Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lanny, What is your definition of sin? | Rom 6:2 | Reformer Joe | 24122 | ||
My reasoning is not circular, but you expressed my point quite well in the first paragraph. I stand by my definition of disobedience and contend that it is a willful neglect to obey in the case of sin. Are you really saying that God would consider it to be sin of any kind if we unknowingly sped due to a faulty speedometer? Come on! God's progressive revelation for his church ended with the completion of the canon of Scripture. We have no more spiritual resources that make us superior in ability to lead a Christlike life than Augustine or anyone else who has access to the complete canon of the Bible. With the Bible, the picture of Christ is complete. Therefore, we do not have a "better picture of Christ to follow" than did the early church fathers or the Reformers. Scripture is absolutely sufficient for all our sanctification by the Spirit of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I did not say that it was impossible to lead a more holy life than some of the Reformers. Certainly they had their faults, and the fact is that they admitted them. I was not talking about anyone's "smartness," since sanctification is not directly proportional to intellectual ability. I will continue to emphatically state that anyone who thinks that anyone since Christ has entered a state of continually perfect behavior has a completely deficient grasp of the utter holiness of the conduct of God the Son. Go read the Old Testament. See how much God infinitely detests iniquity: For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. --Psalm 5:4-5 I recommend that you do an in-depth study of the holiness of God. Try to take in its scope, its depth, its fear-inspiring intensity (Isaiah 6 is a great example). Then I would hope that you would be a little less eager to claim that it is anywhere in the ballpark of even the best conduct of His saints on earth. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Lanny, What is your definition of sin? | Rom 6:2 | Sir Pent | 24205 | ||
Attempt at consensus .......................... I suspect we agree more than we disagree here Joe. If we step back from the argument and look at it, it seems to really just be about the definition of the word sin. You seem to be defining "sin" in terms of the attitude of the person. This is a valid perspective most of the time. Jesus often talked of how God looks at the heart when He judges us. From this perspective, it would seem very difficult (if not impossible) to sin accidentally. I am describing "sin" in terms of the actions themselves. This is also a valid perspective most of the time. God has commanded many actions and condemned many other actions in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, in general, actions themselves can be classified as either in line with or against the will of God. For instance, prayer to God would be in line with His will, and stealing would be against His will (sin). While both of these perspectives are valid most of the time, they do both have limitations and dangers. The first perspective (that you are supporting) comes dangerously close to relativism at times. When "sin" is defined solely based on a person's attitude (which we can never know completely), it is easy for someone to say, "well that may be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me". Sometimes this is accurate (ie. meat sacrificed to idols), however, most often this is said by a person trying to rationalize actual sin in their life. The second perspective (that I am supporting) comes dangerously close to legalism at times. When "sin" is defined solely based on a person's actions, it is easy for a person to do the right things with the wrong motivation. Sometimes this is healthy (ie. when we feel like praising God the least is when we need to do it the most). However, if continued for a long period of time, it can lead to pure hypocracy and can rob a person of the joy of true relationship with God. If I had to pick one of these perspectives, I'd choose the second. Better to err on the side caution, and stick to close to the letter of the law, than to err on the side of folly and commit egregious sins. However, the best choice of all is not to pick between these options, but rather to balance them and live by both. That is where we probably agree. I assume that we would both see the value (and danger) in each view independantly, and therefore the wisdom in finding the balance. |
||||||
3 | Lanny, What is your definition of sin? | Rom 6:2 | Reformer Joe | 24266 | ||
I hope you will indulge upon a little more discussion here, since we are getting to the heart of the matter at this point, in my opinion. You wrote: "When "sin" is defined solely based on a person's attitude (which we can never know completely), it is easy for someone to say, "well that may be wrong for you, but it is not wrong for me". Sometimes this is accurate (ie. meat sacrificed to idols), however, most often this is said by a person trying to rationalize actual sin in their life." Actually, I am not defining sin as an "attitude," but as a response to God's revealed will (i.e. the Bible). If one's thought life is contrary to the law of God (a lustful person who does not act on it), he still commits sin, whether he rationalizes it away or not. That's why sin is best defined as any lack of conformity to God's law rather than utilizing any other standard of feelings or human opinion. Jesus said as much in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:18-28 is a good chunk to point out what exactly entails following God's law to the fullest). Following God's law is not either of those two perspectives, but rather a combination of them both. The second perspective ("sin is only wrong action") is indeed legalism -- ALL the time. This was precisely the Pharisees' problem. They saw following God's law as only an outward ritual that must be followed. Jesus called them vipers and whitewashed tombs and hypocrites and clean only on the outside. You yourself said that the best is a combination of both. I agree, but I wouldn't hold it to be a balancing act between the two, but an understanding that sinful acts are the result of a sinful intent. Our Lord Jesus declares this as well: "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." --Luke 6:45 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." --Mathhew 12:34 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." --Matthew 23:25-26 Therefore, it is the sanctified heart which produces sanctified works. God is not honored by us praising Him with our lips when our hearts far from Him (Mark 7:6). That is indeed hypocrisy. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Lanny, What is your definition of sin? | Rom 6:2 | Hank | 24275 | ||
Joe, I do believe that you, with the ready help of some well-chosen Scripture, have led us to the heart of the matter -- that is to say, that sin does indeed originate in the heart of man. Unless the heart is cleansed, no amount of lip service, no outward show of piety, no good works or "holy" acts amount to anything but hypocrisy. Christians would be well advised to disembarrass themselves from the notion that in order to sin they must "do" something -- steal, lie, commit adultery, or kill somebody. The sins of the heart that don't necessarily involve any physical action at all are as grievous as any outward "sins of the flesh." Both originate within. --Hank | ||||||