Glorifying Sin
by Preston Foster
Sin is bad. Agreed?
So why do we preach about it so much? Why do so many Adventist Christian preachers act as though sin is the strongest, most irresistible force in the world?
Sin is more than bad; it is horrific. It breeds sickness, death, pain, unease, strife, hunger, war, and everything else we know to be negative and destructive. Sin is most importantly, an insult to God and a transgression of His law. People who are cognizant of sin, know it, by definition, to be a bad thing.
Ironically, it is in church where sin is often glorified. This glorification is not intentional. Preachers and teachers rail against sin, intending to turn people away from it. Ministers work hard to persuade people to repent and reform their ways. Sin is zealously framed as a powerful force that must be repelled by a conscious decision (which is true). Many preachers seek to do so by warning others about the penalties of sin: hell fire, eternal death, and the loss of The Kingdom of God. However, in the process of warning their flock away from sin, many pastors inadvertently elevate it, making sin (and the avoidance of it) the focal point of the Christian experience.
Sin has become the primary theme of many sermons. In “calling sin by its right name,” many forget to identify it as a conquered foe. Many preachers establish their bonafides as messengers of the Word by “risking” political correctness and “naming the names” of sin. Many congregants feel that their pastor is “really preaching” when he or she itemizes sins that are either foreign, well hid, taboo, or under debate in their church. The more detailed the description of the sin, the louder the “Amens” are likely to get. In my culture, the preacher is likely to say something like “You’re going to get quiet on me now,” or “You won’t like this part of the sermon.” This is somewhat disingenuous, as what follows is likely to evoke a more enthusiastic response from those who believe this is what preaching should be about.
The point of emphasizing sin is to heighten the hearer’s awareness of misdeeds, to encourage them to change their behavior and, in doing so, to change their lives. This tactic works, at least for a time, for some of those who have been committed to a life of sin. Guilt is an effective, but temporary antidote. Regarding sin, self-effort is, in the long-run, always futile.
If the underlying purpose in preaching about sin is to establish their bonafides in declaring the gospel, many preachers are copping out. It takes more power and more faith to preach that sin has been overcome than it does to identify and condemn it. It is more of a challenge to convince people that they are no longer slaves to sin than it does to scare them into understanding that if they linger in sin, they are going to hell. There is more power in preaching the gospel than there is in condemnation. Should we not preach that sin is already conquered? Isn’t “good news” that sin has no power over those of us who have accepted Christ?
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord,”(Romans 6:3-11NKJV).
Why dwell on something that is, to believers, dead? When something is dead, it has no power — unless one chooses to memorialize it and, thus, empower it, (1 Corinthians 15:56).
If the point in preaching about sin is to persuade people to stop sinning, why not preach about the cure for sin? The cure for sin is not self-effort or works, but grace (Romans 6:14). Grace is received through faith in Christ, who defeated death on The Cross. Through His death for our sins and His Resurrection (proof of His victory over sin, per 1 Corinthians 15:17), we can, now, receive His righteousness. That Spirit-led righteousness is the power we can employ over sin and sinful desires (Galatians 5:16-18). Sanctification need not take a lifetime. For those who accept Christ as their Savior, our sanctification occurred at the Cross (Hebrews 10:9-10, KJV).
A few good sermons could be found in that message.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. This is positive support and tells people how much God loves them. Changing habits is all about being encouraged and being thankful for our Lord who does not leave us but helps us when we ask.
When we tell people every week how sinful they are, they may believe that they can't change, that they are lost. Feeling guilty, they may give up and be propelled further into sin. This is a religion based on works. Such a preacher is not giving the Gospel to his congregation.
On the other side such sermons are often taken by many in the audience to refer to someone else rather than themselves. They are very willing to say "amen" on someone else's account.
Either way it's a deadly approach unless there is a specific situation that must be faced head on.
The very concept of sin comes from the Bible. Christainity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?
