I recently posted the Isaiah 1 prophecy on the SA International Discussion Forum and have been amazed at the reaction of some Officers.
Whilst there were some very positive comments some were extremely personal, unfounded and from a theological point of view (quite scary!)
Are we actually becoming two Armies?
One committed to pesonal holiness and winning the lost for Jesus and the other only nominally committed to these two aims?
One Officer even suggested that I should be reported to the General, TC and DC for my comments - I hope I am!
Perhaps things are worse than I ever dreamt.
Still - nothing will distract us from our goal in Christ - we remain more than conquerors.
I suppose after the name calling will come the bricks and stones for we certainly wont have revival without persecution.
Yours ready and willling
A
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Beyond the brook his wine press stands and thence my way I take, resolved the whole of love's demands to give for his name's sake."
- Andrew Bale
- I am a Salvationist by faith and practice. I am committed to the restoration of personal holiness within the Salvation Army. I am married with 4 children, Ben (26) who's married to Fern, Caitlin (23), Charlotte (13) and Bethany (11). I am a Salvation Army Officer who, together with my wonderful wife Tracey, is leading the Rayleigh Corps, in the South of England.
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(77)
-
▼
January
(10)
- Negative prophecy - or message of hope?
- Revival and the need for repentnance - this is pos...
- Two Armies?
- Isaiah 58 to 61 more prophecy for TSA
- A prophecy for the Salvation Army from Isaiah 1
- Holiness seeker's paradise
- Holiness, holiness everywhere!
- Repent and surrender - there's no other way!
- God save us from managers and theorists!
- 2007 and revival!
-
▼
January
(10)
47 comments:
Welcome back to the reality of Salvation Army officership in the 21st C!
I doubt the General would disagree with your statement. I have corresponded with him in some similar matters.
The TC recognises decline, but he is a man of great hope....and thats what we need just as much. The purpose of prophecy is to speak out. People always treat prophets badly...we are in good company brother!
in Jesus
Andrew
I sincerely hope that you are never appointed to any corps that i attend. Your comments are obnoxious and designed to be anything other than constructive. God help you in your officership, and God help the rest of us.
Bring on the bricks and stones I say...
- Anonymous - Be very careful not to scoff at Prophecies (1 Thess 5:20. Andrew has a very strong word for the Army which has been confirmed by a number of other prophets around the world. I strongly believe it is a word given from the Lord that the Army needs to listen to, heed to and put into action.
Andrew S
What we may be witnessing is the beginning of the separation of the wheat from the chaff. Scripture is clear that there will be some in the last days that will surround themselves with false teachers who will give them what they want and not what is necessary and godly.
I shared your Isaiah 1 prophecy with all the officers of our division this past week at an officers' mission summit. What followed was a word from the Lord shared by one of our own officers (you can read it on my page). God is confirming that he is poised to break loose the chains to which we're tethered. How can we sing, "we want another Pentecost" and not expect God to take us seriously?
Preach on, brother! We're with you all the way.
As others have said, Prophets are rarely welcomed in their own town.
The biggest shame is that those who criticise feel the need to hide behind anonymity, much like those who stood in the crowds to throw the stones!
God bless you Andrew!
Andrew. Things sound very depressing in Orpington. Please have a look around the Western Army and try to find some words of encouragement for those of us who are seeking after Him.
Otherwise you are in danger of being as destructive as the Prophets of Baal (Bale).
Why are the negative comments here anonymous? I have put my name to what I have said so why are there two anonymous postings here?
I could remove them of course but I won't because I believe they both (by their anonymity) actually strengthen what I have said.
By the way things in Orpington are very very positive - I don't see my word as negative I see at as hopeful - why because we will repent and therefore we will have revival - Amen!
Love and prayers
A
Thanks for your words, Andrew. Do not be dismayed by the folk on the 'official' forum. It just seems to be another example of the invasion of sin into the movement. The forum should never have been put on the site in the first place. Unfortunately its stuck there because of a fear of accusations of SA censorship and the like. It seems that to some, the opportunity to sin is more important than the prevention of it.
There is no doubt that sin is the only inhibitor of growth for the Salvation Army. I do not buy into the theories of post-modernism, or that we are punished because we do not 'do the sacraments' or because we are old hat. We were raised up by God for soulwinning. God has not changed, and the mission has certainly not changed. The only conclusion must be that we have.
Preach your words from your platform, and to your (eventual) fellow officers. Encourage the like-minded, persuade the confused, and pray for those that cannot handle the admonishment. Also, be balanced with your words. Acknowledge the positive. That's a very big deal as well.
If we began to see lives through the lens of eternity, perhaps we would fight with urgency. This is an urgency that can only be brought about with the purging of sin, a sanctified urgency.
Forgive me for the anonymity, you will have to accept that for me it is unavoidable. Call me number 3 if you like!
Number 3, thank you for your candour. I agree with virtually everything you say, but do react with concern about your writing off of post-modernity. Whilst I do not believe that we should embrace wholesale the philosophy, we do have to accept that the western world is a very different place to what it was 140 years ago. Whether we like it or not we need to find new ways to communicate the timeless truths of the gospel.
This is what William Booth did 140 years ago because the Church had lost its way, and out of that came revival. Now our Salvation Army in many places has the same mentality of the church in those days. If we are to repent and turn from our wicked ways, then it is surely likely that the renewed Army will look very different from the Army of the past, yet will be more true to its central tenet of true Holiness than anything we have seen for many a year.
One rule of thumb for prophets was that if they were saying stuff the King liked to hear, they probably weren't speaking on behalf of God!
As for the prophets of Baal (Bale) comment, whoever you are a nonny mouse, you should be very careful about those sorts of accusations. Very careful. This is not a light comment to make, and I for one believe you are utterly wrong. You do not wish to attribute to Satan that which is the work of the Spirit. There are serious consequences for that.
Grace,
Aaron
Graeme,
Thanks for a reply! Don't be concerned as the point I am making seems to be a common one ie. holiness is the first step before facing other 'issues'. Maybe it could be summarised as 'doctrinal orthodoxy brings cultural relevance'?
I do feel the post modernity argument is fairly overrated. I can accept it being used to describe a social situation, but too often used as an excuse to stop trying and that I find unacceptable. In reality, there is no excuse. Some hearts may be harder than others but what can resist the perfect love offered by Christ? Ideally that love can be presented using us as its vessel.
I celebrated a recent post on the armybarmy blog saying that 'holiness is the solution to every problem'. It seems Bale's prophecy is a continuation (perhaps confirmation) of that idea.
I'm by no means a scholar on the subject but enjoy finding that there are many likeminded. Its encouraging! Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a whole heap in my neck of the woods. The young single male has limited influence. Anyhow, its too easy and too distracting to be cynical!
Anyhow, we'll press on regardless.
Andrew, I am pleased to see that my comments may have have contributed to you having to back up your "opinions/prophesy".
I am happy to see that perhaps I have been part of people having to examine it more closely.
Although many may have had their veiws confirmed others (hopefully, young folk) have had to re-think their original veiws on the validity of your "prophesy".
I was lead to your page by a youth forum on a website where some were interested in your "prophesy"......my motivation was leading them to think before just swallowing it as a word before God" I believe I have done this.
The discussion of sorting Wheat from Chaff is frightening yet not surprising.
