Knowing God’s Holiness

Theology
81

Hi OB, thanks for continuing specs about “the old man,” one cannot say enough about it. As we know, it is that part of us relating to our sin nature (Ro 6:6), in which we have nothing to do with any more. It is in us but we are not in it (Ro 8:9).

The word “flesh” in the NT nearly always refers to the sin nature we are born with. It’s my understanding that God allows it to continue in us to manifest not just His holiness, but also the victory we continue to manifest in our lives by continuing to avoid being part with it.

What a great God we have in Christ, that shows He causes us to “please Him” (Phl 2:13), while at the same time allowing evil to be seen in us to fail! This victory has mostly to do with spoiling the old man’s ability to cause us to desire sin.

Victory to the Father through the Lord Jesus by Their Holy Spirit!!

1 Like
82

Hi J! It’s all about God manifesting in man the failing of the “old man” (the Enemies Henchman). Continuous victory over evil via manifesting God’s holiness. The more this victory-the greater this manifestation! God bless!!

83

This somewhat falls in line with Romans 7:9 “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

2 Likes
84

Romans 6:6

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

Ephesians 4:22–24

“That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”

Colossians 3:9–10

“Ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”

For continuous victory over evil and holiness, these are particularly relevant.

Romans 8:13

“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Galatians 5:16

“Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.”

2 Corinthians 3:18

“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

And for God manifesting His holiness in believers:

Philippians 2:13

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

1 Peter 1:15–16

“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

One Scripture particularly supports the idea of increasing manifestation, though I would phrase it more carefully than you did
2 Corinthians 4:10–11

“Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.”

So there is biblical support for progressive transformation and the manifestation of Christ’s life in the believer. But I would distinguish that from saying that the believer achieves “continuous victory” in the sense of becoming incapable of sinning. John 1:8–9 and 1 John 2:1 prevent us from going that far.

Though some would go that far brother

J.

85

And I do believe you are correct @SilentOnAll

J.

86

You mean incapable of sinning “willfully”; we no longer sin “intentionally,” in which is the position God wants us. He wants our heart, the rest is secondary! “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Mat 6:21).

87

Just one question brother @NetChaplian You hold to sinless perfection?

Curious.

J.

88

No. I know 1Jn 3 words it that way, but when it talks about committing sin it means sinning intentionally.

1 Like
89

I enjoy RWP here…

Doeth no sin (hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in 1Jn_3:4 like hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin.
His seed (sperma autou). God’s seed, “the divine principle of life” (Vincent). Cf. John 1.

And he cannot sin (kai ou dunatai hamartanein). This is a wrong translation, for this English naturally means “and he cannot commit sin” as if it were kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartēsai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive).

The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jn_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jn_3:6. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jn_2:1.

A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here. Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
1Jn 3:3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
1Jn 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Shalom brother, and thank you for the clarification.

J.

1 Like
90

Amen, Pater. If I may ask you something: which theodicy do you personally hold to? You’re well acquainted with the range of theodicy theories, and it seems fair to say that no one has yet offered a fully successful rebuttal to the Problem of Evil.

A few of the major frameworks, for reference.

Augustinian theodicy - evil is not a substance but a privation of good (privatio boni); it enters through the misuse of free will, and the created order remains fundamentally good even where corrupted.

Irenaean/soul-making theodicy (developed further by John Hick) - evil and suffering serve a developmental purpose, allowing humans to grow into moral and spiritual maturity rather than being created already perfect.

Free will defense (Plantinga) - a logical rather than evidential response: it’s possible that God could not create free creatures who would never choose evil, so the mere existence of evil doesn’t logically contradict God’s omnipotence and goodness.

Greater-good/Leibnizian theodicy - this present world, evils included, is the best of all possible worlds because the evils permitted are necessary conditions for greater goods that couldn’t exist otherwise.

Skeptical theism - a more modest move: rather than offering a theodicy at all, it holds that human cognitive limits give us no grounds to expect we’d perceive God’s reasons for permitting evil, even if such reasons exist.

Just to name a few and…

And please forgive me for my un-Christlike reactions toward you, that was uncalled for, especially given that you’re a father with a family of your own, and you were right that my posts run too long. You are my elder, and I’ve sinned against you in how I’ve spoken to you. I ask your forgiveness.

Shalom and Chen/Grace to you and family.

Signing off 02.07

2026-09-11T22:00:00Z

J.

1 Like
91

Amen. There is no darkness, in The Light.

No lie, in Truth.

Jesus is The Truth and The Light.

92

Thank you @Johann I appreciate you brother. We’re all good!

As far as theodicy goes, I think I have a novel approach. Not all new stuff, though I’ve never seen it formulated quite like this.

There are a couple logical imperatives referenced, and some human determination by God highlighted. For example, God doesn’t determine our beliefs. However, He has determined that we always act according to our beliefs. And in our own best interest.

