What does Scripture Mean About Perfection?

[Bible Highlighter]

He says Oh wretched man that I am, not that I was. Paul knew that sin was still there and never describes that sin in the past tense. Sin isn't just something you do, it is, but it's something you lack. What that is, is the righteousness of God in Christ most of which we do not receive until the resurrection. Paul is always emphasizing that natural man is at variance with the new nature.

Well, we have to realize that verse 5 is the context that Paul uses for the rest of Romans 7.

For Paul says,

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." (Romans 7:5).​

So Paul says, "when we WERE in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law worked fruit unto death. Paul is describing a PAST problem here. Paul shares this PAST experience primarily in Romans 7:14-24.

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:8).​

They that are in the flesh are committing sin (See Galatians 5:16-19).

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Romans 8:13).​

If you live after the flesh = ye shall die.
If you through the Spirit (Where you mortify or put to death the sinful deeds of the body) = ye shall live.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To another poster here (in whom I prefer not to answer directly), I say this:

"And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:9).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Romans 8 says this,

3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

That's because we are born again.

But by what you said so far, I am getting the impression that you do not believe that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us believers who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. How so? Well, for one, you think it is impossible to stop sinning (i.e. to walk after the flesh). Two, you said, carnal Christians are saved. So this makes me think you have an unbiblical view of what being born again means. A person who is born again is spiritually changed, and they are given a new heart with new desires and they will in time learn to mature and overcome their sin. God lives within the born again believer and the Law of love is written upon their hearts. If this is not the case, then one has not chosen which master they truly want to really serve yet. Jesus said a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit (and vise versa) (Matthew 7:18).

Romans 13:8-10 we see Paul says we fulfill the Law (like do not covet, do not murder, etc.) by loving our neighbor.

There you go, much better.

But I do not think we agree based on what you said so far. The 2nd command in loving your neighbor (all people) is sounds merely like bonus credit in your belief and it does not really sound like it is a requirement as a part of God's plan of salvation for you (1 John 4:8) (1 John 3:15). Yes, we are saved by God's grace. That is how it first begins (Ephesians 2:8-9). We ask the Lord to forgive of our sins, we receive Jesus as our Savior into our hearts, and we believe that He had died and had risen on our behalf; But from that point on we know that God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness, and that we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). God's grace is not a license for immorality (See Jude 1:4 NIV). For Titus 1:16 says we can deny God by a lack of works. James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17); And Jesus says if you will enter into life, keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh for crying out loud, this is what it says:

Why do you appear to be upset with me over your own misquote or paraphrasing of Scripture?
If the roles were reversed, I would apologize instead, my friend.

if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul. (Deut. 30:10)
That has not changed, you hear the voice of God and turn to him with your whole heart.

But again, you do not believe a saint can stop sinning and you said that the carnal Christian is saved. So this makes me think that seeking after the Lord with your whole heart is merely optional or bonus credit and it is not a requirement for salvation. You mentioned the church at Ephesus to me before. They are a great example here. For did not the church at Ephesus lose their first love in Revelation? Jesus told them to repent and do the first works. What first works? The works of love. Loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength (the 1st Commandment); And loving their neighbor (which would include loving one's brothers, the poor, the stranger, and one's enemies) (the 2nd Commandment).

Also, you said before that the Old Covenant was in effect but yet you said the Law (the written code) was no longer in effect. You are saying that the above verse has not changed. Yet, the verse says, "keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law." Do you believe that we are to keep the Commandents as written in the Book of the Law (i.e. the Torah)? Surely not; And neither do I. For we are under a New Covenant, with New Commands or Laws. To deny this is to deny Scripture and how the real world operates, my friend. For as I said before, no government or kingdom can function or operate without laws and without the enforcement of those laws.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You missed the whole point, he prayed God have mercy on me a sinner. The Pharisee pray I thank you that I'm not a sinner. The one who prayed God have mercy on me a sinner went away justified, another form of the word for righteousness.

Well, if the Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee was the only passage in Scripture along with a few stringed together believe me in phrases from Jesus and with Christ's death and resurrection, then you might be on to something. But we clearly know by other verses and passages that the believer can overcome sin by God's power and the Word of God.

