Perfection

[Wordkeeper]

Just because everything was created to be good does not mean it all remained good. The Garden of Eden story makes that point abundantly clear. Freewill creatures can go wrong and turn totally evil.

Of course Satan was not part of Creation, at least not as Satan (the enemy, the father of lies). He was created good, an Archangel with free choice; Lucifer (or whatever his name was) made himself into "the evil one." It is the primary reason for the Lake of Fire-- Satan is immortal, but irredeemably evil and has caused immeasurable suffering; he must be separated out from all that is good and "reap what he has sowed." Many humans have become "children of the devil" and will never accept Christ or His redemption. See John 8:42-44, Matthew 13:37-42, John 6:70, echoed by 1 John 3:10 and Paul in Acts 13:10. If they are actually children of Satan, then it makes perfect sense that that they would accompany him to his eternal destiny in the divine incinerator, while the Children of God will accompany Christ in the heavenly Kingdom (where they all will be without sin, without temptation, and without suffering of any kind).

Satan isnt a person, he is the description of the selfish drives in MAN, that moves him to struggle for possessions, power, pleasure so that life becomes easy.

This is confirmed by the views of Jewish scholars, who are smarter than the rest of the world (to the extent that many educational organisations worldwide are emulating how they live, and learn, and think. In comparison, we are still in the Dark Ages, holding on to beliefs formed in medieval times):

Quote
Satan is a character that appears in the belief systems of many religions, including Christianity and Islam. In Judaism "satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination – the yetzer hara – that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong.

SATAN AS A METAPHOR FOR THE YETZER HARA
The Hebrew word "satan" (שָּׂטָן) translates to "adversary" and comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to oppose" or "to obstruct."

In Jewish thought, one of the things Jews struggle against every day is the "evil inclination," also known as the yetzer hara (יֵצֶר הַרַע, from Genesis 6:5). The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. However, using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common. On the other hand, the "good inclination" is called the yetzer ha'tov (יצר הטוב).

References to "satan" can be found in some Orthodox and Conservative prayer books, but they are viewed as symbolic descriptions of one aspect of mankind's nature.

https://www.thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
...........


Adam was tempted by Satan. Jesus was tempted by Satan. This is so common and so familiar, where have we seen it and when? In our own lives! The little voice that tells us to do scandalous acts, like putting that attractive object in our pockets, that impulse to speak to attractive members of the opposite sex, that craving for what the doctor has forbidden us from consuming…

As for Lucifer, even Christian scholars agree the term has been highly misunderstood. Here is one of the many articles explaining the error:

Quote
"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."Revelation 12:7-9 (NKJV).

The casual readers may wonder why that since Lucifer is used so often elsewhere in the Bible that nowhere in these verses is the name "Lucifer" mentioned. They might think that since it was by the spirit of revelation John heard, saw, and wrote concerning this infamous character, that every base would be covered and Satan's original name would have been included. That is, if Lucifer had ever been this arch-adversary's name.

We are all familiar, I am sure, with the popular concept that most of the western world has of Lucifer. You know, that he was created the most beautiful angel and conductor of music in all the universe. Some believe that he was one of the "three"archangels who ruled over all the hosts of heaven prior to his coup d'état. It was then that everything came crashing down upon him and a third of the angels of heaven. We understand, of course, that there can only be one archangel. I believe that was made clear in our study, Michael And The Dragon, and the first verse of the book of Revelation plainly says that this war in heaven was to be a future event rather than one before Adam was formed and placed in the garden.

LUCIFER -- SON OF THE MORNING

The above scenario is generally what is taught; however, if we take note, I believe we will find this is not quite the way it was. For instance, it is not realized by many just how many times Lucifer is found in the Bible. Most assume that it used as often as Satan. Would you be surprised to find that it is used only one time? One time alone! Not ten or twenty, not three or four, not even twice. Only once! One time in the entire Bible, and a worldwide dogmatic doctrine has been built around it. That's shaky ground to stand upon to say the least.

The single place where Lucifer is found is in Isaiah 14:12. It reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" This so very often and little understood word comes from the Hebrew word Heylel which simply means shining one (Young's Concordance), morning star (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance), bright star or splendid star (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon). etc. Lucifer is the Latin word which was translated from heylel, which is not a proper noun but is a word that tells us something about the one spoken of. The Hebrew does not indicate this is a personal name, not in the remotest sense; nonetheless, the Latin translators rendered it as such.