Humans are designed to want things - happiness, personal elevation, respect, honor, (even greatness), and of course - love.

The logical imperative is the one I mentioned earlier. I call it God’s Problem of Evil, and it affects God’s decrees logically prior to His decrees. God knows that He can’t lie. He knows that He can’t be tempted by evil. He knows that maximal reciprocal love requires the freedom to choose to not love. And He knows that maximal reciprocal love requires the objects of His love to be the highest quality persons.

As an outcome, it is always true that if/when God does create a substantially free person in His image, that person is free to not love Him. Every time.

That being the case, God must formulate a plan to deal with that entailment. That’s the starting point, and the marvelous thing is that God loves us so much, that He planned, before the foundation of the world, to forgive and redeem whosoever would choose to believe in Him. Redemption, paid in blood, demonstrating His boundless love.

Belief is the key. It’s our beliefs that drive our actions. I posted that transcript from RC Sproul the other day - it was the only time I had ever seen somebody else say those things. Quite a happy confirmation. My wife and and Inhad just had a deep hour-long conversation the night before. Exactly the same stuff. We choose to sin because we believe that it will make us happier than if we don’t sin. We do what we believe is in our best interest at the moment.

It was Eve’s belief that she would be better off by eating the fruit than not eating the fruit. And she didn’t believe that she would surely die. We never do, until we’ve been through it a couple times.

Eve was perfect in all her being, up until she chose to believe a lie. She acted on her belief (we always do), and she began to die from that moment.

So I call it a “Theodicy of Belief”. I think it deals with the introduction of evil, because everything God created was very good, but in her 2nd order causal privilege, bestowed by God, her wrong belief caused her to sin.

And it’s very good, that when we ALWAYS believe God, as we will in heaven, we will still be free and never sin. We have been through the validation process on earth. We have seen the fruit of disbelief. God’s presence no longer amounts to coercion. Epistemic distance is no longer necessary because our faith has become sight.

In the book I really expand on the meaning and utility of context. And the GPoE. And of course the pivotal central role of our beliefs.

So everything that God created in us that I mentioned earlier is very good when driven by true beliefs, and very bad when driven by false beliefs. It’s good to want elevation, when our desire is focused on God’s elevation, and so on with the rest.

Anyway, gotta get those boys to bed. We “camper camp”, so no tents. Getting soft!

1 Like
93

on the side:

I thought the whole point of camping was that it was always intense (in tents). Was your choice to sleep under-the-stars “un-in-tents-ional”?

KP

1 Like
94

Yeah ha ha I’m not thrilled about the TV and Wi-Fi in the “camper”. But, I do get time with the grandbabies. That’s worth the sacrifice.

The fish aren’t biting and the ball went down the river. They’re not big enough for a softball mitt yet. But they’re digging the hot dogs.

Also, apparently there is a thing called “marshmallows” that Grandpa didn’t bring. Oh the agony. But there’s still tomorrow so they’re looking forward to me correcting that blunder.

95

Rookie move.
Unfortunately, by the time you have learned to remember the marshmallows, they won’t want them anymore, they’ll just want something else. (IMH experience)

KP

96

I want to be explicitly clear. I’m not Reformed. I’m Lutheran.

Free will debates within Protestantism are almost always Reformed v. Arminian; so I understand the mistake; but as a Lutheran I’m coming from outside the Reformed/Arminian split. There are some shared views between Lutherans and Reformed, though very often it’s only superficially.

As far as Romans 1 is concerned, I believe the appropriate context for Romans 1’s condemnation of the pagan gentile world is found in what Paul says in Romans 2. Paul isn’t condemning the pagan world just to say “look at those icky gentiles”, the point is actually to demonstrate that even the supposed “righteous” people are no better, because the direction St. Paul is going is in Romans 3, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. The “divide” isn’t between righteous Jews and wicked Gentiles; because the Law judges all equally as sinners. And that is why the Law cannot make anyone righteous before God–there is, therefore, a righteousness apart from the Law, the righteousness of faith, which is an alien righteousness (Christ’s own righteousness) imputed to the ungodly as a pure gift on account of the perfect and finished work of Christ.

Romans is a deeply interconnected epistle, and the Apostle having established his thesis early on, “The Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek; through it the justice of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” and the the Apostle is, from the get go, arguing that thesis.

