Devotional: The Importance of Confession

[electedbyHim]

October 3

The Importance of Confession​

“If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

Confession is the first step toward defeating sin.

It is often true that the hardest part of dealing with a problem is admitting that you have one. Beginning with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:11-13), people have denied responsibility for their sins, and our generation is no exception. To acknowledge that one is a sinner, guilty of breaking God’s holy law, is not popular. People call sin by a myriad of other names, futilely hoping to define it out of existence. They do so, motivated by their innate awareness that there is a moral law and that there are consequences for violating it (Rom. 1:32).

But God’s people have always recognized the necessity of confession. After committing the terrible sins of adultery and murder, David acknowledged to Nathan the prophet, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:13). Later he cried out to God, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Thy sight” (Ps. 51:3-4). Faced with a vision of the awesome majesty and holiness of God, Isaiah declared, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5). Daniel was a man of unparalleled integrity, yet part of his prayer life involved confessing his sin (Dan. 9:20). Peter, the acknowledged leader of the apostles, said to Jesus, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8). The apostle Paul, the godliest man who ever lived (except for Jesus Christ), wrote this about himself: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Tim. 1:15).

The examples of those godly men illustrate a fundamental biblical truth: constant confession of sin characterizes true Christians (1 John 1:9). Those who claim to be believers but refuse to confess their sins deceive themselves (1 John 1:8) and make God a liar (1 John 1:10).

Suggestions for Prayer

Confess and forsake your sins today, and experience the blessedness of God’s forgiveness (Prov. 28:13).

For Further Study

Read and meditate on Nehemiah’s masterful prayer of confession in Nehemiah 1.


From Strength for Today by John MacArthur

 

[Vinny37]

October 3

The Importance of Confession​

“If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

Confession is the first step toward defeating sin.

It is often true that the hardest part of dealing with a problem is admitting that you have one. Beginning with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:11-13), people have denied responsibility for their sins, and our generation is no exception. To acknowledge that one is a sinner, guilty of breaking God’s holy law, is not popular. People call sin by a myriad of other names, futilely hoping to define it out of existence. They do so, motivated by their innate awareness that there is a moral law and that there are consequences for violating it (Rom. 1:32).

But God’s people have always recognized the necessity of confession. After committing the terrible sins of adultery and murder, David acknowledged to Nathan the prophet, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:13). Later he cried out to God, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Thy sight” (Ps. 51:3-4). Faced with a vision of the awesome majesty and holiness of God, Isaiah declared, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5). Daniel was a man of unparalleled integrity, yet part of his prayer life involved confessing his sin (Dan. 9:20). Peter, the acknowledged leader of the apostles, said to Jesus, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Luke 5:8). The apostle Paul, the godliest man who ever lived (except for Jesus Christ), wrote this about himself: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (1 Tim. 1:15).

The examples of those godly men illustrate a fundamental biblical truth: constant confession of sin characterizes true Christians (1 John 1:9). Those who claim to be believers but refuse to confess their sins deceive themselves (1 John 1:8) and make God a liar (1 John 1:10).

Suggestions for Prayer

Confess and forsake your sins today, and experience the blessedness of God’s forgiveness (Prov. 28:13).

For Further Study

Read and meditate on Nehemiah’s masterful prayer of confession in Nehemiah 1.


From Strength for Today by John MacArthur

I rather like Peter Gillquist’s Love is Now. Chapter 4 is An Obsession with Confession. Now, Christian confessing of sins to God can be underdone, but it can also be overdone and wrongly done. Take 1 Jhn.1:9-10. The Greek verbs are in the aorist, effectively an emphatic do-once, like water-baptism, not like the eucharist. In short, John called on non-Christians bound by gnostic type denial of core-sin, to one-off acknowledge their sin and become Christians: God would one-off (aorist) forgive them (ie welcome them into his family).

I’d take 1 Tm.1:15 as a present tense with a past meaning. After all, Paul could not know what every Christian heart was like, nor did he call Christians sinners, but he did know that he had bitterly persecuted the church (1 Cor.15:9). It kills me in my FIEC when fellow Christians confess to being the chief of sinners (as if vying with Paul’s pre-Christian title). 1 Tm.1:16 moved to a past action—not “I receive” but “I received”. Paul stood (present tense) as an extreme example of one who had received (past tense) mercy. “While we were sinners” (Rm.5:8). The torah was for ‘sinners’ (1 Tm.1:9).

