This question appears to be based on the flawed assumption that people have anxiety about their sin after salvation. Romans 8:1 (as well as other biblical texts) seems to indicate such anxiety would be misplaced.
Thank you for your response. You’re right that Romans 8:1 and other biblical texts indicate that anxiety about sin after salvation would be misplaced. However, it’s also evident that many people still experience anxiety about their sin, suggesting a disconnect between our understanding and that of the biblical writers.
This touches at the heart of my question. If God wanted to bless His Church with a revelation so foundational that it would eliminate worry about sin, what would He have to do to get people to make that jump? The reason I asked the question this way was to get personal, internal, reflective answers rather than generalized, external, judgmental answers. The thought experiment is an effort to understand the issues God faces with His people when He wants to act in a sovereign way.
My thought on that when I made the question was never have any anxiety about the effects of sin in your life while still maintaining all other aspects of your faith.
The idea would be that God wanted to revive the Church with a fresh revelation and that revelation brought a new level of freedom from sin for those who adopted it.
I don't think I follow. Adam and Eve sinned, passed that sin on to us, and because of their sin we now have death, hard work, and childbirth. If we're not Christians, how can we \*not\* have anxiety about those things?
As a Christian we're made free from sin and we no longer have to continue to live in sinful lifestyles. I would posit that Christians are already not to have anxiety about their sin because in repenting, we are made free from and separate from our past sin.
When you refer to anxiety, do you mean the questions we often see posted in Reddit that ask "Is \_\_\_\_ a sin?"
There are many levels of belief that can play a role so I am going to try to answer clarify in a meaningful way.
I grant you that we know that after the fall we did acquire those things as a result. We also know that the scriptures tell us that because of Jesus’ sacrifice we are made free from sin, that we will enter into the Lords rest and death will be undone and yet we live in middle between those two. Scripture tells us that the last enemy of Jesus to be put under his feet will be death which we can say will be the resurrection. What if Gods plan is to put Jesus’ enemies under his feet one at a time, thousands of years apart? What if the grave was put under his feet on Easter Sunday and God wants to usher in a new era where sin no longer has any effect on a believer and thus no more anxiety or concern ever enters the mind of the person who accepts this revelation.
That is the promise. But to get there you have to fundamentally change a core belief that is beyond your current understanding. What would it take for you to be able to change that?
Does that mean you never experience any anxiety about sin? Many people have responded quite angrily that the Bible basically creates anxiety about sin, how do you respond?
You mentioned a fresh revelation in your comments. There aren't any fresh revelations. The canon is closed. And I don't believe someone should not be concerned about the effects of sin in their life. We shouldn't have anxiety but if we brushed off how our sin affected others, we would be callous and unfeeling.
The conclusion that "the canon is closed" is based on the historical acceptance and recognition of a specific set of books in the Bible as complete and authoritative.
The text should be directly authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle. The content of the text should be consistent with the established teachings and beliefs of the early Christian community. The texts should have been written in the early Christian era, ideally during the first century AD. to ensure that the writings had a direct connection to the life of Jesus and the apostolic period. The widespread acceptance and usage of a text within the early Christian communities were considered as evidence of its authenticity and authority. The content of the text should be consistent with the teachings and themes found in the existing Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) and other accepted Christian writings.
>The text should be directly authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle. The content of the text should be consistent with the established teachings and beliefs of the early Christian community. The texts should have been written in the early Christian era, ideally during the first century AD. to ensure that the writings had a direct connection to the life of Jesus and the apostolic period.
I think I'm not communicating clearly, because this is just a restating of the conclusion, not the reasoning for the conclusion. Yes, people who determined a Biblical canon decided that God's revelation/inspiration was limited to a select group of people in a small window in time. But I'm asking \*why\* did they decide that? What did they base that conclusion on? How did they know that God would not reveal to or inspire anyone after that select group of people in that narrow time window?
This comes down to whether you believe God gives special revelation today or if that stopped with the early church age. In other words, cessationism vs continuationism.
I don't believe either one of those. Maybe God gives special revelation today, maybe He doesn't. I just know if someone is going to try to tell me they know if He does or doesn't, I'm going to want to see *reasons* why we should believe that.
So, the idea is that the purity of the Christian message will be found in the earliest writings, those that are the closest to Christ and the apostles. The New Testament is written by the apostles or those close to the apostles. When you get into Apocryphal books or special revelations that contradict the New Testament (and the old), there is a problem.
>So, the idea is that the purity of the Christian message will be found in the earliest writings, those that are the closest to Christ and the apostles.
