What people believe does not change the truth...

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Soon144k
Paul states that Jesus BECAME the Son of God at the resurrection, by declaration not by right of birth. John in Revelation was shown that the Woman gave birth to a Son that was the Son of God by birthright, being called the Son of God. Which of these is correct?

Leodicean wrote:
Matthew and Mark also record a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God. Please quote where Paul says that Jesus BECAME the son of God at the resurrection.

Read Romans 1:4 again: (4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

What BFA said.

 

[Soon144k]

No, Paul does not write this; he writes that Jesus Christ was declared the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. Further, in other parts of his writings, he indicates that Jesus was the Son of God even before the resurrection (see post #208).

Let's move on to something new.

BFA

No, I will not move on to something new when this is SO important in understanding the person that is held to be the 'patron saint' of Christianity, ie. Paul.

The only way to be able to say that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God is that He was NOT the Son of God before the declaration. Paul states categorically that Jesus was DECLARED to be the Son of God, rather than Jesus just BEING the Son of God. And he said that this declaration took place at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul is wrong. The being that became Jesus became so AT HIS BIRTH, not at His resurrection. It doesn't matter that Paul calls Jesus the Son of God elsewhere in his writing, you can't eliminate one statement by using another statement.

It is clear to me that Paul is wrong about this. If he is wrong about this then does in not make sense to check and see if he is wrong about other issues?

Does not your salvation deserve this investigation?

 

[Laodicean]

No, I will not move on to something new when this is SO important in understanding the person that is held to be the 'patron saint' of Christianity, ie. Paul.

The only way to be able to say that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God is that He was NOT the Son of God before the declaration. Paul states categorically that Jesus was DECLARED to be the Son of God, rather than Jesus just BEING the Son of God. And he said that this declaration took place at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul is wrong. The being that became Jesus became so AT HIS BIRTH, not at His resurrection. It doesn't matter that Paul calls Jesus the Son of God elsewhere in his writing, you can't eliminate one statement by using another statement.

It is clear to me that Paul is wrong about this. If he is wrong about this then does in not make sense to check and see if he is wrong about other issues?

Does not your salvation deserve this investigation?

Soon, you are getting needlessly hung up on the word "declared" when there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jesus being declared the Son of God. "Declaring" is another way of acknowledging that Jesus IS the Son of God. We preach that same fact today, declaring to the world that Jesus is the Son of God. Does that make us false preachers?

I agree with BFA. We need to move on.

 

[Alawishis]

I'm sorry I have not been back here in a while, now I see you have gone way off on another discussion.

You did. All of them, in fact. However, I appreciate your pledge to go back and respond to them.

OK I went back to your first post and from what I could see these were the points/questions I may not have covered. If I missed any please let me know?

What does this mean? How does this break down in day-to-day life? Are we delivered from all old covenant laws, or only some of them?
It's a good question. Also, did sin exist before the law was added?

I think we covered this but to clarify; sin has existed from Adam through to today. So if you are asking did sin exist before the law was codified at Sinai the answer is yes. Does this mean that because the law was not written on stone tables yet that it's precepts did not exist, no. Cain did commit murder and it was a sin. So in that way the moral law existed even if not written down sin has not changed it is and always has been the definition of sin. That which was a sin in ancient times is a sin today.

Sounds like a great idea. What is the relationship between the law and death? Is this same idea picked up in 2 Corinthians 3? What is the ministry that brings death and what is the ministry that brings life?
If the law could not be fulfilled, then why did Jesus come?

The law brings death in that is the penalty for transgression. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 6:23. This is inescapable, save for the ministry of life, bought by the blood Jesus Christ.

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled. Jesus paid the price for us. The items outlined in the moral law are still sins. It is still a sin to worship idols but if you have done that and repent Jesus' blood has paid the price, and forgiveness is afforded you.

I don't disagree that Christ paid the penalty for us, but you still seem to blur Christ's act of substitution with His act of fulfillment. Those were 2 separate acts.Let me offer an example to illustrate this point further.

The SDA denomination believes that Jesus Christ filled full God-given requirements relating to:

* Offering animal sacrifices
* Observing all but one of the convocations/feasts listed in Leviticus 23
* The importance of wearing tzitzit and following other Israelite practices
* Being circumcised
​

Would you agree that Jesus filled these requirements full, or do you think that we have a continued, ongoing obligation to follow these God-given commands?