There is a family difference between non-Christians evangelistically sinners, and Christians pastorally sinners—between sinners who sin and saints who sin. In Christ we are the holy ones. Pastorally, if we stray into sin it sometimes makes sense to confess as much to our father—and perhaps to fellow human beings we’ve wronged.

BTW, 2 Sam.12:13 was to the LORD, not to the Lord. That later error can lead to or flow from Sabellianism, the heresy that Yeshua the lord is a face of Yahweh.

 

[electedbyHim]

I rather like Peter Gillquist’s Love is Now. Chapter 4 is An Obsession with Confession. Now, Christian confessing of sins to God can be underdone, but it can also be overdone and wrongly done. Take 1 Jhn.1:9-10. The Greek verbs are in the aorist, effectively an emphatic do-once, like water-baptism, not like the eucharist. In short, John called on non-Christians bound by gnostic type denial of core-sin, to one-off acknowledge their sin and become Christians: God would one-off (aorist) forgive them (ie welcome them into his family).

I’d take 1 Tm.1:15 as a present tense with a past meaning. After all, Paul could not know what every Christian heart was like, nor did he call Christians sinners, but he did know that he had bitterly persecuted the church (1 Cor.15:9). It kills me in my FIEC when fellow Christians confess to being the chief of sinners (as if vying with Paul’s pre-Christian title). 1 Tm.1:16 moved to a past action—not “I receive” but “I received”. Paul stood (present tense) as an extreme example of one who had received (past tense) mercy. “While we were sinners” (Rm.5:8). The torah was for ‘sinners’ (1 Tm.1:9).

There is a family difference between non-Christians evangelistically sinners, and Christians pastorally sinners—between sinners who sin and saints who sin. In Christ we are the holy ones. Pastorally, if we stray into sin it sometimes makes sense to confess as much to our father—and perhaps to fellow human beings we’ve wronged.

BTW, 2 Sam.12:13 was to the LORD, not to the Lord. That later error can lead to or flow from Sabellianism, the heresy that Yeshua the lord is a face of Yahweh.

I am certain Paul knew the heart of the unregenerate and the regenerate.

A study of his epistles shows this, especially in the book of Romans and Galatians.

Romasn 7, in particulair shows the struggle of a mature Christian.

I believe as a Christian we need to confess any known sin at any time in our walk, I do not believe it is 1 confession and now your done.

Pretty sure others will chime in with their thoughts as well.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I rather like Peter Gillquist’s Love is Now. Chapter 4 is An Obsession with Confession. Now, Christian confessing of sins to God can be underdone, but it can also be overdone and wrongly done. Take 1 Jhn.1:9-10. The Greek verbs are in the aorist, effectively an emphatic do-once, like water-baptism, not like the eucharist. In short, John called on non-Christians bound by gnostic type denial of core-sin, to one-off acknowledge their sin and become Christians: God would one-off (aorist) forgive them (ie welcome them into his family).

I’d take 1 Tm.1:15 as a present tense with a past meaning. After all, Paul could not know what every Christian heart was like, nor did he call Christians sinners, but he did know that he had bitterly persecuted the church (1 Cor.15:9). It kills me in my FIEC when fellow Christians confess to being the chief of sinners (as if vying with Paul’s pre-Christian title). 1 Tm.1:16 moved to a past action—not “I receive” but “I received”. Paul stood (present tense) as an extreme example of one who had received (past tense) mercy. “While we were sinners” (Rm.5:8). The torah was for ‘sinners’ (1 Tm.1:9).

There is a family difference between non-Christians evangelistically sinners, and Christians pastorally sinners—between sinners who sin and saints who sin. In Christ we are the holy ones. Pastorally, if we stray into sin it sometimes makes sense to confess as much to our father—and perhaps to fellow human beings we’ve wronged.

BTW, 2 Sam.12:13 was to the LORD, not to the Lord. That later error can lead to or flow from Sabellianism, the heresy that Yeshua the lord is a face of Yahweh.

As long as you think saints commit sin. you will never be free from sin.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I am certain Paul knew the heart of the unregenerate and the regenerate.

A study of his epistles shows this, especially in the book of Romans and Galatians.

