SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What is "sin"?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

I hope to appeal to our more knowledgeable contributors to help us all here in regards to what our brother Clutch has written.

Being no theologian, thought it best to ask of you, those who are better equiped to articulate the flaws that I myself find here.

This is all very grievous to me and I fear it can and does lead to all kinds of problems and has led many astray.

Briefly a few of my concerns;

Quote:
What Is Sin, REALLY?

Quote:
I want you to realize and understand that sin is a wicked spirit BEING that uses other wicked spirit beings to destroy YOU by whatever means necessary.

Quote:
THE SPIRIT of BITTERNESS



Is sin a "wicked spirit BEING" ?
Is there such a thing as "THE SPIRIT of BITTERNESS"?
Is this reading into the scriptures things that just aren't there?
Or just bad hermenetics or both?
Is this 'blame casting'? or as I have heard it said "Flip Wilson theology?"("The devil made me do it?")
I realise it's not that simple, but does it not lend itself to this end?

Something that keeps coming back to me is that 'deception' is the business of the devil and even in attempts to unmask him we can be deceived.

I love all the brethren here on this site.
Too much to let this just slide by.
I believe it is very dangerous and needs to be addressed out of love and concern for the well being of His body.

I also reserve the right to be challenged in my own thinking and change my mind as long as it is unto the mind of Christ.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/2/17 6:14Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2736
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

I also have concerns with this teaching of Henry Wright. There seems to be a strong emphasis and blaming of sin on demons. For example:

Quote:
Has any one ever done something to you that you resented and haven?t forgiven them for? How about something that made you so angry that you have purposed and vowed to get even? Did you ever dwell on an offense done to you and thought something to the effect that there is not enough room in this building, town, or even on this planet for the two of you to coexist? Have you taken, or did you consider taking, physical action against the one that?s offended you? When you think of that person, do you dream of eliminating them physically, or do you assassinate their character? If you answered yes to any or all of the above questions, CONGRATULATIONS! You passed the test! It?s one hundred percent guaranteed that you have a spirit of bitterness.



This just doesn't witness to my spirit. God's word says that these things, the hatred, and strife that come between peoples are works of the [b]flesh[/b];

[i]Now the works of the [b]flesh[/b] are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.[/i](Galatians 5:19-21)

It seems he might be attributing too much to the work of demons. The above verse tells us these things are works of the flesh, we can't cast out the flesh can we?

I'm curious as to others thoughts on this as well.

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/2/17 6:46Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Wow Clutch, this is quite a breakfast. I’m not sure how to do justice to it. I will work through listing my reactions ‘though I think this is going to be the first of several posts.

Comment 1.In Chapter 12 of the book of Revelations, God tells about a great battle that took place in Heaven. The battle was between two archangels and their charges, Michael and his angelic host and Lucifer and his angelic army (which comprised one-third of the angels in Heaven). The result of this battle was that Lucifer and his angels lost the battle and were kicked out of Heaven. Not only did Lucifer and his army lose their home in the third Heaven where the true and living God, Jehovah, resides; but Lucifer’s name was changed to Satan and his troops were no longer called angels, but demons. These created beings also lost the angelic bodies that they had once possessed and were reduced to being only a spirit. The Biblical evidence of that is that every time demons manifest in the Bible, it’s always through a person or an animal. The 104 or so times that angels appeared to men, they showed up in the form of an angelic body.

There is an awful lot of speculation and extrapolation here. The catagoric statement that demons are angels who have been reduced to spirits has no biblical basis, as far as I am aware. I can agree with the last sentences but these conclusions are hanging from the wrong hooks, and I shall be watching out for other things that might get hung on these hooks.

Comment 2 Romans 5:12 tells how sin entered into the world. When Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge in disobedience to God’s instructions, he not only committed high treason against God, but he turned over the title deed to the earth to God’s enemy, Satan. The devil then became the god of this world, to include mankind, allowing him and his demons access to the earth. They brought to what had previously been a perfect environment their demonic natures, which are unbelief, rebellion, lying, unforgiveness, fear (the opposite of faith), bitterness and a long list of other spirit beings that manifest themselves through HUMAN beings. These spirit beings/natures are known as SIN, and are arrayed under a ruling demon (called a principality), which is similar to the chain of command in an army. Some more demonic spirits that the Bible names are Spirit of Jealousy (Numbers 5:14), Lying Spirit (I Kings 22:23), Spirits of Whoredoms/Idolatry
(Hosea 4:12), Spirit of Heaviness/Depression (Isaiah 61:3), Unclean spirit (Mark 5:8), Deaf and Dumb Spirit (Mark 9:5), Spirit of Infirmity (Luke13:11-13), Spirit of Fear
(II Timothy1:7). It should be clear at this point that sin is not simply missing a mark, falling short of God’s best, a perverse thought, or any other action /inaction that we might partake in.