Really number 3 you are talking about "wheat IE: agree with me vs Chaff IE don't agree with me."
Just look at conservative christian "politics" in middle America and you can see how dangerous this sort of veiw can be.
Post Modernism - It is not suprising that "Moderist thinking Salvationist" disregard Post Modern thinking as irrelevent.
QUOTE "but too often used as an excuse to stop trying and that I find unacceptable. In reality, there is no excuse. Some hearts may be harder than others but what can resist the perfect love offered by Christ?" (number 3)
You obviously don't understand what the "post modern christisan experience" is about.
It is ALL about the Search!
"Ideally that love can be presented using us as its vessel."
Sorting the Wheat from the Chaff doesn't seem to loving to me.
Perhaps one of the reasons that churches are emptying at a rapid rate is that "modernists are running them"
My generation (I am 35) are disenfrachised.
Do you care about that or would just just rather sort me into the chaff bin?
Teackles,
Teackles,
if you look at Matthew 3 and Luke 3 you will see that the One who seperates the chaff from the wheat (and then burns it in unquenchable fire) is not us, it is the Lord.
so when you said that sorting the wheat and chaff sounds "unloving," that is clearly not the case. the Lord does it, and He is the ultimate Lover.
i recognize that the issue you have is more in relation to Andrews use of the word "prophecy" than it is of the actual words that he put forth. you are wise to think before accepting everything that anybody puts forth as a Word from the Lord. however, if you read the prophecy, and ask Holy Spirit to tell you what He thinks of it, perhaps it will be confirmed in your spirit that He did tell Andrew to write those words.
it is potentially a waste of time to focus on the semantics, considering the urgency and truthfulness of the Words put forth. if it is from the Lord, then humble yourself, recieve it, and repent.
Hi Olivia,
Fair call on the wheat/chaff thing.
I assumed that number 3 wanted to do the sorting himself.
I asked God to tell me what the deal was.
At first, I heard nothing except that I needed to approach my fellow posters with love and humility.
I really don't know if that was God telling me or my sub conscious. Either way it is logical!
A little later that night my wife came in and read me some stuff that she just read. She is reading thru Matthew. It was the bit about: Beware of false prophets. Although they might seem on the level they may be wolves in sheep's clothing. A command from Jesus to not just listen to those who profess to be prophets.
Now, was this a prophesy for me?
I don't know. I don't think so.
The way I look at it is that, yes it was pretty freaky timing but then what is in the interpretation???
Is it God telling me that I am a false prophet?Because I think that I am the one who is one the money. Am I a sheep in wolves clothing? Maybe its a warning to me to not think that I am always right........hmmmmmm.....
Or is it telling me to beware of a man who tells us that he is a prophet?
Like a lot of Matthew it is a little puzzling to me.
Can we really profess to know exactly what God is trying to tell us?
So, I am unsure what to make of it all.
If I was to tell you that it was a word from the Lord what would that mean?
I surely do not want to judge Andrew at all.
I do not know him from a bar of soap.
That's one of the pitfalls of the internet it is a false reality. We say things that we think bear no consequences. So, Andrew, I don't want to be judging of you.
Well, Olivia, perhaps you are right maybe it is just semantics.
Teakles - I began my word with the following...
"Isaiah Chapter 1 - a prophecy for the western territories of the Salvation Army and for individual soldiers within the Salvation Army.
The following came to me today in prayer and I share it in humility – may God bless, redeem, sanctify and use the Salvation Army – Hallelujah!"
I never called myself a prophet I simply said that Isaiah Chapeter 1 was a prophecy for TSA. I then went on to share what came to me in prayer as I read those verses.
However, I am happy with the tag 'Prophet' as Peter in his pentecost sermon said that all believers would 'prophecy'.
Why would a false prophet challenge the status quo or call to repentnance? 'A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand...'.
Surely a call for repentnance and a return to holiness can only come from God - can't it?
Love and prayers
A
Teackles,
I didn't mention wheat or chaff. Please, please, please don't attribute things that I didn't say to me. I can't and certainly don't want to be the one to do any sorting! Who am I...
--"You obviously don't understand what the "post modern Christian experience" is about. It is ALL about the Search!"--
I think we may be coming at cross-purposes here. I am talking about post-modernism in culture as not being an excuse for our lack of growth. At no time has culture ever been the cause of withdrawal of blessings from the church. The cause of our being ineffective is sin, such as in Isaiah. Since sin is the root of our problems, then wouldn't the removal of it result in divine blessing, power and creativity to break into post-modern minds. God can give us the post-moderns, just as he gave us the poor and disenfranchised when no-one else could crack it.
I think you may be talking more about post-modernism inside the army. Let me think aloud about this a bit:
One of the hallmarks of post-modernism is the rejection of absolute truth. For the post-modern Christian, this leads to more scope for doubt. Doubt is cool, because it leads to questioning. When we question, we tend to find truth. In post-modern terms I understand this is called deconstruction. The problem with deconstruction is that once you deconstruct, there is no REconstruction of a truth in its place, because once there is a truth formed it is no longer post-modern! Therefore, one ends up with nothing which is where the 'pick and mix' mentality comes in i guess. One can then say things like 'What is true for you is not true for me' and then form a concoction of beliefs. There seems to be no conviction about anything anymore as there are no absolute truths.
It is common to see modernistic churches caricatured as being pharisaic ie. having laws (absolutes) without love. This is not fair. The Salvation Army is a modernist movement, with our absolutes being the doctrines. From my understanding, the doctrines are 'all about' love. I think we come back to the original point about sin here, as perhaps now we are not examples of perfect love therefore not representing our absolutes in the correct manner. This does not mean that the absolutes are not right!
Perhaps post-modernism could be looked at as a tool of Satan. There is nothing more repelling than watered down beliefs and that appears to be the final product of deconstruction.
As I've said previously, forgive me as I am no scholar. I may miss massive points or generalise completely. I enjoy being taught though!
The ultimate benchmark, I suppose, is whether we see post-modernism in Jesus. I can't see it anywhere. Jesus has absolutes.
--"My generation (I am 35) are disenfranchised.
Do you care about that or would you just rather sort me into the chaff bin?"--
With regards to your generation being disenfranchised, I completely agree. And I certainly do care because your generation are the role models for my generation (20 yr old). I do not want to end up like the 30-40 yr olds I see at my corps, which is why I am trying to do his best about it.
Teackles--
i'm stoked to see that you have a teachable spirit. praise the Lord.
we do need to be aware of false prophets. yes. while i am sure there are some among us, i am also sure that there are genuine prophets as well. and i am sure of these things:
"He goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice."
(from John 10-- maybe meditate on the whole parable) we are His sheep, we CAN hear His voice.
"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know."
(Jeremiah 33:3)
we can hear His voice.
there are many warnings to people who claim to be speaking the words of God, but who are not. but that doesn't in any way show that no one hears His voice accurately.
Number 3 (what's your name?)
i agree on this: our lack of effectiveness cannot be blamed on our culture, only on our sin. let's be rid of it.
good stuff.
Number 3,
Whoah, sorry!
My mistake....it wasn't you, you are right.
My apologies, I wrote that stuff really late last night and I was careless.
Yes, I was talking about the post modern christians and yes it is about deconstruction and reconstruction.
This is where the movement of the "Emerging Church" came from. The post modernists emerging or reconstructing their beliefs.
