|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 30, 2011 18:12:52 GMT -8
Hi Vio, I wish I knew how...I don't feel complex.  I could rephrase for you if you point out which question(s) I mis-communicated. But for the sake of not making the current discussion too convoluted, perhaps we can just leave it alone for now so you and Josh's questions and points don't get lost in the mix.  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 30, 2011 18:41:07 GMT -8
Hi Carrie, you wrote: Well, I certainly agree with that. Paul said if we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5) and John said that to loving God is keeping is commandments and they are not burdensome (1Jo 5). But don't you think it would be hard to be a martyr or watch your children killed before your eyes in while carrying out your obedience to Christ? Because that's what obedience means to some Christians in this world, both historically and presently. I am glad you agree that obedience to Christ is a requirement of the faith. But Jesus' light "yoke" is juxtaposed with the Pharisees heavy burdens of the ritual law, He came to give the Jews of His day "rest" from all that. It doesn't mean it's a breeze from here on out. I don't disagree with that either, but something tells me that's not all Crowder is saying. I'll let Josh answer that since he's the one reading Crowders' book. I agree that fear can mean what you're describing, but it's not always the case in the context of some of the verses that use that term. I would encourage you to read chapter 11 of Romans and chapter 10 of Hebrews to see my point. When you read those verses, try replacing the word fear with "reverence" or "admiration". I think you will see it doesn't work all the time. There is a healthy fear of God that the writers of the NT encourage that is related to ceasing to be in right relation to Him. Amen! Anyway, I already feel like I'm taking this discussion off topic so I'm going to let you guys finish it with Josh. Lord bless.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 30, 2011 22:00:27 GMT -8
All I mean was that what matters at the end of the day is what is revealed through serious and thoughtful study of Scripture, not merely our own logic or what sounds too simple or too complex for us. Now who's making things complicated?  Can you please define the difference between "sinning" and sinning as an identity, because if we're doing something morally wrong, it's just plain sin in my book. I will keep reading. |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Dec 1, 2011 9:25:59 GMT -8
Josh wrote: ''All I mean was that what matters at the end of the day is what is revealed through serious and thoughtful study of Scripture, not merely our own logic or what sounds too simple or too complex for us''. All of those are good things and Crowder did his homework just fine. just like you, don't judge what you don't know. The only thing you forgot which is very critical in interpreting the scripture right is REVELATION. and it takes a childlike faith to be able to receive revelation. Yes maybe I should explain what child like faith is. for it usually meant that one must have the "naiveté," "simplicity," or even the "blind resolve" of a child, I found that it involved having confidence in something that was trustworthy (or faithful).The picture that usually comes to the modern mind is one of "simplicity." Children accept everything you tell them, "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:4). Read in context, we see that Jesus is referring to one particular attribute of children that is naturally lost in grown-ups. When he speaks of becoming like a child, Jesus means this: humility. A CHILD LIKE FAITH TAKE NO CREDIT FOR ANYTHING BUT IT GIVES ALL THE CREDIT TO HIS PARENT. We can't do nothing to earn our salvation....it is already given to us on the cross.....there is no ladder to claim.... Read more: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz1fIu60w3Y |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Dec 1, 2011 9:50:45 GMT -8
Chris you didn't mis-communicated, I just a hard time with some of the words.  |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Dec 1, 2011 10:05:38 GMT -8
Josh Wrote ''Now who's making things complicated? Can you please define the difference between "sinning" and sinning as an identity, because if we're doing something morally wrong, it's just plain sin in my book. Read more: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=humannat&thread=3525&page=4#ixzz1fJ4R6veLI may make things complicated. But I said the same thing in so many ways and you still wondering what I am saying?. So i personally believe that this might be the place where revelation comes into place. I can't reveal this things to you. Only God can. yes I do believe that as Christians we should live a life without sin...yes it does take time to renew our minds.....what we talking about here is a matter of positionally theology. Positionally, most believe that they are holy, but sin still have a grip upon their hearts. The idea of a holy and righteous life is simply that---an idea, not a reality. This positional theology leaves holiness and union with Christ in some far--off, unattainable place. This is obviously why so many aren't living holy and happy lives; they don't believe it is a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 9, 2011 18:31:40 GMT -8
Some other statements he makes that are less than accurate or completely missing the other side of the coin:
p. 54
"There is no separate, individual you. Christ has replaced you."
-This denies the truth that God has created us as unique individuals from one another and paradoxically other than him while yet one with him.
p. 56
"it is a myth that Christians must overcome their flesh"
- as already stated, if there is a battle against the old way of thinking, then there is still a battle against the flesh.
A section I like:
"So many people are paranoid of the devil. They attribute so much to him, as if he were God's equal and opposite adversary. As if God and the devil were sitting up in heaven playing chess, wondering who will win.... It is amazing how often I find paranoid Christians. How often am I in the boonies of some random little town and someone says, "Yes, this place is where satan has his headquarters. The throne of satan is in our little town of Swampwater, West Virginia. It's so hard for us here. We have the highest drug and prostitute rate per capita in the entire world. It's really hard for us here. Lots and lots of warfare. We need to blow our shofars harder and wave our worship banners more often tofend off all the attacks!"
;D
be back....
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 9, 2011 18:40:59 GMT -8
Hebrews 10:14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Crowder's take on this passage, by itself, seems possible: that the "being made holy" here simply refers to those who are being initially saved.
I also agree with him to some degree about the pitfalls of 'works' or 'hoop jumping' that occur in Christian 'programs' or 'strategies' like deliverance or inner healing ministries, etc..
p.88
"...Self is nonexistent. The independent self is a deception".
I think statements like these are contradictory in the sense that if we are being deceived, we are being deceived by something not right within us, and if there is something not right within us, it must be a part of our old nature, because it definitely can't be a part of our perfect, new creation self.
I agree with his assertion that soul and spirit are interchangeable terms in the NT, against those who would build complicated systems defining them differently. I don't think we should say that the "soul" is the old man and the "spirit" is the new creation, as some have. To me, the "old man" is best considered a phantom of our old selves (one that we nonetheless have to contend with), while our new creation is now our real soul, mind, and spirit.
Crowder makes a strong case that the New Creation in us is ABSOLUTELY holy, perfect, and free from sin. This is probably a good corrective for the majority theology. But basically where I disagree with him at this point is whether or not we are totally defined by our New Creation or whether there is indeed a battle with the old mind/self. By virtue of the fact that it's even possible for us to sin, I think we cannot be ONLY the new creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Dec 11, 2011 18:16:55 GMT -8
Josh wrote: ''I think statements like these are contradictory in the sense that if we are being deceived, we are being deceived by something not right within us, and if there is something not right within us, it must be a part of our old nature, because it definitely can't be a part of our perfect, new creation self.'' I think is not so much that we are deceived by something, but that we are operating in ways away from God as a source of life. Read more: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz1gHaPuqDa |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 8, 2012 19:03:56 GMT -8
Well, it's not impossible for us to be deceived, or else we wouldn't have been warned numerous times in the NT not to be deceived (2 Cor. 11:3, 1 Cor. 6:9, James 1:16) so I think it's a very real possibility that we can be led into sin by satan's deception.
On another note, I was reading in Hebrews and this stood out to me:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
The message is to believers here, and the author says that it is easy for the believer to get entangled in sin, which seems strange to me if the sum total of our existence is supposed to be our new creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 9, 2012 11:40:59 GMT -8
I think a lot of the confusion surrounding this issue stems from a mistaken concept of our very nature and what exactly happens when we become believers.
I know I've probably already beaten this point to death in other threads and discussions about this topic, but I have to say again that I don't believe the concepts of a New Creation vs. Sin Nature or Old Self vs. New Self as some sort of mystical individual phenomenon are even taught in the bible. And I believe that this is where the main part of the confusion lies.
I agree with what NT Wright and Steve Gregg would say about these concepts, that they are meant to be taken corporately. The bible translators that translate the word Anthropos as "self" instead of "man" mislead a lot of people IMO to believe that Paul is talking about them personally rather than humanity in general.
Steve would contend (and I would agree) that the Old Man is humanity represented by Adam (with his deeds) and the New Man is the new humanity represented by Christ (with His deeds), and that we are to put off the former and put on the latter (spoken in the imperative by Paul, not something that is automatic at conversion). (Rom 6, Eph 4, Col 3)
Wright would contend that New Creation in 2 Cor 5 isn't speaking of an individual being made into a new creation (in fact the Greek barely allows it), but that Christ is the first of a New Creation order (that God is presently taking humanity towards) and we are a part of that creation when we are in Him by faith. And insofar as we are walking in the Spirit that is now in us, we are putting off the works of the flesh and putting on the works of Christ. But we know from both scripture and experience that we don't always choose to do that.
