WOUNDED PILGRIMS

[editor]

How about an illustration?
Suppose there is a guy at work whom you do not report to, but whom you have observed handles his subordinates in a very abusive manner. In fact one young lady is so distressed over his conduct that she quits in tears.
As an example. He would come up to her after she had spent several hours tuning a very sophisticated analytical instrument and demand that she start something new, loosing all the hours of instrument prep time and so falling behind in her work.
Well, it is easy to understand how you could over time grow to dislike a guy like this.
You can even imagine hoping that he would someday reap what he sowed.
I am not necessarly convinced that either of the above are necessarily bad.
Imagine one day you come to work and the office is all abuzz:

Steve's wife just left him!

And you go: YES!

Well, not too long into your rejoicing, the Sprit of God quietly says to you:

"Why are you rejoicing in that man's calamity?"

On an intellectual level it is obvious - he deserved it. In fact after the prompting, I did not suddenly feel any less happy that this had happened to this guy, but in my heart I agreed with God. It was not right to rejoice at his misfortune. As I said, I did not necessarily immediately start feeling sorry for him (that came later), but nevertheless; I confessed my sin.
In a word, I don't think confession requires a special way of feeling, or thinking that you will never commit the same transgression again..
I think 1 John 1:9 is saying that God is willing to work with an attitude, even if we think we are not ready for action. That is where the second and best part of the verse kicks in!
The fact that we are having this converstation, is a result of my own application of 1 John 1:9.
I did not think I would be able to have a civil conversation with you Sondra. I was wrong about that.
Verne

Great illustration Verne.  I think we can all relate to it. 

I am immensely enjoying this conversation, and I have found that Sondra is more than able and willing to have civil conversations.  It helps to be respectful and friendly.

Brent

[BAT]

I assume I am a big source of your confessions from that statement.     I do intend to be very civil, but for the sake of unbiased discussion, let's continue to be cold, calculated Bible students for the meantime, ok?    Plus, I would like to keep Brent on edge just a little while longer.  He seems to function better under a lot of stress.  I don't have any other explanation why he would invite a total stranger from Canada to work for him and live a couple doors away - even if Lenore is a supernice lady.  Admiral gesture, but sounds a bit, hmmm - can't think of the right word right now??  Anyway, back to "what do you do with sin" after you've done all of the "d's"......


p.s.  Oh yeah, I finally got the word(s) I was looking for for Brent's scenario....sounds a little "your wife is going to kill youish."

Good insight, Sondra.   

[vernecarty]

I will go with you a while down this path of making "confession" the center of our salvation, but from the focus of the scriptures, in general, I think "the cross of Christ" occupies that place in the end.  Confession (or praise/admission) is only one rung on the ladder of our deliverance from sin and newness of life, IMO.  I agree that the old man needs to be dealt with daily and through real life scenarios.  I believe we are placed in vignettes in life for that very reason....a theatre, as it were.

I studied IJ 1:9 a few years ago.  Confessing (or owning) sin from my study seems to be tied more to the idea of "sin nature" than the idea of detailing each and every sin.  In the Hebrew, "confess" has a meaning of praise mixed with the idea of unworthiness because of "sin nature."  Therefore, "confess" seems to be something of a wider meaning than the idea of detailing sins or even of initial conversion.  It has more to do with "fellowship" with God.

Quite true. However, how does the sin nature display itsellf? In most of our cases it is one failure at a time and I think that is the way God deals with us. Good reference on the Hebrew. I did not check the OT but I did look at the other NT cases in which the same word in 1 John 1:9 was used. In passages like Matthew 10:32 and Luke 12:18, acknowledge seems an apt synonym. In John 1:20 the same word is presented as the opposite of denial.

But how can we get a handle on the sin nature if there isn't a certain measure of detail involved?  Days, weeks, months, years are provided as well as circumstances that help us to see the full picture (like your illustration above).

This a quite a weighty observation. This is why fellowship is so important. This is why time is such a precious gift

Sin nature takes a while to realize and IMO, require going through many different scenarios, like living in a brothers (sisters) house, living then with you spouse, business/work relationships, teaching children, working in ministry...before we truly understand it in ourselves, not to mention the particular brand that others struggle with and we forebear. LS (Long sentence).

