Martin L. (65.96.153.178)
06-02-2004, 07:35 AM
THE SUMMARY OF MARTIN L’s MESSAGES ON THE TRUE FINISHED WORK GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST and WHY CHRISTIANS CANNOT SIN
Letters of interest and correspondence may be addressed to:
WCCS - PO Box 462 - West Springfield, MA 01090
1. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:56 am
Steven's "Finished work" message is Unfinished and illogical. Either Christ died for sin and sin was put to death, or it was not. In my book – “Sinners sin” and “Saints do not”. The true message that we are complete in him means that we (as believers) are in no way incomplete. One who sins needs to be saved from darkness and enter into fellowship in the light. First John 3 states that those who are Born of God are not able to sin. Those that sin are of the Devil. Paul in Romans says that how can we who are freed from sin live any longer in it? It is an impossibility.
One cannot be holy and blameless, and on the other hand be judged and brought to task for unrighteousness at the Bema seat (as Stevens teaches), having every act they committed scrutinized and every "sin" replayed and commentated on in slow motion like a sports broadcast in heaven. Jesus will personally and proudly present his Church to the Father as Holy and Blameless. No pastor will be presenting me as Carl supposes he will.
The believer is the righteousness of God in Christ. It is not a future experience. Christ came to save sinners and deliver them from the realm of sin and darkness... period. Don't elaborate and justify calling yourself a sinner if Christ has declared you to be a saint, and one who is a holy part of His body. God cannot dwell in bodies of sin. If a believer continues as a sinner or even sins once, he would be unholy. By Devine decree we are set free from this body of death, and as believers, are truly a new creation - holy and blameless in Love.
Stevens teaches that believers are only "position ally" saved and still remain as sinners throughout their lives - believers only sin less as they mature and become more obedient to the teaching and word of God. This is not correct doctrine and is not the Gospel of liberty. The bible teaches that the believer is "sinless" because they are born again as an entirely new creation.
Is there sin in Christ? NO! Is the believer in Christ and a real part of His body? Yes! Can there be sin therefore in the body of Christ? No!
How can we who have been crucified with Christ the sinless One be resurrected as sinners (in Christ)?
This is part of the illogic of Stevens "unfinished" finished work teaching. It neutralizes the true Grace of God and the power of God over sin by diminishing the identity of the believer and the resurrection life Christ paid so great a price to procure for the world God loves. Steven's Christ is not sufficient to the task needed to get the whole job done.
2. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:47 pm
To my responder(s) - Contrary to Steven's theology, the issue of redemption and salvation was never meant to be a complicated menagerie of "if's" and "but's". "Positional theology" is a false doctrine and is antichrist. Terms like positional and experiential are mere fabrications to explain something that one cannot spiritually understand or that one is unwilling to accept and believe in "by faith. I am saying that the Apostles Paul and John taught faith as the substance of the reality of No sin in the Believer’s life. This is not my gospel, but is the Gospel of Paul as preached to the Gentiles and Jews who were unbelievers. This is the simple and plain truth preached by the Apostle John who was a simple man and was the oldest Apostle who personally walked with Christ.
The Apostle John in First John was not speaking to Christians, but rather to unbelievers. Why would he invite believers who are in the light already, to join him and come and fellowship in the light with him if they are already there? This entire book needs to be rethought in its application. Stevens is not the only one at fault on these issues. These people John wrote to and their mindset were rooted in Gnosticism. They thought that God was a mixture of light and darkness. Like Star wars; there was a constant struggle (in their minds) between the dark side and the force of the good side. To Gnostics there was no such thing as sin. Gnostic doctrine did not embrace the concept of offending a Holy God. In such a doctrine a person would need no repentance. There fore redemption and the receiving of salvation and the entering into fellowship would be non existent. This is why in 1st John, John commended these unbelievers, whom he loved and endeared as a father, to come to the light and walk in the light as he is was in the light. He was lovingly evangelizing the lost and misguided in thinking due to false teachings. John (vs. 8 of Chapter 1) was logically explaining that "if we (if one were to say) we have no sin (they would in that sense) deceive themselves and the truth would not be in them. (John was not speaking for himself as a believer to a believer). John should know because he was defending the truth. He who says he is in fellowship and walks in darkness ( does not believe in a sin concept)is a liar. His argument further appeals to them endearingly as dear children to "confess" their sins. That is- adapt as a mindset and accept the personal understanding, and to embrace the philosophy of sin and offence against God. Johns promise was .. if they confess this and adapt this mindset then Christ would forgive their sins and cleanse them from ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. The offence of sin would be eradicated not by a verbal exercise, but by the Devine decree of God Himself. If one becomes cleansed from all unrighteousness then they are entirely and completely righteous. End of story. In first John 3 5-10 - All unrighteousness is sin, and those that sin are of the Devil. The Devil sinned from the beginning. All that practice (because they are in the realm of the dominion of sin and darkness) sin are of the Devil. The wages of sin is death, but the free gift is eternal life and holiness, and righteousness through Jesus Christ. This is the true "finished" work. Sin separates so therefore it had to be put to death in order for the believer to enter into holiness without which no man can see God. Most of Christianity, as taught by the pulpits of Catholic and Protestant Churches today, err from this fundamental truth, and as such are apostatized from the faith in the sense that they have bought the lie.
Fundamentally, the break-down in understanding has several main roots of confusion.
#1 - Part of the reason the Jewish high priest wanted Christ crucified was because he made himself equal with God. The religion of the day ridiculed and mocked him for his "presumption" to be as equal with God and as without sin. Their argument was that this was akin to blasphemy. And it was according to their scriptures. All men sin and fall short of the Glory of God.
#2. The term "Christian" was coined as a derisive mockery towards those who as followers of Christ believed the "heresy" of his proclamation. The liberals and ungodly society at the time of the early Church despised Christians because they served the Living God and not idols and mysticism. Their message to these early followers of the Way was to attack and weaken them through cruelty and persecution. Much like Hitler hated the Jews and wanted to eradicate the element he loathed. The believers in the early church actually dared to believe that they were as Christ is - without sin; thus they were called Christians and thrown to the Lions as meat and to provide sick entertainment. Jesus told Believers that those who would follow him would be witnesses throughout the world to this truth would suffer for the sake of the Gospel. The word witness means "martyr", not a verbal testimony.
#3. Does not the Bible say "as He is so are we in this present evil world."
#4. Was not Adam and Eve created sinless and placed in the garden? We all know they fell, but what is so difficult to think that God could not return them to the state to which He had originally created them and intended for them to be? This is what the New Creation is all about. Old things are past and ALL things have become new. This is the grace of God and the Glorious Gospel.
#5. It is erroneous to teach that only Jesus does not sin, because "in Him" we are as he is. The entire first half of Ephesians reveals the revelation of the identity of the New man.
#6. The Devil was a liar from the beginning saying "hath God said?" and challenging the word of God. Is this not what he does today when the believer attempts to and dares to believe that they are exactly what God made them to be when they got saved from their sins - "sinless"?
#7. The Judicial and legal decree of God declares the believer as forgiven, and removed as far as the east is from the west from sin. Sin cannot resurrect in the believers life any more than Christ resurrected in a body of Sin - and He did not. He was raised in incorruptibility, and the faith that he gives us and by which the believer abides and resides in is a faith that is incorruptible. Man cannot any longer mess-up what God has done. God's command cannot be reversed. His full and complete judgment against sin was executed upon Christ at the cross without revocation. He (Christ) who knew no sin became sin for us. All sin for the believer ceased at the cross. The believer cannot continue in sin. Neither can a believer enter into unrighteousness. The believer cannot practice sin because the part of him that used to be a slave to it and practiced it died. The believers old sinful self died and was buried once and for all. That is the finished work. Behavior issues and personal accountability to truth are chastisement issues because of God's love for His children - not judgment related. Judgment for sin is upon those who reject Christ and fail to receive the gift of life.
I realize these are not mainstream teachings for Greater Grace, but they are nevertheless supported by the teachings of the Apostles. Don't be surprised and offended by these strange words, but search it out yourself like a treasure.
The main issue here, rather than arguing back and forth to defend the honor of your understanding and Stevens understanding and teaching of the Gospel, is to go beyond the emotion and rhetoric, and try to understand to whom the apostles are addressing and not assume the standard mistakes of misconstruing words and "Christianizing" them. In First John, for example, the word "brethren" or "little" or "dear" children do not necessarily mean believers and children of God. They can easily be used as general terms of endearment - terms of affection from an elder of teacher to his students and listeners. Don't make the mistake of cementing the language of John to similarly used context within Christian circles today. Once these issues are understood, then one can begin to work backwards and decipher the message from the error of typical Christian doctrine.
Can you understand the principal of the logic of John's letter and to whom he addressed; The Gnostics. Can you for a moment detach yourself from the defending mode and see if their is any credualabilty to the things I am explaining to at least desire to explore the possibility that Salvation is bigger than imagined and more astoundedly glorious than previously supposed? The truth here, as I propose from the Apostles themselves, will nor diminish or lower the value of Christ, but rather, will raise Him to the glory of the majesty of his true wisdom and power and intelligence. This may in fact be the greatest story ever told, and it lies hidden right under your nose.
Unfortunately the Stevens phenomena has forbidden free thought and intelligent inquiry within its ranks. One cannot freely speak and dialogue on any subject that does not agree with his theology. Pat answers and parroted words are quoted fluently among parishioners, as if rehearsed in robot-like fashion. Those who do not agree are marked as troublemakers and rebellious. When one is not "submitted" to "the pastor", and his rote categories of thinking, they are "shunned" and considered in sin. Those who habitually do not repent from their rebellion will be in danger of falling from God's blessing and may have something bad happen to them. These are subtleties that are realities of those who are caught up in Stevens world. I know because I was part of it for over 20 years and speak from first-hand experience.
A fellowship is "sin-centered" when it lives in a fallen concept of its true identity in Christ. Those who live within this concept of sinning believers are constantly aware of detachment or possible detachment from God as the result of "sin" in their lives. They are always trying to "better" themselves spiritually and trying to get closer to God by obedience in the details of their behavior, rather than "resting" in Christ and his grace provision. These troubled believers are obsessed with gaining every spiritual edge - like a competition - with the gaining of rewards, and the avoidance of punishment. Obeying Gods will as if it were something external.
Steven's world is full of strange protocol. Of particular concern are his strange and alien views of submission and authority, of reward and the Bema seat judgment. His view of the word of God has mixed Christianity with Judaism and the Old with the New. His requirements of obedience involve 10% donations to his organization, as well as attendance to three services a week and outreach. Those who do not willing participate are going against God (his idea of God and the Church). There are many other such social codes of conduct within Stevens world church that perpetuate bondage and legalism of all kinds, masked as behavior that is intended to please God and bring blessing to the adherent. Greater Grace is a front for deception and spiritual abuse and ignorance. Need I say more? Those that leave that place are not considered "in the Body" although they are in Christ as far as God is concerned, they are denied that dignity once they leave.
These are not fabrications or imaginations, but are the real results of a deviant system and are the experience of countless individuals.
PS - I wish to say that I do not doubt the sincerity and loving and caring motive of many of the pastors and teachers and of Pastor Stevens. Their message of God's love as presented to the lost has reached thousands upon thousands, and has gone to many places of need - that is a beautiful thing. The organization however has some serious issues that have gone unchecked for many years and are alienating them from the true reward of knowing Christ, and freedom and empowering victory of His resurrection. Many, once within Steven's system, incur damage emotionally and spiritually, that can take decades to repair.
3. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:36 pm
Steven's says that all Christians sin everyday after they get saved and they must constantly repent of their sins and transgressions; that they must rebound, shake the dust off their feet and go for living a better life and not failing again. The idea that Christian's are (and remain) sinners saved by grace is erroneous. I say according to the Apostle John (who has more authority than Stevens) that Christian's WERE sinners saved by grace. Sin ceases at the cross for the believer. This is the true "narrow way" of Grace. The child of God does not commit sin because when they repented from their previous direction of living in the lusts of their flesh and in the realm of and domain of darkness and were lost - receiving forgiveness through Christ - they become clothed in God's righteousness and in-fact became the very righteousness of God in Christ. There is no unrighteousness in the Body of Christ, as there could be no unrighteousness in Christ.
