Sin and repentance.

[LouisBooth]

"Ahh, but do you necessarily know that it's sin? "

Yes, you do know. the Holy Spirit will tell you when you're sinning seebs.

IN gray areas I might be willing to submit to your view, but not in larger areas such as murder, rape, fornication, homosexuality, etc...

 

[seebs]

And yet, not that long ago, it was widely accepted that marriage was an implicit contract for sex so strong that "marriage" was a valid defense against accusations of rape. Where was the Holy Spirit then?

I'm skeptical when people say that the Holy Spirit 100% reliably tells people when they're sinning, simply because otherwise devout people always seem to have a few blind spots in which they are not aware of any such message.

I suppose, theoretically, it could just be that I've never actually met a person who was really saved. However, this seems *VERY* unlikely to me.

I just can't believe that, for instance, for hundreds of years, millions of people were so totally uninterested in what the Holy Spirit was telling them. We've certainly got a long and ugly history of people doing things that sure *look* sinful.

 

[LouisBooth]

"it was widely accepted that marriage was an implicit contract for sex so strong that "marriage" was a valid defense against accusations of rape. "

*sigh* it was still there seebs people just choose to ignore it. It was pretty plainly stated treat your wives as christ treated the church. I see no forced love there. Come on seebs that's a very very poor example.

"I'm skeptical when people say that the Holy Spirit 100% reliably tells people when they're sinning, "

Be skeptical all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it happens. As I said in grey areas I might be willing to accept this, but not in the major apparent sin areas such as murder, homosexuality, rape, lying, etc...

"I just can't believe that, for instance, for hundreds of years, millions of people were so totally uninterested in what the Holy Spirit was telling them. "

then you haven't read the bible at all.

"Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. '

Mat 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

 

[seebs]

I dunno; if you're right, then at least half the staff on this board, not to mention at least half the users who identify themselves as Christian, are *NECESSARILY* failing to achieve the minimal standard of "Christianity", which is that the Holy Spirit would, 100% of the time, inform them if they were sinning... We can tell this because of the disagreements about which exact things are, or aren't, sins.

I look at the history of Christianity, and I see *MILLIONS* of people doing things which, according to their upbringings, were acceptable, but which we, today, claim are unambiguously sinful. Were *NONE* of those people really Christians?

I think it's far too easy to believe that a thing is "plain" from the text of the Bible when it is, in fact, not even *true* of the text of the Bible. Assume I grant for the sake of argument that you, today, have it all right; everything you think is plain from a careful reading of the Bible is right.

In that case, not one person born before 1500, except for Christ Himself, has been clear on the whole thing. There are too many things which you, raised in a modern Western culture, take for granted as moral laws, and which make you understand the Bible very differently from people living two hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years ago.

So... either you're wrong, or they're wrong, and if the Holy Spirit genuinely informs people *ABSOLUTELY 100% OF THE TIME* when they are sinning, if they're Christians... then either you're not a Christian, or none of those people were.

Neither of these seems *REMOTELY* plausible to me. I am obliged to conclude that people do, indeed, sometimes simply not understand that something is a sin, despite sincere efforts to understand. This would be my understanding of the "sinful nature" we are told humans have; we simply *can't* listen all the time.

If, indeed, people "chose to ignore" things, then either this is the first generation of people with any *chance* of salvation, or God forgives that, too.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by seebs
I dunno; if you're right, then at least half the staff on this board, not to mention at least half the users who identify themselves as Christian, are *NECESSARILY* failing to achieve the minimal standard of "Christianity", which is that the Holy Spirit would, 100% of the time, inform them if they were sinning... We can tell this because of the disagreements about which exact things are, or aren't, sins.

Seebs I think you may have a misconception of Christianity.  There is not a "minimal standard of Christianity" that I can acheive.  God did it all.  He brought me from death to life through the cross and He gives me my daily stregnth so I can become more like Him and walk in His way of love.  Basically what I am trying to say isthat Christianity is not what I do necessarily but what God has done and is doing.  He will finish the good work He began in me and in you.  (phil. 1:6) Maybe I am wrong but it seems that you are saying that you have to acheive some sort of standard to be a true or good Christian.  I think that is not what Christianity is about.  I believe itis about grace. 

