Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/20/2003 9:02 AM (GMT -6)

Hi,

I have lots of little problem sections in the Bible that I would really like to get some help with. So many, that I thought it better to start one topic for them instead of thousands of little ones. Is that OK here?

They are mostly silly things, but for instance, I really don't understand what this means:

1Timothy 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.

Anyone willing to help me?

Thanks

Badger

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/20/2003 9:34 AM (GMT -6)

All I can do is add another interpretation:

1Ti 5:23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.
1Ti 5:24 The sins of some men are conspicuous, pointing to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.
1Ti 5:25 So also good deeds are conspicuous; and even when they are not, they cannot remain hidden.

I hope this might shed some light on the issue.

Peace

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 1/20/2003 9:41 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Badger (cool name by the way--it's fun to say)
I interpret that verse to mean that some sins are open and obvious--like an addict shooting up in the park, others follow behind them,they are only known once they have been exposed--like the addict who secretly uses in the bathroom. The NIV translation makes this verse a little clearer. What version do you typically read? It is my understanding that the New American Standard is very true to the Greek, so I read both versions when I am trying to interpret passages.

Hope this helps!
S.B.G.

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/21/2003 8:17 AM (GMT -6)

Hi,

Thanks so much for the replies

. You've encouraged me to dig a little deeper into this and look at this in the context of the whole letter.

I just read one theory that this letter was written to Timothy (who Paul had charged with looking after the church in Ephesus) during a possible fourth missionary journey to Spain. I had not heard of such a trip before. Anyway, it seems this letter is generally a collection of instructions and advices to Timothy on how to handle this job of running the church. I think the preceding verse 23, suggesting that Timothy start drinking some wine for medicinal purposes, kind of throws things a bit as it appears to interject a bit of personal parental advice in the middle of a general account on ordaining and supporting elders in the church, starting from verse 17.

You both give a very logical meaning to this verse and I reckon you are spot on. However, I am left wondering whether Paul is directing these warnings to Timothy to be wary when selecting elders, as some candidates may well have a few "delicate" skeletons in the closet! (This would certainly tie in with verse 22 where Paul urges Timothy not to be too hasty with ordaining people and maybe ending up having to explain his way out of potential accusations of having accepted that person's sins or even been accessory to them). Or, on the other hand, is it also possible that Paul is simply giving some practical advice on church censureship and absolution of sins of its members? (hence the "leading to judgment" bit?). In which case, the comment regarding some sins following after could also mean someone continuing their same sin even after absolution rather than different set of sins!

But on balance it seems to me that Paul is generally warning Timothy not to do anything in haste, as even hidden sins will eventually come to light in the same way as even the most discreet of good works

.

Thanks muchly for your help, and I’d appreciate any further comments on this if you think I’m on the wrong track (expecially about the possible fourth trip by Paul).

Badger

PS I use the KJV and New English Bible – and I have just bought an NIV so I guess I’ve got no excuses left, but somehow I think there’s still a thousand queries in the pipeline!

Edited by - badger on 01/21/2003 1:19:57 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/21/2003 8:35 AM (GMT -6)

I stand by the NRSV as my interpretation of choice.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/21/2003 5:38 PM (GMT -6)

It seems to me that this passage merely reiterates what Christ said, "There is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed," etc. It seems obvious (to me at least) that some sins become public knowledge before their death, and that all other sins will become public knowledge, so to speak, on Judgement Day.

That sure makes me want to repent now of each and every sin and be sure that they are all cleansed by the blood of Christ! (1 John 1:5-2:1)

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/22/2003 8:12 AM (GMT -6)

I do agree that the NRSV translation makes much sense, but it does seem a little out of context here, especially bearing in mind how much time Timothy and Paul spent together. Wouldn't this have been a rather obvious fact - one that they would have often discussed and took as accepted? Nor am I at all sure what was Paul's point in raising it here, and what practical use it would have been for Timothy in his management of the Ephesian church...

