Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > How are we Saved?

Forum Quick Jump

90 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/23/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

So it seems the only thing we in principle disagreement is the "discernment" issue. I don't claim to be able to discern that Clinton or anyone else is saved or unsaved. Indeed, I would lable this sort of separation (krino) "judgment", and I see it forbidden in Scripture. You seem to believe we can and should judge this.

I certainly realize many may think one is just being unneccesarily critical of others by naming sin as sin, but to my mind the issue really boils down to whether or not antinomianism is true. If one can claim that Clinton engaging in sin as he was at that moment (or myself, were I in his shoes) was at the same moment justified before God (free of guilt and condemnation), then by definition antinomian must be true, and all the biblical exhortations and warnings to holiness and to live free from sin are nothing more than false scare tactics on the part of God.

Not to belabor the point (for a very significant portion of the New Testament alone, not to mention the Old Testament, could be quoted in direct contradiction to antinomianism), but if Clinton (just as an example) were justified while he was sinning with Monica, then the following scriptures (to name but a few) are flatly contradicted:

1 John 2:3 ¶ By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

And I am left scratching my head in wonder at what in the world Paul could have meant by the following, if one (particularly a preacher) should not point out sin in the lives of others (as well as deal with his own, of course).

2 Tim 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season {and} out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/23/2003 9:31:00 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/24/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6)

If Clinton's sin is evidence that his heart is not regenerate at that moment, is EVERY sin evidence that a person's heart is not regenerate at that moment. If "no," what is unique about Clinton's sin? If "yes," how could you eariler deny that we get unsaved with every sin we commit?

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/24/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

If Clinton's sin is evidence that his heart is not regenerate at that moment, is EVERY sin evidence that a person's heart is not regenerate at that moment. If "no," what is unique about Clinton's sin? If "yes," how could you eariler deny that we get unsaved with every sin we commit?

Hi Doc,

The way I understand this, it is not, "one sin and you need to get saved again," but "one sin and you need to repent."

This is what I have been trying to say throughout this thread, that unless and until a Christian repents of a sin, it is still "on" him, and as Finney says, he stands condemned by the moral law until he actually repents. "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It seems self evident that a true Christian would want to repent of all his sins before he dies.

On the other hand, as Finney also says in the passages I have quoted above in this thread, the sinning Christian sustains a covenant relationship to God, by which God disciplines the sinning believer to bring him back to righteousness. That is, as I understand Finney, one can be presently condemned before God for one sin and yet not ultimately condemned (if they repent).

If salvation can be compared to a journey, then a Christian turning back to a life of sin would in effect be a retreat from the goal of heaven and Christ-our-life; unless and until a course correction (repentance) is made, such a person who "continues in sin" is on the way to hell. It is only by "adding sin to sin" through not repenting that one continues down the pathway to destruction.

Related to this I think is 1 John 3:5-10:

1 John 3:4 ¶ Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil;** for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

**On "he that practices sin is of the devil," it seems to me that to the extent that one practices sin (willful transgression against God's holy moral law), to that extent a person is "of the devil." In the journey analogy, insofar as a professing Christian practices sin, he is acting under unholy influence and not holy influence, and in so doing is walking away rather than towards God. In experiential terms, whenever I sin, for that time being I am acting under the influence of the devil, and unless and until I acknowledge that sin, repent, confess, and forsake it, I am "continuing in sin," and am not, as the passage says, "practicing righteousness" unless and until I repent and return to loving obedience to Christ by walking in the Spirit.

Also, the "saved/unsaved" terminology, as I have tried to address before simply does not apply in my understanding, as until one has breathed their last or their character has become solidified in evil, they still may be enter into salvation through repentance and faith. In other words, as I understand it a sinning Christian's salvation is still in process unless and until she hardens her heart to the point of no return/character solidification/ultimate hardness of heart/blasphemy against the Spirit.

I don't see how any Arminian or Open Theist can truly view salvation as merely an imputed righteousness that can never be rejected by the believer. I also don't see how an Open Theist can say that he believes "libertarian free will" and yet deny that Christians are able to live above sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Just some of my ruminations. The last time I checked, only Calvinists are duty bound to "sin daily in word, thought, and deed." Arminians have never insisted on this Calvinistic mantra.

I am sorry if my posts have been unacceptable or irritating to you. I highly respect you, Dr. Boyd, and appreciate your willingness to dialogue about a subject that cannot be anything other than a very sensitive subject. Again, I appreciate your point of view, and I have no desire to be an irritation.

In Christ,

John Earp

P.S.: I have not been able to find anything in the Bible about careless thoughts being sins; all I have found thus far by searching on my software is "idle words." No mainstream perfectionistic theologian (Wesley, Finney, etc.) I am aware of has ever stated or implied that one's thoughts can be completely controlled. (How else was Jesus tempted if not through his thoughts?)

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/25/2003 12:37:05 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/24/2003 9:08 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/25/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

John: I am sorry if my posts have been unacceptable or irritating to you. I highly respect you, Dr. Boyd, and appreciate your willingness to dialogue about a subject that cannot be anything other than a very sensitive subject. Again, I appreciate your point of view, and I have no desire to be an irritation.

Greg: Perish the thought! I'm totally enjoying and appreciating the dialogue. You've helped me understand Finney's perfectionistic strand better than I ever have before. Thanks.

John: Wow. Glad to hear.

John: This is what I have been trying to say throughout this thread, that unless and until a Christian repents of a sin, it is still "on" him, and as Finney says, he stands condemned by the moral law until he actually repents. ".

Doc: If "condemned by the moral law" means simply "guilty of sin under the moral law," I agree. But if "condemned" means "unsaved," I have an issue. Now you say...

John: the "saved/unsaved" terminology, as I have tried to address before simply does not apply in my understanding, as until one has breathed their last or their character has become solidified in evil, they still may be enter into salvation through repentance and faith.

Doc: I see your point in terms of hte eschatological definition of salvation. But in terms of a person's present salvation, I don't see how you can or why you should avoid the "saved/ unsaved" terminology. It seems to me its forced on you by virtue of your view that we can know that Clinton is unsaved, or at least was unsaved when he was involved in his escapade.

John replies: In my mind, there is a difference between being righteously condemned by the moral law for a single instance of sin and being "unsaved." Most evangelicals I have known have basically equated "saved" with "headed to (or even guaranteed) heaven." I've heard many Southern Baptists (the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S.) describe being saved as if it were a one-time "thing" that they received when they prayed "the sinner's prayer," and that no matter how much they sinned now, they were "as good as in heaven already."

However, to my understanding present abiding in Christ through faith is the perpetual condition of being in the refining process of "being saved," a.k.a. progressive sanctification.

In my view, Clinton (or anyone--I'm just using his case as an example here) absolutely must repent of any present sin to be ultimately saved. As far as I know, the standard evangelical viewpoint would not say that at all, but would fall back on imputed righteousness as a cover for ongoing sins, and most would even go so far as to say that since no one can ever go without sinning for any appreciable length of time, it's sinful pride to say one can live above sin, and that we ought not to "judge" Clinton's actions as being morally reprehensible. Indeed, the most popular scriptures today seem to be Matt. 7:1 and 1 John 1:8 (both of which in my opinion are grossly misinterpreted to mean the above scenario is true). It seems to me that many confuse judge with discern, and rebuke with condemnation.

As I understand salvation to be both from sin (e.g., Matt. 1:21) and a lifelong process of restoration into the image of God, to my mind it does not follow that salvation is "lost" in one instance of sin, but rather that one must be saved *from* each and every sin they may commit throughout their life.

