Does guilt have any place in the life of a Christian?

[pdudgeon]

This sums up precisely what I've been trying to say in this thread.

Perfect Love casts out fear. Godly sorrow and conviction results from God's Love and goodness toward us, not from fear of punishment.

I think the reason this is such a hotly contested message is because it requires one to relinquish their control to the Holy Spirit. As you said, people use fear to control and manipulate people. In doing so, they obtain immediate, yet superficial and short lived results.

Yesterday in church, we were talking about the birthing process and sowing and reaping. A child is conceived and then it takes 9 months before we see the evidence of that birth. When you plant a seed, it takes time to reap a harvest from it. In fact, if you try to deliver a child before it's come to full term, you can actually cause tremendous harm (and even death). If you try to reap a harvest from the seeds you've planted before they've had the chance to take root and grow, you'll likely kill them.

The point is historically, the church has tried to use guilt, fear and manipulation to get people to respond to things immediately, all under the guise of "repentance". Instead of planting seeds and allowing the Holy Spirit to give life to those seeds so that they grow into maturity, it's almost as if we're trying to reap a harvest long before the seeds have had time to mature and grow properly.

This requires faith, patience, kindness, long suffering (Love?) and a release of our control to the only One who has the ability to give the increase.

you speak as though there were two messages being preached to sinners concerning God, when there is only one that needs to be preached.

that could be excused if, having heard that God is holy, you were to shut your ears and go away, hearing nothing else.

but i'll bet that if you really did listen to some of those who preached long ago you would hear in their complete message all of the Characteristics of God; both the holiness and the righteousness as well as the love and forgiveness.

A sacrifice for sin makes no sense if we cannot recognize that we are the sinners who have committed sin against God.

If i type a post on here saying "I forgive you, Pete" and say nothing else,
1. wouldn't you wonder what i was up to,
2. think that i made no sense whatsoever,
3. be offended that i thought you had done something that needed to be
forgiven?
4. treat my offer of forgiveness lightly, or spurn it entirely.
5. even think that I was high handed towards you?

but if we preach God's offer of love and forgiveness towards us in the context of His holiness and righteousness, and our sinfullness and unworthiness....... won't that make more sense?

then we can show gratitude and love because now we know how much that love and forgiveness cost Jesus, who was himself without sin.

that's the complete story, not the feel-good story.

 

[probinson]

you speak as though there were two messages being preached to sinners concerning God, when there is only one that needs to be preached.

Well, that's true. God's Love is all encompassing. You're the one that seems to be saying that God's Love is somehow at odds with His holiness.

that could be excused if, having heard that God is holy, you were to shut your ears and go away, hearing nothing else.

but i'll bet that if you really did listen to some of those who preached long ago you would hear in their complete message all of the Characteristics of God; both the holiness and the righteousness as well as the love and forgiveness.

Thanks for the commentary, but I know what I heard (since I was the one that heard it), and I can attest that the Love of God was incredibly absent and lacking from many of the messages of repentance I've heard preached over the years.

A sacrifice for sin makes no sense if we cannot recognize that we are the sinners who have committed sin against God.

I'm wondering at this point if you're even reading what I write. Specifically, I've said this, in this thread;

True repentance is an absolutely integral part of our relationship with God.
​

So I don't know why you keep saying things like, "if we cannot recognize that we are sinners", as if this is the message I'm portraying. It is not. It never has been, and until you acknowledge what I'm actually saying, it seems pointless to discuss much else concerning this topic.

If i type a post on here saying "I forgive you, Pete" and say nothing else,
1. wouldn't you wonder what i was up to,
2. think that i made no sense whatsoever,
3. be offended that i thought you had done something that needed to be
forgiven?
4. treat my offer of forgiveness lightly, or spurn it entirely.
5. even think that I was high handed towards you?

That's actually not all that unusual. People "forgive me" all the time for stuff I have no idea what I've done wrong. It doesn't offend me in the least. Suffice to say when that happens to me, none of the 5 possibilites you've suggested actually apply. At least to me.

but if we preach God's offer of love and forgiveness towards us in the context of His holiness and righteousness, and our sinfullness and unworthiness....... won't that make more sense?

then we can show gratitude and love because now we know how much that love and forgiveness cost Jesus, who was himself without sin.

that's the complete story, not the feel-good story.

