I have noticed over the years...

[olger]

...that when a person fails to resolve sin issues, it affects their theology.

Our theology tends to be a refection of our personal morality. When a person does not Biblically resolve moral failure for instance, their theology will begin changing. We will either resolve our wrong actions or we will justify them.

Perhaps we can compare this statement to the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Though in a sense it goes both ways, I believe, generally speaking, we are attracted to ideologies that complement or affirm our lifestyle. This explains why if we have retained known sin in our lives (I didn’t say if we are sinners), we will be attracted to error as a honeybee is to nectar - I am talking about the sin we know we are practicing and refuse to give up. It is the sin we excuse by saying my father did it or the people at the office do it or we read somewhere that it was okay, when the truth is we know it is wrong.

On the dashboards of our cars are various gauges and lights. These indicators communicate the temperature of the engine, the oil pressure, the engines revolutions per minute, the car’s speed, and a host of other things, such as low tires, seatbelts unfastened, or the engine needs servicing. Considering these readings a nuisance and ignoring them can have serious consequences for both the well-being of the automobile and for that of the passengers too.

God has given us a conscience as a gauge. It comes with default calibrations. People know when they are lying, stealing, or in moral failure. A finely tuned conscience is essential to a victorious Christian life. The apostle Paul said, quote "herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men” (Acts 24:16). And in 1 Timothy 4:2, he cautioned us against searing our conscience.

We can keep our conscience finely tuned only by maintaining an ongoing state of repentance. Sooner or later, unconfessed sin will blunt our ability to discern right from wrong and make us vulnerable to being deceived, either by ourselves or by others. Then our theology will change as our heart begins justifying its wrong actions. There is a solution - the blessing of a clear conscience.

g

[SivartM]

I agree. It works the other way, too... people who believe that they've overcome most of their sins come up with theological ways to estrange themselves from those whom they deem less sanctified.

[Tom Wetmore]

And there is the well established psychological phenomenon where a person over emphasizes or over compensates for something for which they feel guilt. The inward manifestation of this is a felt need to punish themselves and they essentially go further then necessary to correct the problem. (Eating disorders, for example) The outward manifestation of this is that the bad trait (sin if you prefer) which they struggle, they project onto others while being in denial of their own defect. They essentially become blind to their own faults and instead identify those faults in others instead. This would result in the spiritual problem of judgmentalism.

I believe your observation and what I have just posted demonstrate the mistake of over-generalization that would suggest a singular explanation for problems we encounter in life. Life is far more complex than simplistic generalized theories about what we have noticed over the years. The older I get, the more I realize there are no easy or simple explanations for most things. And this is one of them. The many theological variations are born of of a much richer genetic heritage than one simplistic theory.

But I think there is a more sinister effect of what olger has suggested. It basically explains a theological difference as being the result of the sin of the one with whom you differ. In other word, if you change your view of a particular theological point that now is different from mine, it must be because you have a sin problem at the root of it all that you are just trying to rationalize. Your theology is wrong because it is rooted in your sinfulness. And since I don't change my view, I am less a sinner and therefore more righeous than you, at least on that point.

[D. Allan]

Jung has written a fine book on this problem of "projection." It is "The Undiscovered Self." I recomend it to everyone, even world leaders would benefit. Robert Bly's "Little Book on the Human Shadow" (co-authered with William Booth) deals with the problem also.

[Kevin H]

I agree. It works the other way, too... people who believe that they've overcome most of their sins come up with theological ways to estrange themselves from those whom they deem less sanctified.

I like both SivartM's post and Olger's original post. We need to have a theology that sees Christ's merits giving us victory over sin. However there are 3 things that we need to remember.

First: we will always have a sinful nature, that does not change until the second coming; this is a disposition in us to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, a disposition to esteam ourselves for highly than our breathern. What we get to is where we are aware of this disposition and are critical of it and avoid it and choosing to go against this nature to instead choose to love the world as Jesus has loved it. This is the basic underlying event. We have become so focused on the fruit rather than the root. We are so focused on our legal standing instead of looking at Jesus and by beholding we become changed.

Second: When it comes to the fruit, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit works with us individually and too often people expect uniformity. The doctrin of the 144,000 is a oneness of developing a Christ like character, willing to follow Jesus anywhere, yet maintaining their own unique personality.

Third: Too often we add to the list of sins traditions, reading verses out of context, or reading more into the texts than the text is actually saying. And as we move farther from tradition and closer to the Bible, the traditionalists acuse us of being soft on sin.

[Woody]

And there is the well established psychological phenomenon where a person over emphasizes or over compensates for something for which they feel guilt. The inward manifestation of this is a felt need to punish themselves and they essentially go further then necessary to correct the problem. (Eating disorders, for example) The outward manifestation of this is that the bad trait (sin if you prefer) which they struggle, they project onto others while being in denial of their own defect. They essentially become blind to their own faults and instead identify those faults in others instead. This would result in the spiritual problem of judgmentalism.

I believe your observation and what I have just posted demonstrate the mistake of over-generalization that would suggest a singular explanation for problems we encounter in life. Life is far more complex than simplistic generalized theories about what we have noticed over the years. The older I get, the more I realize there are no easy or simple explanations for most things. And this is one of them. The many theological variations are born of of a much richer genetic heritage than one simplistic theory.

