Lesson #3 - All Have SINNED

Here is the link to this week's study and discussion material:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/less03.html

"All have sinned"

I found this comment by Jonathan Gallangher interesting:

Sin is an alienation from God with resulting wrong actions.

Jews and non-Jews are under sin. This means that, whether people are religious or not, they are under the power of sin, and they can only be made free from this power through faith in Christ and through His power to save. They must admit they need help before they can find the true remedy, which is Jesus Christ.

Some illustrations that can be used for this week's lesson:

It might be a little too deep for most SS classes, but the quarterly did not touch the fact that all have sinned - past tense.

Paul didn't say all will sin, or all will probably sin, or all have the tendency to sin, or any soft words like that. He said all have sinned - a done deal.

However, the "falling short" of God's glory is in the present tense.

But there are those among us who teach that the "sin part" of the verse should be future tense, and the "fall short part" should be past tense. That's not what Paul wrote.

The quarterly just seemed to skim the surface, but the study help had some good quotes:

This matter is so dimly comprehended that thousands upon thousands claiming to be sons of God are children of the wicked one, because they will depend on their own works. God always demanded good works, the law demands it, but because man placed himself in sin where his good works were valueless, Jesus' righteousness alone can avail. Christ is able to save to the uttermost because He ever liveth to make intercession for us. {6BC 1071.5}

All that man can possibly do toward his own salvation is to accept the invitation, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." No sin can be committed by man for which satisfaction has not been met on Calvary. Thus the cross, in earnest appeals, continually proffers to the sinner a thorough expiation (MS 50, 1900). {6BC 1071.6}

24-26 (see EGW on ch. 5:11). The Father Abundantly Satisfied.--The atonement that has been made for us by Christ is wholly and abundantly satisfactory to the Father. God can be just, and yet the justifier of those who believe (MS 28, 1905). {6BC 1071.7}

(Ch. 5:1.) Justification Means Complete Pardon.--[Romans 3:24-26 quoted.] Here the truth is laid out in plain lines. This mercy and goodness is wholly undeserved. The grace of Christ is freely to justify the sinner without merit or claim on his part. Justification is a full, complete pardon of sin. The moment a sinner accepts Christ by faith, that moment he is pardoned.

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to him, and he is no more to doubt God's forgiving grace. {6BC 1071.8}

There is nothing in faith that makes it our saviour. Faith cannot remove our guilt. Christ is the power of God unto salvation to all them that believe. The justification comes through the merits of Jesus Christ. He has paid the price for the sinner's redemption. Yet it is only through faith in His blood that Jesus can justify the believer. {6BC 1071.9}

The sinner cannot depend upon his own good works as a means of justification. He must come to the point where he will renounce all his sin, and embrace one degree of light after another as it shines upon his pathway. He simply grasps by faith the free and ample provision made in the blood of Christ. He believes the promises of God, which through Christ are made unto him sanctification and righteousness and redemption. And if he follows Jesus, he will walk humbly in the light, rejoicing in the light and diffusing that light to others. Being justified by faith, he carries cheerfulness with him in his obedience in all his life. Peace with God is the result of what Christ is to him. The souls who are in subordination to God, who honor Him, and are doers of His Word, will receive divine enlightenment. In the precious Word of God there is purity and loftiness as well as beauty that, unless assisted by God, the highest powers of man cannot attain to (ST May 19, 1898). {6BC 1071.10}

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/helps/lesshp03.html

This is a very important point that few grasp. Good works are demanded, but they are valueless. The only thing of value, in terms of salvific acts, is Christ's righteousness, not ours.

Nice.

How are we saved? The following is the clearest explanation for me:



We are saved as we perceive and respond to the love of God revealed at the cross. If we do not resist, God will do all the marvelous things mentioned here for us, bad as we are.

Sorry to stop your diversion here - and say so directly, but God's love isn't the kingpin of salvation for us as you have tried to make it appear.

The centre of the cross of Christ is the second death suffered by the Son of God in mortal flesh having been made sin for us. That Christ died for sin is the method of redeeming us from the death due sin. For us to experience justification and be saved by Jesus, we must die to self by participating by grace through faith in that death to sin of Jesus for us.

"Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Love even in action by itself does nothing to save us: Christ's achievement in saving the world in himself was his meritorious life and his righteous death for sin, coupled with his victory also over the grave (Rom 4:25).

Christ's righteousness imputed to us by rebirth of the Spirit in the experience of justification by faith qualifies us for heaven & eternal life. His character traits imparted to us and personalised in us by the work of his Spirit in us fits us for heaven: a preparatory work for seeing him coming in the air, not a thing of value in qualifying for redemption.

It is our experience of being saved. Amen!

I made this point in SS class and it created quite a stir. Everyone in class was of the opinion the Gospel offers us freedom from sinning but they quickly added we will continue to sin until Jesus returns and changes us. I held my peace thereafter so as not to derail the class.

I'm impressed. That must not have been easy.

Mike,

The question is, Will we continue to momentarily take our eyes from Jesus until He returns, or will there be a time when this will no longer happen?

Tom, you know me too well. You're right, though, it was hard to let it go. The rest of the class progressed nicely focusing on grace and forgiveness.

Rosangela, I like what Ellen wrote about "continual obedience". Here it is:

All true obedience comes from the heart. It was heart work with Christ. And if we consent, He will so identify Himself with our thoughts and aims, so blend our hearts and minds into conformity to His will, that when obeying Him we shall be but carrying out our own impulses. The will, refined and sanctified, will find its highest delight in doing His service. When we know God as it is our privilege to know Him, our life will be a life of continual obedience. Through an appreciation of the character of Christ, through communion with God, sin will become hateful to us. {DA 668.3}

Mike,

If there will be a time when we will no longer take our eyes from Jesus - and I believe there will be - then we will no longer sin, because we sin when we take our eyes from Jesus.

And I believe that time is available to everyone now (always has been).

Yes, I also believe that, but I'm yet to see someone who has actually achieved that in modern times.

They said the same thing about Jesus. That is, they beheld His glory and concluded He was demon-possessed. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. As we look around examining "fruit" we must be careful not to overlook "righteousness and true godliness".

Rosangela, are you aware of anyone except Jesus Himself who has achieved this in any age?

Vaster,

Not of course like Jesus, who was free from sin during His whole life, but for an extended period of time: it seems to me that Enoch may have achieved this for 300 years, Moses may have achieved this for 40 years (before a single sin marred his record), Elijah (also a single sin), Daniel, Joseph, Paul, John...

The record may be a bit thin, which I suppose means you could be right. Paul who do address this in his letter to Rome says his wishes and actual actions are not the same, wishing to remain pure he non the less find himself sinning.

Paul wasn't writing of his present experience. E.g.



Just FYI.

Tom and Rosangela, I agree with your current comments.

Are born-again believers, who are engaged in Bible study and prayerful contemplation of the closing scenes of Christ's life, simultaneously quilty of committing a sin? If so, which sin or sins are they guilty of committing?

This sounds like you're asking if one is guilty of sinning simply by virtue of having a sinful nature. Is this what you mean?

Your question, as posed, doesn't have enough information to answer. One could only answer, "maybe." For example, if a person were doing so for selfish motivations, they could be.

I suspect Arnold and Rosangela would say, Yes, we are guilty of sinning because we possess sinful flesh nature. If so, then I disagree.

Let me qualify the above question by clarifying the born-again believer in question is also actively, aggressively abiding in Jesus, actively, aggressively walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, actively, aggressively partaking of the divine nature. So, here's the new and improved question:

Are born-again believers (see clarification above), who are engaged in Bible study and prayerful, selfless, unadulterated contemplation of the closing scenes of Christ's life, simultaneously guilty of committing a sin or sins? If so, what is an example of a sin or sins they could be guilty of committing while engaged in the aforementioned activity?

I think if this is what you wish to know, that's what you should ask.

I'm not understanding the connection of your question with the present discussion. Are you discussing the meaning of "all have sinned"?

R: I'm not understanding the connection of your question with the present discussion. Are you discussing the meaning of "all have sinned"?