Now, this is where we differ. I believe that we have reconstructed with truths. (I don't really want to be the poster boy for the Post Modernist in the Church here so I will just speak from my own experience)
I have reconstructed using a few truths. I guess I cannot call them absolute truths but I have to say that they are my absolute truths. This is what I see as being true and if I am wrong (and we are all wrong about Christianity) then it will mean that I lived my life in a manner that I thought was christlike and I will hopefully be remembered as a "good" man. (I have some work ahead of me though)
My truths: God created the world, Jesus came to earth, died and rose again, and through him I am saved. Jesus came and taught us how to live as God had planned...IE: the way were designed, a way that will ultimately make me happy and give me peace in my life. God is love and my biggest task on earth is to love others and especially love the downtrodden, poor and marginalised.
(wow, it sounds like TSA stuff right!)
"With regards to your generation being disenfranchised, I completely agree. And I certainly do care because your generation are the role models for my generation (20 yr old). I do not want to end up like the 30-40 yr olds I see at my corps"
OK, I am sure this is exactly what I said to myself at 20. Sorry to scare you number 3 but maybe you will be me in 15 years!
At 20 I listened and agreed with everything that was preached and taught from the pulpit and in the band room.
I was narrow in my views and full of fear of the "outside world" I lived in a Salvo bubble.
I was taught what to think not how to think!
Do I think my deconstruction was from Satan?
No way!
It was the best thing that has happened to me!
It's about getting rid of the garbage. Getting rid of the religiosity of church.
"God can give us the post-moderns, just as he gave us the poor and disenfranchised when no-one else could crack it."
Man, this is a little patronising don't you think?
I believe that God has, if anything, enlightened me.
I was on a path of trying to be good at religion but not really searching out who God really is.
That is scary.
I now want to look at everything and think about what it means and it's validity. Not just turn up on Sundays and swallow what the guy at the front says. Let's face it he is just a sinner like me, he isn't always gonna be right and for that matter maybe neither is someone who wrote TSA doctrines (ahh, don't punch you computer screens!!)
I don't want to be told what to think about issues, who to vote for or even what the definitive interpretation of a scripture is. I want to search out who God is myself.
The whole reason I commented on here is that I see young people at the age of 20 who are me 15 years ago and I want to tell them there is a way out of the rut of religion.
I sat in church and beat myself up because I wasn't getting it. It wasn't fitting for me. I would think "Why would God not want to touch me? What is wrong with me?"
Now, I know that most of us weren't getting it. Most of my freinds have either gone through this "de/reconstruction or are pre- de/reconstruction and are miserable in the Army.
I want to encourage them to step off the treadmill without fear and start to work out what you believe for yourself.
Yes, it means that I have some grey areas but that is fine with me.
Maybe getting older means that you realise that you didn't know everything you thought you did at 20. It means also realising that there are some mysteries that God never really meant to be cracked. Some things that were never meant to be known as "absolute truths".
It gives me comfort and relief that I don't have to worry about these things. It is a new kind of faith for me.
Now, I believe that the church has lost a heck of a lot of these people. (only yesterday one of my friends told his officers he was leaving, after 35 years...he struggled to live in the "Modernist Army" for the last 15 years but now just can't hack it anymore. He wouldn't know what the word post modern is but I know that he is leaving for the same reasons I did 2 years ago) OH, yeah, I forgot to mention that didn't I? Yes I am one of the many who have jumped ship! Please don't disregard my posts now ok? :)
Maybe, I am the poster boy. The poster boy of "why the Salvos are shrinking" Hmmmmm......
Number 3, You might call my journey Satan I certainly don't.
Teackles,
"I guess I cannot call them absolute truths but I have to say that they are my absolute truths."
I guess that's why I can't get hold of the post modern thing. If its absolutely true for you, then i figure it would make sense for it to be absolutely true for me. Like gravity, death and taxes!
"(wow, it sounds like TSA stuff right!)"
Pretty much... What does that say?
"I was taught what to think not how to think!"
A common feeling.
"At 20 I listened and agreed with everything that was preached and taught from the pulpit and in the band room."
It makes sense to listen, but never to just accept.
"I was narrow in my views and full of fear of the "outside world" I lived in a Salvo bubble."
Maybe my upbringing has contributed to this (would rather not go into details) but I feel I have a fairly wide outlook. I've been brought up to question everything. Went through my main searching phase a couple years ago and decided to buy and read all the holy books of the major religions (Qu'ran, Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, etc). Praise God it made my faith stronger. Doing that has also enabled me to discuss faith issues with my friends (mostly Muslim) who respect me for knowing about their religion.
"Man, this is a little patronising don't you think?"
Not really... We are a holiness movement that was blessed with divine creativity to reach the poor and outcast from society when the other churches were not. Therefore, I say if we return to our holiness roots, we will be blessed again to reach the post-modernist when the other churches are not.
"I don't want to be told what to think about issues, who to vote for or even what the definitive interpretation of a scripture is. I want to search out who God is myself."
Sure, we all want experience of a personal, unique, loving relationship with our creator.
"The whole reason I commented on here is that I see young people at the age of 20 who are me 15 years ago and I want to tell them there is a way out of the rut of religion."
I am orthodox SA, officer's kid, wear uniform, play in the band, carry a Bible and song book. Does that mean I haven't thought things through and I'm just a clone or brainwashed? I struggle to see the logic. I questioned, rebelled, challenged the boundaries and found I could only embrace rather than reject.
"Maybe getting older means that you realise that you didn't know everything you thought you did at 20."
Maybe, if what you knew at 20 turns out to be wrong. Its common to see more grey areas with age, but older one's are often thankful when the younger one's remind of the black and white.
"Some things that were never meant to be known as "absolute truths"."
Like what?
"Now, I believe that the church has lost a heck of a lot of these people."
Agreed. And sin is the cause of this. My sin, your sin, their sin, personal sin, corporate sin. Anyway we say it, sin is still sin.
"Maybe, I am the poster boy. The poster boy of "why the Salvos are shrinking" Hmmmmm......"
The army isn't shrinking because people are questioning the 'absolutes'. As above, sin is the issue. We're a movement riddled with it and I dare say that has made you more disillusioned than anything.
This is my reason for writing off post-modernism cause of our lack of effectiveness. As Bale said on the blog, its just a distraction.
Yes I'm 20. No, I don't think I know everything. Do I have conviction? Yes, and I always will. No, I won't end up like the (majority of) 30-40 yr olds at my corps. God's calling us all away from the comfort, middle class apathy, social club, bickering, backstabbing, grudge-holding, pomposity, arrogance, disillusionment, anger, embarrassment, shame, humiliation, ignorance of the current SA. He's calling us back to holiness, the solution to every problem.
Gee, Number 3 I am a bit worried that we might know each other but I will still continue to post here.
"I guess that's why I can't get hold of the post modern thing. If its absolutely true for you, then i figure it would make sense for it to be absolutely true for me. Like gravity, death and taxes!"
I have decided that these "truths" are what I am gonna hang my beliefs on.
Do any of us really know any of these truths are real?
I have made a leap of faith. Number 3, this is what faith is.
You don't really know that God is there, none of us do.
That's why its called faith.
Surely it would have been a hell of a lot easier if God just came down and told everyone "Hey, yeah I AM real...... you atheist must feel pretty stupid!"
But then its not about faith is it?