The Amplified Bible has this interesting note concerning this noted LUCIFER: "Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan is erroneous, even though it is commonly taught to that effect. Lucifer, THE LIGHT BRINGER, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 (...until the DAY STAR arise in your hearts.) and corresponds to the name `BRIGHT MORNING STAR' in Rev. 22:16, which Jesus called Himself. The application of the name Lucifer has only existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven) is an explanation of Isaiah 14:12, which authorities feel is not true."

If the one spoken of in Isaiah 14:12 is not Satan, as the authorities agree, then we might ought to consider who it really is. In the context of this verse we can see the king of Babylon is the primary subject matter; however, the description given here can also help us to see there is another MAN involved in this mystery. That man, as I believe we will see, is ADAM! "HOW HAST THOU FALLEN FROM THE HEAVENS, O SHINING ONE, SON OF THE DAWN." (Isa. 14:12, Young's Literal Trans. Of The Bible). Before Jesus, there was never anyone or anything fitting the description of the SHINING ONE except ADAM.Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that Satan was anything but a murderer and a liar from the very beginning; but Adam, he has most assuredly been identified with light. We are told in Gen. 1:27 that he was created in the image of God and after His likeness, and let us be reminded, one of those things God is like is LIGHT -- GOD IS LIGHT (I Jn. 1:5), and also, GOD IS THE FATHER OF LIGHTS (James. 1:17).

We have been taught, and had in the past taught it ourselves, that the one who had fallen from the heavens was Satan, as mentioned earlier, and we were convinced this verse was confirming it. However, it is not Satan who was removed from the heavens -- HE IS STILL THERE! and Revelation 12:7-11 makes this very clear (Ref. Pub. #24, WAR IN HEAVEN). Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning falling from heaven) would seem to give credit to the traditional thought; however, if we take it in the context of what had just happened, we will see something else. The falling had actually taken place at the time the seventy were sent by Jesus, when they had cast Satan out of the heavenly dominion he had over the people who were sick and demon possessed. It was at that time He had seen him falling from heaven rather than thousands of years in the past.

THE LUCIFER QUESTION: Who is he?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Here is the paradox.

Creation was good, but not perfect.
In Christ we are told to be perfect and we are even made perfect, but we sin.

Does this challenge you?

Perhaps it challenges some, but it is no paradox. The triune nature of God is a paradox.

The reality of the Fall explains well how the creation (and humans beings) were good and pristine at the start, but that it all went wrong. Original sin (now an inherited tendency) was passed on to all the descendants of the first humans. So now no one is actually born good, even infants who have yet to actually sin, for they have a self-centered nature that will prefer the world, the flesh, and the devil more than a submissive love relationship with God. This is not a paradox, this is the biblical explanation. It makes sense.

The real paradox is the sovereignty and omnipotence of God paired with human semi-free will. Could a good God allow sin (and all the consequential suffering) to even occur? Yes, He did by creating freewill creatures who could have a real relationship with Him but who could also rebel against Him... and He knew the Fall would happen and He had His plan of redemption ready. Someday there will be no more suffering, no more sin or temptation to sin, and no more death. In the meantime, He is gathering His Bride (the Church) out of the world and building His heavenly Kingdom on earth (albeit slowly).

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Satan isnt a person, he is the description of the selfish drives in MAN, that moves him to struggle for possessions, power, pleasure so that life becomes easy.

This is confirmed by the views of Jewish scholars, who are smarter than the rest of the world (to the extent that many educational organisations worldwide are emulating how they live, and learn, and think. In comparison, we are still in the Dark Ages, holding on to beliefs formed in medieval times):

Quote
Satan is a character that appears in the belief systems of many religions, including Christianity and Islam. In Judaism "satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination – the yetzer hara – that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong.

SATAN AS A METAPHOR FOR THE YETZER HARA
The Hebrew word "satan" (שָּׂטָן) translates to "adversary" and comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to oppose" or "to obstruct."

In Jewish thought, one of the things Jews struggle against every day is the "evil inclination," also known as the yetzer hara (יֵצֶר הַרַע, from Genesis 6:5). The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. However, using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common. On the other hand, the "good inclination" is called the yetzer ha'tov (יצר הטוב).

References to "satan" can be found in some Orthodox and Conservative prayer books, but they are viewed as symbolic descriptions of one aspect of mankind's nature.

https://www.thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
...........


