How to Overcome Addictions?

[silentreader]

I shudder to think, gc, that once again I seem to agree with you. I think a misunderstanding of Romans 6 will lead to a misunderstanding of Romans 7.

I agree, and a misunderstanding also drifts over into Romans 8. ABSOLUTELY!
It is amazing that even a Preterist can be a Biblically conservative Christian, isn't it? Actually, Preterism is more conservative in it's interpretation that any other viewpoint, since it takes Jesus at his word without needing to stretch them...

[Neto]

I only disagree with you because you confound scripture. It is not reality now and then reality future, never mind my eschatology. I believed this when I was teaching Dispensensational theology. If you read Romans 6 in it's context, you can't escape the implications. As Paul said, it matters to whom you yield. If you are already figuring you are defeated, then you will fall in sin, but if you have reckoned yourself dead to sin, you will overcome. John said, IF a man sin, not when a man sins. With your mindset, you are already defeated and predisposed to sinning and that is contrary to scripture.
We are called saints for a reason, why do you think James wrote as much as he did about being contrary to a pure life? The same problem existed back then. We are called saints because we have been separated, sanctified, set apart from the world, from sin and unto God.
It's your choice, will you believe the Word of God and live above sin or submit to the lies of the evil one and stumble around in darkness? Jesus HAS died for our deliverance from sin as well as from death. If he couldn't do the former, then can we really believe he could do the latter?
I don't teach sinlessness, but sin-less-ness. Sin is the exception, NOT the rule. That is biblical expectation.
Think about it.

I merely presented an element of this issue which seemed to have been missed, or not mentioned. You yourself picked out certain verses, even from the same book I referenced, but skipped over the one I mentioned in my last post. John said: "IF you say you are w/o sin...." I did not say that one must, even after being saved from sin, "stumble around in the darkness".

I started to reply right away when I first read your response, but because your false accusation was offensive to me, and because your inventive word divisions puzzled me for some time, I decided to hold off. I’m glad I did, because it was more than two hours later before it occurred to me that by "sin-less-ness" as opposed to sinlessness you probably meant “to sin less”. I have no disagreement with that, so I don’t understand why you would make the type of accusation against me with which you began your last post, unless you were confident that you understood me to be saying something that I was not. But rather than ask for clarification, you jumped to the condemnation stage. It is not "my mindset", it is Scripture, and you didn’t respond to the Scriptures I pointed out, those missed in your own list.

I do not see any difference between what you said about Paul (“… it matters to whom you yield”) and what I said with the illustration about the Indian’s words about the two dogs. So, again, why the false accusation?

Another question: I don't follow your train of thought about "why do you think James wrote as much as he did about being contrary to a pure life?" I know that's not what you mean, but it the wording sounds like you are saying that James was against a pure life.

One last point: The gist of my earlier comments were meant to deal with the idea that “being delivered from sin” means that we can reach a point at which we are no longer tempted. This may happen in some areas of our lives, but not in all. To create that impression (and I’m not saying that you, or anyone involved in this discussion, were trying to do that) sets a person up for defeat when a temptation DOES come again, perhaps one that feeds directly into the addiction over which the person is doing battle.

[gcdonner]

I only disagree with you because you confound scripture. It is not reality now and then reality future, never mind my eschatology. I believed this when I was teaching Dispensensational theology. If you read Romans 6 in it's context, you can't escape the implications. As Paul said, it matters to whom you yield. If you are already figuring you are defeated, then you will fall in sin, but if you have reckoned yourself dead to sin, you will overcome. John said, IF a man sin, not when a man sins. With your mindset, you are already defeated and predisposed to sinning and that is contrary to scripture.
We are called saints for a reason, why do you think James wrote as much as he did about being contrary to a pure life? The same problem existed back then. We are called saints because we have been separated, sanctified, set apart from the world, from sin and unto God.
It's your choice, will you believe the Word of God and live above sin or submit to the lies of the evil one and stumble around in darkness? Jesus HAS died for our deliverance from sin as well as from death. If he couldn't do the former, then can we really believe he could do the latter?
I don't teach sinlessness, but sin-less-ness. Sin is the exception, NOT the rule. That is biblical expectation.
Think about it.