The following scriptures seem to me to demonstrate the concept of salvation as a process of "being saved":

Luke 13:22 ¶ And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem.
23 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there {just} a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,
24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 "Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.'
26 "Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets';
27 and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.'
28 "In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
29 "And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline {at the table} in the kingdom of God.
30 "And behold, {some} are last who will be first and {some} are first who will be last."

1 Cor 1:18 ¶ For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Cor 2:15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing;

2 Pet 3:14 ¶ Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Rom 2:6 (GOD) who will render to each person according to his deeds:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 {There will be} tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

2 Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, {there} is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Gal 5:16 ¶ But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Phil 2:12 ¶ So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for {His} good pleasure.

In the following, the process of addition of godly virtues to one's life seems to be a condition of assurance of salvation:

2 Pet 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in {your} moral excellence, knowledge,
6 and in {your} knowledge, self-control, and in {your} self-control, perseverance, and in {your} perseverance, godliness,
7 and in {your} godliness, brotherly kindness, and in {your} brotherly kindness, love.
8 For if these {qualities} are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For he who lacks these {qualities} is blind {or} short-sighted, having forgotten {his} purification from his former sins.
10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

G.B.: My earlier post was meant to force the conclusion that whenever we sin, we are at that moment lost. When we repent, we at that moment become saved again. Hence, the "journey" is a process of getting unsaved and saved again insofar as our journey is a process of sinning and repenting. I know this might sound unduly harsh, and not be something you want to agree to. But I honestly don't see how you can avoid the conclusion John. It seems further confirmed when you say...

John: unless and until a course correction (repentance) is made, such a person who "continues in sin" is on the way to hell. It is only by "adding sin to sin" through not repenting that one continues down the pathway to destruction.

John replies: Perhaps in my zeal I overstated the case. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe isolated, abnormal-for-the-faithful instances of sin as "stumbling on the path" rather than a retreat from the battle. I think we both would agree that a person who persists in any particular sin is in dire need of course correction.

G.B: Now, I have to agree with your analysis of "persisting in sin". A person can begin with a single act of unforgiveness, for example. It may not be a major thing at all at first, but if left unchecked it can grow. The bitterness can begin to pollute their mind and heart, leading to other acts of bitterness, which in term contribute to the snowball effect of bitterness in their life. And it can happen that this person goes from being a person who committed the sin of unforgiveness to a person who is characterized by unforgiveness. Now the ship has gotten significantly off course. It wasn't the single act of refusing to forgive that did it, but the long term effect.

J.E.: I agree.

John (interpreting I Jn): it seems to me that to the extent that one practices sin (willful transgression against God's holy moral law), to that extent a person is "of the devil." In the journey analogy, insofar as a professing Christian practices sin, he is acting under unholy influence and not holy influence, and in so doing is walking away rather than towards God.

Doc: I totally agree with this interpertation of the Johannine epistle. What I liked about this is your willingness to say "to the extent that..." It admits of degrees. A ship is moved away from its destiny "to the extent that" a wave or error moves it in this direction.

J.E.: The only problem I see with the analogy of waves and errors are that they are by definition involuntary on the part of the sailor; that is, they are not able to be controlled by him, due to natural law or to ignorance in the case of errors.

John: I also don't see how an Open Theist can say that he believes "libertarian free will" and yet deny that Christians are able to live above sin by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Greg: In principle, at any given moment, I agree. But libertarian free will is always conditioned. And one of the ways it is conditioned is by our spiritual and physical environment as well as our previous character forming choices. So I think that in fact it may be that a person is not at this moment not free to refrain from sin. Yet, unless they have become irrevocably hardened to God's influence, they can choose to begin to "redirect their ship." If they've gotten significantly off course, this may take an involved process of turning around. (The complexity of life is such that people are more like the Titantic than a speed boat.)

John replies: Whew! Titanic? Talk about ominous! :)

John: I have not been able to find anything in the Bible about careless thoughts being sins; all I have found thus far by searching on my software is "idle words." No mainstream perfectionistic theologian (Wesley, Finney, etc.) I am aware of has ever stated or implied that one's thoughts can be completely controlled. (How else was Jesus tempted if not through his thoughts?)

Doc: This is an amazing concession John. Clearly we can, in principle, in any given moment, control our thoughts. And clearly the Bible commands us to do so. Take EVERY THOUGHT captive to Christ (2 Cor 10:5). So, just as clearly, NOT doing so is "missing the mark." It is sin. Every uncaptivated thought moves us, even if ever so slightly, off course. Yet, just as clearly, we DON'T control every single thought.

John replies: I certainly agree that our thought life is very much crucial to our sanctification (be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind). And I also should have bolded the word "completely" above. What I meant was that we cannot control all external involuntary stimuli (temptations) and internal involuntary stimuli (bodily appetites such as those for food or sex). Jesus was completely without sin, though He "was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin." In human experience it is often very difficult to differentiate between tempting thoughts and at what point the actual yielding to them takes place. And yet temptation itself absolutely must be differentiated from actual sin (whether mental or physical), or else Jesus was a sinner. What I think we can control is the choice to give in to temptation or not.

G.B.: One final point: In my view, taking thoughts captive is the most important area of our life to center our attention on. For all of our words and behavior are simply the by-product of our thoughts. We will never be genuinely holy in our words and deeds until we are holy in our minds. Hence, in my view, sin in the mind is the most serious sin we can have.

John replies: I certainly agree.

I too am enjoying the stimulating dialogue.

In Christ,

John

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

(All scriptures, unless otherwise indicated, NASB)

Edited by - John Earp on 03/26/2003 02:43:17 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/25/2003 10:06 PM (GMT -6)

The following link to Finney's sermon entitled, "Any Form of Sin Persisted in is Fatal to the Soul," I think is helpful to understanding Finney's approach to occasional sins vs. habitual sins in the life of a professing Christian.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1861OE/610911_sin_persisted.htm

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/26/2003 2:51 AM (GMT -6)

We could analyze this issue under (at least) two models:

Model 1: The Legal-Punishment Model. This view holds that each sin separates us from God and warrants eternal punishment. Repentance is the legal condition for eradicating this separation and punishment.
Negative Consequence: a) Few (if any) are saved. b) The view of God is that of an uptight accountant with an eternally ferocious gun; c) it makes a LOVE relationship impossible, for he's got an eternal gun to your head at all times. ("Now, don't you want to love me?"); d) it causes people who take it seriously to go crazy, for it means that each and every behavior has eternal gravity.

Model 2: The Course-Direction Model. This view locates the severity of sin to be in its direction setting nature. It gets us going in the wrong direction. This view locates the importance of repentance in the need to get back on course.
Advantages of this View. a) It is compatible with the picture of God as outrageously loving as revealed in the cross of Christ. b) It makes LOVING God not only possible, but places it at the center of our motivation to live for him. c) It places the emphasis on one's life direction as a whole rather than on each particular act, thus freeing the person from obsessing on particular acts.

I have always thought that the perfectionistic doctrine advocated something closer to model 1. What I'm hearing from you, John, is that this is not accurate. At least you and Finney are closer to model 2. Would you agree?

Blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/26/2003 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

We could analyze this issue under (at least) two models:

Model 1: The Legal-Punishment Model. This view holds that each sin separates us from God and warrants eternal punishment. Repentance is the legal condition for eradicating this separation and punishment.
Negative Consequence: a) Few (if any) are saved. b) The view of God is that of an uptight accountant with an eternally ferocious gun; c) it makes a LOVE relationship impossible, for he's got an eternal gun to your head at all times. ("Now, don't you want to love me?"); d) it causes people who take it seriously to go crazy, for it means that each and every behavior has eternal gravity.