But I think there is a more sinister effect of what olger has suggested. It basically explains a theological difference as being the result of the sin of the one with whom you differ. In other word, if you change your view of a particular theological point that now is different from mine, it must be because you have a sin problem at the root of it all that you are just trying to rationalize. Your theology is wrong because it is rooted in your sinfulness. And since I don't change my view, I am less a sinner and therefore more righeous than you, at least on that point.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I did not interpret Olger's post as implying that the origin of different theologies is due to unresolved sin at all. It's true that what he's said could be extended to reach that conclusion. And extending it in that way can also give one an excuse to discount the whole thing. But I believe he is absolutely right that this is where unresolved sin will lead. People cannot live with a continual burden of guilt, and refusal to deal with it in the appropriate manner must lead either to the situation Olger has described, or to complete breakdown of the mental and/or physical health of the individual. There may be other alternatives, but none will be good.

[pindoc]

I know I tend to avoid people who insist that they're version of spiritual and theological reality is IT.

I have 1 relation I hardly speak to. Got tired of "You can't possibly go to heaven because you think that way. Doesn't that bother you a lot?" Wow, talk about losing coming and going. The more I said NO the more it ticked this person off. I still recall this saint stomping out of the room b/c they were tired of my response. What was funny was that it was their house.

[olger]

Thanks Grandma. I didn't either

og out

[GreatLakesGramma]

This isn't really an issue of anybody insisting that their version of spiritual reality is the only right one. It's a matter of what one does with the convictions brought by the Holy Spirit, when he/she knows absolutely that it is sin, but is unwilling to let go of it.

Olger didn't suggest that we should look at other people and try to evaluate whether they have unresolved sin in their lives, or why someone has left one church for another. But in some cases it is too plain to miss.

My husband fought conviction for years, but when he finally quit fighting and surrendered, there was not a person that knew him who didn't notice the change in him. He was a totally different person. The change was immediate, and like night to day.

[LifeHiscost]

The many theological variations are born of of a much richer genetic heritage than one simplistic theory.

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6 KJV

Many religious books have been written about this simplistic theology that have made sin almost totally without recognition. But it answers all questions about evil that one is willing to admit. God had a whole Bible written because He knew man would continue to expound voluminous missives to explain away his personal guilt.

To understand that simplistic theology one only has to follow these instructions.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."1 John 1:9 NKJV

"For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin. "Ecclesiastes 7:20 NKJV

We need not remember every sin we ever committed to claim that promise, but only those of which we are aware. When we do that, the Holy Spirit will bring to our attention those we still need cleansed from our soul.

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17 NKJV

Joy!!

[John317]

...that when a person fails to resolve sin issues, it affects their theology.

Our theology tends to be a refection of our personal morality. When a person does not Biblically resolve moral failure for instance, their theology will begin changing. We will either resolve our wrong actions or we will justify them.

....This explains why if we have retained known sin in our lives (I didn’t say if we are sinners), we will be attracted to error as a honeybee is to nectar - I am talking about the sin we know we are practicing and refuse to give up. It is the sin we excuse by saying my father did it or the people at the office do it or we read somewhere that it was okay, when the truth is we know it is wrong.

Jesus agreed with this. He didn't say that people needed a great education or a high IQ to know the truth. He said knowing the truth will depend on one's willingness to obey God, or give up sin. If I have a sin in my life that I want to keep, I will tend to like whatever agrees with my desire. The Bible itself says that God lets us believe our favorite wrongs are right and that what's right (that we don't like) is wrong. It seems to me this is what ogler is saying.

The condition of the heart, our characters, determine our destiny. Isn't that what happened to Judas, when he couldn't resolve his moral failures? An interesting comparison is Peter's resolution of his own moral failures and how this led him down a far different path than the one Judas took.

What made all the difference? Only this: Peter's willingness to give up his sins and die to self for Jesus, and Judas' refusal to do the same. They both were with Jesus, so the difference was not that one was with Jesus and other wasn't.

[olger]

Amen. That's the kind of stories that encourage the saints, and overcome the enemy according to Revelation 12:11.

I have seen the exact same changes in my life and many others, praise be to Him.

go forward,

g

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: olger

...that when a person fails to resolve sin issues, it affects their theology.

Our theology tends to be a refection of our personal morality. When a person does not Biblically resolve moral failure for instance, their theology will begin changing. We will either resolve our wrong actions or we will justify them.

....This explains why if we have retained known sin in our lives (I didn’t say if we are sinners), we will be attracted to error as a honeybee is to nectar - I am talking about the sin we know we are practicing and refuse to give up. It is the sin we excuse by saying my father did it or the people at the office do it or we read somewhere that it was okay, when the truth is we know it is wrong.

Jesus agreed with this. He didn't say that people needed a great education or a high IQ to know the truth. He said knowing the truth will depend on one's willingness to obey God, or give up sin. If I have a sin in my life that I want to keep, I will tend to like whatever agrees with my desire. The Bible itself says that God lets us believe our favorite wrongs are right and that what's right (that we don't like) is wrong. It seems to me this is what ogler is saying.

The condition of the heart, our characters, determine our destiny. Isn't that what happened to Judas, when he couldn't resolve his moral failures? An interesting comparison is Peter's resolution of his own moral failures and how this led him down a far different path than the one Judas took.

What made all the difference? Only this: Peter's willingness to give up his sins and die to self for Jesus, and Judas' refusal to do the same. They both were with Jesus, so the difference was not that one was with Jesus and other wasn't.

I agree with that John, excellent post.