Growth No Shame!

[netchaplain]

If our faith in the efficacy of Christ’s expiation for the sins of the believer is where it should be, there can be no room for shame. Shame in the believer can reveal a misunderstanding in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus’ full atonement, which is applied at rebirth.

It is completely understandable for the Christian in the outset to feel shame while the presence and workings of the “old man” are progressively realized, but continuing in the shame of it is the result of falling short in the comprehension of two vital elements; the regenerate one will continue to possess sin due to the sin source (old man); and the understanding that sinning (unintentionally) is expected, otherwise there is a prideful hindrance in the learning of God’s Word in the denying of these.

The heart and mind of the believer are to be joyous (as much as lies within us) “in the Lord” (Phil 4:4), which is impossible when beholding a guilt and sadness from sin. This will consistently hinder the thoughtfulness of all we are to be contemplating (v 8). Shame and remorse are rightfully expected during the initial revelation of our sinfulness, but as we (those born again) progress in the paces of the Spirit’s teaching of His Word, we are to eventually understand that God’s forgiveness completely clears one of guilt and shame, for His way is that we are not to be in sin (Rom 8:9)—though sin be in us.

An incomplete (but not absence) understanding concerning God’s forgiveness in Christ presents a veil against a heart of assurance, for if there be forgiveness what place has shame? Where should there be shame when sin (again, unintentional) is foreknown and expected? Otherwise it would be the same as God saying to the believer, “Shame on you for your sin?” Is it to humble one's self in retaining shame for the guilt of sin, which would present an incomplete propitiation; or is it to accept Christ's propitiatory work for a life which has been cleared of the guilt of sin—thus also of its shame?

Shame is for the unsaved, and also for the saved who've yet to understand there is no need for it in salvation. This can result in a "false humility" (2 Cor 2:18), which is usually in conjunction with the law-concept, in that it denies the sufficiency of the Cross-work of Christ by accepting that there must be an additional element beyond His sacrifice to effect the redemption of man!

-NC

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If our faith in the efficacy of Christ’s expiation for the sins of the believer is where it should be, there can be no room for shame. Shame in the believer can reveal a misunderstanding in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus’ full atonement, which is applied at rebirth.

It is completely understandable for the Christian in the outset to feel shame while the presence and workings of the “old man” are progressively realized, but continuing in the shame of it is the result of falling short in the comprehension of two vital elements; the regenerate one will continue to possess sin due to the sin source (old man); and the understanding that sinning (unintentionally) is expected, otherwise there is a prideful hindrance in the learning of God’s Word in the denying of these.

The heart and mind of the believer are to be joyous (as much as lies within us) “in the Lord” (Phil 4:4), which is impossible when beholding a guilt and sadness from sin. This will consistently hinder the thoughtfulness of all we are to be contemplating (v 8). Shame and remorse are rightfully expected during the initial revelation of our sinfulness, but as we (those born again) progress in the paces of the Spirit’s teaching of His Word, we are to eventually understand that God’s forgiveness completely clears one of guilt and shame, for His way is that we are not to be in sin (Rom 8:9)—though sin be in us.

An incomplete (but not absence) understanding concerning God’s forgiveness in Christ presents a veil against a heart of assurance, for if there be forgiveness what place has shame? Where should there be shame when sin (again, unintentional) is foreknown and expected? Otherwise it would be the same as God saying to the believer, “Shame on you for your sin?” Is it to humble one's self in retaining shame for the guilt of sin, which would present an incomplete propitiation; or is it to accept Christ's propitiatory work for a life which has been cleared of the guilt of sin—thus also of its shame?

Shame is for the unsaved, and also for the saved who've yet to understand there is no need for it in salvation. This can result in a "false humility" (2 Cor 2:18), which is usually in conjunction with the law-concept, in that it denies the sufficiency of the Cross-work of Christ by accepting that there must be an additional element beyond His sacrifice to effect the redemption of man!

-NC

I don't understand you.
You say we sin unintentional.
How long does one sin unintentional?
Are you saying, being filled with the Spirit of God, that you continually sin unintentional?
Are you not aware of your sin when you sin?
Is it always unintentional?
I think that's sort of a way of saying, "I'm not responsible, it's unintentional".
I don't think it works that way.
I think you know when you sin.
And that's what makes it sin.
Before the Law, we didn't know what was sin.
But now we know.
Now we know when we sin.
It's not unintentional.
It's on purpose because we are imperfect and that's why we need a Savior.
Paul tells us he was the most wretched of sinners.
Why?
Because he was so totally aware of his sins.
The closer you draw to God, the more aware you are of your sins.
You know that but you're not saying it.

 

[netchaplain]

Hi AW - I have never known Scripture to present doctrine that supports God forgiving anyone for intentional sin (Num 15:24, 30; Heb 10:26). One may be reborn and is learning to discontinue intentional sin, but if such a lifestyle remains unchanged, there has been no regeneration.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi AW - I have never known Scripture to present doctrine that supports God forgiving anyone for intentional sin (Num 15:24, 30; Heb 10:26). One may be reborn and is learning to discontinue intentional sin, but if such a lifestyle remains unchanged, there has been no regeneration.