Model 2: The Course-Direction Model. This view locates the severity of sin to be in its direction setting nature. It gets us going in the wrong direction. This view locates the importance of repentance in the need to get back on course.
Advantages of this View. a) It is compatible with the picture of God as outrageously loving as revealed in the cross of Christ. b) It makes LOVING God not only possible, but places it at the center of our motivation to live for him. c) It places the emphasis on one's life direction as a whole rather than on each particular act, thus freeing the person from obsessing on particular acts.

I have always thought that the perfectionistic doctrine advocated something closer to model 1. What I'm hearing from you, John, is that this is not accurate. At least you and Finney are closer to model 2. Would you agree?

John replies: I think Finney held both #1 and #2 in tension. That is, Finney recognized that there was legal validity to #1, and preached the moral law of God as the eternal and unalterable standard by which our lives are judged (that is, the Decalogue, or what is the progressive revelation of the same thing in the NT, the Two Greatest Commands). At the same time, Finney was careful to distinguish between the letter of the the moral law and the spirit of it. The letter of the law says: "The soul that sinneth shall die" (Ezek 18:20), while the spirit of the law (in keeping with the gospel) says: "The soul that sinneth may live," (Provided the conditions of repentance from each sin and faith in the atoning blood of Christ is exercised--1 John 1:9--2:1).

This I think is the clear teaching of John's First Epistle:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.

(J.E.: "May/may not sin" stated or implied as the writer's purpose for writing the epistle!

And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

(J.E.: Provision of atonement for the forgiveness of sins, which was also a provision under the Old Covenant--Day of Atonement, scapegoat, sacrifices, etc.).

3 ¶ By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

(J.E.: Hypocrites/actors are those whose profession does not match their action).

5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.

(J.E.: Perfection of motive/intention of divine love is concomitant with obedience to Christ's word).

By this we know that we are in Him:
6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (J.E.: moral obligation of perfection in conduct)

The following quote from Finney's 1851 Systematic Theology, lecture XXXIV, "Atonement" section I, is instructive on this point:

2. As the will of no being can create moral law, so the will of no being can repeal or alter moral law. It being just that rule of action that is agreeable to the nature and relations of moral agents, it is as immutable as those natures and relations.
3. There is a distinction between the letter and the spirit of moral law. The letter relates to the outward life or action; the spirit respects the motive or intention from which the act should proceed. For example: the spirit of the moral law requires disinterested benevolence, and is all expressed in one word--love. The letter of the law is found in the commandments of the decalogue, and in divers other precepts relating to outward acts.
4. To the letter of the law there may be many exceptions, but to the spirit of moral law there can be no exception. That is, the spirit of the moral law may sometimes admit and require, that the letter of the law shall be disregarded or violated; but the spirit of the law ought never to be disregarded or violated. For example: the letter of the law prohibits all labour on the sabbath day. But the spirit of the law often requires labour on the sabbath. The spirit of the law requires the exercise of universal and perfect love or benevolence to God and man, and the law of benevolence often requires that labour shall be done on the sabbath; as administering to the sick, relieving the poor, feeding animals; and in short, whatever is plainly the work of necessity or mercy, in such a sense that enlightened benevolence demands it, is required by the spirit of moral law upon the sabbath, as well as all other days. This is expressly taught by Christ, both by precept and example. So again, the letter of the law says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" but the spirit of the law admits and requires that upon certain conditions, to be examined in their proper place, the soul that sinneth shall live. The letter of the law is inexorable; it condemns and sentences to death all violators of its precepts, without regard to atonement or repentance. The spirit of moral law allows and requires that upon condition of satisfaction being made to public justice, and the return of the sinner to obedience, he shall live and not die.

Entire lecture may be found at the following link:

http://gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st34.htm

Please let me know if the above has failed to resolve any questions in your mind about this.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/27/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6)

I'm inclined to agree that both models have an application, but (not having thought this out now) I'm tempted to say that God's forgiveness through Christ takes care of the problem posed by model #1, and the Spirit in our lives gradually takes care of the problem posed by model #2. Now, I suspect you'd agree with #2, but that you wouldn't, without serious qualification, agree to #1.

Whatever else may be said about this, John, it seems to me that one crucial area we may disagree on is the earlier mentioned topic of "sinning in our thoughts." I think it's crucial because it may affect our need for mercy regarding model #1. Hear me out.

In my view, John, the MIND is the foundation for all emotions and all behavior, and the area we as spirit agents are most directly responsible for and have the most direct control over. This is why the NT emphasizes taking captive thoughts, and why the pattern of Paul's encouragement is *know who you are; *THINK who you are, *ACT who you are. Indeed, I would go so far as to claim that all sin in our emotions and behavior is simply sympomatic and expressive of sin in our mind. We can, of course, experience right emotions and engage in right behavior without having right mindfulness, but never consistently FOR THE RIGHT REASONS (e.g. the right motivations).

Now, what I find in MY mind -- and I suspect that I am not RADICALLY different than most others in this area -- is that I "miss the mark" in my mind all the time. Confession time before the world! I am not sure where the fine line between sinless temptation and sin is, but I'm sure I cross it much of the time. I don't glorify God, think truth, love others etc... without interruption in all my thoughts. And every time this is true of me, I SIN. All other sin in my emotions and behavior are, I'm convinced, a footnote to this sin.

The fact that I don't usually consciously choose to sin in my mind is not grounds for saying that it is NOT sin, but rather grounds for concluding that I'm THAT FAR GONE. True addicts don't choose to feed their addiction -- they just do it automatically. This is how most sin is in my mind.

Now, I usually turn from the thoughts when I catch myself. e.g. I find myself judging a person in my mind, so I stop and ascribe worth to them (love them). I find myself being self-absorbed in my mind, so I refocus on God and giving life away, etc... But I also find that, like a compulsive addict, I return to my vomit. Over years I'm experiencing progress, but its not a hop, skip and a jump.

My point? If God isn't a God of outrageous mercy -- meaning forgiveness while I'm yet in my sin -- I think I'm a total goner. If I'm in an unsaved condition whenever I'm less than perfect in my mind and have not yet repented of it, chances are I'll die lost. And again, I suspect I'm hardly alone in this.

Even more to the point, I find that the most effective moving force in my life to transform my thinking is my awareness of the love of God for me in the midst of my imperfection. When I years ago believed that I was damned with every imperfect thought, it actually intensified my sinful thoughts. As Iconoclast pointed out pages ago, when a shooter is missing the mark, making her more conscious and more self-judging is not likely to improve their shooting. In all likelihood, it will make them shoot worse.

Finally, I have found that the people I've met who have come close to claiming that their lives are without sin were quite non-introspective. They pretty much defined "righteousness" behaviorally -- and usually in terms of a list of particular sins they happen to be good at avoiding -- and thus concluded they were righteous. And I don't really blame them, given their belief that every sin unsaves them. How else could someone live? And yet, they were, I suspect, caught in a very vicious, damaging and sinful web of self-deception.

This is a confession, not really an argument . And yet, I think it has force for people who are aware of how much their inner world "misses the mark." If the perfectionistic strand of Finney is true..... then the vast vast majority of us, if not all of us, are pretty much without hope.

What frees me is knowing that my identity in Christ is given to me by grace , and that this gradually works to transforms my thoughts, rather than my thoughts giving me my identity in Christ. I know that I AM righteous -- not just forensically, but ontologically. And now my job is to get my thoughts -- and then my feelings -- and then my behavior -- to line up with this ontological reality.

Just my honest gut John.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/27/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6)

(This is from an earlier post in this thread, on the issue of thoughts. I would sincerely like to know wherein we truly differ on the issue of thoughts).

