Where the apostles righteous - John the Baptist sinless?

[PeterJens]

ALL humans sin and fall short of the glory of God. David, Mary, the apostles, John the Baptist, Daniel, every one. We all need Jesus to save us.

We all need communion with God, it is this fellowship that keeps our hearts pure and righteous. The sacrifices in the temple were the means of cleansing, forgiveness, which is now through faith in Jesus, for dying on the cross.

What is denied so often is the walk of righteousness with Jesus is righteous. Words like perfection are used rather than walking without sin. And sin is defined in the law, in your conscience, in coming to the Lord and listening to the Holy Spirit. But so often people just give up, and let it rip on the assumption it is just impossible. But the power of sin is betrayal in your heart, but the power of Christ is love in your heart, knowing you have overcome through Christ.

We all know we have sinned in our lives, but we do not all continually sin day in day out. The point of the gospel, of the whole of scripture is we cannot walk without God and know righteousness. Our hearts always want to declare we are good enough, but without His spirit, we easily miss the mark and self justify our actions which leads to sin.

 

[John146]

John even doubted if Jesus was the right guy to be the Christ.

Matthew 11:2-3, "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Wow. The original sin belief isn't gnostic in the least! Do you even know what Gnoticism is, Peter? I'm gathering that you don't.

It depends on how you define original sin. If using Augustine's definition, then it is nothing but (Christian) gnostic.

 

[KenAllan]

Romans 3:10 says none seek after God, none is Righteous.

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and all includes everybody.

Romans 5:12 also says all have sinned.

The only sinless person was Jesus Christ ONLY!

 

[pwrnJC]

KenAllan..uh, guess what..even Mary, the mother of JESUS..needed to accept JESUS as her Savior...yes..she was all human..sinful and needing JESUS as much as you and I and others. Does that answer your question about John the Baptist being sinless?

 

[phil36]

It depends on how you define original sin. If using Augustine's definition, then it is nothing but (Christian) gnostic.

How about the bibles. I don't think you understand Gnostic HeRose lol.

 

[ember]

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ISAIAH 53:6

Upon WHOM did the Lord put the iniquity (an old fashioned word for sin) of ALL, everyone who ever lived, the whole earth, you and me ?

JESUS

Everyone else is a sinner and doomed to eternal damnation but for accepting the sacrifice of God's ONLY Son and the price HE paid for our redemption

Denial of that fact, is an indication that the heart of the one who denies may not actually know Christ as Savior and Redeemer


DISCLAIMER:
This is not meant to besmirch, downgrade or belittle anyone. I am simply responding to the question regarding sin and have responded DIRECTLY from the BIBLE

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

How about the bibles. I don't think you understand Gnostic HeRose lol.

I definitely understand it better than you do.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

All that are firstborn of the flesh are under sin=under the law of sin and death=sin nature because they are firstborn of the world being earthy.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

The law of sin and death is like the law of gravity in nature, we are all firstborn under it.


Romans 3:9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

This is why we must be born again from above by the Spirit and given a new nature.

 

[BenFTW]

John the Baptist was not sinless. No man is saved based on self-righteousness, but saved through faith. Even Abraham was deemed righteous because he believed God. It has always been a righteousness based on faith that has saved, not works or self-righteousness. No man can claim to be saved outside of faith, for all men fall short of God's glory, including the man named John the Baptist.

 

[PeterJens]

To be honest all we know is our own sin and the fact we do not measure up.
The point I am making is though we can say all sin it is just applying by faith a verse.
Equally if Jesus says we can walk righteously and not sin, that that equally should be true.

The point we are making is the doctrine of original sin and inability is a gnostic doctrine and not scriptual.
Jesus came that we might be free, but gnostic orginal sin says no.

Now ofcourse the apostles sinned before they met Jesus, but after they were clean? Peter implies he could walk righteously.
Now awareness of this walk is almost irrelevent, because love does not take pride in its state, it is dedicated to serve and meet needs. If you do not believe Jesus brought victory to the human soul you will not even try.

