sin or relationship

[christyG]

Did Jesus come to take away our sins or bring us back into relationship, or both?

Again I'm asking from a "what to tell my kids perspective".

Church teaches that we are all sinners and Jesus came to take away our sins. I have a hard time "selling" that to kids if you get what I mean. With Easter approaching I want to try to get a handle on how I want to approach this with my children, so I thought I'd get some of your thoughts.

Thanks, Christy

[Paige]

Christy,

I'm still digging into this topic for myself and have had a lot of help understanding these things from my friends here. First off, for kids I think I would start with what Jesus says about Himself in John 10:10, "...I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly." That coupled with John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." It seems that Jesus came to bring man back into relationship with God.

If you view the definition of sin as transgression of the law, then with the OC law fulfilled and behind us, we can say that Jesus succeeded in taking away the sin of the world (OC world). If we view it as "missing the mark" (the mark being the OC law) then I still think "sin" defines nobody today. I think there is agreement that love is the law in the NC. So, can we "miss the mark" where love is concerned? I definitely think so, and we have all been there. This is where grace enters in, IMO. Does failing to perfectly love separate us from God. Not on God's part. Christ's completed work of redemption stands forever as testimony to the depths of God's love and grace for us all.

Paige

[Amie]

Christy,
I define sin as "transgression of the law" and "missing the mark" (like Paige described) and feel that it has been therefore removed from the world.

If the law were in charge, we would all be law-breakers; and law-breakers are sinners. Jesus came to set people free ("the truth shall set you free"). If you are a "sinner", you have been convicted by the law and are therefore not worthy of God's presence. No one could keep the law, save for Jesus.

Because he fulfilled the law (kept it perfectly and righteously), the law was allowed to do it's job (to introduce sin, and to show righteousness in contrast to it). Once the law was allowed to do it's job, we were done learning "good and evil". "Eternal life" (access to the tree of life) was given after the lesson was learned, rather than before (maybe that means we would have been eternally stupid, lol!).

Righteousness stood out in contrast to the law because the law had been interpreted by humanity's perspective. I explained to my son that the law was like a coin with two sides. There was the interpretation by what people could understand and see around them, then there was the interpretation that Jesus gave - which was through spiritual eyes (Jesus understood the meaning of the symbols, and which things were symbols).

Look back at the law and try interpreting it understanding the symbols (ie, "virgin"). See how it plays out differently (perhaps "righteously").
My son is older though, I simply tell my 7 year old daughter that she is free and isn't under any laws. If there is no law to break, and I define for her that "sinner" is "law-breaker", then she cannot be a "sinner".

Being without love is a consequence in and of itself - there is no need for a law. My children like answering questions and sometimes hearing stories more than they like being lectured to.. answering questions is the best. I ask them what it would be like in a world with no love :(. Also, what experiences have they had where people did things that weren't loving and how did it feel, have they ever done anything unloving and how did it feel.. How did the people around them act when they made the mistake? How do they feel that mistakes should be handled? What is empathy? Does understanding how the other person feels mean there should be no consequences? When should there be consequences? When not?

Thanks to God, every answer they will ever need is in their hearts!!

Amie

[christyG]

So you see sin as a transgression of OC law only? Not a transgression of love God, love your neighbor?


Amie,

Discussion starters are great. And you are right, kids do have great questions.

Thanks
Christy

[Paige]

So you see sin as a transgression of OC law only? Not a transgression of love God, love your neighbor?

Christy,

I'm still working on figuring that one out for myself. What confuses me right now, is the passage in 1 John 3:4-9:

Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness. 3:5 You know that he was revealed to take away our sins, and in him is no sin. 3:6 Whoever remains in him doesn’t sin. Whoever sins hasn’t seen him, neither knows him.

3:7 Little children, let no one lead you astray. He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 3:9 Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can’t sin, because he is born of God.

I'm trying to reconcile exactly how that works out today. I don't believe that anyone is born under the OC since it passed away. When John wrote these words, some people had died to the OC and others hadn't, it was the transition between the ages. If you've got some thoughts that might help me along here, I'd sure appreciate them! :)

Paige

[Amie]

So you see sin as a transgression of OC law only?

As far as I know, nothing in Scripture defines sin as anything else.


Not a transgression of love God, love your neighbor?

I think that there are consequences for poor choices, but I do not count these things as "sin".

Every religion has its sets of laws, please do not take my view as a condemnation of such laws. I think that laws can be fine (even Paul demonstrates by his way of life that we can accept one another's differences) but can fall short when they loose connection with the heart.

The questions I listed were suggestions for asking your children. The "law" has been written in the fleshy tables of their hearts - they have everything they need there imo.


