One on One: A Reasonable Dialogue - Sozo and godrulz
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
- Status
From our subjective viewpoint, we experience what the Psalmist expresses in Ps. 32; 51... guilt, lack of intimacy, shame, sense of separation, etc. After repentance, he/we experience forgiveness, intimacy, fellowship, etc.
From God's perspective, He disciplines His children, those whom He loves (Heb. 12). The Spirit convicts us in order for us to confess/repent/renew obedience (I Jn. 5:11-13). This is part of being new creatures in Christ, putting aside the old for the new. We become Christ-like in reality, not just positionally. Sanctification has an initial positional element and a practical, progressive element as we mature until we are like Him fully when we see Him face to face (glorified).
Apart from godless unbelief, our sins do not destroy the relationship/salvation. They grieve a holy God, quench the Spirit, bring conviction for our good and His glory (Rom. 12:1,2...2 Cor. 7:2; I Peter 1:13-16; Rom. 6, etc.).
As far as what literally happens when we sin, Scripture is not explicit? I am talking about subjective feelings (hence the human analogies...family fights do not negate family membership, but strained relationships need a return to the former state) and the fact that God is holy, will not be mocked, and we reap what we sow (Gal.). The fact that there are negative consequences to sexual immorality shows that God does not just shrug it off, for our good. He calls us to obedience (this is an expression of love, not works salvation or self-righteousness).
Sin, by nature, separates (ask the Psalmist). We can approach His throne of grace with boldness in our time of need because of Christ. There is provision. He loves us too much and is so holy that He does not wink at sin, which is destructive to ourselves and our relationships with others and God. The sense of separation (God does not move) is like the pain from touching a hot burner. It makes us long for God in a land where there is no water. It draws us to return to our first love on His righteous terms, not our selfish pursuit of independence.
My musings are not a precise theological, technical answer, because I would have to speculate in the absence of systematic proof texts. However, the basic statements are valid principles, the saints in OT and NT are instructive as to God's dealings with sinful man (2 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 11), and we could flesh it out more, but our presuppositions will slant our conclusions (if you think Christians cannot sin, literally, you will spin things different than I have).
Notice my emphasis is relational, not metaphysical, another paradigm issue.
Sozo
New member
Do you believe that what happens when a child of God "sins" is objective or subjective in their relationship/fellowship with God?
It appears that you are saying that it is both at the same time, which of course, is not a logical possibility.
Does it? Is that what you believe? Does it separate you by your own "subjective feelings"? Or does it make you unholy?
As I have already asked, and you have ignored, let's put aside our theological preconceptions, and deal with this issue objectively from what the bible actually says.
God will not contradict the objective truth concerning the effects of sin. Don't you agree?
To be on the safe side (since this seems academic to me and not something I think through daily), can it be both/and, not either/or? From the Psalms and anecdote, their is a subjective element. I would distinguish pseudo-guilt (enemy is accuser of the brethren and will condemn us despite our sins being dealt with at conversion) from real guilt. Real guilt is when the Holy Spirit and Word convict us of wrong (sinful) thoughts, motives, acts, words. If someone commits adultery, the guilt is not subjective or pseudo. The Spirit will press in with conviction to bring godly repentance (not remorse...sorry we got caught...feel bad) and renewed obedience. I think this is defensible, but I can't write a thesis off the top of my head about the technical, objective, Godward issues.
It seems to me it was God who stated, in principle, that our sins have separated us from him. Look at the 1000s of verses in the Bible about sin and let me know what you conclude from God and man's perspective.
Time is wasting...go go...
I appreciate your reasonable tone and am trying to think things through without having a well formulated thesis since these are non-issues for my practical Christian living.
Sin bad. God good. Let's not sin. Let's love and obey God (Reader's Digest version).
It seems to me it was God who stated, in principle, that our sins have separated us from him. Look at the 1000s of verses in the Bible about sin and let me know what you conclude from God and man's perspective.
Time is wasting...go go...
I appreciate your reasonable tone and am trying to think things through without having a well formulated thesis since these are non-issues for my practical Christian living.
Sin bad. God good. Let's not sin. Let's love and obey God (Reader's Digest version).
Sozo
New member
No, William, it cannot.
You must choose. Does God hold your "sin" into account, do both you and God hold it into account, or do you alone hold it into account?