I agree. These were a shadow, they pointed forward to the sacrifice of Chirst. "But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away"1 Cor 13.10

Indeed, it is. Quite illegal. There are laws requiring the payment of taxes. If you break these laws, you are subject to a penalty beginning with the first year you do not pay.

The man wasn't in risk of breaking the law (remember that he violated specific laws requiring him to pay taxes), he had in fact broken the law and should have faced stiff penalties. Unlike your example, where the benefactor only provided substitution, my example includes the concept of fulfillment. My benefactor not only took the penalty upon himself (by paying the man's back taxes) but he also filled the obligation full (by paying all future taxes). This is how substitution and fulfillment interact.



YES, the law is still valid.
And NO, the man is no longer under an obligation.

This concept confuses me. How can you have a valid law that no one is obligated to keep. Once the obligation is removed the law is void.

Is it now OK to worship idols?

Are only some laws valid? If so which ones, how do we know?

IMPORTANT POINT: The same covenant that says "sacrifice lambs" also says "keep the sabbath." In fact, God instructed the children to keep the sabbath by offering a special animal sacrifice. The two practices were inextricably connected by God's own command. If Jesus Christ has fulfilled one, He has also fulfilled the other. After all, not one jot or tittle of the law can pass until ALL have been fulfilled.

Not exactly. The animal sacrifices were offered on Sabbaths yes but that is not the entirety of the Sabbath. It's like saying if we abolished the Easter Sunday celebration we would eliminate Sunday worship.

So is it really only the fourth commandment you have an issue with. Are all the others OK with you, but the Sabbath is the issue?

You seem to attached a number of quid pro quos to a gift given freely. In your scenario, it would seem that we claim the gift and then give it back and then claim the gift and give it back. I've never heard of this type of freewill gift giving.

No not really what I meant. I mean we have to continually return to Chirst, and not just accept once from him and go off on our merry way. More along the line of continually asking for forgiveness, the process of sanctification.

And the Spirit's role is ___________?

Many roles. One most important is to be our comforter, to teach us. When we open scriptures we should not proceed without asking for the help of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for confirming that sin exists in the absence of law. Sin exists in the absence of law because the Holy Spirit convicts men of sin and righteousness and judgment. This was not only true before the law was added, it has also been true since the Seed came (I'm specifically referring to Galatians 3 here).

As covered before, sin existed from Satan's first sin. Sin is transgression of the law. The tablets may not have existed but the precepts did. It was always a sin to blaspheme even if it wasn't written down.

What do we do with the fact that God commanded men to kill? Is this not the very reason that the ministry of the Spirit brings life and the ministry of the letters engraved on stones brings death (I'm specifically referring to 2 Corinthians 3 here).

I suspect if God commands it there is a special case to consider. Are you saying it was OK for Cain to kill his brother then if there was no law forbidding it?

The mind of God has always existed. If you are appealing to us to follow the conviction of the Spirit, then I'm 100% on board with your way of thinking. However, if you are appealing to us to follow an old covenant that was made between God and Israelites and that expired "when the Seed came" then I must respectfully disagree.

If it wasn't written down they had to know it in other means.

Of course they did. I've already acknowledged that sin existed before the law was added.

It would seem that we agree that -- with or without law -- sin can exist.

BFA

On many levels we do agree. It maybe more semantics than anything.

 

[Soon144k]

Soon, you are getting needlessly hung up on the word "declared" when there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jesus being declared the Son of God. "Declaring" is another way of acknowledging that Jesus IS the Son of God. We preach that same fact today, declaring to the world that Jesus is the Son of God. Does that make us false preachers?

I agree with BFA. We need to move on.

I am not hung up so much on DECLARED as I am AT THE RESURRECTION. Yes, Paul acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, but the issue is WHEN Paul believes that Jesus BECAME the Son of God. He believed that Jesus became the Son of God BY DECLARATION at the RESURRECTION. This is blashpheme. Do with this info what you will. I am now done with this and will move on.

 

[Kira Light]

I am not hung up so much on DECLARED as I am AT THE RESURRECTION. Yes, Paul acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, but the issue is WHEN Paul believes that Jesus BECAME the Son of God. He believed that Jesus became the Son of God BY DECLARATION at the RESURRECTION. This is blashpheme. Do with this info what you will. I am now done with this and will move on.

