The "Sinless-Perfection" Straw-man argument

The mass confusion of the term "sinless perfection". Which in reality is nothing more than one of the countless straw-men that has been birthed out of the Augustinian-Reformation in the 15th century.

Mistakes, faults of character, errors of judgment; and lack of knowledge, these kind of stumbling DO NOT HAVE CONSENT OF OUR CONSCIENCE. Logically it is impossible to make a 'willful mistake, or to willfully continue in a fault of character, or to willfully make an error of judgment based on incomplete knowledge.  Therefore because these three things do not have consent of our conscience; they are not willful sins unto death. John says that there is a sin not unto to death....I perceive these to be sins that do not have consent of our conscience.

Our salvation, (deliverance FROM sin), having been reconciled back to God through the baptism of repentance, pertains to the cleansing of our conscience by the washing and renewing of the word; therefore if we serve with our mind from the sincerity of our heart the law of Christ then we are free from sin;  thus having made no provision for the flesh, in that sin shall not reign in our mortal bodies having dominion over us.. This is the gest of what God was conveying to Cain in Genesis 4-7. However our humanity consists of mistakes, faults of character and errors of judgment, errors of ignorance, because we are not equal to God, having been made subject to vanity. Therefore, not as perfect as God. But through the Spirit of Life in Christ we can be free from the law of sin and death. This is why there were righteous men and women in the bible, declared to be blameless and perfect. To call them "sinners" is an abomination to God.  The common feeble definition of sin defined as  "missing the mark" brings about great confusion as well by lumping all sin together.  So, if by "sinless perfection", they mean without flaw, then that's a gross exaggeration of what's intended by man being righteous/set apart/holy/blameless before God.

Job is a perfect illustration. He was righteous, and even said to have been delivered by his own righteousness in the book of Ezekiel. Notwithstanding, Job was flawed, had some sins of ignorance, and human frailty etc., yet still righteous and perfect/blameless before God.  Aside from sins of ignorance, and human errors of which we are all susceptible to, we're created able to walk in the ways that please God by faith. We're all able to sincerely desire to do God's will according to the light we're given, and then do it. This is more than evident, and implied continually through out the scriptures. It's sad to see such simple biblical principles often met with insincere controversial questions to continually argue in favor of sins that will disqualify one from the kingdom. Many confuse walking humbly before God in faith with a clear conscience for the cleverly invented straw man of sinless perfection. To do so they then must call everyone sinners to justify their false doctrine and lust if the flesh. Notwithstanding, I do believe there are some righteous people (doing what is right) that have been lured into believing these false doctrine (sinless perfection) pushed on us by Intellectual Scholars and the overly educated Pundits of darkness.   

The biblical definition of "sinner" is one that does willful sin. Not sins of ignorance. I will give you an example: Zackorious was said by the Lord Himself to be righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, Luke 1-6. Yet we see him being chastised during a moment of doubt in ignorance when he asked Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. Therefore he was chastised with dumbness for a season. One can understand this moment of doubt and ignorance in that there wasn't an appearance of an angel for many centuries before that occurrence. We see these type of things in the book of Job. But be assured that both Zackorious and Job were NOT fornicators, adulterers, bearers of false witness to malign another's character, thief's, railers, covetous, nor of envious resentment. Yet, according to the doctrines of Popular Pundits, Zackorious and Elisabeth must have been self-righteous hypocrites, therefore their maligned doctrines accusing Zackorious and Elisabeth of being "sinless perfectionists". Yes? But the bible says they were righteous, perfect/mature, and blameless before God. That is the complete opposite of being a "sinner". Yet many say they were just "sinners" saved by grace. Even calling Mary a "sinner; that's rank heresy, because they were righteous men and women, yet still humanly flawed, having sins of ignorance, and in need of a Savior. Hence "my Savior my God" said Mary. The truth is, man/woman is able to walk without sinning against their conscience... it's just that one chooses to sow to the flesh which is weak, rather than sowing to the spirit which is willing. The growth of such things can become habitual over time until one eventually becomes a slave to sin. (sin-nature by habit)

Adam's sin

I perceive that Adam and Eve's child-like dependence on the Lord supports a child's knowledge of, and desire, to live by their father's will. So even prior to awareness of an existence in separation from God, the Light they were given was sufficient for guidance to eat from all the trees of the garden, but abstain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.... Eve, no doubt may have been taken advantage of, but Adam was not deceived and therefore held responsible for the consequences of sin entering into the world. He sinned against his knowledge of the Truth. Therefore in the time of temptation he chose to love darkness rather than Light.

