H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
I Affirm This
The Nashville Statement
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
The Buzz

Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
Email Me
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Double Crucifixion. Part II - Some Definitions
If you haven't read Part One, now is the time to do so.

In order to discuss being "saved from all your sins" - it may be necessary to first describe what I mean when I say sin.

Sin: The etymologist reminds us that the word "sin" was originally an archers term and meant to miss the mark; such that the word itself describes a failure to meet some set standard. If the standard is a known requirement - such as keeping some ordinance, then failure to keep the ordinance is "sin".

Most of us think of sin in this way: failing to obey some known ordinance. That -is- sin, but sin is not keeping known ordinances - it also occurs when we fail to keep some ordinance we know nothing about. If we do not take that into account in our thinking, we may become confused when we make distinctions between the commission of sin and having that sin imputed to us.

Commission: Failing to meet a known, or unknown standard. For example, while it is legal to publicly smoke a cigarette in the US, it is not legal to do so in some of the other countries in the world. The ignorant American traveller who lights up publicly in Singapore unknowingly committed a crime. His or her ignorance by no means negates the fact that he broke a law, and thus committed a crime.

Imputation: Now, there is a lot of baggage hanging on this word, so let's chew through this in little bites.

Where commission happens in time and space, imputation less intangible - it happens when we become aware of our own accountability

Consider the cop who tickets the speeding motorist. The motorist was accountable the moment he sped past the cop, but was only made aware of his accountability when the cop presented him with the ticket. In terms of imputation, before the speeder received the ticket there was no imputation. The speeder was guilty, and already held accountable by the law - but the guilt of it hadn't been imputed to him yet. It was -NOT- that the speeder wasn't guilty until he received the ticket - it was that he was ignorant of his guilt.

Romans 6:23 tells us that the commission of sin earns the wage of death. There can be no room for confusion on the matter - when Paul says that men received sin's wages (death) from Adam to Moses - he is not suggesting and cannot be suggesting that the sins of those men between Adam and Moses were not put to their account by God, for to do so would be to contradict himself, since he shows through their deaths that God was holding them accountable for their sins. To understand what Paul is saying, we have to zoom out, a bit and look at where Paul is coming from.

The over-arching argument Paul is making in Romans 5 (esp. vs 13-14) has to do with the Jews hope that in keeping the law they will be saved.

Paul is showing that the law is not, nor has it ever, been THE STANDARD™ - that men died before there was a law to keep - the only thing the law could do was make you aware that sin was being imputed to your account. Paul wasn't saying that God does not impute sin to your account - since death itself shows otherwise - When Paul says that sin is not imputed where there is no law - he is saying that a man remains unaware of his condemned status without the law.

The point is that a man is guilty because he sins, and not because he is aware he sins. Awareness condemns you in your own understanding, but you are condemned whether you understand your condemnation or not.

I make the distinction because in examining what it means to save someone from all their past, present, and future sins - it helps to know what I mean by sin.


posted by Daniel @ 11:36 AM  
Post a Comment
<< Home
Previous Posts
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5