M: Does "all have sinned" mean everyone sins all the time in one way or another? And, in particular does it include the people and time and circumstances I specified above?

It means our character is imperfect.

"Imperfection of character is sin, and sin is the transgression of the law." {TMK 131.2}



"Love rejoices in the truth and institutes no envious comparisons. He who possesses love compares only the loveliness of Christ and his own imperfect character." {COL 402.1}

"Christ will be with every minister who, although he may not have attained to perfection of character, is seeking most earnestly to become Christ-like." {SpTA01a 2.2}

Ellen White is evidently speaking of born-again believers here. Only a born-again believer "possesses love," and only a born-again believer "is seeking most earnestly to become Christ-like." But she is clear that these born-again believers still possess an imperfect character.

That's why

"Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. Through faith in Him, Christ will make all our imperfect efforts acceptable to God." {FW 48.3}

Does "all have sinned" refer to the imperfect traits of character people inherited but never cultivated? Or, does it refer to the ones they themselves have cultivated by sinning repetitiously?

Also, is merely having inherited and cultivated sinful traits, defects, weaknesses, imperfections, and tendencies the same thing as indulging them (acting them out in thought, word, or deed)?

What if people choose to experience rebirth and choose to abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature and refuse to indulge them - are they guilty of sinning in the sight of God?

A character with imperfect traits (defects) is an imperfect character, whether these traits are cultivated or not.


If we are in Christ, we are perfect in Him. But our character is still sinful.

"The clearer their views of the greatness, glory, and perfection of Christ, the more vividly will they see their own weakness and imperfection. They will have no disposition to claim a sinless character; that which has appeared right and comely in themselves will, in contrast with Christ's purity and glory, appear only as unworthy and corruptible. It is when men are separated from God, when they have very indistinct views of Christ, that they say, 'I am sinless; I am sanctified.'" {RC 90.2}

I don't see how having uncultivated traits of character count as sinful or incur guilt in the sight of God.

The sinful nature of Romans 3 is part of who we are - and it is what we are putting to death in Romans 8.

What was missed in this lesson is that Romans 2 is in fact "true" it is not fiction and - Romans 2 is to the I.J what Daniel 2 is to prophecy.

in Christ,

Bob

Rosangela, do you believe inheriting traits of character is the same thing as cultivating them? Is having them equivalent to developing them? What if people refuse to nurture the trait of jealousy in a sinful way - are they guilty of being jealous in an unholy way?

PS - Jesus manifested the trait of jealousy in a holy way proving it is a trait that can cultivated unto the glory of God.

Bob, do you envision reaching a point, this side of the close of probation, where sinful flesh nature ceases to tempt and annoy?

And, would you like to elaborate on the second point you made?

If I have a quiver full of poisonous darts and arrows am I guilty of sinning if I refuse to shoot and kill someone with them?

No.


No.


We are speaking of jealosy as a sinful tendency/trait, not as a positive quality (like "our God is a jealous God").
If you fight against a tendency, say jealousy, this means that when you have thoughts of jealousy (temptation), you are led to feelings of jealousy, against which you fight. But when you are led to have feelings of jealousy you are already guilty of sin to some extent.

Do you mean when you are tempted to have feelings of jealousy? You would actually have the feelings unless you gave into the temptation, right? That is, that's what the temptation is all about, to cause you to have feelings of jealousy. So as long as you say no to the temptation, you wouldn't be guilty of sin, right?

Good to know.


Also good to know.


I believe inherited traits of character are neutral, whereas inherited tendencies (inclinations, propensities) are sinful. Whether or not a certain trait becomes sinful depends on how it is cultivated. The same trait can be cultivated in a sinless way by abiding in Jesus and partaking of the divine nature. Inherited tendencies instinctively compel people to indulge sinful tendencies which results in cultivating corresponding traits of character in sinful ways.

What do you think - If my quiver is full of poisonous darts, am I guilty of sinning if I refuse to shoot and kill someone with them? Or, am I guilty of sinning based solely on the fact my quiver is full of poisonous darts?

All temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings. It is impossible for a thought to cross our mind devoid of feeling. We're simply not wired to have thoughts without feelings.

