Given my personality, you probably won’t be surprised to hear that I’ve been referred to by a number of insulting titles. Every cuss word you can think of—and a few you probably couldn’t imagine—has been hurled at me over the years. If the label is filthy, vile, disgusting, hurtful, or profane, then someone, somewhere, at sometime has attributed it to me.
Fortunately, I have a fairly thick skin. I'm able to absorb most invectives with bemusement. However, there is one particular four-letter word that always gets under my skin. One insult that I find most offensive and shocking to my sensibilities is when I'm called a "liar."
There are two reasons why that term bothers me more than any other. The first is that it isn’t true; I strive to be honest and forthright. The second reason is because it is true; I have a history of lying, particularly to keep myself out of trouble. The word is offensive because I strive mightily to be a person of integrity and it shocks my sensibilities because it reminds me that I too often fall short of that ideal.
There is another word, equally applicable, that I wish carried the same stinging rebuke: sinner.
Somehow I have become too comfortable identifying myself as a sinner. I consider it purely descriptive, like saying that I have blue eyes or brown hair. I rarely find it shameful. In fact, call me a sinner to my face and I am apt to say that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”
Unlike, St. Paul, though, I don’t really comprehend what I’m saying. While I can regurgitate doctrinal statements about Original Sin and Atonement, Paul understood in his bones what it means to be a sinner and the price our Lord had to pay. Compared to him I am but a third-string sinner.
However, like Paul, I have been born again. I have put off the rotting skin of the dead man that I was and put on the new life in Christ. Yet I still find myself turning my gaze from the Cross to lick the sores of my old maggoty corpse. As a dog returns to his vomit, I return to my wicked ways. Worst of all, I am not horrified when I look upon my sins. I’m not shocked when I glance back and see how few steps I’ve taken on the road to sanctification. I simply shrug: What can I say? I’m a sinner.
Although I won’t shake that label until I shed “this mortal coil”, I don’t have to wear it as a badge of honor. I was a sinner, am a sinner, and will be a sinner until I die. But Jesus has saved, is saving, and will save me from the wages I owe because of my sin. The price is paid in full. I have been set free.
I know this and yet do not live it. I treat such priceless grace from my Creator as if it were a polite favor from an acquaintance. But Jesus died. On a Cross. For me. Knowing that doesn’t fill me with guilt and make me want to wear a hairshirt. But it does make me want to be less comfortable wearing the label “sinner.”
When one has a problem with a device, as a last resort one gets shuttled to the tier-3 help desk. The tier-3 desk is virtually always a small number of engineers, or often one engineer, that know the product intimately. Similarly, about 2K years ago, human beings had a visit from the tier-3 help desk.
One can argue about many things in human cognitive psychology, but some basic things are known to be true. One of these things is the requirement that learning cannot occur in the absence of feedback. As a result of some advice from the tier-3 help desk, early intellectuals understood the value of feedback in learning to avoid and conquer sin. A process of confession and penance was undertaken. As a Protestant, I often heard your lament, and lamented it often myself. It's one thing to lament it in an abstract, almost theoretical sense, and another to face it foursquare. Whatever Christian path you take, be sure you create for yourself the opportunity to confess and do penance. Nobody wants that hair shirt, and I'm not arguing for actual hair shirts, but you know as well as anybody that doing the same thing over again is highly likely to get the same results. Close the feedback loop, my friend.
This issue of "sin" is of course one of the primary problems with the christian myth. We have a God who, for no reason we can comprehend, has set down a series of laws and commandments that are unatainable. Worse yet, there is a threat of eternal damnation if believers don't live up to this arbitrary set of rules, many of them quite wierd.
There really ought to be a good reason for the striving to be good in this life other than fear of damnation from a "god" that offers no explanation for its arbitrary laws.
The result of all this silliness is inevitably guilt...which, it has been demonstrated over and over in medical studies, is detremintal to our physical health.