"Some things that were never meant to be known as "absolute truths."
Like what?"
You serious? like all of it dude!
It is about having faith in what you believe, it's not about knowing that you are right all the time.
Strange thing is that everyone else thinks that they are right too. Someone's gotta be wrong somewhere don't they?
I just have to think that Jesus was real and that he was the son of God and he taught the world the best way to live our lives.
I am pretty happy now that that is how it is.
I don't know it for sure. I wasn't there I didn't touch him or live with him or even see him on telly.
I use faith. Hopefully I have made the right decision.
But who really knows for sure that the hindus are right?
Do you tell your muslim friends that they are pretty much screwed?
Look, being black and white makes you not up for discussion on things. When someone tells you that this is this and that's it then how can one discuss it.
Like this prophesy. When someone says it is truth then who am I to go against it? It is truth!
I read in a great book about how a lot of religious peoples veiws on christianty are like a brick wall.
If you take one brick out it can't stand up.
translation. EG: If you don't believe that Noah really had all the animals of the world in a big boat then you can't be a christian.
If you don't have a black and white belief of 100% of the whole thing then you can't have belief in any of it.
Can we prove that everything in the bible happened and that our translations are all entirely correct?
I heard a different interpretation on the "turn the other cheek" story last week that made me think that my original take on it could actually be incorrect.
That means that all this time I thought that I knew what it meant but it seems that now perhaps I didn't. Whoa!
These are the words of a 20year old man:
"God's calling us all away from the comfort, middle class apathy, social club, bickering, backstabbing, grudge-holding, pomposity, arrogance, disillusionment, anger, embarrassment, shame, humiliation, ignorance of the current SA. "
Number 3. You are yet to experience the next phase of life that might change your veiws a little. You have probably not had responsibilities of the 40somethings in your church. I doubt you support any one but yourself yet. (you may even live at home with your parents supporting you) Do you have children?
As much as it pains me to sound like an old fart here...... but you have only just started on your adult journey. 4 years ago you were in high school.
Although....It is your place to have a fire in your belly. I understand that.
You just told us that you have only just gone thru your "searching phase." Gee, I hate this term.
It really intimates that you have found what you were looking for and you now have all the answers.
Anyway, Let me tell you it won't be your last "searching phase" either.
Being responsible for another human beings life make you search all over again.
I too, was angry at the people who were 10 years older when I was 20. "Why don't they commit themselves and get excited like us????!!!!!!!!!!!"
I now know why. They are busy trying to ensure that their offspring stay alive!
Something that you really won't understand until it happens to you.
" I am orthodox SA, officer's kid, wear uniform, play in the band, carry a Bible and song book. Does that mean I haven't thought things through and I'm just a clone or brainwashed? I struggle to see the logic. I questioned, rebelled, challenged the boundaries and found I could only embrace rather than reject. "
You know what? I reckon most people do embrace too. It's a sad reality and one no-one wants to hear but we become our parents.
Tell me, what would you embrace or reject if you were adopted out at birth and raised an muslim?
Do you have a black and white answer to that?
"Maybe, if what you knew at 20 turns out to be wrong. Its common to see more grey areas with age, but older one's are often thankful when the younger one's remind of the black and white."
Yes, I believe it was the black and white I grew up with that was wrong. Although I agree that we can always learn from people younger than us.
I know I do all the time.
Here is something that a freind wrote to some young Salvationist who remind me of where you are at right now.......
"The reason many people that I know have left the Army (and I know plenty) is because the Army culture is very 'black and white' and if you think in grey shades (or colour) then you are not accepted. It's interesting that over 98% of the time Jesus was questioned or challenged (NB. by religious people) He chose to answer with a story or questions of his own rather than just give a straight answer. This tells me that learning how to live in this world as a Christian is constant search and struggle rather than black and white truths. Jesus made people 'think'. TSA is a 'modernist' organisation trying to work out how to relate to a 'post-modern' world (with not much success). If we could somehow show acceptance to people who 'question' then we would do a lot better.......
Here's my opinion - ****** and ****, you both think in Black and White!!!! It's just my opinion though...And the reason this converstaion is so important is cause people like you (maybe not you, but people like you) will be the ones who become salvo officers. If you were the leader of a church how would you react to someone like Teackles if he walked into your church???
Number 3,
I don't believe that the reason people are leaving is exclusively sin in the church. If that were the case there would be no churches left.
We all sin and we all will forever. You talk of holiness and I read the "eternal search of holiness"
If you are expecting that the church is gonna be rid of all the sinners and just be left with holy folk, well it aint gonna happen.
Sin probably was a part of why I left but I have now joined a church where sin is present too.
It's unavaoidable.
Will you be rid of post modern thought?
Not for a while.
This argument (or discussion) is pretty much a waste of energy if I am honest with myself.
We live at different ends of the "political spectrum"
Studies show us that we as a society are becoming more polarised. The church is a great example of this.
If the Salvos continue to discourage a different way of thinking and encourage the Modernist views of black and white then more and more little L liberal folk will leave and you will be left with conservative people.
Hey, you know what that is probably not such a bad thing. There is a reason why there are so many different arms to the church.
We all don't wanna worship Hillsong style do we?
The sad thing is (and this has been told to me by someone high up in the ranks) that TSA is losing some creative thinkers and is left with a palette of the same colour.
oh dear.
the generations need each other. not only in a stereotypical the-youth-pump-up-the-adults-and-the-adults-give-wisdom-to-the-youth- way either. young people can also be an example to older folk, and give wisdom to them. and an older generation can (and should) also be encouraging, challenging, and exhorting the young people onward.
i recognize that you probably agree with that. but (Teackles) the way that it sounds is that you disregard many of Number 3's ideas and opinions, simply because you found out that he is 20. it's possible that he is simply full of youthful enthusiasm and you have learned something he hasn't about this. but it's also possible that you have become watered-down when you realized that your experience didn't match your theology. (the proper response to that, of course, is not to water-down our theology, but to change our experience.)
i'm not accusing, but if this is true-- please be careful when talking to young people-- don't dismiss what they have to say once you find out their age. they might change your mind.
alright, that was meant to be the side note. my main point of concern from your comment was what you said about sin. you think that we will all sin as long as we live, and that it is impossible to live in victory over sin, and that we will never be able to declare what Paul said, "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:2) ?
this anti-holiness theology concerns me deeply. and i agree with 3 that our sin can be eradicated, and that when it is, we will be effective again.
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."
1 John 3:4
"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
1 John 3:9
plus all of Romans 6,7 and 8 in context.
we are under no obligation to do what our sinful nature requires of us. sin is no longer our master...we are slaves of righteousness. i see no other option but to follow Him always.
this beautiful life of freedom from sin is not something we can achieve, or even strive for. once we have surrendered and consecrated everything to Him-- He will do it in us. hallelujah.
3-- "holiness is the solution to every problem"! where did you get that quote?
’Faith is the evidence of thinks now not seen’ to the Christian faith is as good as fact. Faith is the certainty that enables us to say ‘I know that my redeemer lives’ even when have appointed troubles like Job.
Faith must give us the confidence in humility to know that we are right otherwise we would be like the Ephesians – ‘infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.’
Truth is not subjective it is certain and for the Christian it is based on the OT and NT – how can we judge whether a particular word is of God – look at the aims of the word – if the word is followed and acted upon does it make the kingdom richer? Is God glorified? Has the ‘prophet’ tried to further their own reputation through what is said? As I said in an earlier post ‘a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.’
