Let us continue with another of their belief statements:

quote:

---

#4 - What doth the preface to the ten commandments teach us?

A. The preface to the ten commandments teacheth us, That because God is the Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments [a].

[a]. Luke 1:74-75; I Pet. 1:14-19

---

Interesting, eh!

What is your take on this statement of their's?

__________________________
Psalms 119:165 "Great peace
have they which love thy law:
and nothing shall offend them."

Daryl

[This message has been edited by Daryl Fawcett (edited May 27, 2001).]

I quote "Hold on. How is it that "whatever is not of faith is sin" is somehow deeper than 1 John 3:4, "sin is the transgression of the law"? Let's be careful. Sin is what we do more than what we are. Choice is the issue, not equipment." (Larry Kirkpatrick)
I never said one text was deeper than the other, Larry. I meant the issue was deeper. There must be other texts which also qualify the subject, and give other insights into it. We sin because we're sinful, don't we? If the equipment worked, and we wanted to resist any sin, don't you think we could? Adam had no excuse, remember. We can't base a theology on one text alone. We're often busy pointing out to believers in other denominations that that's what they do regarding subjects like the state of man in death. So, here's a text which clearly states that whatever is not of faith is sin - sorry, but I don't have the chapter and verse - and you want only to look at the other text.
Here is the ultimate outworking of what you iterate:
If I am not a converted Christian, I may not beat my wife, I may refuse to tell a lie, I may not kill, covet, or commit adultery. If I grit my teeth, and obey everything I can, I am good, because sin is what we do.
On the other hand, if I have just given my heart to the Lord, and am steeped in sins that still have a great hold over me, when I fall - on the way up, I mean - I am bad, because sin is what we do.
If I am misguided, and interpret circumstances to indicate that I should take a particular action, then that action results in the death and suffering of many people (?airline crash, for example) I am bad, because sin is what we do.

I suspect that even God allows the issue of accountibility to dictate how sinful a particular sin is. And from my reading of Bible texts, our relationship with God is the only thing which can turn our filthy rags into that which is acceptable.
If our relationship with God isn't relevant, then there is no such thing as self-righteousness.
Zyph.

zyph,

Ellen White was pretty adamant that there is only one defintion of sin, and that this is 1 Jn. 3:4. She was literally correct.

According to my college Greek class, if you have two interchangeable terms connected by the verb "to be," then both are preceeded by the definite article. If they aren't totally interchangeable, then there won't be an article in front of both. That's why "The Word was God" has no article in front of "God." Jesus is God, but God isn't Jesus. Pickles are cucumbers but cucumbers aren't pickles.

In 1 Jn. 3:4 we have an article in front of both terms, making this verse a definition. In "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," we don't have an article in front of "sin." It's a description of sin, but not a definition.

In actuality, we could say that "Whatsoever is not of faith is transgression of the law," since the two terms are totally interchangeable.

Pickle -
Using your grammatical interpretation I can only conclude that obedience that is not of faith is transgression of the law. If we can obey - do - outside of faith, then transgression of the law must embrace more than what we do. I thought the Protestant stance was that every text on a subject should be studied before a definition is reached, and that one text can't alone be definitive. That seems very dangerous. Have you read every statement in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding sin? When you have, you will have the authority to state what Ellen White was adamant about.
I also dispute your claim that pickles are cucumbers. Ever heard of pickled eggs?
Zyph.

[This message has been edited by zyph (edited May 28, 2001).]

Ah, this should be interesting!

From what I have read from our Presbyterian brethren I believe they are far closer to my beliefs in several areas than say... your run of the mill Dispensationalist Baptist.

Anyway Daryl, what are you quoting from? Are you going to cover the covenant aspect of their theology? I've found it to be very similar to ours though I believe they rightly put a lot more emphasis on it then we often do.

------------------
Col 3:16; Eph 4:29,32; 2 Cor 7:1

Hi JPS!

My caution icon simply means that I don't want to run ahead of the plan of this study, therefore, please be patient until we get to the part that interests you and also possibly others.