You are being a bit hard on yourself. So, let me give you some practical advace: shed those chains that link you your belief in a God who is both arbitrary in its pronouncements and evil in its deeds. Commit yourself to a life in which you strive to make those around you happier and healthier and in which you experience the full beauty of the natural world. You know when you've done bad things without a diefied myth telling you. Go with your instincts. You'll live a happier, healthier life.
great idea, Imagine there no heaven it's easy if you try.
only problem is what if it's true? what if there really is a heaven wouldn't you want to go there?
Our culture has a real problem, we confuse belief with fact. I know I do it too. But do you think if I really really believed that dropping a hammer will not fall, then it would not fall? No my belief does not change that. Well if God makes the rules, my belief that He doesn't doesn't change the fact that he does.
You play a dangerious game when you make yourself God.
Amen to all that. I understand where Darwin is coming from, but that path is pretty much a dead end. Probably my biggest struggle as a believer has been how I can come into the presence of God as a sinner. Yes, I am a sinner saved by grace, but I am still a sinner. The two key points are the cleansing nature of Christ's atoning sacrifice (a one time deal) and the ongoing work of santification by the Holy Spirit.
With an understanding those two concepts, my sins (past, present and future) are paid in full. I will still sin, because I live in a fallen body in a fallen world, but the difference is that I can choose not to give myself over to those sins and instead seek a Christ-like life.
I'm not going to get there, but my prayer is that I will be a little closer each day.
I thought Calvinists believed that your actions and feelings had no bearing on your eternal destiny. You're either saved or damned - nothing you can do about it.
The Judeo-Christian notion of "sin" is one of the key concepts that divide us into two essential divisions of human beings.
Those who embrace the notion of sin also, by extension, tend to believe that human beings are bad, fundamentally. That is, absent any controls or laws or moral codes, a given individual will behave in an evil fashion by default.
The other position is more or less the opposite: Left alone, people are essentially good. What bothers me about the "I am a sinner" meme is that the believer must extend that judgement to everyone, whether they believe or not. Personally, for example, I would view Joe as a good person, and only revise that estimation if he were to engage in unethical or illegal conduct, or display moral turpitude.
Joe, for his part, considers me to be flawed and sinful right out of the gates, absent any evidence for such a valuation. But that's OK. We are free to make such decisions.
Where the problem arises is with government. The kind of society you get run by Joes is very different from that run by Ravens.
(Pro 28:14) Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.
(Pro 14:16) A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
Sin is highly trivialized these days of relativism and immorality. Cf. Jeremiah Burroughs work, The Evil of Evils. Guilt can be unnecessary, but more often then not, it is proper.
Oh, and Calvinism is not fatalism.
Personally, for example, I would view Joe as a good person, and only revise that estimation if he were to engage in unethical or illegal conduct, or display moral turpitude.
Being "pretty good" is no good at all. God is perfect and only perfection will do for him. And it isn't true that it is unattainable; Jesus attained it. We don't because we prefer our own way to God's.
There really ought to be a good reason for the striving to be good in this life other than fear of damnation from a "god" that offers no explanation for its arbitrary laws.
Yes. There is. In fact we don't strive to be good so as to avoid damnation or even to earn salvation. We can't do either. God's grace is a free and undeserved gift. The only way to come to him is to accept it. Then we strive to do good because that will please him and we want to please him. Not doing so would and does grieve him and we don't want to do that because he loves us.
It says in John 3,
Condemnation or judgement is choosing and therefore being condemned to live without God.
As to what sin is: it is anything that violates the character of God.
I knew we'd gete to "memes" sooner or later. So, being just an easily-led backwoods durn fool Christian, I gots a couple questions.
What social and/or cultural phenomena are not memes? Seems that for the word to have utility, one must be able to say "This is a meme" and "This is not a meme". Naturally, this begs a question about how to tell the difference.
How is one to measure memes? What are their dimensions? Or are they dimensionless, like Euclid's points?
An infinitely elastic label labels everything and nothing.
Joe, or anyone else that cares to give me input. What is your advice to a Christian that keeps falling back into the same destructive patterns of sin? I've been a Christian my whole life, but struggle mightily with sexual purity. I feel so far apart from God because despite his gift of grace, I continually slide back into depravity.