Not everyone is wired the same (Autism, to give just one example).

If the temptation comes and you think that you would like to use the darts, but manage to refrain from doing so because this will bring bad consequences to you and to others, this feeling/desire is, in itself, a sin, because you can only use the darts to kill people. Please notice that in the case of temptations based on legitimate desires, the desire isn't in itself a sin, but in the case of temptations based on illegitimate desires (which is always the case when sinful tendencies are involved), the desire itself is a sin.

Tom, is autism the only example of people who have been seriously altered as a consequence of 6,000 years of sin?

I'm not sure how your observations answer my questions. To clarify, I have in mind people who refuse to use their poisonous darts to kill people because they believe it is morally wrong to do so.

BTW, I like how you differentiated between legitimate and illegitimate needs/desires so far as it relates to sin, guilt, and condemnation. When is a temptation based on a legitimate need/desire and not considered a sin in and of itself?

My point is, if you were full of love you wouldn't carry poisonous darts around, the only purpose of which is to kill people. And you wouldn't feel the desire to use the darts. So, if you experience a temptation like "It would be nice if you used this dart to kill such and such person" and you consider that this possibility is an attractive one, you may refrain from doing so because it's morally wrong, because it will bring bad consequences, or whatever, but the fact that you've found the thought of killing someone attractive is in itself a sin (although obviously not such a grave sin as giving in to the temptation and really killing someone).


Sometimes I'm tempted to eat between meals because I have the impression I'm hungry. Finding food attractive is not a sin in itself. Someone may be offered a good job with a good salary but he/she will have to work on the Sabbath. Finding the idea of a good job with a good salary attractive is not a sin in itself. Or someone may be tempted to not follow Christ in order not to upset his/her parents. Wishing to honor one's parents and not wishing to lose their love is not sinful in itself. These are some examples that could be cited.

What? Why are you asking this? Where do questions like this come from?

My point was that not everyone is wired the same. I didn't say anything about "seriously altered," but responded to your comment, which spoke of how we are wired.

Also I wrote, "to give just one example," which implies more than one example could be given, right?

Anyway, the point is that we're not all wired the same.

Chill out. Try to be more patient and understanding. Remember, we're not all wired the same. Some of us have feelings. Tread lightly. Thank you.

So, it sounds like you are questioning whether or not it is true all temptations begin as unholy thoughts and feelings because not everyone is wired in way that feelings always accompany thoughts.

I'm sorry if I came across as impatient and not understanding. My feelings were more appalled and confused as to why you would ask the question you asked. I was trying to see what led you to ask your question. Unfortunately, you didn't answer my question. That is, I still have no idea why you asked the question you did. Please enlighten me.



No, I am questioning just exactly what I said, which is your comment that we are wired the same. You said:



I responded that we're not all wired the same. It is the last sentence (the one that speaks of how we are wired) that I questioned. I gave the example of autism.

Tom, I can't remember why I asked the question in question. It does seem unwarranted. Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Do you agree with me that all temptations, so far as normal people are concerned (autism is an abnormal condition), begin as unholy thoughts accompanied by unholy feelings?

I don't know that thoughts and feelings must be combined in the way you are suggesting. I think it's at least possible that these are not linked together for all people, including some who do not have autism. I don't know enough about physiology to assert this absolutely one way or another, and I doubt you do either. I wouldn't reject out of hand the idea. I think it's possible these are normally linked together. I don't know, however.

In addition to feelings, one could (perhaps) add emotions as well. That is, that the thoughts are accompanied by unholy emotions.

Naturally there are always exceptions to the norm. It seems logical and reasonable to say normally all temptations begin as unholy thoughts which elicit some type of feeling/emotion. The initial presence, therefore, of unholy thoughts and feelings/emotions is not a sin. Whether or not it results in sin and guilt depends on how one reacts/responds to it. Do you agree?

Yes, mostly. That is, I agree that the enemy can suggest these things, or they can happen spontaneously as the result of stimuli that we weren't guilty of provoking. It's possible we could be at fault, however. But it's not necessary. That is, simply because we are being tempted does not mean we have committed sin.

I agree.