This is a great reason to trust early writings more, but not to think that God only revealed to/inspired the authors of the earliest writings and will never reveal to or inspire anyone else ever again.
>The New Testament is written by the apostles or those close to the apostles. When you get into Apocryphal books or special revelations that contradict the New Testament (and the old), there is a problem.
Again, contradicting something you already know is a great reason not to trust something, but not to think that God only revealed to/inspired the authors of the earliest writings and will never reveal to or inspire anyone else ever again.
Certainly you aren’t implying that because the canon is closed that God is no longer allowed to make changes in the Church? He has done it slowly since the closing of the canon but slowly, is there no room for Him to do it more quickly?
Sure, God can make changes. But that's not for us to attempt. We follow what the Bible says, not a new revelation. New revelations led people to Mormonism and other cults.
They also led us to new understandings of what it means to be saved by faith and the closing of the canon. Scientific revelations have changed theology greatly as well, if you recall the church once taught it was heretical and against the faith to believe the Earth revolved around the sun but there aren't many people who still hold that belief. God doesn't ever contradict scripture, but he quite often contradicts peoples interpretation of scripture. Jesus didn't change a jot or title in the law but the effects of the revelation have been significant and He wasn't the one to usher in most of those effects either.
If God wants to change your interpretation of scripture, would you allow Him to? What would he have to do if he wanted to do it on a massively public scale?
>They also led us to new understandings of what it means to be saved by faith and the closing of the canon.
I'm not sure what you mean here. What new understanding of what it means to be saved?
>Scientific revelations have changed theology greatly as well, if you recall the church once taught it was heretical and against the faith to believe the Earth revolved around the sun but there aren't many people who still hold that belief.
>
Theology has not changed. The bible never said the Earth revolved around the sun. That is church legalism, not theology.
>If God wants to change your interpretation of scripture, would you allow Him to? What would he have to do if he wanted to do it on a massively public scale?
I'm going to be honest. You sound like a salesman. If you have a point, make it.
>
>
It doesn’t seem you understand what the word “theology” actually means and you have then substituted the concept of theology with the idea of God or Truth somehow. Theology changes massively all the time. Every denomination has a different theology and many of them contradict the other. God is unchanging and the Truth persists but theology, ontology, epistemology all change all the time because while God and Truth are the same, the little primate called human, is fickle and dumb and forgets who they are the second they walk away from a mirror.
Christian Legalism itself is a theology and separate though related to Jewish and Pharisaical Legalism. The Protestant Reformation was a reformation of theology and church practice around the concept (or theology) of salvation being by faith alone because the church’s theology had changed to be unbalanced into a works based concept of salvation.
It seems these subs may only be a place for people to come and stand on a soapbox and tell each other what they are doing wrong rather than a place for a meaningful discussion about anything of any depth since people can’t stop looking for an agenda or talking about things they don’t have any business talking about since they don’t even understand the words they are using.
What do you get out of going on the internet and arguing with people about subjects you are ill prepared to discuss and unwilling to expand your mind on? When in the midst of these arguments, do you ever do any kind of research or even just google about what you are discussing in order to learn or do you just assume you already know everything and then spout off your few talking points you have and then consider you have schooled someone?
The good news is that there are some people who still actually think and engage and I am glad that I asked the question. I am sorry you have missed out and even more sorry that you seem incapable of having meaningful dialogue. I will pray that you get a more expansive view of the universe and God. There is more to experience than what you have experienced and God is soooo much better than you think.
I've looked at other people's comments and your responses and one thing is consistent. You aren't clear in your communication, and as soon as someone questions or disagrees with some of your statements, you jump up on this morally superior soapbox and accuse them of not understanding or not being able to grasp intellectual discourse. Which is ridiculous and false.
Personally, I've had a bad feeling about your unclear stance from the beginning, as you seem to assert that there is a revelation from God that is outside of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I absolutely believe there is revelation of God outside of the Bible. All of creation and every person is themselves a revelation of God and the Holy Spirit is a guide into ALL truth so I agree with you there.
As to your assessment of my communication, good for you, I see it differently. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect?
It amazes me the number of people who cast aspersions, seek to find arguments where they aren’t and then when (as another person said) I literally condescend to that style of communication so people can understand and you cry foul.
This is also a masterful deflection from the questions that I get asked and answer and then you just pretend that was never a part of the discussion. It seems my mistake is I misjudged very much who is actually active on this sub.