When I combine that thought with John's posting above I now end up also wondering does this refer to sins only known to ourselves and only come to light publicly later? or are these sins that are even unknown to ourselves until revealed later? (I am sure I have loads of sins that I am too dumb to even recognise!)

This leads me to yet another problem text that is related to this question of sin:

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... (NIV)

1 John 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin..(NIV)

...but I Dooooo......lots!!!!!!!!!!!

Does this mean I don't believe enough?

Badger

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 1/22/2003 11:22 AM (GMT -6)

Badger (I really want to know the story behind your name!)
I think the verse in 1 John is referring to our heart change and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. As we grow in Christ,the things that once tempted us begin to lose their appeal. Likewise, sins we used to commit without any qualms of concscience aren't so natural anymore, and we begin to hear what the Spirit is saying about it.
In addition, we are already loved, already holy and already saved by grace. Once we really embrace that fact, we begin to live like we are.

Living in Joy,
S.B.G.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/22/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

This leads me to yet another problem text that is related to this question of sin:

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... (NIV)

1 John 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin..(NIV)

...but I Dooooo......lots!!!!!!!!!!!

Does this mean I don't believe enough?

Badger

Hi Badger,

I take the statements in 1 John to be quite unambiguous. If one continues in sin, one has a really good reason to question their assurance of salvation. Of course, this begs the question of defining precisely what sin is. In my experience, many people define sin way too loosely. Temptation and carnal impulses are not sin unless and until they are consented to by the will. In view of the very eminent fact that we shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), and in view of the wonderful love of Jesus for us while we were yet enemies to God, it seems self-evident that we as Christians should do all we can, by God's sanctifying grace, to stop sinning.

My 2c

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Edited by - John Earp on 01/22/2003 11:53:54 PM

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/23/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you for such inspiring responses

Like you, I truly do believe (because,also like you, I have seen it happening in people) that we do grow in Christ and that our sins become less frequent, but these words from 1 John are very specific and, as John Earp says, maybe we have good reason to question our assurance of salvation if we do continue in sin. So, I suddenly find myself asking of myself DO I believe? do I REALLY believe? Or are we maybe just creating a weeny loophole for ourselves by saying that we "gradually" improve, and being content with that? Afterall, if the Spirit is truly in us shouldn't we be ABLE to stop sinning immediately? We ARE told that by ourselves we can do nothing, so if we DO have the Spirit, surely there should not be any problem in an immediate halt to sin??

Panic sets in as I remember Jesus' words in Rev 3:16

"So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth"

Aaargh! is that it? I am only lukewarm?

But there again, hold on one minute.......

I remember in my prayers (which I only say because I DO believe) "forgive me my sins as I forgive others.....". Why would Jesus tell me to pray for forgiveness if He expects that I no longer sin if I believe?

Now it feels a little less uneasy..

Yes, now I remember. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans around AD 57, isn't that about 20+ years after his conversion? Now if ANY man believed in Jesus, it has to be Paul. The guy who had everything going for him and chucked it all away just so's to live a life of pain and poverty for Christ. Didn't HE complain in his letter about doing the things he didn't want to and not doing what he did want to?

So maybe there IS a little period of grace involved here, but I guess it is best not to rely too much on that - I think I'm gonna join John Earp in the repenting scramble (can one even repent ahead of sinning? seeing as we know it is gonna happen?).

John Earp poses an intriguing question about defining precisely what sin is. Is this possible? Who decides? Is one man's sin another man's virtue? Or could this be another weeny loophole to wriggle through? It is a very valid point in my book. I see sin as the domination of my will over God's will, and I confess I usually do win that contest hands down, every time! Following my own will is separation from God - and that for me is sin. But I agree that temptation is put before us all the time and just recognising the temptation is not the sin. Surely the sin only kicks in when we accept it?

But I guess the question of sin has been talked to death on a quality site like this one, so I won't dwell on it

.

I am not sure if we resolved this particular question yet, but I certainly got a lot more than 2c's worth, really!