What confuses me right now, is the passage in 1 John 3:4-9:

1 John 3
4 ¶ Everyone practicing sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

I think that the KJV is actually clearer in verse 4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth * also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

<So the context is speaking of breaking the law specifically...>

5 And you know that that One was revealed that He might take away our sins, and sin is not in Him.
6 Everyone remaining in Him does not sin. Everyone sinning has not seen Him, nor known Him.

<Who was "in Christ"? Wouldn't that be the 1st century church that was baptized into Him? He has now turned the Kingdom over to the Father - wouldn't we all now be "in God" (God being made "all in all")?>

7 Little children, let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, even as that One is righteous.

<What were they being lead astray from? Isn't this speaking about the Judaizers?>

8 The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning. For this the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the devil.

<Who is "the devil"? Is he not the one who works against redemption? Is he not the one who fought to keep the OC in power after it was fulfilled?>

9 Everyone who has been begotten of God does not sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.

<Was Paul "begotten of God" before his "rebirth"? Can we be "begotten" in such a way today?>

10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone not practicing righteousness is not of God; also the one not loving his brother.

<Isn't "the one not loving his brother" contextually, "the devil"?>

Does this mean that people today do not behave like "the devil"? No. They have no power to try and protect though.

Amie

[Paige]

Amie,

I like the way you broke that down. I was going to add also that in vs. 6 it references everyone "remaining in Him". Now, that sounds an awful lot like what the author of Hebrews addresses again and again. To remain in Christ would be to remain in the NC. If one didn't remain there, they returned to the OC. I don't think it is even possible to do that today, so there again is a passage that seems to have specific audience relevance.

Paige

[Barry]

For some very strange reason that I cannot quite put me finger on, many of the "fulfilled" persuasion seem to be looking back at the end of the age as a time that the "righteous" were not "really judged" until they died physically.
Not to sound mean, but nevertheless, it makes no sense at all in scripture and there is absolutely nothing to support such a theory.
So then the question that we can ask to remain consistent with what is presented to us in the scriptures concerning the "end" is John admonishing these believers to remain faithful until the end or beyond the end?

Who anywhere at any time is told to be faithful beyond the end?
The Hebrews? I don't see it!
The letters to the Gentiles from Paul? Can't find it!
The writings of Peter? Where is it?!
Is there anything in the writings of John that what he is saying can be applied directly to points beyond the end of that world? IMO NO!
On the contrary John paints a picture of a total end! All that is in the world, the lust of the eye the lust of the flesh the pride of life was coming to a complete passing away.
John is dealing with love as was applicable to the transition. Is there something for us to learn here? Yes. Can it be applied to sin or judgment that is tied to Adam, or Sin, or the Devil? NO. The end is the end is the end!

This resounding fact is hard to swallow. It means that justification by faith is now impossible. Now that is a big pill to swallow isn't it? LOL. And how much "pride" have we put in our "faith"?

What is so amazing is that I can say this in this day and time, in this part of the world without being burned alive by a God fearing, loving and kind follower of Christ!

What we are trying to reconcile is the fact that it was a "new commandment" and so how could it be a new commandment for just a few years until the end? That does not make much sense in people's mind.

I think that the problem is that many are thinking then that love is a replacement for the law. The command of Love then could be transgressed. Herein is I believe the problem. We made love into law. And it almost looks like this in the scriptures because of the way "love" played out in the end times.
Ultimately however love does not take over for law. Love does not take into account a wrong suffered. Love is able to deal with consequences on a human level but is not now looking toward justification of life.

For the first-fruits first century Christians justification of life was still an issue in its being worked out. Then came the end. While love remains, faith remains and hope remains, none are linked to justification of life.
Love is not a substitute for the law, it is the truth of life that we recognize or not. That affects the quality of our life.
Life is about relationship. That's the truth.
JMO
Barry

[christyG]

Barry said: What we are trying to reconcile is the fact that it was a "new commandment" and so how could it be a new commandment for just a few years until the end? That does not make much sense in people's mind.

I think that the problem is that many are thinking then that love is a replacement for the law. The command of Love then could be transgressed. Herein is I believe the problem. We made love into law. And it almost looks like this in the scriptures because of the way "love" played out in the end times.
Ultimately however love does not take over for law. Love does not take into account a wrong suffered. Love is able to deal with consequences on a human level but is not now looking toward justification of life.

For the first-fruits first century Christians justification of life was still an issue in its being worked out. Then came the end. While love remains, faith remains and hope remains, none are linked to justification of life.
Love is not a substitute for the law, it is the truth of life that we recognize or not. That affects the quality of our life.
Life is about relationship. That's the truth.


Very well said. I think you hit right on what my hang-up was. Thank you so much:) .