The "feel-good story"... This is what the unconditional Love of God is relegated to? The footnote of an unkind message (by your own admission), and a "feel-good story".

It seems unlikely at this point that we'll be able to agree here, so it's probably best for us to just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[pdudgeon]

Well, that's true. God's Love is all encompassing. You're the one that seems to be saying that God's Love is somehow at odds with His holiness.



Thanks for the commentary, but I know what I heard (since I was the one that heard it), and I can attest that the Love of God was incredibly absent and lacking from many of the messages of repentance I've heard preached over the years.



I'm wondering at this point if you're even reading what I write. Specifically, I've said this, in this thread;

True repentance is an absolutely integral part of our relationship with God.
​

So I don't know why you keep saying things like, "if we cannot recognize that we are sinners", as if this is the message I'm portraying. It is not. It never has been, and until you acknowledge what I'm actually saying, it seems pointless to discuss much else concerning this topic.



That's actually not all that unusual. People "forgive me" all the time for stuff I have no idea what I've done wrong. It doesn't offend me in the least. Suffice to say when that happens to me, none of the 5 possibilites you've suggested actually apply. At least to me.



The "feel-good story"... This is what the unconditional Love of God is relegated to? The footnote of an unkind message (by your own admission), and a "feel-good story".

It seems unlikely at this point that we'll be able to agree here, so it's probably best for us to just agree to disagree at this point.

yes, the 'feel good story'--that's what forgiveness and grace seems to be all about these days.

Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin

Christian News, The Christian Post

here's an example for you of what the message of forgiveness and grace boils down to if God's holiness and his righteousness are not also preached in the same message.

 

[probinson]

here's an example for you of what the message of forgiveness and grace boils down to if God's holiness and his righteousness are not also preached in the same message.

No, that's what the message of forgiveness and grace can boil down to when used for selfish reasons, not what it does boil down to.

The fact that people have misused the message of forgiveness and grace as an excuse to sin by no means negates the message of forgiveness and grace as I've presented it in this thread.

You quote my posts, but then you largely ignore everything I say in them. It seems that you're arguing against a position that I don't hold, which is why I said there's not much benefit in discussing any further.

 

[Simon_Templar]

"Guilt has no place in the life of a believer. Jesus either did it all or he did nothing. You are not guilty of any sin if you are a believer. They are done away with. You don't have them anymore." - statement by the pastor at church this morning

What do you think?

Depends on what you mean by guilt.

When we do things wrong, we should feel regret and conviction over them.. that could be termed 'guilt' easily enough.

What we should not feel is what is sometimes termed 'morbid guilt'. This is guilt that does not go away when you ask forgiveness and repent. Morbid guilt is also guilt that drives us to hide and cover up our sins, rather than guilt that drives us to repent and ask forgiveness.

IF we are not living rightly, our conscience should prick us... if it doesn't you've got a serious problem.

However, once you ask forgiveness and repent, you should *edit add* NOT *finish edit* continue to feel guilty.


hehe oops (thanks to Yitzak for pointing out my error)

 

[Simon_Templar]

So what you are saying is that Jesus' blood only covers the sins we have repented of?

If this is true what if I steal a pencil, lose my temper, get in a fight with my wife, gossip about someone, fail to seek peace in a situation, fail to act lovingly toward some, know to do right in some various situation and I fail to do so and before I "repent" of it I get hit by a car and die. I burn forever in the lake of fire eternally separated from God?

Is what Christ accomplished on the cross really at the mercy of my imperfect humanity and good or bad decisions like that? Is that the hope of our salvation? That Jesus saves those who act good enough (repent enough) after believing in Him?

If you are going to say little sins God overlooks and big sins He doesn't then who decides what is a big sin or a little sin? Doesn't the Scripture tell us that cursed is everyone who doesn't keep all the law? Whether the transgression is great or small it is still a transgression. Is this the freedom we have been given? Saved from the condemnation of the law so we could be placed back under it?

Should we turn around and do right when we do wrong? Of course we should. But you didn't say should, you said "must."