You seem to be the only person who reads this statement by Paul that way. Billions of Christians see it differently.

If I declare Jesus is the Son of God right now, is it blasphemy? Would you take from my declaration that I mean he wasn't the Son of God yesterday? Sounds pretty crazy.

 

[Soon144k]

You seem to be the only person who reads this statement by Paul that way. Billions of Christians see it differently.

If I declare Jesus is the Son of God right now, is it blasphemy? Would you take from my declaration that I mean he wasn't the Son of God yesterday? Sounds pretty crazy.

I think you missed the point, Kira. And whether billions of Christians see it differently does not matter to me; what is truth matters to me, and truth does not come by vote of the majority. No on has questioned whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, even Satan doesn't question that. What is in question is WHEN He became the Son of God. Was it at His birth or was it at His resurrection. The angel that spoke with both Joseph and Mary (separately) said that Jesus would be the Son of God at His birth. Paul said He became the Son of God by DECLARATION at the resurrection. Jesus was NOT at any time made the Son of God by declaration or pronouncement, He was BORN the Son of God. I don't know what is so difficult about this understanding?

 

[Sophia7]

I think you missed the point, Kira. And whether billions of Christians see it differently does not matter to me; what is truth matters to me, and truth does not come by vote of the majority. No on has questioned whether or not Jesus is the Son of God, even Satan doesn't question that. What is in question is WHEN He became the Son of God. Was it at His birth or was it at His resurrection. The angel that spoke with both Joseph and Mary (separately) said that Jesus would be the Son of God at His birth. Paul said He became the Son of God by DECLARATION at the resurrection. Jesus was NOT at any time made the Son of God by declaration or pronouncement, He was BORN the Son of God. I don't know what is so difficult about this understanding?

I posted this in another thread a couple of weeks ago:

Romans 1:4 sounds a lot like Acts 17:31, which uses the same Greek word for "declared" or "appointed" as Romans 1:4 in connection with Jesus' resurrection:

Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."​

The point of both is that the resurrection was proof that Jesus was the Son of God, not that He became the Son of God then.​

I understand that you don't accept Acts as Scripture either, but neither of those texts says that Jesus became the Son of God at His resurrection. The declaration was a demonstration of something that was already true.

Luke also describes this declaration at Jesus' baptism:

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened,
22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."​

So does Matthew:

Matthew 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."​

The voice from heaven declared that Jesus was the Son of God. That doesn't mean that He became the Son of God at that moment, nor do Paul's words mean that He became the Son of God at the resurrection.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The only way to be able to say that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God is that He was NOT the Son of God before the declaration.

This is where I must disagree. A declaration can be made at any time. A declaration can be made to recognize an employee for a job well done. A declaration can be made when a man & wife renew their wedding vows. A declaration can be made identifying a disaster area well after the disaster had taken place. In each of these examples, the declaration did not change that which was already true. It merely acknowledged that which was already true.

Paul's writings clearly confirm that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God at points prior to His resurrection. See again these passages:

Romans 5:10
Romans 8:3
Galatians 4:4
​

Can we now move on?

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

As covered before, sin existed from Satan's first sin. Sin is transgression of the law. The tablets may not have existed but the precepts did. It was always a sin to blaspheme even if it wasn't written down.

Alawishis, once again, I agree with everything you have written so far. Your reasoning resonates with me. So I'd like your input on a concept that may or may not be correct. The idea makes sense to me so far, in my studies, but I don't want to minimize the importance of lawkeeping while emphasizing grace. So tell me what you think.

I agree that sin is the transgression of the law. But I've also been of the opinion that the real nature of sin is separation from God, and this separation reveals itself in sinful acts, as defined by the ten commandments. Here's how I understand it so far:

Separation from God means separation from His character, and His character is reflected in His law. So separation from God is equal to transgression of His law. And if sin is transgression of the law, then we can also say that the true nature of sin is separation from God.

I imagine you would agree with this so far. But the area that I'm working on right now is the question of what happens once we are reconciled to God. Can we then be considered to be no longer sinners? For real? Not just on paper, but as a reality? That was BFA's question. Does the righteousness of Christ cover sinful characters?

Which would mean, from my unsettled position, that even if we make mistakes and do the things that I would consider to be sinful if we were out of relation with God -- lie, steal, be impure, etc., as long as we are covered by Christ's righteousness, such actions take on a different quality. They are no longer considered to be "sins," but rather, defects and character flaws that need to be remedied through the power of Christ.

