John Smithson wrote:
>... I think the issue continues to be a point of disagreement
>because we use the idea of "sin" very differently. I see
>lust, conceit, selfishness, pride, things I consider to be sin,
>as always with an individual making a statement like the
>one found in I Jo 1:8 a current and on going reality.
>But, of course, we do not need to act out such failings.
That is pretty much what I believe too, John. Until the resurrection, a sin
principle resides in our flesh (our physical bodies). That is why our
physical body continues to die and must die and be resurrected in order to
inherit eternal life. This is why I do not use the term "sinless
perfection." I do use the term perfection sometimes, because it is
Biblical.
And this is why I believe that sin is ever present. We are always sinners. "committing" a sin makes me no more a sinner that these "character flaws." This is the reason for the truth of of Romans 3:23 - and our on going falling short of the glory of God.
John Smithson wrote:
>More than this, you believe that righteousness (acting
>out rightly the things of God) is caused by the Spirit of
>God rather than gifted by that same Spirit.
I believe that it is both. The gift of righteousness is the Spirit working
within us to cause us to love one another.
I still do not think we agree here. What righteousness (right action per the Law) we accomplish is tributed to the working of God indwelling. But, this does not find us "righteous" at the end of the day -- any day -- because of our own failings. So God considers us righteous or reckons righteousness apart from our failing obedience through or because of the faith of Christ and our response to His faithfulness.
John Smithson wrote:
>The problem, again, may be in the words we use.
Maybe.
Even though I think we disagree, this still might be true.
John Smithson wrote:
>But I do not believe that such success is
>ever total, hence the need for a gifted
>righteousness by that same Spirit.
I believe this too. I just speak more about this "gifted righteousness" and
how it works through us rather than how my old man could never get total
success over sin.
You are amazing.
John Smithson wrote:
>We have had this discussion before - some
>months ago. You wound up defending your
>point by asserting your own victorious and
>consistent practice of righteousness.
I don't think so. I sometimes am put on the spot and asked to answer
whether or not I am talking theory or reality, but I rarely want the
spotlight to come on me in this discussion. That does not help anyone. The
spotlight needs to be on Jesus and what God's Holy Word teaches us.
We most definitely did have a discussion. Nothing wrong with admitting that. I do not understand the need for the above after "I don't think so." It is not that I don't understand what you said, rather, it is that I have no idea why you said it.
John Smithson wrote:
>When I asserted that even you have continuing sin
>-- well, you took it personal, when, in fact, such
>an observation on my part was a forced conclusion
>based upon the way I see biblical teaching.
>It is not personal.
Again, you misunderstand me. I never take it personal when someone says
that I continue to sin and that I am deluded to think otherwise. Reasonable people, then, would think that you just said that you do think otherwise. I hear
this all the time. I realize that those who say it just don't realize the
sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit that I have experienced, and they want
to claim that nobody else can know it either. So the only disciples with the Spirit of Discernment, are those who agree with your claims? I am not trying to be over critical -- just asking. The Jews had the same problem
with the Christians, the saved verses the unsaved ? as seen in the Scriptures and the early church writings. Its no skin off my nose. I am no more offended by it than when I
preach Jesus Christ and someone tells me that Satan rules or that I am
throwing my life away on religion. They are not disagreeing with me, but
with what God has put within me. When the biblical message says "test the spirits that they be of God," what is allowable conduct as fas as you, a professed Prophet, is concerned. It is not really a personal rejection.
John Smithson wrote:
>You are no more righteous than I, David.
>You are in the same boat as I when it comes
>to sin and sinning -- one sin or one continuing
>sin will put us in the same boat. At no time in
>our lives will we ever not need God's forgiveness.
I agree with all of this.
John Smithson wrote:
>I see sin, sinning, sins of the character (pride, bigotry etc),
>sins of omission (knowing to do good but not doing it),
>issues or problems that have already been solved as
>concerns "condemnation."
Hey, me too. The blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit is sufficient
to cover all these sins. Intentional and not.
John Smithson wrote:
>Rebellion is a totally different matter.
Again, we agree.
John Smithson wrote:
>But we need to be careful here. Most sins,
>while in the process of being played out, look
>like rebellion. What proves one sin to be rebellious
>and another a part of our human nature is whether
>growth occurs or continues. The rebel is one who
>is actually working against God Himself.
As usual, we agree again. I just sprewed orange juice all over my monitor. Thanks a lot. Now I have to go find a rag.
John Smithson wrote:
>Now, there is much in the above with which
>you disagree.
I don't think we disagree on that much, but I will let you decide that for
yourself.
John Smithson wrote:
>I hope that you will see that honest and Spirit
>filled disciples can have this disagreement.
Yes we can, but sometimes I don't know what it is that you think we disagree
on. When you take time to expound, it seems we agree on most things. Dang - I got to go get another rag !! Is there anyone in the house who think David and I think alike -- I mean anyone? Great if true.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