J.E.:I certainly agree that our thought life is very much crucial to our sanctification (be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind). And I also should have bolded the word "completely" above. What I meant was that we cannot control all external involuntary stimuli (temptations) and internal involuntary stimuli (bodily appetites such as those for food or sex). Jesus was completely without sin, though He "was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin." In human experience it is often very difficult to differentiate between tempting thoughts and at what point the actual yielding to them takes place. And yet temptation itself absolutely must be differentiated from actual sin (whether mental or physical), or else Jesus was a sinner. What I think we can control is the choice to give in to temptation or not.

(From the previous post by G.B. ) :

G.B.:I'm inclined to agree that both models have an application, but (not having thought this out now) I'm tempted to say that God's forgiveness through Christ takes care of the problem posed by model #1, and the Spirit in our lives gradually takes care of the problem posed by model #2. Now, I suspect you'd agree with #2, but that you wouldn't, without serious qualification, agree to #1.

J.E.: Well, I certainly wouldn't agree with your depiction of God holding a gun to our head. :) It seems clear to me that any sin deserves hell, while any sin is also able to be forgiven through Christ (though not automatically).

Doc: Whatever else may be said about this, John, it seems to me that one crucial area we may disagree on is the earlier mentioned topic of "sinning in our thoughts." I think it's crucial because it may affect our need for mercy regarding model #1. Hear me out.

In my view, John, the MIND is the foundation for all emotions and all behavior, and the area we as spirit agents are most directly responsible for and have the most direct control over. This is why the NT emphasizes taking captive thoughts, and why the pattern of Paul's encouragement is *know who you are; *THINK who you are, *ACT who you are. Indeed, I would go so far as to claim that all sin in our emotions and behavior is simply sympomatic and expressive of sin in our mind. We can, of course, experience right emotions and engage in right behavior without having right mindfulness, but never consistently FOR THE RIGHT REASONS (e.g. the right motivations).

J.E.: As emotions are involuntary, it does not seem to follow that they can be moral. One can feel a great thrill of emotion (produced by biochemical processes in the body and brain) during both praiseworthy and blameworthy acts. I wouldn't know personally, but I've heard it said that serial murderers get a rush from what they do. This would be not much different in principle (serotonin, adrenaline, etc.) than a man getting a rush by making love to his wife. The moral difference in the two is in the moral choice involved. One is an evil act and the other is a good one.

G.B.: Now, what I find in MY mind -- and I suspect that I am not RADICALLY different than most others in this area -- is that I "miss the mark" in my mind all the time. Confession time before the world! I am not sure where the fine line between sinless temptation and sin is, but I'm sure I cross it much of the time. I don't glorify God, think truth, love others etc... without interruption in all my thoughts. And every time this is true of me, I SIN. All other sin in my emotions and behavior are, I'm convinced, a footnote to this sin.

J.E.: This scenario you describe, while it may in fact be true, does not alter what the Bible clearly says about those who persist in sin. Though most professing Christians may be sinning all the time, God's word doesn't change because of this. God's standard is perpetually the same, isn't it? Also, Finney viewed the ultimate intention as the real place where morality lies, not in largely uncontrollable processes in the brain. That is, if the heart is right (led by the Holy Spirit) the righteous life will follow. (E.g., "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" Rom. 8:4)

G.B.: The fact that I don't usually consciously choose to sin in my mind is not grounds for saying that it is NOT sin, but rather grounds for concluding that I'm THAT FAR GONE. True addicts don't choose to feed their addiction -- they just do it automatically. This is how most sin is in my mind.

J.E.: As to addictions, certainly those in bondage to such would need "soul therapy" such as Wesley referred to (sanctification of the mind). And yes, as ruts in a muddy road caused by repeated use of the road eventually become hardened, deep, and seemingly inescapable, Christ is able to bring deliverance when one unites with Him by faith (Christ as Deliverer, redeeming us from bondage through progressive knowledge of Him--if you continue in my word--as in John 8:31ff).

G.B.: Now, I usually turn from the thoughts when I catch myself. e.g. I find myself judging a person in my mind, so I stop and ascribe worth to them (love them). I find myself being self-absorbed in my mind, so I refocus on God and giving life away, etc... But I also find that, like a compulsive addict, I return to my vomit. Over years I'm experiencing progress, but its not a hop, skip and a jump.

J.E.: I certainly never meant to imply that the process of growth in grace was easy or effortless on our part.

G.B.: My point? If God isn't a God of outrageous mercy -- meaning forgiveness while I'm yet in my sin -- I think I'm a total goner.

J.E.: I see your point, but I also don't see anywhere in Scripture where God forgives without real repentance. So long as one retains free will with its obvious corollary ability to repent (make course correction) when necessary, one is definitely not a goner.

G.B.: If I'm in an unsaved condition whenever I'm less than perfect in my mind and have not yet repented of it, chances are I'll die lost. And again, I suspect I'm hardly alone in this.

J.E.: And as I stated earlier, God in his great mercy gives "time to repent," as he did, for example, with Ananias & Sapphira as well as the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev. 2. "I gave her time to repent..." This seems to my mind to resonate with the OV writings (such as yours) which point out prophetic warnings that essentially say, "This is what will happen if things don't change." Not a "gun to the head" but a loving and urgent warning to turn from evil. Anyway...

G.B.: Even more to the point, I find that the most effective moving force in my life to transform my thinking is my awareness of the love of God for me in the midst of my imperfection. When I years ago believed that I was damned with every imperfect thought, it actually intensified my sinful thoughts. As Iconoclast pointed out pages ago, when a shooter is missing the mark, making her more conscious and more self-judging is not likely to improve their shooting. In all likelihood, it will make them shoot worse.

J.E. Finney and others in the holiness movement realized this very thing as well, and strongly urged people to look to Christ for deliverance each time they fell short. How is this different from most other Christian teaching on the believer's relationship to God when he sins? (Except, of course for the antinomian teaching so common in our culture today).

G.B.: Finally, I have found that the people I've met who have come close to claiming that their lives are without sin were quite non-introspective. They pretty much defined "righteousness" behaviorally -- and usually in terms of a list of particular sins they happen to be good at avoiding -- and thus concluded they were righteous. And I don't really blame them, given their belief that every sin unsaves them. How else could someone live? And yet, they were, I suspect, caught in a very vicious, damaging and sinful web of self-deception.

J.E.: Again, your begging of the question by assuming that one who holds to my view (or any similar to it) believes one is "lost with every sin" does not affect my real view, which I have laboriously attempted to explain previously. As I have also repeatedly demonstrated in this thread by references to Finney's actual words, it is simply an untruth to say that I or Finney believed a believer "is unsaved each time he sins." And I am left wondering how anyone can truly know if another really is introspective or nonintrospective? Sounds like you're "judging" to me.

G.B.: This is a confession, not really an argument . And yet, I think it has force for people who are aware of how much their inner world "misses the mark." If the perfectionistic strand of Finney is true..... then the vast vast majority of us, if not all of us, are pretty much without hope.

J.E.: Okay then. I see your words earlier about my posts concerning this subject did not express your true sentiments. I am sorry to have wasted so much of your time, truly sorry.

One final thought: I sincerely ask you to consider the ultimate effect of your above thoughts and words on humanity's INability to live right consistently. Can this sort of teaching ever do anything but breed licentiousness? If it is true, then either Calvinism or Universalism must be true, and Antinomianism definitely must be true for no amount of right living matters one bit when all is said and done. When all is said and done, if I am wrong, I certainly do not deny that I deserve hell.

When I used to believe as you do, I literally hated myself almost constantly because I sinned, and yet I believed that I could never rise above it, and so my understanding of God and spirituality was completely stalemated. And this greatly distorted my view of God. The Bible presented Him as completely loving, just, and good, and yet because of Augustinian/Calvinian presuppositions about my moral inability, it seemed inescapable that God would hold an impossible standard up for man to live by, and then would condemn us to hell for not avoiding that which is in fact utterly impossible to avoid.

