|
|
|
- Preaching the Living WORD through
the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4;:2 - |
|
|
REBUTTAL TO THE
WESLEYAN VIEW 3/20/13 Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert C. Rebuttal to the Wesleyan
View 1. Paul
Never Attained Perfection (Php 3:12-16) a) One of the
strongest arguments against sinless perfection is the writings and life of
the apostle Paul. If there was ever going to be a believer who could have
attained sinless perfection, it would have been the apostle Paul. b) In Php 3:12-15 Paul categorically denied
that he had arrived at sinless perfection approximately some thirty years
(A.D. 60-61, approx. 5-6yrs before his death) after he came to Christ. c) Chapter three begins with a warning
against false teachers (“dogs”) who preached a “false circumcision” and
“confidence in the flesh” in regard to salvation (Php 3:1-9) and
sanctification (Php 3:10-16). d) In Php 3:10-11, Paul desired to “know” (ginōskō
- sometimes experiential knowledge) Christ in a deeper way beyond
salvation. He desired to know Christ’s resurrection power in victorious
living and fellowship with Christ in experiencing similar sufferings. Paul
also desired to share Christ’s glory at the resurrection. e) In Php 3:12, Paul confessed that he had
not “obtained” (lambanō - receive, different from katantaō
“attain) in vs. 10) this full experience. Or in other words of his, he
had not “already become perfect” (perfect tense of teleioō). Teleioō
can mean complete, full, maturity, or perfection. In vs. 11 it would
refer to “perfection” in the Christian life at a particular point with
continuous effects. In other words, Paul had not reached sinless perfection
(which the false teacher may have been promoting). To emphasize his point, he
used the word “already” (nun) two times, meaning these things have not
happened already or completely in this life. f) For further emphasis, he states that he
had not “laid hold of” (perfect tense of katalambano - emphatic of
lambanō - tograsp, seize, or attain) sinless perfection in a full
and complete way (Php 3:13a). At this point, instead of injecting that
perfection was possible for believers, he revealed what a believer’s present
attitude should be. He continually forgot (present tense of epilantanomai
- forget, disregard) his failures at perfection and continually reached (present
tense of epekteinō - stretch forward) for it in principle. g) Paul has not arrived at sinless
perfection or complete Christlikeness, because of that, he continually
“pressed” (present tense of diōkō - pursue or strive )
upward for this goal (Php 3:14). h) In Php 3:15, Paul uses a play on the word
“perfect” possibly because of the false teachers. Though it is the same Greek
word as in vs. 12, Paul, uses it in the sense of the maturity of those are
maturing spiritually. True mature believers will have the same “attitude” as
Paul represented in Php 3:12-14. If they do not, but are true believers, God
will reveal His truth about sanctification. 2. Paul
Still Struggled with Sin in the Flesh (Ro 7:13-21) a) Paul Spoke
of Post-conversion Experience (1) Though
this is one of the most debated passages in Scripture, there is much insight
that can be gained in opposition to sinless perfectionism. The main question
is, “Was Paul referring to his pre-conversion or post-conversion?” In other
words, is Ro 7:13-21 the experience of an unbeliever or believer? (2) In Ro 7:7-12, it is apparent that Paul was
speaking of his pre-conversion by the use of the aorist and imperfect tenses
(“I would not have known,” vs. 7; “produced in me,” vs. 8; “I died,” vs. 9;
“resulted in death,” vs. 10; “deceived and killed me, vs. 11). (3) In Ro 7:13-21ff, Paul emphatically uses the
first person (“I”) in the present tense (ongoing action) (“I am doing,”… “I
am not understanding,”… I am not practicing,”…”I am doing,” vs. 15; “I am not
wanting,” vs. 16; “I am not doing it,” vs, 17; “the willing is present (parákeimai
- to be near at hand or present),” vs. 18; “I am not doing” vs. 19-20
etc.). b) Paul was
“of the Flesh” not “in the Flesh” (1) Paul
states that the Law is spiritual (pneumatikós - pertaining to the
spirit), but that he is presently, “of flesh” (vs. 14, sárkinos
- consisting of flesh - “belonging to the realm of the flesh in so far as it
is weak, sinful, and transitory.” - BAGD), but not “in the flesh”
describing the unbeliever (Ro 7:5, en tē sarki). (2) Paul consists of the material flesh. But the
material flesh has been tainted by sin and consists of weakness and
sinfulness. That flesh is “sold under bondage.” (Note the perfect tense:
“having been sold and continuing to be sold into bondage to sin.”) This means
that the flesh will always carry with it sin and the sin principle while the
believer will consists of flesh in this life. (3) The flesh is described as, not
understandable (15), tainted with sin (17-18), and contradictory to the new
nature (19-21). c) Paul
Still Waged War with Sin Within (1) The
indwelling sin principle is a principle found in the believer as “the sin
which dwells in [the believer]” (Ro 7:20-21). (2) The believer also possess a new nature in
the “inner man” that desires God and His Law (Ro 7:22). It is being renewed
and strengthened by the Spirit (2Co 4:16; Ep 3:16). (3) The sin principle (old nature) constantly
wages war against the believer’s new nature called the “law of [the] mind”
(Ro 7:23), which causes spiritual frustration (Ro 7:24). (4) Victory is found through Christ in the law
of the “mind” while at the same time the sin principle or “law of sin” is
active in the believer’s flesh (Ro 7:25). d) Ramifications (1) While
victory and maturity are possible, sinless perfection is impossible without
the eradication of the sin principle. (2) The sin principle will not be eradicated
and will plague the believer in the entirety of this life. (3) The believer will have the desire to sin
and will sin in reality, not just slip-ups or mistakes. 3. The
Definition of Sin Cannot be Changed a) It is God,
not man, who determines the definition of sin. Sin is anything that violates
God’s holiness (Ro 3:23) or God’s Law (Jm 2:10). Any and all unrighteousness,
being under the scrutiny of God’s righteousness, is sin, not slip-ups or
mistakes (1Jn 5:17). b) Christ made atonement for man’s sinfulness
and sin which was in violation to God’s holiness (2Co 5:21) and Law (Col
2:14). c) If the believer holds that he has no sin,
he is deceiving himself and the truth is not in him (1Jn 1:8). d) If the believer holds that he has not
sinned, he makes God a liar and His word is not in him (1Jn 1:10). e) Since the believer’s sins have been
atoned for, when the believer sins, he does not lose his salvation or
relationship with the Lord (Ro 8:1; 1Co 3:15; He 7:25). However, the believer
is to confess his sin, and immediately fellowship is restored between the
Lord and the believer (1Jn 1:9). f) Sinless perfection not only minimizes the
definition of sin, the necessity to confess the believer’s sin, but also the
holiness of God. 4. The
Definition of Law Cannot be Changed a) The Law is
God’s written revelation to man concerning God’s righteousness and holiness.
Therefore, the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Ro 7:12). Furthermore, the
Law also reveals man’s sin (Ro 7:7). b) Christ is the end of the Law for the
believer in the sense that believers are not required to keep it for
salvation (Ro 8:3; 10:4; Ep 2:15). This would include the Law’s feasts and
rituals. c) However, the moral intent of the Law,
which reflects God’s holiness, always applies to the believer. Though
Christ’s righteousness has been positionally imputed to the believer (Ro
5:17; Php 3:9), the Spirit imparts conditional righteousness (as revealed in
the moral intent of the Law) to the believer as he walks according to the
Spirit (Ro 8:4). d) Sinless perfection not only minimizes the
definition of Law, the moral intent of God’s holiness in the Law, but also
the Spirit’s work in the believer. |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