Christianity is about being 100% in love with God and compromised commitment is why the church stands in crisis.
Holiness is the outcome of a deliberate consecration of all our faculties to the glory of God and the betterment of the universe. Though impacted by physical constitution, emotions, circumstances (etc) holiness is not subject to nor caused by any of these things but is always the result of a deliberate willful and intelligent dedication.
If I offer God partial obedience then the part of my life I fail to surrender exists as a result of disobedience, disobedience is sin and an active sinner cannot be saved because Salvation is conditional upon both repentance and obedience (‘continuance in a sate of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith…)
Logically therefore Salvation is dependant upon total consecration.
When will we learn that we are not unsuccessful because we wear the wrong clothes, sing the wrong songs, play the wrong instruments, call each other by the wrong names or print the wrong publications? Our problem is not that we are not culturally relevant (look at our history and you will see that we never were! How was GSR standing on a street corner preaching to a drunken, illiterate costermonger – who had never heard of Christ – ever culturally relevant?) Our problem is not to be found in the fabric of our organisation, it is not infrastructure or style but is much more fundamental and personal than that.
Our problem is SIN and our sin is a refusal to give God what we know he requires and to even suggest (in spite of that knowledge) that the requirement is unrealistic and unobtainable. The Salvation Army is a band of covenanted warriors who have surrendered everything they have to the glory of God and the salvation of the world – anything less than that is a lie and to defend any lesser definition is sinful.
There is only one way forward – renunciation of everything that we know to be sinful, renunciation of everything that is considered to be doubtful, consecration of everything to God, and then (in faith) to go on our way and ‘sin no more.”
Can we prove that everything in the bible happened and that our translations are all entirely correct?
Teakles No 3 is 20… I am 45 and I agree with his paragraph:
"God's calling us all away from the comfort, middle class apathy, social club, bickering, backstabbing, grudge-holding, pomposity, arrogance, disillusionment, anger, embarrassment, shame, humiliation, ignorance of the current SA. "
Therefore your suggestion that “the next phase of life that might change your veiws a little” is not necessarily correct.
I certainly haven’t become my parents although if my suspicions are right I’d have no problem with No:3 becoming his!
Teakles sin is avoidable it is something that holiness can defeat. Just because sin is probable it doesn’t mean that victory over it is impossible.
Olivia quoted verses are important in their defense of Christian perfection – why did Jesus say the woman caught in adultery ‘Go on your way and sin no more’?
As I am always saying the rediscovery of holiness will be the salvation of the Salvation Army!
Love and prayers
A
Teackles,
I agree that the argument/discussion from this point on is a waste of energy. We've covered it. You've made me think about a couple things so that's cool. Hopefully I've made you think about things too.
My final words...
Islam.. If a kitten is born in a stable does that make it a horse? Likewise, being born into a Christian home does not make us Chrstian. We do not all become our parents, but I would not mind that at all.
sin as the root... base it on the old testament prophets particularly Joshua and Isaiah, which dominate my reading these days. I base the argument on these principles: growth is a blessing, and we are God's people. Since the only cause of blessings ever being withheld from God's people is sin, that must be our problem. Simple as that. Every problem that you described with the Army is accurate... but look deeper and closer and flip it upside down and its the old culprit of sin again.
If I was an officer and someone like you walked into my hall I would thank God. (Hopefully someone would have brought you in the first place.) I would then hope that all the soldiers you meet are a living testimony of a sanctified life and i trust the effect would follow. No doubt we would also spend many an hour in stimulating discussion challenging each others thinking.
When you say studies about polarisation of society, what studies? If you're serious about wanting to challenge me about my thinking, then direct me towards these. I'll check it all out. When I say 'like what', I'm asking you to back up a statement that you have not supported.
Call my 'searching' deconstruction and reconstruction if those terms are more appealing for you. When I 'reconstructed' I found some answers/truths/absolutes (note: some, not all). That is sanctification, which sees continual growth in Christ. We all have sinnned therefore fall short of the glory of God. It doesn't mean we have to continue sinning though. Using Wesley for a definition of sin: any deliberate transgression of a known law of God.
It is a lofty goal, yes. But what is the point of setting a low target? Especially when the high target is achievable? We're not here to be stuck in a cycle of sinning and repenting.
It might help for you also to make the distinction between sin and sinner. Removing sin does not mean kicking people out. John 15 talks about pruning. Apply this to an individual. What is being removed? What is being maintained? Maybe love is recognising people for what they could be and helping them get there, rather than just accepting who they are. People will love me, just as I will love others.
Olivia, ur at the war college? I may be over there for a few days this Summer to see what its all about. May catch u if you're still around. Got that quote from Court I think? Its a living reality regardless.
Bale, don't be suspicious mate, especially on internet.. Just give me a bell or something! Would be pretty funny if you were wrong :P
I'm interested in the definition of sin that most of you seem to hold to. Have you narrowed that definition so that it's easier to fit your idea of holiness? I have read on some of these blogs of people talking about receiving a pure heart and now being without sin. I read one a while back that other people were referring to him as being without sin, and he wasn't disagreeing, however a couple of weeks later he blogged along the lines of "maybe I'm not without sin". A while later he was then in "without sin" mode again. How many of you are holy and totally free from sin right now? How long have you been in this state? How long will it last? Is the Wesleyan definition of sin (which I gather it what most of you hold to) truly the correct one? I sense a degree of pride and arrogance in some of your writings - the bible speaks against that but are you able to justify this in your own hearts and therefore consider this not to be sinful?
i don't think that theology on holiness has to include arrogance.
we are fully recognizing that holiness is impossible. we recognize that we have failed over and over again. we recognize that we are born sinful.
but we also recognize the power of the death of Jesus. He does it in us, to Him be the glory.
Hi all, this is all very interesting. Funny how people can say can the things from the opposite angle, but really the message is the same. Thankfully God is generous with our shortcomings....Obviously its one of those ongoing issues we have has Christians - finding the balance between love and judgement, humility and pride. Thats why nothing except for the basic gospel can really be black and white in our lives, because as soon as we 'get' something, God will challenge us more, and take us deeper into the unknown (God might be black and white, but because of our humanity, we are!). I say Thank God for a world wide church that is starting to say 'don't be frightened about questioning and having doubt' because it has allowed me to come back into God's presence in a renewed and precious way. I still find it hard when I then here people say "that way of thinking is sinful' ( hence so is your experience) but I am learning that the fact that the church is SO flawed ( as are its members, a which has thrown me in the past) is part of the picture of God's perfect love for me ( flawed and broken).
Its great to have a voice hay!
oops I meant 'because of our humanity we AREN"T
Some interesting comments in here now.
Finally, someone in here I can agree with. I agree with alot of what Anon is saying and Linda brings up some interesting comments.
I too am a little perplexed what this life of Holiness looks like.
Olivia,
Please explain it to me.
First you say this (I paraphrased you comments)
"you (teackles) think that we will all sin as long as we live, and that it is impossible to live in victory over sin,....... this anti-holiness theology concerns me deeply........i agree with 3 that our sin can be eradicated, and that when it is, we will be effective again."
then you tell anon:
"we are fully recognizing that holiness is impossible. we recognize that we have failed over and over again. we recognize that we are born sinful."
