Hank
"My friends; the last several months this site has been crowded with a teaching that man can reach a place where he/she ceases to sin, after a second work of grace in a believers life."

I noted this to you one other before Hank that with salvation a person is at a place where they no longer commit willful sins. It is not after a second work of grace. Try to get that clear in your mind if possible as your post is misleading the way it is. And if you don't mind please make the change on the your other post.

The weakest Christian has full victory over committing willful sin. The idea that we can willfully sin and be a Christian is very much in error.

If you look at Menno Simons teaching you will see that the sins he is talking about are not willful sins as lying, stealing, drunkness, fornication, lustful thoughts in your heart, hatred toward your fellowman, and the such like. He is talking about mistakes, errors, faults, lacks in grace, and [any small] motion of pride or impatiences which clearly are not sins.

Then if you want to maintain that you are a sinner (pressent tense) and saved by grace at the same time I suggest you provide an explaination for the following scriptures.

John tells us that we wrote that they "sin not" (1Joh 2:1) and further noted in a number of other places in his letter that "whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" (1Joh 3:6), "he that committeth sin is of the devil" (1Joh 3:8), "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1Joh 3:9), and "we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not" (1Joh 5:18).

Further we have Jesus telling us "whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (Joh 8:34) and "no man can serve two masters" (Mat 6:24), Paul told Timothy "them that sin rebuke before all" (1Tim 5:20), and Peter talked about those "that cannot cease from sin" but he called them "cursed children" (2Pet 2:14).

So when we compare the above scriptures this idea that Christians sin in word thought and deed daily we see that clearly this is not the case.

This Mistakes-are-sin is the brother of Sin-you-must and they are both blind guides that will lead you into the ditch of bondage.

Let us not call those errors, faults, mistakes, and lacks sin that are not sin. Let us hold with the Word of God that there is no place for sin in a Christians life what so ever. Let us renounce these Mistakes-are-sin and Sin-you-must teachings and stop reckoning ourselves alive unto sin but "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin" (Rom 6:11).

Let so never be found a holy-figher and one that stands up from sin in a Christian. But let us be holy-lovers and haters of sin. If we have not found that experience for ourself lets [not] bring the Bible experience of salvation down to the level of our own low living but lets look to God to give us grace to have the victory over every temptation.

Let us cast off the opinions of man and believe what God says. God has promised us victory over every temptation. Hank do you believe that?

What about the four following scriptures? What will you do with them. Will you maintain that there are temptations that God is not faith in? that he can't keep you? and his promise to make a way of escape is not true?

1Cor 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
2The 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
2Pet 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Qwerty; I really do not have interest in debating Menno Simons or "a second work of grace" with you. You will understand the Bible and Bible teachers the way you wish, and I will do the same. For me, MS writings came along in a critical time and he answered certain Biblical understanding for me; specifically on faith and grace, the church, and how to respond to zealous legalism. Along with this he taught of the (sinful) fallibility of man against a holy and righteous God. I think you should re-think your accusations of "easy believism and sin-you-must" (your words), just because some have a different opinion of the make-up of man then you do.

No one here has ever said that any sin is acceptable for a believer, rather, we say with Paul, "Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Certainly not!" Rom. 6. And of course, I believe the Bible for what it says.

MS preached against sin as any preacher ought to; but his over all view was that man is a sinner. MS took such a position because he understood the place of fallible man, as opposed to a holy and righteous God.

You know Qwerty, the Jews in order to not risk breaking the law would build a fence around the law with further rules. Some even today, in order to not risk using God's name in vain, do not write the name "God" but write only "G". You seem to be doing the same. H folks would say, since the scriptures speak against drunkenness, we will forbid all alcohol drinks in case one misuses such drinks. That is building a fence with additional rules. You promote a similar fence with your statement that if we do not make a distinction between sins, then believers will be prone to take liberties that are against scripture. My friend, sin is sin, and God is looking for such that trust in Him alone with an honest heart of faith, that follow after Him and live for Him. And such faith and life is best proved without Jewish type fences.

Qwerty, with due respect, my understanding of your teaching of a second work of grace that makes a person sinless, creates an exalted position/mindset in believers, no different than the position Holdemans take, that they (CGCM) are the "pinnacle of God's kingdom of grace on earth". BD&P, page 169.

Below is another quote from a letter of MS, written in 1558, towards the end of his life addressing believers in Amsterdam, who were dying of some sort pestilence or plague: page 1057, Complete Works. Quote:

"... I have no doubt that my beloved children are sealed in God with a true conscience; that He is your Father, and you are His children, that Christ is your Lord, and you are His servants...

Therefore we ought not to dread death so. It (death) is but to cease from sin and we enter a better life. Nor should we sorrow... "

Hank
"Qwerty; I really do not have interest in debating Menno Simons or "a second work of grace" with you."