What can I do? I feel like giving up because I hat myself for having to go back to God and repent knowing that eventually I will fail again. Please help.
Joe, or anyone else that cares to give me input. What is your advice to a Christian that keeps falling back into the same destructive patterns of sin? I've been a Christian my whole life, but struggle mightily with sexual purity. I feel so far apart from God because despite his gift of grace, I continually slide back into depravity.
What can I do? I feel like giving up because I hat myself for having to go back to God and repent knowing that eventually I will fail again. Please help.
Raven says: The Judeo-Christian notion of "sin" is one of the key concepts that divide us into two essential divisions of human beings.
I partially agree with you Raven, but I don't think the main difference is that the secular viewpoint is that people are basically good. There are plenty of secularists like me that think people are basically a mixed bag. As I mentioned in another post regarding morality and evolution, evolution favored a mixed approach that developed traits self interest and altruism in a state of dynamic tension within the human psyche. So we all have both potentials active within us.
I see the main difference is that for secularists good and evil is a matter of how we act towards each other, while Christianity is only concerned with how we act toward God. To the extent that Christians see it to be important to treat others fairly it is only because they believe that is what God wants them to do.
I faced this dilemma when as a Catholic I went to the confessional. Part of the Act of Contrition, which is a prayer that a Catholic recites prior to being granted absolution by a priest, goes as follows:
"O my God,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love."
As I contemplated this I began to ask myself why it was more important to feel more sorrow for having offended God than for having offended the person I had sinned against. If I, say, punched Joe in the nose, why am I asking God for forgiveness? I didn't punch God, I punched Joe. I should be more sorry for having offended Joe. Because Joe isn't all good or deserving of all my love? But he's the one I punched.
I began to realize that morality is about how you treat those who aren't perfect or deserving of all my love. Penance was all about focusing on one's own fear of damnation and not about feeling for the other's pain. But morality requires that we take the focus off of ourselves and onto others. Penance did the opposite for me, it was a time to worry about my own sorry ass and how badly I had hurt my chances for eternal life.
Anonymous,
Here's my advice. I don't know if your destructive patterns of sexual impurity reaches the level of "sex addiction", but if it does, I would suggest counseling. And frankly, I'd recommend a secular counselor with this, not some one in your church.
Don't hate yourself. Turn this problem over to God. You're not the only sinner in the world.
Good post, Joe.
I incorporated this same general theme into a blog post just today when discussing the lofty view of God that ought to be held by the Christian as juxtaposed with the loathing we ought to feel toward our flesh.
Perhaps Isaiah summed it up best:
Isaiah 6:5 "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Ex-Preacher - I'm not sure if this covers Calvinism or not, but the Bible is clear about salvation (you either have faith in Jesus or you don't) and it is also clear that what we do on earth will have some impact on rewards (if in Heaven) or punishment (if in Hell). There is a lot about rewards in the New Testament. I recommend "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn for those who want to know more.
Anonymous - I highly recommend the book "Everyman's battle" by Arterburn and Stoeker. Lots of practical advice. I prayed that you would find the help you are seeking.
"No my belief does not change that. Well if God makes the rules, my belief that He doesn't doesn't change the fact that he does.
You play a dangerious game when you make yourself God."
It's only dangerous if this God you speak of happens to be an egotistic sadist who gets off on punishing folks who lived good lives but didn't believe in him. And if that's really what your God is, then he doesn't deserve worship in the first place.
----------------------
"Sin is highly trivialized these days of relativism and immorality. Cf. Jeremiah Burroughs work, The Evil of Evils. Guilt can be unnecessary, but more often then not, it is proper."
Sin is more trivialized today than in days past, it's true. But that's probably because as a people we've matured in ways that the God of the Bible can't, without our help.
---------------------------------
"Yes. There is. In fact we don't strive to be good so as to avoid damnation or even to earn salvation. We can't do either. God's grace is a free and undeserved gift. The only way to come to him is to accept it. Then we strive to do good because that will please him and we want to please him. Not doing so would and does grieve him and we don't want to do that because he loves us.