So you have no thought to your sin, you just do it.
Then how do you become aware of it after you sin?
Or maybe you don't.
Maybe you think you never sin and just accept the fact that you do because Scripture says you will.
Where is the teaching for this?

 

[netchaplain]

So you have no thought to your sin, you just do it.
Then how do you become aware of it after you sin?
Or maybe you don't.
Maybe you think you never sin and just accept the fact that you do because Scripture says you will.
Where is the teaching for this?

It's difficult to render useful correspondence with accusations because I have difficulty in understanding them, and the reasons for them.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

It's difficult to render useful correspondence with accusations because I have difficulty in understanding them, and the reasons for them.

The reason you have problems understanding me is because no one ever challenges you.
After all, you are the net chaplain.
As I see it, you are making a claim in the OP that is falsely presented.
Either that, or you are just wrong in your thinking.
Has anyone ever said that to you before?
Because none of us are right all the time.
If the tone of my voice is offending, then I'm sorry you fail to understand me.
I am certainly different from other people.
But I don't mean to be offensive.

I disagree with what you are saying, and instead of answering my questions, you have chosen to reinforce your own stance.
We will go nowhere this way.
We may as well end it here.

 

[netchaplain]

The reason you have problems understanding me is because no one ever challenges you.
After all, you are the net chaplain.
As I see it, you are making a claim in the OP that is falsely presented.
Either that, or you are just wrong in your thinking.
Has anyone ever said that to you before?
Because none of us are right all the time.
If the tone of my voice is offending, then I'm sorry you fail to understand me.
I am certainly different from other people.
But I don't mean to be offensive.

I disagree with what you are saying, and instead of answering my questions, you have chosen to reinforce your own stance.
We will go nowhere this way.
We may as well end it here.

I do not suspect you of intending offense because it's obvious you also want truth. If we respond out of proper motive we will get more at the truth, but there must be Scripture support for claims made, and this is why many on this site find that our correspondence isn't a matter of challenge or competition, but truth in the Word of God.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings!

First, as a Moderator: Members shall refrain from the personal, directed use of the "YOU" word. For example, when I say, "You do this," or "You did that," it can be taken as a personal comment even if it is meant in the more general third person "you" such as "all you who do this (not necessarily you personally)". And this goes without saying: If you really do have a personal issue with another member in particular, this forum is NOT the place to air it. I would suggest a moderated private conversation. Feel free to ask if you have questions about how to go about doing that (it's easy: Open a SAC and invite a Moderator to the conversation to be held between you and the other Member of CF.NET).

_______________________________________________________

Okay, now that the "official business" is done, this to netchaplain: Thanks again for posting this timely subject. I think that even our friend and brother in Christ, allenwynne, has seen that it does go together with other recent posts such as "intentional" vs. "unintentional" sin.

One of the things that I consider here is the meaning and connotation of words. Because communication only exists between two or more people. If it is just one person? It's a thought and not a communication, right? So part of what we do when we choose our words is consider the likely understanding that the words will convey to others. Even those others who are not as familiar with various authors. In other words, our clear meanings depend not only on our definitions and experiences but they also depend on the definitions and experiences of those to whom we try to communicate. (Please pardon the lecturing nature of this thought -- I know you already know what I'm talking about).

One of the terms that we are familiar with was used by John, as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, pardon me because I've not done a word study yet (and probably should) but here's the term: "Sin leading unto death" and this was compared to "sin not leading unto death". These sound rather vague perhaps but I'm thinking that they might help us come closer to agreement faster. Instead of saying "intentional vs. unintentional" and opening that road to diversion, one might simply say, "leading unto death," of which all serious, intentional sin would be.
____________________________________________________

To allenwynne(!)

Since you have chosen to publicly air your difference saying, "I disagree with what you are saying, and instead of answering my questions, you have chosen to reinforce your own stance. We will go nowhere this way. We may as well end it here."

I will now publicly ask you to read the Sticky for our Focus on Scripture forum and state that netchaplain's last statement is worth reading again. It's not about competition. It's not about debate (certainly NOT in FoS) and it is about finding the meaning and discussing in graceful terms the truth, even the golden nuggets, hidden in the Word of God.

Convenient link to the STICKIES:

• ALL MEMBERS MUST READ
• Quick to Listen

enuf outta me
~Sparrow

 

[netchaplain]

Thanks SH for the information, which shows me that posts in a thought-provoking manner can be more flowing than personally-addressed posts, unless the post is a reply in correspondence than in self-expressed posting.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Sorry Mr. Chaplain, I always do things wrong around him.