Nor do I Hank. I have no interest in debate at all. Remember I am the one that has not wanted to discuss "a second work of grace" and as I can see it was for a good reason.

"I think you should re-think your accusations of "easy believism and sin-you-must" (your words), just because some have a different opinion of the make-up of man then you do."

I think the charges are fair. If people teach that you don't have to have godly sorrow, repentance, and turning from sin and say all you need to do is "believe" with no more change that you get from a new years resolution -- I call that easy believism. If people teach that you must sin and you can't help but sin as long as you are in this vile body I will call that "sin-you-must" and I feel like it is very fairly named.

Here are how I phrase the teachings in my paper become more spiritual.

Sin-you-must – teaches you will continue to sin after be saved – this false teaching makes people easy prey to temptations;
Easy-Believism – teaches that godly sorrow, repentance, and obedience to Christ are not necessary but all you must do is believe – this false teaching will have people that are only under conviction thinking they are saved;

I have lately added to the list of false teachings Mistakes-are-sin teaching. Here is with I consider a fair explanation of the Mistakes-are-sins teaching.

Mistakes-are-sin – teaches that faults, errors, mistakes in opinion and action, and any actions that come short of the perfect live of Christ is sin – this false teaching leads the Christian to confess they are a sinner and opens them up to commit not only mistakes but willful transgressions of the known law of God with the excuse that we are all sinners.

Those that promote a sin-you-must-sin-you-can't-help-it gospel when the Bible says "whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" (1Joh 3:6), "he that committeth sin is of the devil" (1Joh 3:8), "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1Joh 3:9), and "we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not" (1Joh 5:18) are going to have to answer to why they are teaching a sinning gospel.

"No one here has ever said that any sin is acceptable for a believer, rather, we say with Paul, "Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Certainly not!""

It is one thing for a person to say that but when they turn around and out of the out side of there mouth we are all sinners and we can't help but sin they negate what they said about sin being not acceptable.

"You seem to be doing the same. H folks would say, since the scriptures speak against drunkenness, we will forbid all alcohol drinks in case one misuses such drinks."

I don't hold to the rule making system. Jesus came drinking and if you want to be a deacon you need to be not given too much wine. Personally I don't drink and it would be a sin for me but I don't look down nor condemn others that drink. I think that what we need to do is bring people to a level of spirituality that will create a level of carefulness where all those things will take care of themselves.

"You promote a similar fence with your statement that if we do not make a distinction between sins, then believers will be prone to take liberties that are against scripture."

That is not my argument at all Hank. I am saying that the Bible has a definition of sin. And that the Bible condemns sin and says we are to rebuke before all those that sin. If mistakes, faults, lacks, and errors are sin we would be rebuking each other all day. You definition of sin that includes mistakes, faults, lacks, and errors to be sins doesn't fit in with the Bible. That is my argument. I am not suggest we make a set of rules I am suggest we divide the Word of God correctly and what the Word calls sin call it sin and what the Word doesn't call sin we don't call it sin.

"My friend, sin is sin, and God is looking for such that trust in Him alone with an honest heart of faith, that follow after Him and live for Him."

That is what I believe also. I believe sin is sin. But what I am saying Hank is the Bible doesn't call mistakes sin and that you seem to. I have posted a number of questions a number of times with scriptural support and it is strange that you don't answer them. If you are going to teach that mistakes are sin then when some one brings up scriptures that seem to contradict the position you hold you need to answer those.

"Qwerty, with due respect, my understanding of your teaching of a second work of grace that makes a person sinless, creates an exalted position/mindset in believers, no different than the position Holdemans take, that they (CGCM) are the "pinnacle of God's kingdom of grace on earth"."

I have told you twice I don't believe that and now for the third time I will tell you again. I believe that the standard of a Christian is to live a sin free live by the grace of God. This "second word of grace" that you keep on bring up is not required to life a sin free life -- it is salvation that gives the believer the victory over all sin.

With all due respect I think the next time that you post that I teach that a "second work of grace" is what makes you sinless I will have no other choose that to conclude that you are being disingenuous as I have clearly denied that I hold that position three times now.

"Below is another quote from a letter of MS, written in 1558, towards the end of his life addressing believers in Amsterdam, who were dying of some sort pestilence or plague:"

I have a copy of MS Works and I am aware that he teaches that mistakes, errors, lacks, faults are sins, I accept that. How ever as you know the Word is the end of line for the believer. MS taught some things that were not true including the heavenly flesh teaching. So while I think it is fine to point out what different holy man of God taught that doesn't make it right. We will always have to take all that we believe and line it up with the Word.