Romasn 7, in particulair shows the struggle of a mature Christian.

I believe as a Christian we need to confess any known sin at any time in our walk, I do not believe it is 1 confession and now your done.

Pretty sure others will chime in with their thoughts as well.

Grace and peace to you.

Rom 7 shows what Paul, as a man in the flesh, and a Jew trying unsuccessfully by the Law to please God, was desperately trying to flee.
His conversion to Christianity provided all the answers he once sought.
Rom 7:23's plaint is answered in Rom 8:2
Complaint...Rom 7:23..."But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
Answer...Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Rom 7:24's complaint is answered in Rom 6:6.
Complaint...Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"
Answer..."Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

If men are still sinning, they have not been freed from the law of sin and death.
If men are still sinning, they still have a body that was not destroyed with Jesus'.

 

[Free]

Take 1 Jhn.1:9-10. The Greek verbs are in the aorist, effectively an emphatic do-once, like water-baptism, not like the eucharist. In short, John called on non-Christians bound by gnostic type denial of core-sin, to one-off acknowledge their sin and become Christians: God would one-off (aorist) forgive them (ie welcome them into his family).

Which verbs? In 1 John 1:9, the verb for “we confess” is in the present subjunctive active, which means John is actually saying “If we keep on confessing our sins.” Note also that sin is plural, indicating both specific and general confession, according to M. R. Vincent.

John is talking about the need for believers to be continually confessing their sins. He is including himself in that as well, as the continual use of “we,” “us,” and “our” from verse 1 onward indicate.

 

[Vinny37]

Which verbs? In 1 John 1:9, the verb for “we confess” is in the present subjunctive active, which means John is actually saying “If we keep on confessing our sins.” Note also that sin is plural, indicating both specific and general confession, according to M. R. Vincent.

John is talking about the need for believers to be continually confessing their sins. He is including himself in that as well, as the continual use of “we,” “us,” and “our” from verse 1 onward indicate.

My previous post was to summarise John’s gist as I see it, not to say that all his verbs were aorist, but my ref. should have been to vv8-10, not simply the aorists of v9. Their denials (say/claim: 8&10) were in the emphatic aorist: I take them as confessing wrong belief. But if (subj) they would have changed what they confessed/said, then they would have had an emphatic one-off conversion (aorist).

Here’s something from my old college notes.

John did not teach that children of the light were impeccable (Lat. in = not; peccare = to sin) but did teach that sin was contrary to the light. Fellowship with the light would rub off in lifestyle – moral purification (v7) was ongoing based on walking in the light; Christians & non‑Christians out of fellowship with the light would not be living by the light.[1] Only folly claimed sinlessness, and is in line with Gnosticism, which worked on the idea that the ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikoi) possessed the light particles from the ultimate deity and that what their bodies did (the only sin was spiritual ignorance) didn’t matter. In v8-10 the tenses of say (ειπωμεν: 8&10) & forgiveness/purification (αφῃ/καθαρισῃ: 9) are aorist (unlike v7’s καθαριζει), with perhaps the idea of initial confession/purification: ie becoming a Christian, ‘we’ operating as ‘we human beings’, not ‘we Christians’. There is evidence elsewhere that churches weren’t only composed of bona fide Christians (eg 1 Jhn.2:19): “this surely implies the doctrine of ‘the church invisible’ though that terminology is centuries later” (Leon Morris: NBC 1997:1403.A). Biblically, the third claim was patently false and showed the importance placed by John in Scripture.

---

[1] This is not to deny that even atheists can (illogically) live very upright lives. John was addressing a situation of folk living evil lives yet illogically claiming to be living according to the light.

 

[Hopeful 2]

My previous post was to summarise John’s gist as I see it, not to say that all his verbs were aorist, but my ref. should have been to vv8-10, not simply the aorists of v9. Their denials (say/claim: 8&10) were in the emphatic aorist: I take them as confessing wrong belief. But if (subj) they would have changed what they confessed/said, then they would have had an emphatic one-off conversion (aorist).

Here’s something from my old college notes.

John did not teach that children of the light were impeccable (Lat. in = not; peccare = to sin) but did teach that sin was contrary to the light. Fellowship with the light would rub off in lifestyle – moral purification (v7) was ongoing based on walking in the light; Christians & non‑Christians out of fellowship with the light would not be living by the light.[1] Only folly claimed sinlessness, and is in line with Gnosticism, which worked on the idea that the ‘spiritual’ (pneumatikoi) possessed the light particles from the ultimate deity and that what their bodies did (the only sin was spiritual ignorance) didn’t matter. In v8-10 the tenses of say (ειπωμεν: 8&10) & forgiveness/purification (αφῃ/καθαρισῃ: 9) are aorist (unlike v7’s καθαριζει), with perhaps the idea of initial confession/purification: ie becoming a Christian, ‘we’ operating as ‘we human beings’, not ‘we Christians’. There is evidence elsewhere that churches weren’t only composed of bona fide Christians (eg 1 Jhn.2:19): “this surely implies the doctrine of ‘the church invisible’ though that terminology is centuries later” (Leon Morris: NBC 1997:1403.A). Biblically, the third claim was patently false and showed the importance placed by John in Scripture.

---

[1] This is not to deny that even atheists can (illogically) live very upright lives. John was addressing a situation of folk living evil lives yet illogically claiming to be living according to the light.

I liked your last line.
Do you know who is actually walking in the light ?
It is those from 1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

Sinners are never in God...the light.

 

[Vinny37]

I liked your last line.
Do you know who is actually walking in the light ?
It is those from 1 John 2:3-6..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."
Sinners are never in God...the light.

John spoke in different ways to different Churchians. John spoke of Christians—men, women, and children—walking in the light. They were—using the motif of [blood] to mean the ongoing action of the cross (blood being metonymy for death: Rm.5:9-10)—being cleansed from the stains of sin as they fellowshipped obediently as church within the father. The Greek tenses of 1 Jhn.1:7 indicate ongoingness. This group were true believers within that church, walking in the light (I take that as moral light), and fellowshipping with their fellow believers, and being looked after (cleansed) in the background.

Then John addressed a different “If we are like…” to a different set of Churchians, non-Christians confused about sin and needing the aorist cleansing of conversion.

 

[Hopeful 2]

John spoke in different ways to different Churchians. John spoke of Christians—men, women, and children—walking in the light. They were—using the motif of [blood] to mean the ongoing action of the cross (blood being metonymy for death: Rm.5:9-10)—being cleansed from the stains of sin as they fellowshipped obediently as church within the father. The Greek tenses of 1 Jhn.1:7 indicate ongoingness. This group were true believers within that church, walking in the light (I take that as moral light), and fellowshipping with their fellow believers, and being looked after (cleansed) in the background.

You should "take it" the way it was written.
"God is light and in Him is no sin".
If we are in Him, how can we also be in sin ?
Any ongoing cleansing would show that one was not in the light-God, at all.

Then John addressed a different “If we are like…” to a different set of Churchians, non-Christians confused about sin and needing the aorist cleansing of conversion.

We do agree that sinners are non-Christians.

 

[Vinny37]

You should "take it" the way it was written.
"God is light and in Him is no sin".
If we are in Him, how can we also be in sin ?
Any ongoing cleansing would show that one was not in the light-God, at all.

We do agree that sinners are non-Christians.

We agree that ‘sinners’ is both a general term for non-Christians, and that sinners sin. We do not agree that ‘saints’ is both a general term for Christians and that saints sin. James compared Christians to trees & springs, neither of which could act against their nature. Nor ought saints, but having freewill, like Sonny in I Robot they can choose not to obey their new nature (Jas.3:9), their in-Godness.

I maintain a distinction between evangelic sinners (may they become saints) and pastoral sinners (may they live as saints ought). I deny that here is a light-god, or any kind of god or goddess, period. I maintain that such talk is outmoded, and that strict monotheistic talk forsakes it: God is light; God is not a light-god; God is the source of morality (light).

There is an ongoing cleansing (the Greek tense in 1 Jhn.1:7): those walking in the light are Christians, and John spoke of them having ongoing cleaning. I once listed from the NIV79 (?), all Paul’s mentions in Galatians and Ephesians, of vices to be avoided and virtues to be embraced. There were I think 40 terms on both sides, but what hit me most was that these Letters were to Christians. In general, as Christians we have and are to put off the old Adamic, and put on the new Adamic nature, allowing God to renew our minds. And on Greek tenses, we can also see that we have been crucified, but are to daily put to death the old Adam of the soul.

