Seeking origin of a doctrine that struck me as strange

[BryanJohnMaloney]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?

It sounds pretty alien. But I think it has it's roots in the (false) concept of 'imputed righteousness. The idea is that we are not made righteous before God but only 'look' righteous while still being hideous sinners. That's a concept from Luther that many other Christians still claim, although not usually as strangely put as was presented to you. I have heard it presented that we are a snow covered pile of dung. It looks pretty on the surface, but only on the surface. When justified we are not a new creation, but the same old dung dressed up with a nice cover of snow. I reject all of that. I reject it because the Bible insists that scales read true and judges judge with accuracy and we not bear false witness. If we are a new creation we really have been made righteous instead of just looking righteous to God. God sees and knows us as we are and is not fooled.

This issue of whether righteousness is merely imputed, or whether what is imputed is also made actual was the issue that kept me Catholic. True, I have found some Protestants since then who don't accept this strange idea that we are snow covered dung heaps. I think the idea is more commonly Calvinist these days. I also suspect that it doesn't occur to most plain believers and requires a certain kind of theological training to get that kind of odd idea in your head. Anyhow, it's not a Catholic idea, instead started up about 500 years ago, although I don't know how old the particular alien variation you discovered was invented.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

Mere human reasoning to support a view of a Biblical principle, at the cost of good reason and several other Biblical references and principles.

We don't have the authority to discredit any Bible passage that disagrees with some structure we have arranged in our minds to explain what we read in Scripture. Scripture agrees with Scripture. Always.

There is also good reason. If, as we believe, God is omnipotent, self-existent, and first cause, is not subject to principles external to himself, and does not operate according to them, then it is self-contradictory to say that he can be tricked, or that he cannot see something, or that he lacks the capacity to do whatever he set out from the beginning to do. God is not a mere co-resident with us within a reality larger than himself.

 

[fhansen]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

There's a ton of different theologizing going on out there. With seemingly no end to the possibilities...

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

It sounds pretty alien. But I think it has it's roots in the (false) concept of 'imputed righteousness. The idea is that we are not made righteous before God but only 'look' righteous while still being hideous sinners. That's a concept from Luther that many other Christians still claim, although not usually as strangely put as was presented to you. I have heard it presented that we are a snow covered pile of dung. It looks pretty on the surface, but only on the surface. When justified we are not a new creation, but the same old dung dressed up with a nice cover of snow. I reject all of that. I reject it because the Bible insists that scales read true and judges judge with accuracy and we not bear false witness. If we are a new creation we really have been made righteous instead of just looking righteous to God. God sees and knows us as we are and is not fooled.

Okay, I guess I can see how that came about, but it directly contradicts Scripture, like 2 Cor 5:17.

 

[fhansen]

Okay, I guess I can see how that came about, but it directly contradicts Scripture, like 2 Cor 5:17.

Yes! If I may. We are made new creations at justification. We aren't forced to "go there" to begin with, however, to respond to God's grace, His calling, IOW. And we aren't forced to remain there either, to remain in Him. This new justice/righteousness, this seed of God's life that is planted inside us at justification must be embraced, nourished, confirmed. refined, expressed and grown as it's also challenged and tested. To the extent that we truly remain in Him we will grow in righteousness. To the extent that we become embroiled back into grave unrighteousness (sin, i.e. failure to love), we haven't remained in Him, any talk to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Der Alte]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.
That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.
How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

I am a Southern Baptist and graduated from the flag ship Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, KY in 1983. I have never heard of such a doctrine.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

Most mainline denominations don't have doctrines that feature a personality flaw of God.

I get the sense it is a variation on the "when God looks at you, He sees Jesus, not the sin" teaching .. but it's warped off into another dimension.

 

[Guojing]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

I think one way to understand this is when God ask Adam where he is after he sinned.

Do you think God cannot see him, or he can see him but he just want to ask to make Adam feel guilty for sinning?

 

[Jamdoc]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

that is a bizarrely unbiblical doctrine, but it might be coming from taking verses out of context about God hiding His face from sinners, several of David's Psalms mention David begging the Lord not to hide His face from David on account of his sins such as Psalm 51, and in Micah 3:4 the Lord says He will hide His face when Israel pleas for mercy, because of their sin, and in Ezekiel 39 after the Lord defeats Gog He promises He won't hide His face from Israel anymore.

It's certainly not a true doctrine however, as we know God is all knowing, sins you hide from other people cannot be hidden from God.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

Sounds like the church of Satan.
Blessings

 

[SavedByGrace3]

It may depend if you take this verse (and others) literally or metaphorically.

2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

And therefore:

2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[Johan2222]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

Psalm 94:6-9 NKJV
They slay the widow and the stranger, And murder the fatherless. [7] Yet they say, "The LORD does not see, Nor does the God of Jacob understand." [8] Understand, you senseless among the people; And you fools, when will you be wise? [9] He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?

Ezekiel 8:12-13 ASV
Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the elders of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in his chambers of imagery? for they say, Jehovah seeth us not; Jehovah hath forsaken the land. [13] He said also unto me, Thou shalt again see yet other great abominations which they do.

Hebrews 4:13 RSV
And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?

The generation of the fig tree is old and the time is at hand and the love of men has grown cold and the time has come when they do not receive sound doctrine but heap to themselves teachers who teach them what they want to hear.

Folly is widespread and any doctrine that implies God is a liar is from the father of lies.

That you found anything in that doctrine to bless should be of great concern to you.

Matthew 25:41 KJV
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Those who call God a liar shall be on the left hand, not blessed.

 

[Guojing]

Some years ago, I attended a parish. I won't identify it because what I recount might be problematic. At that parish, it was taught, in no uncertain terms that...
1. God is incapable of seeing a sinner. He lacks the capacity to notice the existence of a sinner. I did not misunderstand that. It was explained quite clearly. God lacks the ability to see a sinner.
2. Since God cannot see a sinner, then God lacks the capacity to save that sinner.
3. However, God can be tricked. God can be fooled. If a sinner is covered in the Blood of Jesus, then God can only see "His Son's Blood" and only sees "His Son". He cannot see the sinner beneath the Blood.
4. God, thus tricked, brings the sinner into the fold, saving the sinner.

That was quite the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] moment for me, but I made sure that what I thought I heard was what was said. This was a parish that was part of the largest Southern Baptist group with activity in Texas. It was rather popular in its town and was able to sustain a school.

How widespread is this sort of doctrine and where would it have originated?
This parish also taught that Christ could not have raised Himself from the dead and had to be raised by God.

Another interesting passage about this is when God spoke to Balaam in Numbers 23

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.

Previously, the location where Balaam saw Israel the nation was from the top, and if you understood Numbers 1, how God wanted Israel to camp, it looked like this

I am sure Israel was grumbling against God all day every day while they are camping in the wilderness but yet, God could state he "hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel"

It should remind you of something and how, today, its no surprise that God does not see our sin.