Its John 3:5-10 says:
"and ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him there is no sin. Whosoever abided in Him sonnet not; whosoever sonnet hath not seen him, neither knows him. Little Children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committed sin is of the devil; for the devil sonnet from the beginning. For this is the purpose the Son of God was manifested: that he would destroy the works of the devil. WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOES NOT COMMIT SIN; FOR HIS SEED REMAINS IN HIM AND HE CANNOT SIN BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD. In this the children of God is manifest - and the children of the devil... "
4. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:59 pm
Just for clarification. The term sin is a fruit of those who reside in the realm of Darkness and are children of the devil. When one gets saved, he is delivered from sin and cleansed from all unrighteousness from that time onward. The sin, which was the separating principal, is gone forever. Whatever impure thought or bad behavior a believer does, if and when they do them, and they do, is spoken of in the Bible as unworthy, foolish, sensual, carnal, unruly and unwise and immature. The believer is told not to even speak of those things done in secret, and tells believers to not do those things that the unsaved do and are condemned by, and not let them be named once among them as is fitting for saints. But perfect Godly moral choices and thought patterns are not the measure of a man's spirituality or closeness to God, nor are they an indication of a lack of sin. Many moral people die in their sins. It would be grieving to the spirit of God for the believer to do bad stuff, God would chastise or discipline that child because of it - but the Bible never calls God's children dogs and sinners. Realize, that if it was sin, and the wages of sin is eternal separation from God and outer darkness and death - the believer would be severed at that moment from God. Forgiveness is not a perpetual Band-Aid one invokes upon injury. The vessel is clean. Christ does not make intercession every waking moment for his body to cover their sins, those that they supposedly are aware of and those that they are not. He made that deal once and for all. Read Romans 6. This is a difficult area to comprehend, and I struggle with it myself to explain. The bottom line is that Sin was put to death on the cross, it no longer has entity and viability as a force in the believers life, God does not see it as an issue with his children otherwise they could not be his children. The shed blood of Jesus is more powerful than one can imagine.
5. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 05:30 pm
Why in the beginning of his letter, would John contradict what he was to say at that place we call the 3rd chapter? This was a continuous letter written to or addressing a particular group of people or concerns that believed the opposite. The only reason it seems contradictory or has to be explained away is because most readers are not looking at the context and to whom John was writing. Most readers think this book is written to believers and it is not. I'd like to see someone understand this - its clear to me if you look at the language. And the terms John uses about ideas of light and darkness, truth and lies, deception and error, are leading me to see there is a thought pattern he is addressing. I hope we don't get too sidetracked; all I am asking is take a harder look at it and go beyond it. There is no contradiction if you see #1. John trying to explain the falsehood of the Gnostic idea that there is no such thing as sin, and of later explaining what it is like once they can grasp the concept of a Holy God who is light only and in whom there is no darkness, and how that by joining in on that confession and belief, that they can be cleansed from sin. The idea is one must first have to admit they have a problem before they can deal with it. It is that simple. Admit it, confess it, and experience it. The end of Ch 3 vs. 10 in 1st John summarizes that this is how you can understand the difference between those who are children of God and those that are children of the Devil. John was inviting the Children of the Devil to understand their plight, show them what they can do about it, and what the end result would be; he will be faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. What hope is there if you can be tricked to believe you can be cleansed from all unrighteousness, and then be doomed to have to continue in it? That sounds sick to me.
6. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:13 pm
I think the issue of sin is the root problem that needs to be addressed, not all the petty incidental problems with this and with that doctrine. If the Gospel message was more accurately portrayed and communicated, there would be much less focus on behavior and more freedom to enjoy the amazing gift we have been given. Until this is fixed there will just be variations of the wrong theme and a constant chasing after the rainbows of deeper spiritual experiences and new movements to get close to God.
7. Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 01:13 pm
Here are a few other False Teachings that are the core of a FALSE system of theology that leads to confusion all the time:
The teaching that Old Testament "believers" were "Christians". This is part of what I call the mixing of Judaism and Christianity. The Church is not Israel and Israel and those under the law prior to the resurrection of Christ were not part of what is called "The Body of Christ" or the "New Creation".
Sorry folks - I hate to burst the bubble - but here are some of the facts:
#1 - The Body of Christ did not and could not exist or begin until the Law and Sin were dealt with. That happened at the Cross and following the resurrection. Jesus was the Resurrection and the life. Believer in God and who were saved by the sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament were not saved in the same sense as those who are covered by the Blood of the Lamb of God and have become one with him.
#2 - The Disciples (who numbered more than twelve) who were the followers of Christ were just that - followers of Christ. They too were not "Christians" in the sense that they were part of His body until after the resurrection.
#3 - The teachings of Jesus were not "Body of Christ teachings per sae. That's why many of his statements seemed steeped in law, because he was teaching the pure law without mans interpretation.
#4 - Jesus' Gospel (prior to the Cross) was not the Gospel of the "New Creation", but was the "Gospel of the Kingdom".
#5 - The 4 Gospel records prior to the resurrection are OLD TESTAMENT. The context of what Jesus did before the Cross and after the Cross is different and should be evaluated in their proper perspective.
#6 - The New Testament did not refer to Christian but to those who had the Old Testament - The Jews
#8 - Christians are not New Testament believers but rather should be more correctly called "New Creations" which is what the Body of Christ is. In which there is neither Jew nor Gentile,
#9 - The Body of Christ does not have to "seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and thus be rewarded. The Body of Christ is part of Christ Himself. As a new creation they ARE the righteousness of God. How can one seek for something they are? In the same vein, how can one "Go to Church" when they ARE the Church. The reward of the believer today is in the experiencing of all that God is in them and through them and for them. Christ - their All in all.
#10 - The manifestation of God and presence of God is ever within the Believer. God is NOT on the outside of his Body. He does not reside in any more strength or reality "In a service" than "in the individual". The idea of God coming down or anointing someone is contrary to sound doctrine for those in the Body of CHRIST. Teaching that separates God's righteousness and Holiness from a believer on any level and at any time for whatever reason are false. I call that "Detachment Theology"
#11 - Contrary to Steven's teaching - The believer is always "In the Spirit" and never "In the flesh". One cannot be Part of Christ if this were so. Those things concerning the law and not touching the unclean thing are Judaism, and have no place in the spiritual concepts of those who are Born of God.
Through the true knowledge of Him we (the believer) has ALL things that pertain to life and godliness. Ephesians...
#12 - The Believer is called a "saint" (60 times in the New Testament) Saint means "Holy, cleansed, purified, without spot). The believer is never called a sinner.
I encourage those in GGWO to consider thinking about some of these "non- mainstream" ideas and to think outside of the box. If this makes any sense at all, you can begin to untangle the "mess- ages" - otherwise you will be doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been perpetuated by religion for the last two thousand years.
The priesthood of the believer demands that they are responsible to think with God in respect to all things they believe. The word of God is there for the Believers correction and reproof, and instruction within this realm and sphere of life "in Righteousness". Carl Stevens, The pastors and teachers at GGWO, and its members are not exempt.
I do not blame Stevens for this mess, because the Lie has become an imbedded part of all Christian categorical thought. Error is added upon error. Everyone is so busy studying to be "correct" and precise, building upon a wrong supposition, that they have continued being fundamentally wrong. Wrong precept upon precept, wrong line upon line - here a little and there a little. It's sad but true.
The day leadership is beyond correction is the day you have not a leader
Lord Jesus Deliver us from the Lie.
8. Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 03:14 pm
THE FALSE TEACHING ABOUT A CHRISTIAN'S NATURE:
One of Carl Stevens most classic errors concerns his view of the believers nature. Stevens erroneously teaches that One who is Born of God and Part of the Holy and righteous Body of Christ has a split spiritual personality and two spirits at work within them at the same time. He teaches that a believer can act out of "Adam", (the Old man), or out of the spirit of God. This idea is further supported by other teachings that say a believer can be "in the flesh" (inspired by the Unholy spirit).The Adamic side or Old nature side as he calls it, is the one responsible for directing a believer to sin. Since God hates sin, the believer (whom Stevens says sins everyday) is in a constant Love/Hate relationship with God. In and out, up and down, right and wrong.
In Stevens false spiritual world, when a believer sins they repulse God and reject the Holy Spirit who withdraws himself from them during their rebellious behavior. One who lives in sin (addicted to it) cannot experience the blessing of God until they "Get Right", confess, repent, and deny themselves. This activity is called "going to the Cross". If someone sins intermittently "by mistake" that is another matter - God is not as harsh on them and they shouldn't beat themselves up for it.
In Stevens world, a believer must be "confessed up-to-date, as not to have any lingering sin that can incapacitate them in their walk with God.
after the ritual of being confessed up to date - the failing believer (who severed his intimacy with God because of sin) can then proceed to the next step of "rebound". Rebound is getting the ball and going back for the hoop until they make the shot. This is an illustration of obedience at work. The believer must keep on trying their entire life "by faith" to obey the word of God and keep themselves in the good graces of the Love of God. Although Stevens quotes from the Bible that God Loves and forgives unconditionally, and that "his grace is sufficient - in reality, it is not.
Even though the Love and grace of God are free gifts and part of God's character, the believer is encouraged by Stevens to "appropriate" it. The believer must choose to live by every word of God instead of resting in who God has made them to be. Grace then becomes gods permission to go to Jesus when sin occurs, and ask for forgiveness. By asking the sinning believer can receive it. God forbid if he forgets to ask, or isn't aware of the wrong he does so that he knows what to confess and ask forgiveness for. According to Stevens, at the time of salvation a believer is only forgiven for their past sins. Although Christ died for past, present and future sins (according to Stevens) , the believer must continuously ask, and Christ must continuously forgive each progressive sin as they occur and are confessed, because Christ everliveth to make intercession (for sin) even though the scriptures say he died once to sin. If one dies in any unconfessed sins I'm not sure what will happen. Although I do know that a Christian who sins will loose rewards (according to Stevens)and be judged for them at a future judgment reserved for all the sins that Got past Christ at the cross.
Not to worry - Stevens teaches - "once saved always saved". However, no matter which way you try to slice it, it all sounds like it is a hellish way to live and this doctrine totally schizophrenic.
The letter to the Galatians states; "that it is for freedom that Christ set us free". The formality and ritual of Steven's earthy logic when it comes to sin is the reason for the vast amount of subjectivity within the application of his doctrine. The bondage of work involved in order for the believer to stay constantly in the spirit and not under the influence of his supposed sin nature is exhausting, and unnecessary.
Christ said: "Come unto me all ye who are burdened and heavy laden and I will give you rest - take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly, and you shall find rest for your souls.
No wonder there is so much unspiritual activity at GGWO. Everyone is too busy trying to gain rewards and please Carl and attain the illusive spirituality they are led to believe they don't have and can never quite achieve - that they are willing to trample one another in order to get to the front door and kill you if you don't get out of the way. If there is any liberty in that system - go out the back door and hope someone hasn't locked it.
9. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:14 am
The "Acquisition gospel" is the false teaching that the Believer continues in sin and has to seek the righteousness of God through obedience and being faithful to Him.
Contrarily, here is the true doctrine of the finished work spoken by the Apostle Paul who was called by God to be an Apostle and who was given the revelation of the Glorious Good news. In Paul's Gospel, the Believer does not continue in sin. Righteousness (which is sinlessness and holiness) is a gift, not an acquisition. Believers are set free from sin. They are not identified with it , nor owe allegiance to it, nor are they bound by it and do it.
Romans 5:15 – 6: 2, 18, 22
“The free gift is not like the offence. For if by one man’s offence many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift of grace by the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came through the one offence resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came as the result of many offences resulted in justification. For if by one man’s (Adam’s) offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of Grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man’s offence judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s (Christ’s) righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many will be made righteous, moreover the law entered that the offence might abound, but where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? …For he who has died has been freed from sin…. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves to righteousness… But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”
10. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:21 am
Why sin had to die?
As history and the Bible records, Christ rose from the dead. Oh death where is your victory? My Jesus arose and descended in a glorified body. He did not carry within Him the seeds of sin in that body. The only “seed” that remained in him was the seed of life. This is the same “seed” that The Apostle John spoke of in 1 John 3: “that remains in those born of God” and is the reason why they are not able to sin. For had not the entire “body of sin” (as the Bible states) been put to death, then the biological DNA of sin would have passed-on to all the offspring of Jesus; as such, this “corrupt” seed would have been passed-on to all of God’s children in the New Creation as a part of Christ’s body. If this were the case, then all those who are saved would be in no different situation than Adam and Eve were before. If this were the case then “The Body of Christ” (his church) would have been in the similitude of Adam’s dilemma (continuing in sin) and the original “fall”. This was not the case. The only difference here is that one would argue that their sins would be covered. Salvation is fundamentally deeper and more far-reaching than ever supposed. Christ and forgiveness are not administered to the believer through a ritual process of failing and confession. It is not a salvation that is administrated through mental concepts and acknowledgement. No; it is the re-forming of the man into the very person of Christ – his body. One cannot become detached from something that he is unless the umbilical cord is severed. That was done for all who believe in the finished work of Christ.
If it would have been possible for the Messiah to have passed sin to “His” children, He wouldn't have been any different than Adam and the heritage Adam originally passed on to all of his children. If this were the case, then faith would have been corruptible. However, the faith that the believer receives is a faith that is incorruptible; reserved in heaven for them. Jesus was a forerunner of a new and living way. Not an old, sin-stained, menstrual rag of a faith. The salvation of God is not a shabby thing.