[Lauri]

Hey Barry,
What do you know, a post by you that I could actually follow and understand. lol :biggrinbounce: Most of the stuff you post is way to deep for this one dimesional brain. I especially liked what you said here:


I think that the problem is that many are thinking then that love is a replacement for the law. The command of Love then could be transgressed. Herein is I believe the problem. We made love into law. And it almost looks like this in the scriptures because of the way "love" played out in the end times.
Ultimately however love does not take over for law. Love does not take into account a wrong suffered. Love is able to deal with consequences on a human level but is not now looking toward justification of life.



Why is it we feal like we have to earn our way to God's good graces. Is it because almost everything we get in life is earned from grades in school to salary at work, or are we just hard wired that way?

Lauri

[Barry]

Hey Barry,
What do you know, a post by you that I could actually follow and understand. lol :biggrinbounce: Most of the stuff you post is way to deep for this one dimesional brain. I especially liked what you said here:



Why is it we feal like we have to earn our way to God's good graces. Is it because almost everything we get in life is earned from grades in school to salary at work, or are we just hard wired that way?

Lauri

My communication skills are really lacking sometimes LOL. Sometimes I don't even know what I wrote LOL.
My father was an excellent artist. I'm not but am quite abstract at times LOL. It's genetic, that's my story and I'm sticking too it. LOL


I don't think we are hard wired as such IMO. IMO we culturally or socially have not yet really embraced the difference between our inherent "value" and our "potential". So we are trying to earn our value through increasing our potential. I think we got it wrong.
Barry

[Bill]

Hey Barry,

You said,


Ultimately however love does not take over for law. Love does not take into account a wrong suffered.

I think that love does take over for law, but only in a good way. Law does take into account a wrong suffered. Love does not. Love is the anti-law. Under the O.C. we took into account all the wrongs we suffered and now we don't. We let people be free to be what God is making them instead of trying to force them to be what we want or what the law wants.

Does that sound right?

Bill

[Barry]

In regards to the law passing away, yes Bill. I fully agree. Just depends on how we read "take over".
The point being however, love is not something that we "transgress" as the law was IMO.
Barry

[Amie]

I hope y'all enjoy this as much as I did: http://onelifeministries.org/PathOfSpirit/031906_BagBreath.asp

[Infinite Grace]

Amie,
Yeah, sometimes Brian is a bit too esoteric for me - I'm more of a concrete thinker, I guess. However, every once in a while he nails one. This is one of those times.

[Paige]

I did enjoy that! :clap2:

Thanks for sharing it.

Paige

[christyG]

Amie, can you tell me more about One Life Ministries and Brian?
I like what I've read so far but the web site does not say a whole lot about who they are.

Christy

[Infinite Grace]

The more recent articles have this at the bottom of them:

OneLife Ministries is a pastoral outreach and nurture ministry of the First United Methodist Church, Fort Meade, FL. For Spiritual Direction, Pastoral Counseling, spiritual formation workshops, Christian meditation retreats, or more information about OneLife, write Rev. Dr. Brian K. Wilcox at briankwilcox@comcast.net.

On the UMC website, I found the entry for this church, with Brian listed as pastor. Other than that, there is no mention of a website, or bio on Brian.

[Amie]

Christy,

Feel free to write Brian (let him know Amie sent ya) if you have further questions than what Ed shared. I know that Brian's resume is quit impressive. If my memory serves me correct, he has umteen college degrees and at least one doctorate. It is confusing a bit for me, but he is a Methodist Pastor and a Universalist. :eek:

He wrote "An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness With God Through Love" available on Amazon.com.

Amanda Loper was a moderator at the old WomenBeyond forums - she's his cousin. She is also a very busy Mommy and can't do all that she would like :).

Hope that helps some,

Amie

[Amie]

Along this thread's lines.. does anyone know if there is a punishment for breaking the commandments "love the lord thy God with all of your heart and soul" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" and the additional "love one another as I have loved you"??

Amie

[Amie]

Speaking of children and sin and relationship, my daughter's classmate is a very forward Jehovah's witness. She tells everyone that she has a "different religion"; her God's name is "Jehovah" and isn't the same God as everyone elses.

I talk very little about Scripture to my daughter (she's 7), though being a member of my family makes not at least overhearing such things an impossibility, lol.

Amanda's (my daughter) friend approaches her, and she has been deciding where she stands lately just on a personal level as well. So far (that I know of) Amanda has decided that people can't pray to different Gods because there is only one God, that God loves her no matter what, and she has concluded that she also loves herself just the way she is (and declared that to a classmate today, lol).

Can you tell I'm a proud Momma?

Amie

[Lauri]

Amie,
And she got all that from eaves dropping on a heritic? :eek: I say three cheers for the heritics!:cheerleader02: Seriously, you have plenty of reason to be proud Amie!

From one proud Mom to another,
Lauri