For Jesus says,

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).​

Jesus also says,

"You give glory to my Father when you produce a lot of fruit and therefore show that you are my disciples." (John 15:8 GW).​

And Peter says,

"Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world." (1 Peter 2:12 NLT).​

Paul says,

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" (Philippians 2:15).​

So what is the "Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee" teaching if believers can walk uprightly?

The Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) first says this:

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18:9).

This is the context. This would be any believer who:

(a) Trusted in themselves in that they were righteous.
(b) Despised others.​

First, let me recap what I believe so that you do not think I hold to this Pharisee view.

#1. I trust in Christ's death and resurrection for salvation. I believe I was saved with no works when I first came to HIm. I believe I am ultimately saved by God's grace when I continue in abide in Him and His good ways (See the true imputation of Christ's sacrifice in 1 John 1:7).

#2. I believe Christ does the good work through me. So I do not believe any righteousness on my own alone saves me. For only God alone is good. Christ is the source of life (or salvation) and abiding in Him means one is saved (See 1 John 5:12).

#3. I am commanded by God to love my neighbor (Which is to love my brother, the poor, the stranger, and my enemy).​

So obviously my belief would not be in any way related to the Pharisee's false belief.

We see the problem with the Pharisee is that he did not seek out God's grace by humbling himself before God by crying out to the Lord for the forgiveness of his sin. The life of the Tax Collector in admitting his sin to God was not some unending continual daily state of existence. For as I pointed out to you before, there are many verses telling us that we as believers can overcome sin and live righteously. Another problem with the Pharisee is that he despised the Tax Collector. Scripture speaks of this.

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Galatians 4:29).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem in the Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee is that the Pharisee did not repent of his sins first. That is why he was not humble. He did not first get his heart right with God. For if he did, he would have tried to help the Tax Collector to overcome his sins by praying for him, and helping him to employ God's good ways in reforming his life.

Just like the Law, turn to God with all your heart and he can have mercy. Go to God with a boast and he will send you away with nothing. You don't have to go looking for it, this isn't some quest. It's in your heart and in you mouth, it's in God's word and your profession. That profession begins with admitting you are in fact a sinner, the gospel does you no good if you don't.

Where did I say that a first time hearer of the gospel was to deny in asking Jesus to forgive them of their sin, ask Jesus into their heart, and to believe in His death and resurrection on their behalf? Nowhere did I state such a thing. This is how a person is initially and ultimately saved.

However, you said before that a carnal Christian is saved; However, this is not what the Scriptures teach. Once a person has asked for the forgiveness of their sin, they do not continue in their sins. Allowing God or Christ to do the good work through you as a part of the Sanctification process is not in conflict with God's grace. Now, can a believer stumble into sin on occasion? Yes. But God's grace is not a means as a license to remain in one's sinful state in this life, but God's grace is a means to overcome sin in this life (See 1 Peter 4:1-2, and 2 Corinthians 7:1). For the very purpose Christ gave Himself for us was to make us holy, and zealous of good works (See Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 2:14).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You right about one thing, we certainly don't teach the same thing. I've never advocating Christians going around sinning because they can, I teach nothing of the sort.

Yet, you said a carnal Christian is saved. You also said that we are saved by faith alone and not by works (which can make somebody to think they can do whatever they want and still be saved); You also said that we will always have unredeemed flesh in this life. Meaning, you do not think we will stop sinning. Hence, why you are against the Bible's teaching on Sinless Perfection. I am not sure why. Jesus said, "sin no more." (John 5:14) (John 8:11); Jesus said, "be ye perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48).

None of your remarks even bother to address what my post was saying, let alone contradicts it.

Just saying so does not actually prove that this is so. You actually have to give post #'s and specific words and explain it clearly, my friend.

Some interesting expositions but you are severely challenged with regards to context.

Again, just saying so does not prove that you are correct or right in any way. You have to show me the context to show that you are right.