The work of Jesus finished the job. Sin did not resurrect from the dead. Any-one who places their trust in Christ becomes part of those who are “Born of God”, the Saints (Holy Ones), the “Called- out ones”, the “Church”. They are no longer sinners as they once were. The Bible says that “Jesus was the first born from the dead” – “The firstborn among many brethren.” He not only was the first born from the dead, but the spiritual “parent” of those who would later be raised from the dead (spiritually) - his children. Those who receive and believe have eternal life. This is what the Bible teaches. First John 3 states: that “Those that are Born of God cannot sin” – and that they are “not” able to. “Sin”, in the believer, is mutually exclusive in their relationship with God. One cannot be “in sin” and “in Christ” at the same time - it is impossible.
This “sin factor” belongs only to Satan and those who remain in him – the children of the devil by choice. These are those “who remain in sin” because of that choice. But the faith that one places in the finished work of Christ, that “finished” sin, is a faith that is “incorruptible”. It is the faith of Christ because he is the author of it. It becomes the believer's faith after he receives it. It is full of glory. That faith cannot be changed or tainted by the behavior of men. It is a secure rock and anchor for the soul. It is irrevocable, and entirely reliable, and is the “title deed” to the possession of and ownership of all the assets of God's inheritance; His last will and testament to them. That faith is their legal entitlement to all the holiness and righteousness of God. It is unchallengeable and fully protected by the authority of God Himself. The recording of it within the sphere of the Devine legal system is clear and undeniable. The absolute truth and legality of it was sworn by God's by his own name as He could swear by none higher. He sealed the record with the act of the Resurrection of Christ before the entire world as a witness of its truthfulness and fact. The resurrection from the dead is an undeniable act of the power and authority of God in this world.
This is why the apostle Paul stated: that “we are crucified with Christ”. Nevertheless we live, but it is not we any longer who live, but Christ who lives in us, and that the life we now live we live (in the divine decree of the “Finished work” of Christ) we live by the faith of the Son of God who died in gave Himself for us. Christ not only came to die for our sins, but for the sins of the entire world. This is what it means to be Christian. The Christian life is: to have Christ -- in us, living his life through us, without any help or assistance from us. This is why religious Jews of the first century were exhorted by Paul to reckon themselves to be dead to sin and alive to Christ as a way of thinking about themselves “In Christ”. He was trying to conceptualize to them the idea that “In Christ” the Law and Sin is a dead issue and principal. Paul was trying to rehearse with them the type of thinking they should have if they were to place their faith in Christ; to convince them that they were not denying their own faith in the process. Paul was trying to straighten out the tangled mess in their thinking about Gods plan for them; that rather than thinking they were rejecting the God of their forefathers, they would rather be perfected in the plan of God in it. Paul appealed to the spiritual logic, that the grace of God was their true inheritance because it was in that grace that Abraham originally believed and became the father of their faith. Before law there was grace, and grace has been the abiding principal all-along – they just lost-sight of it.
This is why Paul tried to explain to those Jews who continued practicing the law, that how by understanding that they are “dead” to sin, that they could not live any longer in it. Paul’s principal here was that as a believer, because you are no longer under the law of sin and death – you are free. The ruling and reigning principle of sin is dead because of the divine decree, and thus, the law was fulfilled. What had been intended to be a school-master to lead them to Christ, was now become obsolete and that fact required some sort of change; herein is the call to repentance from the deeds “of the flesh”.
11. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:37 am
It is taught falsely that Believers have a sin nature and need to constantly battle with it so that they can overcome and live a holy and righteous life.
Many misunderstand the Apostle John, in First John 1 when he explains to outsiders (unbelievers) that they need to fellowship in the light with him and that John’s fellowship was with Jesus Christ, and that in him there is no darkness at all. There is confusion in most Christian's doctrine concerning 1 John, because is it has been erroneously taught and accepted that John’s letter was written to believers - and it was not! John's argument was with Gnostic teachers (unbelievers who walked in darkness and outside of true fellowship with God) who believed that they could not sin. John was in-touch with many unbelievers and leaders who set themselves as authorities in the Church and among Christians. Many of their ideas he outright rejected as false teachings and called them false teachers. These had come in among the believers as “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Like Paul, he viewed them as spots in their fellowships and Love feasts. They were considered by him as unconscionable, brute beasts that came to spy out their liberty, and corrupt innocent young believers from the truth. He called their teachings “Doctrines of Demons”, and warned believers to not buy-into their nice package of religion - refuting the Gnostic's belief that there was no such thing as sin at all.
The Gnostic’s believed God had both qualities of good and bad, light and darkness, and, like the force in the movie “Star Wars”, could gravitate, both positively and negatively. They were unaccountable to morals and right behavior and persuaded others to be as they were. They justified themselves and their behavior because they had the “truth” in their own brand (X) of mysterious and “secret” knowledge from God. To them, the God of Christianity was an evil God and his son an apparition.
This is why John states (1 John 1:8that those that say: “we have no sin” deceive themselves and are liars, and do not the truth." Logically, without sin there is no need of redemption, without redemption there is no need for The Christ, and without Christ there is no need for God. This is why he persuaded them to come out of darkness and walk in the light. They were not “In Christ”. Since the entirety of redemption is based upon the issue of delivering man from sin. This “no sin” concept these teachers were falsely believing and teaching in this context was dead wrong.
The basis of true Biblical redemption and justification is twofold: First, in order to enter into Christ and become part of His new creation an unbeliever first needs to agree with God - confessing that fundamentally there has been a “missing of the mark” in their life, and an offense against God (sin). To confess is simply to acknowledge and agree with the reality of the sin factor. Secondly, the unbeliever repents from that mindset and turns his life in another direction; as thus he is reconciled to God. He is receiving as an action of trusting in, relying on, and cleaving to Christ. Like a marriage – they become one flesh in the mind of God with Him. Who god puts together let no man put asunder. As a result, it’s a done deal forever God is faithful and just to forgive that person of sin (all, not some) and cleanse them from “all” (not some) unrighteousness through Christ.
In the Book of First John, it should be recognized that John would not say that it is not necessary for a “believer” to be cleansed from “all unrighteousness”, because they already are – completely and without revocation – righteous; they have the righteousness of Christ. The word “Forgiveness” in its original definition meant the removal of the offending thing, to such a distance, that it could never be brought-up as an issue again for all eternity – as far as the “east is from the west”. Why would John be inviting Christians to confess and be forgiven of all unrighteousness, when they had already been forgiven thoroughly and had already been made “righteous” in Christ? That would not make sense, and here is a prime example of the incongruence of bogus ideas, and how religion screws-up the gospel message.
Another ideologically convoluted spiritual rule that has been perpetuated throughout the millennia, is the “rule” that says that: “Only Jesus does not sin”, and that it is impossible for anyone to “not” sin. Yes, it is correct to say that, all of humanity (outside of Christ) is prohibited from being part of The Body of Christ. Since Adam, salvation was extended in various ways according to the justice of God – to Jews and Gentiles alike. Those who were saved were not necessarily sinless, but the grace and mercy of God prevailed as god provided a covering. Yet not all who are saved are the Body of Christ – not all saved people are Christians. The Jews were saved under their commandments, they were forgiven, but they were not Christians, nor were they part of Christ’s body as without sin. The Gentile is saved when they do from conscience what the law of God embodies, even without knowing the name of Christ, but that does not make them the Body of Christ. These “facets” of salvation are an entirely different issue discussed in the Book, and are sure to be an eye-opener.
Never-the-less, Jesus was the first human to never commit even one sin, and this is what qualified him to be the Lamb of God, that could take away the sins of the world. It is entirely another matter to assume that He is the only one since then not to sin. Since the Bible states that He became the first born of many who would follow - once a person enters into Christ, or more correctly, when He enters into them, their relationship with sin ends. They are no longer living within the realm or domain of it, nor could they be subject to it as a separating principal and under its tyrannical authority as servants of it. If it were possible to “continue in sin” as we have previously described, then every time a person sins, a vicious cycle of “confession”, and repentance would need to occur.
12. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:50 am
Yo-Yo Christianity
Many view redemption this way: Each and every time one theoretically would sin (although they cannot) throughout each day – they would theoretically have to prove to God their contriteness and that they were really sorry. Next, only then when they confess their offence and are really sorry, does Christ make intercession before the Father for that sin and cleanse them. The fault with this idea, besides being fiction, is that the Christian does not have to be cleansed from all unrighteousness because they have no unrighteousness in them since they are born of God. You see, somehow these confused beliefs give an appearance of conformity to the word of God but they do not; having a measure of godliness, but denying the power and authority of it. How can one bring Christ back up on the cross again to die for sin when it was already taken care of? In this type of erroneous thinking “The Passion” would be a perpetual repeat performance, played-out in some spiritually hypothetical movie theatre in ones mind, every day of one’s life. Imagine; Christ having to keep being crucified over and over again for all the lingering and leftover sins he was not able to take care of on the cross the first time. Up again – down again, forever and ever. This is ludicrous exercise of futility and morbidly – yet millions of (unbelieving) believers carry-on this way sincerely and with great passion. They are sincere and passionate all right, but sincerely and passionately misguided.
The lingering idea that God’s own precious children are horrid sinners and always fall shamefully short of Him needs to be repented of. Furthermore, the notion that a person must be “confessed up-to-date” in order to stay right with God and receive His blessing, is shortsighted. We were not given the “calling” and directive by Christ to administrate his grace through the personal regulation of and self-control of our sinful lusts. Believers are not empowered with the will (in Christ) to control a behaviorally sinful fallen nature and lifestyle in this body as if God has somehow strengthened us to do so. The believer is not called to resist sin and temptation; they are told to stand their ground and resist Satan. Christ did not choose to arbitrate and intercede under those circumstances. But millions of believers privately confess, go to some type of confessional/alter call, or attend some type of Eucharistic or Communion service where they “replay” the passion in their minds, and “get right” with God in their minds because of it. Perhaps this is a form of “unbelief” rather than faith. Some go a step further and take refuge in the “special” covering of the Church or their pastor or priest, for their security rather than rest in the sure promises of God. This is a fear factor that constrains externally, rather than motivating internally by love. I could go on and on. There are a million variations of this theme and the point is not to dwell on them, but to rather understand the truth and work-out all the details of our faith from it.
Another large segment within Evangelical and Bible based Churches are brainwashed in the notion of “positional truth”. This is a form of Dualism. This “doctrine” (I use this term loosely) justifies the dualistic double-nature (the flesh vs. the spirit) that is believed by them to be inherent in a believer’s life. They say a person is only positionally and futuristically perfect and holy and sinless, but the actual experience of it will not occur until that person actually enters into heaven and receives their new “incorruptible” body. “Positional truth” is not a doctrine directly taught by the Apostles, but is a sloppy and inaccurate inference. This widely-held doctrine is a shabby linguistic gymnastic attempt to reconcile unbelief and lack of faith in the understanding of “The finished work of Christ”. Although the Apostle John states clearly to unbelievers that their false notion that: “in God there is both good and bad, both light and darkness” is dead wrong - they continue in a lie. John says: “In Him there is no darkness at all” and that: “If any man says they walk in the light, yet live in darkness, they live in darkness and know not the truth. One can’t be in it and not be of it!
The understanding that; “a believer continues in sin when they come to Christ” - is misguided. Yet, here we have that very same “Gnostic” belief resurfacing two thousand years later, wearing a different dress. The idea that a believer continues as a sinner, and sins everyday, is a Gnostic and Dualistic heresy that dates back to the first century AD. The believer must think of themselves differently than this if they are to live the truly victorious and abundant life that Jesus promised
13. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:24 pm
Understanding the Two Gospels
To date, Stevens’s doctrine ignores the fact is there were two “Good news” Gospels recorded in what is called the New Testament portion of the Bible around Jesus’ time. One - The “Gospel of the Kingdom”, that many consider the Christian gospel that Jesus and his disciples preached prior to the resurrection – was the New Covenant offered to those who had already been given the Old covenant. This gospel was never directed towards or for Christians at all. This contradiction accounts for the wrong interpretation of Jesus’ words and their transposition into a form of what I call “Do’ism” theology. “Do’ism” emphasizes “works” like: “follow me”, “Obey my commandments”, “Sell all your possessions and give them to the poor”, “Be Born Again”, “seek ye first…” etc., which things had their application in the obedience to and the keeping the law of Moses; those things which were still a part of Judaism until they could be fulfilled in God’s New Covenant relationship with them.
Jesus was not writing a new rule-book of the laws of salvation behavior now that they believed, as a guideline to experiencing God as Christians. The conflict here is one of the Law versus the Grace of God. Why would Jesus wish his New creation (Christianity) “to do”, when it was proven that all along no man could do? Jesus was telling fellow-Jews, bound by the Law of Moses, “to do”. Jesus commanded them to do, but to do more than what they had ever imagined to do. The focus here upon performance was not to prove their own justification, but to reveal their weakness of not being able to measure-up to God’s holy standards. Their need for Messiah should have been amplified and Gods provision sufficient had they received it. But they did not. The point here is that those who are being invited to be a new creation, and enter into Christ, need not be told “to do” but rather “to be”. The only work that the Grace of God demands, if it could, would be: “To Believe”.