The Holy Spirit does not bring about guilt (real or imagined). The Holy Spirit disciplines for the purpose of doing what is profitable for ourselves and those around us. God is not judging you for "sin", He judged Christ. The wages of sin is death, not guilt. You cannot have it both ways. Either God judges and condemns you for "sin", or He has judged His Son... once for all.
Apart from a simplistic explanation, I will continue to maintain that a Christian can sin, the Holy Spirit convicts us if we sin, we should cease sinning and renew obedience, etc. The technical details and semantics, I am not sure about.
I would also distinguish justification issues and issues subsequent to conversion. There is provision for sin, past/present/future, but the application or appropriation of the provision does not take place before sin is actual (I am an Open Theist).
I would also distinguish justification issues and issues subsequent to conversion. There is provision for sin, past/present/future, but the application or appropriation of the provision does not take place before sin is actual (I am an Open Theist).
Sozo
New member
:madmad:
William, this thread is not NOW, nor has it ever been about whether or not a Christian can sin.
In fact, I have chosen for the sake of our discussion to agree that a Christian can sin.
You are being purposely obtuse. This is what you do everytime you are caught having to make a decision that contradicts all of your baseless theology.
I hope that others have taken the time to read this thread, so that there will be no doubt that you refuse to have a discussion about the gospel message, and instead are set on maintaining a false gospel that is contrary to all reason and biblical evidence.
Whoa, bubbalooey.
I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
I am trying not to suspect you have a hidden agenda and are leading me into a trap that does not fairly represent what I believe.
I am not sure what you are looking for. I am stating basic things that most would not quibble about. I am not going into great detail, because I have not thought things through with your mindset since it is a non-issue. I refuse to be a legalist or an antinomian (lawless). I chose to affirm love and relationship principles, the truth between the extremes.
If I am not spilling the beans to your liking, keep trying by rephrasing or asking specific questions.
I have a medic student right now. I ask a simple question and I get the deer in the head lights look. What is obvious to me after 15 years is foreign to a rookie. I ask, rephrase, give hints, guide, etc....patiently...because sometimes it is the way I ask questions or the way I explain things that is the problem. Communication can get bogged down by a number of things.
I would welcome a third party opinion as to whether I am purposefully being obtuse. This is not my motive, to be sure.
Based on PMs about this thread or rep points, some feel I am being patient and precise (they commend, not condemn). I have not had negative feedback, except from you.
So, back to the bite size questions (sorry they can't be answered yes or no based on your previous propensity to think on a different wavelength than some of us).
Remember 2001 Space Odyssey? Before Hal the computer croaks, he says: "I'm afraid Dave (sozo)...my mind is going...I can feel it.."
Since I am not green with horns, please be patient or abandon ship.
I am trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
I am trying not to suspect you have a hidden agenda and are leading me into a trap that does not fairly represent what I believe.
I am not sure what you are looking for. I am stating basic things that most would not quibble about. I am not going into great detail, because I have not thought things through with your mindset since it is a non-issue. I refuse to be a legalist or an antinomian (lawless). I chose to affirm love and relationship principles, the truth between the extremes.
If I am not spilling the beans to your liking, keep trying by rephrasing or asking specific questions.
I have a medic student right now. I ask a simple question and I get the deer in the head lights look. What is obvious to me after 15 years is foreign to a rookie. I ask, rephrase, give hints, guide, etc....patiently...because sometimes it is the way I ask questions or the way I explain things that is the problem. Communication can get bogged down by a number of things.
I would welcome a third party opinion as to whether I am purposefully being obtuse. This is not my motive, to be sure.
Based on PMs about this thread or rep points, some feel I am being patient and precise (they commend, not condemn). I have not had negative feedback, except from you.
So, back to the bite size questions (sorry they can't be answered yes or no based on your previous propensity to think on a different wavelength than some of us).
Remember 2001 Space Odyssey? Before Hal the computer croaks, he says: "I'm afraid Dave (sozo)...my mind is going...I can feel it.."
Since I am not green with horns, please be patient or abandon ship.
Sozo
New member
Question 1 from Sozo...
Unanswered
Question 2...
Unanswered
Question 3...
Unanswered
Question 4...
Unanswered
Question 5...
Unanswered
Question 6...
Unanswered
Question 7...
Unanswered
Question 8...
Unanswered
Question 9...
Unanswered
Question 10...
Unanswered
Whoever is "commending" you must be as obtuse as you are.