__________________________
In His Love, Mercy & Grace

Daryl

Hi zyph:
== The issue is so deep as to be foundational. All the texts that impact inspiration's revealed teaching about sin are needed. == Did Adam sin because he was sinful? Satan? Neither one had an equipment problem when they were factory-fresh from God's creating hand. Seventh-day Adventism doesn't teach without the most careful qualification that we sin because we are sinful. Actually, we are sinful because we sin. Scripture says we are born with weakened natures (Romans 5:6). But Scripture nowhere says we are "born sinners."
== I think you are being unfair if you mean to suggest that I want only to look at one verse in order to define sin. Never said it. Just balanced what it appeared you were saying.
== The ultimate outworking you suggest is faulty. You suggest that one unconverted can obey by "gritting" one's teeth and be "good," because sin is what we do. Because however "whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), the unconverted cannot render real obedience. (The exception to this is also found in Romans where we find that if the gentile ignorant of God responds morally to his conscience he is not condemned Romans 2-3). You next suggest that the Christian who falls "on the way up" is condemned--all because sin is what we do (i.e. because of a faulty definition of sin). Anyone who sins is not, at that moment at least, on the way up. Sin is sin regardless of one's profession. Sin condemns. Heaven will not hold us responsible for sins of ignorance for which we could not have known, but Jesus paid the penalty for them just the same. Finally you say that if we make a poor decision that results in a bad outcome, it is sin. Sorry. I'm not buying that. I think you mean sincere and non-malicious decisions that end up hurting people. Is that really sin?
== We agree that accountability is very important.
== This "relationship with God" thing is quite the cliché. I wonder what you mean by it. If we obey Him (a non-merit bearing condition) we come into positive relationship with Him.
== Your last sentence (although it is unclear to me what you mean by "relationship") suggests to me that we may be on very different wavelengths.

It sounds to me as if we do not understand sin the same. If you are a Presbyterian then I will understand why, for the Calvinist roots of Presbyterianism are actually Augustinian roots, and Augustinian roots are Manichean roots. And Manichean conception of good and evil arises outside of the Scripture. I have been operating under the assumption that you are SDA.

You state (in another post): "If we can obey--do--outside of faith, then transgression of the law must embrace more than what we do." It is true that we really can't obey outside of faith. But it is not correct to say that because this is true, "the transgression of the law must embrace more than what we do."

B does not follow A. You've made no substantive connection.

But please, let's not be hasty. I pray that nothing I have written above may offend.

Dear Larry,
Instead of trying to guess what I am, I'd rather you tried to hear what I'm saying. And I may not be able to dissect words and phrases, but I can read, and that includes both the Bible and your posts. Sarcasm does offend, so instead of taking offence at your remark (quote), "This "relationship with God" thing is quite the cliché.", I will respond by saying that you sound like you have heard the phrase, but don't understand it. May I refer you to the book in the Old testament entitled Song of Songs, which symbolises the relationship between God and the Christian.
You have made so many statements that I would like to address, and obviously misunderstood the points I was trying to make, so I will try to set this out more clearly.

1. (quote) "Did Adam sin because he was sinful? Satan? Neither one had an equipment problem when they were factory-fresh from God's creating hand."

Response - (quote from my previous posting, with emphasis added) "We sin because we're sinful, don't we? If the equipment worked, AND WE WANTED TO RESIST any sin, don't you think we could? ADAM HAD NO EXCUSE, remember."

Question: Do you agree that the thing which died in Eden was man's capacity to desire God, and that since then all men must be born again to acquire that? If not, what is the new birth?

2. (quote) "But Scripture nowhere says we are "born sinners."

Response - The bible says ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of god. Doesn't that mean the babies as well as the old people? You mentioned sins committed in ignorance - as when a child sins - but they're sins anyway, and if done in ignorance, and the person is not held accountable, they are still sins. Or do you say there is an age when the same action ceases to be a non-sin, and becomes a sin? Or can children not sin?

3. (quote) "You suggest that one unconverted can obey by "gritting" one's teeth and be "good," because sin is what we do. Because however "whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), the unconverted cannot render real obedience."

This is where you've really missed my point. I really didn't murder anyone today. I didn't have to grit my teeth (although there are days when I might have to!!) Your statement "...sin is what we do..." and " If we obey Him (a non-merit bearing condition) we come into positive relationship with Him." surely imply that the opposite is also correct, i.e. obedience is what we do (or perhaps fail to do), and if we disobey him we go out from a positive relationship with Him. If sin is what we do, then the unconverted who can "do" the same actions as the converted have obeyed. If it runs deeper than that - that is, "Whatever is not of faith is sin" - then sin HAS something to do with faith, and not JUST DOING, or actions. Please don't tell me I didn't obey the commandment not to murder today. I did, and it was easy. I merely failed to commit that sin.

The examples I wrote were based on your premise that sin is something we do. They are far from what I believe.

Can you please give me your definition of self-righteousness?