So in relation to this discussion, it is true that in Christ we are part of a "New Creation", but we are also fundamentally the same person with the same flesh so the same old weaknesses apply. So with that in mind, we have one foot in each "world" so to speak. God is bringing about His new creation closer and closer as each of us learns to obediently walk in the Spirit IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 9, 2012 20:01:58 GMT -8
Honestly I don't remember you ever making this particular point. One of us must be losing his memory ;D (and you are the older one... ) I feel like I should know, but where in N.T. Wright does he deal with this specifically? And what do you mean by the Greek barely allows it? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 9, 2012 21:57:40 GMT -8
Oooooohhh.....I knew you were going to ask me that  Man, that's a tough one because I've listened to every NT Wright podcast I could get my hands on and I know I heard him make the point audibly rather than read it. However, I bet it may be in the famous John 20 resurrection lecture he gave about "New Creation". I honestly can't give you the exact source, but I bet he's also written about it as well. He belabors the point that the the English translators of the passage in 2 Cor add the words "he is" before "a new creation". So in pure original it would read "...if anyone is in Christ a new creation...". I'd be curious to know how your new NT Wright translation has it. I'm guessing he would have corrected that given his theology. Also, I'm sure we've had this discussion about "anthropos" (old man, new man) when talking about the NIV and other modern dynamic translations versus the literal translations. I may be older, but I don't think my memory is failing me on that point  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 9, 2012 22:53:55 GMT -8
Sounds vaguely familiar. It's probably me who's forgotten. Have you seen how many gray hairs I've gotten in the last year....
hey maybe that's a first for 2011!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 10, 2012 17:16:59 GMT -8
Wright renders it:
"Thus, if anyone is in the Messiah, there is a new creation! Old things have gone, and look-- everything has become new!"
While it does deemphasize the "he", it still says "anyone" and "a" new creation, so I guess I don't get how you can escape at least some individual focus here.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 10, 2012 17:42:09 GMT -8
Very interesting wording. He definitely (and I'd say intentionally) leaves room for a corporate interpretation there.
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Jan 13, 2012 12:24:32 GMT -8
You guys are making me mad. I read this on Sunday and just re-read it again and I thought I had calmed down, but I can feel my blood-pressure rising again. Don't you guys see what Crowder is asking you to be? He is asking you to be an arrogant Christian. He is telling you that if you believe his version of conversion you will understand the scriptures better than the 99% of Christians 99% of church history have held. . He is saying that these are the only right answers: Question: 'If I don't have a sinful nature, why do I still sin?' A) Maybe you're an unbeliever B)Maybe no one ever told you any of this For most of you reading this, option A is not true for you. You're a Christian. Obviously, an unbeliever does still live by the false identity as a 'sinner'. However, it is possible that you never actually heard or believed the gospel, even though you clocked into church for decades. I belonged to a church/sect/cult that taught that Witness Lee was God's oracle for our century (the last one) and that he was Recovering the truth that was lost to the church's. What was hidden from the Church because of their sins (described in the first few chapters of Revelation) was now being revealed to God's elect. I was special, I was part of God's elect. I was an arrogant Christian. Please don't be an arrogant Christian! I think it's great that you gleaned some encouragement from Crowder's preaching and his book. But now move on. Just because some of it is good does not mean you have to defend all of it. Even Mormonism has its positive aspects. Did you know that they require their members to set aside one evening a week to specifically spend time with their family. How many people do this? But are you gonna defend the rest of it? When I realized what I had been in, how it was wrong for me to have been taught that to believe the Local Church was superior to other churches, that I knew more about God's desires than them because I believed something different, my prayer to God was "I just want to be a normal Christian". I wanted to believe what the 99% believed and I honestly did not know what it was. I had been told what "they" believed and I knew by then that I had been misinformed. Crowder is telling his readers that though they have sat through church for many years they have not heard the true gospel. This is how cults get started! This is what I have to say for now and Josh you mentioned a quote in one of your more recent posts that I need to go off on. I'll be back.... and actually I feel better now... |
|
Can you please define the difference between "sinning" and sinning as an identity, because if we're doing something morally wrong, it's just plain sin in my book.