You argue against me,

No. Nowhere did I argue against you as an individual personally. I may have had pointed out your error in the way you communicate things, but I am not arguing against "you" as a person. I may be strongly against Calvinism, but I am not arguing against you.

you argue against Catholicism

Well, I only mentioned that I have argued against Catholicism because you originally insulted me by insinuating that I woud like Catholic teachings.

you argue against 'entire sanctification'

Are you saying I am arguing against Wesleyan Perfectionism?

This may be a possibility. I have never studied his beliefs on Sinless Perfection. I have gained my understanding on Sinless Perfection strictly from what God's Word says and not what a man says.

...without really arguing for anything much.

Now, that is purely an insult; And it is not a nice attitude to have. You cannot know my heart, my faith, my life, and beliefs. I believe I am doing the right thing by defending God's Word and by striving to lead men of God (with Scripture) on instructing them in righteousness so that they may be perfect unto every good work as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says.

I was just wanting to encourage your studies and throw a few insights in to help you along the way. I can see my efforts were unappreciated, I won't make the same mistake twice.

I do not see how you were encouraging me or offering me any insights to help me; But if you were honestly trying to help me, then may God bless you, dear sir. I just hope that you ask God about the topic of Sinless Perfection. Consider that it may be true and ask the Lord to show you those Scripture verses. Keep an open heart and mind, my friend. For I do appreciate your writing to me deeply. In my reply back to you, I have went back to the Word of God and learned even more things (that I did not know before).

So thank you.

Have a nice day
Mark

Thank you, my friend.
I pray you will come back and read what I had written some day.
May you have a wonderful day in the Lord.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,
And may you please be well.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

 

[ToBeLoved]

Since I'm being ignored. I'll leave.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you, my friend.
I pray you will come back and read what I had written some day.
May you have a wonderful day in the Lord.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,
And may you please be well.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

Look Jason I'm not interested in something divisive or contentious which is exactly what this has turned into. I'm sure you mean well but I don't do this sort of thing with other believers. I think this sort of thing should be for the benefit of other believers and I'm not going to posture over touchy and ticklish theological points where the primary points are buried.

I'm not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't do this sort of thing. I've went round and round with theistic evolutionists for years but never over formal theology. A few expositions here and there but never anything like this.

We can do an occasional exposition from time to time, but we are not going to be wrangling over systematic theology like this. Now I hope you don't take this as a rebuke, it's really just a polite refusal. I do hope you'll get back on topic and I wish you all the best getting the thread back on track.

Be advised, I've never taught or believed anything resembling 'sinless perfection' prior to the resurrection at the end of the age. I'm not here to contend over carnal Christians or what their final disposition might be, God alone makes that determination. With that, I strongly suggest it's time to let this go.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yet, you said a carnal Christian is saved. You also said that we are saved by faith alone and not by works (which can make somebody to think they can do whatever they want and still be saved); You also said that we will always have unredeemed flesh in this life. Meaning, you do not think we will stop sinning. Hence, why you are against the Bible's teaching on Sinless Perfection. I am not sure why. Jesus said, "sin no more." (John 5:14) (John 8:11); Jesus said, "be ye perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48).



Just saying so does not actually prove that this is so. You actually have to give post #'s and specific words and explain it clearly, my friend.



Again, just saying so does not prove that you are correct or right in any way. You have to show me the context to show that you are right.



No. Nowhere did I argue against you as an individual personally. I may have had pointed out your error in the way you communicate things, but I am not arguing against "you" as a person. I may be strongly against Calvinism, but I am not arguing against you.



Well, I only mentioned that I have argued against Catholicism because you originally insulted me by insinuating that I woud like Catholic teachings.



Are you saying I am arguing against Wesleyan Perfectionism?

This may be a possibility. I have never studied his beliefs on Sinless Perfection. I have gained my understanding on Sinless Perfection strictly from what God's Word says and not what a man says.



Now, that is purely an insult; And it is not a nice attitude to have. You cannot know my heart, my faith, my life, and beliefs. I believe I am doing the right thing by defending God's Word and by striving to lead men of God (with Scripture) on instructing them in righteousness so that they may be perfect unto every good work as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says.