I have posted clear scriptural examples of why faults, mistakes, lacks, errors under the new covenant can't be called sins. I have posted scriptures that clearly state that God is faithful and he will make away of escape for every temptation. Hank what I am wondering is why don't you respond to those questions and objects.

It's one thing to teach that false are sins and we have to sin as long as we are in this vile body, but when someone points out to you that they feel your teaching is wrong don't you think it would be good to answer those objects.

Christian love and prayers,

Qwerty.

QWERTY,
I don't hold to the rule making system. Jesus came drinking and if you want to be a deacon you need to be not given too much wine. Personally I don't drink and it would be a sin for me but I don't look down nor condemn others that drink.

Finally! You are saying what we have been trying to articulate.

Sin if you must. You call drinking an adult beverage a personal sin, however you don't hold other people to your personal standard with adult beverages.

Qwerty;

1. I believe that God does make a way of escape for every temptation common to man; however truth is; that man does not always take that way. God is faithful, but man is fallible. It is only Christ that has lived perfectly without sin, and man will go to his grave needing the Savior as much as the day he/she placed their trust in Christ... except perhaps for you, since you claim to no longer be a sinner.

2. No, I do not answer every question and I do not have all the answers either. Nor do I believe that everything I hold to is necessarily exactly correct... over others' inspiration. I cannot and will not place myself as an encyclopedia of all knowledge of God, because I do not have it. I know this, as much as my life is free of sin, it will not get me to heaven. My righteousness or "right-living" just does not cut it. My trust is in Christ Jesus, my Lord.

And further, I do not feel the need to line up with your forceful interpretation either. I really do not know who you are; you could be an unbeliever who is a veracious reader and likes to play around. If I respond further to you, it will be very little. If you want, you can email me.

Mark
"Sin if you must. You call drinking an adult beverage a personal sin, however you don't hold other people to your personal standard with adult beverages."

Well you would have to keep in mind I have been though treatment twice and we have a history of addiction in our family tree. When I would start drinking I would always drink too much and them I would be very forward, dysfunctional and sinful.

I feel very clear the Lord has warned me not to drink so I would have to say for me to start drinking would be a sin. While I hold that Jesus drank "came drinking" and that one of the requirements for a deacons was "not given to much wine" I personally think that people shouldn't drink for a number of reasons. 1) If you never drink you will never have a drinking problem; 2) I read somewhere that 1 in 7 social drinkers end up having a problem; 3) I think it is a bad use of God’s money we have stewardship over; and 4) I think that it is a bad example and the Bible says to abstain for all appearances of evil.

I feel that if we produce a set of rules that dictate how people dress, where they can or can't go, and what can or can't do that we can have a group of rule keepers that have a form on the outside but may not have the spiritual goods in there soul and they could end up trusting in the outward form and be lost.

Then there is the other side of the position. If you allow people to find there own standard of dress and conduct there will always be someone that feels clear before the Lord to take one step closer to the world and will get hurt spiritually.

Then there will be social drinkers that end up with a drinking problem, there will be daters that end up in petting sins and worse, and there will be those that fall into adultery. Rules can protect people from these problems. If you have standard of no drinking then no one will ever have a drinking problem, if you teach no courtship and there will be no petting sins, if there is rules so that no brothers and sisters are every alone in a car or home or anywhere and there will be less change of people falling into immorality. We all know what is going on in Protestantism where all there things are rampant.

Both systems have faults. Movements with a strict set of rules tend to look down on others, their ministers tend to be overbearing and use spiritual abuse in enforcing the rules, and they can end up with an outward from of godliness that looks good but inside they can be full of dead mans bones.

So have been involved with churches from both ends of the spectrum and I have to say I don’t know what is best. I am just very thankful that I am not a minister and will not have to answer for a congregation of souls.

Hank
"I believe that God does make a way of escape for every temptation common to man; however truth is; that man does not always take that way. God is faithful, but man is fallible."

Ok if you accept that the Bible teaches that then you must hold that it is possible to experience delieverance from every temptation. Just because this may not be your experience or the experience of those you assocate we don't want to bring the Bible standard down to the level we are living on.

"It is only Christ that has lived perfectly without sin, and man will go to his grave needing the Savior as much as the day he/she placed their trust in Christ..."

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory, and that means all.

"except perhaps for you, since you claim to no longer be a sinner."

As I have noted to you before, I hold that we need the grace of God each moment of the day. With out his power and grace we would quickly fall into sin. I hold as the scriptures teach that a branch can't bear fruit of itself but must abide in Christ the vine (Joh 15:4,5).

John 15:4,5 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

"And further, I do not feel the need to line up with your forceful interpretation either."

I don't feel like you or anyone needs to either Hank. I present my views and people can take them or leave them.

Christian love and prayers,

Qwerty.