In my experience, the "we can't ever live free from sin" doctrine, apart from the fact that it is directly contradicted by Scripture, breeds the worst kind of fatalism in one's attempts to live the Christian life, and colors his picture of God as being totally impossible to please.

Edited by - John Earp on 03/27/2003 9:41:40 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 3/28/2003 3:13 AM (GMT -6)

For sale...

Eyeglasses. Every size, every shape. Everyone needs a pair.

They take a blurry world and provide sharp focus for us. No "one size fits all" available.

Some require "Finney" glasses to make sense of their world. Others require the "Paul" model, and still others the "Jesus" ones.

We might be able to help others with the style or color, but the basic prescription is individual. We try on different folks glasses and maybe they will help us see up close, but the distance things go out of whack.

We need to trust that doctor Jesus will provide each of us with the proper prescription for us.

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 3/28/2003 3:25 AM (GMT -6)

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 3/28/2003 3:40 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
GB: What frees me is knowing that my identity in Christ is given to me by grace , and that this gradually works to transforms my thoughts, rather than my thoughts giving me my identity in Christ. I know that I AM righteous -- not just forensically, but ontologically. And now my job is to get my thoughts -- and then my feelings -- and then my behavior -- to line up with this ontological reality.

quote:
JE: When I used to believe as you do, I literally hated myself almost constantly because I sinned, and yet I believed that I could never rise above it,

I am still having trouble understanding where the disagreement is. If we have our identity in Christ, our thoughts are transformed ... we do rise above sin. How does understanding that we almost constantly fall into sin, equate to believing that we are never able to rise above it?

Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/28/2003 4:52 AM (GMT -6)

SOMETIMES IT IS NOT INTELLECTUAL IDEAS THAT HELP US...
Sometimes it is worship that informs our thinking (Lex Orandi Lex Credendi--"The rule of worship is the rule of faith.") And sometimes through following the prayerful path of those who have walked so close to the Lord, walking in their footsteps as it were, we do better at finding our way.

Prayer of Saint Basil the Great

O God and Lord of the Powers, and Maker of all creation, Who, because of Thy clemency and incomparable mercy, didst send Thine Only-Begotten Son and our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind, and with His venerable Cross didst tear asunder the record of our sins, and thereby didst conquer the rulers and powers of darkness; receive from us sinful people, O merciful Master, these prayers of gratitude and supplication, and deliver us from every destructive and gloomy transgression, and from all visible and invisible enemies who seek to injure us. Nail down our flesh with fear of Thee, and let not our hearts be inclined to words or thoughts of evil, but pierce our souls with Thy love, that ever contemplating Thee, being enlightened by Thee, and discerning Thee, the unapproachable and everlasting Light, we may unceasingly render confession and gratitude to Thee: The eternal Father, with Thine Only-Begotten Son, and with Thine All-Holy, Gracious, and Life-Giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Prayer to the Holy Spirit

O Heavenly King, the comfortor, the spirit of Truth, Who art present everywhere and fillest all things; Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life; come and abide in us and cleanse us from every stain, and save our souls, O Gracious One.

Prayer at Daybreak - Archimandrite Sophronios

Psalm 50
(The Prayer of Repentance)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/28/2003 09:57:47 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/28/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

I am still having trouble understanding where the disagreement is. If we have our identity in Christ, our thoughts are transformed ... we do rise above sin. How does understanding that we almost constantly fall into sin, equate to believing that we are never able to rise above it?

Hi Springs,

How does "almost constantly" equal "rise above?" If 1 John 3:6-9 is true, and "he that practices sin is of the devil," while "he that is begotten of God does not practice sin," then "we almost constantly fall into sin" only applies to one of the above classes of people. (It cannot apply to both).

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 3/28/2003 5:45 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry to budge in after y'all already got it all figured out.
Great thread by the way. Excellent contributions by all.

When I say "Fall into sin" I mean like falling short of the glory of God.
As children of God when we become aware of our sin we repent.
(this is where the fine line comes in, I think, so see worship post above) However, I think this is a far cry from "practicing sin."

the gallery,

Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/28/2003 6:25 PM (GMT -6)

Doc to Might-be-don: Might-be-don, I've always suspected you were a relativistic epistemologically foggy post-modern subjectivistic kind of fellow. I judge you!

J.E.: As emotions are involuntary....

Doc: Why think this? AT THE MOMENT an emotion may be EXPERIENCED as involuntary, but don't we CULTIVATE various emotions with the PATTERN of our choices?

JE: it does not seem to follow that they can be moral.

DOC: John, you seem to define "moral" in terms of isolated behaviorial choices. I would argue that morality attaches MORE to character (patterns of thoughts and emotions and behaviors) than particular acts. Particulars acts are only significant insofar as they reflect, reenforce and/or modify character.

J.E.: if the heart is right (led by the Holy Spirit) the righteous life will follow. (E.g., "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" Rom. 8:4)

G.B. Will automatically follow? Will perfectly follow? Or will over time with ebb and flows follow?

J.E.: Christ is able to bring deliverance (from compulsive sinful thought patterns) when one unites with Him by faith (Christ as Deliverer, redeeming us from bondage through progressive knowledge of Him--if you continue in my word--as in John 8:31ff).

Doc: Immediately? Perfectly? Or over time?

J.E.: Again, your begging of the question by assuming that one who holds to my view (or any similar to it) believes one is "lost with every sin" does not affect my real view, which I have laboriously attempted to explain previously. As I have also repeatedly demonstrated in this thread by references to Finney's actual words, it is simply an untruth to say that I or Finney believed a believer "is unsaved each time he sins."

Doc: Sorry if I"m misunderstanding you John. But it seems to me you ARE saying that with every sin one is set in the direction of hell until they consciously repent. Grace only covers sin that is repented of. Okay, this question will set me straight: If I die with sin in my life for which I have not repented, am I saved?

J.E. And I am left wondering how anyone can truly know if another really is introspective or nonintrospective? Sounds like you're "judging" to me.

Doc: You don't notice that some people are introspective and others not? Some are extroverted and others not? Some are socially aware and others not? I don't see noticing this as judging, unless one is feeding off an assumed position of superiority relative to another.

J.E.: (In response to an expression of hopelessness). Okay then. I see your words earlier about my posts concerning this subject did not express your true sentiments. I am sorry to have wasted so much of your time, truly sorry.

Doc: ?????????

John: One final thought: I sincerely ask you to consider the ultimate effect of your above thoughts and words on humanity's INability to live right consistently. Can this sort of teaching ever do anything but breed licentiousness?

Doc: It seems to me, John, that the teaching that our worth before God is established by faith in Christ, apart and before our doing, is the best if not only way to ensure that licentiousness is avoided. As a person comes to know who they ARE in Christ, as they grow in aligning their thinking with the reality of who they ARE, the whole apparatus of thinking and feeling that leads to licentiousness begins to fall apart. One comes to see that there is no life in it.

J.E. When I used to believe as you do, I literally hated myself almost constantly because I sinned,

Doc: Then I can assure you, John, that you did not believe as I do.

John: and yet I believed that I could never rise above it, and so my understanding of God and spirituality was completely stalemated.

Doc: Is it "unstalemated" because you now rise above it? Is every one of our thoughts captive to Christ? What changed?

John: And this greatly distorted my view of God. The Bible presented Him as completely loving, just, and good, and yet because of Augustinian/Calvinian presuppositions about my moral inability, it seemed inescapable that God would hold an impossible standard up for man to live by, and then would condemn us to hell for not avoiding that which is in fact utterly impossible to avoid.

Doc: You REALLY did not believe as I do. Believe me!