Which is it?
Can you live a sinless holy life or is it impossible?
You must have a black and white answer for this right?
Number 3,
Dude, I have really enjoyed our conversations. It is obvious that you are an itelligent man and I have nothing but respect for you.
If I came over as having contempt then it was not my intention.
Yes, you have challenged me and made me think about stuff.
I think Olivia was a bit harsh to assume that I was saying those things with any patronizing spirit.
"If I was an officer and someone like you walked into my hall I would thank God. (Hopefully someone would have brought you in the first place.)"
No number 3, No one brought me, I was there the whole time. Born and bred like you. I just think that no-one wanted to hear my doubts and questions.
Studies??
Well, it is from an anthropological study that was done in the US in 2005 (I think that was when it was)
It was a study on how political and cultural views had polarised in the past ten years there and how that had encouraged more radical and fundamental thinking.
(it was also said that the same pattern was occurring in other Western countries too)
A lot of people were now living geographically in places where they were surrounded by like minded people.
There was some interesting stuff about "group Dynamics" too.
The study concluded that if you put people with similar values and political veiws together in a group and then ask them for a corporate view on an issue they will swing towards radical and fundamental outcomes.
Also, check out Jimmy Carter's last book.
"Our Endangered Values, America's Moral Crisis"
He talks about it a lot too.
He is a great christian man who does a heck of a lot of good in this world.
He concludes that a big part of the US's Moral Crisis come from the Conservative Christian's there and the dodgey political dealings that they have.
Check it out.
"Islam.. If a kitten is born in a stable does that make it a horse? Likewise, being born into a Christian home does not make us Chrstian. We do not all become our parents, but I would not mind that at all."
Yeah, fair call there.
I knew the "becoming our parents" comment was fraught with danger.
It's a gross generalisation, I know!
But look at it from a numbers point of view:
How many O.K.s do you know who are now in ministry or working for the Salvos? (or even like you card carrying memebers)
How many are now Islamic?
How many Lebanese people who grew up following Islam are now soldering at Box Hill say?
Get my drift?
I personally had 4 father figures and I can see each one in my behaviour and values.
It is unavoidable that they leave a mark on us.
Do you think that any of GHW Bushes kids were gonna run as president for the Democrats??
I know what you are trying to say here but I just don't think I agree.
Re. the holiness and definition of sin...
My understanding is that sin can be defined in two ways. I think they are termed Calvinist and Wesleyan. (this is off the top of my head so please forgive and correct me if I am wrong!)
Calvinist sin: Any shortfall of a known law of God. (includes mistakes, ignorance, natural desires)
Wesleyan sin: Any deliberate shortfall of a known law of God. (key word being deliberate, acknowledging that we can never be devoid of mistakes etc.)
Really, there is not a whole heap of difference. There is 90% overlap, but the 10% difference seems to be what everyone argues about when really its just miniscule details (semantics, as Olivia might say?).
From these definitions, there arises two concepts of holiness. Again, the differences are what causes conflicts but the 90% is what is the important thing. This is, both are the purging of deliberate transgressions from a life. Both ideals acknowledge that it is possible to resist DELIBERATELY breaking a known law of God and being continually obedient. That, to me, is what holiness, sanctification, christian perfection, blessing of a clean heart etc means. If we consider sin as cobwebs, they keep coming back unless we kill the spider. Now, it would be foolish to say that we will NEVER sin again, and that would be arrogant. However the avoidance of deliberate law-breaking is possible, just as we have the choice to not steal or kill someone (note: 'bigger' sins are easier to avoid). So a Wesleyan would say holiness is 'achieved' through this regular, continual overcoming of sin. The Calvinist would say (due to the difference in interpretation of what sin is) that holiness is a continual process which is finally achieved in heaven (since we become perfect).
Testifying to a true experience of sanctification would not be arrogant, as the truly sanctified would recognise God's grace and give him the glory as it is only through him that we are all able to continually be victorious over sin. Amen!
Conclusion:
The definition of sin is not watered down just to make us feel better, it is interpreted differently from scripture (a topic Teackles has so passionately argued in other discussions). Therefore, my recommendation is that any discussion about holiness defines sin before anything is said. Otherwise, you'll be missing the 90% that we all agree on and just getting on with it. Coming at cross purposes really sucks and is a waste of time. Also, love is at the centre of it all. Otherwise, we are just pharisees following the law. (John 3, Nicodemus)
Another important thing to consider is temptation. This cannot be removed (Jesus was tempted all the time) but since God helps us all the way, we ARE ALWAYS ABLE to overcome (of course this does not mean that we always do). I look at temptation like this: At school, a 1st grader would not be tested with a 12th grade test. But as they develop and learn more, so they are tested and challenged more. I would align this to temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13). Continual giving in to temptation would be what we term 'backsliding'.
These are great questions. (Must admit, its def more interesting than my uni work lol)
PS for Teackles: Thanks for the references, I'll check them all out. I know I said I wouldn't say anything more but hey why not!
"How many O.K.s do you know who are now in ministry or working for the Salvos? (or even like you card carrying memebers)"
Too many! :P
"How many are now Islamic?"
The location I lived longest in my short life was a Muslim country where evangelism is outlawed and Christians are continually oppressed and persecuted. Despite this, the SA there is one of the fastest growing territories in the world praise God!! Funny thing that.. maybe they found truths!
It works!
Just a clarification to No:3
Your definitions are ok. However the difference is more than semantic and very important.
If you see a mistake as a 'sin' then Christian perfection is unobtainable. If you see a mistake as simply being 'human' and not a sin then Christian perfection is possible.
The whole premise of Wesleyan holiness is that sin can be eradicated completely (not temptation as you rightly point out but the bit of me that interacts with temptation) - this is why the difference in the definitions matters.
The question is this - can I by using God's grace resist the nect temptation that comes my way? If the answer is yes then a life that does that repeatedly will continually experience victory over sin - that's putting it too simply (there's a whole lot of loove, consecration and renunciation in there as well) but for it'll do for the sake of brevity.
Much love and prayers
A
Important and accurate points, Andrew. Thanks. A question for you though: Could a Calvinist live a 'Wesleyan' holy life even if his definition of sin is not the same as a Wesleyan?
The problem, as you point out, would be that a Calvinist could not claim that "the curse of sin has lost its grip on him" which could severely limit the power of his testimony.
clarification:
a life of holiness is impossible for us to do on our own. when i said that it was impossible, i didn't mean to say that it thus would never happen. i meant to say that we can never make ourselves holy.
hence it not being a pride thing.
He does the impossible within us (purify us), and we give Him the glory.
