‛âvôn
aw-vone', aw-vone'
perversity, that is, (moral) evil: - fault, iniquity, mischief, punishment (of iniquity), sin.

“Transgression”
פּשׁע
pesha‛
peh'-shah
a revolt (national, moral or religious): - rebellion, sin, transgression, trespassive

Since these are both derivatives, here are the root words.

עוה
‛âvâh
aw-vaw'
A primitive root; to crook, literally or figuratively: - do amiss, bow down, make crooked, commit iniquity, pervert, (do) perverse (-ly), trouble, X turn, do wickedly, do wrong.

פּשׁע
pâsha‛
paw-shah'
A primitive root (through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), that is, trespass, apostatize, quarrel: - offend, rebel, revolt, transgress (-ion, -or).

Both of these contain sin as a definition. However, “iniquity” seems to carry the idea of falling short (having “fault” as another definition - a fault in tennis is where you fall short of clearing the net on your service), while “transgression” seems to carry the idea of going too far (having “trespass” and “expansion” included in its alternate definitions). “Trespass” has a familiar meaning to us today. If you trespass, you transgress (that is go across or beyond) a particular boundary, as in the case of real property.

Originally, sin was an archery term, and it came from the competitive nature of the Greeks. Remember, please, Greece is the home of the Olympics. Its literal meaning was “missing - the - mark.” Picture, if you will, a “bull’s-eye” on an archery target. That is the mark, which one would strive to hit; it is perfection. It can be missed in any direction. You can aim too high, low, or to either side. You can also “think” you aimed correctly, and not have done so. Results are what counts. Intentions mean nothing - when it relates to sin. For example, you might have been told that the wind is blowing more strongly than it really is. Let’s say it is supposed to be a crosswind from the right. You would aim more to the right to try compensating for it. With the wind being false, your aim would be false, and you would miss to the right. On the other hand, you may have not been told to compensate for gravity; that it doesn’t make any difference. Your aim would thus be incorrect, and you would miss the mark on the low side, or sin.

Religiously, the only “mark,” or “bull’s-eye,” that we have that we can hit or miss, -- is - the Bible. If it’s written in the Bible, and you refuse to teach it (or follow it), you commit iniquity. You sin. You miss the mark by falling short of what is required.

If it’s not written in the Bible, and you teach it anyway, you transgress the Word. You sin. You miss the mark by going too far and by trying to do too much.

This is why creed books and catechisms are so dangerous. This is why they are fit for nothing but a trashcan. They can have no purpose save explaining to people possible ways to justify adding to the Word, or to convince you that God didn’t really mean part of the things He said.

I will return to the archery analogy in a moment as it relates to religion. However, there are more recent uses of the word, in other languages. You must remember, Biblically, all languages have their roots at Babel (the story is in Genesis 11:1-9). It is a safe assumption that many words have common origins within the different languages. It is even more common among the simpler words. One who does word studies will see this more easily than normal.

Consider, in English, the word “sincere.” In Latin, it is two words. “Sine Cere” (pronounced, “see’-nay say’-ray”) and they originally meant “without - wax.” In the marketplace, merchants would often wax furniture to hide the imperfections. In fact, this was the normal practice. Those with better quality wares did not need this. They were said to be “sine cere,” or sincere. There was nothing to hide. While this was initially applied only to the furniture, it was eventually applied to the merchants, as well. The furniture was not hidden; therefore, the people did not want to hide it. It was eventually applied to all persons, and therefore, personalities.

Let’s turn to a modern language: Spanish. If I go to a Mexican restaurant, and I want no ice in my beverage, I ask for it “sin hielo” (with the silent “h” it is pronounced, “seen yay’-low”), that is, without - ice.

So, we see, even in modern usage, “sin” remains close to its original meaning, “without,” - or outside of the mark, having missed it.

Let’s now turn to Biblical references to sin. I want to look closely at its origins there, for it will explain a lot.

Genesis 1:10, “And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

The same thought is carried in the twelfth, eighteenth, and twenty-first verses.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, all life, which God created, was perfect. Why do I say this? I wish to include an excerpt from Adam Clarke’s “Commentary on the Bible.”

“Gen 1:10 - …And God saw that it was good - This is the judgment which God pronounced on his own works. They were beautiful and perfect in their kind, for such is the import of the word “טוב” or “tob” (pronounced, toe’ beh). They were in weight and measure perfect and entire, lacking nothing.”

All life was perfect: none of it could miss the mark on its own. With this thought in mind, look at the thirty-first verse.