Adam was tempted by Satan. Jesus was tempted by Satan. This is so common and so familiar, where have we seen it and when? In our own lives! The little voice that tells us to do scandalous acts, like putting that attractive object in our pockets, that impulse to speak to attractive members of the opposite sex, that craving for what the doctor has forbidden us from consuming…

As for Lucifer, even Christian scholars agree the term has been highly misunderstood. Here is one of the many articles explaining the error:

Quote
"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."Revelation 12:7-9 (NKJV).

The casual readers may wonder why that since Lucifer is used so often elsewhere in the Bible that nowhere in these verses is the name "Lucifer" mentioned. They might think that since it was by the spirit of revelation John heard, saw, and wrote concerning this infamous character, that every base would be covered and Satan's original name would have been included. That is, if Lucifer had ever been this arch-adversary's name.

We are all familiar, I am sure, with the popular concept that most of the western world has of Lucifer. You know, that he was created the most beautiful angel and conductor of music in all the universe. Some believe that he was one of the "three"archangels who ruled over all the hosts of heaven prior to his coup d'état. It was then that everything came crashing down upon him and a third of the angels of heaven. We understand, of course, that there can only be one archangel. I believe that was made clear in our study, Michael And The Dragon, and the first verse of the book of Revelation plainly says that this war in heaven was to be a future event rather than one before Adam was formed and placed in the garden.

LUCIFER -- SON OF THE MORNING

The above scenario is generally what is taught; however, if we take note, I believe we will find this is not quite the way it was. For instance, it is not realized by many just how many times Lucifer is found in the Bible. Most assume that it used as often as Satan. Would you be surprised to find that it is used only one time? One time alone! Not ten or twenty, not three or four, not even twice. Only once! One time in the entire Bible, and a worldwide dogmatic doctrine has been built around it. That's shaky ground to stand upon to say the least.

The single place where Lucifer is found is in Isaiah 14:12. It reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" This so very often and little understood word comes from the Hebrew word Heylel which simply means shining one (Young's Concordance), morning star (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance), bright star or splendid star (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon). etc. Lucifer is the Latin word which was translated from heylel, which is not a proper noun but is a word that tells us something about the one spoken of. The Hebrew does not indicate this is a personal name, not in the remotest sense; nonetheless, the Latin translators rendered it as such.

The Amplified Bible has this interesting note concerning this noted LUCIFER: "Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan is erroneous, even though it is commonly taught to that effect. Lucifer, THE LIGHT BRINGER, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 (...until the DAY STAR arise in your hearts.) and corresponds to the name `BRIGHT MORNING STAR' in Rev. 22:16, which Jesus called Himself. The application of the name Lucifer has only existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven) is an explanation of Isaiah 14:12, which authorities feel is not true."

If the one spoken of in Isaiah 14:12 is not Satan, as the authorities agree, then we might ought to consider who it really is. In the context of this verse we can see the king of Babylon is the primary subject matter; however, the description given here can also help us to see there is another MAN involved in this mystery. That man, as I believe we will see, is ADAM! "HOW HAST THOU FALLEN FROM THE HEAVENS, O SHINING ONE, SON OF THE DAWN." (Isa. 14:12, Young's Literal Trans. Of The Bible). Before Jesus, there was never anyone or anything fitting the description of the SHINING ONE except ADAM.Nowhere in the scriptures do we read that Satan was anything but a murderer and a liar from the very beginning; but Adam, he has most assuredly been identified with light. We are told in Gen. 1:27 that he was created in the image of God and after His likeness, and let us be reminded, one of those things God is like is LIGHT -- GOD IS LIGHT (I Jn. 1:5), and also, GOD IS THE FATHER OF LIGHTS (James. 1:17).

We have been taught, and had in the past taught it ourselves, that the one who had fallen from the heavens was Satan, as mentioned earlier, and we were convinced this verse was confirming it. However, it is not Satan who was removed from the heavens -- HE IS STILL THERE! and Revelation 12:7-11 makes this very clear (Ref. Pub. #24, WAR IN HEAVEN). Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning falling from heaven) would seem to give credit to the traditional thought; however, if we take it in the context of what had just happened, we will see something else. The falling had actually taken place at the time the seventy were sent by Jesus, when they had cast Satan out of the heavenly dominion he had over the people who were sick and demon possessed. It was at that time He had seen him falling from heaven rather than thousands of years in the past.

THE LUCIFER QUESTION: Who is he?

Sorry, all that mumbo jumbo is hypothetical heresy. According to 2000 years of Christian doctrine based on the scriptures, Satan is NOT a metaphor, although he would love to fool human beings into thinking so. He certainly got YOUR number.