You people are really nice

Badger

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 1/23/2003 4:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Badger,

I have struggled with 1 John 5:18 in the past and have arrived at a position that I feel makes good sense of the passage without having to do any fancy word-wrangling. I'll throw it at you and you can make of it what you will.

The problem which we face in 1 John 5:18 is the same problem which we also face in 1 John 3:6 & 9. The passage reads as follows:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:6-9, NIV)

Notice that the translation uses the words "continues" in verse 6 and "continue" in verse 9. These words have been included to convey the "continuous" aspect of the Greek present tense. The passage is therefore understood to mean that those who are born of God do not continuously or habitually sin. In other words, sin no longer characterizes a believer's lifestyle. This does not exclude occasional sinning but it says that sin is no longer the dominating characteristic.

From what I understand, however, inclusion of the words "continues" and "continue" overstresses the contribution of the present tense. In fact, some have argued that the continuous aspect is not inherent at all in the present tense, but rather is conveyed by other means. Sakae Kubo and J.P. Louw have both written important articles stating this. I can post quotations and references from both if you want, but I don't have them with me at the moment. I have heard that R.E. Brown, I.H. Marshall, S.S. Smalley, and C.H. Dodd make similar observations concerning the force of the present tense aspect in their commentaries on John's epistles. Some of these reference appear in the citations below.

Zane Hodges writes:

What is called "aspect" in the Greek verb system is very poorly understood by many people who have studied (and written about!) the significance of the Greek tenses. The words of Zerwick are a caution frequently ignored. He writes: "NB: The aspects, as was said above, present the action as [italics his] a simple fact, etc.; the use of tense is determined not so much by the objective reality (which commonly admits all three aspects according to what the speaker wishes to express [italics added]) as by the speaker's needs: he will use the aorist for an action which objectively lasted a long time or was repeated, if what he wishes to express is simply the fact that the action took place; or the present for an action which is of its nature momentary [italics added], if what he wishes to express is the nature or kind of action as distinct from its concrete realization." Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963), p. 78. The idea that the Greek present tense automatically suggests on-going or continuous action is a linguistic myth. No doubt it is believed by many (even some scholars) but it is mythical nonetheless. [Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 2d ed. (Dallas: Redencion Viva) p. 164, n. 10.]

The NET Bible comments in the "translator's note" for 1 John 3:6:

tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense hamartanei in this verse (and poiei in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author's own statements in 2:1-2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1-2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek § 251). He understands the aorist to mean "commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other" while the present means "be a sinner, as a characteristic «state»." N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense amartanei is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a "habitual" meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges ("1 John," BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 215-17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended…It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12). [NET Bible, http://www.bible.org]

And at 1 John 3:9, the NET Bible adds:

tn The problem of the present tense of poiei here is exactly that of the present tense of hamartanei in 3:6. Here in 3:9 the distinction is sharply drawn between "the one who practices sin" in 3:8, who is of the devil, and "the one who is fathered by God" in 3:9, who "does not practice sin." See S. Kubo ("I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?" AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56) for a fuller discussion of the author's argument as based on a sharp antithesis between the recipients (true Christians) and the opponents (heretics).

Of course there has been vigorous debate over the significance of the Greek verbal aspects in recent years. But the relevant point for this discussion is the Greek present tense, by itself, does not convey a continuous aspect; other qualifying words must be present for this sense to be communicated. In other words, the inclusion of "continues" and "continue" in 1 John 3:6 & 9 is unwarranted. John is indeed stating unequivocally that the one who is born of God does not sin--at all!

But if anything, this has reinforced the difficulty you originally pointed out; it certainly has done nothing to explain it.

Here is what I take 1 John 3:5-9 (and therefore, also 1 John 5:18) to be saying. I will paraphrase what I believe to be the flow of thought.

In Christ, there is absolutely no sin (v.5) and therefore, those who are in him do not sin either (v.6). The reason for this is because sin finds its source in the devil (v.8), not in God's seed, which those who are born of God possess. That seed remains completely sinless (v.9).