Dr. Luther would, in his Heidelberg Disputation, specifically reference Romans 1:21 as a perfect example of how knowledge of the invisible attributes of God do not make one a theologian; but rather a true theologian is one that knows God in His suffering and death on the cross. This is the hallmark of the fundamental distinction of theologia gloriae, and the theologia crucis; the theologies of glory and the true theology of the cross. After all, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians, God has shown forth His power and wisdom through the weakness and foolishness of the Cross. The world indeed beholds the glory of God on display throughout creation, but this has not led anyone to confess the true God, it has instead led to idolatry. For men, being sinful, always and continually choose things contrary to God; preferring idols over the true God. Which is why the true God reveals Himself not in glory, but in weakness; not in wisdom, but in foolishness. He is found in the Incarnate God-Man who gives Himself away on Mt. Calvary; and without the Holy Spirit bringing faith into our hearts to behold the Crucified Christ with faith, we should never see, behold, nor know God–for man is altogether at enmity with his Creator.

And thus it is impossible for man, in his fallen condition, to perceive the goodness of God; for when sinners behold the righteous and holy God in His Law, the response is not love, it is anger and despair. After all, what does God say to Moses? “No one can see Me and live” And so men without faith do not look to God in hope and love, but respond with faithlessness, despair, idolatry, anger–even as the Apostle will say in Romans 7, the commandment which was given for the good did not produce good, but caused sin to increase so that sin should be ever more sinful.

Without faith, to look upon the dark cloud of Mt. Sinai is a terrible and horrifying thing. Even as the author of Hebrews has said, “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God”.

This is why Dr. Luther in one of his most famous sermons said, “He who sees God as angry, does not see God rightly, but looks at a dark storm cloud.” To know the friendly, fatherly heart of God is to meet God in Christ, through faith–only by faith, cleaving to Jesus Christ, can we know God. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one may come to the Father but by Me.” To know Christ is to know God; but apart from Christ there is only the naked Godhead, terrible and holy and good. And before whom man shall die.

97

You said somewhere, “I view evil as merely the absence of Good.” This is the classic philosophical view of evil known as privatio boni (the privation of good), famously developed by Saint Augustine. In this view, evil is not a positive substance created by God, but rather a lack, decay, or twisting of goodness. Much like darkness is simply the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat.

Because evil is an absence and Satan is already defeated at the Cross, you seem to feel that giving too much focus to the devil’s active schemes over-credits the enemy. Perhaps. I agree with you 100% that Satan is a defeated enemy and that Christ’s victory on the Cross is complete! Where we might differ is how we view his current activity.

Scripture explicitly warns believers to ‘be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour’ (1 Peter 5:8) and to stand against his ‘schemes’ (Ephesians 6:11). Recognizing his tactics to divide the Church isn’t giving him glory—it’s staying alert so we can stand firm in Christ’s victory.

I would have to say the above quote kinda bothered me. You reject Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the sole infallible authority) while affirming the Canon is complete? You advocate using new metaphors and framing (“other language”) to help illuminate scriptural truths for modern people. Many have done this, and many have changed the very meaning. AKA the JW when they added an “A” to John 1:1, or others when they remove the masculine titles for God. One must be careful.

Be blessed,

Peter

98

Amen. This is one of my main problems with it too. Happy camping.

Peter

99

The Problem with Evil. Something Prater15 has been working on for a while.

Peter

100

Hey @Pater15. I do not want to jump on toes or hijack the post, but I really must say, I remember a while back you discussing PoE. I find this topic fascinating, and perhaps you should start a new thread since there are some new people here.

If I remember correctly. The Principle of belief-driven action is that God designed human psychology so that we always act according to our strongest functional belief in the moment, seeking what we perceive to be our best interest or happiness. When we truly believe God’s promise and character, our desires align with His will.

Sin occurs when we buy into a lie (as Eve did in Genesis 3), falsely believing that disobeying God will yield greater happiness, fulfillment, or elevation than obeying Him. But you see a (GPoE) & moral freedom. You assert a logical constraint before creation. As I agree with you, for humans to capability express true reciprocal love toward God, they must possess genuine moral freedom to reject Him.

Where the problem comes in, again, if I remember correctly, creating creatures with genuine moral freedom opens the necessary possibility of fallibility (disbelief and sin). Knowing this entailment, God planned the Cross before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) to redeem anyone who responds in faith.

Why will believers not sin in Heaven even while retaining free will? Earthly life provides the context where the catastrophic results of disbelief are fully experienced and realized. In Heaven, “epistemic distance” (the deliberate vagueness/space God maintains so faith isn’t forced by immediate sensory sight) is removed. Seeing God as He is, combined with the proven lessons of sin’s destruction, ensures believers will permanently and freely choose to trust God.

I like the focus on belief driving action. It makes a lot of sense in how we operate day-to-day. The one question your model raises for me is: what causes the initial wrong belief in a sinless mind? In Eve’s case, before she had any corrupted nature or experience with sin, what inclined her to weigh Satan’s lie as more credible than God’s command? Is disbelief purely an intellectual miscalculation, or is there a deeper moral choice beneath the belief itself?

Again, sorry for the jump in, and I hope all is well in your Glamping.

Peter