 

[Hopeful 2]

We agree that ‘sinners’ is both a general term for non-Christians, and that sinners sin.

OK.

We do not agree that ‘saints’ is both a general term for Christians and that saints sin.

I don't believe that saints commit sin.

James compared Christians to trees & springs, neither of which could act against their nature. Nor ought saints, but having freewill, like Sonny in I Robot they can choose not to obey their new nature (Jas.3:9), their in-Godness.

Saints use their freewill to please our God that saved them.

I maintain a distinction between evangelic sinners (may they become saints) and pastoral sinners (may they live as saints ought).

I maintain no distinction.
Sinners walk in darkness, and saints walk in the light.

I deny that here is a light-god, or any kind of god or goddess, period.

Me too.
However, it is written..."This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)
If we are walking in the light, we are, in effect, walking in God.

I maintain that such talk is outmoded, and that strict monotheistic talk forsakes it: God is light; God is not a light-god; God is the source of morality (light).

I'm not sure of what you are referring to .

There is an ongoing cleansing (the Greek tense in 1 Jhn.1:7):

No, there isn't.
One has to be clean to be in God, the light, in the first place !

those walking in the light are Christians, and John spoke of them having ongoing cleaning.

You have misread it or misinterpreted it.
If one has confessed their sin, and been cleansed of it, the only way they would sin again is if they left the light-God.

I once listed from the NIV79 (?), all Paul’s mentions in Galatians and Ephesians, of vices to be avoided and virtues to be embraced. There were I think 40 terms on both sides, but what hit me most was that these Letters were to Christians.

I wasn't a Christian the first few time I read any of those exhortations.
They did make me aware of where I was headed.

In general, as Christians we have and are to put off the old Adamic, and put on the new Adamic nature, allowing God to renew our minds.

Thanks be to God that Paul told us how to do that in Romans 6:3-6: with the result spelled out in verse 7 !
Rom 6:7..."For he that is dead is freed from sin."

And on Greek tenses, we can also see that we have been crucified, but are to daily put to death the old Adam of the soul.

If we have been crucified with Christ, with the affections and lusts, (Gal 5:24), why would we need to keep killing the old man ?
We can, however, keep it dead !

 

[Vinny37]

OK...

Vinny37 said: “We do not agree that ‘saints’ is both a general term for Christians and that saints sin.”

I don’t believe that saints commit sin. {That’s what I said we don’t agree about.}

Vinny37 said: “James compared Christians to trees & springs, neither of which could act against their nature. Nor ought saints, but having freewill, like Sonny in I Robot they can choose not to obey their new nature (Jas.3:9), their in-Godness.”

Saints use their freewill to please our god that saved them. {Saints have no god. Let’s not hide the polytheism by a false capital. But saints don’t always choose to please God.}

Vinny37 said: “I maintain a distinction between evangelic sinners (may they become saints) and pastoral sinners (may they live as saints ought).”

I maintain no distinction. Sinners walk in darkness, and saints walk in the light. {I was well aware you hold Perfectionism.}

Vinny37 said: “I deny that there is a light-god, or any kind of god or goddess, period.”

Me too. However, it is written... “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5) If we are walking in the light, we are, in effect, walking in God. {This is repetition. We both know these texts, but differently interpret their application.}

Vinny37 said: “I maintain that such talk is outmoded, and that strict monotheistic talk forsakes it: God is light; God is not a light-god; God is the source of morality (light).”

I’m not sure of what you are referring to. {It references polytheistic terminology, now long outmoded, which speaks as if God is a god among at least one other god. I flinch as such talk, common enough in my local FIEC church where I commonly flinch.}

Vinny37 said: “There is an ongoing cleansing (the Greek tense in 1 Jhn.1:7).”

No, there isn’t. One has to be clean to be in God, the light, in the first place! {Please address your disagreement here to John over his grammar, not to me.}

Vinny37 said: “Those walking in the light are Christians, and John spoke of them having ongoing cleaning.”

You have misread it or misinterpreted it. If one has confessed their sin, and been cleansed of it, the only way they would sin again is if they left the light-God. {Again, there is no kind of god. “We do not even believe in a god—for this would imply a possible or conceivable multiplication of gods—but only in God” (George Tyrrell’s Lex Orandi, 1903:76). More below.}

Vinny37 said: “I once listed from the NIV79 (?), all Paul’s mentions in Galatians and Ephesians, of vices to be avoided and virtues to be embraced. There were I think 40 terms on both sides, but what hit me most was that these Letters were to Christians.”