 

[Deborah13]

So I'm going to post again what I posted in the last thread. I agree that when we replace a word in scripture with another word, which happens in all translations and often in our communications, it can be confusing. But if we 'focus on the scripture' definitions then we can get a clearer view of what God is saying.
Heb 10:26 For we--wilfully sinning after the receiving the full knowledge of the truth--no more for sins doth there remain a sacrifice,
Heb 10:27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery zeal, about to devour the opposers;
wilfully - G1596 - to sin wilfully as opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or from weakness

King David - adultery and murder - committed from weakness, temptation and then fear
Saul/Paul - persecution of the saints, ie. Stephen - committed from ignorance, Saul didn't understand, in his heart he thought that what he was doing was for the Lord, not against
Peter - denied being the Lord's discipline - weakness caused by fear

God looks at the Heart to determine the intent of the heart. Was the intent to deliberately discredit, malign, or spite God. Or was it committed out of one of the reasons above.

So when we look at our own condition (our own sin) what is the attitude of one's heart.
If we know that we have committed a sin and our conscience does not bother us about it in anyway than just maybe we are deceived. And if that attitude continues then it is likely we are not saved (regenerated by the Holy Spirit). Because if one is a child of God then the Holy Spirit is working to bring the child into the full knowledge of who they are in Christ. He points us toward our Savior and says look, that is what righteous looks like and we see God's love for us and that brings us to repentance. Or in His wisdom He knows when to use the discipline of the rod.
imo...
All three men in the above examples prove that God looks at the heart and that God brings His child to repentance.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thanks SH for the information, which shows me that posts in a thought-provoking manner can be more flowing than personally-addressed posts, unless the post is a reply in correspondence than in self-expressed posting.

NC,
Great preaching and I see you're hidden behind the cross, a concept often not understood. My first five years were fraught with this issue and when I had finally studied the Word enough to see this lesson on shame, a monstrous weight was lifted from my shoulders.

My prayers for understanding go with you.

 

[netchaplain]

Sorry Mr. Chaplain, I always do things wrong around him.

That's okay Brother, we all do!

 

[netchaplain]

NC,
Great preaching and I see you're hidden behind the cross, a concept often not understood. My first five years were fraught with this issue and when I had finally studied the Word enough to see this lesson on shame, a monstrous weight was lifted from my shoulders.

My prayers for understanding go with you.

Thanks Taylor for your comment.

 

[Sparkey]

So I'm going to post again what I posted in the last thread.
... (body of message may be found HERE @ Post #11)
All three men in the above examples prove that God looks at the heart and that God brings His child to repentance.

Thank you. I need to hear things several times before they sink in and even then? I can be dense. I do appreciate your efforts here and agree that it's important (of critical import) to remain within the scriptural definitions (as you alluded to when you mentioned the Focus on Scripture title).

Thank you kindly,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Christ_empowered]

So...living in ongoing sin but "claiming Christ" is a no go, but occasional sins out of weakness or whatever are forgivable (though certainly not desirable) ?

 

[netchaplain]

So...living in ongoing sin but "claiming Christ" is a no go, but occasional sins out of weakness or whatever are forgivable (though certainly not desirable) ?

Hi CE - It's not the believer living in sin, but sin living in the believer. To live in sin is to be in sin (1 Cor 15:17), and the believer is not in sin (Rom 8:9).

Though the source of sin (old man or old nature) remains, i'ts guilt is pardoned (Rom 8:1) and it's rule is restrained (Rom 6:12, 14).

 

[Christ_empowered]

so...examples....ongoing adultery...not good at all....a random adulterous encounter out of weakness...forgivable?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi AW - I have never known Scripture to present doctrine that supports God forgiving anyone for intentional sin (Num 15:24, 30; Heb 10:26). One may be reborn and is learning to discontinue intentional sin, but if such a lifestyle remains unchanged, there has been no regeneration.

I think Hebrews 10:26 is not valid here.
As I read through this section, I see that the intentional sin is not the central theme, but rather the trampling of the Son of God underfoot.
This is done by intentional sin.

But for the true Christian, it is different.
Intentional sin begins in the mind and the heart.
This is sin.
But if we don't follow through with it and actually do the sin, are we then forgiven?
Of course we are.
It goes both ways.
If a true Christian actually commits the sin, he will feel remorse and the need to repent, and God will forgive him.

It's like the Christian who cheats on his spouse and gets caught.
"Oh, I was tempted, I couldn't help myself".
Yeah, that's what they all say when they get caught.
A true Christian would feel guilty and repent.

So, to use Hebrews 10:26 to say intentional sin is not forgiven is not what it means.

 

[netchaplain]

so...examples....ongoing adultery...not good at all....a random adulterous encounter out of weakness...forgivable?

Ongoing intentional sins are works of an unbeliever (unregenerate), regardless the appearance of a profession and service.

Random single occurrences is splitting hairs. A newborn in Christ may require some time but would eventually be taught of the Spirit concerning it.