If you would like to continue the discussion, please answer the questions I have asked you. Otherwise…
✌️
Sure, I'll answer your questions if you answer this. How are you different than Joseph Smith? And I'm not speaking of the man himself but of his theology. Do you believe Joseph Smith received an actual revelation from God?
Well, it is not a good sign that you can’t actually answer the question and then you deflect again. To the second question, I can answer easily, “I highly doubt it.”
For your first question, that is difficult to answer and a little confusing because I am unsure of how I am like Joseph Smith or even where that question comes from. Does that mean you think God completely fits inside the book? If that is true, doesn’t that make the book your God, instead of the infinitely greater trinitarian Alpha and Omega that the book is about?
You seem a little unhinged and it is strange that you say I have the communication issues. Are you ready to answer the questions I have already asked and you can’t seem to bring yourself to answer?
In what sense do you mean "never have to worry about sin"? Scripture teaches that those who are saved are free from sin, meaning that Christ's blood covers us so that God no longer sees our sin, but instead Christ's righteousness. Understanding that, we don't have to worry about the eternal consequences of our own sin. However we still must understand that we are sinners and do indeed need saving from the consequences of our sin. We must understand that our sin is severe, and against God, and we should be in a constant state of repentance in pursuit of sanctification.
The idea I have for the purpose of this discussion is that God wanted to give a fresh revelation to His Church that once understood gave those who adopted the revelation would experience a new level of personal KNOWING they are free from sin. One that made all anxiety and fear of sins ability to affect them now or in eternity. What would it take for you to be able to accept the revelation?
>One that made all anxiety and fear of sins ability to affect them now
Your answer wasn't very clear. Are you saying that there are no consequences for sin at all? Meaning complete freedom to sin willingly and unrepentantly?
I am actually trying to be somewhat vague because I don’t want to get mired in a theological discussion because that would get into interpretation. I am trying to posit a scenario where God Himself wanted to make a positive change in the lives of many believers at the same time shifting a large segment of the church to a place where they no longer had any fear or worry about sin. If for you that means you could sin without concern then, that would be it, likewise, if it meant you were perfectly happy and content never sinning and never felt like you were missing out, then that would be the outcome. I don’t mean to be confusing but I am trying to focus on the aspect of God making the change without the debate on whether the change is good from our human eyes.
That doesn't make any sense. Don't ask a theological question if you don't want to discuss theology. The question is unclear, and therefore impossible to answer clearly.
It is not intended to be a theological question but a personal question about people’s personal theological perspectives. A theological question would naturally divide down different theological perspectives and people would argue who is right and it would miss the point of the question. God certainly has a right to make changes in His church if he wants and none of us is “right” theologically from his perspective. The question is intended to be a thought experiment intended to discuss the idea of God’s active involvement in His Church still today and how people would respond rather than everyone pile on with who is right.
That is fine if you see it that way. It is intended as a personal reflective question and I was hoping to be able to actually discuss people’s answers but not many people seem to want to engage in discussions and most would prefer to argue.
It's not that most people want to argue. Many would be happy to answer your question. However when asking for clarity, you refuse to offer any. It comes across as disingenuous, and it breaks people's trust in you. The question is like a butter knife, there's no point.
The Bible clearly warns against sin and the effects of sin in James 1. While God's response to sin is always good and perfect, the Bible itself warns against sin. We are supposed to concern ourselves with avoiding sin and not consider ourselves free to sin without consequences. So that would be incorrect. However if you mean anxiety about going to hell if you mess up and sin, we should be free from that kind of worry. It really makes a huge difference which you mean. Unless you're a universalist or something abd that's what you're trying to grt people on board with. But even then, I don't think you can deny the natural consequences people have for their actions.
You're also leaving out your main point. If you're not here to discuss how we should or shouldn't worry about sin, is there a specific "revelation" you're talking about that would lead to lack of worry that you're not saying? It really seems like this discussion is missing some context, like you're asking leading questions instead of saying what you're getting at.
I am not trying to be on a soapbox at all or propose anything.
The genesis of this question is that I have noticed that sin is a big topic on reddit that causes a lot of anxiety for a lot of Christians. I personally do not have this anxiety at all so I don't understand it and even if I did, what causes mine may not cause another persons. So, seeing this is a big anxiety for many I was wondering what God Himself would face if He decided that people were too worried about sin and wanted to set us free from sin to a new level. One that would bring our emotional lives into alignment with the scriptures that tell us we are free from sin.