I could be wrong but I may be on the right path, but so far, I am not 100% certain that this viewpoint is a correct one. Is there a better way to phrase this so that it doesn't give us license to do wrong? I sure don't want to go off into left field and create a laxity towards commandment keeping or towards sinning.

BFA has asked some penetrating questions, and I'm working them through. Your input?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I'm sorry I have not been back here in a while, now I see you have gone way off on another discussion.

That's not a problem, Al. Take your time. In my mind, there's never an expiration date to good discussion.

On many levels we do agree.

I'm sure that's true.

It maybe more semantics than anything.

That could be. This happens sometimes when discussing in an online forum.

I think we covered this but to clarify; sin has existed from Adam through to today. So if you are asking did sin exist before the law was codified at Sinai the answer is yes.

Good. Then we agree that sin can exist even outside of the existence of codified law. This was true not only before the law was added but it is also true since the Seed has come. Galatians 3-4 confirms that the codified system of law was intended for a specific group of people for a finite period of time. It had a specific purpose that doesn't always transcend time and geneology.

Does this mean that because the law was not written on stone tables yet that it's precepts did not exist, no.

No. The mind of God has always existed. That which meets the mind of God has always existed. However, the difference between a codified system of law and the ministry of the Spirit is in the way that principles are applied. There are certain signs and symbols that were meaningful for a specific group of people for a finite period of time that do not have universal application to all people for all of time. The principles existed before the law was added, but these symbols did not. They all had a starting point. This includes concepts such as the seventh day sabbath, animal sacrifices, passover, the day of atonement, etc. All of these symbols had a starting point and are not eternal in their application. However, I would assert that all of these practices were intended to remind people of important principles and these principles remain. The passover reminded Israelites of the substitutionary role of the Messiah. That principle remains. Animal sacrifices reminded Israelites of the atoning power of blood. That principle remains. The seventh-day sabbath reminded a group of slaves of their need to rest. That principle remains.

Cain did commit murder and it was a sin. So in that way the moral law existed even if not written down sin has not changed it is and always has been the definition of sin. That which was a sin in ancient times is a sin today.

Only if the Spirit of God convicts you that it is sin. In a set of circumstances that is very different than the Cain example, you may need to kill. This is why the ministry of the Spirit brings life and the ministry of the letters engraved on stones brings death.

Are you saying it was OK for Cain to kill his brother then if there was no law forbidding it?

No. Not at all. Because the mind of God exists even in the absence of a codified system of law. The Holy Spirit can convict men of sin and righteousness and judgment even in the absence of a codified system of law.

The law brings death in that is the penalty for transgression. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom 6:23. This is inescapable, save for the ministry of life, bought by the blood Jesus Christ.

Why does 2 Corinthians 3 describe the transition from the old covenant to the new by contrasting the letters engraved on stones (the ministry that brings death) with the ministry of the Spirit (which brings life)? Are we convicted by both, or is it preferable to be convicted by the ministry of the Spirit?

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled.

I don't know how you view this, but I do know how the SDA denomination views this. According to the SDA denomination, Jesus Christ fulfilled more than merely the penalty of the law. He also fulfilled the requirements found in specific God-given laws, including circumcision, animal sacrifices, the passover, the day of atonement, wearing tzitzit, etc. The SDA denomination agrees that Jesus Christ filled these obligations full. The SDA denomination does not believe that Jesus Christ only fulfilled the penalty of breaking these laws, but he also filled full the requirements included in these laws.

Based on the position of SDAism, my question to you is this:

Q: Did Jesus Christ fulfill all laws or only some of them? If Jesus Christ fulfilled only some of the laws, why did He indicate that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all is accomplished?
​

Jesus paid the price for us. The items outlined in the moral law are still sins.

Is it a sin if I fail to honor the feast of unleavened bread the way God commanded the Israelites to honor it? If not, why not?

I agree. These were a shadow, they pointed forward to the sacrifice of Chirst.

"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away"1 Cor 13.10

Why do you make a distinction between laws? If you have a moment, can you take a look at Exodus 34? Then, can you help me understand why some of the God-given laws listed in Exodus 34 remain while others do not? I understand that you are trying to make a distinction, but I don't see the Biblical basis for the distinction you're trying to make. 1 Corinthians 13:10 certain does not confirm it.