I look at the history of Christianity, and I see *MILLIONS* of people doing things which, according to their upbringings, were acceptable, but which we, today, claim are unambiguously sinful. Were *NONE* of those people really Christians?

I think it's far too easy to believe that a thing is "plain" from the text of the Bible when it is, in fact, not even *true* of the text of the Bible. Assume I grant for the sake of argument that you, today, have it all right; everything you think is plain from a careful reading of the Bible is right.

In that case, not one person born before 1500, except for Christ Himself, has been clear on the whole thing. There are too many things which you, raised in a modern Western culture, take for granted as moral laws, and which make you understand the Bible very differently from people living two hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years ago.

So... either you're wrong, or they're wrong, and if the Holy Spirit genuinely informs people *ABSOLUTELY 100% OF THE TIME* when they are sinning, if they're Christians... then either you're not a Christian, or none of those people were.

Neither of these seems *REMOTELY* plausible to me. I am obliged to conclude that people do, indeed, sometimes simply not understand that something is a sin, despite sincere efforts to understand. This would be my understanding of the "sinful nature" we are told humans have; we simply *can't* listen all the time.

If, indeed, people "chose to ignore" things, then either this is the first generation of people with any *chance* of salvation, or God forgives that, too. [/B]

I will not take over this discussion from you and louis but know that I believe that none of us know all of the sin we do or what is sin 100%.  The Holy Spirit has made it clear to us but we because of our sin and because basically we are still pretty stupid we do not understand it all.  But some things we can understand and they are very clear.  But we will not understand all of it and put even less of our knowledge into a practice of avoiding the sin.  Okay I will go away now.

blackhawk

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Seebs I think you may have a misconception of Christianity.  There is not a "minimal standard of Christianity" that I can acheive.  God did it all.  He brought me from death to life through the cross and He gives me my daily stregnth so I can become more like Him and walk in His way of love.  Basically what I am trying to say isthat Christianity is not what I do necessarily but what God has done and is doing.  He will finish the good work He began in me and in you.  (phil. 1:6) Maybe I am wrong but it seems that you are saying that you have to acheive some sort of standard to be a true or good Christian.  I think that is not what Christianity is about.  I believe itis about grace. 

I think I phrased what I was saying exceptionally badly. I was trying to refer to some minimal standard by which someone else could know that a given person is Christian. I don't think there is one.

My thinking is, if we assert that, if you are saved, it is 100% certain that the holy spirit will let you know when you're sinning, then we have a problem, because often you get whole boatloads of people who, by all appearences, are *trying* to do the right thing, but who disagree. If the holy spirit isn't correcting them, then they must not be saved?!? This seems awfully harsh to me, and not very consistent with other things I believe.

I will not take over this discussion from you and louis but know that I believe that none of us know all of the sin we do or what is sin 100%.  The Holy Spirit has made it clear to us but we because of our sin and because basically we are still pretty stupid we do not understand it all.  But some things we can understand and they are very clear.  But we will not understand all of it and put even less of our knowledge into a practice of avoiding the sin.  Okay I will go away now.

blackhawk

I think your contributions are valuable; this isn't about being a grudge match between me and Louis; I wanted to find out what lots of people think.

I think you've said something that gives me a possible way of reconciling the claim that the holy spirit tells us when we're sinning, and the observation that we apparently don't always know; I think it may just be that we don't always listen all that well. Nonetheless, I think that failing is, in the end, universal - so I sure hope it's a forgivable failing.

 

[LouisBooth]

"In that case, not one person born before 1500, except for Christ Himself, has been clear on the whole thing"

I think you're absolutely wrong in that. Many people are credited to "walk with God" or righteousness in the bible. They knew when they did wrong. Like I said, I might allow that and adhere to your view in some gray areas, but not in the major areas of sin like murder, homosexuality, rape, lying, etc...