I answered all of the questions with more principles than a yes/no answer. Given your propensity to misunderstand or misrepresent my views, yes/no is a vulnerable answer.
It is unfair to say I have not answered. e.g. obviously fellowship is affected by guilt, at least from the perspective of the one carrying guilt leading to avoidance...that is an answer and is in my post.
What is fair to say is that I did not answer with what you consider a right answer.
Now that I have commented on all your questions (not to your liking apparently) in the above posts, you can start again, one at a time, and I will risk giving a one sentence answer when possible.
You could also throw out more questions that I will comment on and then you can play the same game and say I did not answer to your liking. :angel: :cow:
In my mind, I thought I gave you food for thought. If I was not dogmatic on every point, I probably had not thought it through or did not consider it vital information.
Cat and mouse...who is who?
It is unfair to say I have not answered. e.g. obviously fellowship is affected by guilt, at least from the perspective of the one carrying guilt leading to avoidance...that is an answer and is in my post.
What is fair to say is that I did not answer with what you consider a right answer.
Now that I have commented on all your questions (not to your liking apparently) in the above posts, you can start again, one at a time, and I will risk giving a one sentence answer when possible.
You could also throw out more questions that I will comment on and then you can play the same game and say I did not answer to your liking. :angel: :cow:
In my mind, I thought I gave you food for thought. If I was not dogmatic on every point, I probably had not thought it through or did not consider it vital information.
Cat and mouse...who is who?
If you do a word/context study on sanctify, there are two truths: we are initially, positionally set apart as holy unto the Lord. We are saints (holy ones), even while we struggle and mature. Secondly, there is a progressive, actual working out of holiness where every thought, motive, action, word is either vice or virtue (in that one choice, not to be confused with our setting apart at justification). Like Paul, we are not absolutely perfect (especially if we are committing adultery, for e.g.), but we strive in His might as we move from glory to glory in our increasing knowledge and surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3 context is not just about ministry).
Yes, I am holy in Him. Even in your view, you claim to be holy even if you disobey God and do sin. If you can claim that, I can certainly claim the truths of Scripture:
I Peter 1:13-16 "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As OBEDIENT children, DO NOT conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all YOU DO; for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'"
Imperatives (commands) are to be obeyed. Sanctification is not automatic (except in sense when it is concurrent with initial justification...an initial setting apart is followed by a progressive inworking of the life of Christ into our lives by the Spirit). There is a Godward and a manward side. The extremes of Calvinism, Arminianism, Keswick, Augustinian-dispensational, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, etc. agree with this principle, but you seem to emphasize one aspect while ignoring the other aspect (in an unnecessary attempt to avoid works salvation). Because Scripture does not divorce holiness/obedience/doing, neither will I.
2 Cor. 7:2 "Since we have these promises, dear friends, let US PURIFY OURSELVES from everything that contaminates body and spirit (I still do not get you and lighthouse artificially dividing spirit from what we do with the body), PERFECTING (ongoing verb tense) holiness out of reverence for God."
As you know, the Corinthian 'saints' had sin in their camp. I biblical view does not support theoretical positional holiness without practical, actual holiness in word, thought, deed, motive, etc.
Rom. 12:1, 2 is not a passive, one time issue at conversion. It also involves our choices and our bodies in the pursuit of holiness. Again, the imperatives show that we have something to do with it. Other verses also talk about the great resource of the indwelling Holy Spirit, apart from whom, we will never be conformed to His image.
Rom. 6 also talks about our volitional offering of our body parts , in obedience, leading to righteousness (vv. 13, 16). This contrasts with offering body parts to sin as instruments of wickedness, leading to slavery (v. 13).
Because Paul does not divorce righteousness from behavior, neither will I. This does not mean my behavior apart from the Spirit makes me holy. Our self-righteousness is like filthy rags.
Loving obedience is not a work and is consistent with biblical holiness.
I challenged you to look up all verses about holiness, love, obedience, etc. It will present a broader picture than your limited one.
Sinless perfectionism is as much heretical as self-righteousness and works legalism (loving obedience is part of relationship with the Master, not a work nor legalism). I trust neither of us hold to extremes:wazzup:
Sozo
New member
Are you (William) holy if you obey God and do not sin?
If you do sin, are you (William) unholy at that precise moment?
These are two simple questions that can be answered yes or no.
Either you remain holy when you sin, or you are unholy when you sin.