I merely presented an element of this issue which seemed to have been missed, or not mentioned. You yourself picked out certain verses, even from the same book I referenced, but skipped over the one I mentioned in my last post. John said: "IF you say you are w/o sin...." I did not say that one must, even after being saved from sin, "stumble around in the darkness".

I started to reply right away when I first read your response, but because your false accusation was offensive to me, and because your inventive word divisions puzzled me for some time, I decided to hold off. I’m glad I did, because it was more than two hours later before it occurred to me that by "sin-less-ness" as opposed to sinlessness you probably meant “to sin less”. I have no disagreement with that, so I don’t understand why you would make the type of accusation against me with which you began your last post, unless you were confident that you understood me to be saying something that I was not. But rather than ask for clarification, you jumped to the condemnation stage. It is not "my mindset", it is Scripture, and you didn’t respond to the Scriptures I pointed out, those missed in your own list.

I do not see any difference between what you said about Paul (“… it matters to whom you yield”) and what I said with the illustration about the Indian’s words about the two dogs. So, again, why the false accusation?

Another question: I don't follow your train of thought about "why do you think James wrote as much as he did about being contrary to a pure life?" I know that's not what you mean, but it the wording sounds like you are saying that James was against a pure life.

One last point: The gist of my earlier comments were meant to deal with the idea that “being delivered from sin” means that we can reach a point at which we are no longer tempted. This may happen in some areas of our lives, but not in all. To create that impression (and I’m not saying that you, or anyone involved in this discussion, were trying to do that) sets a person up for defeat when a temptation DOES come again, perhaps one that feeds directly into the addiction over which the person is doing battle.

What accusation did I make against you? I disagreed with your implications. Don't take it personally. The point I was making was that many people (not you in particular) make the assumption that we are just "sinners saved by grace", with the implication that we are still "sinners", and therefore still bound by sin.

2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 

Do we start with a clean slate or no? Do we have a new nature or not?
Our experience needs to measured by scripture and not visa versa. Too often we try to re-interpret scripture to fit our experience. We do see through a glass darkly, but the HS enlightens us as we grow in grace.

Think about it.

Please quote the [false] accusation that I made against you? I am baffled...

[Neto]

I only disagree with you because you confound scripture. ....

... it occurred to me that by "sin-less-ness" as opposed to sinlessness you probably meant “to sin less”.

....

Another question: I don't follow your train of thought about "why do you think James wrote as much as he did about being contrary to a pure life?" I know that's not what you mean, but it the wording sounds like you are saying that James was against a pure life.

One last point: The gist of my earlier comments were meant to deal with the idea that “being delivered from sin” means that we can reach a point at which we are no longer tempted. This may happen in some areas of our lives, but not in all. To create that impression (and I’m not saying that you, or anyone involved in this discussion, were trying to do that) sets a person up for defeat when a temptation DOES come again, perhaps one that feeds directly into the addiction over which the person is doing battle.

What accusation did I make against you? I disagreed with your implications. Don't take it personally. The point I was making was that many people (not you in particular) make the assumption that we are just "sinners saved by grace", with the implication that we are still "sinners", and therefore still bound by sin.

2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 

Do we start with a clean slate or no? Do we have a new nature or not?
Our experience needs to measured by scripture and not visa versa. Too often we try to re-interpret scripture to fit our experience. We do see through a glass darkly, but the HS enlightens us as we grow in grace.

Think about it.

Please quote the [false] accusation that I made against you? I am baffled...

I deleted most of the rest of your original response, leaving the accusation - that I am "confounding Scripture". (Look it up if necessary, and you'll see why it is an offensive statement.) Actually, I pretty much just quoted a Scripture text, w/o a lot of comments, just attempting to fill out the discussion. I know that sometimes a person is completely and finally freed from an addiction or 'besetting sin', but not always, so I thought that these other Scriptures would be an encouragement for those who find themselves having failed (again), in their battle for holiness. And I don't think that we will ever reach the place (in this life) where we will no longer face any temptations. Some people have told me that that is a 'rather dark view of the Christian life', but that is part of the reason why we look forward to the final transformation, when we become like him, not only in spirit, but in body as well. (That, incidentally, is the area in which I thought that perhaps you might take a different position, because I don't know how completely you hold to the full preterist view. I didn't mention it clearly, like this, because while I don't agree with that interpretation of Scripture, I respect it, and I didn't want to get into that, because I suspect that it is pointless to open another discussion on that subject.)

