Christian Readers discussion
Promote Your Book
>
Can you be holy and be a sinner?
date
newest »
newest »
Hello Matthew. This is an interesting topic. I'll definitely have to read through the sources you quoted. The following is my answer to your question strictly from things I've read previously.Yes, a person can be holy and a sinner. No matter how hard we try, we'll always fail in some way in our attempt to obey God, which is sin. Yet if we've accepted Christ into our lives as our Lord and Master, our sins have been washed away and future sins covered so God views us as holy. Anyone who is constantly sinning has probably not sincerely made that covenant and thus are not viewed as holy by God.
I'm interested to see what other people may say in response to your OP.
YES, to be HOLY is a very abused word. Be careful who's definition you buy into. Make sure it applies to the fullness of scripture. Simply:
WE are sinners, the Holy Spirit is Holy.
Is the Holy Spirit in us and working? Yes, that should be some Holiness worth noticing. Similar to having working Faith placed in you by God.
Keep researching that word "HOLY". I wouldn't simply assume it means RELATIONAL. This is interesting:
" to simply mean devoted, devote, and devotion"
But may not fit many contexts used in scripture. I'll keep an eye open for this as I read My Bible.
Rod wrote: "Be careful who's definition you buy into. Make sure it applies to the fullness of scripture."
This might be the best and yet hardest advice to hear.
One would think that the definition we should all be buying into is the Scriptural one. Of course, I had always thought of "holy" in the same way that we all have—holiness is perfection, purity, the antithesis of sin etc. However, I was amazed to see that the Bible just doesn’t define it that way.
Simply put: the Bible does not define holiness as the opposite of sin. That is why the apostles can call believers saints (lit. holy ones) when they are still sinners. I always thought, as Sheila mentioned, that we are seen as holy by God because Jesus atoned for our sins, but it turns out that the Bible considers people holy if they are devoted to God. People who practice sin are obviously not devoted, which is what I think Sheila's point is.
I definitely encourage you to look at how the Bible uses the word with one important caveat: be very careful that you do not read a definition of the word into the text. It's very hard not to do, since we all have a definition in mind.
It's kind of like those pictures which look like a young girl when viewed one way and an old lady another way. Once you lock into seeing one way it is hard to not see it another.
The second hardest part is that English Bible translations have all been built on the same assumption of the definition of holy, so one has to be very cautious to not assume a definition based upon a translation. You must get the definition from usage and context.
For example, the end of Ex. 29:37 is often translated as "whatever touches the altar shall be holy," suggesting that holiness can be transferred by touch. But the Hebrew actually says, "is to be holy," as in "must be." The context shows that what is being said is that whoever touches the altar must already be holy, thus limiting the touching of the altar to priests, a very sensible prohibition.
In the NT we get a lot of the same things. For example, many translations of Romans 6:19-22 suggest that sanctification is the result of righteousness. But when one examines the context and underlying language you discover that such a translation is being read into the text because of the a priori assumption of progressive sanctification. But the Bible from beginning to end says that sanctification is a one-time event, not an ongoing issue. We assume it is ongoing because we thing holiness means perfection, and of course none of us are there yet. But holiness simply means devotion, which is not progressive.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. As you can tell this is something I am passionate about, as the implications of understanding holiness as the Bible defines are quite staggering—but also quite encouraging.
Blessings!
Matthew
This might be the best and yet hardest advice to hear.
One would think that the definition we should all be buying into is the Scriptural one. Of course, I had always thought of "holy" in the same way that we all have—holiness is perfection, purity, the antithesis of sin etc. However, I was amazed to see that the Bible just doesn’t define it that way.
Simply put: the Bible does not define holiness as the opposite of sin. That is why the apostles can call believers saints (lit. holy ones) when they are still sinners. I always thought, as Sheila mentioned, that we are seen as holy by God because Jesus atoned for our sins, but it turns out that the Bible considers people holy if they are devoted to God. People who practice sin are obviously not devoted, which is what I think Sheila's point is.
I definitely encourage you to look at how the Bible uses the word with one important caveat: be very careful that you do not read a definition of the word into the text. It's very hard not to do, since we all have a definition in mind.
It's kind of like those pictures which look like a young girl when viewed one way and an old lady another way. Once you lock into seeing one way it is hard to not see it another.
The second hardest part is that English Bible translations have all been built on the same assumption of the definition of holy, so one has to be very cautious to not assume a definition based upon a translation. You must get the definition from usage and context.
For example, the end of Ex. 29:37 is often translated as "whatever touches the altar shall be holy," suggesting that holiness can be transferred by touch. But the Hebrew actually says, "is to be holy," as in "must be." The context shows that what is being said is that whoever touches the altar must already be holy, thus limiting the touching of the altar to priests, a very sensible prohibition.
In the NT we get a lot of the same things. For example, many translations of Romans 6:19-22 suggest that sanctification is the result of righteousness. But when one examines the context and underlying language you discover that such a translation is being read into the text because of the a priori assumption of progressive sanctification. But the Bible from beginning to end says that sanctification is a one-time event, not an ongoing issue. We assume it is ongoing because we thing holiness means perfection, and of course none of us are there yet. But holiness simply means devotion, which is not progressive.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. As you can tell this is something I am passionate about, as the implications of understanding holiness as the Bible defines are quite staggering—but also quite encouraging.
Blessings!
Matthew
Matthew wrote: "Rod wrote: "Be careful who's definition you buy into. Make sure it applies to the fullness of scripture."This might be the best and yet hardest advice to hear.
One would think that the definiti..."
Don't apologize for the long post. However long it takes to make a point, take it. I enjoyed reading your explanation and I'm sure I'll learn a lot about the topic as I follow along.
Holiness is a state of purity, is a word that here on earth we may not be able to fully grasp or understand due to the world of sin we are living in. Complete purity and holiness in heaven is different to what we are experiencing on earth in a way because in heaven there is no sin where as on earth there is sin. Matter of fact we are living in a sinful world. That's why we are living by His grace. It only the grace of the Lord Jesus that is keeping us alive because it is hard to live in an environment of sin and live a holy life but through the blood of Jesus Christ we can achieve that by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Fun stuff. Exodus 29:37
Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy. Whatever touches the altar shall become holy.
Many things could happen here:
From a magic transference (which I doubt).
To a perfection and completion of following the code set by God. His perfect requirements are met when HE says.
I'm having the same challenges with the word "Faith". I have been seeing if my understanding match every use of the word from Genesis to Revelation.
Psalm 29:2Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.
And...
1 Thessalonians 4:7
New International Version
For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.
New Living Translation
God has called us to live holy lives, not impure lives.
English Standard Version
For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.
Berean Study Bible
For God has not called us to impurity, but to holiness.
Berean Literal Bible
For God has not called us to impurity, but into holiness.
New American Standard Bible
For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification.
King James Bible
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
Some interesting options there to think about. Doesn't seem that DEVOTION fits exactly into that verse.
I mostly agree with David:"Holiness is a state of purity"
But the devotion angle is interesting and may apply in certain verses. Fascinating.
This verse is meaty. Exodus 3:5
Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
Devoted? Kinda, Pure? That would explain the sandals bit.
Hi David,
I used to think the same thing about holiness being related to purity. However, I had never really studied the Scriptures to get that definition, it is basically part of what has become the defacto definition which we all inherited. But after studying the word and concept in depth, I now understand that the Bible does not define or use "holy" in the sense of purity. I am not saying that purity is not important, only that the Bible does not define holiness as a state of purity. It defines holiness as a state of devotion, albeit pure devotion, since partial devotion would be akin to partially pregnant.
As strange as it may sound, this actually fits in all of the more than 1,000 occurrences of holy and its derivatives and cognates, but let me just share a couple examples from the OT and NT.
The word for holy in Hebrew is kadosh, spelled with the three Hebrew letters, koof-dalet-shin. That word is used in Genesis 38:21 and Deut 23:17 for a "temple prostitute," something we would probably consider the opposite of purity and thus make little sense if kadosh meant purity. But it makes perfect sense when you understand that kadosh means devoted. These were people that were devoted to serve the cultic deities.
In Psalm 22, David starts by asking God why He has forsaken him. But beginning in verse 3, David says, "Yet, you are holy. O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them. To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed." (Psalm 22:3-5 NASB)
Notice that David is not praising God for His purity, that's no help to him in this case. What David brings up is God's faithfulness and devotion to Israel—when they needed help He was there for them.
The NT gives us some examples of what holy is not. For example,
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Romans 7:12)
Such a high priest truly meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:26 NIV)
Notice the list of attributes—holy, righteous, good, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners and exalted. These are not synonyms, they each have their own meaning. Thus, Paul does not use holiness to mean purity.
Rod, I am glad you cited 1 Thes. 4:7. That is actually a great example of how the English translations can throw us off. That verse certainly makes impurity sound like the antithesis of holiness. However, the Greek word for impurity there is akatharsia which is more literally translated uncleanness as the KJV renders it. The Greek word akatharsia is what the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) uses to translate the Hebrew word tumah, which means "a state of uncleanness," i.e. unholiness.
Paul was a Hebrew thinker, a Pharisee and Torah student to the point that he would have at least had the Torah memorized at a young age. Writing to a Greek speaking audience, Paul naturally uses the terms from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Scriptures his audience used. So whenever Paul uses the word akatharsia, he means uncleanness, which is unholiness. So what Paul is actually saying in 1 Thes. 4:7 is
For God has not called us for the purpose of unholiness, but holiness
He is not actually defining holiness as impurity, that only comes about from English translations. That's exactly what I meant that we have to be very careful about the English when defining holy and instead use the context.
BTW, Ex. 3:5 is quite interesting, but it also simply means that the ground was devoted to God meeting Moses. Removing sandals in NE ancient cultures was a sign of respect, especially with regard to a superior. Same thing happens with Joshua when He meets the Angel of the Lord.
I know that it can be difficult to see how holiness can simply mean devotion, but that is because we have a long history of thinking of it in other ways and not fully appreciating the pre-eminence that God and the Scriptures place on devotion. It truly is quite amazing and even greatly encouraging when you begin to dig into the implications of it. But one other thing I would share is that when you do understand holiness as devotion, your comprehension of the Scriptures will grow tremendously and your understanding of what God is after will become more clear than ever. God wants people who are devoted to Him because He is devoted to them.
Blessings!
Matthew
I used to think the same thing about holiness being related to purity. However, I had never really studied the Scriptures to get that definition, it is basically part of what has become the defacto definition which we all inherited. But after studying the word and concept in depth, I now understand that the Bible does not define or use "holy" in the sense of purity. I am not saying that purity is not important, only that the Bible does not define holiness as a state of purity. It defines holiness as a state of devotion, albeit pure devotion, since partial devotion would be akin to partially pregnant.
As strange as it may sound, this actually fits in all of the more than 1,000 occurrences of holy and its derivatives and cognates, but let me just share a couple examples from the OT and NT.
The word for holy in Hebrew is kadosh, spelled with the three Hebrew letters, koof-dalet-shin. That word is used in Genesis 38:21 and Deut 23:17 for a "temple prostitute," something we would probably consider the opposite of purity and thus make little sense if kadosh meant purity. But it makes perfect sense when you understand that kadosh means devoted. These were people that were devoted to serve the cultic deities.
In Psalm 22, David starts by asking God why He has forsaken him. But beginning in verse 3, David says, "Yet, you are holy. O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel. In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them. To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed." (Psalm 22:3-5 NASB)
Notice that David is not praising God for His purity, that's no help to him in this case. What David brings up is God's faithfulness and devotion to Israel—when they needed help He was there for them.
The NT gives us some examples of what holy is not. For example,
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Romans 7:12)
Such a high priest truly meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:26 NIV)
Notice the list of attributes—holy, righteous, good, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners and exalted. These are not synonyms, they each have their own meaning. Thus, Paul does not use holiness to mean purity.
Rod, I am glad you cited 1 Thes. 4:7. That is actually a great example of how the English translations can throw us off. That verse certainly makes impurity sound like the antithesis of holiness. However, the Greek word for impurity there is akatharsia which is more literally translated uncleanness as the KJV renders it. The Greek word akatharsia is what the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) uses to translate the Hebrew word tumah, which means "a state of uncleanness," i.e. unholiness.
Paul was a Hebrew thinker, a Pharisee and Torah student to the point that he would have at least had the Torah memorized at a young age. Writing to a Greek speaking audience, Paul naturally uses the terms from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Scriptures his audience used. So whenever Paul uses the word akatharsia, he means uncleanness, which is unholiness. So what Paul is actually saying in 1 Thes. 4:7 is
For God has not called us for the purpose of unholiness, but holiness
He is not actually defining holiness as impurity, that only comes about from English translations. That's exactly what I meant that we have to be very careful about the English when defining holy and instead use the context.
BTW, Ex. 3:5 is quite interesting, but it also simply means that the ground was devoted to God meeting Moses. Removing sandals in NE ancient cultures was a sign of respect, especially with regard to a superior. Same thing happens with Joshua when He meets the Angel of the Lord.
I know that it can be difficult to see how holiness can simply mean devotion, but that is because we have a long history of thinking of it in other ways and not fully appreciating the pre-eminence that God and the Scriptures place on devotion. It truly is quite amazing and even greatly encouraging when you begin to dig into the implications of it. But one other thing I would share is that when you do understand holiness as devotion, your comprehension of the Scriptures will grow tremendously and your understanding of what God is after will become more clear than ever. God wants people who are devoted to Him because He is devoted to them.
Blessings!
Matthew
God being devoted To Us is a whole burger topic. Devoted to Jesus and possibly the elect.
That's what is so awesome about the Bible. It is where God reveals that He is interested in a covenant relationship with us. "You shall be holy for I am holy" is a not so much a command as it is an invitation. Just like a groom courts a bride, God is inviting us into a monogamous relationship—that requires fidelity to the One God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Without that, all the rest is rather moot.
That invitation first came to Israel and then later to the world. Of course, God is not saying He is devoted to everyone, but He is devoted to those who are devoted to Him. This is good news but also scary, since Jesus said that in the day of judgment many will come to Him calling Him Lord but He will say, "I never knew you, depart from Me you who practice lawlessness." They were not truly devoted to Him.
Jesus is the Holy One, meaning He is the devoted One. He is the One devoted to being the sacrifice for our sins. He is the One devoted to being our eternal High Priest. He is the One devoted to doing the will of the Father.
But He is also devoted to those who love Him and are devoted to Him.
Going back the OP, God knows we will make mistakes, but if we are devoted to Him we will repent and rectify those mistakes. God places a premium on holiness (devotion) over sin. Not that we have a license to sin. A truly devoted person will not practice sin. But we have plenty of examples of people who committed sin yet were devoted to God, the most conspicuous being David.
That invitation first came to Israel and then later to the world. Of course, God is not saying He is devoted to everyone, but He is devoted to those who are devoted to Him. This is good news but also scary, since Jesus said that in the day of judgment many will come to Him calling Him Lord but He will say, "I never knew you, depart from Me you who practice lawlessness." They were not truly devoted to Him.
Jesus is the Holy One, meaning He is the devoted One. He is the One devoted to being the sacrifice for our sins. He is the One devoted to being our eternal High Priest. He is the One devoted to doing the will of the Father.
But He is also devoted to those who love Him and are devoted to Him.
Going back the OP, God knows we will make mistakes, but if we are devoted to Him we will repent and rectify those mistakes. God places a premium on holiness (devotion) over sin. Not that we have a license to sin. A truly devoted person will not practice sin. But we have plenty of examples of people who committed sin yet were devoted to God, the most conspicuous being David.
Matthew this is some fun stuff. Had me thinking all day. I do like to poke at things:How does this agree with your Holiness...
2 Samuel 6
Uzzah and the Ark
5And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. 8And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzahd to this day. 9And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” 10So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David. But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
Is that relational? Is it not a purity issue? What are your thoughts?
Same goes for Exodus 4:24Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him (Moses) and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."…
This is a little different than the Ussah and the Ark incident. But i'm curious where your head is at with these. They are indeed relational issues, as well as purity and righteousness through the Covenant Promises.
God isn't a liberal feel good Buddy. He's doing some very serious things here.
Mod
1 John 1:8 - "If WE say that WE have no sin, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES, and the truth is not in US."
1 John 1:10 - "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
James 4:8 - "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, YE SINNERS; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
James 1:15-16 - "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (16) Do not err, MY BELOVED BRETHREN."
Robert this conversation is mostly about Purity vs. Relational properties of God. Indeed we are all sinners. Of whom I am a CHEF. (more of a fry-cook). :cP
Mod
Indeed we are all sinners. Of whom I am a CHEF. (more of a fry-cook). :cP"
Sorry, I was just answering the question from the onset of the thread.
Awesome. Glad you're involved.But don't just post Bible verses - give us some depth with them. Share your thoughts.
Mod
Whenever possible, I prefer to just quote Scripture. That way there is no possibility of it being wrong.
Indeed, we are always Blessed by relevant scriptures. Numbers 22:28
Then the LORD gave the donkey the ability to speak. "What have I done to you that deserves your beating me three times?"
Rod, Uzzah and the ark is just about the fact that God must keep His word to be holy. I don't know how it could be about purity. The ark itself is not pure or carrying some mystical power. It's just that God gave specific instructions on who could touch it and who could not. God must at times (usually in the early days of a specific covenant) make it known to all that He is serious. Like you said, He is not our buddy.
The fact that Uzzah pays the price to be the example is not an example of God's cruelty. The fact that anyone else who may touch it afterward might live is an example of God's mercy. So it's like sin. God could kill us all and be justified, but He desires to be merciful, yet we should never think of His mercy as a right and that one who doesn't receive that mercy was somehow wronged. That seems to be Lee's stance on A&S and Uzzah.
Ex. 4:24-26 is obviously one of the most difficult passages in the whole Bible because there seems to be something missing. The portion leading up to it describes God telling Moses to go get his people. God tells Moses that he is to tell Pharaoh that Israel is His first born son.
There are many opinions as to what happens next, but it seems to me that Zipporah is
not too well pleased with circumcising her son. But why does she circumcise him then? Is it to save Moses or to save the son?
The usual reading is that Moses is the one that the Lord is seeking to kill. But it makes a lot more sense if it is Moses' son who the passage is referring to. This is entirely possible because Moses is never referred to by name in verses 24-26. The Hebrew simply refers to "him."
It gets even more interesting because in the LXX and in Targum Onkelos, it is not God who is trying to kill Moses but an angel of the Lord. Of course, a messenger from God is an extension of God, but it could possibly be something else, maybe a precurory look at the messenger of death that will come upon Egypt.
What is more, if God actually "sought to kill him" then why didn't He? I can only imagine it is because he was really warning them.
So, if I had to make a guess, I would say that the passage is about God telling Moses to go rescue his people (the people of the circumcision) and that they are God's firstborn son. However, Moses has a problem with his own son in that he is not circumcised and therefore not part of Israel. God sends a messenger to confront Moses and Zipporah and essentially warn them to circumcise the child or he will die. Moses apparently isn't the problem, it is Zipporah. Moses probably wanted to circumcise the boy and she didn't let him. So reluctantly, Zipporah circumcises their son and basically gets angry at Moses for having to do that, but that saves the boy.
The fact that Uzzah pays the price to be the example is not an example of God's cruelty. The fact that anyone else who may touch it afterward might live is an example of God's mercy. So it's like sin. God could kill us all and be justified, but He desires to be merciful, yet we should never think of His mercy as a right and that one who doesn't receive that mercy was somehow wronged. That seems to be Lee's stance on A&S and Uzzah.
Ex. 4:24-26 is obviously one of the most difficult passages in the whole Bible because there seems to be something missing. The portion leading up to it describes God telling Moses to go get his people. God tells Moses that he is to tell Pharaoh that Israel is His first born son.
There are many opinions as to what happens next, but it seems to me that Zipporah is
not too well pleased with circumcising her son. But why does she circumcise him then? Is it to save Moses or to save the son?
The usual reading is that Moses is the one that the Lord is seeking to kill. But it makes a lot more sense if it is Moses' son who the passage is referring to. This is entirely possible because Moses is never referred to by name in verses 24-26. The Hebrew simply refers to "him."
It gets even more interesting because in the LXX and in Targum Onkelos, it is not God who is trying to kill Moses but an angel of the Lord. Of course, a messenger from God is an extension of God, but it could possibly be something else, maybe a precurory look at the messenger of death that will come upon Egypt.
What is more, if God actually "sought to kill him" then why didn't He? I can only imagine it is because he was really warning them.
So, if I had to make a guess, I would say that the passage is about God telling Moses to go rescue his people (the people of the circumcision) and that they are God's firstborn son. However, Moses has a problem with his own son in that he is not circumcised and therefore not part of Israel. God sends a messenger to confront Moses and Zipporah and essentially warn them to circumcise the child or he will die. Moses apparently isn't the problem, it is Zipporah. Moses probably wanted to circumcise the boy and she didn't let him. So reluctantly, Zipporah circumcises their son and basically gets angry at Moses for having to do that, but that saves the boy.
Hi Robert,
I take it by the verse you posted that you were trying to demonstrate that saints are still sinners?
I take it by the verse you posted that you were trying to demonstrate that saints are still sinners?
Following Matthews reply to Robert. We are sinners, to we accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour and we invite Him into our lives and heart to reign in us. The Holy Spirit comes too, we are His temple, our being, for Fathers presence in us.
All our Christian lives we will be seeking His forgiveness in our daily walks, when we mess up; even unintentionally.
Mod
I take it by the verse you posted that you were trying to demonstrate that saints are still sinners?"
Not me... just quoting what God says. Yes, that is the conclusion I come to (since I don't like the notion of having God call me a liar!)
Robert wrote: "Not me... just quoting what God says."
Hi Robert,
I am with you when it comes to sticking to what God has said. The difficulty is often knowing what He meant by the words.
Hi Robert,
I am with you when it comes to sticking to what God has said. The difficulty is often knowing what He meant by the words.
Mod
Hi Robert,
I am with you when it comes to sticking to what God has said. The difficulty is often knowing what He meant by the words."
None of these seem difficult to comprehend to me... the problem seems to be when people don't like what God has clearly said... often they feel justified performing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make God say the opposite of what He clearly stated.
Please explain why these are hard to understand?
Thank you.
_____
1 Timothy 1:15 - "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS; OF WHOM I AM CHIEF."
1 John 1:8 - "If WE say that WE have no sin, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES, and the truth is not in US."
1 John 1:10 - "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
James 4:8 - "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, YE SINNERS; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
James 1:15-16 - "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (16) Do not err, MY BELOVED BRETHREN."
Hi Robert,
I think you and I would agree on what these mean; however, there are plenty of other people who would not. Is it because they don't understand English? No, the arguments generally stem from a theological perspective that one reads into the text to glean the meaning.
So while quoting Scripture is terrific, it often takes more than that to establish your point. The prophets and apostles do not just quote Scripture. They often explain what the Scripture means. The Bible consists of self commentary.
Rod asked in another thread if it is true that we have 40,000 denominations. Even if it is only 1,000, one must wonder why. I think the answer is because there are just that many opinions about what the words mean and to each of them that meaning is clear.
So while I do appreciate your desire to stick to the word of God, it is not always helpful or profitable when making one's point to just present a verse. We must also be aware of the fact that every verse has a context it lives in and without consideration for that context, it is all too easy to misunderstand what the writer was saying. That is exactly why holiness has been misunderstood.
But let me give you one example from the verses you quoted.
1 John 1:10 - "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Okay, what does John mean by "sinned?" Interestingly, in the same letter, he tells us what the definition of sin is. 1 John 3:4 ,
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4 NASB)
Now how do we understand what lawlessness is? The Greek word he used is anomia. What does that mean? To some that means the law of Christ. Well now we have to define that. To others that means the 10 commandments. Well, some will have a great deal of trouble with that, since they feel that the Sabbath has been abolished.
Others would argue that anomia means against Torah, and of course there are a load of people who would jump up and down and scream against that being what John meant.
So I hope you can see my point. I love the Scripture and it is a powerful two-edged sword, but when we use it and share it, we need to know and share what it means. That very often takes a fair amount of discussion beyond the text.
I think you and I would agree on what these mean; however, there are plenty of other people who would not. Is it because they don't understand English? No, the arguments generally stem from a theological perspective that one reads into the text to glean the meaning.
So while quoting Scripture is terrific, it often takes more than that to establish your point. The prophets and apostles do not just quote Scripture. They often explain what the Scripture means. The Bible consists of self commentary.
Rod asked in another thread if it is true that we have 40,000 denominations. Even if it is only 1,000, one must wonder why. I think the answer is because there are just that many opinions about what the words mean and to each of them that meaning is clear.
So while I do appreciate your desire to stick to the word of God, it is not always helpful or profitable when making one's point to just present a verse. We must also be aware of the fact that every verse has a context it lives in and without consideration for that context, it is all too easy to misunderstand what the writer was saying. That is exactly why holiness has been misunderstood.
But let me give you one example from the verses you quoted.
1 John 1:10 - "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Okay, what does John mean by "sinned?" Interestingly, in the same letter, he tells us what the definition of sin is. 1 John 3:4 ,
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4 NASB)
Now how do we understand what lawlessness is? The Greek word he used is anomia. What does that mean? To some that means the law of Christ. Well now we have to define that. To others that means the 10 commandments. Well, some will have a great deal of trouble with that, since they feel that the Sabbath has been abolished.
Others would argue that anomia means against Torah, and of course there are a load of people who would jump up and down and scream against that being what John meant.
So I hope you can see my point. I love the Scripture and it is a powerful two-edged sword, but when we use it and share it, we need to know and share what it means. That very often takes a fair amount of discussion beyond the text.
Context is essential. I prefer to quote entire Chapters. In the case of Jude or Titus: just quote the whole thing.
Mod
I think you and I would agree on what these mean; however, there are plenty of other people who would not. Is it because they don't understand English? No, the arguments generally stem f..."
I can see that it is likely we agree. However, I believe that most of the time, the Bible is very clear and the reader does NOT LIKE what it says...
...so they READ INTO IT what they WANT it to say...
(Eisegesis)
1 John 1:8 - "If WE say that WE have no sin, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES, and the truth is not in US."
The above is VERY CLEAR and there is NOTHING in the context of the chapter to make it say otherwise.
I too love to dig deep into the Scriptures... but I am finding that when people REJECT the easy to understand surface meanings... digging deep only leads them to further confusion and deception.
Robert wrote: "...but I am finding that when people REJECT the easy to understand surface meanings... digging deep only leads them to further confusion and deception. "
Yes, I think the Scriptures are far simpler than we think. We definitely over-complicate the simplicity of the Scriptures. There is probably no greater example than holiness and why I called my latest book The Simplicity of Holiness: Understanding God's Devotion to You
BTW, I just started a giveaway for it today but you can also get an Advance Review Copy by just asking.
It is quite encouraging and amazing how much easier the Bible is to understand when we keep things simple.
Yes, I think the Scriptures are far simpler than we think. We definitely over-complicate the simplicity of the Scriptures. There is probably no greater example than holiness and why I called my latest book The Simplicity of Holiness: Understanding God's Devotion to You
BTW, I just started a giveaway for it today but you can also get an Advance Review Copy by just asking.
It is quite encouraging and amazing how much easier the Bible is to understand when we keep things simple.
Mod
Yes, I think the Scriptures..."
Thanks Matthew... I would like a copy. Is it an Amazon ebook?
This post sounds right up my alley. I just preached Tuesday (and share this message regularly) that MOST of the Bible is EASY to understand.
That is one of satan's great ploys... keep people out of the Word of God by telling them that it is too hard to understand.
Of course, there are certainly deep and difficult passages... but the vast majority is not hard at all.
Hi Robert,
I have a paperback or pdf version at the moment that I would be happy to send you. We will have epub and kindle in about 4 weeks.
I have a paperback or pdf version at the moment that I would be happy to send you. We will have epub and kindle in about 4 weeks.
Mod
I have a paperback or pdf version at the moment that I would be happy to send you. We will have epub and kindle in about 4 weeks."
PDF is cool... thanks... I'll send you a message with my email address...
Christian Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Simplicity of Holiness: Understanding God's Devotion to You (other topics)The Simplicity of Holiness: Understanding God's Devotion to You (other topics)
I came across Katherine's recent post in the General Discussion area "Authenticity vs. Holiness" and was quite intrigued. She had posted this article from Brett McCracken at the Gospel Coalition http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/art...# which raised the question that pretty much every believer I know has struggled with or is struggling with, that is—what does it mean to be holy?
Randy Alcorn wrote this recent article about the contrast between Happiness versus Holiness http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/art... which just further illustrates our struggle with holiness is because we think that it means sinless, perfect, morally pure etc. In the article he quotes Tony Reinke, saying he, "gets it right: 'Sin is joy poisoned. Holiness is joy postponed and pursued.'"
I've recently done some research on the biblical definition of kadosh, the Hebrew word we translate as holy and was quite stunned to find that what I always thought holy meant is not what the Bible means.
It turns out, that the Bible uses the word kadosh (holy) and its derivatives such as sanctify and sanctification to simply mean devoted, devote, and devotion. There really is no moral component in the root word for holy. It is a relational word.
For example, when God says, "be holy for I am holy," He is saying, "be devoted to Me because I am devoted to you." He is calling us to a relationship like a groom courting a bride. Of course, this is not in any way a license to sin, but what we also find out is that holiness is not the opposite of sin either.
So it turns out that the struggles most of us have with holiness and sanctification etc. are actually because we haven't understood what the true biblical definition of holiness is.
If this topic intrigues you and you would be interested in discussing more about it or receiving an Advanced Reviewers Copy of The Simplicity of Holiness (my soon to be released book examining this issue), just drop me a line or head over to my blog at https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...