I do not see how you were encouraging me or offering me any insights to help me; But if you were honestly trying to help me, then may God bless you, dear sir. I just hope that you ask God about the topic of Sinless Perfection. Consider that it may be true and ask the Lord to show you those Scripture verses. Keep an open heart and mind, my friend. For I do appreciate your writing to me deeply. In my reply back to you, I have went back to the Word of God and learned even more things (that I did not know before).

So thank you.



Thank you, my friend.
I pray you will come back and read what I had written some day.
May you have a wonderful day in the Lord.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,
And may you please be well.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

Jason, I saw an interesting translation today on Matthew 5:48 "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." RSV I don't normally use the RSV so never saw this wording before.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, I saw an interesting translation today on Matthew 5:48 "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." RSV I don't normally use the RSV so never saw this wording before.

It appears to convey the heart of what the KJV says. For when Christ tells us to do something, they are usually not optional suggests but commands of what He desires from us.

Many today, see the word "perfect" as meaning "complete." But that really does not make any sense. How does one become "complete"? Does Scripture even talk about that? It's gobbleygook.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Look Jason I'm not interested in something divisive or contentious which is exactly what this has turned into. I'm sure you mean well but I don't do this sort of thing with other believers. I think this sort of thing should be for the benefit of other believers and I'm not going to posture over touchy and ticklish theological points where the primary points are buried.

I'm not angry, I'm not even annoyed, I just don't do this sort of thing. I've went round and round with theistic evolutionists for years but never over formal theology. A few expositions here and there but never anything like this.

We can do an occasional exposition from time to time, but we are not going to be wrangling over systematic theology like this. Now I hope you don't take this as a rebuke, it's really just a polite refusal. I do hope you'll get back on topic and I wish you all the best getting the thread back on track.

Be advised, I've never taught or believed anything resembling 'sinless perfection' prior to the resurrection at the end of the age. I'm not here to contend over carnal Christians or what their final disposition might be, God alone makes that determination. With that, I strongly suggest it's time to let this go.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Well, while I see theistic evolution as false, I do not consider it worth my while to get too caught up in arguing against it because I do not see it having that great of an impact if I show them the truth in regards to that topic. I argue against Eternal Security and argue against the Anti-Sinless Perfection belief because these things can truly make a big difference in the life of a believer if they are shown the truth with Scripture (in regards to them).

Anyways, may God's love and goodness be upon you;
And may you please be well.


...

 

[mark kennedy]

Jason, I saw an interesting translation today on Matthew 5:48 "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." RSV I don't normally use the RSV so never saw this wording before.

The word for 'perfect' here is complete or mature, the part of speech in Matthew 5:48 indicates all that God intended:

Perfect (Adjective and Verb), Perfectly:

signifies "having reached its end" (telos), "finished, complete, perfect." It is used

(I) of persons,

(a) primarily of physical development, then, with ethical import, "fully grown, mature," 1Cr 2:6; 14:20 ("men;" marg., "of full age"); Eph 4:13; Phl 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; in Hbr 5:14, RV, "fullgrown" (marg., "perfect"), AV, "of full age" (marg., "perfect");

(b) "complete," conveying the idea of goodness without necessary reference to maturity or what is expressed under (a), Mat 5:48; 19:21; Jam 1:4 (2nd part); 3:2. It is used thus of God in Mat 5:48;

(II) of "things, complete, perfect," Rom 12:2; 1Cr 13:10 (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter); Jam 1:4 (of the work of patience); Jam 1:25; 1Jo 4:18. (G5046 - teleios BLB)
​

Jesus used this word to show the rich young ruler he was covetous (Matthew 19:21), the renewing of our minds to know the perfect will of God (Romans 12:2), the perfect love of God (1 Corinthians 13:10). It’s translated ‘men’ when the contrast is made between being childish you your understanding as opposed to being immature (1 Corinthians 14:20). Being perfect as measured by the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)…etc.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, while I see theistic evolution as false, I do not consider it worth my while to get too caught up in arguing against it because I do not see it having that great of an impact if I show them the truth in regards to that topic. I argue against Eternal Security and argue against the Anti-Sinless Perfection belief because these things can truly make a big difference in the life of a believer if they are shown the truth with Scripture (in regards to them).