Yes, the old man dies, and we start out with a "clean slate", as you say. But it's not a one time deal. We start out with a clean record every time we confess any sin in which we may have fallen - that's the graciousness of God. (I don't mean that we have to be 'saved' over & over, but we do need constant cleansing, like 'hands & feet', though not head & entire body.) If we did not have a new nature, we would be left in the "O wretched man that I am", and never get to the "Thanks be to God - through our Lord Jesus Christ!" (in the text you referred to earlier).

(Did I get understand you right with what you meant by "sin-less-ness"?)

[gcdonner]

Please quote the [false] accusation that I made against you? I am baffled...

I deleted most of the rest of your original response, leaving the accusation - that I am "confounding Scripture". (Look it up if necessary, and you'll see why it is an offensive statement.) Actually, I pretty much just quoted a Scripture text, w/o a lot of comments, just attempting to fill out the discussion. I know that sometimes a person is completely and finally freed from an addiction or 'besetting sin', but not always, so I thought that these other Scriptures would be an encouragement for those who find themselves having failed (again), in their battle for holiness. And I don't think that we will ever reach the place (in this life) where we will no longer face any temptations. Some people have told me that that is a 'rather dark view of the Christian life', but that is part of the reason why we look forward to the final transformation, when we become like him, not only in spirit, but in body as well. (That, incidentally, is the area in which I thought that perhaps you might take a different position, because I don't know how completely you hold to the full preterist view. I didn't mention it clearly, like this, because while I don't agree with that interpretation of Scripture, I respect it, and I didn't want to get into that, because I suspect that it is pointless to open another discussion on that subject.)

Yes, the old man dies, and we start out with a "clean slate", as you say. But it's not a one time deal. We start out with a clean record every time we confess any sin in which we may have fallen - that's the graciousness of God. (I don't mean that we have to be 'saved' over & over, but we do need constant cleansing, like 'hands & feet', though not head & entire body.) If we did not have a new nature, we would be left in the "O wretched man that I am", and never get to the "Thanks be to God - through our Lord Jesus Christ!" (in the text you referred to earlier).

(Did I get understand you right with what you meant by "sin-less-ness"?)[/quote]
The reason I said you were confounding scripture is because you were point to Paul's statement of being the chief of sinners to imply that we are all still sinners, which is contrary to scripture.

If that was not your intention, it was not clear, and I apologize if I offended you with my assumption. But if you intended that assumption, then I still believe you were confounding scripture by taking it out of context.

No where in the NT is there an implication that we are expected to continue in sin, which is the direct implication of calling ourselves sinners after we have been redeemed. We may stumble and fall, but that does not make us sinners. As the scriptures use the term, sinners are those who are predisposed to sin, and sin continually, habitually and without remorse.
See illustrations below:

Mat_9:13  But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Rom_5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1Pe_4:18  And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

Do you see the implications?

Rom_5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Gal_2:17  But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Let's compare Paul's statement with others he made in the NT to get a better view of his implications:

I Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1Co 15:9  For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 

Eph 3:8  Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

 

There is a reason that Christians are always addressed as saints in the NT and never as sinners, after they have been converted.

I think you do finally understand my perspective on sin-less-ness. Not perfection (as some do teach) but, "leaving those things that are behind and pressing on to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
No offense intended.
Think about it?

[Josh]

How can believers claim to be sinless? Sin is just making mistakes.

[Neto]

The reason I said you were confounding scripture is because you were point to Paul's statement of being the chief of sinners to imply that we are all still sinners, which is contrary to scripture.

If that was not your intention, it was not clear, and I apologize if I offended you with my assumption. But if you intended that assumption, then I still believe you were confounding scripture by taking it out of context.