So, initially, we get the truth - "I'm a sinner."  But, over time, we knew nothing of the height, depth....of that sin.  In other words, I get understanding over time.  I confess to what I see, but the goal post keep changing.  The story I was told at first keeps getting scarier, but I continue to confess (admit change, praise).  Truth or wisdom is good, but understanding is needed also.  Increase in understanding produces a new set of sin problems that come to light.  Over time, the realization is that nothing short of death is going to solve the sin issue.  Until death suffering and bondage are our companions.  Only death, (not beating self or punishing self) bring us into life.  The pain ends at death.  Life begins.  We do it daily until finally we get so good at it and so persistent that we can do it automatically and "abide" in LIFE.  Perpetual JOY is ours on the resurrection side which I find rather addicting.

Confession then, is "understanding AND admitting" the sin nature.  Confession is an important subjective part of our relationship with God.  It shows willingness to change, IMO. But the change.  How does the change take place?  Is it not then the empowered Will that can then have it's way over the sin nature? 

Sondra

You are right. We don't know the half of it. I don't know about you, but I scare myself sometimes.

Now we are getting to the good part.
I would argue, from our part, our sins don't so much need to be crucified, as they need to be confessed.
I believe our rap sheet was nailed to the cross in Christ.
Apparently though, and not one of us would disagree with this I trust, we do need cleansing.
I think the second half of 1 John 1:9 is really the juciest part.
I suspect one of the reasons we sometimes find it hard to confess is that we fear rejection.
We think that if God has to hear from my own hearts the kinds of thoughts I sometimes allow, He is going to walk straight out that door and never come back.
I know I am being a bit silly here but I do thing wanting to present our best profie as it were, even to the Almighty, often leads us to reticence....as if He did not know already...!
We may also fear that confession notwithstanding, what is to keep us from committing the same offence, even several times over? Why bother? The fact of the matter is this does indeed happen.
As you pointed out, confession is only a beginning for, there is a lot more in that verse!
I think one of the great truths of 1 John 1:9 is that agreeing with God about our condition puts Him in a position to do the heavy lifting...
more later...are we supposed to be having this much fun?     
Verne

[vernecarty]

I think it is quite instructive that the tremendous doctrinal truths asserted in Romans 7:1 -14, are followed by Paul's lament of verses 15 through 25. As blessed as the truths are, Paul shows that recognition of such truths in and of itself  is insufficient to enable him to win the war.
I would also note that the death of the Christian in identification with Christ is in the Scripture is always spoken of in the past tense!
The will is indeed involved, but we do not overcome sin by an excercise of the will.
We ought to know that by experience. This is the point Paul is making.
Paul states: I find (by experience) then a law, that when I would (marshal the volitional forces) good, evil is present with me...

Every Christian who has struggled with sin will say a hearty "Amen". Been there...done that!

Why don't we stay with 1 John 1: 9 for the time being.
Again the first half of the verse talks about what we do with our sin, and the text says something takes place on the condition of our confessing it.
I want to by-pass for the moment the matter of God being faithful and just (which is another entire universe of possiblites) and talk about what God does:

he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It is my opinion that there can be no effectual excercise of the will to overcome sin, until and unless the operation of divine cleansing takes place...
it does not say we confess, and thenmake every effort to nip that thing in the bud the next time it raises its ugly head...
It says we confess...and God cleanses!...I know...
It can't possibly be that simple can it? Oh! but that is the beauty of it my friends...God gets all the credit!!! 
more to come...how does He do it?
Verne

[vernecarty]

I did a bit of checking on your comment about confession and fellowship and I think you're onto something...more later...
Verne

[vernecarty]

Request.  Slow down please and please respond to questions and researched definitions.  I don't know how interesting it is going to be if main points of my posts are ignored.  The slow dances are the best dances. 

I guess I did rush a bit on the definition of confession. I also like to consult a good lexicon in trying to understand what the word is saying but that is not the first thing I do.
My first recourse is to look and see how the word is used in other passages, then check to see if my general understanding of the possible meanings is consistent with a scholarly formal definition. I guess I was not explicit enough in citing the passages that led me to believe "acknowldgement" was a reasonable rendition of "confess" in 1 John 1:9.