He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, Jh1:9, George Fox spent much time trying to explain this to those of Reformed theology, but they could not grasp what he was saying. God even said that Cain had been granted this light unto obedience.
 

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 

Flesh when given over to lust loves itself and flees from the Light for perceived-survival, hence it's really the darkness that consumes him. Lust of the flesh brings down God's hedge of protection, and death moves in like a plague. When the commandment, while holy just and good, was transgressed it gave life to sin making sin the agent through which death entered creation. Through the allure of lust and self-exaltation, the knowledge of good and evil was the launch pad for self-destruction. The law exercises justice with an unfailing proof that flesh can neither justify itself nor glory in God's presence. That which exalts itself against the Lord is abased, thus the soul that sinneth it shall die, Ezekiel 18-20.  Earlier in Romans chapter 7 Paul gave the antidote to this. That being "dead to the law" (meaning having crucified the flesh in the baptism of repentance). All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But,  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends, John 15-13...For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.  Jesus obedience unto death and His resurrection were both necessary to procure salvation for mankind. The blood covenant is of major importance to this whereas two become one. The two-fold power of the blood is found in God's great mercy and loving-kindness thus establishing covenant with His people in that they receive the empowerment of grace to live godly in Christ, the body of sin is destroyed and we're now dead to sin and alive unto righteousness, having been afforded the same power from above (grace) as Christ had. That being, however none of us are as perfect as Christ (sinless perfection) and neither are we expected to be. But rather expected to walk upright in the given portion of knowledge according to the dispensed measure of grace through faith, hence forth having been furnished unto good WORKS. This is our perfection. telious; Maturity, completeness, fully grown.

Knowing this first: Sin isn't an inbreed disease, (the we sin because we are sinners myth) But rather it's an act of one's own volition. There's no such thing as an inbreed sin-nature in the scriptures, it was adopted by Augustine and parroted thereafter. Just because man is capable of transgressing doesn't mean it's unavoidable. If that idea were true, it would make God a cruel comedian for telling Cain he should have ruled over that man of sin that was rising up in his members through lust. And turning from your sins in repentance to be saved isn't saving oneself, because ONLY God can forgive past sins. Sin is that which arises from the heart through lust and comes out of a man that defiles him. Adams sin and its wages of death upon creation is the cursed source of all decay and sickness, not sin in our genetics. The effect of death entering into this world through Adam's disobedience is that which has been passed down. The soul is created in pure innocence and fearfully wonderfully made, Psalms 139. Does God's take great reverence in making a child of sin? Nay, may God forbid such foolish speak! There's nothing of sin in one's blood or genetics. Sin is not of any atomic weight or volume. It's hear-say by opinion, "ie" (heresy) to say God gives the breath of life to sinful human beings at conception. The body being born corruptible only speaks to the effects of the curse upon the earth, not that sin is working in us at birth. Can anyone, having any conscience awareness honestly point to a sinful baby? Seriously, does that little baby have iniquity flowing through his veins, or is it more likely he learns to sin having been born into a world of sinful influence? "ie" (born in Babylon) And it doesn't take long for a toddler to pick up on the parents hypocrisy, Peter said; 'the aimless conduct you received by tradition from your fathers' 1Pet1:18, 'monkey see monkey do' as the old saying goes, if there is no genuine godly influence in a home, only the double standards of the professed, or worse, it isn't likely that a child has much of a real chance of knowing God apart from the 'Christianized worldly version so prevalent today.

By Bill