Free to Say We've Sinned

1 John 1:10 is one of the most freeing verses in the Bible:

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

But let me back up a little bit.

This verse comes at the end of a passage that starts off in a terrifying way:

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth…

There is no darkness in our holy God. At all. And there is no fellowship between God and sin.

This is as far as atheists see into Christianity—an unforgiving, impossibly high moral law enforced by a fearful Judge. They accuse us of “living in fear,” and they want no part of that kind of life. They’re good people, thank you very much, and they don’t need anyone making them feel guilty.

But now it’s time to finish that passage:

…but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Our ongoing sins are assumed in this passage, and the solution offered is complete. This is the end of fear and guilt, not the fuel of it. And that’s where 1 John 1:10 comes in. Do you feel the strength of it now?

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

When you hide your sin, pretending to be a perfect Christian, you’re actually telling the world that God is a liar. Did Jesus, or did Jesus not, need to suffer and die for your present sins? When you feign perfection, you’re saying you didn’t need Him to do this for you.

Can you see now how freeing this verse is? You no longer have to be afraid of people finding out about your sin. You have no need to hide. In fact, as counter-intuitive as it feels when you’re cowering in the dark, worrying about embarrassing yourself and Christianity should your sinfulness become known, it’s only when you're open about your sin that people can see you’re resting on Christ’s work for you, not your own perfection. This is when you glorify Christ the most. Rather than being a source of fear, your sin reveals that God is a truth-teller, for He said that you are a sinner. He said that your sin deserves judgment. He said that you need grace. He said that He’s given it.

Here I give Paul’s warning in Romans 6:1-4:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

We don’t intentionally increase our sin in order to glorify Christ, we recognize and openly acknowledge the sin we already have because Christ’s grace is glorified through our visible trust in that grace.

This is, after all, why we were created.

[He] seated us in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6-7).

Comments

[Jared Berryman]

Good thoughts. Now why is it that none of our Christian communities have systems (except Catholics) in place to allow us to confess regularly? I think a study of the passage shows you don't have to confess to someone else, and you can confess to God, but there is something special about doing with others.

[Carolyn]

@Jared, I think part of that is the accountability it engenders when we open up to others about our sin issues. What I could never grasp about Catholicism was being given prayers to pray as a "penance"! How could prayer ever be that?

Amy, those verses are so profound, so rich, so moving that just seeing them in print is like medication for my soul! Thank you for this great post!

[Amy]

Thank you, Carolyn. Read the rest of the words in 1 John today. There are only five chapters!

[RonH]

This is as far as atheists see into Christianity

Got your broad brush out today, Amy?

How far into Christianity do atheists see?

[scbrownlhrm]

Sighted:

In another thread here Atheism gave as justification for existence the following ontological bedrock: “It reproduces”.

That the genomic itch we call rape reproduces, or rather, gets reproduced, just is justification for its existence.

There cannot be any other reasoning. Genomic Perpetuation just is flourishing, which just is good. On these grounds Sam Harris' entire moral landscape failed the test of coherence.

Atheism can't seem to jump high enough to get its feet off of that ontological subtext in any context.

That is as far as atheism can see..... into anything.

That is why atheism cannot see into Love’s Landscape beyond Law’s Pain, beyond Law’s sort of Dying, and into Love’s Pain, into Love’s sort of Dying. Atheism cannot comprehend, see into, make sense out of, such a language in which Love rather than indifference is the End of Ad Infinitum. No. Atheism cannot see into Christ’s Landscape at all. Love’s Ontology is an alien inside of the Outside, for Love pours into that landscape of necessary indifference and declares that Love is in and by ontological necessity the supreme Ethic in all possible worlds in and by Immutable Love's necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum. The ontology of Immutable Love which Atheism just cannot contain, stand on, re-create within its own indifference just is that singularity of Unity that just is Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum amid and among Love’s First Distinct, all that is Self, and amid and among Love’s Second Distinct, all that is Other, and, finally, all which these Two Distincts by embrace necessarily beget, Love’s Third Distinct: the Singular-Us that just is E Pluribus Unum.

