> Your analogy is very good for pointing out the
weakness of the human flesh,
> but there are some things to consider before we accept whether or not it is
> applicable to our ability to walk in love. First, the issue of playing the
> sonata deals not with just playing one note, but with the skill of putting
> it all together with the right timing. Could one consistently play that one
> note all the time? Why not make that the analogy? Perhaps because it does
> not make the point that you are trying to make, which is that it is
> difficult to love everyone all the time and so we should expect that we will
> not do it.
> but there are some things to consider before we accept whether or not it is
> applicable to our ability to walk in love. First, the issue of playing the
> sonata deals not with just playing one note, but with the skill of putting
> it all together with the right timing. Could one consistently play that one
> note all the time? Why not make that the analogy? Perhaps because it does
> not make the point that you are trying to make, which is that it is
> difficult to love everyone all the time and so we should expect that we will
> not do it.
Well, of course, David, we
choose analogies that make our point; that's why we bother with them at all, and
you are changing the analogy for the same reason. I don't know if it is a good
use of time to go deeper and deeper into an analogy when it is only that, but in
my mind each note can be thought of as one _expression_ of obedience. If I have
stopped lying, for example, I may be getting Middle C right every time, but
that's not all there is to a righteous life, and it's probably not all there is
to being a truthful person. And yes, I think the interplay of factors in
everyday life that bear on our choices (conflicting demands, etc.), and the
frequent shortness of time available to make those choices, IS very comparable
to music and to playing baseball. Actually, I think this may be the
reductionism thing coming up again, David; I can't separate the notes. But it
could just be that you are by nature more competent at living than I am, of
course. And by that I don't mean to imply that you are living in your own
strength and don't need the Holy Spirit, so don't come back at me with that. I
know you rely on the Holy Spirit. I just mean how you see and
experience life, humanly speaking. It may look a lot simpler to you. It
could also be that the first article Lance posted is right about perfectionists
redefining sin. We have made that point here before.
> Debbie wrote:
>> Now if we take the power of the Holy Spirit into account,
>> your argument would seem to be airtight. But (and how
>> to express this properly, when we have quoted the verse,
>> "It is not I but Christ who lives in me"?) he does not bypass
>> our person--our decision-making and will--which is as yet
>> unresurrected and part of the groaning creation. We are the
>> weak link in the chain. To the extent we are able to live out
>> our reconciliation to God at all, it is because of Christ in us.
>> But it is not Christ without us who lives.
>
> This really is the thrust of Paul's argument when he teaches us to stop
> sinning. He argues that it is *us* who gets in the way. Therefore, he
> instructs believers to consider themselves *DEAD*. His statement about
> Christ living in him contained the phrase, "yet not I, but Christ."
>
> If it truly is "not Christ without us who lives," then you have a strong
> case. But if we reckon ourselves dead and that all life, 100% life, is
> Christ, then what do we have? We have the understanding that those who have
> given their lives over to Christ 100% will not sin, while those who reserve
> part of their lives to live the way they want to live, such will continue to
> sin.
>> Now if we take the power of the Holy Spirit into account,
>> your argument would seem to be airtight. But (and how
>> to express this properly, when we have quoted the verse,
>> "It is not I but Christ who lives in me"?) he does not bypass
>> our person--our decision-making and will--which is as yet
>> unresurrected and part of the groaning creation. We are the
>> weak link in the chain. To the extent we are able to live out
>> our reconciliation to God at all, it is because of Christ in us.
>> But it is not Christ without us who lives.
>
> This really is the thrust of Paul's argument when he teaches us to stop
> sinning. He argues that it is *us* who gets in the way. Therefore, he
> instructs believers to consider themselves *DEAD*. His statement about
> Christ living in him contained the phrase, "yet not I, but Christ."
>
> If it truly is "not Christ without us who lives," then you have a strong
> case. But if we reckon ourselves dead and that all life, 100% life, is
> Christ, then what do we have? We have the understanding that those who have
> given their lives over to Christ 100% will not sin, while those who reserve
> part of their lives to live the way they want to live, such will continue to
> sin.
Circular, David. I am saying
that none of us succeeds in giving our lives over to Christ every moment. You've
surely heard the saying, "The problem with a living sacrifice is that it keeps
crawling off the altar." It's facetious, but true. Giving oneself over to Christ
and reckoning ourselves dead (note the significance of "reckoning") are
daily, momently acts. If what you say is true, then there would be no
occasion for any "reckoning" (who does this reckoning, after all?), and it
would be safe to say that anybody who sins so much as once after
professing faith in Christ is not really in Christ. And I don't think you
believe that. You would just say they are immature.
Anyway, I think we can close this off
now, since I believe we do understand each other despite disagreeing, and likely
won't get further than this. I have confidence that you do not think, like Judy,
that I (or any of the others in the non-perfectionist "camp") am advocating a
loose attitude towards sin or do not expect to see fruit and continued
growth in a believer's life, or do not find joy in doing what is right, or
any of the other misrepresentations of our view. Nor will I harbour the belief
that you are obsessed with performance and are a harsh taskmaster. OK? :-)
Thanks for the good conversation and kind words.