The last thing I want to say - in this hoge-podge of a post - is that if the only way we can relate to God is by obedience, and apparrently it must be total or we're damned, then why is there a parable about the growth of a plant? Does this not apply to development of the Christian?
Zyph.

Easy Zyph, reall, no sarcasm intended. Give me a chance here. As far as guessing what you are, the purpose of my statement is simply that if you are Presbyterian I will approach you in a certain way, but if you are Adventist another approach would be better. I have yet to meet a Presbyterian who immediately picked up on the Adventist concepts, which is understandable for on the point we discuss, they are rather different from each other.
== On the "relationship with God" question, my query was and is quite honest. What is meant by this in your estimation? Can you put it in a fairly concrete form? Song of Solomon is a precious book. Still, I am not sure what you mean when you use it. I am doing a sermon series in a month on "I want to give my heart to Jesus." Now I am not going to leave that as it stands--it is scarcely more than a cliché. What does it mean to give one's heart to Jesus? Unless that is addressed somewhere I will be talking in pretty circles. Same issue.
1.== By the empowerment of God's grace fallen humans can resist sin--any sin, whether hereditary or cultivated. We choose. God gives the power.
== Glad you asked. No, I do not agree that that thing which died in Eden was man's desire to know God. We still have that desire but it is greatly numbed. The new birth is a renewal of life in a person, able to occur only when the Holy Spirit reinvigorates the person.
2. == Sorry. Scripture nowhere says we are born sinners. It does say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Not the same. Children are not morally accountable and no sin is held against them. Neither are rocks or trees. There are two categories here, morally accountable and not morally accountable. We do not baptize infants because the infant cannot make a personal choice for Christ any more than a rosebush can (mind you, this doesn't diminish for a moment the incredible value of the infant before God!).
3. == The unconverted has no new life inside of him--he's on his own. He cannot obey, for real obedience must have in it faith. Still, I cannot see how you have demonstrated in any way a cleavage between sin as choice and sin as operating outside of the realm of faith. Perhaps you found it so easy to not commit murder today because you are a converted person and God gave you the power not to and by acting in faith you didn't.
4. == Self righteousness would be acts done apart from faith that one thinks earn them some kind of salvific brownie points with God. It's a bad thing.

The plant is perfect at each stage of its growth. We could say (if this were a moral category) that it is obeying God by doing what it is supposed to through the life He grants it. I have no problem with this illustration. In fact, I think it is a helpful one and am glad you mentioned it.

Zyph, pardon me if I offended in any way. Our viewpoints up to now appear to have been very different perspectives. The SDA's (we believe) biblically informed conception of sin is strikingly different from that of many Christians and has a very strange look at the first.

It may be that our interaction will proceed better if I either post or email you a document or two that I have on this. Any preference?

May God bless our discussion of His holy Word, and may we be new friends of each other in Christ.
LK

Thought I would go ahead and put thiis up. This is the long one. LK

Collision With Prophecy

Collision With Prophecy #3:
Axe of the Ages

[NOTE: be sure to read the companion document to this sermon, Misunderstood Texts on Sin.]

---

Introduction

Fundamental. Some things are simply fundamental. There are some things that are "showstoppers:" sometimes, so many false ideas have been cast into the stream that unless they are confronted, we simply will not understand. Tonight we are going to look at one such topic. In our last meeting, we looked at
a crucial topic on how God interprets prophecy. Well, tonight when you leave the meeting this evening, I hope that you'll go with sharpened clarity on the point we're about to explore. You see, we can't really understand prophecy unless we get this. We need to look into a question, and we need to do so very lucidly. It's been twisted and spun like a top by thinkers, both the great and the obscure, for thousands of years. Here, as at no other place in our study, we need the plainest "thus saith the Lord." The question we speak of is: "what is sin?"

"But pastor," you might be thinking, "that's an easy one. Don't waste our time there." Well, I will agree with you--if we are talking about what the Bible teaches, then it is easy. But beloved, for a long time certain ideas about sin have been brought to God's Word and an attempt made to graft them onto it. So before we move on, let's pause first and make sure that we haven't swallowed any lies about sin.