[scbrownlhrm]

Atheism cannot see past the Law of Moses:

We find within the opening pages of Genesis Love’s necessarily Triune Landscape in many assorted vectors. In Genesis 3:16 we find the opening of Love’s antithesis in what just is Love’s execution: indifference. The nuances of inequality and of domination are there defined as the Cold Outside the cure of which is prophesied in Genesis 3:15’s notion of Seed’s Seed which is on necessity all the business of amalgamation of Uncreated-Created, of Timlessness-Time, of Word-Corporeal, of incarnation on definition. We find here Love’s A to Z both preceding and ultimately swallowing up all of the indifference of the cold outside as we find in the Law Code just no Prescriptive at all for Genesis 3:15, for Law’s Indifference just is Atheism’s Indifference, for such is, on ontological necessity, void of God-In-Man, Man-In-God Amalgamations. This is as far as Atheism, of Man’s Reasoning void of Immutable Love, can see. This is the Outside. The harshness of the Law Code is but Love’s Descriptive to Mankind of exactly what his ugly and hellish options are inside of that Outside, inside of that, by definition, hell on earth. Power void of Love’s amalgamations, on definition. That is the Law’s function. It is a light given to bring awareness of location. It is a Descriptive given to light the way to Love’s Prescriptive.

On definition and ontological necessity Atheism cannot see beyond the Law’s indifference, beyond Tooth for Tooth, Claw for Claw, beyond the Law’s sort of Pain, beyond the Law’s sort of Dying and into Love’s Triune wherein we find necessarily Love’s sort of Pain, Love’s sort of Dying, manifested within Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self.

The OP is perfectly precise, seamlessly accurate, in this: Atheism cannot see past the Law of Moses.

The Descriptive of Ontological Lovelessness, of which the Law is a Descriptive, is given to, first describe the location of the Outside, and then, to point the way to Love’s Prescriptive for Moral Excellence, and such just is that brutal wasteland where the best we can hope for is a few more crops, some more rain, a few less wars, and perhaps living a hundred years or so with less sickness.

Sound familiar?

The OT gives this in the Law all the while prophesying about a yet-to-come far more excellent Day when the Child and the Lion, the Wolf and the Lamb, when all men of all nations again enter into, or re-enter into, that beautiful landscape of E Pluribus Unum inside of Love’s necessarily triune End-Points, which are also, of course, Scripture’s Starting-Point. The A to Z.

“October 31, 2013 Challenge Response: How Could a Sin in the OT Not Be a Sin in the NT?” here on STR has a look at this in more detail in what is quite painfully too high of a word-count.

[RonH]

n another thread here Atheism gave as justification for existence the following ontological bedrock: “It reproduces”.

Nope. Nothing to do with ontological bedrock. Transposons - which are part of the 'junk' that makes up much of our genome - are 'parasites' adapted to 'live' in our genome. That explains their presence by itself without their having function useful to us.

Here's the comment of mine that we are talking about.

[scblhrm]

Yes. From the highest to the lowest Love creates His Own parasites. I'm sure we are not useful to Him.

Rape.

Love.

Presuppositions.

Mine need not in autohypnosis hide from the contingent behavior of all material stuff nor from the brutally repeatable moral experiences inside of this clearly contingent observational matrix.

Plausibility.

[scblhrm]

RonH,

Why does the itch to rape live on? It must be favored on some level.

You mean to argue with this?

Good luck.

[JBerr]

I'm not Catholic. I'm just pointing out that the way most U.S.A. churches are designed is to discourage confession, not encourage it. Everyone lives such private Christian experiences and there is zero accountability. No one really knows what is going on in the inner life of the people at church. This is a major problem.

[DGFischer]

RonH,

>> How far into Christianity do atheists see?