J.E. In my experience, the "we can't ever live free from sin" doctrine, apart from the fact that it is directly contradicted by Scripture, breeds the worst kind of fatalism in one's attempts to live the Christian life, and colors his picture of God as being totally impossible to please.

Doc: I'm not saying we can't ever live free from sin. I'm simply saying that right now I -- and I suspect you -- don't. But we can, and we shall, when our true identity in Christ subsumes and extinguishes the lies we now believe. And what moves us toward this goal is the love of God toward us in the midst of our sin.

Sorry for any misunderstandings John. Its not intentional. I think we're just getting clear on our different perspectives. I'm still enjoying the dialogue

.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49

Posted 3/28/2003 9:48 PM (GMT -6)

A brief interlude to a discussion I'm greatly enjoying and learning from.

So far I'm siding with Doc on this one, but I'm struggling with a question that I think needs to be answered before even getting to the debate Doc and John Earp are having.

Is it not impossible for any of us to live lives completely free from sin? Because this is the obvious testimony of history, save one man--who also happened to be God--does it not violate our God-given moral intuitions to think that we are (without Christ) condemned for sinning when we couldn't have done otherwise? In my life I've always had a hard time understanding grace when I don't understand why I'm being held accountable for my inevitable sin anyway.

I don't mean to get things off on a tangent, but I'd greatly appreciate y'all's input.

"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/29/2003 4:06 AM (GMT -6)

AlyoshaKaramazov said: I don't understand why I'm being held accountable for my inevitable sin . . . does it not violate our God-given moral intuitions to think that we are...condemned for sinning when we couldn't have done otherwise.

quote:
AlyoshaKaramazov : Is it not impossible for any of us to live lives completely free from sin? Because this is the obvious testimony of history, save one man--who also happened to be God--does it not violate our God-given moral intuitions to think that we are (without Christ) condemned for sinning when we couldn't have done otherwise? In my life I've always had a hard time understanding grace when I don't understand why I'm being held accountable for my inevitable sin anyway.

I see your point, AlyoshaKaramazov.

Let me divide your question into two tracks. The first track would be one of pausing first to consider whether it is the "guilt" of sin that "gets us"..., OR whether it is the "death" that follows from sin that "gets us." This distinction is important. (I'm with the second option in this first track.) Some remarks on that debate follow. But for the moment let me now move on to the second track.

In the second track let's consider whether it should necesarily follow that we live with the results of our actions -- that we must "pay reality" the debt of our actions (e.g., you hit your finger with a hammer and it hurts.). If you want to suggest that this reality just shouldn't be true, then I can't follow you to that conclusion. I accept that reality is reality. So, back to the first track.

Remember that in that first 'track' (I'll stop calling them that now!) the choices were two: either the "real" consequence of sin was "guilt", or the "real" consequence of sin is death. Perhaps some people would say it is both. (I don't think so anymore.) But for here, lets just compare the two.

Enter the two contestants: Augustine's Latin-speaking tradition that embraced "imputed guilt" as the outcome of sin; and, the Greek-speaking Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy) that beleived that "death" is the outcome of sin.

Perhaps if you decide between these two choices (guilt versus death) you may find yourself more comfortably embracing consequences as being reasonably expected for sin.

You seem to already not like the "imputed guilt" that Augustine preached. So may we movedirectly to consider what the Greek tradition read in Paul as to the CONSEQUENCES OF Original Sin (rather than that imputed guilt). A Greeks reading of Paul's Greek sees clearly that just by being a decendent of those who brought MORTALITY to our race means that we are all destined to die. "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." (1 Corinthians 15:21) Whatever someone's arguement about how Romans 5:12 is to be read (see below if it matters), it is obvious that sin brings death, and thereafter that death/mortality leads to more sin. Think about it. "Self-preservation" seems to even have played a role in the original sin; and it surely leads to all our sins (either "'living' it up now" or avoiding the danger of poverty by grabbing all we can, etc.--whatever) which all surely lacks love, community and selfless giving. Let me pause a minute for that quote. Sin...death...sin...death.

quote:
From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret eph'ho as a reference to any word other than thanatos. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition epi with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun or phrase. To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, "because," is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when eph'ho is understood to modify thanatos--kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph'ho (thanato) pantes hemarton--"because of which" (death), or "on the basis of which" (death), or "for which (death) all have sinned." Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

The article that quote comes from is one that I would recommend for a reason other than that debated exegesis. What I'd recommend it for is one of its main thesis: the nature of the fall, of sin, and importantly the God-designed destiny of mankind. It gives a whole picture.

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE IF THIS INTERESTS YOU.

I'll put some quotes from the concluding portion of the article belos, BECAUSE they seem to be quite related to what you say you are thinking about, AlyoshaKaramazov .

Why is it related. Here's how. Since the "condemnation" is something that we DO TO OURSELVES (John 3:18) in our sin and mortality, and since that mortality is intrinsically a reality connected to our original design (to have our very live IN GOD by grace) it follows that to leave God is to take on death.

We are "held accountable" for the reality of the "inevitable" realith of sin (geath) by the inevitable reality of that sin itself AND by our very nature.

But....of course, that is not where the story ends. "Thanks be to God..." (Romans 7:25)

That is why the author of the article ends up focusing on the "destiny" of man!

READ IF YOU WISH.

quote:
Synthetic Observations

St. Paul does not say anywhere that the whole human race has been accounted guilty of the sin of Adam and is therefore punished by God with death. Death is an evil force which made its way into the world through sin, lodged itself in the world, and, in the person of Satan, is reigning both in man and creation. For this reason, although man can know the good through the law written in his heart and may wish to do what is good, he cannot because of the sin which is dwelling in his flesh. Therefore, it is not he who does the evil, but sin that dwelleth in him. Because of this sin, he cannot find the means to do good. He must be saved from "the body of this death."[ 210 ] Only then can he do good. What can Paul mean by such statements? A proper answer is to be found only when St. Paul's doctrine of human destiny is taken into account.

If man was created for a life of complete selfless love, whereby his actions would always be directed outward, toward God and neighbor, and never toward himself--whereby he would be the perfect image and likeness of God--then it is obvious that the power of death and corruption has now made it impossible to live such a life of perfection. The power of death in the universe has brought with it the will for self-preservation, fear, and anxiety, which in turn are the root causes of self-assertion, egoism, hatred, envy and the like. Because man is afraid of becoming meaningless, he is constantly endeavoring to prove, to himself and others, that he is worth something. He thirsts after compliments and is afraid of insults. He seeks his own and is jealous of the successes of others. He likes those who like him, and hates those who hate him. He either seeks security and happiness in wealth, glory and bodily pleasures, or imagines that this destiny is to be happy in the possession of the presence of God by an introverted and individualistic and inclined to mistake his desires for self-satisfaction and happiness for his normal destiny. On the other hand, he can become zealous over vague ideological principles of love for humanity and yet hate his closest neighbors. These are the works of the flesh of which St. Paul speaks. Underlying every movement of what the world has come to regard as normal man, is the quest for security and happiness. But such desires are not normal. They are the consequences of perversion by death and corruption, though which the devil pervades all of creation, dividing and destroying. This power is so great that even if man wishes to live according to his original destiny it is impossible because of the sin which is dwelling in the flesh --"Who will deliver me from the body of this death?"

To share in the love of God, without any concern for one's self, is also to share in the life and truth of God. Love, life and truth in God are one and can be found only in God. The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself. Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil. Because man is inseparably a part of, and in constant communion with, creation and is linked through procreation to the whole historical process of humanity, the fall of creation through on man automatically involves the fall and corruption of all men. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.