The focus of the traditional gospel concept of living the Christian life is based upon one’s achievement of God. Under that system of thinking, the knowledge of God is an elusive endeavor, reserved for a few hard-working devotees, and is a lifetime process which requires administration, monitoring, and accountability. Under this mindset, most will never, if ever experience its fullness (or so they think).
This second gospel – the Glorious Gospel, is the Gospel of the “New creation” as preached by the Apostles Paul and John. This is not to be confused with the “to do” one, that Jesus preached. This little-understood fact has been constantly overlooked by theologians because of their particular “Christianized” presuppositional and interpretive bias; their fragmented conceptualizations prevent correct understanding, and prejudices - objectivity to the truth.
14. Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:31 pm
Separating the Two Gospels
This is an area of Steven's teaching that is all mixed-up and needs to be untangled. The concept that there is only one Gospel is shortsighted. Equally shortsighted is the idea that the Old Testament believers were saved in the same sense as The Body of Christ is. They were not!
It is fundamental to understand and mentally separate the two Gospels from one another in sequence of event and in efficacy. The first Gospel (The Gospel of the Kingdom) was directed towards Israel. In fact, Jesus never preached Christianity! Jesus’ message to Israel (The Gospel of the Kingdom) was adherence to the Law - until all could be fulfilled. Jesus upheld the commandments, yet he took them further than they had ever been interpreted – to the very spirit of them. He wished to ready his Jewish brethren as ambassadors and as a chosen people who would be willing to embrace the ethics of love, kindness, forgiveness and inclusion of all, and accept Messiah’s earthly leadership and direction. Sadly, Israel did not embrace their calling, yet even the secular Romans, understood the issue at stake as they watched the drama unfold. Jesus was “The King of the Jews” who had intended to lead his nation into a new millennium, but in the end they would have no part of him. Never- the- less, Pilate mockingly nailed a placard identifying him as the King of Jews, upon the cross.
The Kingdom Gospel was simply this: After having received their messiah (Yeshua) and the cleansing from sin (by Him)), and under Messiahs’ earthly leadership, Israel was to be a world leader, and was to be a blessing to the entire world, and the bearer of salvation to all Gentiles, and there would be peace.
Unfortunately, Israel rejected their mission at that time - they rejected Messiah. Sometime after that, The Church (the Body of Christ) came into existence as a byproduct of the salvation of God performed through Christ and expressly extended to Israel. In that role they were to be ambassadors for Christ but ultimately rejected that role. God redirected and bypassed the nation of Israel’s involvement in the communication of salvation and forgiveness of sins to the Gentile world (temporarily) in relation to Christ, because of their rejection of Christ. The Church (The Body of Christ), thus became part of Gods plan to “recreate” a new spiritual man who would serve that purpose. However, in this new creation, God would not be an external and outside participant. God would not be detached from this group of people as though he were a separate, external entity, as the Jews and Gentiles had always known him to be. The idea that God is outside of a person and doing things in that person’s life, comes from misconceptions that are part of what I call “Detachment theology”. The opposite concept of “the no sin” gospel, held the believer as part of God himself, and being “In him”.
God was now enacting in them an entirely new and revolutionary thing, through a uniquely internal manifestation of Himself. God redirected and bypassed the nation of Israel’s involvement (temporarily) in relation to Christ and the world. Although the nation of Israel was not eliminated from God’s promise of salvation and redemption, however the requirements and their participation in the plan of God and his desire to include the entire world in the good news of salvation through them changed. – Thus the Body of Christ was born. This was the other good news. It was not a type of “new covenant” offering to those who were lost, for that would have supposed an old covenant. This was a “new creation” relationship, offered to those who had either, not had one in the first place, or who were willing to receive Christ as the fulfillment of all the requirements of the Jewish religion after He fulfilled them, and they had no other place to go. In the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul goes into great lengths explaining those changes and the relationship that had now come into existence for those who placed their faith in Christ.
This was indeed good news to the world, and in particular, to the Gentile portion of it that had been so-long not been identified as “Gods people”. They were once “afar off” as the Bible states, but now brought near by Christ. This was not the same Good News Gospel that Jesus preached, but was the Glorious Good News that the Apostles Paul and John and the others Apostles preached. The preaching of the “cross of Christ” was a new creational message, revolutionary to even the Disciples of Christ who had still been arguing over who would be greatest in the Kingdom. This new gospel, like others before, held a special significance to a particular group of people, for a specific period of time. Paul was called by God to introduce this gospel to the Gentiles. Paul had long been a top-ranking Pharisee and a teacher of the Jewish religion, and understood from the full repercussions exceptionally well. This was the Gospel that would go to war with all preconceived notions of God, and be considered either foolishness or a stumbling-block. This is the Gospel that would challenge sin and win.
Are you surprised? The Gospel of the Kingdom was not the Good news Gospel of the Church (The New Creation) – that came later in the unfolding of the salvation drama? It may shock the average reader to learn, but Jesus’ disciples, during his lifetime, were not Christians. Jesus life and message was lived-out in the Old Testament, and the books called the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are, in actuality, part of the Old Testament (up until the Resurrection), as many suppose. The concept of “the Body of Christ, which is not clearly understood within Christianity, did not even begin until sometime after the Resurrection of Christ.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:37 pm
The Big Mix-up - The Church is not Israel
Contrary to what Christianity has historically taught, the Church (as taught by Stevens) is not a type of a “perfected Israel”; nor is it accountable to the same Old Testament type of traditions and rituals of temple worship and organization that Judaism was. However, confusingly, the Church structure has mirrored itself similarly to Old Testament Judaism, with their own brand of temples, ritual observances, and Christianized Mosaic/Jewish teaching. This is all misleading to the observer who may notice many similarities between Judaism and Christianity in their outward manifestation. Both groups adhere to priesthood/pastoral duties and ceremony, the commandments of Mosaic Law, the Sabbath, tithing, the observances of certain days and weeks, baptisms and communions, etc. etc. that are surprisingly never condoned or instructed by the Apostles. These would appear to be in contradictions to the “New”, “Living Way” form of the faith, identified as a new creation, and in fact are!
If I may further qualify for the record: Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel. These are two entirely separate entities and treated by God in unique and interesting ways. Old Testament “saints” were not Christians, and were not part of “the Body of Christ” because that body of believers did not exist at that time yet. The Church did not become a reality until after the course of God’s dealings with the Israel - after Christ - and is a unique entity in the plan and purpose of God for this age in which we live. Israel has its own set of specific plans and promises from God, many of which are still being played-out in history, and which do not belong to the Church per se. There may appear to be conflict with the idea of Salvation. However, the proposal of Gods inclusion of all, in their particular and specialized ways, does not preclude their inclusion and unity into His grand scheme and Kingdom in heaven within their separate components. As the reader may already sense, there is a huge, discomforting mountain of ideas, and disagreement concerning these things that can be far-easier to ignore than to address.
Granted, this is all far too large of a discussion to address within these pages. It is my intention however, for practical reasons, to limit this discussion, and focus upon the actual message that needs to be clarified and put into its proper perspective. I believe that, on this level alone, if properly understood, the conflicts will be far more settling to deal with, and the personal benefit outside of the philosophy of it all, will be more meaningful and rewarding. There is a commonality and logical unity to the basic message to which I will continue to focus attention on.
17. Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 09:33 am
The word "confess" in First John 1:8-10 - is NOT used by John towards believers. Many people have extremely poor reading comprehension and end-up missing this no matter how much it's explained because they have rehearsed it the wrong way so many times it has become habit. Let me try again.
Please follow this very carefully and you might see what I am trying again to explain, then everything will begin to make sense:
"CONFESS" is a word that has been INCORRECTLY understood because of its misuse for ages and "Christianized" to apply to believers but it is not. The "confess sins" instruction was an instruction to UNBELIEVERS to mentally acknowledge THE TRUTH that there IS such a thing as personal sin and offence against a Holy and righteous God. These individuals to whom John was writing, thought they had fellowship with God, but THEY WERE DECEIVED AND LIVED IN DARKNESS, OUTSIDE OF THE FELLOWSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CONCEPT OF SIN AND THEREFORE WERE UNABLE TO ACKNOWEDGE IT BEFORE GOD, REPENT, AND ENTER INTO CHRIST AND FELLOWSHIP IN THE LIGHT AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT. THEY WERE UNBELIEVERS WHO THOUGHT THEY KNEW GOD, BUT WERE DECEIVED.
John's logical argument to them because he loved them and desired them to be truly happy (Chapter 1 vs. 4) was that if they confess and acknowledge that they sin (if they were to say they are a sinner), that Christ would faithfully (as promised) forgive sin (the "Us" is added and is not in the original), and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. These UNBELIEVERS were told that if they walk in the light as He is in the light they will enjoy a mutual fellowship together in Christ, clean from ALL sins. (Ch. 1 vs. 7-8).A believer never needs to be cleansed from all or any unrighteousness, because they are made completely and totally righteous. Since all unrighteousness is sin, and a transgression of the Law of God, it is a judge able and condemnable offence until it is judicially and legally absolved and forgiven by God who is the judge of the living and the dead.
ALL SIN IS OF THE DEVIL (1 John 3) and is a fruit of those who abide in the sphere of sin, and darkness and who are children of the Devil, John would have to contradict himself and call a believer a transgressor and son of the Devil if this were true. The "practice" of righteousness is the acceptance and acknowledgement of sin (confession), the changing of direction towards God in the acknowledgement of it, and the receiving of his total cleansing and provision of righteousness and holiness as a free gift.
I don't agree with your assessment under the Doctrine category. I understand entirely what you say and had believed similarly since I received Christ thirty years ago. In fact I don't blame anyone looking at these statements that A Christian Cannot Sin, and think I am some kind of a nut, I probably would have done the same and closed my mind to any idea of such blasphemy. But Look - Most people thought the world was flat.
There's something here that can liberate us from the tyranny of "religion", and of always trying to get to God, get closer to him, stay in him, please him and know him. The key is to understand that when one is Born of God they enter into the full experience of Righteousness as a free gift - they have all of the Holy Spirit they are ever going to get - never more or less - that they are in the will of God and are oriented to him in every way because they are in Christ. That’s good enough. Not only is the believer free to see themselves in the finished work as no longer a sinner in the eyes of God, but they are fundamentally free to see their fellow "body members" in the same value as Christ sees them- as having no sin, and in the full value of perfection as God is content and well pleased to know then as.
In this mindset - when one takes up their cross, they are making the commitment to be faithful to see themselves as holy and blameless and as without sin as Christ made them to be. They do not judge themselves for offences that have been judged, and do not judge others who have been given the same gift of life. The believer is free from death. They are free to abide in the Law of love without judgment towards themselves and others, they are free to rest in the ability of God to deal with behavior that needs alignment and with the correction of the love of God as he matures and guides both themselves and others, and they can stop trying to control everything and everybody. We are being conformed to the image of Christ, God is building the Church, God is reaching the lost, God is doing the saving, the convicting, and the leading.
Because of the Gospel that the Apostle John and Paul preached - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - I think it's OK for Believers to say "Thank you God for forgiving my sins and placing me as sinless within the Body of your Son Jesus Christ. Thank you God for filling me with all of yourself, and making me holy and granting me the gift of righteousness. Grant me the ability to rest completely in you and not judge myself or others whom you have also, by your Grace, made free from sin, as you have done for me. Help me to learn to Love and have compassion and not try to control and manipulate myself or others to conform to outward standards that I think are right for the sake of making me feel comfortable, but may I point others to the comfort of the Christ who Loves unconditionally and who has given his life , and who serves Grace and mercy when It is not deserved, even when it is not appreciated or understood."
18. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 09:57 am
The problem with the generic brand "X" of Christianity (as beautifully systematic and categorical as it is, is that - since you cannot reconcile the seeming "paradoxes" and "contradictions" you believe exist, you make up your own pseudo/scriptural aberrations to compensate. It only makes matters worse and builds upon a base of error. You try to put me in a box and discredit me, but all the while you discredit the very scriptures you use to support your ungodly "theories" about God Although you neglect the Facts, I don't believe you are sinning, nor are a sinner - you are just wrong and need to repent from it. I call it unwise and foolish and ungodly behavior - you can call it what you want.
Christ's Gospel of Grace is undeserved, unearned, and supernatural. It is God "doing" the saving and purification and cleansing. The vessel is clean and entirely fit for service to God because God made it to be that way. What the vessel (the Believer)does with the gift and by the decisions they make in response to the gift and relationship they have been GIVEN by God is both personal and accountable to God himself and for no-one else to judge. Those behaviors (good and bad) are within the ability of God to deal with and correct and mature or encourage, but they occur within the realm of and sphere of the sprit in which Christ has placed us as children of God.
The Glorious "NO SIN" Gospel was delivered to the unlearned and common person and was viewed as foolishness to the supposed thinking "intellectuals" (the Greeks) and a stumbling block to the religious crowd who had all the "spiritual learning" (like yourself). Its simple message - that Paul proclaimed "God came to save sinners - of which I WAS the greatest" is true. Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - Jesus has!