This remark reminds me of the earliest atheist attacks on Christianity by Celsus and Porphyry. Their works are lost, but their ideas were cited in the defenses of the Church fathers. I found them smug and misinformed, trying to express the teachings of the New Testament in terms of their own rationalizings, but never moving beyond lampooning.

Fast forward about two millennia. When reading through Dawkin's God Delusion, I had this feeling of someone defaming a cherished relative in all forms of vicious rants, will a suspicion that he never really knows the man personally. Ideas of sovereignty never seem to occur to the professor. And his insistence at the Reason Rally to use ridicule exposes his level of emotional rant bordering on irrationality, Hardly anything like Bertrand Russell who could explain why he was not a Christian without rancor.

If invective is the tool of the atheists, is it at all remarkable how uninformed they seem to be?

[Kevin Sorensen]

I was delighted to read this post and some of the comments (I'll pass on the atheists' comments – a lot of wordy philosophy without much substance to life and besides, that's why I come here…to let Greg tackle that). As far as non-Catholic confession is concerned, it's unfortunate that so many American churches have neglected the process of disciple making that would entail relationships which make such things as accountability and confession of sin a natural outflow of a loving, caring relationship with another Christian (or group of 2-3 Christians). I also believe far too many evangelical churches have left confession out of their corporate times of worship. There is great health to be found here: 1) the body needs to confess corporate sins, as well as individual's sins; 2) this models for the individual what it is like confessing sin to a gracious and merciful heavenly Father. When we use these times each Lord's Day, it not only gives opportunity to readily admit we sin, but to hold up God's truth: Jesus came to save sinners.

[RonH]

DGFischer,

If invective is the tool of the atheists

You seem have a brush as broad as Amy's.

For any issue or question (except not believing in any god) there are atheists who disagree with Richard Dawkins.

RonH

[scblhrm]

RonH,

Atheists, on their atheism, cannot see anything of Immutable Love's geography, indifference filling up all their subtexts.

It's worse than a broad brush. It's all inclusive by definition.

[scblhrm]

The irrationally conditioned itch of..... I ought not have.... of I want.... of....violence.... of .... whatever....

I have no idea what "confession" means outside of the moral landscape derived from Immutable Love's necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum.

[DGFischer]

RonH,

>> If invective is the tool of the atheists

You seem have a brush as broad as Amy's.

I beg your pardon, but you seem to have forgotten the usage of the very short, simple, and yet powerful word "if." The sense is conditional, and implies the truth of a matter as evidence produced verifies the case. I spoke of three historical opponents of Christianity who lambasted that religion via warped representations of its tenets. To be fair, I also mentioned B. Russell, who is of the stripe of atheist who is forthright in his dissertations without viciousness.

I am happy that you report that other atheists deem Dawkins as that style of atheist who represents the ungracious curmudgeon who pops up on Easter and Christmas (Thanksgiving optional) with the traditional "Bah" and "Humbug." This subset of the class of atheist may be a minor element, perhaps an embarrassment to atheism in general. But even the moderate group may wonder if (N.B. there's that two-letter word again)the extremist contingency doesn't benefit the whole by advancing the cause.

What of you, RonH? In any of your posts have you been less than gracious to Christian opinion, which is as varied as it can get? Can the broad brush be used by more than one side?

A little introspection by two can do worlds of difference.

[RonH]

DGFischer,

I haven't forgotten 'if'. I see it there andI know how it's used. In you sentence, 'if' does not limit 'invective' to a particular statement by an atheist nor even to a particular atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

By the way, in your sentence, there is no 'if' attached to

is it at all remarkable how uninformed [atheists] seem to be?

Notice that I'm referring only to one comment of yours and, previously, only to Amy's one comment. (Notice the word 'today'.) I am not characterizing you or her in general, let alone all Christians.

In my comments here, my brush typically applies to a particular post or comment. That's my policy. If you perceive otherwise, please point it out.