It says in John 3,"
This is a good example of why I've always argued that non-believers are inherently more moral than believers. Believers "do good" to please a God. Non-believers do good because it's he right thing to do. Big difference.
As for john three. Don't get me started.The very notion that a person is evil if they don't believe is absurd on its face, and John certainly knew that, making this particular sales pitch no better than those sent out by the Dems and Republicans who try to scare people into donating money. It also makes john no better than your basic flak.
As for john three. Don't get me started.The very notion that a person is evil if they don't believe is absurd on its face
People are evil if they reject God, who is good. In fact, you have that the wrong way round. They reject God because they are evil.
Non-believers do good because it's he right thing to do.
Without God, there is no objective morality. How do you define "good" or "right" and how do you support your definition against that of someone else who disagrees with you? Sixty years ago, non-believers thought that eugenics was right. Now it's unthinkable...for the moment. Some of what you call good, I call bad. Why should you be right rather than I?
What is your advice to a Christian that keeps falling back into the same destructive patterns of sin? I've been a Christian my whole life, but struggle mightily with sexual purity.
First, sexual desire is not the same as sin. It is part of your God-given nature. A lot of people feel unnecessarily guilty about feeling it. The sin is to act on it in your mind and beyond with someone to whom you are not married. Since Jesus was tempted in every way as we are, he certainly felt sexual desire; but he did not entertain it.
What I have found helpful:
1. Ask God for help to deal with temptation (but don't ask him to change the natural desires he has given you). Instead ask him to break the pattern you have fallen into.
2. Sin is a matter of your will. Each time that temptation arises, recognise it and decide to reject it. Decide to concentrate instead on Jesus and the fact that he died to save you from this and every other sin. Memorise relevant scripture and go over it when you are tempted. If you don't occupy your mind with something else, the temptation will remain and you will eventually give in.
3. As far as possible, avoid situations that give rise to temptation. Don't watch the wrong kind of TV; don't read the wrong kind of magazines or books. If you are addicted to Internet porn, get rid of your Internet connection -- if you can -- or subscribe to a content filtering service. Remember Job's words: "I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look at a woman."
4. If you do fall, don't waste time bewailing it and thinking you aren't worthy to approach God. You aren't worthy any way, except that you are covered by the blood of Jesus. He died for this as for every other of your sins, and therefore you must simply confess it and keep on asking for help in dealing with temptation.
You said, "I've been a Christian my whole life".
Strictly speaking, that cannot be true. There must have been some point, however young you were, when you acknowledged that you were a sinner who deserved nothing from God but judgement and needed to be redeemed by Jesus. If you have never done that, you don't yet belong to him and you cannot get his help at all.
"People are evil if they reject God, who is good. In fact, you have that the wrong way round. They reject God because they are evil.
Non-believers do good because it's he right thing to do."
My point exactly. This is absurd. Ghandi was not "evil", unless of course you define "evil" by referring to the dictates of arbitrary law set down by a diety who can be proven to exist only by using the same arguments a hindue, muslim or wiccan would use to prove their gods exist. Frankly, this notion that people are evil if they don't believe is a cowardly way to understand the world.
---------------------------------
"Without God, there is no objective morality. How do you define "good" or "right" and how do you support your definition against that of someone else who disagrees with you? Sixty years ago, non-believers thought that eugenics was right. Now it's unthinkable...for the moment. Some of what you call good, I call bad. Why should you be right rather than I?"
First, don't suppose that a non believer can't define what right and wrong is. Understand that you simply disagree with my definitions. This I think we can agree upon.
Second, I'm not required to defned my definition of right and wrong against those who disagree with me unless I choose to in the form of debate or discussion. I'm only required to defend my view of right and wrong to myself.
Finally, everyone has slight differences in what they find to be right and wrong, regardless of their source. For the most part, we all come to the same conclusions on what is right and wrong. And we each take action based on those views of what is moral and immoral. I honestly don't care what the source is of your morality. My only concern is how you act toward other human beings and living beings. It is those acts of yours that I'll use to judge you...if I choose to.