I wasn’t a Christian the first few time I read any of those exhortations. They did make me aware of where I was headed. {Whatever blessing you derived, in point of fact they were to Christians: consider their pastoral implication.}

Vinny37 said: “In general, as Christians we have and are to put off the old Adamic, and put on the new Adamic nature, allowing God to renew our minds.”

Thanks be to God that Paul told us how to do that in Rm.6:3-6: with the result spelled out in verse 7!

Rm.6:7... “For he [or she] that is dead is freed from sin.” {One aspect of truth does not another negate. More below.}

Vinny37 said: “And on Greek tenses, we can also see that we have been crucified, but are to daily put to death the old Adam of the soul.”

If we have been crucified with Christ, with the affections and lusts, (Gal.5:24), why would we need to keep killing the old man? We can, however, keep it dead! {The ‘old man’ does sound like someone’s husband, but admittedly some husbands are archaic? More below.}]

Perfectionism usually has two gateways: either immediate subsequence at conversion (are you saying that from the point of conversion you’ve never sinned?), or later subsequent to conversion: John Wesley pondered the texts but eventually decided against Perfectionism—facts speak louder than ideas? He saw that the imperatives were about maturity, not sinlessness. But if as you say, all Christians are sinless, this would show that 1 Jhn.8-10 was not written to Christians, as I say though on different reasoning.

I think the texts sometimes deemed supportive of Perfectionism are better exegeted another way in a general line with other scripture. A quote from The Father’s Gone Global (Steve Hakes, 2023:152):

[Let’s see how the Greek words for cross and death can relate to us.[1]

1# Gal.5:24: We have decisively crucified our former nature.

2# Rm.6:6: Our former nature has been decisively crucified.

3# Gal.2:19-20/6:14: We live in results of having been crucified.

4# Col.3:5: We must decisively part from our former nature.

5# Rm.8:13: We must daily be putting to death our former nature.

We can construct something like this from this data, both evangelistic and existential. Our acceptance of Christ was our initial decision which crucified the life we had lived (1#), which God has spiritually cut us off from (2#). Subsequently the life we live in Christ is based on the result of this crucifixion (3#), yet the former life seeks to get back into dominance. We ought not give it even an inch lest it become a ruler (4#), and this decision must be renewed daily (5#). It’s a mixture of us and God having done (evangelistic), and having still to do (pastoral). No text tells the full story. The cross was like a door from the darkness into the light: we are to live in the light, rejecting the repeated calls from the darkness. Remember Lot’s wife!]

---

[1] These words are:
1# Cross-crucifixion: εσταυρωσαν/estaurōsan aorist indicative active
2# Cross-crucifixion: συνεσταυρωθη/sunestaurōthē aorist indicative passive
3# Cross-crucifixion: συνεσταυωμαι/sunestaurōmai perfect indicative passive
4# Death: νεκρωσατε/nekrōsate aorist imperative
5# Death: θανατουτε/thanatoute present indicative active

 

[Hopeful 2]

Vinny37 said: “We do not agree that ‘saints’ is both a general term for Christians and that saints sin.”
I don’t believe that saints commit sin. {That’s what I said we don’t agree about.}

A comma in the right place may have prevented any misunderstanding.

Vinny37 said: “James compared Christians to trees & springs, neither of which could act against their nature. Nor ought saints, but having freewill, like Sonny in I Robot they can choose not to obey their new nature (Jas.3:9), their in-Godness.”
Saints use their freewill to please our god that saved them. {Saints have no god. Let’s not hide the polytheism by a false capital. But saints don’t always choose to please God.}

I disagree.
Saints have THE God, and always obey Him.

Vinny37 said: “I maintain a distinction between evangelic sinners (may they become saints) and pastoral sinners (may they live as saints ought).”
I maintain no distinction. Sinners walk in darkness, and saints walk in the light. {I was well aware you hold Perfectionism.}

It seems you are replying to your own post ???

Vinny37 said: “I deny that there is a light-god, or any kind of god or goddess, period.”