If eternal life comes by anything more than simple trusting faith in what Jesus accomplished for us then Jesus is a liar and I certainly do not believe Jesus to be a liar. (See John 3:16)

God knows that we are imperfect. He doesn't expect perfection from us. As a result he does not expect us to remember every infraction, ever sin of commission and omission. It is not necessary to itemize your repentence like a tax return.

However, it is good to confess everything you can think of and repent of it... not because God is going to zap you if you leave something out... but because its good for YOU to do that.

Further, many people think that all sins are the same. This is usually based on a general understanding of Paul's comment about the law. To break any portion of the law was to break the entire law. (I used to hold this view as well because it is what I was taught)
This, however, is a misaplication of that idea. Sin existed before law was given and thus sin is not the same thing as law (or breaking the law). The law was given to make sin visible, to reveal it.

It is clear in scripture that there are degrees of sin. Some sins are more serious than others and have worse consequences than others.

John puts it this way in 1st John 5, some sins do not necessarily lead to death. Other sins necessarily do lead to death. It is abundantly clear in this passage that John is talking about Christians sinning, not just sins in general. Also, what he is talking about is not physical death, but spiritual death.

John points out that all sins are bad, but the fact remains that some sins do not harm us as much as others.

Thus something like losing your temper, or gossiping etc... doing something that you aren't really aware of, or something you maybe don't fully have control over etc.. is not on the same level as something like committing adultery, deliberately harming some one, commiting idolatry, blasphemy etc.

Some sins lead to spiritual death, others don't.


For the record, since I know it will come up, I don't believe that if a person commits a sin unto death that it means they can never repent. "sin that leads to death" is not unforgivable, it does, however mean that you have willfully turned away the grace that God made available to you and you need to repent and come back to grace and thus back to life.

 

[ai3theanswer]

Simon Templar you just said in a nut shell Jesus' blood wasn't good enough, we have to live a sinless life.....

We are all born spiritually dead. So how can we become Spiritually alive and then Spiritually dead again. If you are saying that, you are saying that sin is greater than what Jesus did on the cross.

Paul reminded the people in 1 Cor that they are still present tense the temple of the Holy Spirit... this is after he listed all their crazy sins. So did he make a mistake? Should he have said REPENT! before you go to hell.

Have you noticed that its only in 1 John where it says confess your sins. Paul never mentioned it once. He wrote most of the NT and not one time did he says confess your sins to be forgiven. If he was a preached of grace and never told us one time to repent and confess our sins then he did us a injustice. Why is it that people take 1John1:9 and make it a religion. Notice how that chapter starts and then how 1John2 starts. There is a difference. Why because in 1John1 he is not talking to believers, he is talking to unbelievers.

You talk about sin on different levels... this is not biblical at all. If you want to say they are not all the same then we need to toss out the book of James (2:10). When we read the 10 commandments or the ministry of death most people would think that murder is the worst of the worst. BUT if you read it again you will notice that it took God 4 words to tell that command and it took Him 94 words to say honor your parents. That tells me that not honoring your parents is worse than murder.... so don't try to reason this with human reasoning.

In your last post you said we should not feel guilt after we repent.... is this because our confession is some how greater than what Jesus did on the cross?
Why is it that we have to confess our sins... shouldn't we be confessing our righteousness of God in Chrit. Didn't Jesus make us the righteousness of God in Christ..that what my bible tells me.

One final question for Simon Templar....answer in short form please.

Are we forgiven for all our sins past, present and future?

if you say yes then whats with all these contradictory posts.

If you say no then are you saying that time and sin is greater than Jesus' blood?

Its one or the other.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I mirror the Buddhist idea of guilt.There is a good level of feeling guilty over an improper action,etc but there is also a level of guilt that itself becomes a problem.

 

[Yitzchak]

I mirror the Buddhist idea of guilt.There is a good level of feeling guilty over an improper action,etc but there is also a level of guilt that itself becomes a problem.

I can see your point. I can agree with your statement. I don't like the idea of Budda getting credit for what is common sense though.

Guilt plays an important role in life. But like any good thing , it can be destructive when it is misplaced or overdone.