Anyways, may God's love and goodness be upon you;
And may you please be well.


...

I don't think you have a good grasp of eternal security but ok, it's a free country. As far as theistic evolution, that comes down to whether or not Darwinian evolution has made it's case empirically and clearly it has failed the burden of proof. Theistic evolution is virtually theology free, they have almost nothing to say about it. So when we get to an exposition of Genesis 1 it's a simple exposition instead of chasing the semantics in circles. I makes it benign, being careless with theological issues is another matter entirely.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word for 'perfect' here is complete or mature, the part of speech in Matthew 5:48 indicates all that God intended:

Perfect (Adjective and Verb), Perfectly:

signifies "having reached its end" (telos), "finished, complete, perfect." It is used

(I) of persons,

(a) primarily of physical development, then, with ethical import, "fully grown, mature," 1Cr 2:6; 14:20 ("men;" marg., "of full age"); Eph 4:13; Phl 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; in Hbr 5:14, RV, "fullgrown" (marg., "perfect"), AV, "of full age" (marg., "perfect");

(b) "complete," conveying the idea of goodness without necessary reference to maturity or what is expressed under (a), Mat 5:48; 19:21; Jam 1:4 (2nd part); 3:2. It is used thus of God in Mat 5:48;

(II) of "things, complete, perfect," Rom 12:2; 1Cr 13:10 (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter); Jam 1:4 (of the work of patience); Jam 1:25; 1Jo 4:18. (G5046 - teleios BLB)
​

Jesus used this word to show the rich young ruler he was covetous (Matthew 19:21), the renewing of our minds to know the perfect will of God (Romans 12:2), the perfect love of God (1 Corinthians 13:10). It’s translated ‘men’ when the contrast is made between being childish you your understanding as opposed to being immature (1 Corinthians 14:20). Being perfect as measured by the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)…etc.

This is wrong because it is an attempt to change God's Word.

Perfect still means perfect.
Perfect does not mean complete.

When I say a glass of water is pure, I do not think that it is complete or mature. It is perfect. Pure. God is Holy. Pure. Perfect. God says be ye holy, because I am holy. This means pure. Undefiled. Separate from sinners.

Just read how the Bible uses the word (instead of some fancy dictionary made by men).

The Bible says,

"it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." (Leviticus 22:21).

Here in the context we see "no blemish" attached with the word "perfect."

See how the Bible is so simple and easy?


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think you have a good grasp of eternal security but ok, it's a free country.

First, I have debated against Eternal Security or OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), or Free Grace for many years now. I know the excuses and verses commonly used by Eternal Security proponents and it the most easy man made belief to refute. All one has to do is keep reading their own Bible and they will find a verse that undoes a supposed OSAS verse. Anyways, through out the years, I have discovered that there are different versions of Eternal Security.

OSAS Type #1:
Classic OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) which says you can practice unrepentant sin that leads unto death (Such as lying, murder, hate, fornication, etc.) and yet you can somehow still be saved. I have ran into people like this both online and in person. One person admitted to me that they could mow down a crowd of people with a submachine and they would still be saved in the process.

OSAS Type #2:
Mid Range OSAS says that you cannot practice sin otherwise you do not know God. However, abiding in an occasional or small unrepentant sin and then dying in that sin will not necessarily send you to Hell. I have ran into a few of these individuals before.

OSAS Type #3:
OSAS Lite teaches that you if you practice or continually abide in unrepentant sin then you were never saved to begin with. Meaning that a true believer is characterized by them living righteously. So falling away from the faith would be impossible (Despite the many verses that talk about such a thing). I know of only one person in whom I know personally who believes this. This belief appears to be a rare and or I simply have not run into many who believe this way. The major problem I have with this version of Eternal Security is that it makes you doubt the promises of God and it denies that a believer has free will to decide His destiny with the Lord.

Does your view of Eternal Security or OSAS match up with any of the ones above?
Or is your view of Eternal Security different?
If so, please explain.
Remember, to make sure you include your statement about the Carnal Christian being saved (if you do).