YES, the law is still valid.
And NO, the man is no longer under an obligation.

What you've written above accurately describes FULFILLMENT. It is a different concept than SUBSTITUTION. With fulfillment, man is no longer under an obligation. The obligations of the law -- though they still remain -- have already been fully met.

This concept confuses me. How can you have a valid law that no one is obligated to keep. Once the obligation is removed the law is void.

Your use of the word "void" seems foreign to me. In order to fully understand this question, we would need to discuss to whom the codified system of law was given. It was given to Israelites. Its intent, purpose and timeline was finite. Galatians 3 tells us that it was added 430 years after Abraham and only until the Seed had come. The codified system of law is not void. It served its purpose. And, for some, it continues to convict (see Romans 7). This is much like the man who continues to pay property taxes even though they've already been paid.

Is it now OK to worship idols?

If the Spirit convicts you to, yes.

Are only some laws valid?

The codified system of law has been fulfilled. The Seed has come. We need not pick and choose and try to make extra-biblical distinctions relating to "ceremonial" and "moral" laws.

Not exactly. The animal sacrifices were offered on Sabbaths yes but that is not the entirety of the Sabbath. It's like saying if we abolished the Easter Sunday celebration we would eliminate Sunday worship.

God gave commands to the children of Israel about the manner in which they were to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Included in those commands was a command to offer a special sacrifice unlike the sacrifices they offered on other days. If a man fails to offer these special sacrifices, is he truly observing the seventh-day sabbath as God commanded him to observe it? Or has he created a new type of sabbath keeping that is more man-made than God-ordained?

So is it really only the fourth commandment you have an issue with. Are all the others OK with you, but the Sabbath is the issue?

I don't have an issue with any laws. They all had a specific purpose for a specific time and that purpose has been met. I don't take issue with God for providing laws to His people. However, I don't pretend to be the recipient of commands that weren't directed to me.

This includes all of the old covenant law and not solely the fourth commandment. For example, if you were a messianic Jew, you might be asking me whether I have an issue with the passover. And the reality is that I have no more issue with the passover than I do with the seventh-day sabbath.

I am glad that the seventh-day sabbath is a blessing for you. I would never ask you to abandon that blessing. I will ask, however, that you not imply that the seventh-day sabbath must be an important part of my life.

No not really what I meant. I mean we have to continually return to Chirst, and not just accept once from him and go off on our merry way.

What role does faith play in this? Is His grace truly sufficient, or must I doubt it?

Many roles. One most important is to be our comforter, to teach us. When we open scriptures we should not proceed without asking for the help of the Holy Spirit.

Can the Spirit convict with the Bible? Without the law?

If it wasn't written down they had to know it in other means.

Yes. Through the Spirit.

BFA

Hi Al!

I know your time here is limited. Just curious if you've had a chance to look at this post.

I hope all is well . . .
BFA

 

[Pythons]

Check out the following information from the US Naval Observatory (link below) and an article on the Wednesday crucifixion. This makes sense to me, but what do I know.

U.S. Naval Observatory Data 

The Sabbath resurrection 

That's exactly my point so that's why I mentioned it....

 

[Alawishis]

Alawishis, once again, I agree with everything you have written so far. Your reasoning resonates with me. So I'd like your input on a concept that may or may not be correct. The idea makes sense to me so far, in my studies, but I don't want to minimize the importance of lawkeeping while emphasizing grace. So tell me what you think.

I agree that sin is the transgression of the law. But I've also been of the opinion that the real nature of sin is separation from God, and this separation reveals itself in sinful acts, as defined by the ten commandments. Here's how I understand it so far:

Separation from God means separation from His character, and His character is reflected in His law. So separation from God is equal to transgression of His law. And if sin is transgression of the law, then we can also say that the true nature of sin is separation from God.

I imagine you would agree with this so far. But the area that I'm working on right now is the question of what happens once we are reconciled to God. Can we then be considered to be no longer sinners? For real? Not just on paper, but as a reality? That was BFA's question. Does the righteousness of Christ cover sinful characters?

Which would mean, from my unsettled position, that even if we make mistakes and do the things that I would consider to be sinful if we were out of relation with God -- lie, steal, be impure, etc., as long as we are covered by Christ's righteousness, such actions take on a different quality. They are no longer considered to be "sins," but rather, defects and character flaws that need to be remedied through the power of Christ.

