Resolved: A living human can never live their lives without sinning. A sinless Perfection debate.

>>>> Philo said... I mistakenly interpreted "A living human can never live their lives without sinning" to mean that no human can ever live their entire lives without sinning. <<<<< And I didn't catch it. So that's on me. I'm sorry. Awkward and embarrassing. I guess I answer what's in here, but perhaps we should end this since we went different directions... errrr I went a different direction? >>I should argue, that we necessarily do reach moral perfection...<< I don't distinguish a difference in perfection in this context. The idea of "moral perfection" reflects an image of what man can accomplish in their lives. And I'll concede man can't attain this moral perfection. Rather I'm discussing when God changes a person, to the extent HE changes us. HE changes our mind and heart we are changed. That change will result in "perfection" as Paul uses the term. NOT the Utopian type perfection that we assume in the English we speak today, but the Perfection which means mature and finished in the use of Paul's Greek word. A result of that is from the point that person is perfected, they can no longer sin. It's not based on what they have accomplished, even though they would have accomplished it. Example, Moses parted the red sea. Wait, God parted the red sea. BUT Moses had to hold the stick up..... so it's a synergistic event which Moses did things, but God did it. Same as Christian maturity/perfection. Now, I would use the "can" because while every person has that opportunity, not every person will accept it. And many will claim it in name, but deny it in their lives. Those most often stand in direct contradiction with Romans 8:9. You said....>>>Paul is speaking to his audience, telling them that the removal/burial of their sarx is a past event<<< I guess this would be an Exegetics debate in another thread. However I'll point out that Paul often spoke in a Historical Present where he played the role of those he was addressing, so his use of the personal I ME MY pronouns didn't represent himself. There are people that write on this that will show up with a fairly simple Google search. I'd point out that Paul addresses people within the Church at two levels, Milk/Meat, Mature/Immature. As a result, when he's addressing the IMMATURE and says, "do you not know that we....", you very well may have a situation where Paul is telling them WE are .....whatever.... and you aren't or need to be there.... This is your goal, this is the prize at the end of the race, etc... I don't think you could hold that those were all past tense for the whole Church, but only the people he used as examples... You commented that we have an internal struggle, I'd agree to that being present in a person. However you don't give into the internal struggle when col 2:11 has occurred, Romans 8:9 is the result, and that has the enabling benefit of Gal 5:16. In other words, a person is under atoning forgiveness, but that life is changed through their application of the faith, manifesting in works of love, and resulting in a person that loves as God does Matt 5:48, and is as mature as Christ was Spiritually, Eph 4:11-17. They sin during the growth, can confess, but are on a race to a time where they are changed permanently by God. And in Eph 4 you argue that "until they become" which means it's never been reached. I tried, and exegetically, logically, etc.. I can't draw that conclusion from the words which read until they reach, which is an event which occurs. This perfection is something Paul says him and others have reached in Phil 3. And I could argue that John in 1 John claims he and others are there when he says which is a present tense, accomplishment in their lives.. So, I have to deny the presumption that no one has been there, nor can be there... A good example, when you referenced....We are like the person Paul describes in Romans 7:14-25 who has an internal conflict between the good he wants to do and the evil he is drawn to do....... I'd direct you to Romans 7:5. This FLESH/SARX that is making us do what we don't want to do and not do what we want to do, is something PAUL HIMSELF no longer struggles with because it's gone, he's not in the flesh. So, if we accept the Romans 7:14-25, forgo the Hypothetical nature of the "IF"s in those vss, and assume it's Paul speaking of himself, then he's delirious to claim something he no longer has makes him do things he doesn't want. I'd contend most folks teach that chapter in the opportunistic view, "even Paul still sins" to make room for them still sinning in their lives, and to do that they have to redact the IFs and the vs 5. Since it's been taught that way for generations by most folks I've ever known, and ridiculed to suggest other wise (not you, but most) then the dilemma I presented is ignored and never reconciled. All of the arguments you present tend to rely on what man can accomplish. As Christ told the Apostles after the chat with the Rich Young Feller, through man it's not possible, through God all things are possible. And that comment from Christ, interestingly enough, was regarding the thought, "if you would be perfect" and Christ told him how to be said word of complicated meanings... Telioo/Perfect/Mature.... I see man as having to be involved in the process, and man is doing the work, sure as Moses held the stick over his head to part the red sea... But, God guides, empowers, directs, us in our efforts, and HE does the changing along the way. If GOD is going to change your views of heart and mind, is he not capable of making the change? Or will He not keep the promise to change us that the Bible makes? If it says through works we will be made as mature as Christ, then did Paul get "led to lie" when he made it read as those he addressed could be there? Or did He lie when Paul said him and others were perfect? This conversation got derailed because of my presumption and not reading carefully. I was reading what I expected. I'm sorry for that. If you'd like to pursue or drop this, I'm ok either way. We could have them wipe the thing from the forum as we got derailed.... I don't do that often, but..... when I do I have mad skills. :) I responded because I didn't want to disrespect your work at responses, even though we weren't on the same page..