 

[seebs]

I used 1500 because there's not a single record of a single person before that time in all of the Christian faith who had any doubts about the morality of owning other people. The first written record we have of someone questioning slavery, in any of its many forms, is 1594.

I think that, for all living humans, trapped in flesh, "righteousness" is still fairly limited; it means they're doing their best, and that it's pretty impressive compared to what most of us achieve, but it doesn't preclude *STILL* being wrong on some things.

Would you care to bet on whether or not any of those "righteous" men from the Old Testament ever sired children on the women of a tribe they had just defeated in a war? I wouldn't. That was what people did, and I don't think they knew any better. God, being infinitely merciful, can put up with a few cultural blind spots.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The first written record we have of someone questioning slavery, in any of its many forms, is 1594.
"

Huh? I'd say Paul questioned it in some of this letters and didn't address it in others. NO greek, jew or slave, etc...was a pretty radical thought at the time. And asking in Philemon to treat a slave as you would me, ie an equal, is also a pretty radical thing.

Sorry seebs, but you're getting a bit off the topic with your last post. Like I said before, I might be willing to go with your view on gray areas, but not with big clearly defined ones like rape, murder, homosexuality, stealing, etc...

 

[eldermike]

In John Chapter 8 Jesus explained that we could live as slaves to sin or as Sons of God. It's a condition of our lives based upon our decision to accept Jesus as Savior.

A slave to sin is a person that measures Him/herself in the kingdom of God by using a measurable set of rules (The law)

A son of God is a person that has accepted Jesus as Savior. Notice I didn't say "Lord" That is another decision I must make.

If I decided that Jesus is Lord then I must die, I must become a living sacrifice. Jesus dosn't have a co-lordship plan, it's Lord or nothing.

If I die to self and Jesus becomes lord, I get a new "wanter". I can now sin all I want too, but guess what? I don't want to because it's not my "wanter", it's His "wanter".

If I ask for salvation and then remain Lord I will struggle with sin all my life. If I ask for salvation and then make Jesus Lord I will still sin all I want to, I just don't want to.

Blessings

 

[seebs]

Interesting inputs; so, you're saying that, if you accept Jesus as lord, you will no longer want to sin. So... Let's say someone says he's done this, but he does something that you think is sinful.

Does that mean:
1. He hasn't really accepted Jesus as Lord.
2. God hasn't finished changing his desires yet.
3. You might be wrong in thinking that thing to be sinful.

?

So, for instance, let's say that two people, who sometimes go out to a bar and have a few beers together, both accept Jesus as Lord. One of them finds that he no longer wants to drink beer, and that he thinks it's sinful. The other still likes beer, and doesn't find it sinful, but is careful not to drink to excess.

Is one of them wrong? Is God's will a little different for each of them?

 

[eldermike]

Seebs,

When we die, we do it in throws (some of us) this can take a lifetime or a minute. I have seen this in my life and in others. Our nature is to control, to trust in us. It's not actually an easy process. So I would pick number 1 but with this explanation. It's not easy until you get there. Jesus had the same thing in the desert and I hear many people say that 40 days would be a long time. I know people that have been at it for 30 years and they still have the Lordship of their lives. They cry out to God when they fail but as soon as they are back on top they stop.

Giving over your life to Christ is a daily, alomst hourly, perhaps even minute by minute process. But it works.

Blessings

 

[seebs]

How do you feel about cases where people accept things that we think are horrible, but which are accepted in their cultures?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The first written record we have of someone questioning slavery, in any of its many forms, is 1594.
"

Huh? I'd say Paul questioned it in some of this letters and didn't address it in others. NO greek, jew or slave, etc...was a pretty radical thought at the time. And asking in Philemon to treat a slave as you would me, ie an equal, is also a pretty radical thing.

Sorry seebs, but you're getting a bit off the topic with your last post. Like I said before, I might be willing to go with your view on gray areas, but not with big clearly defined ones like rape, murder, homosexuality, stealing, etc...