If you had said here that the ruling spirit gained access to the human race in Adam who as a result of his disobedience constituted a union with Satan I would have been in agreement. This would have been Sin entering our cosmos as it says in Romans 5:12; the nature of this spirit is to steal, and to kill and to destroy. Its nature is to claim a right to its own self-fulfilment when as a creature it has none. It ‘snatches’ at equality and had the intention of usurping God’s own throne. This is SIN the constitution as distinct from sins the actions; I believe this is solid Bible teaching. However when you make individual demons the source of individual sins I believe you go way beyond the scriptures. When you give them the sole responsibility for human behaviour you move in a dangerous direction, because then the human response would be to seek deliverance from something which imposes its desires upon me. SIN is the slave master but to make it the creator of individual sins would remove the call for repentance. The call of God is not ‘be delivered’ but ‘repent’. This switches responsibility outside our control and I could not follow this line of thinking. Your list of spirits with their ‘names’ is also, I think, mistaken. One person could be an agent or source for many crimes and one spirit could be a source for many activities.

I don’t believe that phrases such as ‘a spirit of timidity’ imply an individual spirit with a particular characteristic, but is just such as expression as we ourselves might use in similar circumstances. To collectivise these spirits and say that this is what the Bible means by SIN is a serious departure from the revelation of SIN’s entrance as I read it in Romans 5:12. If we follow the reasoning here we shall end up ‘casting out sins’ rather than demons. Genuine repentance demands the I-thou response between a man and God; I have sinned against thee (the prodigal), against thee only have I sinned (David). If your thesis were true they would not be asking for forgiveness but for deliverance.

So far this has been ‘scriptural debate’ and I want to make it clear that I am now coming onto different ground. In my experience I have met people whose lives have become totally controlled by a particular sin. Some have only found a cure in deliverance; by which I mean that they were set free from demonic controls. My observation and I make it no more than that, has been that it was the individuals’ personal sin which attracted the demonic element rather than the demonic driving people into continuing sin. It is relatively easy to chase away the rats but unless the sewer is cleansed and the place filled with a Holy Spirit they will be back.

This is only a couple of paragraphs but I am disturbed about the direction that these thoughts are taking at this time. I think this is long enough for one post, but I will make my own comments before I read those of others. If I repeat what others might say that is the reason.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/17 11:04Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron,
Sorry, I forgot you like yours OVER EASY. :-D

We are in agreement when you said:

1."It is relatively easy to chase away the rats but unless the sewer is cleansed and the place filled with a Holy Spirit they will be back."
Matthew 12/Luke 11

I say:
I also have a recipe for THESE rodents, which is more along the lines of roasting them into crispy critters, rather than cooking them in soup. But, that's getting ahead of ourselves isn't it?


2."The call of God is not ‘be delivered’ but ‘repent’. This switches responsibility"

I say:
To be delivered one MUST repent, in the terms you described.

This healing, and deliverance business MAY be one of those spots where we won't find much common ground.In regard to doubtful disputations, I believe Romans 14:1-5 says to let every one be persuaded in his own mind. I have been pragmatically applying what I've learned at Pleasnt Valley Church, and the book "A More Excellent Way" for over a year now. The ministry protocol is very effective, the teaching is scripturally accurate, and it bears witness with my spirit.

In fact,as I've shared with you privately, I've decided to give up the excitement,glamour, and high paying position of Police Officer in Columbus Ga.,by joining Pastor Wright's staff as a Regional Director for " Be In Health" seminars. My territory is what they call the Coastal Region, but what I refer to as, the Southeastern Conference Region ( Miss., Ala., Ga.,and S.C.).I chose these states because I understand that public stonings,bushwhacking and lynchings have been outlawed, and in SOME places have been temporarily discontinued .:-D

My mind is made up regarding the truth and validity of the teachings of Pastor Wright, and the book " A More Excellent Way". I'm thoroughly convinced about them. I know this stuff works, and it's the real deal.

So, beat me with a wet noodle.

Clutch :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/17 17:31Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

2."The call of God is not ‘be delivered’ but ‘repent’. This switches responsibility"

I say:
To be delivered one MUST repent, in the terms you described.

Clutch
I can't see a single incident of someone who was demon possessed being required to repent. They were captives and a stronger man than their captor had to set them free.

Do you have any scriptural evidence for deliverance being preceded by repentance?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/18 0:54Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron,
You said.

"I can't see a single incident of someone who was demon possessed being required to repent."

This goes back to the original definition of WHAT sin is, and where sin resides. I listed several verses in regard to repentace in my original posts. One of your definitions of repentance goes something like this. " Attention"! "About Turn"! "Quick March!" And I agree totally with that definition.
In the truest sense the Demoniac of Gadera repented, and was delivered. He came out of where he was living, sought out and met God. I think this was not a happen stance meeting,God knew he was coming, and where he would be when they met. Mark 5, Luke 8
He made a concious decision to come out of agreement with the sin that possesed him, kept him naked and living in the graveyard;both physically and spiritually.

