With all your heart?

[Bible Highlighter]

These passages you mention Job and Luke are very interesting indeed. When Luke says Elisabeth and Zacharias were blameless, keeping the commandments, they also say that they kept the whole Mosaic Law, right?

Yes, and the Mosaic Law (the 613 laws as a whole or package deal) does not apply to Christians today.
Note: This does not mean the Moral Law has not carried over into the New Testament or New Covenant (i.e. things like: Do not murder, do not steal, etc.; But things like the Saturday Sabbath, the Passover, the dietary laws, etc. have not carried over). But the point here shows that men of God were able to keep God's commands, and the Old Covenant was a harder covenant to keep.

Since this was at the time of the Old Covenant. Would that be possible for any man, you think?

God is not respecter of persons. If they were able to do so, then clearly any man or woman would be capable of doing so. For it would not be fair of God to make only select men capable of obeying Him. Then the purpose of the judgment would not really be a fair one because others had an advantage in obeying that others were not capable of. Many would be punished for something they had no control over. If such were the case: It would be like a master who kicks his dog across the room for pooping on his carpets (despite the master knowing that the dog has an uncontrollable pooping problem because it is sick). But God is not like this dog owner.

What would the Bible call David? He sinned gravely, but would the Bible refer to him as blameless?

For I have kept the ways of the Lord,
And have not wickedly departed from my God.
For all His ordinances were before me,
And I did not put away His statutes from me.
I was also blameless with Him,
And I kept myself from my iniquity.
Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.
— Psalm 18:21-24

David said this before he committed his sins of adultery and murder of which he confessed in Psalms 51. So a believer can be blameless at a certain point in time, and later fall due to sin.

For the devil was said to be perfect in his ways until the day iniquity was found in him.

“Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15).

So being perfect at one point in time, does not mean one cannot make the free will decision to fall and or sin and then become imperfect.

My understanding is that they were blameless, not only because they kept the Law, but because they went to God for forgiveness when they failed to keep it. If I'm wrong, I will be happy for you to show me that.

Without God's grace, we cannot obey. All must have grace first before we can obey. But I believe the passage in Luke in what it plainly says. There is no real reason to add to it in what it says.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Some have suggested that we keep the 1st greatest commandment imperfectly.
But is that really keeping God's 1st greatest commandment?
Did Jesus tell us to keep His commandments imperfectly?
What does keeping God's commandments imperfectly look like?
Can people have different interpretations on what keeping God's commands imperfectly is?
Some may be in full blown disobedience of God's commands, and they think that keeping His commands once a week is sufficient to fulfill in keeping God's commands imperfectly.
That is the problem in saying we keep God's commands imperfectly.
The level of disobedience to that command differs between the individual and it does not become about just fully obeying and immersing yourself in God's commands.
Can a person be faithful to their wife imperfectly?
This suggests some level of unfaithfulness (Which is wrong).
We either are obeying God's commands, or we are not obeying God's commands.
While I am sure many may struggle with obeying God's commands, we cannot have the mindset that we are saved if we find that we are in the zone of imperfection or disobedience to God. Believers must confess and forsake their sins in order to have mercy (Proverbs 28:13).

While I believe God can save a person who keeps the 1st greatest commandment imperfectly (from God's perspective), I do not think that they should have the mindset that they can only keep His laws imperfectly because men have different views on what imperfection is. They may think they are obeying God when they are actually disobeying Him. Only God can truly determine what keeping His commands imperfectly is. We cannot determine this. We have to seek to obey God's first greatest commandment and do so.... period. For if a person put a gun to your head and to your family's heads, and they told you to keep God's 1st commandment, would you not make more of an effort in striving to keep it?

Most love to throw up 1 John 1:8 as an excuse to sin or that we all sin. But if we are to read 1 John 1:8 with the OSAS interpretation, this would be saying that we are sinning 24/7. Is that what folks are saying?

Note: Please keep in mind that my post is referring to overcoming mortal sin and not non-mortal sin. Believers must overcome mortal sin in order to have eternal life. For examples of non-mortal sins in the Bible: See the first half of Matthew 5:22 and contrast it with the mortal sin at the end of Matthew 5:22. Also check out 1 John 5:17, and 1 Peter 3:21.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe your correct. Can you show me where stumble is used in the way you are meaning? Thanks.

Sorry my youversion app keeps crashing I’ll reply ASAP.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you have Bible verses for that, that God forecauses acts of evil?

"7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45 (The sense of this use of "evil" is not actually sinfulness, though. It is "calamity", as some versions put it...)

