Self-Identifying as Sinner

[dizerner]

Hey Matt! Appreciate your reply. Perhaps I'm extra-sensitive to anything that sounds like it's mixing grace with works or some kind of self-righteous reliance; I certainly know people resent that implication; yet I can't help my feeling that sometimes our language could be more consistent.

I know you said "he relies on the grace of God... by grace he rejects the old me... he's naturally prone to sin... he overcomes sin by the grace of God." But notice that I logically connected the admission of being a sinner with the ability to trust in another power. I'm not just making the point that "man is a sinner and God's grace is how he overcomes." I'm logically connecting the admission of being a sinner with the enablement to rely on grace. This is what I said is "the point being missed in all this."

As thankful as I am that you agree man is a sinner and overcomes by God's grace, I do think my previous connection was a point that was missed, even if it seems very subtle. I certainly don't mean to say anyone disagrees with that point or didn't mean to convey that point; only that I felt it had been missed.

Blessings!

[Paidion]

As Matt has indicated, salvation is all about God's enabling grace to save us from sin. I agree with you, Dizerner, that we cannot work righteousness and overcome wrongdoing by our own will power. But a point often missed is that neither will God cause us to work righteousness and overcome wrongdoing without our coöperation with his enabling grace. Without that coöperation, we are attempting to receive God's grace, but it is in vain.

It would be wise for us all to ponder the following passage:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Cor 5:21, 6:1)

It is a grave mistake to think like the man I described in my previous post, that through the grace of God provided by Christ's sacrifice, we are forgiven our sin—past, present, and future, and therefore can sin with impunity. Christ's sacrifice is not about forgiveness of sin, but it is about deliverance from sin. Although the word αφιημι sometimes means "forgive" in the New Testament, it more often means "to leave" or "to depart from" or "to forsake". I think in many cases, the Bible translations should have rendered the word as "forsake" where they rendered it as "forgive". It seems clear that the death of Christ was not necessary in order that sins could be forgiven, since our Lord Himself declared people's sins forgiven while He still walked this earth prior to his death. (Matt 9:2,5; Mark 2:5,9 3:28; Luke 5:20,23 7:47,48)

[Singalphile]

Interesting and helpful info about AA.

2 Peter 1:2-11 is especially helpful, I think.

Scripture emphasizes our deliverance from and rejection of sin over ... arguably, anything else, I would say. By trusting God's grace and power and faithfully looking to Jesus, and walking in the Spirit, and fleeing temptation, and "cutting off" whatever causes us to sin, I think that a person can "never stumble" (2 Peter 1:10).

Paul said (Rom 8:10) that "the body is dead because of sin" and (as dizerner mentioned) "nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh (Rom 7:18)."

So perhaps we can say that a part of us - the flesh/body - is corrupted and tainted and "a sinner" b/c we have all sinned, but another part of us - our spiritual identity - is born again and is free from sin as it is joined by the Spirit of Christ in us. But we must walk in the Spirit and strive to supplement our faith with goodness, self-control, etc. (2 Peter 1:5-8).

Although we are part of the body of Christ now, someday our literal bodies will also be glorified and empowered, and then I guess we can say that we don't self-identify as sinners in any way.

[mattrose]

Blessings!

Likewise, thanks for the dialogue

[dizerner]

But a point often missed is that neither will God cause us to work righteousness and overcome wrongdoing without our coöperation with his enabling grace.

I completely agree with this and when we miss this point it leads to the error of hyper-grace; that humans literally do nothing at all to receive grace or not resist grace; and that actually logically leads to Calvinism and double predestination. What we contribute in our synergy however is humility, faith and failure; that is what the repentant tax-collector brought to the table before God and went home justified. This is also good news, because it makes sanctification as much a free gift as justification, and not beyond the grasp of the weakest and most sinful, if it is by God's power and not our own that we do right and avoid wrong.

It seems clear that the death of Christ was not necessary in order that sins could be forgiven, since our Lord Himself declared people's sins forgiven while He still walked this earth prior to his death. (Matt 9:2,5; Mark 2:5,9 3:28; Luke 5:20,23 7:47,48)

I have to raise a red flag here and strongly disagree. The work of the Cross and the blood of Christ are the basis of all interaction with God and man, indeed Scripture says, it is how God reconciled all things to himself. The reason and foundation for Christ to speak forgiveness was his qualifications and his sacrifice, not just fiat. Consider this passage:

21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

All judgment was given to the Son on the basis of his standing in for humanity. This is why the Son can save us from sin; he is the judge now in place of the Father, and through his death he can reconcile us to God.

[RickC]

Somewhat late in my reply but . . . .

Rick, have you ever come across this book?

Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease

No, I hadn't heard of the book or author. I've seen several similar books thru the years. One was "Moderation Management". I had read it back when I was in AA going thru my sober periods. I even mentioned it at a meeting. It wasn't discussed much during the meeting but I got with some guys afterward (well, I think THEY GOT WITH ME, LOL).

On a sad and tragic note, the lady author of the book (which also became a 'program') had a bad car accident while drunk. If I'm not mistaken, she killed someone in the other car and went to prison. When I learned of this, that was THE END of my 'moderation management'.

Thanks & Take Care!

[Paidion]

Rick, I mentioned the book to suggest that there are ways (and in my opinion better ways) to understand alcoholism rather than labelling it as a disease. We can recover from most diseases, but AA doesn't recognize recovery from alcoholism. They say you cannot recover; you just have to continue in the process of recovery for the rest of your life, without the possibility of ever achieving recovery.

I have a short booklet called "Substance Abuse among the Elderly" by Judy Dobbie. A note at the beginning of the booklet defines "alcoholic" this way (though she prefers the term "alcohol dependent person" as being more a more accurate term):

An "alcoholic" is a person who, as the result of the abuse of alcohol, is experiencing serious and recurring personal and social problems or health damage, and who, because of these problems, would benefit from treatment. However, there is a wide range of person styles of consumption — including occasional light drinking and constant heavy drinking — and the shadings between different levels of consumption are imperceptible. Thus there is no clear line of separation between "hazardous drinking" and "alcoholism."

[RickC]

Paidion,

Thanks for your reply.

I thought I made it clear that I, myself, came to see alcoholism as a behavior (not a disease).

When I was in AA, also working in Alcohol Rehab in the Navy, I became aware of many models of alcohol abuse. Even AA recognizes that some are problem drinkers and may or may not be alcohol dependent.

Take Care!

[Paidion]

Hi Rick,

You did make it clear that you came to see alcoholism as a behavior. That's why I was confused when you afterward mentioned the book "Moderation Management" as a book similar to "The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease." I haven't read "Moderation Management" but the title suggests to me that the main thesis of the book is not at all similar to that of "The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease." Also the fact that the author had a bad car accident when drunk, made me think that she must have been quite different from Herbert Fingarette, emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of California, the author of "The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease."

You can read about him and some quotes from "The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease" by clicking on the following link:

http://www.peele.net/lib/fingers.html

[RickC]

I used to have a stack of books 3 feet high with virtually every theory about problem drinking, alcoholism as a disease, excessive drinking as a sin -- you name it, I've read about it. (Can't remember if I threw the books out or gave them away). Anyways, thanks Paidion!