No one has answered my questions yet, and I would really like to hear from some of you regarding whether you consider that you are currently in a state of sinlessness, how long you have been that way and whether you think it can be continued indefinitely. I am also still confused as to what you define as sin - Olivia you seem to suggest that pride and arrogance are not sinful, so what else isn't on the sin list? Under your definition of sin, are sins only actions or are they thoughts and attitudes as well?
i definte sin as Wesley defines "sin properly-so-called": a voluntary transgression of a known law of God.
i believe it is possible to crucify our sinful nature so that our natural inclination is not to disobey God, but to obey.
this, of course, doesn't mean that we won't be tempted. but the temptation will come from the world and from the enemy, not from our own desires.
so, yes i believe it is possible to live a life in which you never intentionally disobey the Lord. this includes things which are clearly outlined in Scripture (actions and attitudes), things that the Lord personally convicts us of, and even sins of omission (meaning that we will not only stop doing what is wrong, but we will also begin to do what is right.)
i testify to this work in my life. i boast in my weakness-- i was the biggest Pharisee you could imagine-- trying to do it on my own, but full of pride and self-centeredness.
and, praise the Lord, He transformed me. i no longer do what i know He doesn't want me to.
it is certainly possible to lose your holiness. temptation is still there.
but i don't believe that you lose your holiness every day. or that it even needs to happen at all.
i also testify-- i lost my holiness once. but the Lord is gracious and compassionate. once i repented and surrendered again, He restored me.
does this make sense?
in searching the Scriptures i found this to make sense (no excuse for continuing in sin), so i prayed about it quite a bit, and asked the Lord to search me, and point out in me any area that offended Him, and any area that i had yet to surrender fully. oh, and He revealed. once i repented and surrendered, that was when He planted me in holiness.
thoughts?
Some more interesting stuff there to digest.
I continue to be interested in Anon's question though.
Can anyone help him out?
Olivia,
"so, yes i believe it is possible to live a life in which you never intentionally disobey the Lord."
So what happens if your interpretation of scripture is wrong but you are not intentionally sinning?
It's cool right? You're still holy?
Say you were sinning but you didn't think you were doing anything wrong (as far as you interpreted the bible.)
You and I could easily interpret a lot of stuff differently.
A sin to one christian could easily be fine with another.
Hmm.....???
What if I believed that it was cool to get divorced and you believed if I did I would be continually living in sin?
I think that I am living a wholly holy life but you may think that I need to repent for that sin and stop sleeping with someone that is not my wife.
OK, then who is right. It says it in the bible but we still do it?
Isn't there quite a few of these sort of issues?
Who decides what sins we will follow and what sins we will ignore.
I bet there a lot of overweight people who think they are living a life of holiness..... but others would think that they are sinning daily by giving in to gluttony and greed.
Who gets to say what sins are in and what sins are out?
Is sin black and white or do we all water it down?
The bible will always be quite a mystery to me.
(Although my knowledge of it is not great...Is that a sin too?...not reading the NIV enough?)
I do know that the word calls us to be holy and through him live a life without sin then it tells us that we will always be sinners and then Jesus tells the story about the tax collector and the prostitute (correct me if I have the wrong professions there) who will be going to heaven while the people who profess to be holy were not.
Man, do I really want to tell people that I live a holy life.
Not according to that story!
Could it be possible that the truths about what is sin and what is not are not that absolute after all?
One man's sin is another man's pleasure.
What you interpret as a sin I may not.
hmmm.......
ps:
I think I might have a clue as to why you thought I was coming down too hard on number3.......It might be because you are about the same age as him right??
Teackles.
I must admit that I've been catching up on this strain of thought while helping my 10 year old with math (which admittedly causes my brain to hurt). But, it is an observation of mine and others that the believer that is truly holy doesn't necessarily believe that he is holy. And, they are also most often and always aware of their own short-comings.
Holiness could be described as habitual submission - we get into the practice of daily submission to the will of the Father, so that it becomes a routine - a habit, if you will - of holy living.
I am taking this near silence as a sign that people are stumped.
Right?
Usually, comments come back to me thick and fast but not this one.
(or anon's questions)
Where are the "absolute" answers to my questions?
Are you admitting that something may not be black and white?
Are there shades of grey in your theology just like in mine?
I look forward to plenty of replies later today.
Teackles.
Rob says:
‘Holiness could be described as habitual submission - we get into the practice of daily submission to the will of the Father, so that it becomes a routine - a habit, if you will - of holy living.’
This is a better definition than most but for me it doesn’t go quite far enough – holiness is the ‘living sacrifice’ of Romans 12 in which we make a conscious decision (consecration/renunciation) to no longer ‘conform to the pattern of this world’ and to be ‘transformed by the renewing of our mind’. Finney always emphasised the importance of the will in becoming holy.
The path that leads to self crucifixion may be slow and painful (just as the Via Dolorosa was for Christ) but the crisis of crucifixion in which self dies is instant. As someone once said we may grow in holiness but not into holiness. It is at this point of literal self-denial and surrender to God’s will that sin dies and the spirit takes up absolute residence and rule. As long as the believer, through faith-fuelled grace, stays here they remain holy.
Teakles:
If you list your unanswered questions as bullet points I’ll try and answer them, in the meantime…
An act that does not involve the will cannot be sin as without free will sin cannot exist. Because I am human I will make mistakes and sometimes act impetuously without knowledge – such acts may be stupid and even reckless but they are not sin. I agree with Olivia and Wesley, only when we deliberately go against what we know to be God’s will do we actually sin.
Holy people would be reluctant to confess their holiness outside of ministry for fear of being branded arrogant but take it from me there are people alive today who do not sin and have not sinned for some time.
Love and prayers
A
Only one question really, I guess.
Say you were sinning but you didn't think you were doing anything wrong (as far as you interpreted the bible.)
A sin to one christian could be not a sin to another.
IE:
What if I believed that it was cool to get divorced and you believed if I did I would be continually living in sin?
I think that I am living a wholly holy life but you may think that I need to repent for that sin and stop sleeping with someone that is not my wife.
or
I bet there a lot of overweight people who think they are not sinning..... but others would think that they are sinning daily by giving in to gluttony and greed.
So, if think it is not a sin then it's fine to continue doing it?
You are saying:
"only when we deliberately go against what we know to be God’s will do we actually sin."
It all depends on my interpretation of the Gospel then?
So, for right wing christian fundamentalists who might blow up abortion clinics, as long as they believe that they are not sinning, they aren't.
What if you haven't read all the bible and don't know them all?
What if (like most of us) you ignore the "less important ones?"
(Are any of your sinless freinds fat Andrew?)
So, it all depends on your interpretation of the Word then?
Here I was thinking you were "black and white" Andrew, it seems YOU might be the poster boy for that post modern "grey" theology!
Anyone else wanna have a crack at it?
Teackles,
I'm still fairly confused on what is and isn't classified as sin. The following are three simple examples that I would imagine that those that you clain to be living sinless lives would encounter -
- You are driving along in a car, someone cuts you off and your immediate thought is along the lines of "you idiot" - sin or no sin?
- You give $5 to a beggar, but use the remaining $3 in your pocket to buy a coffee that you really didn't need - would that be the sin of greed?
- You see someone driving a nice car and for just a moment think to yourself "I wish I had a car like that" - would that be envy? Sin or no sin?
Rob Reardon's comments regarding daily submission to God seem to fit best with my thinking at present. Sin in some form or another, often shown through small and insignificant events such as my examples, are present i and around us constantly. Therefore we need to be seek constant revelation from God (through prayer and the word) regarding the sin in our lives and then ask for forgiveness.
"So, if think it is not a sin then it's fine to continue doing it?"
No, if it is done outside a motivation of perfect love.
"What if I believed that it was cool to get divorced and you believed if I did I would be continually living in sin?"