Also, usually when an Eternal Security preacher tells an audience that they are saved by what Jesus did and it is in nothing in what they do (and they stop in their message), then the audience is going to think they have a license to sin.

Second, Eternal Security has led people into a life style of sin. It is not a matter of debate, but it is a fact. I have provided testimonies to show that very fact. So it does not matter if people who believe in OSAS here are living in a lifestyle of sin or not. The fact of the matter we know that the general message of OSAS in many cases tends to lead people into being enslaved to their sin and not being set free from it. How so? Just check out these testimonies below.

Ex OSAS Audio Testimonies:
Testimonies of former eternal security believers

Suicide & OSAS:
A tragic story of an OSAS believer.

A Pastor's Testimony on OSAS:
A testimony about OSAS by a Pastor's wife.

Hooked on Sin & OSAS:
Out Of Darkness | NO Eternal Security | Christian Testimony

Mass Murder, Suicide, & OSAS:
George Sodini.​

As far as theistic evolution, that comes down to whether or not Darwinian evolution has made it's case empirically and clearly it has failed the burden of proof. Theistic evolution is virtually theology free, they have almost nothing to say about it. So when we get to an exposition of Genesis 1 it's a simple exposition instead of chasing the semantics in circles. I makes it benign, being careless with theological issues is another matter entirely.

The reason I see as to why people accept Theistic Evolution is that they are trying to be friends with the world still (i.e. Worldly Science and or Thinking). However, one has to reject the world and it's ways and radically accept God's Word in what it says; And they should not try and cram outside ideas into the Bible. The solution is Jesus and prayer (of course) and not a debate with Scripture - IMO.

For I am not here on this Earth to preach the creation.
I am here to preach Jesus Christ.


...

 

[1stcenturylady]

The word for 'perfect' here is complete or mature, the part of speech in Matthew 5:48 indicates all that God intended:

Perfect (Adjective and Verb), Perfectly:

signifies "having reached its end" (telos), "finished, complete, perfect." It is used

(I) of persons,

(a) primarily of physical development, then, with ethical import, "fully grown, mature," 1Cr 2:6; 14:20 ("men;" marg., "of full age"); Eph 4:13; Phl 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; in Hbr 5:14, RV, "fullgrown" (marg., "perfect"), AV, "of full age" (marg., "perfect");

(b) "complete," conveying the idea of goodness without necessary reference to maturity or what is expressed under (a), Mat 5:48; 19:21; Jam 1:4 (2nd part); 3:2. It is used thus of God in Mat 5:48;

(II) of "things, complete, perfect," Rom 12:2; 1Cr 13:10 (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter); Jam 1:4 (of the work of patience); Jam 1:25; 1Jo 4:18. (G5046 - teleios BLB)
​

Jesus used this word to show the rich young ruler he was covetous (Matthew 19:21), the renewing of our minds to know the perfect will of God (Romans 12:2), the perfect love of God (1 Corinthians 13:10). It’s translated ‘men’ when the contrast is made between being childish you your understanding as opposed to being immature (1 Corinthians 14:20). Being perfect as measured by the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)…etc.

Thanks Mark. (I wanted to let you know that on the other post where you were the only one to guess which one was true and you guessed the first of five, I just wanted to let you know they were all true. Just thought you might be interested.)

 

[ToBeLoved]

This is wrong because it is an attempt to change God's Word.

Perfect still means perfect.
Perfect does not mean complete.

When I say a glass of water is pure, I do not think that it is complete or mature. It is perfect. Pure. God is Holy. Pure. Perfect. God says be ye holy, because I am holy. This means pure. Undefiled. Separate from sinners.

Just read how the Bible uses the word (instead of some fancy dictionary made by men).

The Bible says,

"it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." (Leviticus 22:21).

Here in the context we see "no blemish" attached with the word "perfect."

See how the Bible is so simple and easy?


...

At least he researched it and found the Greek word telos.

Your arguing a translated English word. Lol

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And you are arguing against Leviticus and it's not funny.
And you are arguing that you know the original languages initmately like you do your own language (Which is English).


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One more time. Here is the verse people.

The Bible says,

"it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." (Leviticus 22:21).

"Perfect" is related to having "no blemish."


....