Anonymous,
If you like, email me. I am involved in a group called For Men Only (FMO) which is a Christian group involved in purity ministries. I might give you some resources you could use - or point you in some direction or other. "Everyman's Battle" is a great book, and there are some others
The short answer is two-part: Ask God forgiveness and He will forgive - over and over. Paul talked about his "thorn" and how it kept him humble. He also talked about rejoicing in his weakness because then God could act. Just keep going
The second part is in James 5:16
Forgiveness comes from God - healing comes from confession in community and prayer. Find some accountability partners.The problem is the evangelical notion of santification and justification as being separate.
Being born again (biblically speaking, being baptized-water and the spirit) is great. But it is "merely" a start. You are not saved, once and for all. "Hope" is the word the NT writers most often used regarding salvation. Conversion is a daily experience.
In my evangelical days born-again people were always trying to figure out if they were "really" saved or not. It was endless. Generally it was said, that if you've "changed", you're saved. That was the standard, which, of course, has no biblical basis. God calls for perfection, not having changed a little, or even a lot.
Now, some evangelicals still separate justification and sanctification, but say that santification is an inevitable result of a true Christian commitment. This is better than easy-believism, but still...if someone hands you $20 million will you continue to work? A settled issue is just that, and it encourages, at the least, a certain laxness.
John,
What you are saying is blasphemy.
Joe:
Really thoughtful post. It definitely stuck a chord with me.
John Salmon:
You don't understand God's grace in the motivation of love, rather than the motivation of fear and self-sufficient pride that all that do not accept Christ's work as totally sufficient for salvation inevitably fall and have fallen into.
I have been given more than $20 million dollars; I've been given everything in Christ, and I will grow in holiness and work hard (1 Peter 4:11) because by grace I love Jesus (1 John 4:19). I will not work as if I can earn my own holiness.
It's miserable to see people working and striving to earn something they never can earn but can freely receive, and you hurt them by implying that if they just worked harder, they could get better. They can't. That's why salvation is a gift of love.
"Without God, there is no objective morality. How do you define "good" or "right" and how do you support your definition against that of someone else who disagrees with you?
How do you support your definition of God's will against that of someone else who disagrees with you? You haven't solved that dilemma by claiming to know God's will, as the disagreement between John Salmon and giggles shows. You can never acheive "objective" morality because everything that a person does must be filtered through his own subjective nature. Even when you have a single book that millions of people agree is God's word, you will have many different opinions on what it means. "Objective Morality" hasn't solved mankind's dilemma.
Sixty years ago, non-believers thought that eugenics was right. Now it's unthinkable...for the moment. Some of what you call good, I call bad. Why should you be right rather than I?"
Believers supported eugenics also. Read this article: http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm
What would you do if you didn't have non-believers to blame for all the sins of the believers? You would have to invent them.
Giggling says-"You don't understand God's grace in the motivation of love, rather than the motivation of fear and self-sufficient pride that all that do not accept Christ's work as totally sufficient for salvation inevitably fall and have fallen into."
God calls for perfection (Matthew 5:48). He doesn't say, Respond to an altar call and it's a done deal. That is a radically unbiblical position. All attempts to divorce faith from works are departures from the way we are called to live our lives. I would refer you to James, whom some of the Reformers wished to remove from the Bible.
What's hurting people is to feed them a doctrine that says, "Pray this prayer, and you can know for sure that you're going to Heaven." What if you pray the prayer, mean it, and ten years later are in a active homosexual lifestyle? We know from Paul such a person, if he reamins unrepentant of this sin, can't go to Heaven.
We all know many, many people whose lives after having said this prayer aren't Godly. Yet nothing imperfect can enter Heaven.
It is not a question of earning anything. Jesus did all that is necessary. Yet if our lives are not sanctified, a response to an altar call (or being an active Catholic) is ultimately meaningless.
Works have a bad name because some don't understand that Paul's references to works nearly always refer to the works of the OT law. This hardly means that what we do, how we live, is somehow separate from our faith.
Robert Duquette-
"Even when you have a single book that millions of people agree is God's word, you will have many different opinions on what it means. 'Objective Morality' hasn't solved mankind's dilemma."