Christians emphasize sin to the extent that, when successful, the convinced will seize the opportunity to do whatever it takes: dunking, swearing off all things enjoyable, and living an ascetic life in order to be rid of that dreadful sin which inhabits his body. Read history of those who have flagellated themselves, denied food, sat on beds of nails and more to be red of the awful scourge of sin. Only today it is less inhumane physically, but more damaging psychologically.
Are you saying there is no such thing as sin?
Yes, and the practices of abuse, of immoral lifestyles, destroy body, mind, & spirit. Proclaim the good news of Jesus at every highway & byway, shout out, that humanity's debt has been paid.There is HOPE, ETERNAL LIFE, in GOD. Don't despair, look to the Saviour, He has already paid your ransom, with His own blood, once, for every sinner.
Preston,
Amen! Jesus declared "Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34, NIV). So, is it not logical to conclude that any preacher who spends more time talking about sin than the redeeming power of God knows more about sin than redemption? We should shun such speakers and they should be removed from the pulpit until they have learned in their own experience what it means to be redeemed.
Another nice challenge to traditional, albeit 'western,' thinking, Preston. There is one text you also could have included in your list at the end. 1John 3.9. Here is the KJV:
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
And Young's Literal translation:
every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because His seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.
This is one of the most 'difficult' texts in the NT, imho. Because it simply does not fit with standard 'forensic' justification by faith models. It is utterly mystical in its understanding. By that I mean that it draws a strong distinction between sin as 'separation' from the Divine, and sins as actions of commission or omission, by 'free moral agents,' against the Divine 'laws.' The 'remedy' is clearly and simply 'putting to death the old/egoic self,' and participating in resurrection in the Spirit, the 'Seed of the Divine.'
It is when we view the 'problem' in terms of 'sins' that concepts such as 'sanctification is the work of a lifetime' enter in to confuse the issue. For Paul it is quite simple:
1Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Serge,
This is another "big question" that attends SDA theology. That is, what is sanctification, and, more to the point, when does it occur? Is it "the work of a lifetime," or is it something Christ accomplishes in us — after our submission? 1 Corinthians 6-11 and Hebrews 10:9-10 say (to me) the latter. Do I understand you correctly as saying the same?
Not so much that you understand me correctly, Preston, as I would say you are understanding scripture correctly. You are 'seeing-through' the errors of Adventism. And the biggest error is the one Ellen fought hardest for, ie, materialism. It is bedrock to SDA thinking that ALL that is, is made of some thing, God included. Even the Holy SPirit. Hence their Trinity problems. Father has a body, Son also, ergo, Father is Pre-eminent over Son. (as per Arius). But God is the Eternal Spirit, and NOT MADE OF MATTER.
And so it is that when we are 'born from above,' 'of the Spirit,' we are born in His likeness. Our 'born anew nature' is spiritual, not material. And jsut as Jesus was described as 'that holy thing,' 'ta hagia,' so too those born of SPirit are describes as 'hagios,' usually translated 'saints.' In this way, Jesus is indeed made 'in al things like unto his brethren,' or better, we are made like unto Him. This is the 'new creation,' all things are new. The second Adam is father/elder brother of a new race, teh new creation.
And that is the greatest significance of 1 John 3.9. Not, as Darrel pointed out, that the one born of GOd does not continue in sin, true as that is, but rather, the how and why it is accomplised. Specifically, because the one born of God is born of His nature, His Seed, His sperma. We receive His DNA, as it were. And that is a Spiritual thing, not material. No room for 'holy flesh' argumetns here at all. And the incredible conclusion to John's argument is that the one born of God CANNOT sin, literally, lacks the power, dunamis, to do so! 'Whosoever is joined with the Lord IS ONE SPIRIT.'
So a doctrine which denies the non-materiality of the REAL self/soul/spirit (call it what you will), is destined to misunderstand how the born anew Self can and does relate to its Spirit Progenitor.
Your extended use of Romans 6 is spot-on in terms of defining the true understanding of this amazing transformation. But there is one text, or part thereof, which can fruitfully occupy our meditations over and over again. it is this: 'For IF we are planted together in the liekness of His death…..' Now before going any further, consider, How is this even possible? How can we, in this day and age, participate in the likeness of His death? There is one clue in the use of hte phrase, 'planted together.' This reminds me of hte concept in John 12:24 – Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. Jesus spake of Himself here, but Paul says we must do likewise. And ROmans 6 describes baptism as symbolic of this dying of hte 'old man,' old self, ego, call it what you will. In this way is fulfilled the saying, 'the wages of sin is death!'
In modern terms, we can call it 'ego death,' or as Paul says of Christ in Philipians 2, 'He emptied Himself…' Or as Christ said of anyone who would follow Him…… 'let him deny him self, take up his cross (instrument of death) and follow Me.'
Does any of this happen literally/materially? No, obviously not. It happens at the core of one's being. It cannot be faked, except to other humans. Not to one'e self, or to God, the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And no vicarious sacrifice/imputation required or possible here either.
But that sitll only gets one into the realisation of one's death. The gift of God, His own Life, is then bestowed and 'quickens' the one who realises that in his separated/sinful nature he has no life of his own, even if outwardly clean of sins. The Life that is in the blood, of the Lamb, flows freely and fully into our mortal selves and eternal Life begins. Now is hte hour of slavation. We ARE raised up into the heavenly places. We are washed, sanctified, jsutifed and glorified! (see Rom 8.30). We become ONE with our Father. The life we now live in the flesh is Christ living His life in us. Our only battle is not with sin or sins, for we are no longer separated from Life, but it is to to die daily, and be continually renewed after the power of His resurrection, born in the Spirit. We have a lifetime of dying to self, a lifetime of renewal in the Spirit.
Adventism, otoh, holds that we, in our permanently, solely bodily/material nature must forever remain as separate entities from our Father. Indeed, he will judge our works (sins) in the IJ and determine if we are 'fit,' (what, in our own right?) to stand before Him without a mediator! Heaven forbid! He IS our LIFE. In HIM we live and move and have our being. How can we EVER be separated from Him? Standing alone is not possible. It would mean instant cessation of life. He has already invited us to come boldly into the Most Holy Place and stand beofre Him! . We are BORN of HIM. We ARE Him, as HE IS US, genetically, 'seed-wise,' speaking.
Yes, its mystical. 'Partaking of the divine nature' always is. So too, 'being united in the likeness of His death' is equally mystical. It cannot be any other way. But the western branch of the church (Rome) externalised everything into outward acts, denying that it is 'Christ IN you, the hope of glory,' Justification is reduced to legalistic imputation and vicarious sacrifice. It was the Magi from the East who were able to recognise the true nature of the CHrist. The Eastern Church even today is of a more mystical awareness in their theology, and we should extract ourselves from the Roman errors as far as we possibly can. Adventism, with its Materialist philosophy, will forever remain incapable of this.
“There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
But in his motion like an angel sings,
Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubims;
Such harmony is in immortal souls,
But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close us in, we cannot hear it.”
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Serge,
As you might expect, digesting this mystical framework will take a while. I don't neccessarily resist it, though like all things mystical, it is amorphous, thus easily misunderstood.
In your framework, are justification and sanctification received simultaneously? Are they the same? If not, what are their differentiating features? Thanks.
Serge,
"Now is (the) hour of (salvation). We ARE raised up into the heavenly places. We are washed, sanctified, justifed and glorified! (see Rom 8.30). We become ONE with our Father. The life we now live in the flesh is Christ living His life in us. Our only battle is not with sin or sins, for we are no longer separated from Life, but it is to to die daily, and be continually renewed after the power of His resurrection, born in the Spirit. We have a lifetime of dying to self, a lifetime of renewal in the Spirit."
It is this powerful claim (and the present-tense immediacy of it) that prompts my request for clarification. If others are to consider this mystical interpretation, they will likely need help in compartmentalizing these "materialized" concepts.
Thanks again.
We could debate scripture. Or, we could look at a practical example. For that example I recommend that you read the book "The Secret Confessions of an Unlikely Convert" by Rosaria Butterfield. In 1999 she was a radical liberal and tenured English professor at Syracuse University where she was also head of the Women's Studies department and a practicing lesbian. The she started researching to write a book about why the religious right was so critical of what she thought was a perfectly legitimate lifestyle. She was challenged by the invitation from a Reformed Presbyterian minister to study together. It was not long until God got ahold of her and she soon found herself becoming a believer in Christ. It is an amazing story about the power of God in which she shares the practical, functional answer to your question in intimate detail.
More than happy to respond, Preston…….. just been pondering about 'how'.
The paragraph you picked out you will recognise is a fairly random compilation of NT texts. I have added some conclusions which to me are fully consistent with the trend of those texts.
Now is the hour of salvation – 2Cor 6.1,2; Heb 4.7; Rev 12.10; John 4.23; John 5.25. (I hope the NASB is similar enough to my preferred KJV. But it is a good translation.)
We ARE raised up into the heavenly places – Eph. 2.6
We are washed, sanctified, justifed and glorified! – Rom 8.30; 1Cor 6.11; Heb 10.22;
We become ONE with our Father. – All of John 14 -17. Some selections from John 17: 9,10,11,12,14,16, 21,22,23.
The life we now live in the flesh is Christ living His life in us.- Gal 2.20; Col 1.27; Rom 8.9; 2Cor 4.7, 10, 11; 1 Cor 6.17;
Our battle is …….. to die daily – 1Cor 15.21; 2Cor 4.10,11; Luke 9.23
and be continually renewed after the power of His resurrection – Phil 3.10;
We have a lifetime of dying to self, a lifetime of renewal in the Spirit. – 1Cor 15.45; Rom 8.5,6,9, 14,15,16;
Preston, there is nothing new in this understanding I wish to emphasise. Most sincere Christians know and experience it as a constant in their lives. I simply call it by its name, mystical, because it emphasises our union with the Divine. Unfortunately, SDAs don't seem able enter into the fulness of this experience because they are wary of things 'spiritual.' That was true of my experience in my less enlightened days.
Ellen did such a good job of warning people away from the 'spirits of devils,' that the Eternal Spirit of God also seems to have been relegated. And our spiritual (non-material) nature is utterly denied. The teaching which makes this relegation so strong is the monist material view of human nature. We are material bodies ONLY. Most Christians are dualists, ie, we are bodies plus a non-material aspect, soul/spirit, some non-thing.
It strikes me that the NT is best understood if we see ourselves as spirit primarily, ie, a monist spiritual view. Of course, to adopt this view, one must also adopt a more eastern view on the illusory nature of matter. I am not going to argue that here. But until Adventists recognise the reality of their spirit nature, it will be practically impossible to enter into the joy that this experiential knowledge brings. And it will be rather difficult to make sense of so much of the NT which takes our spiritual natures for granted.
This is why there are arguments about Justification / Sanctification / Glorification. These are invested with a process which takes place over time. But clearly, Paul at least has shown that they can be understood as simultaneous. After all, if we are the result of the Spirit's new creation work, why should it be seen as imperfect, and requiring a lifetime of honing/polishing/finishing. No, as with the first creation, God's works are VERY GOOD, nay, PERFECT. Our work is simply to BE who we now are. And even that is from/of/through Him.
One final word. Theologians will say that I have been emphasising the 'immanent' aspect of Christian experience. The NT also teaches an 'imminent' aspect which looks forward to the eschaton. SDAs have been 'looking forward' for about 170 years now. What a lot of repeated disappointment that must add up to.
Rather we could have His joy, constantly, here and now, not dependant on some future unknown.
John 17.13; Rom 5.11; Rom 14.17 'For the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.'
Errata – beside the statement, 'our battle is… to die daily,' First text should be 1Cor 15.31
Hi Serge, 1 Jn 3:9 "doth not sin" is using a continuious present tense form of the the verb to 'sin.'
To reflect completely this continuious present tense one would translate = does not "continue in sin" or continually sin. The born again individual does not continue a life of sin. That he or she does struggle with sin is evident from 1 Jn. 2:1
"if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: he is the propitiation for our sins."
This deeper look at the Greek tenses helps clear up many of confusions from our translations.
Elaine, to say there is no sin is to say there is no wrong. I think you are lost in specifics, but commenting on the concept of wrong itself. Maybe this is your position, but I would be surprised it were.
Elaine, to say there is no sin is to say there is no wrong. I think you are lost in specifics, but commenting on the concept of wrong itself. Maybe this is your position, but I would be surprised it were.
The things mentioned in the Bible as wickedness seem rather specific and sound quite heinous compared to what many church members consider sin. "Missing the mark" would seem to mean we aren't behaving as we believe we should or even how we want to as Paul described it. That means all of us. I can't comprehend not being able to sin unless it does mean the more heinous crimes and wickedness. For example, most of us will not be tempted to steal or murder or be adulterers. I am convinced there are levels of sin, and although all are destructive in some way and can be accumulative as bad habits, they aren't viewed in the same light as evil.
Bad habits begin small, and as the brain wiring adjusts to them, they can be destructive to individuals and those around them. But they don't/shouldn't generally become a barrier between us and God.
Ella,
I understand what you're saying because I used to think that way. Then I ran into the scriptural absolute that all sin is contrary to the character of God and separates us from God. While some sins may be more obvious than others and bring consequences more quickly, more severely, or in a more public manner, they are still contrary what separates us from God. It comes down to some variant of this question: Is my desire to be with God and reflect the character of God so great that I am willing to turn away from sin regardless of the form it takes in my life?
Agree!
If this is true then we are without hope since all make mistakes which we call sin. We are not even aware of them or they are genetically instilled. Your answer seems like a guilt-producing one that we would never escape from. It would seem to lead to a mentally unstable mind. Right away you judge that any mistake is because we don't desire God enough. I can't understand that since it is the human condition to make mistakes. We grow through sanctification.
I do not see God separating Himself from us over petty slights or mistakes (we may do that in our mentally-unstable minds). I see a loving God who understands our weakness and has reconciled all to Himself through Yeshua. Even EGW felt there were different levels of "sin." I certainly do, and believe the Bible shows that principle. If God separates Himself from us over petty mistakes then we have a salvation by works.
Ella,
Salvation by works? Praise the Lord, NO! May my words never be interpreted as suggesting that!
Gal 3:22 "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ."
"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our a tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:23-26.
Agree!
Serge and Preston. i thank you from my heart for your continuing "fleshing out" of this mystical ethereal truth, the soul, the spirit. By taking up our cross, dying daily, we are transformed into His likeness. For years this has been my belief, that flesh would not inhabit the Kingdom of God. We have so many Bible clues that give evidence of this, if we but open our hearts to the Holy Spirit, to reveal.
Matt 14:38 "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"; Luke 24:39 "spirit hath not flesh and bones"; John 1:14 "AND THE WORD was made flesh"; John 3:6 & 7 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit"; "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again"; Rom 8: 1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in CHRIST JESUS, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.
There are many many more refs: throughout the NT where Jesus clearly is directing our attention to the Holy Spirit revealing to us the WISDOM (MYSTERY of the ages). i believe this gives greater clarity to Jesus statement to the thief on the cross, LUKE 23: 43 "And Jesus said unto him, "verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise; no further punctuation required.
PEOPLE, THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU, INVITE HIM IN TODAY.
The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law [1John 3:4 Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law]. Throughout its sacred pages, right from Genesis to Revelation [Gen 4:7; Rev 18:5], the Bible, in at least sixty one books, deals with sin; either in type, pointing to Christ, or through Christ Himself, by God’s Grace. It is in this context, where we find sin being mentioned or exposed, that we can have a better tangible understanding and insight of “where sin abounds, Grace abounds even more [Rom 5:20].” Evangelist Fitz Henry of Jamaica says in many of his sermons that: “for every bucket of sin, God has got a barrel of Grace.” I haven’t come across any Adventist preacher who glorifies sin per se. Perhaps if taken out of context or misunderstood by some, it may seem so, but in effect it isn’t the case in most of these instances where sin is mentioned in Adventist pulpits. Christ and the Grace he provides through Salvation is the theme of the Bible and this is the central focus of Adventist preaching from what I have seen and heard.
This blog, (for example) – if it could be used as a sermon, speaks much about sin in over sixty percent of it, and ties it down in the last four paragraphs in order to get its message and point across. Although sin is spoken of much in the first part, it serves only to enhance the author’s case in order to make a desired impact on readers. Remove the sin part and the whole impact of the message is lessened or of little effect without it. The Bible has much to say about sin but it is always in the context of Grace which Adventist preachers adhere to and can’t be faulted for. Those who may intentionally dismiss sin as an unimportant aspect in terms of Salvation may unintentionally ‘cheapen’ the actual value of Grace which can be seen as being more abundant where sin abounds [Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:]
For instance, the when the name of Jesus was given to Mary for the Christ child, the angel adds that he “shall save his people from their sins.” [Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.] This hardly glorifies sin. On the contrary, it glorifies Grace. So to me, when sin is mentioned, (and being a sinner myself), I can appreciate more and place more value on the Grace which covers my sin and grants forgiveness and newness of life together with the victory over sin by faith in Christ. I’ll even go as far as saying: “It is impossible to glorify sin when God’s Grace in Christ always abounds more.” In other words Grace is implicitly glorified and exponentially valued when it is juxtaposed with sin.
I think the problem is not one of academia but practice. Christians on the whole all know and give lip service to the idea that we are saved by grace and not works. Yes, the Law serves an important role in pointing out sin. However, once saved, we shouldn't overly dwell on sin either.
A person who has just been pardoned from execution is hardly going to walk around glum focusing on the sins of their past life – they should focus on their new freedom and how wonderful their new life is going to be. The problem with many Christians is they act like the servant forgiven of much, but then won't forgive the little of their fellow servant. They focus on the notion of debt, in themselves and in others, rather than focusing on the pardon.
And yet we don't act like it do we are saved by grace do we? That is the point I got out of Preston's article.
I think deep down most human beings can't actually accept God would save us for nothing, so we nevertheless still try to earn our way to heaven. So as an 'insurance policy' we try to 'be good', often according to made-up standards that sometimes have more authority in Church culture than the Bible.
"Sin has become the primary theme of many sermons. In “calling sin by its right name,” many forget to identify it as a conquered foe. Many preachers establish their bonafides as messengers of the Word by “risking” political correctness and “naming the names” of sin. Many congregants feel that their pastor is “really preaching” when he or she itemizes sins that are either foreign, well hid, taboo, or under debate in their church."
Preston not sure if already said but I wholly agree. I remember growing up every year at campt meetings some 'saints' would come and complain to the Youth Department – Youth Pastors about the evils of the band in the Youth services.
What always struck me and annoyed me greatly was these 'saints' would always complain about the drums and try to use their past sinful life as bona fide. They would say, 'This Youth service is just like a nightclub, and I know, because I used to always go to nightclubs etc'
I remember one Youth Pastor retorting that this 'sant's' prior life of sin should not be used as some greater argument to or qualification for those who had not chosen to live in the world. I agreed – sin should never be used as an excuse or bona fide as to when we think something else is supposedly sinning.
"If the underlying purpose in preaching about sin is to establish their bonafides in declaring the gospel, many preachers are copping out. It takes more power and more faith to preach that sin has been overcome than it does to identify and condemn it. It is more of a challenge to convince people that they are no longer slaves to sin than it does to scare them into understanding that if they linger in sin, they are going to hell. There is more power in preaching the gospel than there is in condemnation. Should we not preach that sin is already conquered? Isn’t “good news” that sin has no power over those of us who have accepted Christ?"
Very powerful Preston.
I think you have nailed it just what the Gospel is all about and pretty much what is wrong with Christianity today. I think it is for the exact reason you describe that Ghandi said 'I like your Christ, but I don't like you Christians.'
God bless.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"….
That's good to know.