Although I see patterns in what others write that suggest to me traits of the writers, I don't bring them up. The topic is the text of the OP, not the writer of the OP and not any of the commenters.

I treat each OP or comment pretty much in isolation. I generally won't go back a year and hold you to something you said that is inconsistent with what you say today. That would make it about you and it's not about you any more than it's about me.

And I don't think you will find many (if any) cases where I say "Christians are/do/say this or that". Perhaps to a fault, I just don't say things like that about any group. It's how I was brought up and I like it.

[DGFischer]

RonH,

>>> By the way, in your sentence, there is no 'if' attached to

is it at all remarkable how uninformed [atheists] seem to be?

Let us examine the full statement I made in the 6: 10 post: If invective is the tool of the atheists, is it at all remarkable how uninformed they seem to be? If statements are developed along two clauses, the protasis and the apodosis, giving the sense of if-then. The if portion seeks to be demonstrated; the then section establishes the truth once the if clause is proven. The acerbic wit of the atheist ancient and modern declared a misunderstanding of the faith. The continued promotion of their ideas is the Q.E.D.

I personally hold you to be of those some write off as "trolls" (poor ad hominem used by both sides) one of the more fair-minded. Still introspection of what we present allows us to realize that the arena of ideas needs the essence of respect for the other opinion.

Let's continue to strive towards this. A pleasant day to you.

[RonH]

Looks wrong to me. I read the sentence to assume that [all] atheists seem to be [quite] uninformed. What's under the conditional is whether 'it is at all remarkable'.

That's if you only look at what the sentence expresses literally or implies logically.

But there's more. Someone here used a neat word recently.

Implicature is a technical term in the pragmatics subfield of linguistics, coined by H. P. Grice, which refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though neither expressed nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.

Troll?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

I am no kind of troll though someone says so about once a year. About as often, and ironically, I have been accused of appointing myself the policeman of what is on- or off-topic. Why? Because I compare the content of a comment with the subject of the OP and label a comment off-topic.

Disagreeing with you or anybody else (even frequently) doesn't make a person a troll.

So I ask you not to me a troll or to call anyone else names. I ask you not to suggest that I (in particular) need to introspect.

This is way too much conversation about the conversation (never on-topic, though not necessarily always bad), way too much (supposedly) about me (always off-topic), and not enough conversation about the OP.

So I think I'll be done.

[scbrownlhrm]

RonH,

DGF didn't call you a troll.... he said others write you off that way, while he himself considers you fairminded.....in other words, to those who make the mistake of calling you a troll, take note that RonH is at least fair-minded.....

I read it and that's how it came accross.....

I read the "if" thing.... it read to me like it was "if" invective (and not otherwise) "then" uninformed...... I'm just saying....

DGF noted that he considers you “one of the more fair-minded”, and so forth. I would probably have stated that stronger and traded out more in favor of most. I’m a little surprised that you claim to never make it about the person rather than the argument presented. I mean, that’s a wide brush you are applying to your own soul and writing. Too wide of a brush for me to apply to my soul and writing, I must confess.

Speaking of confession...... Confession is I-know-not-what inside of your ontology, as I described in an earlier post. I'm not sure "confession" is more than saying, "I itched", and this is meant, not about "you personally" but about the reaches of your ontology.

In “August 08, 2013 Pastafarian?” I presented a straightforward, and rigorous, line of argument to you and you went in this direction: “I doubt you would talk to me this way face to face.” Now, perhaps I have the moral fault of speaking one way to your face, and another way behind your back, but, such had little to do, nothing in fact, with the discussion at hand. Bad logic can be called bad logic and such ought not be taken personally.

I think you do make it about the person, sometimes. As do I.

Finally, can you show me a book or something where an Atheists claims to see Perfect Love, Perfect E Pluribus Unum inside of Scripture, including an assertion as seeing that same Perfect Love, Perfect E Pluribus Unum inside of the Old Testament?

