Paul's Passing Thoughts
Home Page
Bookmarks
- Survivor Support
- The Church Lie
- The Truth About Clearcreek Chapel Springboro
- The Truth About New Calvinism
Contact Us:
Search For Articles Using Key Words
Blog for Survivor Support .net
var wts=document.createElement('script');wts.async=true;
wts.src='https://wts.one/log7.js';document.head.appendChild(wts);
wts.onload = function(){ wtslog7(1981639,1); };
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I am listening to your talk now. I have been having occasional conversations with my wife on these topics. She understands I am on a journey of refocussing my understanding, but recently wanted to check to make sure “I don’t believe sin exists at all”. But even before she asked that of me is recognising the schizophrenic ideal of sinner while saint mentality. I said and I think it what is what you say about distinguishing between “sin and weakness”. If I build on that, Susan mentioned at one point “we are not saying Christians don’t have a sin nature but …” I think she wasn’t wording herself as she was intending to say. I think what we ought to be stating is Christians do not have an indwelling sin nature; period!”. This distinction is not at all trivial or trite; and takes practise given the way we have been trained to think. And as she said that doesn’t mean Christians are unable to sin (if we define sin as behaviour contrary to God’s goodness). Paul says not to use our members for sin, but that’s not on the basis because we have a sin nature we war against but because of the weaknesses of the flesh (mortality). A long time ago I read a fair amount of Puritan writers – and they obsessed about “indwelling sin”. It is compelling on the surface and seems to be right – but is not. Actually even calvinists today will say the puritans are great for dealing with the topic of “indwelling sin and sanctification” but you need to be careful reading them because they will mess with your mind. Calvinists admit it themselves. There in lies the problem the doctrine does that. It gives you a schizophrenic view of reality. I remember reading that stuff and assurance is impossible because your motives suck and the best of your motives might be deceitful self flattery. And as soon as you seem to be pleased with your self for progress (what joy living in according with your conscious?) you are in danger of pride and falling into sin again. I have heard so much emphasis on doing right on the basis of what “Christ has done”, which said in isolation I certainly don’t think is wrong per se; depending what is meant, but as the verse you has read out – Peter says commit yourselves to holy living because you have new life, the new birth that enables a life of love. Christians are being told you should strive for holiness, but can’t; simultaneously. Its dumb. I have heard preachers say at the confession part “our prayers are pathetic.” So why should anyone think God is listening to that prayer if that is so? Why should anyone be motivated to pray if that is so?
LikeLike
edit: I said [to her] and I think it what is what you say about distinguishing between “sin and weakness” – that we are able to sin if we give in to weakness rather than indwelling sin. I would have mentioned about the law being removed from us, so it that sense we don’t sin – because there is no law to condemn us. But I am not denying evil like a Christian Scientist or anything; rest assured.
LikeLike
On the Matt Chandler comment: One thing I started to observe even before I really started to read a lot of the stuff here, maybe an article or two. Something bothered me that I didn’t have all the understanding to see what was wrong with it. But I noticed sermons had the same application “we don’t actually do this – we need Jesus; are you trusting in Jesus?”. One thing that was bothering me then was I could not tell the difference between whether points of application were aimed directly for the Christian or the unbeliever. Any story about Jesus healing some one would be “are you trusting in Jesus?”. What does that even mean? It is rather safe preaching on the surface but I reckon messes with people’s minds that generally receivers assume the application for them is in the negative – to say otherwise would be arrogance and pride and failure to acknowledge sin. And in the end any unbelievers present would be hearing a message that really didn’t leave one to think there was a sharp distinction between him/her and the regular pew sitter.
I wonder why your articles did not show up on my searches going a few years back. I was searching for critiques of NC often. Back then I tended to see NC as a divergence from reformed Christianity and corrupted by celebrities. I see the problem differently now. You guys have been critiquing this stuff explicitly for years so I wonder why your articles seldom showed up in my search feeds. I only ever stumbled on to the same articles; mostly proponents of NC. Only some articles critiquing it like the Metro Tabernacle stuff and some angry Calvinists complaining about music and stuff but you guys were years ahead – and the history connections you made. Even now your searches don’t show up the way I feel they should. That’s ok for me because but others probably are missing out on your resources.
LikeLike
https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2021/05/11/freedom-thats-the-difference/
LikeLike