The Gospel was not a complicated set of doctrines. The doctrine of “This and that” in order to “follow”, and “keep”. and “know”, and “abide”, and “cleanse” and “appropriate”, etc. etc. The only justification I have to call myself a "non" sinner, and realize I “cannot sin”, is Jesus Christ himself on the basis of the cross and resurrection. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Remember the Apostle John himself believed that One who is born of God cannot sin and is not able to.
John said in First John 1:
"That which was from the beginning (Christ), which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you (THE UNBELIEVER) that eternal life, which was from the Father and was manifested to us;)
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (THE UNBELIEVER), so that you may also have fellowship with us (THE BELIEVERS): and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
IN Chapter 3 vs. 7 - John says "LITTLE CHILDREN LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU... (VS 8)HE THAT SINS IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE DEVIL SINNETH (continues in sin)FROM THE BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE WAS THE SON OF GOD MANAFESTED - THAT HE WOULD DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL (sin is the works of the devil and Christ destroyed sin)
(verse 9) WHOEVER IS BORN OF GOD (Christians) DOES NOT COMMIT SIN; FOR HIS (the DNA of Christ’s sinless nature) SEED REMAINETH IN HIM: AND HE CANNOT SIN (is not able to) BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD!
Now - the problem here occurs if you are not willing to accept the truth "by faith" as you tell others to do. Since you as well as many Christians see themselves incorrectly as sinners, I can understand the difficulty you have with this passage because you would perceive it as an inditement that YOU are of the Devil. (which is not what I'm saying). Since you believe that as a saved person you are not of the devil and that you are not a child of the Devil - what is the paradox here and the solution? I say just think with God for once. Believe what Pastor John the Apostle says instead of Stevens or anybody else for that matter. You as a believer are not "IN SIN" - you are "IN CHRIST - and IN CHRIST THERE IS NOT SIN!!!!! Simply see yourself that way and there will be no conflict.
Here, I present a critical analysis of the common error the Apostle John warns about - and not to let anyone deceive you in this, and you think exactly what he told YOU not to. I think you have it backward. You are not at issue with me - your issue is with God and you need to change your direction and repent of it like you tell others to do.
"Old Friend" - instead of taking the advice you tell others to - you are a hypocrite and hide behind you credentials and office - but you are responsible to preach the truth no matter what the cost. I say you need to stand for the Bible like you tell others to do - but you don't. Many pastors like yourself don't stand for truth because it wouldn't be popular. They couldn't control others when they would not have any "sin" to talk about. and that might bring resolution to the conflict and all you can do is reiterate the same old, same old instead of considering what I have had to say. Instead of considering the what if and thinking it through - you read from the Doctrine weekly booklet or some facsimile that has been the textbook of incorrect suppositions in the first place.
My question is why can't you accept the fact that I'm right on First John - That it wasn't written to Christians, and that because of that True fact, you are unwilling to repent from the error and rethink your entire system of false suppositions?
I really am not as concerned personally with you or Carl Stevens as I am with the entire system you preach about. I am in amazement and marvel that no-one can see this, despite the fact that I have brought it down to 3rd grade level.
We are not even talking about doctrine and spiritual principals at this point, We are talking about basic language and context, and English comprehension and critical thinking here.
You can do better than that!
Let's explore some exciting prospects that will set you free instead of settling for the bondage of Sin in the believer’s life and listening to Satan’s lie and teaching others the kind of garbage John warns about.
I am convinced that since the Devil could not keep Christ from paying the debt and penalty for sin and fulfilling the Law - once and for all - the only thing he could do is defraud the Believer from their true inheritance through a lie, and have those who suppose themselves to be the bearers of Good news, dish-out a half baked version of gospel. No wonder the Church is emaciated and sick and hurting and ineffective. They are so consumed with battling and overcoming their own "supposed" sins and bickering over the supposed sins of others - they don't even realize that the war has been over.
I wouldn't be so thankful to anyone who is willing to Go against "Gods man" and teach the opposite of the Scriptures. The Apostle John (whom Jesus Loved) has allot more authority than Stevens or any other pastor or teacher.
The question is: When the "Bible Speaks ... are YOU willing to EVER really listen?
19. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:44 am
The issue is simple - like Pastor Paul the Apostle said: that it is all about knowing what it means to know Christ and Him Crucified, and nothing else. Since we (as believers) were also crucified with him (The old sin man) then it has to do with knowing who we are in him as well.
I challenge anyone who wants to argue about the context of First John to stay with the subject here on this forum of false teachings. Ask some intelligent questions like "What about this or what about that? instead of just saying your doctrine. Show me you have some analytical skills and a willingness to converse on a particular and specific idea. Then we can take it to the next step. IN THIS LETTER of FIRST JOHN. Let's put this one small but powerful book behind us.
I will listen to what you have to say specifically and logically - if you listen to me. Then we evaluate what can be substantiated as fact and agree on it, then we apply this understanding to look at how it might relate to the rest of the letter from John and then to the Epistletory literature of the New Testament. OK?
You see it a different way - I know - but that does not mean you and everybody else is right (or that I am) - What makes you think that the early Church fathers - or Luther or the footnotes notes in your Bible are correct on this. Lets start with a blank slate.
Who thinks that John is speaking to Believers, and give me some specifics from the Bible? Keep to the book. Look at the language, the concepts, and the terms like "light" and "darkness"
I say John was speaking to Gnostics who though they knew God and yet who, in fact and in reality, did not! I think John was the last Apostle who was facing one of the greatest lies and deceptions to come against the church since its inception. Who were the Gnostics and what were their beliefs of God and Jesus, and truth, and light and darkness? Did they think they knew God? What secrets did they believe in and teach others to believe in? And what do you think the people the Apostle John was speaking to believed about God and where did they get their ideas about it? In other words, at that time in history, what was being taught that John started writing his letter the way he did? What was the deception he was warning about and what supports your thinking on this?
Let's keep it simple and uncomplicated. John was a simple and plain kind of guy, whereas the Apostle Paul was a brilliant and logical and methodical thinker who had known the Jewish religion from both sides of the track. We might even be able to talk about some of the statements he made that have been wrongly interpreted.
20. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 04:04 pm
I say John was speaking to Gnostics who thought they knew God and yet who, in fact and in reality, did not! I think John was the last Apostle who was facing one of the greatest lies and deceptions to come against the church since its inception. Who were the Gnostics and what were their beliefs of God and Jesus, and truth, and light and darkness? Did they think they knew God? What secrets did they believe in and teach others to believe in? And what do you think the people the Apostle John was speaking to believed about God and where did they get their ideas about it? In other words, at that time in history, what was being taught that John started writing his letter the way he did? What was the deception he was warning about and what supports your thinking on this?
21. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 05:29 pm
Just to be clear. John understood the threat of Gnosticism, and part of their philosophy as concerning Christ is what we agree on, and there is allot more. However, I do not agree that John was just talking about it here, if so why would he have been "declaring" it unto Christians, that they may enter into fellowship with himself, and therefore have fellowship with the Father and with His Son (who were the ones that John was spiritually connected)? (ch. 1 vs. 3). The "declaration" of John is the beginning of Johns teaching on the nature of Christ and the results of coming into that relationship. He was beginning to appeal to these individuals for the purpose of inviting them (who were on the "outside" and not in fellowship) , to join them on the "inside. Fellowship in this sense is a relationship, not an invite for coffee at Dunkin Donuts, or to hang-out in fellowship hall. The word fellowship in this context is more relational, not social. What do you think?
22. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 06:53 pm
Here's a mindblower;
The word "fellowship" in this passage - the word that in John's purpose he stated that he wished they may have, is a word that has no Old Testament application. It means " a sharer" or "participant" and "be a sharer of". It is most closely and strongly akin to what we socially understand as "intimacy" and "intercourse".
This shows a special relationship with Christ that is so close that it is intimate. The Old Testament Israel, in general, did not know this kind of relationship with God at that time. Neither did they. It speaks of Body to body Unity, and oneness.
This is a word picture that John carefully used to explain his faith and the type of relationship he wished they could find (that they would be truly happy - that their Joy would be full (according to the Greek usage of the word - that they would be exceedingly glad to the point of completeness to perfection). John had this fellowship as an experience with the Son who had it also with the Father - they all were participants together in it.
Next, in verse 5 & 6 John will address the fact that it would be impossible for them to have it (fellowship with the Father and with the Son and with himself) if they remained in darkness, and in the idea that they were OK.
In verse 7 John explains to them (unbelievers), that if they say (are under the assumption) that they have fellowship and walk in darkness (the darkness of sin) that they would be lying to themselves, and would be dishonest to themselves. Basically, to paraphrase it, John was saying - "Hey - I want you guys to be truly content and happy, but if you think you can know God without dealing with the sin issue that stands between you and intimacy with God, you're fooling yourselves". John was not presenting some doctrinal thesis here - he was just sharing from his heart - heart to heart. It's very beautiful to me.
John goes on explaining that if one were to walk in the light , where Christ is (as he is in the light) then spiritual intimacy would be experienced between them, and with the Father, and with the Son (with one another), and that they would experience the cleansing from ALL sin.
Now if one were to say (vs. 8) that they have no sin, they would deceive themselves and be totally dishonest (the truth would not be in them.
The King James Bible uses the word "we". That would not be John saying that he believed what they believed or that he would ever entertain such thinking, because he already had fellowship. The we needs to be grammatically understood as (if one were to say, or do, or think, or live). Its a way for him to articulate and distance himself from being confrontational, and to discuss " a certain way of thinking" objectively in a discussion, and have them look at it objectively as if in a "third person" sense than in the first person.
John is starting out very precisely, but tenderly and affectionately by calling them "little children" later on in verse 12 chapter 2.
23. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 08:40 pm
FOR THOSE OF YOU JUST JOINING THIS FORUM:
I challenge anyone who wants to argue about the context of First John to stay with the subject here on this forum of false teachings. Ask some intelligent questions like "What about this or what about that? instead of just saying your doctrine. Show me you have some analytical skills and a willingness to converse on a particular and specific idea. Then we can take it to the next step. IN THIS LETTER of FIRST JOHN. Let's put this one small but powerful book behind us.
I will listen to what you have to say specifically and logically - if you listen to me. Then we evaluate what can be substantiated as fact and agree on it, then we apply this understanding to look at how it might relate to the rest of the letter from John and then to the Epistletory literature of the New Testament. OK?
You see it a different way - I know - but that does not mean you and everybody else is right (or that I am) - What makes you think that the early Church fathers - or Luther or the footnotes notes in your Bible are correct on this. Lets start with a blank slate.
Who thinks that John is speaking to Believers and give me some specifics? Within the book. Keep to the book. Look at the language, the concepts, and the terms like "light" and "darkness"
I say John was speaking to Gnostics who though they knew God and yet who, in fact and in reality, did not! I think John was the last Apostle who was facing one of the greatest lies and deceptions to come against the church since its inception. Who were the Gnostics and what were their beliefs of God and Jesus, and truth, and light and darkness? Did they think they knew God? What secrets did they believe in and teach others to believe in? And what do you think the people the Apostle John was speaking to believed about God and where did they get their ideas about it? In other words, at that time in history, what was being taught that John started writing his letter the way he did? What was the deception he was warning about and what supports your thinking on this?
Let's keep it simple and uncomplicated. John was a simple and plain kind of guy, whereas the Apostle Paul was a brilliant and logical and methodical thinker who had known the Jewish religion from both sides of the track. We might even be able to talk about some of the statements he made that have been wrongly interpreted.
24. Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:25 am
Thank you Dave, Barnes has allot of good things to say, but remember it is another opinion based on his own deductions.
Good morning everyone in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Today we will conclude the issue on the matter of First John 1.
Since no one (except Dave)has taken the thing further, I will continue.
The word “CONFESS”, as in “confess our sins”, in First John 1:9, is defined in Strong’s dictionary of Greek words. It is listed as #3670 and in its basic form means “to assent and acknowledge”. The word “assent” in Webster’s means “the acceptance of an opinion or proposal – to concur” . The word “Accept” means in Webster’s: “To take what is offered – and receive it, to approve, and to submit to and resign oneself to the thing – to believe.”
The Greek root derivative of the word “Confess” IS #3674 AND 3056 in Strong’s. They mean the inclusion of the thought in ones reasoning of the mind – a discourse of reasoning in computation.
Therefore the word “CONFESS” has a much deeper meaning than commonly used within today’s communication and comprehension.
So it is my opinion, taking in all the information from the authoritative sources of language and context, that when John was speaking to a group of unsaved “Gnostics”. The letter he was writing was evangelistic in nature, and when he was telling them to “CONFESS” their “SIN”, it was part of his discourse of logic concerning the thing so they could correctly think about how to have true “fellowship” (Intimacy and spiritual intercourse with) himself, and with the Father , and with the Son.
In light of this it should be recognized that to John, Sin was the most definite issue here with these “unbelievers” at this one particular point of John’s “negotiations” with their understanding. Since they were “in darkness” and were not yet within the light of fellowship with God because of it, John was appealing for them to reason the thing to the conclusion that after careful thought and calculation , they would give it-up; that they would accept the proposal (if one were to say) and submit and resign themselves to the fact.