St. Paul clearly says that "the sting of death is sin," that "sin reigned in death," and that death is "the last enemy that shall be destroyed." In his epistles, he is especially inspired when he is speaking about the victory of Christ over death and corruption. It would be highly illogical to try to interpret Pauline thought with the presuppositions
(1) that death is normal or
(2) that at most, it is the outcome of a juridical decision of God to punish the whole human race for one sin,
(3) that happiness is the ultimate destiny of man, and
(4) that the soul is immaterial, naturally immortal and directly created by God at conception and is therefore normal and pure of defects (Roman scholasticism).

The Pauline doctrine of man's inability to do the good which he is capable of acknowledging according to the "inner man" can be understood only if one takes seriously the power of death and corruption in the flesh, which makes it impossible for man to live according to his original destiny.

The moralistic problem raised by St. Augustine concerning the transmission of death to the descendants of Adam as punishment for the one original transgression is foreign to Paul's thoughts. The death of each man cannot be considered the outcome of personal guilt. St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior, which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that the serpent "deceived Eve" and that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Man was not punished by God, but taken captive by the devil.

this interpretation is further made clear by the fact that Paul is insisting that "until the law sin was int he world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." It is clear that Paul here is denying anything like a general personal guilt for the sin of Adam. Sin was, however, in the world, since death reigned even over them who had not sinned as Adam sinned. Sin here is obviously the person of Satan, who ruled the world through death even before the coming of the law. This is the only possible interpretation of this statement, because it is clearly supported elsewhere by Paul's teachings concerning the extraordinary powers of the devil, especially in Romans 8:19-21. St. Paul's statements should be taken very literally when he says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death and that "the sting of death is sin."

. . . .

Hope that that helps.

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/29/2003 09:58:50 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/29/2003 6:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Is it not impossible for any of us to live lives completely free from sin? Because this is the obvious testimony of history, save one man--who also happened to be God--does it not violate our God-given moral intuitions to think that we are (without Christ) condemned for sinning when we couldn't have done otherwise? In my life I've always had a hard time understanding grace when I don't understand why I'm being held accountable for my inevitable sin anyway.

I don't mean to get things off on a tangent, but I'd greatly appreciate y'all's input.

Hi AlyoshaK,

Definitely not a tangent, and definitely an important question! Thanks for bringing it up. No one (not even Pelagius) ever taught that anyone could live from birth to old age without sinning at some time. The question as I understand it is not "who can live their whole lives without sinning?", but rather, "Can a believer by God's grace live free from sin (without sinning)?" I find John 8:31ff, Romans 6 as well as Romans 8:1-14 and 1 John 3 to specifically to show that believers in Christ are expected to live free from sin by the power of Christ's Spirit within them.

In the Augustinian/Calvinian scheme which colors much of Western Christianity, one must conclude that God sends some infants to hell because of Adam's sin. In the Eastern and Arminian branches of Christianity, no infants are sent to hell ever, as they have not personally done anything worthy of such punishment; i.e., "the age of accountability" is a real consideration in free-will affirming Christianity).

And I would say yes, it does violate our God-given moral intuitions to think that we are condemned for not doing the impossible. Another way of looking at this is, as you bring up, that our understanding of grace is very much negatively colored if we think of sin as inevitable.

Rom 8:12 ¶ So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/29/2003 1:05:06 PM

Edited by - John Earp on 03/30/2003 12:06:09 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/29/2003 7:03 AM (GMT -6)

J.E.: As emotions are involuntary....

Doc: Why think this? AT THE MOMENT an emotion may be EXPERIENCED as involuntary, but don't we CULTIVATE various emotions with the PATTERN of our choices?

J.E.: By your use of the word, "cultivate" it would seem to me that you are admitting that morality lies in one's choices.

J.E.: if the heart is right (led by the Holy Spirit) the righteous life will follow. (E.g., "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" Rom. 8:4)

G.B. Will automatically follow? Will perfectly follow? Or will over time with ebb and flows follow?

J.E.: As I have stated before in this thread, it is the overall pattern of one's life, and not isolated instances of disobedience to God, which exhibits one's character. It is a well-worn (and I think truthful) saying, "Choices create habits, habits form character, and character determines destiny." That is, one's righteous choices over time, in synergy with the Spirit of God, result in godly spiritual formation.

J.E.: Christ is able to bring deliverance (from compulsive sinful thought patterns) when one unites with Him by faith (Christ as Deliverer, redeeming us from bondage through progressive knowledge of Him--if you continue in my word--as in John 8:31ff).

Doc: Immediately? Perfectly? Or over time?

J.E.: Ditto to above on Rom. 8:4. I do not use the words "progressive" and "continue" in any sense other than "progressive" and "continue." As I understand Scripture to reveal, initial repentance is an immediate, decisive break with one's former way of living (sinning under the lordship of Satan and self), with a progressive outworking or revelation in one's consciousness; i.e., "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ."

J.E.: Again, your begging of the question by assuming that one who holds to my view (or any similar to it) believes one is "lost with every sin" does not affect my real view, which I have laboriously attempted to explain previously. As I have also repeatedly demonstrated in this thread by references to Finney's actual words, it is simply an untruth to say that I or Finney believed a believer "is unsaved each time he sins."

Doc: Sorry if I"m misunderstanding you John. But it seems to me you ARE saying that with every sin one is set in the direction of hell until they consciously repent. Grace only covers sin that is repented of. Okay, this question will set me straight: If I die with sin in my life for which I have not repented, am I saved?

J.E.: I think I have answered this one before, but apparently I have not been as clear as I should have been. I believe this question is a non sequitur, as it expresses a scenario that simply would not happen. God mercifully gives "time to repent," as he did Judas, Peter, Ananias & Sapphira, and the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev. 2. A person in a situation such as you describe would in fact have ample opportunity to repent (as God's revealed way of dealing with people in the Bible demonstrates). If such a person were to choose not to repent, they would be committing two sins not just one, and would certainly be worthy of greater condemnation due to the greater degree of light they had formerly had.

But again, I find this question you pose expresses something that simply would not happen; if the person in question had formerly formed a basically solid character in God, and this would be a rare exception to the overall expression of their life, they wouldin fact repent in such a case, and therefore they would be delivered from and forgiven for that sin.

J.E. And I am left wondering how anyone can truly know if another really is introspective or nonintrospective? Sounds like you're "judging" to me.

Doc: You don't notice that some people are introspective and others not? Some are extroverted and others not? Some are socially aware and others not? I don't see noticing this as judging, unless one is feeding off an assumed position of superiority relative to another.

J.E. This assertion that you can tell who is and who isn't introspective is not susceptible to proof to anyone less than omniscient. It seems to me that you are making an assumption about another's heart, simply because you find their claim incredible. Very subjective. This is what we see Calvinists doing to Open Theists all the time--assuming something about another's character because they disagree with a theological position. I think I should add that my view of the topic of this thread, as I have tried to demonstrate throughout, is not "sinless perfection" but "entire sanctification." I have also never in this discussion said that I never sin (though I do believe it is possible by the power of the Spirit for any believer in Christ to live free from sin).

I think it should be fairly apparent to careful readers that what I have said or implied is simply and only what 1 John 2:1 says: "...I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; if any man sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus the righteous. That is, if I do sin, I know I must repent, and must not try to shift the blame by saying or implying that I just "couldn't help myself" or as Flip Wilson used to say, "The Devil made me do it!"

John: One final thought: I sincerely ask you to consider the ultimate effect of your above thoughts and words on humanity's INability to live right consistently. Can this sort of teaching ever do anything but breed licentiousness?

Doc: It seems to me, John, that the teaching that our worth before God is established by faith in Christ, apart and before our doing, is the best if not only way to ensure that licentiousness is avoided. As a person comes to know who they ARE in Christ, as they grow in aligning their thinking with the reality of who they ARE, the whole apparatus of thinking and feeling that leads to licentiousness begins to fall apart. One comes to see that there is no life in it.