Qwerty


"I have posted clear scriptural examples of why faults, mistakes, lacks, errors under the new covenant can't be called sins. I have posted scriptures that clearly state that God is faithful and he will make away of escape for every temptation. Hank what I am wondering is why don't you respond to those questions and objects


What do you do with these "faults, mistakes, lacks, errors under the new covenant" you have done,when you become aware of them? None of us live perfectly(with no blemishs) If they are unknow to you, doesn't the blood of Christ cover them?
I don't know how to look at King David. he looked at that Bethseba, got in bed with her, got her pegant, got her hudy home, hoping he would sleep with his wife and think the child was his, when this failed, David had him killed. but it appears God didn't hold him acountable till the profit told him he "thou art the man". David repents and writes in PS. 51 "against ye only have I sin and done this wrong" I would think he should have confessed to Bethsaba, her huband's family and others, but WHAT? and God himself states David is a man after His own heart.

sandhill
"What do you do with these "faults, mistakes, lacks, errors under the new covenant" you have done,when you become aware of them?"

I go to the Lord and ask him to forgive me. I ask him to help me not to repeat them. If I have comitted them against any one I ask them to forgive me also.

"None of us live perfectly(with no blemishs) If they are unknow to you, doesn't the blood of Christ cover them?"

Yes I don't believe that God will hold mistakes against us if we don't know about them.

"I don't know how to look at King David. he looked at that Bethseba, got in bed with her, got her pegant, got her hudy home, hoping he would sleep with his wife and think the child was his, when this failed, David had him killed. but it appears God didn't hold him acountable till the profit told him he "thou art the man"."

While this was a fault and a lack it was certianly a sin. When I am refering to faults, mistakes, lacks, and errors I am not talking about willful sins. I am talking about forgetting an appointment, faulty accusing some one of doing some thing they didn't do, by mistakes insulting some one, and the such like. Things that are part of humanity but are not willful and certianly not sins under the new covenant.

"David repents and writes in PS. 51 "against ye only have I sin and done this wrong" I would think he should have confessed to Bethsaba, her huband's family and others,"

Yes he sinned against Bethsaba and her husband and her family and against all Israel. I am not sure what he mean by that statement.

"but WHAT? and God himself states David is a man after His own heart."

Certianly not in this action.

Qwerty,
I am just very thankful that I am not a minister and will not have to answer for a congregation of souls.

None of of the ministers have to answer for a congregation of souls. Every person will answer for their own life. The Bible is very clear on this subject. Each minister will have to give account for what he taught but not for the souls of another. That is a false teaching. If a person blindly follows a "minister" they cannot blame the minister for the false teaching either...they will have no excuse, they have the Holy Spirit.

Mark
"None of of the ministers have to answer for a congregation of souls. Every person will answer for their own life. The Bible is very clear on this subject. Each minister will have to give account for what he taught but not for the souls of another. That is a false teaching. If a person blindly follows a "minister" they cannot blame the minister for the false teaching either...they will have no excuse, they have the Holy Spirit."

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I proably didn't state it very clearly. What I meant by "have to answer for a congregation of souls" is that the minister will have to answer for what to taught each soul and how each sould did under the minsters watch.

Jer 23:1,2 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

Ezek 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Jam 3:1 ASV: Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.

Qwerty,
What I meant by "have to answer for a congregation of souls" is that the minister will have to answer for what to taught each soul and how each sould did under the minsters watch.

You are half right. They do not have to answer "how each soul did under their watch.

Mark
"They do not have to answer "how each soul did under their watch.""

In the context of Ezek 33:6 the watchmen (ministers) will be judged how well each soul does to the degree that it was the ministers faulty they didn't do well. And I am not backpeddling, this is what I meant at the beginning when I first posted this. If the watchman sees things coming toward a persons life in the congregation and he doesn't warn them and that person is lost because of that, that persons spiritual blood will be required of the watchman. Hence James warns us that teachers will receive heavier judgment.

I believe in some cases a minister could be lost over the neglect of his duties that God gives him.

Ezek 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Jam 3:1 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.

qwerty you are s****** get off here with your holier than thou Attitude

QWERTY,

Wow, I want to thank you in advance for letting me off the hook personally and you being willing to take it.

Since you are my and other forum readers "teacher", will you promise me you'll give a good word as to the condition of my soul?

The main reason qwerty had to leave the streets and start attending church is because the street people quit listening to him!!

Mark
"Wow, I want to thank you in advance for letting me off the hook personally and you being willing to take it."

I do believe those scriptures I quote refer to ministers but to some degree they apply to every one. But that doesn't mean that the others won't be judged also. So if a overseer of a congregation fails to warn the sheep and allows the wolf to come in and spiritually kill the sheep he will be judged but that doesn't mean those that fell prey to the wolf will not be judged also.