Would you be causing harm to yourself by staying in your relationship? (ie. abuse) Would you be causing harm to others by coming out of it? (Suffering children)
"would think that they are sinning daily by giving in to gluttony and greed"
Are you stopping other people from getting food? Are you causing damage to your body and others because you will die 20 years early? But if you are unaware of the effects is it right that you should be blamed? Maybe those who didn't warn the big guy should be held accountable? What do Teackles and Anon think?
"What if you haven't read all the bible and don't know them all?"
Love is the priority. Do you know how to love? Can you love? Do you love? Are you love?
"So, for right wing christian fundamentalists who might blow up abortion clinics, as long as they believe that they are not sinning, they aren't."
Was there something more loving they could have done? Sanctification may open their eyes to other solutions.
"You are driving along in a car, someone cuts you off and your immediate thought is along the lines of "you idiot" - sin or no sin?"
What's the motivation? Because they got in your way? Or because of dangerous driving which could have led to an accident? What's the more loving motivation?
"You give $5 to a beggar, but use the remaining $3 in your pocket to buy a coffee that you really didn't need - would that be the sin of greed?"
Buy him some food instead so he doesn't use it on alcohol. Talk to him so that today he doesn't feel like an outcast from society. Make him feel loved as Christ would.
"You see someone driving a nice car and for just a moment think to yourself "I wish I had a car like that" - would that be envy? Sin or no sin?"
Its natural to want nice things. Its not natural to want to harm other people to get them or dislike others because they have something you don't.
Conclusion: Holiness is more related to who we are rather than who we aren't. Sanctified actions and thoughts come from a state of perfect love. Purging of sin is a result of being blessed with perfect love which can be expressed with a clean heart. The love of Christ is not relative, except perhaps in expression because we all encounter different situations to express it. The ingredients, however, are common and available to all who ask.
Holiness embraces all aspects of our life. We become aware of how God's love can be best expressed in situations we encounter as we are totally surrendered to him.
How about telling us all some of your opinions on the matter?
Cheers number 3,
(whoever you are??)
Well, I guess you have helped me explain my opinions on the matter.
You replied with more questions than answers.
This whole "what is sin?" thing can't really be black and white can it?
Therefore no-one can claim to be without sin.
If we do not have a definitive truth on what is a sin and what is not how can one claim to be without it?
Maybe sin is relative in a way.
What you think is sin will not be the same as others.
IE
"Its natural to want nice things. Its not natural to want to harm other people to get them or dislike others because they have something you don't."
That's your interpretation of what the sin of envy means. Not everyone will agree with you.
So what if your interpretation is wrong?
There are so many sins (like the ones that anon mentions) that we (middle class protestant christian people) have somehow conviniently disregarded. What if God really thought those were the important ones and say homosexuality and euthenasia were less important to him?
Life puts us in situations where we are faced with 2 options that may both be sins. There is not always a sinless option.
In Jesus' times the Jewish people would have a scaling system for God's laws....So, that they could catergorise them as high and low priorities. (I think it was man's idea, not God's)
So, when faced with a situation where both options meant they broke laws they could choose the lesser of 2 evils.
God's laws were not always as clean cut as right and wrong.
I believe that we can't categorise sin as and absolute either.
Jesus hardly ever gave absolute answers, he hardly ever told those listening to him (so often religious people) the absolute truths to those questions posed to him..... so why would we claim to know them?
He would answer with parables that forced people to think. Jesus invited the people who perhaps thought they knew the answers to think hard about what was right and wrong. He challenged them to wrestle with the questions instead of turning the exam over and giving them the answers. He was truly a great teacher!
He would set up a parable like a good who dunnit movie and when the religious people thought they knew the ending and in fact who-dunnit he would throw in a twist that would make them walk out of theatre thinking and talking.
"So, who did do it then?, why? how?....what???...I thought I knew who it was all along! Maybe I didn't??
Anyway, No one has been game to give any clean cut answer to my last post....I didn't really expect anyone too either.
(although, feel free if you disagree!......I am taking the silence as confirmation of my views)
The answers I got from number 3 were more and more questions.
That's exactly as I see it number 3.
Teackles,
(sinner, I think...)
A question as an answer usually implies that your question isn't very clean cut therefore you shouldn't expect a clean answer!
Regardless, you've ignored everything that holiness is, instead focussed on that which it isn't.
Some words from Wesley:
"It is that habitual disposition of soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed holiness; and which directly implies being cleansed from sin, 'from everything that contaminates body and spirit' (2 Cor. 7:1); and, by consequence, being endued with those virtues which were in Christ Jesus; 'to be made new in the attitude of your minds' (Eph 4:23) and to be 'perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect' (Matt 5:48). 'Therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law.' (Romans 13:10)"
Jesus is the example for our lives so do as he would in all situations since we are empowered to do so. Why keep questioning it? Just do it! Just be obedient to the Spirit's promptings as you will never be prompted to sin.
Read A Plain Man's Guide to Holiness by Wesley for more Biblical backing than can be put on blog comments.
Anyway, I'm off never to return.
See you around folks
Why would you be off, never to return, Number 3? I thought our discussions here were with good intent, not trying to attack you but a genuine attempt to find truth. I really want to know from those of you that claim that complete holiness and sinlessness, sustainable for a long period of time, is truly possible. At the moment I think that this claim is made on the basis that many sins are not counted in your thinking, therefore you are able to claim this sinlessness. If no-one is willing to engage with myself and Teackles any further in here, perhaps you could suggest somewhere else where we might discuss this with people as the same mind as yourselves (Andrew, Olivia, Number 3).
Anonymous, I don't blame people for not returning your questions when you can't even leave your name...
Ok then Andrew. Let's call me Number 4. Will that give me some extra credibility when it comes to you or anyone else engaging with me on this subject?
Looks like I started a trend with the number thing..! Lucky I was cheeky enough to check back..
Reason I was off is because I figured we'd covered everything a few times. I guess not.
Regardless of the definition of sin (which has been provided and seems fairly clear cut), the point is that holiness means a purity of heart (Matt 5:8) and, as a result, the absence of sin as anyone born of God does not continue to sin (1 John 5:18). If I no longer live, and Christ lives in me, then what will my actions be?
"I really want to know from those of you that claim that complete holiness and sinlessness, sustainable for a long period of time, is truly possible."
As I said previously, a good reference is A Plain Man's Guide to Holiness by Wesley. Seriously: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plain-Guide-Holiness-Christian-Classics/dp/0340415010/sr=8-1/qid=1171035265/ref=sr_1_1/203-4312348-7183147?ie=UTF8&s=books A cop out? No. A time saver!
"At the moment I think that this claim is made on the basis that many sins are not counted in your thinking, therefore you are able to claim this sinlessness."
Sins like what are being ignored? 'Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect (Matt 5:48)' That's the calling. Do you think we are called to something we can't attain?
Am I right in assuming you do not think Christian perfection is possible? Are you taking your perceived absence of proof as evidence that the Wesleyan understanding of holiness is incorrect? If so, please explain the logic behind this. The argument may be augmented by knowing what your position is. What is your theological evidence that Christian perfection is unobtainable? Or do you think it requires too much hard work and discipline to be like our heavenly father? Is it simply an unreasonable request?
At the root of this whole discussion are the words relating to Isaiah 1. It is a call to the obvious:
turn from sin and re-embrace the SA's 10th Doctrine, based on 1 Thess 5:23,24, to be preserved blameless.
Btw, I don't have an issue with anonymity...as long as I can make out who wrote what!
Post a Comment