The finalization of this matter of John’s appeal and negotiation with these Gnostic unbeliever’s minds, was that, by accepting and receiving the truth, they would receive the “cleansing from sin” through the blood of Jesus Christ God’s Son.
Thus the John 3:16 declaration that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life” is understood as the impetus behind Johns writing. 1st John was not written to Christians and Believers, any more than John 3:16 was; it was written to unbelievers.
Johns warning to the UNBELIEVER was that if they say they have no sin (to confess), they “DECIEVE” themselves and the truth is not in them; as “sinners” they have no fellowship, and they remain and abide in darkness.
John’s hope and encouragement to them was the reward of experiencing the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing from All unrighteousness (vs. 9).
John reiterates in vs10 for clarification purposes, that if they insist on saying “they have not sinned” and continue in their offended a Holy God who is light, they would be calling God a liar, and the truth would not be anywhere to be found in their false belief.
The entire false assumption and application of this evangelistic letter is that it was written to Christians and it was NOT. If the explanation of this is not satisfactory, let me know, but in light of what I can understand and do some basic homework on, the Doctrine of the Believer “confessing” their sins, as inferred by the wrong interpretation and application of this book and Johns teaching here, is wrong and needs to be adjusted big-time. My challenge here is to take the foundation of true understanding and work-out the rest of the book correctly and then see how the doctrine changes, and how understanding becomes enlightened, and how freedom and liberty unfold. Jesus promised that in knowing the truth we will be set free!
It is so easy to skim over important information which is plainly recorded in the Word of God for our benefit. Words have been used or understood sloppily and assumptions have been made on their understanding based on today’s sloppy language comprehension.
One last false assumption which is almost universally and incorrectly made by Believers is that because an Apostle is writing, and because his letter is included in what has been accepted as the Canon of Scripture, that they are automatically writing to Christians. It’s not to say that the Believer cannot benefit from the understanding of the communication, but their benefit may be more in understanding how to communicate with the lost and issues concerning them, than how to follow Christ personally.
There will undoubtedly be many “what abouts” that the mind will begin to want to answer in light of the new information you have received today. Relax and take it a little at a time. It is not an overnight thing to correctly understand writings that have been portrayed in a different light. Doctrine gets mixed-up with the wrong phrases and incorrectly tied to the wrong teachings. – That’s part of the difficulty of working through Carl Stevens teachings that have been built upon misunderstandings of the Bible, no matter how studied and sincere he is. The teaching that Christians confess their sins is false. That is why later-on in the letter of 1st John 3:4-10, he states that One who is Born of God is not able to sin, because that sin, that kept them in darkness as an unbeliever had been forgiven and they, as a person, were made “CLEAN” (gleaming white, free from dirt, contaminates and impurities; sinless). Look it up!
John is not contradicting himself in one place saying there is no sin in those who are born of God, and in the other place saying that Unbelievers who say they have no sin will remain and abide in darkness – outside of fellowship with God, and are in denial of the truth. It makes perfect sense. The unbeliever who recognizes the folly of their thinking, and receives the truth, gets cleaned from their sin – they do not have it any longer because they have been cleaned. What part of “clean” and “forgiven” don’t you understand?
The word “Forgive” here in 1st John is the word # 863 in Strong’s. It means to send forth, yield, forsake and sent away. From the root word # 575, which means “ usually denoted as separation, departure, cessation, completion and reversal.
THE UNBELIEVER SAYS “BYE BYE” TO SIN – THE BELIEVER NEVER TURNS BACK!!
23. Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:24 pm
Dave and Anon 68-
Ist John has been taught to death incorrectly by many wonderful preachers. That's why we're still having this discussion - until we can get to the bottom of it. I continue to encourage you to keep looking at this book and the language and words and developing thought and evaluate it afresh.
The fear that the omission of sin gives license for "unbridled" behavior is an unfortunate abuse and reality by those who as individuals do not grasp the full scope of the meaning of it, nor would they show their true understanding of the nature of God by doing so. They would be in dire need of correction and chastisement from God in so doing, but it would not be sin as explained thus far by Pastor John the Apostle.
To say the doctrine of "NO SIN" in the Believer is wrong on this would be to say that the Doctrine that the Law was abolished was wrong. When the Pastor Apostle Paul addressed those concerns to the Jewish mind by saying in Romans that "How can we who are dead to sin live any longer in it) (having accepted Gods righteousness outside of the Law) as a free gift - they were made free from the Law and their slavery to it, and their marriage to it was severed by the death of that original partner, and now they were "legally" in Gods eyes - free to marry another - Christ, to serve Christ in newness of life and in the intimacy of intercourse and fellowship with Him. Paul comforted them that Jesus would be their high priest if they felt the need for it, as he would always be in place of those sacrifices they used to rely upon. Paul understood their fears and tried to comfort the Jews in the most meaningful way he could, by painting the Christ as their sufficiency and advocate before God. Paul described to the Jews he wished to convert, that Christ would ever live in this intercessory role that their religion had for thousands of years required. The Law of Sin and death was abolished in Christ, and now they were free to live by the Royal Law of Love. In Love there is no law as such.
Paul certainly did not condone license to sin. But Sin was not the issue any longer. The Jews were mostly concerned of how they could accept Christ and not be in jeopardy of offending the law and living in the righteousness of the Law through legalistic behavior. They were later warned by Paul that they had to do something. That since the Law was abolished, with all the handwriting ordinances and handwriting no longer valid before God, that they would be in a terrible predicament if they do nor accept Christ. They would in that state no longer have any sacrifice for their sins. Faith in The Law would not cover them, and since they did not yet receive Christ they would be naked in their sins before God and condemned. That is why that Paul told unbelieving Jews that "There would be no condemnation for those who are "IN Christ" Jesus. There is no condemnation, not because of a temporary covering, but because Christ would have enacted a total elimination of sin, because he bore them ALL. They needed only to receive the forgiveness of their sins by faith and enter into the experience of it. They were going to be justified by faith and not by works, and there would be no boasting about it on the basis of behavior. The only behavior that justifies and makes righteous - the only work that works - is to believe. That is the "NO SIN" Gospel.
24. Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 01:35 pm
1 John 5:13 (KJV) says:
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
That ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
I perceive this to be written to those that John envisioned would end up believing what John is writing - John has great hope and confidence that they will enter into eternal life and encourages them to be confident of that fact based on the truths he has shared.
Some may or may not (after they get this letter) have believed, as far as John knows. This is his letter to them as he envisions their acceptance of the truth and their maturing in it. He tries to make it as practical as possible because this may be the only letter they receive from him because he is Old and near death at the time of its writing. He is trying to cover all the bases of their reactions and acceptance of what he is sharing with them, this is hard in a one way dialogue. It takes time and recourses to get correspondence from where John lives to the outside world. It takes months and may be years before he hears from them, if ever. The rest of the letter deals with what he expects from those who are no longer "little children" tossed to and fro by every wind of falsehood and the lies of the Gnostic false doctrines. He addresses those in a more mature sense as "brethren" who believe and later even more endearingly as "Beloved". His instructions describe expected behavior of those in Christ - to love in deed and not in word only. He is trying to teach them how he thinks as a believer, how to discern truth from error, and against the false teachings they were surrounded with and bombarded with. There were many who refuted John’s apostleship and the deity of Christ among them. He is encouraging those who will struggle with this that they are of God (4:4) in their struggle.
John's last instructions were (ch. 5:18-20)to remind them again that whosoever is born of God sinneth not, contrary to what those around them might say, that the entire world resides and abides in a wicked state. He wishes them not to doubt who they are as a believer and to not yield to the pressure of looking to any other source of help except Christ, the true God and eternal life.
These instructions seem short and brief as if they were the most necessary for them to remember. This letter has a sense of finality to it as those types of words one would say as a farewell.
Is it possible that there were those who were believers among the group he had addressed? I suppose so. Maybe they had asked Paul to write and address some difficult issues among their community.
The best approach is to try to put oneself in Paul’s head and circumstances, and in the mindset and circumstances of those to who he addressed. There is not very much information here. He did reason and conjecture in the way he reasoned (if one were to say) as he developed his ideas. Perhaps that was because he was saying in essence “if the shoe fits – wear it”. Who knows. It is like archeology - you try to be as fair and entertain as many possibilities - In this sense it is hard to conjecture after so many thousands of years.
However if they were believers John was addressing at some part in the letter, John was most certainly reminding them that - as those born of God - they sin not!! (Chapter 5 vs. 18)
25. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 09:54 am
Don’t make 1 John 1 way too complicated.
My main emphasis had been to establish the fact that John's initial thrust and focus of attention concerned those who were not believers because they did not fellowship in the light - they were in darkness, and that they deceived themselves, and could therefore not be Born of God. Unbelievers could not enter into fellowship with God as long as they were in denial about their sin. But as a matter of hope - if they could come to accept and come to the understanding that they were sinners , then Jesus would be faithful to forgive their sins and cleanse them from ALL unrighteousness. John further reinforced that if they continued in this deception (that there was no such thing as sin) they would remain in darkness - out of fellowship and children of the devil.
But for those that do confess their true condition "in darkness" and "in sin" and thus their need to be saved from it, they would become children of light, "IN CHRIST" , Born of God, and as such - they would be unable to sin because in 1 John 3 3-10 those that are Born of God cannot sin! That's plain and simple to me . Sounds like VERY Good News. It sounds like the Gospel of John who spoke in the name and authority of Jesus Christ - (and he was best friends with Jesus - he should know).
And Just in case they accept this whole crazy idea - John reminds them at the end of his letter in Chapter 5 - not to forget that those who are born of God are not able to sin. If John said it two times I think he was trying to make a point.
My Old friend - you can't seem to get this simple point - so what's your the point?
You want to convince me that once I was dead in my sins, but thanks be to god, NOW I AM ALIVE IN MY SINS ???????????? This does not make sense to me, and it does not sound like good news to me.
26. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 03:30 pm
Sinners sin until they confess and admit they are sinners and thus experience salvation by Jesus Christ. At that point, because they are forgiven and cleansed from ALL unrighteousness by the blood of Jesus Christ, they have become "Born of God" and supernaturally part of the "sinless" Body of Jesus Christ (because there is no sin in Christ). Now they are no longer abiding "IN DARKNESS"; thereby "ABIDING" "IN HIM" as the new place of spiritual residence (as an entirely "New Creation"),holy and blameless before Him because of the Love of God. Now, as Born of God the Bible says that: "Those who are born of God sinneth not (ARE NOT ABLE TO SIN)! 1 JOHN 1: 9 and 1 John 3:4-10 and 1 John 5:18
a simple version of the above is:
"SINNERS SIN, SAINTS DO NOT" !!!
27. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 07:39 pm
It seems to me God only sees me in the Son because that is who I "AM IN".
All transgression is sin according to Pastor John the Apostle. He who is made righteous transgresses not. All sin separates from fellowship. Fellowship is not coffee time - it is a permanent and enduring relationship that in the eyes of God is highly valued and sanctified and holy.
It would be better to view the breaking of fellowship as likened to a Divorce. The intimacy and intercourse and legal obligation and responsibility would be forfeited and absolved. God does not break fellowship with his children – ever. He may be grieved and they may be chastised severely for it – God knows – but they are never divorced by God, nor can their behaviors separate them from him for even a moment. If a believer does what you call sin, but what is not, they do so “in the Spirit” and “IN Christ”. This is an awesome responsibility for his Children and a challenge of character and faith. This is not a license by any means to live foolishly and without regard to our calling and inheritance and life given to us as a gift. The things that the unsaved do and are judged for should not be named once as is fitting for saints. But it is. Believers fail. All believers fail. But Gods love never fails and is the anchor of righteousness that is part of that believer.
Sin is not a mistake or moral failure or behavior of omission or overt act of violence or social aberrance. Sin is Satanic, God hating and alien to God, and is therefore detestable and hated and worthy of eternal damnation and severance from life.
That, my friend is something a Believer never does, nor can he.
The bible says no murderer or liar or adulterer etc. can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Well – Christians lie and steal and commit adultery and as unbelievable as it sounds, even murder. If they are truly born of God, if you were to call it sin in the eyes of God, or call it sin (in the eyes of the Church) then these individuals would be condemnable, by God to hell equally with those who cheat and steal and fornicate and deceive etc, and by man to “shun” and “demote” and treat as second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God - and they are not - at least not in Christ.
As those “Born of God”, bad behavior, if done by the Born of God person is not sin. It’s like an Ambassador is not subject to the same penal laws from the country he is the ambassador to, as he is to the one he represents.
A believer does not sin against God (and thus break fellowship) nor against his fellow man. Repentance for the believer is nor a ritual of bringing ones sin to the cross for forgiveness and the changing of ones behavior, as much as it is the recognizing of the error of entering into unworthy, foolish, hurtful, unwise, immature, carnal, sensual, earthly and shortsightedness of varying degrees, and then turning around and changing direction to embrace the true character of what God has made us to be in Christ. The seed character of Love and compassion and sensitivity and truth are what we all really have within, it is just a matter of not stifling it and living selfishly, for to me to live is Christ.
28. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 10:58 pm
Some final comments on the "NO SIN" Gospel of the Apostles John and PAUL
THE FINALITY OF LOVE:
“Christ was the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.” Understand this, and one begins to start to see the unfathomable glory of God, in His creative and omniscient, perspective and plan. Left to themselves, Adam and Eve would have still been in the garden, hiding behind some bush, naked and ashamed, denying themselves their God-given purpose of being fruitful and multiplying and subduing the entire earth. Had they not been restricted from the tree of life after they partook of the forbidden knowledge, they would have been forever sidetracked from the freedom of their Devine purpose – without any hope of redemption, and Satan would have prevailed. Satan – had his will been done, would have plunged the entire world into eternal blackness and “lost-ness”, through the false light of knowledge forbidden outside of God, and though the unreality and distortion of a lie. God would not let it be so – he made it impossible through Grace. Had Adam and Eve not been cast out of the garden, they would not have discovered the world that God had made for them – they would have been paralyzed by their own fear and misperceptions due to the distortion of satanic lies.
Thankfully, they were not abandoned, not even for a moment. Because they had been “birthed sinless” by The Eternal One, by Love itself; they had an eternal destiny. This is the great “Amen” of creation “So as it has been said – so let it be done”. This was a job for the “King of Kings”, and “Lord of Lords”. Jesus is “The Amen”. Jesus is the “beginning and the end”. Jesus is the “first and the last”. Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega”. God had a plan.
God is love, and love never fails. Death is not the final story – Love is. God’s love is stronger than death. Love was first and fundamental in God’s creation, death was not. However, as death reigned through one man’s disobedience (Adam); life much more reigns through one man’s obedience (Jesus Christ). Let me quote a brief passage from Paul’s letter to Roman Jews.
Romans 5:15 – 6: 2, 18, 22
“The free gift is not like the offence. For if by one man’s offence many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift of grace by the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came through the one offence resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came as the result of many offences resulted in justification. For if by one man’s (Adam’s) offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of Grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man’s offence judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s (Christ’s) righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many will be made righteous, moreover the law entered that the offence might abound, but where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? …For he who has died has been freed from sin…. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves to righteousness… But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”
29. Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:31 am
The word "confess" in First John 1:8-10 - is NOT used by John towards believers. Many people have extremely poor reading comprehension and end-up missing this no matter how much it's explained because they have rehearsed it the wrong way so many times it has become habit. Let me try again.
Please follow this very carefully and you might see what I am trying again to explain, then everything will begin to make sense:
"CONFESS" is a word that has been INCORRECTLY understood because of its misuse for ages and "Christianized" to apply to believers but it is not. The "confess sins" instruction was an instruction to UNBELIEVERS to mentally acknowledge THE TRUTH that there IS such a thing as personal sin and offence against a Holy and righteous God. These individuals to whom John was writing, thought they had fellowship with God, but THEY WERE DECEIVED AND LIVED IN DARKNESS, OUTSIDE OF THE FELLOWSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CONCEPT OF SIN AND THEREFORE WERE UNABLE TO ACKNOWEDGE IT BEFORE GOD, REPENT, AND ENTER INTO CHRIST AND FELLOWSHIP IN THE LIGHT AS HE IS IN THE LIGHT. THEY WERE UNBELIEVERS WHO THOUGHT THEY KNEW GOD, BUT WERE DECEIVED.
John's logical argument to them because he loved them and desired them to be truly happy (Chapter 1 vs. 4) was that if they confess and acknowledge that they sin (if they were to say they are a sinner), that Christ would faithfully (as promised) forgive sin (the "Us" is added and is not in the original), and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. These UNBELIEVERS were told that if they walk in the light as He is in the light they will enjoy a mutual fellowship together in Christ, clean from ALL sins. (Ch. 1 vs. 7-8).A believer never needs to be cleansed from all or any unrighteousness, because they are made completely and totally righteous. Since all unrighteousness is sin, and a transgression of the Law of God, it is a judge able and condemnable offence until it is judicially and legally absolved and forgiven by God who is the judge of the living and the dead.
ALL SIN IS OF THE DEVIL (1 John 3) and is a fruit of those who abide in the sphere of sin, and darkness and who are children of the Devil, John would have to contradict himself and call a believer a transgressor and son of the Devil if this were true. The "practice" of righteousness is the acceptance and acknowledgement of sin (confession), the changing of direction towards God in the acknowledgement of it, and the receiving of his total cleansing and provision of righteousness and holiness as a free gift.
I don't agree with your assessment under the Doctrine category. I understand entirely what you say and had believed similarly since I received Christ thirty years ago. In fact I don't blame anyone looking at these statements that A Christian Cannot Sin, and think I am some kind of a nut, I probably would have done the same and closed my mind to any idea of such blasphemy. But Look - Most people thought the world was flat.
There's something here that can liberate us from the tyranny of "religion", and of always trying to get to God, get closer to him, stay in him, please him and know him. The key is to understand that when one is Born of God they enter into the full experience of Righteousness as a free gift - they have all of the Holy Spirit they are ever going to get - never more or less - that they are in the will of God and are oriented to him in every way because they are in Christ. That’s good enough. Not only is the believer free to see themselves in the finished work as no longer a sinner in the eyes of God, but they are fundamentally free to see their fellow "body members" in the same value as Christ sees them- as having no sin, and in the full value of perfection as God is content and well pleased to know then as.
In this mindset - when one takes up their cross, they are making the commitment to be faithful to see themselves as holy and blameless and as without sin as Christ made them to be. They do not judge themselves for offences that have been judged, and do not judge others who have been given the same gift of life. The believer is free from death. They are free to abide in the Law of love without judgment towards themselves and others, they are free to rest in the ability of God to deal with behavior that needs alignment and with the correction of the love of God as he matures and guides both themselves and others, and they can stop trying to control everything and everybody. We are being conformed to the image of Christ, God is building the Church, God is reaching the lost, God is doing the saving, the convicting, and the leading.
Because of the Gospel that the Apostle John and Paul preached - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - I think it's OK for Believers to say "Thank you God for forgiving my sins and placing me as sinless within the Body of your Son Jesus Christ. Thank you God for filling me with all of yourself, and making me holy and granting me the gift of righteousness. Grant me the ability to rest completely in you and not judge myself or others whom you have also, by your Grace, made free from sin, as you have done for me. Help me to learn to Love and have compassion and not try to control and manipulate myself or others to conform to outward standards that I think are right for the sake of making me feel comfortable, but may I point others to the comfort of the Christ who Loves unconditionally and who has given his life , and who serves Grace and mercy when It is not deserved, even when it is not appreciated or understood."
29. Friday, May 28, 2004 - 07:57 pm
The Apostles John and Paul both spoke at length on the death of Sin, it is the doctrine of man that has distorted it, and yes it began to be distorted in the very beginning by false teachers like yourself who perpetuate the lie. Satan started the lie, that Christians sin, as a way of robbing the Believer of their true inheritance as Saints.
The only way to unravel the twisted yarn and the "Not so good news Gospel" you preach is to go through First John and Romans. Piece by piece as starters. If we cannot establish concretely and unequivocally, the context of those Letters, and the subjects to whom they have been written, there is no use going any further and discussing any doctrine.
Many doctrinal issues would not be suspect had this message been clearly understood in the first place.
The "No sin" Gospel can’t be all that hard to understand. Either I’m free or I’m not. Either I’m a slave to sin or I am a slave to righteousness. Either I abide in the sphere of the flesh or I abide in the sphere of the spirit of God. Either I am dead (in sin) or I am alive “In Christ”.
Either sin has been put to death on the cross, i.e.: no longer alive, or, according to your gospel, it lingers as some half mangled “road- kill”, dragging its bleeding carcass and guts across the road after it was run over by a car.
30. Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:54 am
Label it whatever you want. UNBELIEVERS are "IN SIN", - that is what separates them from intimate fellowship and intercourse with The Father and The Son. Sin is never used in the bible in any other sense than a serious offence and separating principal. It is used as a term describing the abode of the unbeliever. Sin = darkness and lost ness and enmity. Sin is not anything less that the most repugnant, defilement against holiness. God is holy. He does not fellowship with darkness, There is no darkness in him. He cannot make his home within a body of sin. These are just a few reasons what is called sin is not in the Child of God. It is in the child of the devil. This is how you can understand what it is.
The wages of sin is DEATH and ETERNAL SEPERATION FROM GOD. If it is eternal separation from god, either it has to be completely eliminated, or else the person who is "IN SIN" would continue to abide in eternal death and separation from God.
31. Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:12 am
If we understand the correct meaning of what SIN is, the unbeliever, once they become a child of God, cannot sin (Like Pastor John the Apostle said in the 3rd chapter of 1st John. In light of correct understanding of sin.
The challenge here will be how to correctly understand behavior "in Christ" spiritually and correctly by the Word of God. But that is the next issue and we have not even gotten through the first.
I will say this much, not to get too off-track - Believers are accountable to live Godly and fruitful lives; walking in a manner that shows wisdom, and maturity as they grow in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are to walk in a manner worthy of their calling, but they are not ever "in sin". The Believer is "IN Christ" otherwise they would be constantly falling into separation and Jesus would have to be constantly "bailing them-out" every time they fall out of fellowship. This is not what the Bible means when it says "He ever lives to make intercession as our high priest"
That's another issue
32. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 06:04 pm
NEW TOPIC:
“ROMANS WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO CHRISTIANS”, NOR TO GENTILES, but was addressed to “UNSAVED JEWS”
I will try to keep this as brief as possible
General comments:
Romans is a letter that is almost universally accepted as having been addressed to Christians or the Church, and it is NOT. I will briefly share a few points of argument to this position.
Chapter 1:
Vs. 1 – Paul was identifying himself as an Apostle, which means “special messenger”. His “special message” was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
ANSWER 1. Why would Believers need a “special message” when they already would have had it and received it and embraced it and Believed it?
Vs. 2& 3 – Paul immediately speaks of two important Jewish things concerning covenant – “the promise of the (Jewish) prophets, vs.3 – “the seed of David”. It has to do with lineage - an issue which was important for “inheritance” and promise. To the Jews, the prophets were the mouthpiece of God and was a part of their Scriptures, that were divided into the Law and the Prophets.
ANSWER 2. If Paul is speaking to “Gentiles” why would care less about Jewish heritage? It was not their history and it never had any significance other than that the Jews were “separatists” and that if anything would have made them suspicious.
Vs. 6 & & – Paul addressed those whom he identified “the called of Jesus Christ”, “beloved of God” – “called to be Saints”
ANSWER 3. Were not the Jews the first who were called-out? Were they not the chosen people. They understood the idea of calling and being separated unto. It was a Jewish concept, not a Gentile one. It is one thing to be called, but when one responds to the call they become chosen. Why would Paul call them “called to be…” if they already were believers and would have therefore been chosen? They were not yet saints. These Jews were now being “called of Jesus Christ”. It is a new call and an election to a new covenant.
Vs. 7 – “beloved of God”
Answer 7: God so loved the world, while they were yet sinners… You can be an unbeliever and still be beloved of God.
Vs. 8 – “I thank God through Jesus for your “faith”.
ANSWER 8: Their “faith” cannot be assumed as Christian”. It was their “Jewish Faith”. Paul didn’t have to say “Jewish” because it was understood. Paul was a Jew, and they knew it. Paul was proud of their faith insomuch that as concerning the Law – they were good Jews and were faithful and diligent in it and were an example of that faith throughout the entire world.
Vs. 11 – Paul wanted to see them so that he could “IMPART” a spiritual gift for the purpose of “establishing” them. The word “establish” means: “to bring to pass” vs. 12. The mutual “faith” of both be and you. Paul and these Jews did not have a mutual faith in Jesus Christ as of yet and it was Paul’s desire to impart the spiritual gift (of righteousness and eternal life through Jesus Christ). Impart is to give and deliver. If they were believers they would have already had it imparted and would have been experiencing it.
Vs 13. – “brethren”
Answer: These were Paul’s fellow Jewish Brethren, and not Christian brethren. Later in vs. 16 Paul emphasizes his allegiance” to the Jew first”. This would have been an insult to the Gentiles, had Paul talked to them that way. Paul acknowledged elsewhere that he was willing to “become all things to all men so that he may save some”. Although Paul’s gospel eliminated Jew and Gentile in the “one new man” of faith in Jesus Christ, he still had to convince his fellow countrymen, of the necessity of Jesus Christ and what his righteousness would represent to them. Paul was beginning the task of helping facilitate the change of their thinking about spiritual things. This was a daunting task, but as a wise master builder, Paul was about to embark on the most brilliant explanation of the faith to the Jewish mind and how to perceive of Christ than has ever been done before.. Paul, a Jew, was called of Jesus Christ and knocked off his horse when God got his attention. Paul understood all the ideas of the Jewish faith inside and out as he was a Pharisee of Pharisees.