I agree that it does not necessarily mean a catalogueing of our sins, but you will note that the word sin is in the plural, which suggests specfic sins as opposed to our sin nature.
While it could refer to our sin nature in general,  I do not think anything in the passage precludes specific sins.
In fact the context seems to suggest that specific sins are in view
I will try to move a bit more slowly. Let me post next the varous NT passages in which "confess", as in 1 John 1:9 is used and I think you will agree that Vine's etymology does not give an exhaustive rendering.
I was under the assumption based on your own definition at the end of your post that we were in agreement on this.
I thought what you said was quite accurate.

Confession then, is "understanding AND admitting" the sin nature.  Confession is an important subjective part of our relationship with God.  It shows willingness to change, IMO. But the change.  How does the change take place?  Is it not then the empowered Will that can then have it's way over the sin nature? 

My only comment then would be that while you limit confession used here to the sin nature, I would extend the teaching of the verse to include specific sins that we are aware of.
Let me know if you think my reasoning is faulty.

Verne
p.s. I took a look at my Greek translation and it is interesting the translators said "sin" in verse eight and "sins" in verse nine, same word. It could be that they also thought context required hamartia to refer to specific sins in verse nine as possibly opposed to sin nature as you suggest, in verse eight. Just a thought...

p.p.s I did a little excercise and assumed you were right, I translated 1John 1: 9

If we confess our sin nature, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin nature...

It really helped to clarify my thinking on this.

[vernecarty]

O.K. I did a bit more digging. The strict etymolgy of the Greek word for confess in 1 John 1:9 comes from two words that mean, one and the same, and to say. Nicoll's view is it essentially means to say the same thing as another, and therefore to admit the truth of an accusation. Vincent agrees.
If you think it would help, I can post other NT usage. If not, we can proceed,
Verne

[vernecarty]

Do you have some examples?  Sondra

Look at the tenses in Romans 6:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
 4.  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
 5.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
 6.  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
 7.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.
 8.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
 9.  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
 10.  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
 11.  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 1 Cor 5:14

  For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Col. 3:3 here present perfect - ye have died

It appears to be a "done deal" as it were...not an ongoing one...
There are more. I thought these were illustrative.

Paul isn't lamenting the failure of the dual nature since God created us with it. Sondra

Are you sure about this? This reminds me of the verse in Ecclesiates 7:29:

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions  .

I think you would be hard pressed to show that the conflict Paul is referring to is a result of God's design.
The carnal nature, which is a direct consequence if sin, was not what God intended, but resulted from Adam's disobedience. It is not subject to God's law , but wars agaisnt it. In fact, God had to give us a new nature to replace the old so dual design does not at all seem  to be His intention.

If not through the human Will - trained and submitted to God's Will as Soveriegn, through what?

I think the will has not so much to be trained, as it has to be controlled.
For example, there are many people of very disiplined will, who live morally upright lives and are outwardly indistiguishable from the most devout believer. Their will however, is not subject to God, and in fact may not even recognize its native hostility to Him.
In that sense, I agree with your seond point that the will's submission, is the key thing.
People who walk with the Lord for a long time, learn important principles and really grow in grace, often make the mistake of assuming that they eventualy arrive at a place of independence. Many mighty have fallen because of this error.

Are you saying it impossible to overcome sin ? or do we just keep doing it and confessing it until we bite the dust?

No I am not. Clearly it is possible. There are any number of things that we would allow as babes, that we do not as we grow in grace and it is not simply because our will grows stronger. In fact our overcoming sin is one of the strongest proofs we have of the life within. The question is how does this happen?

You mention confession and I am glad you did because it leads to the exact point I wanted to make.
We determine to do good (with our wills) and then so often we fail. We confess our failure, and not just our tendency but the specific transgression.
What does God then do?
Does He say: O.K. Let's try this again. Three more strikes and you are out!
Here is where I think the real power of 1 John 1:9 is often missed.
When we confess, God does not simply forgive, He also cleanses!
I think this means that He not only deals with the consequences of our wrong decisions, He also deals with their very source, our hearts!
You say you don't believe in 'zapping", but that is not necessarily implied. Some Christians will give witness to God's instantaneous deliverace from some besetting sin. Others see His cleansing work over a period of time.

The point is that for even our wills to work as they should God Himself has to change us! And He does.

No, we, through death to the natural man - can then, as Paul said in vs. 25 get the victory over the wretched man.  By putting the old man, the wretched man to death (not total annihilation), we are delivered from him through a cleansed conscience of Romans 8:1.