Genesis 1:31, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

All of life was “good.” All of life was perfect. Yet, man was not just good/perfect. When God crowned the creation with man, everything became very good/very perfect. It -- is -- not -- in the nature -- of humanity -- to sin! Sin - is - not - natural. There is really - no - “sin - nature!” There is a false doctrine out there, promulgated by one of the popes in antiquity, carried over into protestantism by Martin Luther, and made popular by John Calvin, that sin is inherited from the father. Well, this is not using logic (λόγος or log’-os = words in the Greek). The Greek word for “father” is “πατήρ” or “pater” (pronounced, pat-ayr'). It has no other meaning than “creator.” If sin is inherited from the father, then Adam’s sin was inherited from his father/creator: God. If Adam didn’t get sin from God, and sin is an inherited thing, then Adam’s father/creator was Satan. The doctrine was created out of whole cloth, with no basis in fact. It is a superstition used by the idolatrous religions that believe in karma. Like many, many other things, it was incorporated into what was falsely believed to be Christianity.

Remember, I said the word “sin” by itself has no ugly meaning. Religiously is where it begins to pick up a negative context. The penalty for sin is death (c.f., Genesis 42:22 - the first instance where this penalty is recorded as applying to all sin, and not just murder, but as a penalty for murder it is assumed to already be common knowledge).

Deuteronomy 24:16, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

2nd Kings 14:6, “But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

2nd Chronicles 25:4, “But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.”

This was important enough for God to record at least three times. Yet, all of the “popular” theologians miss it completely, saying we shall all die for the sins of our fathers.

The third chapter of Genesis records the first sin. Man had everything he needed. Only one restriction was placed upon him; do not eat of one particular tree. Man did not have the desire to eat that fruit on his own. He had to be enticed. Satan knew better than to approach the man; he used his best tactic of going to the weaker, spiritual vessel (1st Peter 3:7). It would be easier to fool her. It worked.

God had promised that man would die “the day” he ate it (Genesis 2:17). Did man die? Many contend the answer is no. He was only kicked out of the Garden, after all. The “second death” is being cast from the presence of God (c.f., Revelation 20:14). The simple definition of death, then, is “separation.” It is either separation of the spirit from the body (physical death), or separation of the spirit from God (spiritual death). Man needs communion with God for his spiritual well-being, for the survival of his spiritual life. Adam was cast from the presence of God the very day he ate: he died spiritually. This is why we must be “born again” (John 3:3). John 3:5 and Romans 6:1-6 both tell us, in different words describing the same action, how to have this “new birth:” this “newness of life.”

Let’s look at one of the more specific words for sin again, more closely this time, just for a moment, that we may get a better handle on sin. According to Webster's “Revised Unabridged Dictionary” (1913 edition), iniquity is defined as:

1.   “Absence of, or deviation from, just dealing; want of rectitude or uprightness; gross injustice; unrighteousness; wickedness; as, the iniquity of bribery; the iniquity of an unjust judge.”
2.   “An iniquitous act or thing; a deed of injustice or unrighteousness; a sin; a crime.”

According to Webster, an iniquity is a sin. What does it do to us?

Isaiah 59:2, “But your iniquities - have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid - his - face - from - you, that - he - will - not - hear.”

There is the proof that death is nothing more than separation, and sin is its cause. The same is true for both specifics, whether iniquity or transgression. Either way, sin is sin. Both miss the mark, even if in different directions. One goes beyond, and the other falls short. Consider, if you will, the following passages dispersed widely throughout Scripture:

Deuteronomy 12:32, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou - shalt - not - add - thereto, --- nor - diminish - from - it.”

Numbers 22:18, “And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, - to - do - less - or - more.”

Numbers 24:13, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go - beyond - the - commandment - of the LORD, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the LORD saith, that will I speak?

Galatians 1:7-9, “Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any - other - gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any - other - gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add - unto - these - things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take - away - from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book - of - life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

From the Old Testament writings all the way through to the New, it has always been wrong to tamper with the Word of God. This was even true in the Garden, before there was a written word. Satan added three little, measly letters to God’s Word, and is thus accursed, and he took man with him.

An infant cannot be an archer. An infant cannot even aim for the mark, let alone hit or miss in the trying. This takes knowledge, which an infant does not yet have. Therefore, infants are safe. They cannot sin, and they have no sin. However, since you are able to understand this, you have the knowledge. You are aiming for the mark. Nevertheless, when we sin, we commit suicide, spiritually. We shed blood, spiritually. There is a penalty for this.

Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

God is just, and will impose the penalty (1st Corinthians 1:9). Yet, He doesn’t want to impose it (Deuteronomy 7:9). God had a plan (John 3:16, Genesis 3:15): a propitiation. He was not ready to implement it (Galatians 4:4). I will get there in just a minute. Nevertheless, to get us ready (Galatians 3:24-25), God put a stopgap, if you will allow that expression, in place. This is the “blood of bulls and goats” (Hebrews 9:13): the Old Law, Old Testament, or Old Covenant. Why do I call it a stopgap?