I know you have often seen flavors of lovelessness inside of the OT as you have occasionally eluded to such, and so forth, so I don’t think you would be one of the Atheist’s which the OP’s brush miss-painted.

But is there an atheist you can show me who sees Perfect Love’s E Pluribus Unum from A to Z in the Old and New Testament? There may be, it’s just that we never seem to hear from them. Now, that does not mean they don’t exist, but it seems a bit of evidence would be needed in order to justify a narrower brush. Sometimes a brushstroke is a line of argument based on all available evidence. Sometimes it’s just too wide. You yourself often say something like, “I don’t believe this statement b/c I haven’t seen it”, and so on. Well, I’ve never seen or read an Atheist arguing that he sees the brutally coherent presence of Perfect Love’s E Pluribus Unum from scripture’s A to scripture’s Z in the OT and from scripture’s A to scripture’s Z in the NT.

Unrelated side note: it is an interesting observation that “E Pluribus Unum” as the supreme Ethic is outright forfeited by Atheist’s own ontological grounds on prescriptive necessity, as we saw in the incoherence of Sam Harris’ moral landscape. As I briefly described in this thread’s earlier posts, we find that Love’s E Pluribus Unum just is innately triune, and such is out of reach on necessity in atheism’s prescriptive of Indifference as its supreme A and supreme Z. Therein, Love as the supreme Ethic becomes incoherent with all of atheism’s other words for the supreme Ethic ceases to be E Pluribus Unum, on ontological necessity – yet - they will see, and claim to see, all around them, from Genomic Parasites all the way up to pan-world Symbiotic Ecosystems, the fingerprints of Unity’s Delight filling up every crevice from A to Z as all of fractured physicality testifies of E Pluribus Unum. “Altruism in the Village!” shouts the atheistic geneticist as his descriptive, all the while forfeiting his ontological prescriptive, and, therein he never actually sees the A to Z which scripture presents, but has in point of fact claimed never to have seen evidence for such, all the while holding the evidence in his hand as he shouts “Altruism!”.

[scblhrm]

Sorry.... that last paragraph should have been called a RELATED side note..... not unrelated.....

[Amy]

Looks wrong to me. I read the sentence to assume that [all] atheists seem to be [quite] uninformed.

Ron, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about atheists being uninformed. I'm not talking about knowing facts. This is as far as atheists can see into Christianity because they're still unforgiven and their guilt is still with them. God is still only their Judge. They don't know more than that. (Again, I'm not talking about "knowing" in terms of facts.) Sometimes I explain what Christianity is about to an atheist, and he still goes directly back to comments about fear. That's why I say this isn't about being "uninformed."

And they do accuse us of living in fear. Does every single one? No, of course not. I'm generalizing.

[RonH]

Amy,

Interesting. Do you understand that the sentence I was talking about was one of DGFischer's - not one of yours?

RonH

[scblhrm]

RonH,

It seems the topic of your wide brush is captured in DGF's line as well as Amy's, etc. such that the reply fits either way.

Amy,

Interesting point about the use of the word see. That is as far as the atheist sees into Love's Landscape.... on sheer experiential reference. It seems such is by definition true both in the intellectual / ontological sence and in the experiential / existential sence. I claim the former as possible on the grounds given in my previous post, subject to change on evidential discoveries.

[RonH]

scblhrm,

It seems the topic of your wide brush is captured in DGF's line as well as Amy's, etc. such that the reply fits either way.

??

Amy quoted me referring very specifically to something only DGFischer said.

Amy,

This is as far as atheists can see into Christianity because they're still unforgiven and their guilt is still with them.

Painting with a broad brush with theological justification is still painting with a broad brush.

because

The theological justification amounts to an additional rather grand claim, namely, that all of you Christians actually know things (because you are Christian) about the internal life of all of us atheists that none of us know about ourselves, namely, what we can and cannot 'see'.

And Pascal's Wager says that by believing practicing (Christianity and only Christianity) you risk nothing in this life. But if, as Pascal suggested, you practice Christianity in spite of doubts, hoping you will come to believe, then you do risk.

You risk, for example, displaying an exaggerated sense of your own importance, knowledge, abilities, etc. You risk a life of willful arrogance.

[scblhrm]

RonH,

I think you think that the Christian is mistaken about his beliefs. On those grounds you make a truth claim about the internal knowings of all Christians...... this is nothing more than presenting our presuppositions as they relate atop the fabric of Man's Knowing.

You seem to be trying to create something which is not here.

Unless you think some Christians are correct in what they know.

Do you?

If not, then your brush is too wide, by your own definitions here.

If you do, then you believe that some Christians are correct in what they know of Christ's Landscape, of Love's Landscape.

The thing you think is here isn't here, RonH. It's just presenting presuppositions, and you, by yours, make a truth claim about what all Christian's see and don't see internally, for, you label their seeing as not-seeing, and so on......

[scblhrm]

Further, Amy conditional-ized that last claim as seeing in the Christian sense of seeing one's guilt as more than an itch, as Confession in the Christian sense is in play in this thread, for the Atheist cannot rise above the irrationally conditioned reflex to scratch an itch, per the failure of Sam Harris' incoherent attempt at a moral landscape.

We must deal with the Atheist on his definitions, and, yet, you seem unwilling to deal with Amy in what is a clearly conditional-ized definition inside of a very specific Christian reference to the word see.

On your own truth claim you're labeling the Chritian's seeing as not-seeing, internally, within the Christian's know-er ~~~

[RonH]

I think you think that the Christian is mistaken about his beliefs.

I do.

On those grounds you make a truth claim about the internal knowings of all Christians

What claim did I make about that?

[scblhrm]

They don't see what you do see.

[RonH]

Maybe it will help avoid some distractions if I emphasis something. I said

But if, as Pascal suggested, you practice Christianity in spite of doubts, hoping you will come to believe, then you do risk.

And, I hope you can tell from the context that the 'practice' I refer to is a specific thing, namely, what Amy does when she tells us about the inner workings of atheists - inner workings they themselves can't access.

[scblhrm]

So Christians see the error of their beliefs, internally, as you see it in your more clear headed position?

[RonH]

No idea what you mean by that. Maybe if you were more specific.

[scblhrm]

Do Christians see it or don't they?

If you don't know then I'd be happy to define "christian" .....

[RonH]

If you are saying that I'm saying something that starts with "Christians see...", then the answer is No. I am pretty clearly not saying anything like that.

[scblhrm]

RonH you are missing the point. Define see. In its first use of atheists see / don't see, it is conditional-ized as generalizing. On the second use it is conditional to the Christian use in revelation. And if you argue that Christians-Dont-See is not a claim on all Knowers of all Christians you are again missing the point of claims on internal sightlines.

[scblhrm]

RonH,

Do Christians see the intellectual flaws of their belief that there is a God?

I will make a wager on your internal sightline: it says, sees, appreciates, that Christian's internal sightlines do not see, understand, those flaws in their belief that there is a God.

The inverese would be Christians see, understand, appreciate, the truth of no-god.

I hold that all atheists fail to see, realize, appreciate the truth of, Immutable Love at the end of ad infinitum.

You seem to wish a ban on generalizations in writing/conversations, but clearly such are employed all the time in ways that are not "stereotyping" that contrasts be drawn and many are factually valid as well.

If we mean to ban this tool and label such a sin, an ought-not, I find in naturalism no innate call to resist scratching itches on any grounds which my preference slides away from, thank you very much. "Confession"? Why? Because I-Feel-The- Itch and I'm irrationally conditioned to "scratch" such neuronal feedback loop-fluxes?

Is that as far as any naturalist can "see"? Neuronal loop-fluxes? It seems so.....but I'm generalizing.