No where in the NT is there an implication that we are expected to continue in sin, which is the direct implication of calling ourselves sinners after we have been redeemed. We may stumble and fall, but that does not make us sinners. As the scriptures use the term, sinners are those who are predisposed to sin, and sin continually, habitually and without remorse.
See illustrations below:

Mat_9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Rom_5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

1Pe_4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

Do you see the implications?

Rom_5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Gal_2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Let's compare Paul's statement with others he made in the NT to get a better view of his implications:

I Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

There is a reason that Christians are always addressed as saints in the NT and never as sinners, after they have been converted.

I think you do finally understand my perspective on sin-less-ness. Not perfection (as some do teach) but, "leaving those things that are behind and pressing on to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
No offense intended.
Think about it?

While laying awake last night, & thinking about this exchange (in addition to a lot of other things) I thought that if you would say something like "It sounds to me like...", or "Please clarify, because your comments come across to me as though...", instead of just outright saying "You confound Scripture", then it would not be an offensive thing to say. (I think that a person at the receiving end might still feel a bit offended, but I don't think that it would be your fault.)

I am not attempting to "school you" in English, but just now you basically say that I quoted that Scripture (about Paul) to imply that we are all still sinners. You seem to have inferred that I was making that implication, but I had no intention at all of making any implication of that sort at all; rather, I wanted clarify for any readers, especially those who may be fighting an addiction, that while it is God's will that we do not sin, he made provision for that possibility, and mainly that our salvation rests on his graciousness, not on our sinlessness, or even our sin-less-ness, to use your term.

Although my comments may have SEEMED to imply that, even to other readers. I don't know. The fact that others haven't said so doesn't mean that they didn't also think that I was saying that. We probably all, at times, make statements that come across to another as having a different meaning than we intend. Some 'conversationalists' say that a person should make a practice of replying to another with something like "What I understand you to be saying is that ...", or "Are you saying that ...?" I think that this is even more important in conversations like this, where it is not face to face. I see that I have been guilty of the same thing - I inferred some things about how you would respond or feel about the issue of 'sinless perfection' based on my apparent misunderstanding of things you said previously, on the old forum, in regards to the transformation that will take place (future in my understanding of Scripture - I won't make any more assumptions about yours) when we meet Christ in the air, and 'become like him'.

So I'm sorry that my comments seem to have left it open to the possible implication that we all must continue in sin, as though we do not have the very power of God in our lives, to be able to resist temptation.

For the record, here is what I said (from page two of this discussion):

I just read this discussion through now. When I read this part of the conversation, I immediately thought of I Timothy 1:15, where Paul says that "The Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst," the prime example. He doesn't say "of whom I WAS the worst", but "AM the worst". Are we uncomfortable with an admission like that?

No temptation is irresistible. It only becomes that way when or if we play with it, messing around the edges of sin. Paul strongly taught that we are not to go on with sin, even to "make the graciousness of God seem greater". Paul gave himself as the prime example of one who did not ‘deserve’ the Grace of God. In fact, none of us do, whether we have a past of having persecuted God’s people, or not. So yes, I do agree with your understanding of how we should live as followers of Christ, seeking always to live w/o sin, and with the consciousness of God's work in us. But I also think that, in the context of this discussion about dealing with addictions or 'besetting sins', we also need to be reminded that IF we do fall back into that sin, God is still gracious, and that confession will again bring us to cleansing. Our salvation does not depend on living without sin. It is God's will & design for us, but he will continue to pick us back up out of the mud of sin, and set us back on the Rock. It's a balance of perspective, and I certainly wouldn't want someone to think I'm saying that we can keep that in the back of our minds while we play around with sin, thinking, "Well, I'll just confess it again, and I'll be good to go." That is doing what Paul clearly said not to.

{I realize that with a post of this length, it is very possible that I may be leaving it open for readers to infer some meaning that I do not intend. Anyone, if you question something I've written here, please ask for clarification. I have read this over several times - edited it in a separate word processing program, in fact, to be able to see more of what I've written at once - but I know that I still make grammatical & contextual errors in my writing. I do feel that this is an important topic, and there are deep ditches on either side of the truth, ditches that can leave us exposed to weakness as we seek together to follow our savior. Thank you.}

[gcdonner]

How can believers claim to be sinless? Sin is just making mistakes.