There are many other verses describing the same thing --not that God is the AUTHOR of evil, but the original cause of everything --the motivation, the external causes, the genetics etc etc etc-- that result in evil. You likely know these passages too, though you may not have thought of them in this context. He makes it rain on the just and the unjust alike, whom he loves he chastens, and even in our Christian walk we see him using even our disobedience to produce a heart that looks to him for our righteousness. All this is in his plan, and is his doing as First Cause. Again, I must emphasize this disclaimer --God is NOT the author of evil. But no thing can happen but by his decree, as First Cause.

Also, logic. (By extrapolation of the Law of Causality, Science says, rather poetically, that "The seeds of everything we see now were sown in the Big Bang". Thus they are saying the Big Bang was of such specificity as to cause what we have now to come to be.) Whether we want to say God caused in the beginning, or intervened from time to time (and I think, to God, it makes no difference), God has caused everything --precisely everything-- that has come to pass and will come to pass. On top of that, we have the self-contradiction of saying that chance can cause anything --if God did not cause it, the only thing left is chance, and chance cannot determine anything.

(It changes nothing to say that we or other agents cause anything --certainly we do, but we are caused causers, caused by God. There can be only one First Cause; there are no small first causes running about the planet.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

What about Peter? Don't you think he loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength? And yet he failed the test, denied knowing Christ thrice.

No. I don't think anybody but Christ has loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually I think Jesus means for us to obey it, that we have the ability to do so through God's grace.

The purpose for the Law to reveal sin, I believe is mainly for the unsaved/unregenerated. They need to know they are sinners, so they repent and get born again (I think that is the correct understanding of Romans 7). Once being born of God, we are convicted by the Holy Spirit when we sin.

I suppose it is part of your kind nature to say "it is mainly for the unsaved", and perhaps you are right. But if it is only "mainly" for them, it is also for the regenerated.

We are meant to do and be only what God has in mind and for what he uses us. I suppose you intend a meaning closer to "we must obey" and I agree with you, we must. But we never completely attain this one (not at all to imply that we actually attain any of them completely, insofar as submission is a part of the definition of true obedience --(as opposed to mere compliance).) So all I can conclude is it is our responsibility to head that direction, and God help us --thank God for his grace and patience.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry my youversion app keeps crashing I’ll reply ASAP.

Try Tecarta or Olive Tree, brother. The Ipad versions are really nice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well some people are implying that if we stumble in sin it is still a result of a lack of love for God. So I made this point to ask if I accidentally hit my wife with a baseball does that mean that I loved her less at that moment? Some are also implying that stumbling in sin is the result of our lust to rebel against God so I would also use this illustration to ask did I want to rebel against my wife by accidentally hitting her with the ball?

The parallel simply doesn't work. It has nothing to do with bad motivation --sin does. As in secular law, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", so with God; ignorance of our sin does not render it not sin, and it is still the result of a heart at enmity with God, or the "old man" still present with this flesh.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No. I don't think anybody but Christ has loved God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.

Then disobedience to the 1st greatest commandment is your position then if you believe that nobody but Christ can obey it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I should not have to explain to you simple words like “for” and “keep.”
We live in a digital age, and there is no excuse not to know basic words today. You can Google the definitions of these words and their common uses.



From your perspective, I can imagine that you are not in favor of sin. But I believe that God's Word tells us that we can obey God's commands like the 1st greatest commandment. You don't believe that is possible, and thus as a result, you are in favor of disobeying this command without any real warrant given in Scripture. Thus, your “arguing for sin” because you are arguing that you cannot keep God's commands like the first greatest commandment. But again, from your perspective or belief (Which is not what the Bible teaches), you believe that no person is capable of obeying God's commands like the 1st greatest commandments and so they do their best to keep it, but they really don't keep it. Therein lies the problem. If your belief is remotely even biblical here, you would share the words of Jesus and or the words of His followers saying it is impossible for men of God to keep God's commands. Now, before you act like you are in favor of obedience to God's commands, just remember, you pushed the OSAS interpretation of 1 John 1:8 on me several times already.




See? You got it, and I did not have to show you a dictionary on what the word “keep” means.
Anyways, the problem is that Jesus teaches that we are to keep the 1st greatest commandment. Yet, you say it is impossible (because you say we can only obey it imperfectly - which is not really obeying it). Jesus says with men things are impossibe, but with God all things are possible. Again, share with me the verses or passages that you believe teaches that God gave us commands specifically to show that we cannot keep them. If you cannot, then you are just following a popular man made belief that you want to be true.