As far as Christians go, the problem is due to an unwillingness on the part of (the minority) of Christians to accept the teaching authority of the historic Church.
Yet I would urge you not to overplay the disagreements. The 80% we agree on is more significant, to my mind, than the 20% we don't agree on. It's a quarrel, yes, but an intra-family one.
But as to your larger point, I would direct you to the natural law. This is written on eveyone's heart, whether pagan, Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.
The natural law, which prods at everyone to avoid wrong-doing, is objectively true. Not eveything is merely a matter of opinion. The fact that 100% of the world can't be counted on agreeing about much of anything doesn't mean nothing is true.
The natural law, which prods at everyone to avoid wrong-doing, is objectively true. Not eveything is merely a matter of opinion. The fact that 100% of the world can't be counted on agreeing about much of anything doesn't mean nothing is true
Yes, that is what I would call conscience. Our only disagreement is whether to call that subjective or objective.
But that is not how the argument is put by most religious folks, like Oliver, who say that there is no morality without acknowledging God as the source of that moral instinct. Whatever the source, that moral instinct is there for believer and nonbeliever alike. You don't have make any assumptions about where it derives in order to act upon it.
And I'd say that you share about 80% of values with secular people as well.
Robert-The natural law, being what it is, operates independently of someone's ackowledging the source of that law. You are right.
"The natural law, which prods at everyone to avoid wrong-doing, is objectively true. Not eveything is merely a matter of opinion. The fact that 100% of the world can't be counted on agreeing about much of anything doesn't mean nothing is true
Yes, that is what I would call conscience. Our only disagreement is whether to call that subjective or objective. "
I don't know if it's our only disagreement, but it is a significant one. I'm constantly amused at how believers will attempt to invalidate the conclusiions of the conscience that are not backed by a diety, even when those moral conclusions are the same as theirs. I've been told that, as a non believer, I could only come to the same conclusions on moral issues as the christian because I have been touched by God, even though I don't know it or recognize God.
If you think about that statement long enough you have no other option than to spin yourself in circles.
cam porn
Darwin and Robert-Actually, the "80% agreement" I was referring to was between Catholics and evangelicals, not between myself and secularists. To be sure, since all belief systems have some truth in them, there will always be areas of consensus.
Natural law and the conscience aren't precisely exactly the same thing. The conscience is the means by which the natural law operates. That conscience can be seared to the point where it doesn't function in a person's decision-making, yet the natural law is still binding on that person. He is still responsible for his actions and will be judged for them.
I need an editor! Please excuse the excess verbiage above. I guess that's what "preview" is for.
Wow! I'm really impressed with the dialouge in this blog, even the "sinner" beginning the discussion. Sure a lot better than discussing this seemingly endless and all-consuming Iraq/Iran war business with some people calling you names.
The jist of the Bible, God's word, especially the NT is that it is not about morality or justice but love. And once you've begun to follow Jesus then "good works" grow out of that path. That's true with me. It has been a slow growth process, meandering towards perfection. But Christ's love, "Love your enemy", "Love one another" and "Love your neighbor" motivate my actions. I may be a fool (I wouldn't be the first nor last) and I'm smart enough with enough critical thinking to have made a lot of money and still remained just and moral and ethical. But with love as the motivation, life, to me at least, takes on a different meaning. Wars don't become "necessary evils." They become failed love. As does the death penalty, public education, abortion on demand and many many of our day to day public issues.
Love, the trusting of God's love, only will save us, not our brains or laws or scientific achievments (as impressive as they are.)
God rules the universe, this vast space...too vast for us to conceptualize in our brains...but has given us the choice of following his commands, his word as we see it in the Bible or not, this so-called "free-will" concept. When we do, we as human beings prosper ,in the sense of the "common good." Where we have turned away from God, even in moments of seeming human triumph, we have suffered.
This is a concept that an unbeliever will not understand and might even call foolish and naive. Perhaps they are right. I will not know until death, but the certainty that I feel, as trust, as faith, now motivates me to work for more love as the cure for the world's ills.
Love
David Perkins
internet pharmacy