Angels and archangels do exist (before humans, in fact) and have a degree of freewill. Satan was an archangel who rebelled against God and attacked the creatures made in God's image with lies to tempt them to rebel as well--- and thus to spiritually die (and eventually to physically die). Therefore we have the Fall of humanity and we humans inherit an 'original sin' nature. All who are alive are living extensions of those first creatures in the Garden who were born good but who had enough free will to distrust and disobey God-- which they did when tempted by Satan.

Remember that the crafty serpent in the Garden lied. Jesus described Satan this way: "for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) If Satan is the father of lies, then he was intimately involved in the Fall of humankind. He is also referred to as the “tempter” (Matthew 4:3, 1 Thes 3:5) and is clearly identified as the “dragon” and “ancient serpent” in Revelation 12:6-12 and 20:1-2: 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Rev 12:6-12)

1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:1-2)

It is clear who Satan is.

 

[sparow]

Jesus said:

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matt 5:48 RSV

However, I’m always hearing people say that it is impossible to be perfect. Keeping in mind that the Lord helps us, is it that hard to repent of our sin?

I see this more to do with philosophy than theology. I haven't looked at the original language but in English, unless "perfect" is defined for it's immediate usage then perfection is an irrational concept, never achievable. God acknowledges the human condition and in this context we can please God or disappoint God.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Sorry, all that mumbo jumbo is hypothetical heresy. According to 2000 years of Christian doctrine based on the scriptures, Satan is NOT a metaphor, although he would love to fool human beings into thinking so. He certainly got YOUR number.

Angels and archangels do exist (before humans, in fact) and have a degree of freewill. Satan was an archangel who rebelled against God and attacked the creatures made in God's image with lies to tempt them to rebel as well--- and thus to spiritually die (and eventually to physically die). Therefore we have the Fall of humanity and we humans inherit an 'original sin' nature. All who are alive are living extensions of those first creatures in the Garden who were born good but who had enough free will to distrust and disobey God-- which they did when tempted by Satan.

Remember that the crafty serpent in the Garden lied. Jesus described Satan this way: "for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) If Satan is the father of lies, then he was intimately involved in the Fall of humankind. He is also referred to as the “tempter” (Matthew 4:3, 1 Thes 3:5) and is clearly identified as the “dragon” and “ancient serpent” in Revelation 12:6-12 and 20:1-2: 7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Rev 12:6-12)

1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:1-2)

It is clear who Satan is.

The mumbo jumbo is concluding that Lucifer refers to the devil.

Point 1
Which source do you have which proves this view?

Point 2
Is the following source acceptable as a conservative view from an expert in Greek?

Quote
But aren’t the references to the individuals in Isa 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 as the morning star in modern translations confusing? And thus don’t modern translations undermine the deity of Christ? The reality is that in Isa 14:12 the primary or initial reference of ‘morning star’ is not to the devil but to the Babylonian king. The footnote in the NET Bible here says, “What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12–15? This whole section (vv. 4b–21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called ‘the man’ in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19–20, he possesses a physical body.” At the same time, Isa 14:12–15 seems to go beyond a description of a mortal king. Further, if Jesus in Luke 10:18 and John in Rev 9:1 had this passage in mind, then it is evident that there is a secondary meaning that relates to the devil himself. A double-fulfillment prophecy is thus probably in view.

Here’s the point: if the primary referent is to the Babylonian king (which the great majority of biblical scholars would affirm and as the evidence mentioned in the NET Bible footnote lists), then our understanding of the use of ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 makes sense. The morning star literally referred to Venus, but in ancient times it was used metaphorically of earthly kings. The note in the NET Bible at 2 Peter 1:19 is helpful along these lines:

The reference to the morning star constitutes a double entendre. First, the term was normally used to refer to Venus. But the author of course has a metaphorical meaning in mind, as is obvious from the place where the morning star is to rise— “in your hearts.” Most commentators see an allusion to Num 24:17 (“a star shall rise out of Jacob”) in Peter’s words. Early Christian exegesis saw in that passage a prophecy about Christ’s coming. Hence, in this verse Peter tells his audience to heed the OT scriptures which predict the return of Christ, then alludes to one of the passages that does this very thing, all the while running the theme of light on a parallel track. In addition, it may be significant that Peter’s choice of terms here is not the same as is found in the LXX. He has used a Hellenistic word that was sometimes used of emperors and deities, perhaps as a further polemic against the paganism of his day.

In other words, ‘morning star’ or lucifer in the Latin Vulgate literally referred to Venus, but metaphorically would refer to earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter thus may have chosen this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. Isaiah 14:12thus spoke of the Babylonian king as the morning star and thus predicted his fall. Jesus and John used this text to indicate that Satan would fall. It is only by turning lucifer into a proper name, as has been done by KJV advocates, that misunderstanding of the meaning of these texts could occur. The logic of the KJV position is as follows:

Lucifer is a proper name and refers exclusively to one who is inherently evil, the devil.

Thus, even if translated as ‘morning star’ in Isa 14.12, this still refers exclusively to the devil.

Consequently, for Jesus to be called ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1.19 is to call him the devil.

Is "Lucifer" the Devil in Isaiah 14:12? - The KJV Argument against Modern Translations

Point 3
Address my individual points. They aren't mumbo jumbo because you say so. You have to prove it.

 

[dreadnought]

I see this more to do with philosophy than theology. I haven't looked at the original language but in English, unless "perfect" is defined for it's immediate usage then perfection is an irrational concept, never achievable. God acknowledges the human condition and in this context we can please God or disappoint God.

Never achievable? I don't think we need to sin.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Perhaps it challenges some, but it is no paradox.

Let me try again to make it more obvious.

Adam was created sinless but was not perfect.
We sin but are perfect in Jesus' blood.

To be perfect requires sin.

Let me highlight this from scripture.

Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

Here we have Jesus the Son of God who is always sinless, but scripture says he was made perfect by his action. Obviously perfection has to be something besides being sinless. What this scripture is referring to is the completion of God's plan for redemption.

Perfection is more about fulfillment of God's plan than a state of being sinless. And so we are perfect even though we sin, this through Jesus' blood. This is how we learn of God's love and grace. Adam would never be perfect until he sinned, because perfection is a gift from God, not earned through a righteous life. Further, God said we became like him when we sinned.

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”


Of course all the churches that promote living a holy life for salvation will completely miss "my paradox".

Saved by Grace.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Never achievable? I don't think we need to sin.

Without sin, we don't need a perfecter, we don't need God. Man had to sin to become perfect. But, as Paul taught, we don't sin more to become more perfect.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

People should remember that on judgement day the sins of those with faith in Jesus as their Savior will not be charged against them. They will be forgotten.

So for an extreme view, why does it matter if we are "perfect"/sinless?

God does judge our hearts and one who cares not about following God's commands will not be rewarded to kindly. But, I contend being perfect is an attitude in one's heart to want and try to follow God's commands. In the end, perfect is more about fulfilling God's plan of witnessing to the whole world than about being sinless.

 

[sparow]

Never achievable? I don't think we need to sin.

In as far s there is a need the need is to not sin. There is an assumption in scripture that everyone needs the shedding of blood for the remission of sin; if it isn't Christ's blood then it is our own blood.

I am sure Jesus said if we deliberately sin we will not be forgiven; the idea here is if we sin to day intending to repent tomorrow, it wont work. The default for humans is sin, righteousness results from overcoming; overcoming is a continuing event; as the effort to resist sin increases so does the pressure of sin.

I was actually challenging your use of the word "perfect".

<<Jesus said:

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matt 5:48 RSV

However, I’m always hearing people say that it is impossible to be perfect. Keeping in mind that the Lord helps us, is it that hard to repent of our sin?>>

The word "perfect" does not have an absolute meaning; it can mean mature, ripe, finished and summit, but the user of the word defines it within limits, by the context and supporting prose.

Matt 5:48; the translators chose the word "perfect"; Matt 5:48 is the summation of the previous verses and Jesus defines what He is talking about there.

"Many people say it is impossible to be perfect". Here there is no supporting prose or context so the statement is meaningless; this is relying on a mystical meaning of a "word" instead of a meaning expressed by a person who uses words as tools.

 

[Tayla]

Jesus said:

“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matt 5:48 RSV

However, I’m always hearing people say that it is impossible to be perfect. Keeping in mind that the Lord helps us, is it that hard to repent of our sin?

Yes, we must be perfect. Jesus said this long before his crucifixion and resurrection, so we don't become perfect by his perfection merely assigned over to us, placed on us9.

Perfection is the goal. Matthew chapter 5 explains what we need to do to be perfect. Why is it a problem to live this out (and getting back up when we fall, hopefully not too far)?

 

[Tayla]

unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees

This is a pretty low standard; it should be easy to do better.

(Matthew 23:13) But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!​

 

[Tayla]

As I keep saying. We are perfect in the eyes of the important Person who matters. God sees us in Christ. He does not see us with our faults and shortcomings. That is all covered by the glory of Christ in us. So, we are perfect already!

A very Protestant idea with a big problem: When we finally arrive in our resurrected body in the new heavens and new earth, our soul will be perfect and holy. So how do we make the transition from being a totally depraved filthy sinner (but our sins covered, hidden from God's view) to truly perfect? Preferably while alive, with some additional clean up after death, and perhaps some more at the great white throne judgment after first receiving our resurrected body.

 

[Tayla]

Christ told us it is possible to be perfect. I'm not sure any Saint would have ever claimed to be so. The stories of the Saints that I know, none would have ever claimed to be perfect in this life.

If Jesus said it's possible, I believe it. Depends on how you define perfection. The only kind of perfection I know to be possible is to desire perfection and strive towards it, at least in the main issues.

 

[Tayla]

Just a quick unofficial reminder that the rules of a General Theology do not allow the promotion of sinless perfection. I'm not sure if he opinions here go to the point of sinless perfection, but I recommend keeping this rule in mind.

Jesus didn't command sinless perfection, just that we be perfect as God is perfect. (Matthew 5:48) The concept of sin doesn't apply to God; he isn't sinless, nor is he a being who has conquered sin (via sinless perfection). We are to be perfect in this same way as God is perfect. Therefore, the command for us to be perfect has nothing to do with not sinning and everything to do with conforming to the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29)

 

[Tayla]

Satan isnt a person, he is the description of the selfish drives in MAN, that moves him to struggle for possessions, power, pleasure so that life becomes easy.

Satan is a person, a living being, who resides in the spiritual realm. Our souls also reside in the spiritual realm and are plagued and influenced by this person, by Satan. His effect in the souls of humans is as you note, but the list of his influences is very long.

 

[Tayla]

To be perfect requires sin.
Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

Yikes! Jesus was made perfect yet was without sin. To be perfect does not require sin, even God is perfect and he has no sin. (Matthew 5:48)

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A very Protestant idea with a big problem: When we finally arrive in our resurrected body in the new heavens and new earth, our soul will be perfect and holy. So how do we make the transition from being a totally depraved filthy sinner (but our sins covered, hidden from God's view) to truly perfect? Preferably while alive, with some additional clean up after death, and perhaps some more at the great white throne judgment after first receiving our resurrected body.

From your remarks, it seems that you don't see yourself as God sees you. When the righteousness of Christ was bestowed on us, it was not an imperfect righteousness, because Jesus is not an imperfect Saviour. He is a complete Saviour. So that the righteousness that God has bestowed on us is that of Christ, who is absolutely perfect. We might see ourselves as imperfect, that is why we don't trust in our own righteousness. Actually, the word righteous means acceptable. When the New York police shoot a criminal, the shooting is evaluated to see if it righteous. That means, was the shooting of the criminal acceptable due to the circumstance in which it happened?

Before we received Christ, we were unacceptable to God. All we had was our own righteousness which was as filthy rags in the sight of God. If we trust in our own efforts to be holy, then we are not trusting Christ at all, we are trusting ourselves and our own righteousness; and this is still filthy rags before God.

So we have a choice, receive the righteousness of Christ through faith, or trust our own righteousness through our efforts to be holy. The former brings us into fellowship with God, the latter does not.

We have already received the title deed of full acceptability before God. We own it, even though we have still to take possession of it. Because we own it now, we can reckon ourselves as perfect before God, not because of our own frailties and shortcomings, but because of the complete, perfect righteousness of Christ which has been given to us by God handing us the title deed to it when we received Christ.

This is why the Writer to the Hebrews made the statement, "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The title deed that we have received concerning our perfection (the righteousness of Christ) is our evidence that we are perfect before God, even though we don't see it yet.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If Jesus said it's possible, I believe it. Depends on how you define perfection. The only kind of perfection I know to be possible is to desire perfection and strive towards it, at least in the main issues.

If that's what you are doing, you are trying to be holy in your own strength and therefore not trusting in the righteousness of Christ which has been given to you. What! Is the righteousness of Christ not perfect then? Is Jesus not a complete Saviour?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Satan is a person, a living being, who resides in the spiritual realm. Our souls also reside in the spiritual realm and are plagued and influenced by this person, by Satan. His effect in the souls of humans is as you note, but the list of his influences is very long.

I don't know about you, but I am a child of God and Satan can't come near me! When I resist him, he has to run away from me. He has no choice. My life is hidden from him, because God has hidden it in Christ.