A few additional things to point out about this interpretation:

(1) This sharp contrast between sin/don't sin is typical of John's polarizations elsewhere in the epistle (e.g., light/dark, love/hate). John is not concerned with gray areas, but rather, he is contrasting pairs of opposing spheres within which the believer might abide. His language carries an "absolute" tone to it.

(2) The seed of God which remains in us is elsewhere described as "imperishable" (1 Peter 1:23), so this is not the only time where it is described as something which is without defect. I think the idea is that when we sin, the source of that sin is not God's seed which is in us, but rather the devil. Those who are born again possess this seed which cannot, in an absolute sense, be the source of sin. Perhaps, this mistaken idea is indicative of the Gnostic/proto-Gnostic/Revisionist views against which (as is often understood) John was writing.

At any rate, this view has satisfied my questions about this text. I contribute this knowing that most will not accept it, but I thought I'd throw this out as a potential solution to the problem, and let you take it for what it's worth.

El Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Edited by - payaso on 01/23/2003 9:30:42 PM

Edited by - payaso on 01/23/2003 11:42:36 PM

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/24/2003 6:21 AM (GMT -6)

Hello Al Payaso,

Thanks for so such information and thought - please allow me some time to do it full justice and absorb what you are suggesting before responding.

Badger

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/24/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

Good stuff, Payaso.

On another note, we have only to see Peter in the book of Acts, and Peter in the book of Galatians (where Paul has to rebuke him because of his Hypocracy).

This and other passages demonstrate, from the application perspective, a hermeneutic clearly showing that no one is neither sinless nor without possibility of committing a sin. It is, indeed, that the new life inside us is perfect--He who was, is and always will be perfect--and that in Him we are, therefore, perfect. If we aren't in Him, as John constantly notes in I John, we simply aren't His!

Starkman

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/24/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6)

Once more thanks, Al Payaso, for your tremendous input. I only wish that I could come even close to approaching you level of integrity and sincerity and depth and breadth of knowledge of such issues.

It was very interesting to read the evidence concerning the appropriateness of the word “continue” in the NIV version of verses 1 John 3:6,9. (I note that it is omitted from the KJV translation). Whilst I guess no one can be sure, I tend to agree that the core idea here is NOT that we progress over time towards a state of perfection (even though that is what we hope for) and that he most likely DID have a specific and absolute meaning. I also doubt it means being absolutely free of sin, since in 1 John 1:9 he writes that, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness”. It is hard to accept that he would be suggesting here only those sins that occured prior to becoming a child of God on the assumption there couldn't/wouldn’t be another thereafter. And, of course, much of the rest of the NT (as Starkman confirms) is all about sinning anyway, which would now all be superfluous information – and, streetwise, we only have to look around us to see that sin does not stop with belief!

So what could be the absolute meaning that John is expressing here?

I find myself homing in very rapidly on your own thoughts that, although sin materially still occurs, our spirit remains unblemished in God, whilst our sin is rooted in the devil. I could perhaps describe sin as any personal wanting that opposes God’s will and which is also combined with a readiness to fulfil that wanting regardless of an awareness of contravention of God’s will. Maybe in John’s scenario the "wanting" may not entirely disappear, but certainly the "readiness" to fulfil it should indeed be immediately absent.

I found some explanation in Matthew Henry which seems to follow this line of thought (thankfully

) in describing the child of God:

There is a light in his mind which shows him the evil and malignity of sin.
There is a bias upon his heart which disposes him to loathe and hate sin.
There is the spiritual seminal principle or disposition that breaks the force and fulness of the sinful acts.

He concludes that, “therefore in respect to such sin it may be said that, “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me””. Therefore “I” remain sinless! I can somehow live with that to the extent that it means that I am immediately elevated to the status of a reluctant sinner, where the spirit is clean but the flesh remains weak, and therefore my spirit is sinless. But, on the other hand, couldn't one argue that this is suspiciously like a convenient game with words to avoid the guilt and conviction of continuing sin?