This is why there is a problem with hyper-grace saying we are forgiven no matter how we behave and morals do not matter.
It is also why christians sometimes behave worse than sinners because they believe they are forgiven.

 

[PeterJens]

Imagine I claim I am not blind yet sin is in my life and I stumble all the time into failure and deception.
How can I claim to know what walking in the light is or who God is?

I think I would be deluded in this condition. I have met many "christians" who walk like this but claim the know Jesus.

 

[crosstweed]

he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
Luke 1:15

You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
John 15:3

John the baptist did not choose to follow Jesus, he was born as a follower. I assume he walked in righteousness and not sin. Jesus recognised his special status by saying any member of the Kingdom of Heaven would be greater than John the Baptist because they chose to walk with Jesus, John the Baptist did not.

The apostles when they were actually following Jesus, they were "clean" as Jesus said. The cup had been cleansed on the inside. They were walking in righteousness. They had repented of their sin, given up everything and were following Jesus.

Jesus described this as being perfect, to the rich young man. People forget even though the young man walked away because he was wealthy. The disciples had done all this so were perfect by Jesus's words.

Now in the letters written by the apostles they confirm that it was their experience, that they were walking in obedience to Jesus's commands. For so long people have denied this reality in the early church. And yes Pauls churches had struggles, and the argument was between walking in love or walking in licensiousness. Paul came down on the side of walking in righteousness, love and purity. It is odd so many deny this or that it is even possible.

I have never understood original sin doctrine from scripture but have only recently understood its gnostic origins and the foundation in Augustine and the reformed movement. What I have learnt from being a father, is one of the biggest problems we all face is love betrayal as a human. One young man fell in love but was betrayed by his girl friend. From then on he decided to use partners, and not risk such hurt again.

The nature of peoples hearts appears though they need love and support, they easily close down and get lost in layers of defence and insecurity. This leads to sin and failed relationships. So the source of lostness appears to be our need and acceptance of failure and being vulnerable. We are made in the image of our Father, with a heart of love. But love betrayed leads to sin and death. We feel God has betrayed and hurt us. Jesus came to demonstrate this is not true, and we can be free.

I'm just going to say this...
The problem isn't the doctrine of original (read inbred) sin (the inward "bent to sinning" that enjoys evil) which all humans except Christ were born with, and actual sin (as Wesley called it), being sins people actually commit, due to exterior pressure from temptations and usually internal pressure from the inward sin nature we're born with.

The problem comes when people say God can't deliver you from both of them, in this life.

 

[BenFTW]

To be honest all we know is our own sin and the fact we do not measure up.
The point I am making is though we can say all sin it is just applying by faith a verse.
Equally if Jesus says we can walk righteously and not sin, that that equally should be true.

The point we are making is the doctrine of original sin and inability is a gnostic doctrine and not scriptual.
Jesus came that we might be free, but gnostic orginal sin says no.

Now ofcourse the apostles sinned before they met Jesus, but after they were clean? Peter implies he could walk righteously.
Now awareness of this walk is almost irrelevent, because love does not take pride in its state, it is dedicated to serve and meet needs. If you do not believe Jesus brought victory to the human soul you will not even try.

This is why there is a problem with hyper-grace saying we are forgiven no matter how we behave and morals do not matter.
It is also why christians sometimes behave worse than sinners because they believe they are forgiven.

Our forgiveness is found in Christ, not in our conduct. VVhat you are teaching is contrary to the Gospel. The doctrine you espouse replaces faith with self-righteousness. You may not know it, but the emphasis you place on sanctification is being too closely tied to justification. Doing this has made you a fruit inspector, and self-righteous in your own estimation. Morality doesn't sanctify, God does.

 

[phil36]

Hi PeterJens,

Original sin has alway been held by the church..Protestant and and Roman Catholic... what has been condemned is the view you are trying to put forth.

 

[resurrection33]

he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
Luke 1:15

You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
John 15:3

John the baptist did not choose to follow Jesus, he was born as a follower. I assume he walked in righteousness and not sin. Jesus recognised his special status by saying any member of the Kingdom of Heaven would be greater than John the Baptist because they chose to walk with Jesus, John the Baptist did not.