I could be wrong but I may be on the right path, but so far, I am not 100% certain that this viewpoint is a correct one. Is there a better way to phrase this so that it doesn't give us license to do wrong? I sure don't want to go off into left field and create a laxity towards commandment keeping or towards sinning.

BFA has asked some penetrating questions, and I'm working them through. Your input?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you, yes. Sin is the antithesis of all that is God, it is contrary to his character. But, I look at it more like rather than separation from God being the sin, it is as a result of sin that it separates us from God. Hope you can see my distinction. Sin cannot exist in his presence so sin, by the nature of God, separates us from him. If the High-Priest were to enter into the most holy place without having cleansed himself of sin he would instantly die in God's presence. If a man with sin were to touch the arc of the covenant where God presence was, he would instantly die.

I'm not sure in my life I can ever expect to be free of sin. It's the goal I'm working toward, yes. I pray Jesus to cover my sins, and he has done so, but I do still fall. It is my nature to sin I recognize this very well as I have done it often. Above all I must trust that when I do fall, and ask forgiveness with sincerity, I WILL be forgiven. It's dangerous to think of this as a ticket to sin, it is not. Jesus will forgive me as many times as necessary, there is no limit. As long as I am sincere in pushing sin out of my life Christ is there for me. If I fall into the trap of thinking it's OK to sin for this reason, then I jeopardize my sincerity in the battle. It's never OK to sin, but Jesus is always there waiting to forgive and set me back on my feet.

I'm always drawn to the parallel of parenthood, I believe God allowed us to have children so we would better understand our relationship with him. Think of the parable of the prodigal son. He came back to his father sincerely sorry for what he had done. May not have been the same if the son had returned and said, "Hey Dad, I blew my money. Give me some more".

 

[Soon144k]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you, yes. Sin is the antithesis of all that is God, it is contrary to his character. But, I look at it more like rather than separation from God being the sin, it is as a result of sin that it separates us from God. Hope you can see my distinction. Sin cannot exist in his presence so sin, by the nature of God, separates us from him. If the High-Priest were to enter into the most holy place without having cleansed himself of sin he would instantly die in God's presence. If a man with sin were to touch the arc of the covenant where God presence was, he would instantly die.

I'm not sure in my life I can ever expect to be free of sin. It's the goal I'm working toward, yes. I pray Jesus to cover my sins, and he has done so, but I do still fall. It is my nature to sin I recognize this very well as I have done it often. Above all I must trust that when I do fall, and ask forgiveness with sincerity, I WILL be forgiven. It's dangerous to think of this as a ticket to sin, it is not. Jesus will forgive me as many times as necessary, there is no limit. As long as I am sincere in pushing sin out of my life Christ is there for me. If I fall into the trap of thinking it's OK to sin for this reason, then I jeopardize my sincerity in the battle. It's never OK to sin, but Jesus is always there waiting to forgive and set me back on my feet.

I'm always drawn to the parallel of parenthood, I believe God allowed us to have children so we would better understand our relationship with him. Think of the parable of the prodigal son. He came back to his father sincerely sorry for what he had done. May not have been the same if the son had returned and said, "Hey Dad, I blew my money. Give me some more".

Excellent distinction in your first paragraph, and I see your point. Yet you counter that slightly in the 2nd paragraph by making the statement that your sins are covered by His robe of righteousness. Would having your sins covered not mean that you still contain sin (it is still in you) but you just believe that God can't see it? Is that not a logical fallacy?

I totally agree that this should not be considered a 'ticket to sin', or as I like to put it a 'get out of jail free card'. But that is just what most Christians consider it to be. Their attitude is 'once saved, always saved' based on the idea that they were already predestined for either eternal life or eternal death from the foundation of the world.

What I see in your comments are a reference to the process of sanctification of which Jesus speaks in John 17. However, if our sins are covered by Jesus (as you state) then what is the necessity of going through the hard and difficult task of removing sin from our lives (asking forgiveness-justification) by replacing that sin/lies with righteousness/truth, especially since most Christians don't believe that is either possible or necessary? I will enjoy your further comments.