There is no middle ground. Answer the question.
If you do sin, are you (William) unholy at that precise moment?
These are two simple questions that can be answered yes or no.
Either you remain holy when you sin, or you are unholy when you sin.
There is no middle ground. Answer the question.
For sozo: Yes and No (my choice is unholy, but I am still set apart unto God and in Him who is holy).
The horns of a dilemma. Is this like the proverbial 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. I suspect if I do not answer with a perfectionist position, you will assume I am a Pharisee.
For those who want to explore the issue (without a dogmatic conclusion)...
If I sin, I am still in Christ at that moment. In myself, my flesh (starting to sound like you, yikes), I am not holy. Is that common ground for us (except the part about sinning, but you are playing my game at the moment)? Christ is holy. My specific choice at the moment is not. Adultery is never holy. Can we separate the person from the choice? Can we distinguish general standing from specific moment? The Bible says that those who do x, y, z will not inherit the kingdom (I Cor. 6). Some Christians do these things. The difference is a habitual giving over to sin by a godless person, vs an isolated lapse by a believer who remains a believer. Unbelief is also a unique sin. There is provision for all sin, but not everyone is saved. We may quibble about when the provision is applied and how, but we do not disagree about its efficacy or power.
I think part of the issue is separating one specific choice at one moment (vice or virtue depending on motive, obedience vs disobedience) from our general bent, state, status. The Corinthians were fingered for specific sins, yet they were called 'saints', holy ones. They were still set apart unto God (one meaning of sanctification), yet had an unholy choice (not negating their sonship or relationship with God).
Even if my understanding is still a work in progress, is this really a denial of the person and finished work of Christ? Is it a denial of the supreme need for the Holy Spirit to reproduce the life and character of Christ in us (fruit of the Spirit)? Is surrender or obedient choices in love an outflow of His life in us, not necessarily a self-righteous attempt to work one's way to perfection (religion, not relationship with Christ)?
Is is possible to consider my understanding sub-par without negating my precious relationship with Christ who alone can save by grace through faith apart from works?
At the moment, without detailed thought, I am comfortable with my general understanding and do not sense illumination from the Word by the Spirit that would make me renounce principles in order to articulate sozo's expressions of similar ideas.
Justification and sanctification are similar, but not identical in every aspect. If we blur this distinction, I think it will lead to imperfect understanding.
Sozo
New member
Was that so hard?
So you affirm, in the above statement, that you are unholy based on your sin, but that you (an unholy person) are in God who is holy?
Mmmm...not the way I would put it.
I am not unholy in total based on one unholy choice. There is a difference between an unholy, godless person who habitually sins and a godly, holy-in-Christ believer who has an isolated lapse into sin (without negating their salvation or standing in Christ). It sounds like a leading question that I cannot agree to.
The one act is not consistent with God's holiness or His expected standard for us (we should not call good evil and evil good), but that does not make the person an unholy person in relationship with a holy God. They are still children of God, holy, set apart unto the Lord, experiencing the refining presence of the Spirit. They can expect discipline as disobedient children (Heb. 12), not as unholy objects of wrath (Eph. 2).
Yes/No may not be the best way to answer complex questions that may need qualifying to retain balanced truth.
I may never fit your preconceived mold as to how I should answer the questions, but the purpose of the thread was to reasonably see if I am a raving heretic, a godless unbeliever, a wise student of the Word and fellow believer, or a believer, but in need of further insight and teaching. I trust we can jettison the first possibility (unless I am blind as a bat to my views being diametrically opposed to possible biblical understanding...you will find very few who will say things the way you do or believe just like you...they could parrot some of it, but mean different things or not really understand what you are saying).
Which smilie is most appropriate for me at this point?
:comeout:
:devil:
:mario:
:banana:
:sheep:
:up:
:grave:
??
If this is a dialogue, maybe I should turn the tables and put sozo on the defensive:think: (though you would and have interpreted my verses so far differently, they do merit comment since they support my view in principle and are problematic for your view...unless you start rationalizing them away).
Are we having fun yet?
Are we making any progress?
On a positive note, let's shed some light on things that make us seem like ships passing in the night.
The NT gives a variety of words for sin. Paul and John's use, for example, has commonality and differences. Some words include hamartia, hamartano, poneros, adikia, anomia, etc. A composite picture of sin as missing God's standard, malicious evil, social evil, willful rebellion, lawlessness, selfishness, etc. is painted.