The apostles when they were actually following Jesus, they were "clean" as Jesus said. The cup had been cleansed on the inside. They were walking in righteousness. They had repented of their sin, given up everything and were following Jesus.

Jesus described this as being perfect, to the rich young man. People forget even though the young man walked away because he was wealthy. The disciples had done all this so were perfect by Jesus's words.

Now in the letters written by the apostles they confirm that it was their experience, that they were walking in obedience to Jesus's commands. For so long people have denied this reality in the early church. And yes Pauls churches had struggles, and the argument was between walking in love or walking in licensiousness. Paul came down on the side of walking in righteousness, love and purity. It is odd so many deny this or that it is even possible.

I have never understood original sin doctrine from scripture but have only recently understood its gnostic origins and the foundation in Augustine and the reformed movement. What I have learnt from being a father, is one of the biggest problems we all face is love betrayal as a human. One young man fell in love but was betrayed by his girl friend. From then on he decided to use partners, and not risk such hurt again.

The nature of peoples hearts appears though they need love and support, they easily close down and get lost in layers of defence and insecurity. This leads to sin and failed relationships. So the source of lostness appears to be our need and acceptance of failure and being vulnerable. We are made in the image of our Father, with a heart of love. But love betrayed leads to sin and death. We feel God has betrayed and hurt us. Jesus came to demonstrate this is not true, and we can be free.

No one has lived a perfect life. John the Baptist seemed to understand the importance of repentance, though.

 

[ember]

It depends on how you define original sin. If using Augustine's definition, then it is nothing but (Christian) gnostic.

well don't you view it through the lens of Pelagianism ?

No wonder you are so anti-grace! I flies in the face of what you actually believe

The Bible teaches that we were created to be good, but because of Adam’s fall we are all born in a state of total depravity—spiritually dead in our sin—and that we are wholly dependent upon God’s supernatural grace for salvation and new life. Our wills are not free to do what is righteous or even to desire to do what is righteous. We need to be born again by God before we can begin to do even the least deed that is pleasing to God. (See, for example, Ephesians 2:1-9, Titus 3:3-8, and Romans 6:17-18.)

you are teaching the opposite of what scripture states

you go from thread to thread proclaiming grace is actually hyper grace and the entire time you are undermining true Christianity

You teach there is no original sin and we can choose..ALL BY OURSELVES...through our own wills, to make right choices. You are actually proclaiming your own righteousness without Christ through your own ability

You say that believing in original sin is Gnosticism? Sounds more like anti-Christ sentiment to me. Demean Christ's perfection by offering your own instead and then castigate and belittle those who state that God's grace alone accounts for salvation

My my my

 

[ember]

The introduction of Gnosticism by herose as the basis of the doctrine of original sin is sheer makebelieve

Here is a proper description of what Gnosticism actually is..quite a bit of the NT was written to denounce Gnosticism

GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.

find the rest here

 

[Chuckt]

I have never understood original sin doctrine from scripture but have only recently understood its gnostic origins and the foundation in Augustine and the reformed movement. What I have learnt from being a father, is one of the biggest problems we all face is love betrayal as a human. One young man fell in love but was betrayed by his girl friend. From then on he decided to use partners, and not risk such hurt again.

The original sin doctrine was communicated by Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Why am I condemned? I didn't sin in the garden? Why don't I get a chance? I am just a prototype of Adam and I can't do better than the prototype. Adam acted as the federal head and therefore we all die because Adam sinned.



Romans 5:12 ¶ Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I am using scripture. You are using outside movements to define your theology such as gnosticism and the reformed movement as indicated in your post. I am going by the Bible.

 

[Chuckt]

How do we know? John was unusual. He walked in communion with the Lord from birth.
He lived in a special dedicated way. He was going to be in the Kingdom. His mission was preaching repentance of sin and walking in righteousness. I have no reason to say he sinned other than all men sin. But if he sinned in his childhood, I am sure he repented and walked in righteousness. Or he was preaching hypocracy as the preparer of the way of the Lord.

We know because the scripture say:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.