 

[Laodicean]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with you, yes. Sin is the antithesis of all that is God, it is contrary to his character. But, I look at it more like rather than separation from God being the sin, it is as a result of sin that it separates us from God. Hope you can see my distinction. Sin cannot exist in his presence so sin, by the nature of God, separates us from him. If the High-Priest were to enter into the most holy place without having cleansed himself of sin he would instantly die in God's presence. If a man with sin were to touch the arc of the covenant where God presence was, he would instantly die.

oh, yes! I can see that! I had to move to another corner of the room to view the "elephant" in that way, and indeed, what you say is true. Indeed, there is even a text that says it the way you said it. "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that he will not hear." Isaiah 59:1,2.

Okay, so I can go with the concept that it is sin that separates us from God. Now come on over to my side of the room and tell me if it doesn't look as if it can also be said that sin is separation from God. The original sin of Adam and Eve was to distrust God's word, which their distrust separated them from God. So the first sin of our first parents in the Garden of Eden was the sin of distrust, or separation from God, and in the wake of this separation came all the sinful acts that are embedded in such separation.

Does this make sense to you? Or should I rethink things?

I'm not sure in my life I can ever expect to be free of sin. It's the goal I'm working toward, yes. I pray Jesus to cover my sins, and he has done so, but I do still fall. It is my nature to sin I recognize this very well as I have done it often. Above all I must trust that when I do fall, and ask forgiveness with sincerity, I WILL be forgiven. It's dangerous to think of this as a ticket to sin, it is not. Jesus will forgive me as many times as necessary, there is no limit. As long as I am sincere in pushing sin out of my life Christ is there for me. If I fall into the trap of thinking it's OK to sin for this reason, then I jeopardize my sincerity in the battle. It's never OK to sin, but Jesus is always there waiting to forgive and set me back on my feet.

This makes perfect sense. Yet I find myself wondering about BFA's question: Does the righteousness of Christ cover sinful characters? Are we like whitewashed sepulchers, with Christ's righteousness being the whitewash, but all the while we are "practicing sin" beneath that cover? I don't think that is what you are describing when you talk about pushing sin out of your life. So it seems to me that as long as we are struggling against sinful tendencies, then we are no longer considered to be sinners, or to be "practicing sin." That is why, at conversion, I am inclined to rename tendencies to wrongdoing, not as sin, but as character defects and flaws. In other words, in God's eyes we are truly not considered to be sinners any longer, and Christ's righteousness not only covers us, but permeates us as we fight against inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil.

Okay, that's just another perspective from another corner of the "room." I might not be understanding clearly what I see from this angle. If so, do help out here.

I'm always drawn to the parallel of parenthood, I believe God allowed us to have children so we would better understand our relationship with him. Think of the parable of the prodigal son. He came back to his father sincerely sorry for what he had done. May not have been the same if the son had returned and said, "Hey Dad, I blew my money. Give me some more".

I like that example.

 

[Soon144k]

Jesus said a number of things concerning this issue of how we must view sin, and the bottom line is that we must view sin just as the Father views sin.

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt.5:48.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. John 14:23-24.

Keeping the words of the Father as given to us by His Son is what PROVES that we love God. This does not sound as if we have our sins 'covered'; it sounds as if we need our sins eliminated.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32.

From this it appears to me that abiding in the words of Jesus Christ is the key to becoming one of His disciples. The idea that we will be set free from sin is predicated on our abiding in HIS words.

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:34-36.

This sets the bar even higher with regards our relationship with sin and what our status is when we abide in sin rather than in the words and teachings of Jesus Christ; we become slaves to sin when we commit sin, and Jesus will have no slaves to sin in His household. Again, it appears that Jesus is serious about our getting rid of sin, and getting rid of sin happens ONLY when we abide in HIS words.

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:14-17.

We see from these verses that apparently what sanctifies us, makes us holy and righteous, is not a 'covering' that Jesus supplies to us without any effort on our part but the words of God which are Truth. This flies in the face of those who insist that no one can become righteous while alive on earth, because if this was true then Jesus lied when He made this statement and the following statement;

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16:13.

How much truth does it take to become righteous? ALL truth. The above verse shows that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit Jesus says that we will understand ALL truth. It is the words of Jesus that accomplish this, because His words are Truth. Which is why what He said to Pilate is so important, and understanding this is critical to our entering and finishing the process of sanctification (becoming righteous) while we are yet alive:

Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” John 18:37.