This therefore raises another problem (at least for me!). What does it mean that, “it is the sin within me that sins”? As far as I know, it is not a third party, it is still me that does it – albeit with great reluctance and an overwhelming remorse! I see [at least] three categories of sin, where it is definitely still me behind the steering wheel:

1 Pride. I feel much happier to be proved right than wrong (especially in public!)
2 Greed. No matter how much I think I love others, there are always others worse off than me that I choose to ignore (even in my own town, not to mention the starving millions)!.
3 Selfishness. Whenever I go shopping I pick the best off the shelf instead of the worst – so there is a poorer choice left for whoever comes next (nasty!)

Somehow, I don’t find in me a dual personality where “I” am living in sinless serenity whilst at the same time the naughty devil, unknown to "me", is sinning away using my body. When I look inside I just find me (and so does God, oh, how I wish there WAS a little devil in here that I could point to and say, “it was him over there”!)

So what really IS the difference between the spirit and the flesh………really.

Badger

Edited by - badger on 01/24/2003 3:20:14 PM

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/24/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman raises another very interesting and (for me) problematic area. He mentions Paul rebuking Peter. I believe the letter to the Galatians was quite an early letter, some claim maybe even the first of those included in the NT. Even so, it was long after Christ's death and the Pentacost.

The issue I am referring to is the nature of the Holy Spirit and in particular, the spirit of truth that is supposed to teach us everything. Just after Jesus' resurrection, He was in the room with the disciples and he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit". Then on the Day of Pentacost they received the power of the Holy Spirit - and yet Peter, at least, still did not know everything nor was kept up to date - as this argument with Paul many years later testifies.

I certainly don't claim to have any spirit of truth, I seem to have to work hard to gain any kind of understanding of anything! So does anyone here have the spirit of truth in them? what is it like? how does it work? And if not, why not? Doesn't the bible promise it in many places? Why are there so many different and unresolvable opinions out there in the big world if the spirit of truth is with all believers?

I don't mean this to sound at all cynical or accusative - I just don't understand it.

Problems, problems, problems

Time to go snuffling around in the dark...

Badger

Edited by - badger on 01/24/2003 3:45:40 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/24/2003 4:55 PM (GMT -6)

Well, here's my take on it.

1. Jesus breathed on the disciples; they got saved; meaning, the Son has accomplished His work, the way to the Father has been made completely available, and the promise of the Comforter has come. (In my opinion, just to split hairs, this is the Baptism of the Spirit; the Spirit baptizes the believer into the body of Christ upon salvation.)

2. At Pentecost, the disciples get baptized WITH the Spirit (slightly different than "in" or "of" the spirit). The disciples are not baptized into something as much as they are endued WITH something: power for ministry. (Again, this is just my opinion.)

3. I have experienced number 1.

4. I have not experenced number 2--though I thought I had at one time (and let me tell you, that's a other issue when you deceive yourself because of the all the wrong "techniques" used to help you "get the Spirit". Big problems here!)

5. I don't see any difference whatsover--none--in the lives of those who claim the baptism (number 2) then those who don't. I have, however, learned a GREAT deal about love from this site, though, and THAT has made a big difference in my life.

6. I don't "feel" God's Spirit--He ain't a man, so that doesn't leave much else to call Him--as if He walks up and taps me on the shoulder, but I enjoy a relationship with Him . . . in the Spirit!

For the Spirit,

Starkman

badger
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 9

Posted 1/27/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6)

Thankyou Starkman for such an honest and helpful reply. It certainly does seem that one can divide the activities of the Spirit into different areas - gifts, power, communication, inspiration, knowledge...

I wonder if sometimes we tend to focus only on the more dramatically obvious workings of the Spirit and forget the more "minor" ones such as Love

. It is perhaps a good exercise to list all the workings of the Spirit listed in the NT and see how many of them DO exist in our lives!

Badger

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:28 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