Ptilinopus
Well-Known Member
Reddogs wrote:
Can sinning can be overcome in this lifewith the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Desmond Ford basic premise as I remember the debate was that he does not believe that all sinning can be overcome in this lifeeither with or without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only certain sins can be overcome, thus the 'other' sins by extension are allowable.
But people take this to mean that these 'sins' are not really "hard sins" or "iniquity", but just part of being in a sinful world. Is that correct according to scripture?
Perhaps it might be helpful to quote just what Des Ford meant by this premise, at least when I knew him (I studied under him at Avondale College) in the mid-1970s. The matter arose over the Biblical definition of sin. Most ultra-TSDAs then (as now) adopt the definition in 1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law. Certainly all transgression of the law is sin! But this is not the most accurate rendition of this verse; the Greek actually says, sin is lawlessness. And the verse actually makes a separation between committing sin and transgressing the law: Whoever committeth sin transgresseth ALSO the law (or also commits lawlessness). Apparently there is more to sin than merely transgressing the law, sinful as that is.
Althought the context is somewhat other, Rom. 14:23 has another valid definition: whatever is not of faith is sin. So also does James 4:17: to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Rom.3:32 perhaps suggest more what Des Ford was getting at: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
I well remember hearing Des at Avondale College quoting this, and stating that anything that falls short of the glory of God is sin. Far from saying we can sin with impunity, he pointed out that we are so embedded in sin, that we will never be perfect this side of eternity. He said, "Even our very prayers need repenting of." He went so far as to say, Sinlessness in this life is truly a chimaera.
His CB (ultra-TSDAs in Australia) opponents attacked him vigorously on this, quoting some of these, often out of context, and arguing the perfectionist approach. But given his understanding of the definition, he was correct. Sad that it has been so taken out of context that he has been accused of teaching that we can sin with impunity
The rich young ruler pointed out that he no longer broke the 10 commandments all these have I kept from my youth up. But when Jesus pointed his finger at his basic selfishness (not mentioned in the law as such!) he went away sorrowful.
Sin is all the above. Yes, I believe that in Christ, we will not longer deliberately choose to commit sin as a love response to His sacrifice, and His grace, and through the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spirit. But I still fall into impulsive sin and sin through omission and fall short of the glory of God. And in that sense, I must await that time when this corruptible must put on incorruption.
Praise God I am covered by His righteousness
Can sinning can be overcome in this lifewith the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Desmond Ford basic premise as I remember the debate was that he does not believe that all sinning can be overcome in this lifeeither with or without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only certain sins can be overcome, thus the 'other' sins by extension are allowable.
But people take this to mean that these 'sins' are not really "hard sins" or "iniquity", but just part of being in a sinful world. Is that correct according to scripture?
Perhaps it might be helpful to quote just what Des Ford meant by this premise, at least when I knew him (I studied under him at Avondale College) in the mid-1970s. The matter arose over the Biblical definition of sin. Most ultra-TSDAs then (as now) adopt the definition in 1 John 3:4 sin is the transgression of the law. Certainly all transgression of the law is sin! But this is not the most accurate rendition of this verse; the Greek actually says, sin is lawlessness. And the verse actually makes a separation between committing sin and transgressing the law: Whoever committeth sin transgresseth ALSO the law (or also commits lawlessness). Apparently there is more to sin than merely transgressing the law, sinful as that is.
Althought the context is somewhat other, Rom. 14:23 has another valid definition: whatever is not of faith is sin. So also does James 4:17: to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Rom.3:32 perhaps suggest more what Des Ford was getting at: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
I well remember hearing Des at Avondale College quoting this, and stating that anything that falls short of the glory of God is sin. Far from saying we can sin with impunity, he pointed out that we are so embedded in sin, that we will never be perfect this side of eternity. He said, "Even our very prayers need repenting of." He went so far as to say, Sinlessness in this life is truly a chimaera.
His CB (ultra-TSDAs in Australia) opponents attacked him vigorously on this, quoting some of these, often out of context, and arguing the perfectionist approach. But given his understanding of the definition, he was correct. Sad that it has been so taken out of context that he has been accused of teaching that we can sin with impunity
The rich young ruler pointed out that he no longer broke the 10 commandments all these have I kept from my youth up. But when Jesus pointed his finger at his basic selfishness (not mentioned in the law as such!) he went away sorrowful.
Sin is all the above. Yes, I believe that in Christ, we will not longer deliberately choose to commit sin as a love response to His sacrifice, and His grace, and through the in-dwelling power of the Holy Spirit. But I still fall into impulsive sin and sin through omission and fall short of the glory of God. And in that sense, I must await that time when this corruptible must put on incorruption.
Praise God I am covered by His righteousness
Upvote
0
. Apparently there is more to sin than merely transgressing the law, sinful as that is.