Note what Jesus DID NOT say; He did not say that everyone that listens to His voice comes to the truth. He said, "Everyone who is (already) of the truth listens to my voice". This goes right along with what Jesus told Nicodemus about salvation and entering the Kingdom of Heaven:

But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” John 3:21.

Most Christians think that the opposite of this statement is true-that is, that whoever comes to the Light comes to the truth - but that is NOT what Jesus said. Our doing matters, and that doing is abiding in HIS words of truth. This is salvation according to Jesus Christ.

[Please note that all of the texts quoted in the above writing come from the eyewitness disciples Matthew and John.]

 

[Kira Light]

Well good luck getting rid of all your sin. I could never do it

 

[Soon144k]

Well good luck getting rid of all your sin. I could never do it

Kira,
It is not me saying any of this, it is Jesus. Do you not believe that if Jesus says something is possible that it is actually impossible to do? That would be lying, and Jesus CANNOT lie. If I am wrong in posting what Jesus said please show me exactly where and I'll will modify my viewpoint. I only want to find the truth, not another person's idea of what truth is.

If you can't make Sabbath school or church today I invite you to join me on my internet radio program at 10 AM Pacific time for a hard hitting Bible study on Revelation with my friend Rick Sterling. I think you will enjoy hearing his unique approach to prophecy.

Here is the link: Spirit of Truth | Internet Radio | Blog Talk Radio

 

[Laodicean]

Jesus said a number of things concerning this issue of how we must view sin, and the bottom line is that we must view sin just as the Father views sin. You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt.5:48.

Hmmm, I don't think you are taking Matt. 5:48 in its context. It doesn't seem to be talking specifically about how to view sin. The full context of this chapter covers blessings to those who seek after the kingdom of God and who become the salt of the earth.

The ten commandments are next presented to the people as being still in effect: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19.

An exposition of the broader and deeper meaning of the ten commandments follow.

Finally, the chapter is summed up in the overarching principle of love to one another. The description is given of "your Father in heaven" who loves even those who hate Him.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:43-48.

So we are to seek to be perfect in how we love others, as perfect as the way God loves sinners.

Phrasing this slightly differently: We are to treat others the same way our Father in heaven treats sinners.

Or, in other words, as God is perfect in how He relates to sinners, we too are to be perfect in how we relate to our fellow human beings.

Now, if Jesus had said, "Be ye sinless, even as your Father in heaven is sinless," I would have to agree with you. But since God alone is sinless, and all we like sheep have gone astray and all our own righteousness is like filthy rags, we can never be sinless like God. Instead, Someone else (Jesus) has to be our substitute if we are ever to be deemed sinless before God.

The impression I am getting from you, Soon, is that you think there will come a time when we will have to be perfectly sinless in our own strength, if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven. I hope it doesn't go as far as sinless flesh, because that doesn't happen until the moment when "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Corinthians 15:53. Of course, since you refuse to deepen your understanding of Jesus' teachings by including Paul's expositions, you just might indeed be thinking of holy flesh as a requirement too, I don't know.

I can agree with you that total and complete obedience to God's law is what is required to be acceptable in heaven. And here I suppose is where you use Matthew 5:48, incorrectly, in my opinion, to come to the correct conclusion (go figure) -- that sinless perfection is required of us. But it is HOW this is accomplished that is the issue. And the writings of Paul help to flesh out the HOW.

If you think that our struggles and efforts to overcome sin is what will give us entrance to heaven, then I can't agree with this. Work in overcoming sin is required, yes, but not in order to make ourselves perfect and worthy of heaven. Overcoming sinful tendencies is definitely involved in the Christian walk and authenticates the walk. But I don't think that our victories will eventually add up to our passport into heaven.

If so, then what do you do with the thief on the cross who will be in heaven but who never had a chance to develop the perfectly sinless character that you seem to think is required of us? Does he get in on a free pass because he died when he did, and the rest of us who are alive have a different set of standards for entry into heaven?

I am still working through this issue and may or may not eventually end up at a different place in thought. But until then, this is how I view it.

 

[Joe67]

Laodicean,

Roman 4:24-5:1
This is our title/birthright that is given unto each of us through the blood of Jesus and the name of the Father. This is the foundation.

Romans 5:2-5
This is the sanctification of the Spirit, in the work of God in his dispensation of the measure of grace to each of us, from the kingdom of grace. This is the covering of the smoke of the incense from the golden altar.

Joe