If sozo focuses on one aspect, I should not be faulted for pointing out other aspects.
Likewise, if we reduce salvation to 'life' (my impression of sozo's emphasis), I should not be faulted for upholding all the other equally valid concepts relating to what salvation is and is not (e.g. reconciled love relationship is as valid as life).
In light of this, can we be more than the good friends we are (sic), and have a 'reasonable dialogue' as brothers in Christ?
Take your time. If you honestly believe I am what you have said in the past, then 'Red Alert. Battle stations. Battle stations'. We will give an account for our convictions. Do not compromise, but do not be misguided/misinformed.
The NT gives a variety of words for sin. Paul and John's use, for example, has commonality and differences. Some words include hamartia, hamartano, poneros, adikia, anomia, etc. A composite picture of sin as missing God's standard, malicious evil, social evil, willful rebellion, lawlessness, selfishness, etc. is painted.
If sozo focuses on one aspect, I should not be faulted for pointing out other aspects.
Likewise, if we reduce salvation to 'life' (my impression of sozo's emphasis), I should not be faulted for upholding all the other equally valid concepts relating to what salvation is and is not (e.g. reconciled love relationship is as valid as life).
In light of this, can we be more than the good friends we are (sic), and have a 'reasonable dialogue' as brothers in Christ?
Take your time. If you honestly believe I am what you have said in the past, then 'Red Alert. Battle stations. Battle stations'. We will give an account for our convictions. Do not compromise, but do not be misguided/misinformed.
Sozo
New member
This is where your entire belief system is without merit.
You contradict truth in every aspect.
A women is not a little pregnant. A person is either holy or unholy. One sin corrupts. Adam only committed one transgression that brought death.
A believer is made holy through faith in Christ. A false believer makes themselves holy or unholy through their obedience, or lack thereof.
A false believer, a relgious moralist, teaches that holiness is a result of human effort.
I affirm that Knight, Poly, and others have been deceived by your false gospel, and I affirm in all assurance before God that you neither know God, nor does He know you.
I am ashamed of those who have come to your defense. They need to repent, and rebuke you for your false gospel.
Well, that went south in a hurry. Good thing I did not hold my breath or wait for a blue moon.
If a person is one or the other, it does not explain individual choices. In your view, pressed to its conclusions, adultery is holy, despite being lawless and against the character of God.
Adam's Fall is more catastrophic and far-reaching than a moment of lust by a believer. Analagous is not identical in all respects.
Loving obedience is subsequent to salvation and an expression of grace and saving faith in a person's life. It is explicit in Scripture based on imperatives and exhortations (often behavior related) to believers. Justification is by grace through faith alone. Talking about living the Christian life after this is not tantamount to denying Christ and His finished work. Knight and others have the wisdom, maturity, and discernment to understand this. They are hardly defending a false gospel or a false teacher. They are not deceived and are quick to side with you against me on many related issues.
The Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. Your false accusations from your flesh or the accuser of the brethren (demons) does not faze me.
I do not teach that holiness is a result of human effort, but you will be hard pressed to defend a passive, monergistic view of sanctification. Even Calvinists are not that extreme. You would have to ignore multiple passages do defend your myopic view and conclude that I am a false teacher who does not know Christ (you never commented on my personal experience in the first few points because you must call me a liar and claim that Jesus cannot save apart from being a sozoite).
Is this the end of the road?
Sozo
New member
Adultery is a sin, William. You said that sin makes you unholy. You believe, and teach, that you are unholy (or holy) based on what you do or do not do. That is self-righteousness. You decide (based solely on your behavior), whether or not you are acceptable to God. It is not Jesus that makes you acceptable, but you. It is not the shed blood of Jesus that makes you holy, but you make you holy.
This has been your belief since you have come to TOL. These are the beliefs of someone who denies Christ, no matter what you state to the contrary, you maintain that righteousness is predicated upon your abilitiy to obey God. You have another gospel.
Jesus died for all sin, for all time, for all men.
By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is the only way that man is saved. Through faith in Christ we receive His life. In His life we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. In His life we are made holy, righteous, blameless, sanctifed, and perfected.
You teach contrary to the truth of the gospel. You still affirm that a Christian is judged by the Law for righteousness (as you clearly stated in your quote).
I seriously question the faith of anyone who comes to your defense.
- Status