I do not believe you can find a singel NT verse that instructs us to put the old man to death.
Theologically, you are executing a phantom, for he is already dead!
We are told to mortify the deeds of the body. The above discussion I think is one way we do this through God's enabling.

Again, no one argues that there is no sin nature left, but that there is a conflict between the natures and the only remedy is that one has to die. 
Sondra 

I agree. One already has.


Since you will be gone I will stop here and give a chance to respond. 
Verne

[summer007]

Verne, Could you back-peddle to Sondra's post from 10:29 last night and tell me where you find we leave the Cross? The Apostle Paul himself said "God forbid he should Glory save in the Cross." Gal 6 and again in I Cor 1 "The cross is the Power of God to those who are saved." So since you agree with SJ where do you find scripture to back up looking away or moving from the cross. I know this was'nt the central theme to your discussion, but it caught my eye in her last paragraph, just could'nt find this Georgesh teaching in my Bible. And she no longer walks by Faith, did you see her change it to in Faith could'nt find that either. Be careful there buddy or you may just go "One step Beyond". Summer.

[vernecarty]

Verne, Could you back-peddle to Sondra's post from 10:29 last night and tell me where you find we leave the Cross? The Apostle Paul himself said "God forbid he should Glory save in the Cross." Gal 6 and again in I Cor 1 "The cross is the Power of God to those who are saved." So since you agree with SJ where do you find scripture to back up looking away or moving from the cross. I know this was'nt the central theme to your discussion, but it caught my eye in her last paragraph, just could'nt find this Georgesh teaching in my Bible. And she no longer walks by Faith, did you see her change it to in Faith could'nt find that either. Be careful there buddy or you may just go "One step Beyond". Summer.

I will go back and take a look and see if I can offer any helpful comments.
Paul's quote regarding the cross should be given in it's entirety, namely:

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ

The cross is indeed an instrument of death, not of reform. I contend that Scripture teaches that the work of the cross, so far as believers are concerned, is a completed work.


The cross is a fearsome instrument...in the hands of God alone...
Verne

[vernecarty]

  Once a believer crosses the Jordan and comes into his own promised land - he no longer walks BY faith, rather he is in THE FAITH. 
Sondra

I think this is what you are referring to Summer. I am not sure I understand what Sondra is saying here and if I do, I am not sure that one can find Scriptural support for anything but a walk by faith in this life.
Indeed Scritprue goes even farther that walking; it asserts that the just live by faith.
I think Sondra may be referring to the typology of the book of Joshua and the way Christians enter into conflict in heavenly places. I for one would shrink from any such engagement sans faith - you would be defenceless according to Ephesians 6.
Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 13 that faith hope and charity all abide...
I am sure Sondra will be able to develop that theme a bit more when she gets back.
Verne

[summer007]

Thanks Verne, I appreciate your insights. I just figured you "Got-It". In all fairness Sondra said she'd be away. This last paragragh was really puzzeling to me, sounds like a new religion. At any rate if she's speaking metaphorically of all the fullness of Christ, not sure yet. The instrument of the Cross gives us the precious blood, with-out the shedding of blood their is no remission, and the life of the body is the blood, we are washed in the blood, with-out the finished work of the cross we have nothing but a due bill when we meet up with God. Glad its paid in full.  Summer.

[vernecarty]

Thanks Verne, I appreciate your insights. I just figured you "Got-It". In all fairness Sondra said she'd be away. This last paragragh was really puzzeling to me, sounds like a new religion. At any rate if she's speaking metaphorically of all the fullness of Christ, not sure yet. The instrument of the Cross gives us the precious blood, with-out the shedding of blood their is no remission, and the life of the body is the blood, we are washed in the blood, with-out the finished work of the cross we have nothing but a due bill when we meet up with God. Glad its paid in full.  Summer.

Well said Summer. I tend to shy away from "cross theology" as there is a tendency for some of its proponents to diminish the work of Christ. Preoccupation by any other cross but that on which suffered and bled and died seems to me to miss the message...I think this was Paul's sentiment...
Verne

[Mark C.]

Hi Everyone! 

  I will be leaving early tomorrow and will be gone all week, so my small contribution will be smaller than usual this weekend.

  There is no way that I can make any kind of comprehensive response to the debate here (yes you're all spared  ), but I would like to say a few things.

  The bible uses the word "cross" in different ways:  There is "the Cross of Christ", and the cross that we are to "daily take-up", as an example.