Me too. However, it is written... “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5) If we are walking in the light, we are, in effect, walking in God. {This is repetition. We both know these texts, but differently interpret their application.}

Now I am sure of it.

Vinny37 said: “I maintain that such talk is outmoded, and that strict monotheistic talk forsakes it: God is light; God is not a light-god; God is the source of morality (light).”

I’m not sure of what you are referring to. {It references polytheistic terminology, now long outmoded, which speaks as if God is a god among at least one other god. I flinch as such talk, common enough in my local FIEC church where I commonly flinch.}

Vinny37 said: “There is an ongoing cleansing (the Greek tense in 1 Jhn.1:7).”

No, there isn’t. One has to be clean to be in God, the light, in the first place! {Please address your disagreement here to John over his grammar, not to me.}

Vinny37 said: “Those walking in the light are Christians, and John spoke of them having ongoing cleaning.”

You have misread it or misinterpreted it. If one has confessed their sin, and been cleansed of it, the only way they would sin again is if they left the light-God. {Again, there is no kind of god. “We do not even believe in a god—for this would imply a possible or conceivable multiplication of gods—but only in God” (George Tyrrell’s Lex Orandi, 1903:76). More below.}

Vinny37 said: “I once listed from the NIV79 (?), all Paul’s mentions in Galatians and Ephesians, of vices to be avoided and virtues to be embraced. There were I think 40 terms on both sides, but what hit me most was that these Letters were to Christians.”

I wasn’t a Christian the first few time I read any of those exhortations. They did make me aware of where I was headed. {Whatever blessing you derived, in point of fact they were to Christians: consider their pastoral implication.}

Vinny37 said: “In general, as Christians we have and are to put off the old Adamic, and put on the new Adamic nature, allowing God to renew our minds.”

Thanks be to God that Paul told us how to do that in Rm.6:3-6: with the result spelled out in verse 7!

Rm.6:7... “For he [or she] that is dead is freed from sin.” {One aspect of truth does not another negate. More below.}

Vinny37 said: “And on Greek tenses, we can also see that we have been crucified, but are to daily put to death the old Adam of the soul.”

If we have been crucified with Christ, with the affections and lusts, (Gal.5:24), why would we need to keep killing the old man? We can, however, keep it dead! {The ‘old man’ does sound like someone’s husband, but admittedly some husbands are archaic? More below.}]

Perfectionism usually has two gateways: either immediate subsequence at conversion (are you saying that from the point of conversion you’ve never sinned?), or later subsequent to conversion: John Wesley pondered the texts but eventually decided against Perfectionism—facts speak louder than ideas? He saw that the imperatives were about maturity, not sinlessness. But if as you say, all Christians are sinless, this would show that 1 Jhn.8-10 was not written to Christians, as I say though on different reasoning.

I think the texts sometimes deemed supportive of Perfectionism are better exegeted another way in a general line with other scripture. A quote from The Father’s Gone Global (Steve Hakes, 2023:152):

[Let’s see how the Greek words for cross and death can relate to us.[1]

1# Gal.5:24: We have decisively crucified our former nature.

2# Rm.6:6: Our former nature has been decisively crucified.

3# Gal.2:19-20/6:14: We live in results of having been crucified.

4# Col.3:5: We must decisively part from our former nature.

5# Rm.8:13: We must daily be putting to death our former nature.

We can construct something like this from this data, both evangelistic and existential. Our acceptance of Christ was our initial decision which crucified the life we had lived (1#), which God has spiritually cut us off from (2#). Subsequently the life we live in Christ is based on the result of this crucifixion (3#), yet the former life seeks to get back into dominance. We ought not give it even an inch lest it become a ruler (4#), and this decision must be renewed daily (5#). It’s a mixture of us and God having done (evangelistic), and having still to do (pastoral). No text tells the full story. The cross was like a door from the darkness into the light: we are to live in the light, rejecting the repeated calls from the darkness. Remember Lot’s wife!]

---

[1] These words are:
1# Cross-crucifixion: εσταυρωσαν/estaurōsan aorist indicative active
2# Cross-crucifixion: συνεσταυρωθη/sunestaurōthē aorist indicative passive
3# Cross-crucifixion: συνεσταυωμαι/sunestaurōmai perfect indicative passive
4# Death: νεκρωσατε/nekrōsate aorist imperative
5# Death: θανατουτε/thanatoute present indicative active