J.E. But did you not say or imply strongly that it was absurd to think one could ever really be free from sin? If so, it by definition follows that sin is inevitable. How this encourages sinners to continue sinning more and more is plainly evident.

John: and yet I believed that I could never rise above it, and so my understanding of God and spirituality was completely stalemated.

Doc: Is it "unstalemated" because you now rise above it? Is every one of our thoughts captive to Christ? What changed?

J.E.: Since coming to better understand my ability to change by God's grace, and to disbelieve in the inevitability of sinning, I now have a sense of optimism that I can truly live a life pleasing to my Lord. Previously, when I believed sinning was something I couldn't really help in the long run, I truly felt trapped and that God was the biggest bully imaginable, condemning people for that which they could never avoid. Not saying you're saying this, but I think this is the basic evangelical standpoint on sinning. In the Assemblies of God that I was raised in, we had what I now view as a curious mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism--we were called to holiness, but we could never really expect to live it for very long. (We were famous for "getting saved every week.")

John: And this greatly distorted my view of God. The Bible presented Him as completely loving, just, and good, and yet because of Augustinian/Calvinian presuppositions about my moral inability, it seemed inescapable that God would hold an impossible standard up for man to live by, and then would condemn us to hell for not avoiding that which is in fact utterly impossible to avoid.

Doc: You REALLY did not believe as I do. Believe me!

J.E.: Okay, do you believe people can obey God consistently? Perhaps I have mistaken your previous comments.

J.E. In my experience, the "we can't ever live free from sin" doctrine, apart from the fact that it is directly contradicted by Scripture, breeds the worst kind of fatalism in one's attempts to live the Christian life, and colors his picture of God as being totally impossible to please.

Doc: I'm not saying we can't ever live free from sin. I'm simply saying that right now I -- and I suspect you -- don't. But we can, and we shall, when our true identity in Christ subsumes and extinguishes the lies we now believe. And what moves us toward this goal is the love of God toward us in the midst of our sin.

J.E.: I agree with your last sentence especially, and the overall thrust of this paragraph, though you seem to assume to know my heart and life. We've only met once at a weekend conference (which I thoroughly enjoyed, by the way); apart from that and our interactions there, you assume to know how I live, and even my heart?

I suspect our difference lies in the following question: Is this revelation of our true identity in Christ something that is only received after one's physical death?

Sincerely,

John

P.S.: The following passage seems to me to affirm in the strongest possible terms the fact that believers in Christ are called to something much better than "sinning daily in word, thought, and deed," as the Westminster Larger Catechism states. One has to wonder what other terms Paul and the Holy Spirit could have used to express "having been freed from sin," than "having been freed from sin"? It seems to me that this entire chapter ought not be in the Bible at all if the Calvinistic mantra about man's moral inability to avoid sinning is true. It seems Paul plainly speaks of a past tense break with sin and a new way of living in Christ--free from sin.

Rom. 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone {as} slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in {further} lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
20 ¶ For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/29/2003 1:56:02 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/29/2003 9:53 AM (GMT -6)

For a look at Pelagius from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the following article is quite good:

http://www.brojed.org/pelagius.html

Also helpful is the following article from a minister-friend of mine's webpage:

http://pelajus.com/morgan.html

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/29/2003 10:26 AM (GMT -6)

The "Pelagius: To Demetrias" article is a great one; one that I've appreciated for some time now. Thanks for pointing to it!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/29/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

Who Suffered ?

www.arimathea.co.uk/who.htm

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/29/2003 6:22:34 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/29/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

J.E.: By your use of the word, "cultivate" it would seem to me that you are admitting that morality lies in one's choices.

Doc: EXACTLY -- which is why I believe we are morally responsible for our thoughts and emotions -- even IF in the moment we can't (because of the pattern we've freely developed) control them.

J.E. This assertion that you can tell who is and who isn't introspective is not susceptible to proof to anyone less than omniscient. It seems to me that you are making an assumption about another's heart, simply because you find their claim incredible. Very subjective.

Doc: To take one case: a person loves little, overeats a good deal and gossips a good deal while claimingg to me they haven't sinned in thirteen years.... is it the just the claim that is incredible, or the whole context of their life, together with the claim? Is it judging to notice this to the point of being puzzelled by it? While I believe I did in fact judge the person fifteen or so years ago when I knew them, I now don't believe I would judge them now simply by noticing this puzzling claim, for I wouldn't feed off any sense that "at least I'm not like them." I would just notice that they don't seem to be very introspective.

J.E. But did you not say or imply strongly that it was absurd to think one could ever really be free from sin? If so, it by definition follows that sin is inevitable. How this encourages sinners to continue sinning more and more is plainly evident.

Doc: I think I now understand your worry John. I agree with you that if "inevitability" is used in the sense of "nothing I can do about it." Got it. Perhaps it will be helpful to distinguish between
a) the inevitability of sin at sometime or other in the life of a person, given the fallen structure of creation (is it just coincidence that noone save Jesus has been sinless)
b) the inevitability of a particular sin in thoughts, feelings or behavior [i[given the pattern of life developed by a person thus far...
c) the noninevitability of a particular instance of sin.

What in my mind strongly encourages progress in sanctification is the knowledge that my true indentity is not the conclusion at the end of my striving, but the basis and foundation of my striving... for I know that "a" and "b" don't define who I truly am, and shall be overcome.

J.E.: Since coming to better understand my ability to change by God's grace, and to disbelieve in the inevitability of sinning, I now have a sense of optimism that I can truly live a life pleasing to my Lord.

Doc: AGREED. Grace is pardon and power.

J.E.: Okay, do you believe people can obey God consistently? Perhaps I have mistaken your previous comments.

Doc: We CAN in the sense that there is no NECESSITY to NOT obeying God consistently. We DON'T because of "a" and "b" mentioned above.

J.E. Ithe "we can't ever live free from sin" doctrine, apart from the fact that it is directly contradicted by Scripture, breeds the worst kind of fatalism in one's attempts to live the Christian life, and colors his picture of God as being totally impossible to please.

Doc: I'm not agreeing with the "we can't ever live free" teaching, as you are understanding it: but even if it were in some sense true, it wouldn't entail that God is impossible to please -- if one believes that God is pleased with us as we are "in Christ" and is please with progress in manifesting this identity, even when we do so imperfectly. Even if we can't live free from sin -- or at least DON'T live free from sin, God is only impossible to please if his being pleased with us is predicated on our living perfectly free from sin. I don't think God is ever pleased with sin, but I think he can be pleased with us even when we sin, for he knows us and loves us as we TRULY are and is working in our hearts to bring this true identity to fruition in our lives.

J.E.: I agree with your last sentence especially, and the overall thrust of this paragraph, though you seem to assume to know my heart and life.

Doc: I don't know much about you John, but from everything I can discern about you, you have a fantastic heart! Speculating that you, like me, still don't live a perfect life doesn't change this. It's just that noone I've ever met has been perfect, and I'm generalizing to the whole of humanity. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.

JE. I suspect our difference lies in the following question: Is this revelation of our true identity in Christ something that is only received after one's physical death?

Doc: Not in my view. Its received when we trust in Christ and revealed in the Word. We ARE new creations, holy, blameless, etc... Now, whether we PERFECTLY MANIFEST this before physical death is a different question. There's no reason why it couldn't be, but I can't claim it and I the few I've met who claim it (such as the case I mentioned above) give me reason to pause.

Thanks, and blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 03/30/2003 07:58:02 AM

Edited by - GregBoyd on 03/30/2003 07:59:02 AM

90 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual