What Noah Could Have Said But Didn't

[Ovedya]

It is believed that it is inevitable that we as Christians will continue to sin, therefore sin is excused as long as you stay away from the really bad ones. This causes sin to be taken lightly to some extent when sin should not in any degree be taken lightly.

This appears to be an overstatement of the facts, brother. Whereas it may be believed by some Christians that sin is excused by God's grace; and whereas some Christians may take the "minor sins" lightly, I think it is wrong to imply that it is common. But again, lest I fall into the same pitfall of thinking that you are making a huge generalization, I will assume that you are talking about only a small section of unmatured believers.

It is only a matter of spiritual immaturity or ignorance that some Christians erroneously believe that God "looks past" our minor sins. However, it is also wrong to believe that our utter failure at meeting God's standard of righteousness in and of ourselves in some way nullifies the efficacy of Christ's shed blood. To believe such is to imply that sin is greater than the power of the cross. It is through Christ's shed blood alone that we are justified by God (3:21-31) freely. And it is because of the sacrifice of Christ that God's unmerited favor toward His people is given. That grace is extended to the believers once, continually, and eternally for their salvation.

I think that it is true that some believers take 1 John 2:1 for granted, even to the point of changing the meaning of the phrase "if we sin..." to "when we sin..." Or at least some may have that concept. However, nowhere in the Bible is it found that the believers should ever not sin, or can never commit sin because of what Christ has done. To believe that would be ignorance of the clear message put forth in this one verse alone. John's writing is an encouragement for the believers to not sin. However, if they do sin (meaning that they still have the capacity to sin), John wants us to know that we have an Advocate with the Father, the righteous one, Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus Christ is the righteous Advocate, it is implied (and even stated clearly elsewhere by Paul) that the believers need not shrink back to any former system of keeping the law, or of works through which they would strive for righteousness.

If it was understood that any committing of disobedience to Christ was not walking in the Spirit and evidence of not walking in the light and is a shortcoming to what Jesus expects of us, there would be more obedience out of love for Him who died for sins to take them out of our lives.

What it is not evidence of is having been brought to the condition of the unbeliever, who will be judged according to God's righteousness at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. If walking by the Spirit does not completely erradicate the temptations of the flesh, then neither does falling to the flesh completely erradicate the operation of the Spirit to bring the believer back into fellowship with God. The Prodigal did not at any time cease from being the true genetic son of his father because he wallowed with the pigs. When the son returned the father immediately recognized him as his son, regardless of the filth that he carried with him from the world. It is not that the he had to first cleanse himself before returning, so that the Father would recognize him. In like manner, when a son of God returns to the Father from having wallowed in the filth of the world, the Father is there to greet him, and to clothe him with righteousness; righteousness which is out of Christ, by His blood; and through which the Father can justify him freely.

If every believer understood - and much more, learned to experience - the effectiveness of Christ's shed blood, the freely given grace of God, and the flow of life from God's throne; and how, by walking in the Spirit, they can experience the freedom of God's life, the more they would not be held in bondage by remaining sin. God's way is a way of freedom, and it is by that freedom that we are beholden to Him. The very same way that the slave on the day of jubilee, because he loves the master so much, is beholden to his master, and serves him out of love rather than debt.

[Guest NewPilgrim]

Fisher said:

It is believed that it is inevitable that we as Christians will continue to sin, therefore sin is excused as long as you stay away from the really bad ones. This causes sin to be taken lightly to some extent when sin should not in any degree be taken lightly.

Frankly I'm insulted, both for myself and my bretheren. Is this REALLY what you think of those of us who are bon again??

If your view of christianity is based on this statement, its no wonder you waver over the idea of becoming one.

Try being a little more respectful and give at least a little credit to those of us who's desire is to serve God.

[Kansasdad]

with God. The Prodigal did not at any time cease from being the true genetic son of his father because he wallowed with the pigs. When the son returned the father immediately recognized him as his son, regardless of the filth that he carried with him from the world. It is not that the he had to first cleanse himself before returning, so that the Father would recognize him. In like manner, when a son of God returns to the Father from having wallowed in the filth of the world, the Father is there to greet him, and to clothe him with righteousness; righteousness which is out of Christ, by His blood; and through which the Father can justify him freely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So did the father go out and force the son to return, or did the son return of his own decision, albeit, influenced by the consequenses of his actions. If the son had never returned would he then have ever been in the fellowship of the father again?

Of course I was told this parable had nothing to do with salvation.

God Bless

Kansas Dad

[traveller]

Excellent post, Ovedya In total agreement

[EricH]

So did the father go out and force the son to return, or did the son return of his own decision, albeit, influenced by the consequenses of his actions.  If the son had never returned would he then have ever been in the fellowship of the father again?

Of course I was told this parable had nothing to do with salvation.

Actually in the Parable the father ran out to meet him. The very act of a rich landowning father running to meet a son who had wished him dead, was unheard of in the Hebrew culture. It would have been coinsidered highly undignified. The father ran because he knew if the people in the village reached the son first, he would be mocked and attacked by the people in the village. The father meets him outside the village, and escorts him in under the father's protection.

So yes the son began the journey back, but the father met him outside the village and actually lowered himself to ensure the son's safety. He never ceased being a son in the father's eyes, only in is own eyes.

This parable basically tells of a younger son who requests inheritance and communicates that he is in a hurry for the father to die. This request was exceptional in the Hebrew culture. Jesus' listeners would have expect the father in the story to beat the son, but he did not. He granted the son's request. This younger son loses it all. He decides to go back to the village (not his home) and work as a servant and live in the village with the other hired men. This is his effort to save himself.

Upon his return he is shocked that he is not met by angry villagers, but by an unexpected demonstration of grace and love from the father. The son confesses unworthiness and accepts his role of sonship as offered by the father. His repentance is not the offer to be a servant (to earn his own way), but the acceptance of the grace offered by his father.

The older son then insults the father publically by refusing to act as the restorer of the younger brother (that should have been his role). He basically appeals to his works as a proof of his sonship. The father rejects this and extends the same humble love to the older son.

Both sons viewed their relationship to the father as one based on works and service. The father repsonded with grace to each. It is interesting that the son who viewed himself as righteous because of his works, ended up being lost. The son who could depend only on his father's grace ended up saved.

[Ovedya]

Right! Excellent post, Eric.

[WayneB]

Great stuff saints.

This has turned into a worthy & edifying thread.

[Kansasdad]

Great walk through Eric. I absolutely agree that we have no way of getting back to the father, it is beyond our ability. It is only through Gods Grace, God lowering himself to us, that he is able to lift us up to him. But it still took the sons initial opening of the door, "father I want to come back" The child opened the door so that the father could reach out to him and lift him up. One son accepted Gods grace, and one son rejected it. The youngest son who left could have had a different story, he could have done great things in the world, he could have built castles, he could have become the king, but unless he had made the decision to return, even misguided and ignorant to what that really meant, the Father would have left him to remain among the world, to be condemned with the world. This would not, as Ovedya pointed out, have changed the fact that he was still the Fathers son. Nothing can change that fact. The Eldest son was also the fathers son but rejected the Fathers Grace even though he had full knowledge of the father. The Father will let you leave, even though mankind can not understand how the father could possibly do such a thing. The Father through his Grace will always bring us back in, but we do have a part in the process, we have to open the door. How do we open the door, by having a repentant heart and believing in the Fathers Grace, That is our part. It is called faith. Faith is both believing in the Fathers Grace and having a repentant heart.

God Bless

Kansas Dad

[Kansasdad]

I might add that the fathers Grace was purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, and believing in the Fathers Grace means beleivng that Jesus died so that we may have that Grace.

Kansas Dad

[EricH]

Great walk through Eric.  I absolutely agree that we have no way of getting back to the father, it is beyond our ability.  It is only through Gods Grace, God lowering himself to us, that he is able to lift us up to him.  But it still took the sons initial opening of the door,  "father I want to come back"  The child opened the door so that the father could reach out to him and lift him up.  One son accepted Gods grace, and one son rejected it.  The youngest son who left could have had a different story, he could have done great things in the world, he could have built castles, he could have become the king, but unless he had made the decision to return, even misguided and ignorant to what that really meant, the Father would have left him to remain among the world, to be condemned with the world.  This would not, as Ovedya pointed out, have changed the fact that he was still the Fathers son.  Nothing can change that fact.  The Eldest son was also the fathers son but rejected the Fathers Grace even though he had full knowledge of the father.  The Father will let you leave, even though mankind can not understand how the father could possibly do such a thing.  The Father through his Grace will always bring us back in, but we do have a part in the process, we have to open the door.  How do we open the door, by having a repentant heart and believing in the Fathers Grace, That is our part.  It is called faith.  Faith is both believing in the Fathers Grace and having a repentant heart.

God Bless

Kansas Dad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But from the father's perspective (which is the important one, they never quit being His sons. The issue was that both of the sons had a jaded view of sonship. One came to understanding, one did not. But even with the one who did not, the father still aintained that he was still a son, and that all that the father had was his.