If I told you that I keep faithful to working out, that means that I am holding on to something. If Joe said “I keep God's commands,” that means he is obeying God's commands. It really is not all that complicated to figure out, brother. Okay. So by what you said here, you are saying that we do need to obey the 1st greatest commandment as a part of salvation? Yes, or no? You really were not all that clear here. I want a definite yes or no answer on this one.



Yes, I am saying we “must” obey, but it does not appear that you are for obedience as a part of salvation.



So why not perfectly? Does God fail to do things perfectly?
Note: I am talking here in relation to keeping those commands that deal with mortal sin only (and I am not referring to commands that deal with non-mortal sin). I say this because we are not allowed to talk about Sinless Perfection in this section of the forums.



Which can mean many things to many people. Some people may think that obeying or keeping God's commands imperfectly as obeying them only once a week, or once a month, or whatever they wish it to mean. A person can deceive themselves that they are obeying God's commands when in reality they really are not. What do you mean by keeping God's commands imperfectly? Can you give us Scriptural examples?



So you are of the OSAS belief that 1 John 1:8 that says if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves? Does this mean that you believe that the saint is sinning 24/7? Does this mean we sin every hour or every month or every day? What does it mean? In what way is a person sinning according to 1 John 1:8? If so, that sounds like disobedience to me. 1 John 1:8 sounds like a present moment declaration to me. So if you quoted this to a person, you are trying to tell them that he sins, and we all sin 24/7. If this is not the case, then please explain.

Wow. I will have to get to work and try to deal with all this later. Suffice for now to say you have a strange way of taking what I try to carefully explain and use any interpretation of it you can, against me. You say, for example I
'promote'(?) OSAS. Only insofar as its barest meaning and not its common use. What we are is what we do --if we continue in sin we are not "OnceSaved", so not "AlwaysSaved". Yet I never, as far as I remember, in this thread even mentioned OSAS. So why bring it up? I do not teach it.

Please be patient with me --I mean you no antagonism, but not only do I have to be extra careful with my words with you, lest you use them to mean something I do not, but when you think you have trapped me with my words (or at least with what you think I meant by them) I have to unravel the web you knit just to discuss terminology with you, nevermind doctrine. Very frustrating, to say the least.

 

[Hammster]

Ok I have a request. Give me a better example of stumbling in sin that you think is more fitting and keep in mind that in order for it to be considered a stumble it has to be involuntary. No one stumbles intentionally. No matter what involuntary sin you give it still will not be the result of a lack of love or a rebellious attitude towards God.

I don’t have an example. I believe that every sin is deliberate. We may try to justify it some sense, or it may even be unknown to us. But the sin comes out because it’s in us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45 (The sense of this use of "evil" is not actually sinfulness, though. It is "calamity", as some versions put it...)

There are many other verses describing the same thing --not that God is the AUTHOR of evil, but the original cause of everything --the motivation, the external causes, the genetics etc etc etc-- that result in evil. You likely know these passages too, though you may not have thought of them in this context. He makes it rain on the just and the unjust alike, whom he loves he chastens, and even in our Christian walk we see him using even our disobedience to produce a heart that looks to him for our righteousness. All this is in his plan, and is his doing as First Cause. Again, I must emphasize this disclaimer --God is NOT the author of evil. But no thing can happen but by his decree, as First Cause.

Also, logic. (By extrapolation of the Law of Causality, Science says, rather poetically, that "The seeds of everything we see now were sown in the Big Bang". Thus they are saying the Big Bang was of such specificity as to cause what we have now to come to be.) Whether we want to say God caused in the beginning, or intervened from time to time (and I think, to God, it makes no difference), God has caused everything --precisely everything-- that has come to pass and will come to pass. On top of that, we have the self-contradiction of saying that chance can cause anything --if God did not cause it, the only thing left is chance, and chance cannot determine anything.

(It changes nothing to say that we or other agents cause anything --certainly we do, but we are caused causers, caused by God. There can be only one First Cause; there are no small first causes running about the planet.)

I believe God indirectly created evil, and He did not directly create it. I believe it is more appropriate to say that the word “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 is in reference to calamity and not the forces of darkness and sin because the contrast is the word “peace.” It is evil from the perspective of men (i.e. God's judgment) vs. peace. God is light, and in Him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). So for God to create evil directly would be a contradiction. Perhaps we are in agreement, and we are just using different wording, but I prefer to clarify that the word “evil” is speaking more about “calamity” and not the forces of darkness and sin. For what is the opposite of peace?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wow. I will have to get to work and try to deal with all this later. Suffice for now to say you have a strange way of taking what I try to carefully explain and use any interpretation of it you can, against me. You say, for example I
'promote'(?) OSAS. Only insofar as its barest meaning and not its common use. What we are is what we do --if we continue in sin we are not "OnceSaved", so not "AlwaysSaved". Yet I never, as far as I remember, in this thread even mentioned OSAS. So why bring it up? I do not teach it.

Calvinists hold to POTS (Perseverance of the Saints). This is a form of OSAS (or Once Saved Always Saved). That if one is Elect, they cannot become un-Elect or unsaved. Granted, there are different shades of Calvinism. I do realize that. So as a test to figure out what you believe, here is a...

Pop Quiz:

Question #1. Was King David saved while he committed his sins of adultery and murder?
Yes, or no?

Question #2. If a believer generally lived a holy life after being saved by God's grace, and they looked at a woman in lust, and then they got hit by a bus and died instantly, are they still saved? Yes, or no?

Granted, I believe God would give believers many chances to repent, but God is sovereign and He does know what is in the heart of men and what they will do. For if the following scenario above were to happen, I don't believe they would be saved.

Please be patient with me --I mean you no antagonism, but not only do I have to be extra careful with my words with you, lest you use them to mean something I do not, but when you think you have trapped me with my words (or at least with what you think I meant by them) I have to unravel the web you knit just to discuss terminology with you, nevermind doctrine. Very frustrating, to say the least.

If one is imperfectly faithful to their wife does this not imply unfaithfulness in some way?
So then why is it not the same with keeping or obeying God's 1st greatest commandment?
If we are to say we imperfectly keep or obey God's 1st greatest commandment, then are we not really saying that we can disobey His greatest command just a little because none of us our perfect?
Before you used 1 John 1:8 in a similar way OSAS Proponents use this verse. They are suggesting that that 1 John 1:8 is saying that we always are in some kind of sin, and so if somebody claims to be living righteously currently, they are lying. This then suggests that a believer is sinning 24/7 if such were the case. So then if that is the case, then you can forget about any level of keeping the 1st greatest commandment.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The parallel simply doesn't work. It has nothing to do with bad motivation --sin does. As in secular law, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", so with God; ignorance of our sin does not render it not sin, and it is still the result of a heart at enmity with God, or the "old man" still present with this flesh.

Involuntary sin has nothing to do with bad motivation.

 

[Hammster]

Involuntary sin has nothing to do with bad motivation.

Will there be involuntary sin in Heaven?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Involuntary sin has nothing to do with bad motivation.

I agree. There is also a sin done in ignorance, too.

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:” (Leviticus 4:2).

“And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;” (Leviticus 4:3).

“And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;” (Leviticus 4:27).


This is different than willful sin (of which I am sure you would agree).

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26).

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don’t have an example. I believe that every sin is deliberate. We may try to justify it some sense, or it may even be unknown to us. But the sin comes out because it’s in us.

The reason I used this example is because it happened to me when I smashed my finger with a sledgehammer so hard that the end split open and immediately before a single thought when they my head I yelled the “sh**” word. I don’t feel that my love for God had decreased at that moment nor was my intention to rebel against God. I was simply overcome by the intense pain. Of course immediately afterward I ask the Lord to forgive me because it was still a sin but not from a result of lack of love or a rebellious attitude.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Will there be involuntary sin in Heaven?

No

 

[zoidar]

David said this before he committed his sins of adultery and murder of which he confessed in Psalms 51. So a believer can be blameless at a certain point in time, and later fall due to sin.

I agree with you that a believer can be blameless at a certain point of time, but always, I doubt it. Are we sure the first numbered psalms were written before the "later" ones? Anyhow, didn't David sin in other ways, it was not only the Bathsheba incident, was it?

For the devil was said to be perfect in his ways until the day iniquity was found in him.

“Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15).

So being perfect at one point in time, does not mean one cannot make the free will decision to fall and or sin and then become imperfect.

I agree to that. But what does it take? Only one sin? If so I lost my salvation the first week I was saved, because I disobeyed God, shamefully I might add.

Without God's grace, we cannot obey. All must have grace first before we can obey. But I believe the passage in Luke in what it plainly says. There is no real reason to add to it in what it says.

There have been so many times I have read scripture and seen something, to at a later time find something I've missed that changes the whole meaning of the passage. So I don't just read what "it's says", but look for the deeper meaning, the purpose of each text. To be without blame or be righteous can mean different things. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm not convinced.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree. There is also a sin done in ignorance, too.

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:” (Leviticus 4:2).

“And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;” (Leviticus 4:3).

“And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;” (Leviticus 4:27).


This is different than willful sin (of which I am sure you would agree).

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26).

Yes and Leviticus shows that unintentional sin and ignorance of sin still needs atonement which indicates that it is still considered transgression against God.