---

Sin, Decision, and Prophecy

Definitions are very, very important. So important that whole classes of workers have arisen to deal with definitions: bureaucrats, lawyers, and many others. But it's not just specialists. It's everyone, everyday. We all sort things, and we all define things. When we go to the store and purchase toothpaste, we look at the price. We decide whether what the store is asking for that tube of toothpaste is definable as a good price or a bad one. When you buy gasoline, you don't just zoom to the most expensive gas station in town, do you? No. You think carefully about where you can buy it at the lowest cost. Even when we read, we are dealing with a set of definitions. The word, "yes," and the word, "no," have in our minds, two very different definitions. When you ask someone to marry you, the difference in their answer between "yes" and "no" is very important to you just then. And not just then; consequences of the whole question are life-long. Then there is another word: "divorce." Divorce shows that many people in our world today have different definitions about marriage. Constantly, in many ways that we do not think of, we are sorting. We are thinking. We are making distinctions. We are defining.

Now if you were the devil, you'd be "the father of lies" (John 8:44). And as the father of lies, how interested would you be in definitions? Friends, you cannot lie without definitions! Make no mistake. Definitions are very, very important to us.

But when we come to Bible prophecy how is it? Friends, prophecy is the most symbolic language in the Bible--the most figurative. As such, if we are not careful, it is the most easily twisted. That is, it is probably the easiest part of the Bible to misinterpret, either intentionally or unintentionally. One night during these meetings I'm going to share with you the three main methods or "schools" of prophetic interpretation. You want to talk about lies . . . You are going to be shocked!

But tonight, let's look more closely at our own hearts. Sin is a dangerous topic. Consider this statement from God's Word. In the New Testament, in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, we read:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Why are people sent strong delusion? Verse ten says it's because they refuse to receive a "love of the truth, that they might be saved." But did you notice something here? God sends them strong delusion! That's right! Read it for yourselves. That's what it says.

But the Bible also says that in Him there's "no shadow of turning" (James 1:17), that "God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). And He can't lie. No, there's no darkness in Him. He can see in the darkness, but there's no darkness in Him. Notice very carefully that He sends "strong delusion" only to those who have pleasure in unrighteousness. Those who enjoy sin, are allowed to enjoy it. But in the end they'll be damned. And when we come to this question about sin, we need to be very careful. Because the way we perceive things doesn't necessarily change the way things are. A misunderstanding of sin on our part won't steop it from impacting us just the same.

Don't forget, they refuse to receive a love of the truth. And who is the truth? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the truth, and the Life" (John 14:6). If we don't receive from Jesus, the very Source of truth, then we recieve from Satan, the very source of untruth. Its an either-or thing.

Here are two hearts: one converted, and one unconverted. And we haven't talked much about that yet (but we will). I say to you that the way you or I look at sin will have a lot to do with the state of our hearts. If we are unconverted, we'll prefer a definition of sin that gives us permission, either implicitly or explicitly, to do many things that God says "thou shalt not" too. And I'll go further yet. I believe that the state of your heart determines what assistants you bring with you to your study of the Word.

"What do you mean brother Larry?" Well, I mean that we've been given a free choice. What happens is, God sends strong delusion by honoring our choice of assistants. Either we are receiving the supernatural aid of unfallen angels from God as we think on spiritual things, or we are receiving the aid of fallen angels, demons. Our minds are very weak, and are easily influenced by supernatural beings. I mean, stop and think about it for a minute. Do you know some people who seem like they are always being manipulated by other people? And you can see it but they cannot? people can manipulate other people fairly easily. Is it such a stretch then to think that other beings, smarter than humans, can manipulate us? Come on.

In this world we are never really alone. The angels--good and bad--are always there. They see you. They influence you. Oh yes; Make no mistake; when you are studying the Bible, you have help. But your attitude about sin will determine whether evil angels or holy angels are influencing your mind.

Now let's jump into our topic; what about prophecy and sin? When His disciples asked Jesus about the end-time, He told them to keep their eyes open. His pointed warning was to "take heed that no one deceive you " (Matthew 24:4). The New Testament goes on to point out three special "falses" that we must watch out for: false Christs, false prophets, and false teachers (Matthew 24:11, 24; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Jude, etc.).

But in a special sense, the prophesied danger of the end-times is false teachers. Hear Peter:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Yes--the danger of our day is still of false Christs, and false prophets--but perhaps most especially, it is false teachers. And I hate to say it, but the very reason that tonight's topic is so necessary, is because some of the false teachers so prophesied have already come and tainted the water. They've already come and taken spoils. They've already come and led Christianity into a "sin-and-live" theology. And God knows that before He finishes His work in this earth in the end-time we need to be delivered from this way of thinking about sin. So tonight's topic truly has its place. You will hardly be able to believe what we are going to share during the next few minutes!

So let's look at this. What--according to the Bible--is sin?

(end pt 1)