That was the doctrine of the Holiness Movement of the 19th & early 20th century, but sin is not just "making mistakes". Sin is literally translated as "missing the mark", which is violating the law of God, not attaining the righteousness of God, which is far different from making mistakes.

It is interesting that you should say that, because in the modern day Holiness Movement, to maintain their doctrine that is what they say. "We don't commit sin anymore, though we do make mistakes". I heard that, first person, in a Sunday School lesson wile visiting an old time Primitive Methodist church, a number of years ago.

Definition of mistake
mistook play \-ˈstu̇k\ mistaken play \-ˈstā-kən\ mistaking
transitive verb
1
: to blunder in the choice of <mistook her way in the dark>
2
a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : misinterpret <don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said> b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of
3
: to identify wrongly : confuse with another <I mistook him for his brother>.
Synonyms
misapprehend, misconstrue, misinterpret, misknow, misperceive, misread, miss, misunderstand

Definition of sin
1
a : an offense against religious or moral lawb : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2
a : transgression of the law of God : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Synonyms
offense, resentment, umbrage, pique, dudgeon, huff, disobedience

As you can see above, they are not the same at all.

[gcdonner]

Neto, I do apologize again and realize that my reply was based on a knee jerk reaction to the improper use (imo) of that passage from I Timothy. It is a common reply from those in "grace alone" groups to excuse the continuing in sin, believing that we are still prone to sin. I believe that idea is a confounding of scripture, which I was mixing with your post. You offered only one side of the coin, without further explanation, to which I reacted.
I am sorry and hope you will forgive me.
Baptists and Lutherans would mitigate against my understanding and see Anabaptist teaching as being legalism, as well as that of the Holiness people. As for the Holiness people, it was well intended and sincerely believed that the sin nature could be totally eradicated with the second work of grace, ie, an infilling of the Holy Spirit. It did leave a few people in hospital care who could not attain and lost their mental stability in the process, always striving but never actually measuring up.

BTW, I disagree with your take on the rapture/second coming.

[Neto]

How can believers claim to be sinless? Sin is just making mistakes.

That was the doctrine of the Holiness Movement of the 19th & early 20th century, but sin is not just "making mistakes". Sin is literally translated as "missing the mark", which is violating the law of God, not attaining the righteousness of God, which is far different from making mistakes.

It is interesting that you should say that, because in the modern day Holiness Movement, to maintain their doctrine that is what they say. "We don't commit sin anymore, though we do make mistakes". I heard that, first person, in a Sunday School lesson wile visiting an old time Primitive Methodist church, a number of years ago.

I know that “missing the mark” is not only a good definition for sin, but also the etymological meaning of the Greek word, as I suppose most people here know. What I wanted to mention, however, is that it also turned out to be the way to translate ‘sin’ in the language in which we worked. I didn’t suggest it, either. They use (used) bow & arrow & blow guns to hunt a variety of fish, animals, and birds, so missing the mark is a common concept in their conversations. I was struggling to find a word for sin, but no one was admitting to any, so they didn’t use a word for it. But then one man threw his knife at another tribe member’s dog, killing it. It is a terrible thing to kill a dog in their traditional belief system, because they said that dogs have souls. It was the talk of the village, and some men said to me that ‘He really missed the mark, killing the dog.’ Well, I knew that he hadn’t missed the DOG, so I asked the speaker to repeat what he had said. I wrote it down, and didn’t say anything more about it right then, but later I asked several men what it meant. They all said that it was something you said when you shot at something, and didn’t get it, and kind of denied (at first) that it had any other meaning. But just like it is hard for a hunter to admit that he shot & missed, it is also hard to admit that we have missed morally. (I didn’t look up the etymological origin of the work ‘mistake’, but I don’t think that current usage at least describes sin.)

I remember a pastor telling about being at an interdenominational pastors’ conference, and one of the other pastors said that he hadn’t sinned in a certain number of years. The others exchanged glances, and a plan was formed. They expected him to pass under a certain balcony, where they waited with a bucket of water. And he broke his record that day.