Hebrews 10:4, “For it - is - not - possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

While “the blood of bulls and goats” (Hebrews 9:13) was used to sanctify and purify man, it didn’t really do the job: it couldn’t do the job. These laws were needed to teach the subject of obedience to God’s people.

I have just one more thought, and the lesson will be yours. After eating of the tree of knowledge, we find out that man changed. He now knows right from wrong. All men do. We suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, without suffering the guilt, as a direct result of parental teaching.

Romans 3:23-26, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

The majority of the religious world, all of the denominations save one of which I am aware, misinterpret this passage. They think “freely” means “with no strings attached.” “δωρεάν,” or “dōrean” (pronounced, do-reh-an') is the accusative case of “δωρεά” or “dōrea” (pronounced do-reh-ah') and means “without a cause, freely, for naught, in vain.” It means He didn’t have to do it. It means the gift isn’t empty of meaning. It - does - not - preclude - any - conditions (actions/works on our part) - required - to accept - the gift. The gift is Jesus: His sacrifice and His blood. Animal blood is not as important as ours; it doesn’t work. Jesus’ blood is purer and more valuable; it is what we need. God is imposing the penalty, just not on us -- if - we - obey. He will impose it on His Son, instead. On the other hand, those who refuse to do anything in obedience will suffer their own blood penalty for their sin, and ignorance is no longer an excuse (Acts 17:30).

So, what do we have to do about the sins we have? What must we do to be saved, to get our spiritual lives born again? What must we do to contact the saving blood of the promised Messiah? I know the whole counsel of God on this subject goes against the teaching of every single denomination in this regard, without exception. However, it is taught in the Bible, and therefore the church teaches it. As a preacher, I am duty bound to show it out of love for all humanity.

Remember our archery analogy. If someone tells you to do too much, you miss the mark too high, or sin. If someone tells you to do too little, you miss the mark too low, or sin. If someone tells you the wrong order or direction of the things to do, you either miss the mark to the right or left, or sin. Since part of what God says (Luke 13:3) is that we must repent (quit sinning) before we can be forgiven, committing sin, however well intentioned, while trying to be saved will – not – save - you. Remember, you have already sinned. You have already missed the mark. Two wrongs cannot make a right. Missing the mark twice cannot give you the score of hitting the mark.

Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Will you say God will save everybody? Or, will you accept the Word of God.

John 8:24, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

Will you say we can think Jesus was just a good person? Or, will you accept the Word of God?

Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

Will you say you don’t have to quit doing wrong? Or, will you accept the Word of God?

Acts 8:37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Will you confess that, “God for Christ’s sake has pardoned my sins?” Or, will you accept the Word of God and confess that, “Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”

1st Peter 3:20-21, “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

Will you be baptized “because you have already been saved?” Will you refuse to be baptized at all? Will you demand God give you the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which has only been given in three instances in the Bible? Or, will you accept the Word of God and be baptized in order to be saved by water (and therefore by the blood), as was Noah?

Will you not seek to walk with God? Will you not obey Him, not only in the beginning, but continually? Are you willing to accept God’s terms for salvation rather than inventing your own; or accepting the inventions of another man such as Calvin, Armstrong, or any other? Will you not seek the Lord’s way in everything you do, especially in matters concerning salvation? Will you obey God’s Grace? Or, would you rather obey man’s commands, such as “Faith only saves us. Nothing else is necessary.” My friends, I can safely tell you, if the latter your choice, you will be lost for all eternity. All things are ready. Will you not come to God?

It may be that you are a Christian already, but have fallen from Grace, as Galatians 5:4 plainly teaches can happen. Whatever the need, will you come to the feast God has prepared? Will you not allow God to use His word to guide you to the mark of commanded perfection (2nd Corinthians 13:11) within your life? Today? As we sing this song of encouragement?

Brother Ernie, I pray that this study of sin has proven beneficial to you. Now, let's turn our attention to "saints."

"Saint" (singular) is used only once. The plural is used sixty-one times in the New Testament. All are translated from the same word.

G40 = ἅγιος - pronounced hag'-ee-os

Here is Strong's definition:

From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

Here is Thayer's:

1) most holy thing, a saint
Part of Speech: adjective

There is not that much that can be said of saints, per se, by definition. Basically, it is the opposite of a sinner; pure versus impure. Moreover, the only way to be a saint is to be consecrated in a religious ceremony. This is what was in mind with Christ's command in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect..."

Brother Ernie, we can be perfect. I know that goes against normal thinking, but Christ would not command the impossible. This is where 1st John 1:7 comes into play. I will say it again, even according to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, we can be perfect. However, we cannot be perfect on our own. It takes Christ and Christianity to be perfect. Even so, it is not our perfection, but Christ's perfection that covers us as our clothing; our wedding garments.

Brother Ernie, I pray this study of contrasts will prove edifying to you.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962