I talked about the Apostle Paul in Romans 7, and his struggle with the sin that dwelt in him. The messenger of Satan that continued to return and "punch" him. I don't think the scripture teaches that Paul's "messenger" was weak eyes, or some other physical malady. The Bible says that it was a "messenger" from Satan, which would be a BEING, which would be a ________.
So, like you said deliverance may not be a one time thing , depending on how much God that you allow in to replace the sewage that you've gotten rid of. Repentance and deliverance is a continual process, Paul told the Phillipians in Chapter 2 of that book, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (reverance and awe). Much like when he told the Ephesians in Chapter 5 of that book to be filled with " The Spirit", which is a continuing process.

Clutch :-)


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/18 4:46Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Repentance or deliverance?

Hi Clutch
you wrote: This goes back to the original definition of WHAT sin is, and where sin resides. I listed several verses in regard to repentace in my original posts. One of your definitions of repentance goes something like this. " Attention"! "About Turn"! "Quick March!" And I agree totally with that definition.
In the truest sense the Demoniac of Gadera repented, and was delivered. He came out of where he was living, sought out and met God. I think this was not a happen stance meeting,God knew he was coming, and where he would be when they met. Mark 5, Luke 8
He made a concious decision to come out of agreement with the sin that possesed him, kept him naked and living in the graveyard;both physically and spiritually.

I have to disagree. His 'coming to Christ' was not repentance. He came to Christ, threw himself on the ground and worshipped. These are all vital steps in his reclamation but they are not repentance. I always feel self-conscious in references to my 'sermons' but if you follow that sermon to the end you will be reminded that the essence of repentance is "against thee only have I sinned". This does not appear with the demoniac. What we do have is Christ's overpowering of alien spirits; this is deliverance not repentance.

you also wrote: I talked about the Apostle Paul in Romans 7, and his struggle with the sin that dwelt in him. The messenger of Satan that continued to return and "punch" him. I don't think the scripture teaches that Paul's "messenger" was weak eyes, or some other physical malady. The Bible says that it was a "messener" from Satan, which would be a BEING, which would be a ________.
So, like you said deliverance may not be a one time thing , depending on how much God that you allow in to replace the sewage that you've gotten rid of. Repentance and deliverance is a continual process, Paul told the Phillipians in Chapter 2 of that book, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (reverance and awe). Much like when he told the Ephesians in Chapter 5 of that book to be filled with " The Spirit", which is a continuing process.

Repentance is certainly a process as well as a crisis, but deliverance is a continual process? That begins to sound like salvation on the installment plan. It is as illogical as progressive sanctification. Sanctification is the process of God establishing his absolute right of ownership. We cannot have percentage sanctification; it is all or nothing.

The Philippians were being encouraged to work out what God had worked in, and that was not a percentage but a whole salvation in which both desire and dynamic were now God-sourced; both to will and to do.

I believe in a regeneration which produces a new creation not a patchwork quilt and in a regeneration in which old things are passed away and all things are become new.

My own understanding of Romans 7 is that it is by no means a current testimony of Paul, but an old one that he re-visits for the sake of illustration. It is the Spirit-less chapter; that is the clue to its interpretation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/18 7:13Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2736
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
I talked about the Apostle Paul in Romans 7, and his struggle with the sin that dwelt in him. The messenger of Satan that continued to return and "punch" him. I don't think the scripture teaches that Paul's "messenger" was weak eyes, or some other physical malady. The Bible says that it was a "messener" from Satan, which would be a BEING, which would be a ________.



I agree with Philologos that Romans 7 deals with those awakened but yet unregenerate. Romans 7 describes a person under the dominion of sin,one walking in the flesh, but as Paul said in the previous chapter, "Sin shall not have dominion, because you are not under the law, but under grace,"(Romans 6:14).

Regardless of how you view Romans 7, I have trouble with the link you have made between what is said in that chapter and with what is described in 2 Corinthians 12:7 concerning the messenger of Satan. The thorn in Paul's flesh was to keep him from the sin of spiritual pride ("lest I should be exalted above measure"). So how could sin or sinfulness be given to him to prevent him from another sin? Sin never has this tendency.

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/2/18 7:30Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron's,
Nothing like having a whole "Denomination" after your scalp. But, you're too late guys. :-D

Back to the original subject: I agree that we are in disagreement based upon our interpretations of scripture.
Would it be fair to say that these differences of interpretation, are based on our differences in understanding in regard to seperate systematic theological belief? If so, then I agree to disagree with you on non-essentials of the faith, until Christ brings us together in unity.

Besides, Ms. McNeill didn't raise her son to sit around and argue with folks, to try to and intellectually convince them of anything.
1. My end is to say it, and give a reason.
2.The hearers end is to be Berean. To search the scriptures and go from there.
3. The Holy Spirits end is to convince. A task that I was not selected for, and I'm totally incapable of doing.

Finally, I would like to take this sage advice from a childhood friend of Ron Bailey:

" Never miss a good chance to shut up."
-Will Rogers

Clutch :-)


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/18 7:59Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy