SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Unassurance

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
AsliEren
Member



Joined: 2005/2/3
Posts: 56
Dallas, Texas

 Unassurance

I haven't seen anything about unassurance in the forums and wanted to see if anyone wanted to have a discussion about it.

My belief is that if I am willfully sinning against God then at that time I am in unbelief. I may have the knowledge about who and what God is and although my lack of faith does not hinder God being faithful to Himself I remain in doubt and disbelief by the very act of willfully sinning. At that time it is as if I am pretending there is no God and that He is not Lord or Saviour or anything else that He is. I am completely oppossing Jesus during willful sin and by not having faith in Him at that time means I am not beleiving Him but I am disbelieving Him and utterly oppossed to Him. At the time of willful sin I cannot at that time believe the gospel as the power that saved me or the power that is saving me or any other power from above for me. I cannot believe He is my Savior and I cannot believe He is my Lord. I am believing a deception by faith and that is the lie that I am a child of sin and can do nothing but sin. My conscious can only show me that I am meant for hell fire. Anyone who can willfully sin and while wilfully sinning take comfort in the gospel is sadly mistaken. What he believes to be faith is only head knowledge and is just religous babblings in his head that have no meaning. This person has deceived himself.

This scenario of being in willful sin is what I believe is the only rightful place for unassurance. It's man in His faithless state utterly incapable of having faith in God as the power that saved Him.

 2005/5/9 15:58Profile









 Re: Unassurance

wow, this is really "unusual". Sir, to my knowledge, all sin is willful sin. I have to know it is sin and do it anyway for it to be sin. If I do something that I'm not aware is sin, can that be charged to me?

If all sin is willful sin, as I believe it is, then you are saying .......what? I'm no longer sure. Maybe you simply and elaborate. ;-)

 2005/5/9 20:57
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

bro. Lahry. In what sense do you use sin? How do you understand sin in light of all sin being willful sin?


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/5/10 0:09Profile
AsliEren
Member



Joined: 2005/2/3
Posts: 56
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

All sin is willful sin. I had to say willful sin for people to wrap there corrupt minds around so they know that when we sin it is willful. The modern day churchdom has this idea that we accidentally sin. I believe this is a big problem. I am asking us Christians to see what it is we are doing when we sin. When we sin we are not having faith in God. It is as simple as that. To believe you can rightfully comfort your mind with a pet Christian doctrine while sinning is to deceive yourself.

It's actually comforting to have a response like this. In my church any talk or perspective along the lines of repentance is seen as legalism or unassurance of salvation.

When someone mentions there addiction to cigarretes or a problem with porn it's usually counterattacked by a minister with the approach, "It's hard I know, but don't worry brother just pray." Instead of attacking the seriousness of sin and telling them to repent they pat them on the back and say, "brother whatever you do just know your still a brother in Christ your saved, you can't lose your salvation don't ever forget that."

Jesus believed He was Lord and Saviour when he said, "go and sin no more" so why don't we tell our brothers and sisters in Christ that. We in the church have used our Christian doctrines to extract the power of the gospel out of our speech and lives. No wonder we have a half dead unfruitful church in America.

When a brother sins 3 times in a row the other brothers on the 3rd confrontation are supposed to be like hey Johnny your not acting like a Brother and in fact you keep on doing what isn't Christian behaviour right here in our fellowship. Why don't you go out into the world and live how you want until at such a time you decide serving the Lord is what you want to do and then come back and there will be true fellowship. The early church would actually encourage false believers to go back out into the world if it was obvious they weren't for real. They wouldn't pat them on the back and reinforce their behaviour with Christian doctrine.

I picture someone in the modern day church saying something like, "I went to the bar the other day and got wasted, man what a mess. I shouldn't have done that." It seems more biblical to ask the person if he enjoys the club scene over Christian living then to ask him, Why don't you just leave the church and just do that instead?

 2005/5/10 7:18Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
wow, this is really "unusual". Sir, to my knowledge, all sin is willful sin. I have to know it is sin and do it anyway for it to be sin. If I do something that I'm not aware is sin, can that be charged to me?

A distinction might be made between 'transgression' and 'sin', although this will disturb some folk. There is a difference between Eve's act and Adam's. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1Tim. 2:14, KJVS) Eve's transgression might be compared with what the KJV calls 'sins of ignorance' (Lev 4) 'though the NASB calls them 'unintentional sins' which gives a better idea of the topicThen the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a person sins [u]unintentionally[/u] in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, (Lev 4:1-2 NASB)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/5/10 7:24Profile









 Re: for Doz

This is my understanding of sin. Sin is willful breaking a law of God. As our brother Ron so graciously pointed out, there is also unintentional sin as well.

The problem with the mindset of many in this hour is that their christian walk consists entirely of attempting to avoid wrong doing. That is in my opinion religious and is filthy rags to God.

When a person is truly born again, that is they repent, identify with Jesus and His death on the Cross, burial, and resurrection, and place all their eternal hope for eternal life entirely and completely on that finished work, in God's eyes, the flesh dies.

Paul plainly tells us in Eph. 2 that we have already been seated with Christ in heavenly places. It's past tense. How can this be, if we are not already dead in God's eyes. Paul said that if we have been crucified with Christ, then we shall also reign with Him.

To my very limited understanding, and I will take on all flak without retaliation for saying this, When a person becomes born again, the flesh and spirit are forever divided, as long as their faith and eternal hope in is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Our perception of flesh and spirit in one view is that the two are homoginized, while we are certain that the two are serperate in another view and opposed to each other. The latter is the view, I believe that God has. He sees us already crucified. That means that we died with Christ, once and for all as He died once and for all.

If the Spirit and the flesh are indeed seperate from one another, though both continue to reside within the same container, then their works are seperate also. The works of one are destined for the grave. The works of the other are reward stored up for that great and terrible day. The works of the flesh are dead works. Sinful? Completely corrupt and sinful. But the flesh is dead and buried. That's why we have already been passed from judgement into life...eternal life, abundant life..His life. When? The hour we first believed and repented. Oh alleluia. Brother, that's the good news of the Gospel as I understand it. If you feel I'm in left field somewhere, please pray for me. My eternal hope is resting on what I've written here. I sure don't want to miss it. Nor do I want you to miss it either.

 2005/5/10 7:51
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re: Unassurance

Quote:
Anyone who can willfully sin and while wilfully sinning take comfort in the gospel is sadly mistaken



Remember how Peter willfully sinned at Antioch by separating himself from the gentiles? Paul had to rebuke him for putting a burden on the gentiles that God never intended.

Are you suggesting that Peter only had a head knowledge of the gospel?

There is grand difference between knowing that the gospel is true (head knowledge) and actually placing your own faith in Jesus Christ - the one is a lip service faith -spoken of by James as a "dead faith" - the other a living faith.

But even the apostle Peter was not perfectly sanctified the moment he was saved. I wouldn't want some some little one to stumble on account of your zeal.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/5/10 12:34Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Eve's transgression might be compared with what the KJV calls 'sins of ignorance' (Lev 4) 'though the NASB calls them 'unintentional sins' which gives a better idea of the topic



This is a topic that I heard preached just this week and wondered at what is truly meant by 'willful' sin. Based upon what Bro. Ron has written it seems as though there are varying degrees of sin(s) based upon 'knowledge.' If Eve was 'deceived' it means that the enemy had caused her to question the information that was passed to her by Adam to the place where she believed what was [i]not[/i] true. Sin itself is deceitful and hardens the sinner into a course of life believing untruths.

When we say that one has sinned 'unintentionally' are we saying that the person was deceived into believing that the behavior was either OK or not as it really is; or are we saying that the sinner was [i]totally[/i] ignorant of the commandment? The enemy is forever deceiving folk into believing that sin is not sin or will not bring the punishment that God has said it will.

It would be the height of rebellion to attempt to Sin against God in a deliberate way. here I am drawing a distinction between what is happening in the 'deceived' persons heart and the 'undeceived.' The one sinned to gratify themself in an unlawful way- the wilfull sinner sinned highhandedly as if to commit the sin against God to His hurt. One is an act of self indulgence- the other is one of open faced malice against God.

Does this all jibe?

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/5/10 13:08Profile
AsliEren
Member



Joined: 2005/2/3
Posts: 56
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

I would say if Peter was doubting the faith he claimed to have and was seperating himself from the gentiles because he doubted then he was sinning. He was being a hypocrite. At that point in time since he was a Christian he may have been asking the question why am I doing the very thing I don't want to do. I know better but here I am being a hypocrite. That's where I think this verse below would apply to his situation:

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

If Paul said he was a wretched body of death we certainly could follow his example whenever we are in sin and admit to God what we are at the time God calls us to repent instead of making justifying statements to appease the conscious such as "I messed up" and "all christians mess up" and "God doesn't expect me to be perfect". If we never admit to being utterly wretched in our sinful choice then we haven't truly come to the end of the wretched man to live by the Spirit but we will try to improve upon our wretched state.

I submit to you that the "little ones" will not stumble if we preach "be holy as I am holy" Instead if we wretched sinners described in the verses above would admit more often to be being wretched when we sin and turn from deception and have faith in He who has made us Holy we would be settled in our mind. The sooner they admit to being a wretched sinner the quicker they will be loosed from the perfectionist legalistic yoke that this discussion tends to evoke in ones mind due to the mentality of todays seeker friendly mindset.

 2005/5/10 13:36Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Remember how Peter willfully sinned at Antioch by separating himself from the gentiles? Paul had to rebuke him for putting a burden on the gentiles that God never intended.


I wonder if this was 'sin' as we are defining it in this thread. It was certainly wrong and needed to be corrected but would that make it a 'sin'? Was it not a mistake or a misunderstanding? My rule of thumb understanding of 'sin' is that it is a clash of wills and hence a conscious thing. Paul, describing the incident says that Peter was 'to be blamed' and brings a charge of 'hypocrisy' or 'dissimulation'. The Greek word 'hupercrisis' means, among other things, someone who plays a part in an outward show ie an actor. I am not sure that Paul is accusing Peter of 'sin' in this context.

'to be blamed' is also 'key' as we are talking about Adam's sin in another thread. 'to be blamed' or 'to be charged with' is a word used 3 times in the NT. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was [u]to be blamed[/u].

For if our heart [u]condemn[/u] us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart [u]condemn[/u] us not, then have we confidence toward God.” (Gal. 2:11; 1John 3:20-21, KJVS) These 1 John references are usually taken to imply that if our heart brings a charge against us we can ignore it because God is greater than our heart. The verse is often used in this way with those who are 'unassured'. (to use the language of this thread)

I am not sure that this is how we should understand this verse. Part of my reasoning is that 'our heart' is generally an ally rather than an adversary in post-Pentecost bible teaching. Why would the heart bring a testimony contrary to that of God Himself? There is such a strong sense of assurance through so much of 1 John I can't think why 'our heart' should suddenly bring this rogue charge; if that is what it is.

I would suggest another interpretation which would suggest that John is not discounting the testimony of the heart but saying that God's fuller knowledge would bring the same testimony. If our heart brings a charge against us we should take note of it because God's charge would be founded on even more solid evidence; God knowing all things.

I think this understanding, which will be difficult to swallow for most folk seeing it is the exact opposite of what is usually seen in these verses, is more consistent with the following verses where the fact that our heart is not bringing a charge against us gives us confidence in our approach to God. There is a factual pattern in 1 John which goes right against the customary interpretation along the lines of “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1John 3:7-8, KJVS) I think that, throughout this letter, John is encouraging us to listen to our heart rather than to discount its testimony.

wkip


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/5/11 11:13Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy