if our lives have not changed and we continue to commit sins DM
I believe that you, David, think the two concepts cannot be separated..... that change is witnessed, in part, by the end of personal sin. Where that may be true, it conversely may not be true !! When we insist on such an evidence for the Indwelling, artificial time limits are put into effect and we become the administrator of continuing fellowship. .
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lance, it is not helpful for you to post the comments of others in that we cannot engage them in dialogue. Unfortunately, Debbie has been misreading me on several posts. Because she is not here for me to provide her feedback, she unfortunately thinks there is a difference where there is none. I applaud the portions of "Victor's" lecture written below. I have no problem understanding the difference between Sin and sins, and I think I understand their proper place. As I said before which seems to keep going unheard, I agree with Bill's perspective. I just don't agree that someone should have a problem with someone who might emphasize in a particular place and for a particular time the secondary item.By the way, I happen to oversee the children's ministry at our church, and I am often in the position of instructing children. When we talk about moral issues, they relate much better to specific examples of sins than they do to talking about Sin. You can be sure that I attempt to talk about Sin, but a discussion of sins often leads to a better understanding of Sin. Just as in math we start with the adding and subtracting before getting to the more useful and more important math, we can do the same thing when discussing righteousness and salvation.One other point. If righteousness is our response to salvation in Jesus Christ, then if righteousness is not coming forth from us, if our lives have not changed and we continue to commit sins, is it not true that the symptom of sins is a valid observation to help a person realize that they might be lukewarm or might not have embraced Christ in faith as they had thought they had?David Miller.----- Original Message -----From: Lance MuirSent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:50 AMSubject: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now----- Original Message -----From: Debbie SawczakTo: 'Lance Muir'Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02Subject: OK, done working for nowparagraph in this lecture of Victor's:I've often said, too, that the hardest part of any service of worship for the minister is the children's story, because nearly all the children's stories here are moralistic bromides. It's just moralistic bromide. And the Gospel isn't heard because we assume that children can't understand the Gospel. They can be taught not to steal, and they can be taught not to swear, but they can't understand the Gospel. This is ridiculous, but keep your eye on the Christian education wing of your church or denomination, because that's where the Gospel goes down.It strikes me that street preaching and children's sermons go down the same wrong path!Paragraph from next lecture:The protestant reformers maintain that the root problem is Sin and it gives rise to sins. But be sure you know which is which, or you will never come to terms with the Gospel. Morality maintains that little "s" sins plural is the human predicament. The Gospel maintains that capital "S" Sin singular unbelief is the predicament.
This is the difference between David's understanding of repentance and Bill's/JD's.D
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