Paul sought “fruit” (unto salvation) of them (Jews) “at Rome” as he did among other “Gentile” (Nations) who were not Roman. Rome was a Gentile Empire.
Vs. 15 – Paul was “ready to preach the Gospel (of salvation) to you at Rome also”
ANSWER: Why would Paul have to preach to Christians? They would have already heard, and Paul did not have fruit in Rome yet.
Vs. 16 – Paul was not “ashamed” of the Gospel of Christ.
Answer: only the religious Jew would be ashamed of something perceived to be anti Jewish. The word “ashamed” in its root form means “disgrace”. It was no “disgrace” for Paul to be the “special messenger” of Jesus Christ, whom the Jews were historically “offended”. Jesus, the cornerstone, was a stumbling-block of offence to them.
Paul is boldly making no apology for the “spiritual gift) the special message we wished to declare to those Jews in Rome. He made it a point of “special treatment” for them to understand it was to be communicated to them “first”
This gospel message of Good news would be the Power of god unto salvation to the Jews first, just as it had been Gods choice to make them a “special” nation first among the Gentiles from whom they were called to represent Him as God’s people.
Chapter 3 –
Paul says “what advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is the circumcision?
Answer: He defends them in their special call.
Chapter 4:1 – “Abraham OUR Father… as pertaining to the flesh”
Answer: The Gentile does not have Abraham as a father – only the Jew. The Gentiles could care less because they were not Jewish. The “flesh” means by genetics and heritage”. Paul speaks of Gentiles in the second person, the Jew as first person, he included.
In summary, this is the basis for the idea that Paul’s letter to all that are in Rome is a letter to all the Jewish brethren (not Jewish Christians) who are in Rome and whom he wishes to have like faith with in the future and have “fruit” among them. The entire letter should be rethought from this context and not “Christianized” in order to untangle the Gospel doctrines that are so universally but incorrectly linked to this letter. There were Chapter breaks and subtitles in the original letter. It was a flowing thought and needs to be seen as such.
The typical mistake is to interpret Paul speaking to one group in one chapter and then to another in a different chapter. This methodology is disjointed and unnatural to what one might expect from a carefully crafted and thought-out letter aimed evangelistically to the Unsaved Jew. These Jews had thousands of years of heritage and were not about to relinquish it and change faith based on some shabby discourse. It would be a shameful thing for them to deny their faith among their brethren – UNLESS- Paul could convince them completely, from their own scriptures, and using their own logic – as he effectively does in the Letter.
Think on these things my brethren in the Faith of Christ.
33. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 07:34 pm
If it depends on us "to do" then it is no longer of Christ. The Jews tried hard "to do" and look where that got them. Those "In Christ" HAVE crucified the flesh, and the flesh has been put to death at the cross with Christ.
This is why we are perfect and holy and blameless before him. (in Ephesians)
It is "Christ in us - living his life through us - without any help or assistance from us". This is the "Christ-IN" life.
It is his righteousness imparted to us, and it is his faith that we live by, not our own. We just receive it and thank God for it.
34. Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 10:12 pm
Adam and Eve were Created Sinless:
Adam and Eve were created sinless and immortal - this was the fundamental nature of their created identity. As such - they were put into the perfect place (the Garden) and were told to go out into the entire world and to be fruitful and multiply. Likewise, as the new creation, when we are “birthed-again” and made “sinless” once and for all, we are given the freedom and privilege of being fruit bearing as you will see later. Adam and Eve were sinless and without shame. It was a natural thing for them. It is not inconceivable for God to have made them so, because they were His creation. It pleased Him to make them in His image – both male and female, and for them to be sinless. He also gave them the freedom to make choices.
Is it, therefore, any less conceivable, that God, through redemption, could restore humanity back to the very same sinless state they had previously enjoyed before their fall - if given the opportunity to choose? I say not! If Adam and Eve were originally created sinless, why does everyone have a problem with the idea that – once the plan of redemption was enacted for fallen humanity, that we could not be exactly what God had created them to be in the first place? Let me explain:
First-off - Adam and Eve missed the mark (sinned) was when they made the choice to believe a lie. They became separated from God by that choice, and experienced painful negative emotions and guilt because of it. Their eyes became opened and enlightened to the dark light of iniquity. Pain and suffering was the result. This happened when Satan challenged God’s authority in the garden with the statement: “Hath God said?”, and when Adam and Eve believed him. Lucifer, the Serpent, planted seeds of doubt through a “lie” into their minds. Their acceptance of the lie brought them into a wrong relationship with God. Through this lie from Satan (iniquity conceived) unreality was substituted for reality. In such an insidious lie, Adam and Eve took on a wrong identity, and in this fallen state, lost the purity and innocence of life. Their fruit was the fruit of death. The resulting fruit of their fellowship with a lie and the wrong choices that followed showed itself to be rotten as well. What did this produce? It produced the rotten fruit of “self-consciousness” when there should have been only “God –consciousness”. Here entered-in “unrighteousness” and the rotten fruit of Guilt and Shame and Fear. The perception of being “naked” and without a spiritual “covering” also had its root here when they hid themselves from their Creator, the One to whom they should have had a transparent relationship with.
Secondly, God, not wishing that any would perish, and knowing they would be eternally lost in their fallen and rotten position, gave them death. Death, in this case, was a modality of grace exhibited, in that, they would be prevented by it from living forever in a fallen state because of Sin. God, not wishing that they would be able to partake of His knowledge apart from Himself – prevented mankind from being eternally fallen in their immortality, and by denying them access to the Tree of Life at this time. He knew that if they were allowed to remain living in an eternally fallen condition, there was no hope of their redemption.
Here is a prime example of God’s amazing mercy and love and compassion; He immediately dealt with the issue of sin (missing the mark) by providing a covering. The animal skins He provided to cover their nakedness were God’s first provision for sin, howbeit a temporary one. Let me go further:
God did not view Adam and Eve’s nakedness as an issue, for it was how He had made them to be; naked and not ashamed. Their odd behavior of “self-consciousness”, however, revealed their having perception and knowledge that they should not have had. God asked them: “Who told you that you were naked”. He was asking them to reflect on where they had gotten their self-conscious knowledge? Had they eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – of which they were forbidden? Yes! – and they were not equipped to know how to rightly judge what they had become aware of about themselves; reacting in fear the best they could do was hide. Interestingly, their conscience understood their ultimate accountability to the truth. God provided a way for them to deal with their fallen and negative emotions. By providing a covering of animal skins to cover their nakedness, they would not have to see themselves in their fallen identity. Luckily, their choice to receive the covering God gave them, (through the sacrifice of the innocent life of an animal) was sufficient, temporarily, until such time as a more acceptable sacrifice could be made. You see, God had never intended His human creation to exist separately (unto themselves), in self-orientation. Never was it God’s intent for them to live in an independent relationship from, and unaccountable to Himself. They were never intended to make judgments about things which were not theirs to know and judge between. God’s heart toward them, however wrong their choices and fallen behavior, was one of reparation and redemption; that none would perish - this was God’s creative option.
35. Monday, May 31, 2004 - 04:56 pm
Greetings everyone
If you have been reading some of this boards discussions you would have been facing the questions of the presence of sin in a believer's life. This discussion seemed fundamental because of what I perceive as Carl Stevens false teaching that the sin and sin nature that belonged to the unbeliever, continues, remains and abides within them after they become born of God. To be entirely fair, this is not Stevens fault, because he has only passed on the understanding of it he got from others, all the Scholars and Bible commentators and preachers he could get his hands on - with a few embellishments of his own. This is a problem within all Christendom, not Stevens' exclusively.
I have tried to explain from the Book of 1st John how this was not so, because he taught that "Those who are Born of God do not sin". This has met with resistance, and understandably so, because of the many years of indoctrination in "the lie" and falsehood; that Sinners are dead in their sins without Christ and that Believers continue in it when they are made alive in Christ. This is a double message and seems contradictory to me. I think the Apostles would agree if they were here.
Pastor Apostle Paul, in Romans, deals with the sin issue as equally well as Pastor Apostle John does in 1st John. Paul states: "Shall we continue in sin that grace shall abound, god forbid, how can those who have been made free from sin (dead to it) live any longer in it? They can't because they don't, even if they think they do!!!
Since no one on this bard who has responded to me as of yet has expressed their ability to see this, I have decided to take a different approach to explain it. I have come to the conclusion that the word "sin" has been so loosely used and its definition diluted into a meaning that is less than representative of its severity. Sin has lost its meaning over the last 2000 years so I will explain it more graphically in the sense that I believe the Apostles understood it.
I cannot seem to get anyone to equate the detestableness of sin to God and why it is improperly used by Christians as some wrong behavior that God will overlook because of Christ. Let me clear-up the matter once-and-for-all. With the following:
Here Goes.
My Dear Little Ones, its time to grow-up and face the real world. I will see you later when the "dust" settles after all the spaghetti hits the fan.
!!!!! THE SIN FACTOR - DON'T SAY THAT!!
You see - this “sin factor” was the only element that stood between man and God. Sin is what separates. Sin is everything unholy -- it is the most detestable and vile thing. Sin is abhorrent and abominable to God and his holy nature. Sin is associated with spiritual death in all cases: “for the wages and sin is death”. Sin is extremely strange and excruciatingly repulsive to God. It is not a welcomed guest in the kingdom of God. The only word that can be used in the English language that can come close to describing the despicableness of sin, and lend a sense of understanding of the nastiness of the nature of sin in relation to a Holy God, would be to call it “****ing” sin.
Now I understand that the mere mention of the words “****” would make the average Christian reader uncomfortable, especially those not accustomed to such words, but I use it to make a point. Here, that point must be made harshly until it creates a high level of discomfort with the very notion of it. Please bear with me as I am also unaccustomed to speaking so crudely – especially concerning spiritual things - but let’s cut to the chase and call it for what it really represents in the most vivid terms of human communication.
The fact is: Sin is an enemy of God; Satan is the author if it and its diabolical plan, and those that do so and participate in it in any shape of form are at enmity with God as well. Sin not only messed-up the entire human race, but it also wasn’t so nice that The Christ had to suffer to the extent that he did for it either. To call sin anything less would be to soften its ugliness to the entire person and character of a Holy God. Here we go:
The Webster's dictionary defines the word “****” in its slang usage as an undesirable or contemptible person. Another usage of the word is commonly applied as a way to describe someone with great and unusually malicious unfairness, especially to one who treats someone else in such a way. The vulgar, slang usage of the word “****ing", is “damned” or “extremely”. As a note within the Webster's dictionary, it states: “although hundreds of years old, (the word) “****” has only rarely been recorded in print until recent years; even the trend of its use is still confined largely to reported speech, and is generally regarded as offensive to prevailing notions of propriety”. How fitting. Enough said, but the word “sin” in his proper contextual understanding would be more fairly understood as “****ing sin”.
Sin is always “f’n sin” from God’s standpoint and those who practice it are “f’n sinners”. Jesus Christ died for the “f’n sins” of the whole “f’n sinful world” (as all men” f’n sin” and fall short of the glory of God). The Apostle Paul stated in the book of Romans in the New Testament: that “There are none righteous -- no not one”… but God not wishing that any would perish “Gave His Only Son” God so loved the world. He did something for mankind that they could not do for themselves – no matter how “good” they could be.
Sin is so bad, that it took only ONE “f’n sin” to plunge humanity into outer darkness and into eternity; separated without God forever. Thanks to God, as I will more fully develop and explain - it took only ONE sovereign act of Loving-kindness and righteousness to bestow holiness upon the receiver, and save them from the whole “f’n mess”.
John 3:16 in the Bible states: "For God so love the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”. This is why a believer cannot be “in ****ing sin” and “in Christ” at the same time. Sin and God, Sin and Christ, and Sin and The Body of Christ are all mutually exclusive relationships, but the Law of sin and death (eternal separation from God) has been over-ruled by the Law of Grace and the Spirit of life. Do not say that Christians sin every day any more than Christ would. Based on the sure promises of God, I, as one who is "Born of God", do not consider myself a ****ing sinner any longer. If you are a believer, I do not think you should want to call yourself or your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ “****ing sinners” any longer. Christ does not look at you that way any longer. Remember, never say the word "sin" without properly associating the "F" word to it and then you will understand how uncomfortable it should be for us, as believers , to ever be equated, in any way, with it!!
Don't ever use that "sin" word the same again!
36. Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:05 pm
If the Scriptures themselves cannot speak on their own merit without being "Christianized" and homogenized and diluted, then what is the point of it all?
I say Christ has not come back yet, not because all the lost have not been reached, but because his Church is not ready and hasn't been able to get the thing straight yet. It's only been 4oo years since the reformation, which took about 1600 years of ignorance and legalism and abuse to come about, but that was just a beginning compared to the reform needed within the Church of Jesus Christ today. What will it take for our hearts and minds to return to the Glorious Gospel and the unadulterated Good news that the Apostles were willing to die for?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.