Paul said that there is no Gentile or Jew, slave or free, male or female. However, this does not mean that Christians were no longer Gentiles, Jews, slaves, free, male, or female. The distinctions still existed in the world, but he didn't want these distinctions to divide the Church.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Is one of them wrong? Is God's will a little different for each of them?"

Well seebs, its clearly defined in scripture not to get drunk. It says nothing about drinking at all, in biblical times everyone drank because the water was not healthy to drink.'

"The distinctions still existed in the world, but he didn't want these distinctions to divide the Church."

So? but for him to equalize the stations at all was a radical move.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Is one of them wrong? Is God's will a little different for each of them?"

Well seebs, its clearly defined in scripture not to get drunk. It says nothing about drinking at all, in biblical times everyone drank because the water was not healthy to drink.'

"The distinctions still existed in the world, but he didn't want these distinctions to divide the Church."

So? but for him to equalize the stations at all was a radical move.

Sorry, looking back at your original post, I realize that you were not claiming that Paul was condemning slavery. :o

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"The distinctions still existed in the world, but he didn't want these distinctions to divide the Church."

So? but for him to equalize the stations at all was a radical move.

It certainly was - but it didn't come anywhere near even the slightest hint of opposition to the continuation of slavery in all its varied forms.

And, as commented before, slavery existed in more than one form at the time, some forms very similar to "modern" Western slavery of the 1700's and 1800's, some more similar to indentured servitude... and all clearly wrong by modern moral standards.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by seebs
Interesting inputs; so, you're saying that, if you accept Jesus as lord, you will no longer want to sin. So... Let's say someone says he's done this, but he does something that you think is sinful.

Does that mean:
1. He hasn't really accepted Jesus as Lord.
2. God hasn't finished changing his desires yet.
3. You might be wrong in thinking that thing to be sinful.

?

So, for instance, let's say that two people, who sometimes go out to a bar and have a few beers together, both accept Jesus as Lord. One of them finds that he no longer wants to drink beer, and that he thinks it's sinful. The other still likes beer, and doesn't find it sinful, but is careful not to drink to excess.

Is one of them wrong? Is God's will a little different for each of them?

I think its' more a matter of not LONGING to sin more than never being tempted to sin. People who understand salvation and what it cost God don't want to persist in sin anymore.

But yes, it does take time sometimes for God to readjust your desires away from sinful things and toward healthy things.

And drinking a beer isn't necessarily sinful in itself. Getting drunk and beating your wife is sinful. Getting drunk and driving is sinful. Enjoying a refreshing beverage is not in and of itself sinful. It's "heart motive" again seebs. If you are having a beer with a sandwich because it is refreshing, isn't not sin. Having eight beers because you like to be sloshing drunk is sinful.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I realize that you were not claiming that Paul was condemning slavery. "

Yes, he does, but in a subverzive move. he says, if you're a christian, treat your slaves like you would treat me. he wouldn't treat paul like a slave, thus paul is saying you shouldn't have slaves.

"but it didn't come anywhere near even the slightest hint of opposition to the continuation of slavery in all its varied forms."

I think you're discounting the move just for the sole purpose of keeping the argument going. It was CLEAR that paul was against slavery by his words and his actions.

"and all clearly wrong by modern moral standards"

I disagree. Indentured servent hood, the method of slavery at that time, is not immoral. They didn't have credit cards thus you worked it off. The same thing is done in today's world. You eat and don't pay you 1. go to jail or 2. do the dishes.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by lambslove

And drinking a beer isn't necessarily sinful in itself. Getting drunk and beating your wife is sinful. Getting drunk and driving is sinful. Enjoying a refreshing beverage is not in and of itself sinful. It's "heart motive" again seebs. If you are having a beer with a sandwich because it is refreshing, isn't not sin. Having eight beers because you like to be sloshing drunk is sinful.

That's about how I feel about it. But, let's say some guy feels that he's been convicted by the Holy Spirit to avoid all drinking. Is that because we're wrong, or because he's wrong, or because sometimes something is sinful for one person, but not for another person?