  The confusion that GG, and I think Sondra as well, make is in not making a difference between these two uses of the word "cross".  We can not take up Christ's Cross, for he bore that alone, but we can take up "our" cross and bear it daily.

  The former use of cross is the means of our salvation and the latter the practical life of one that has been saved.  Yes, experience of Christ's cross must have some effect on our lives if we are saved, but we can't actualize Christ's experience on His Cross in our lives. 

  We can't go through some kind of "stations of the cross" where we mysticize the event into some kind of spiritual event in our souls.  This sounds like some kind of Roman Catholic Mass, vs. a NT teaching on salvation by grace.

  The working out of our salvation can indeed be very complex and difficult for us (our cross) but the Cross of Christ is the clear and simple Good News that God has completly saved us through his own effort, and without any of our assistance!

   I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a personal example of what Verne wrote about, when he mentioned how GG's "deeper life" teaching did not produce what he claimed it would.  This, however, will take a lengthy post to tell, and so I will have to save it for next week, but I will at least say that though I deeplly yearned for the holiness GG promised, and sought it with great energy, miserably failed to make it happen in my life .

  True holiness expresses itself in love, which is the opposite of the kind of self preoccupation that comes from all the inner machinations of one's inner life as taught by the deeper life folks.

                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

   

[vernecarty]

Hi Everyone! 

 
   I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a personal example of what Verne wrote about, when he mentioned how GG's "deeper life" teaching did not produce what he claimed it would.  This, however, will take a lengthy post to tell, and so I will have to save it for next week, but I will at least say that though I deeplly yearned for the holiness GG promised, and sought it with great energy, miserably failed to make it happen in my life .

 
                                                God Bless,  Mark C.

   

I was going to talk about this in some detail later but now is as good a time as any since you raised this issue.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in the false theology of re-crucifuxion, I recognize that it arises out of confusion about what to do about the problem of indwelling sin in the believer, which is a real problem. There is indeed a law in his members that wars against the law of his mind.
Here is the source of the dishonesty:

Not a single person espousing a theology of self-crucifixion has been able to overcome their sin by its application!

George Geftakys is not the exception. He is the rule. All the time he was teaching this false doctrine, he himself was a slave of sin and he knew it!
The core of the profound anger I have felt toward this apostate, is the deliberate mailice of enjoining upon the people of God a course of action you know full well will not be of any value to them as it has totally failed in your own attempts to implement it.
It is generally true that proponents of this kind of teaching in fact demonstrate its fallacy by their own lives.
I don't have a lot of time, but let us put this issue to rest once and for all.
I want to pose three simple questions that I think will provide the answer to the real problem.
How do we distinguish the course of salvation past?
How do we distinguish the course of salvaton future?
How do we distingusih the course of salvaton present?
It fundamentally has to do with the nature and stages of salvation.
Let us talk about the past, the future and the present.
For the sake of easy application, let us also couple those periods with the words, penalty, power, and presence.
The best way to be kept from false teaching of all sorts, is to have a clear and unobstructed veiw of the work of redemption with respect to the above delimiters.
Let us take salvaton past.
Exactly what did God do on the cross? He delivered you from sin's penalty.

The wages of sin is death. He that hath the Son, hath life.

The work of the cross did not deliver the believer form sin's presence. That is future.
The work of the cross did not deliver the believer from sin's power. That is present.

Some of you are going to go apoplectic when you read that last statement. Read carefully.
I did not say the work of the cross cannot deliver you from sin's power.
The truth of the statement is self-evident. Every believer continues to sin even after he is saved.

Every Christian reading this recognizes the truth of this statement or you must tmake God a liar.

Salvation from sin's penalty is a work completed.
Salvation from sin presence is a work yet future. (we shall all be changed...!)

Salvation from sin's power is the work present!

The only relevant question then that presents itself to the thoughtful Christian, since he can do nothing about the past, and must await the arrival of the future, is what is God's provision for the present course of his redemption - deliverance from the power of sin.

How God does this is then the central and paramount issue.
The idea that this involves a design of God that pits two opposing natures agianst each other is very problematic and makes overcoming sin a question of how one chooses.

The Bible teaches that it is a mater of how one walks!

Make a mistake on this point, you will not only miss the mark, you will also lead others astray.
This is the legacy of George Geftakys.
Bye for now...