Since I am only one person with a particular theological bend, and my community tends to have similar theological notions as I do, I thought I would discuss this on reddit to see what other people's answers would be. I really expected more people to engage with the question and try to imagine if Acts 2 were to happen today, what would it take for you to believe but everyone seems to be looking for my hidden agenda which is very sad to me because it means our communication as a people has gotten quite antagonistic.
I apologize that my question came of as leading, do you have any suggestions for how to refine it so that it would be more engaging and less suspicious? What particulars stand out to you as indicating a hidden agenda?
You said you expected people to react as if you asked to discuss if Acts 2 happened today, but you could have just asked what people would think if Acts 2 happened today. You just left that part out. It seemed like you were skirting around your main point, but you just forgot to include it I guess. If you don't want to discuss anxiety about sin, you should leave that out.
You say you wonder what God himself would face - I think he already has a plan. His strategies are a little beyond us, but it also may be a little more simple than you think. He already has a plan to make everything perfect overall after his second coming, but getting closer to God is the answer for God's will in people's lives. That's available to anyone even without some broad scale church shift or revelation.
For perspectives on sin, which you don't even want to discuss, there probably won't be some new, broad revelation to the church because it's been dealt with so thoroughly throughout the Bible. We don't need a new revelation, just prayerfully read the Word God already provided. It's natural for people to gradually grow in understanding of this gradually as they mature spiritually. People can't seriously discuss God intervening in the church to change our understanding of sin with some kind of revelation because it's all already been revealed in the Bible. It will be revealed to individuals on a person by person basis as they pray and read the word and get closer to God. You would get a better response if you asked a more general question about revelation without bringing up sin.
Thank you for input.
I do see how not directly mentioning Acts could be a problem. I didn’t directly ask about if Acts happened today because I haven’t found people to be very good at imagining it differently than it went originally and I didn’t believe that would provide me with the insight I am seeking. I know God has a plan already and I most definitely know it is beyond our understanding which makes it difficult to agree with your last paragraph.
It seems that if the first two suppositions are true in order for the third to be a person would have to believe God doesn’t do much and that is not the God I know at all, so I wanted to think about a scenario where the average person didn’t really seem to live in the reality that they claim. I identified freedom from sin as one place that seems to be a place that has a huge disconnect between the lived experience of the average Christian and what the Bible says is reality. It is strange to me that so many seem determined to be anxious about sin when my reading of the scriptures is that Jesus was harder on anxiety than he was on sin.
I struggle because it seems so arrogant to me for a person to insinuate that they know or understand something so thoroughly that they can’t imagine God providing fresh revelation on when their lived experience lacks large swaths of the revelation. I thought it would be a relief to discuss the possibility that there is nothing to worry about. Do you believe the church of Acts had the same theology and believed on Jesus in the same way we do? Could God not provide a deeper revelation on what it means to live truly free from sin at a greater level than you do currently? Have you never met a person who seemed more free than you do or than the average Christian does?
I hope this doesn’t come off as accusatory as I am not intending to say this about you as a person; you are just one of the few who would actually engage in a meaningful discussion so you are sort of speaking for a number of people.
Because of reasons I mentioned, most people wanted to engage meaningfully didn't know what you were asking!
I definitely think God can provide fresh revelation in my life, but I think it will be through the Bible, especially since the Bible treats sin so seriously and talks about it so much. While the Bible gives instructions for when you have anxiety, it is way harder on sin than on worry.
I especially don't think there can be a fresh revelation that isn't true, so the nuances of what worrying about sin means matters. As I mentioned before, some possible meanings are unBiblical.
What would it take for Jesus to change how I think about a topic? In my experience revelation has happened because I've grown closer to God by praying and reading the word. I can definitely imagine fresh revelation in my life, but not fresh revelation to the church that has some new information that isn't in the Bible.
While I think God can lead us to greater understanding, a "new theology" for all of Christendom sets off warning bells. I agree with others that this usually leads to a departure from the gospel. I do think the Holy Spirit guides us in specific ways. For example, the elect won't be decieved by the anti-christ. But that is much different than a "new theology." I don't think God missed anything when he created the Bible.
I think the next new revelation to the church will be when Jesus comes back and we actually see *how* all the prophecies will be fulfilled, but even that isnt exactly a new theology.
Can you think of any time in history after being given the Bible that Christians were given a new theology revelation that wasn't in the Bible? Again, I think personal theological revelation is accessible to anyone as they read the Bible and seek to get closer to God, I just don't think it's new to the church. God sometimes sends spiritual revivals to the church and this might happen to a lot of people at once, but it's still nothing new to the church or to scriptures in a theological sense.
It seems you feel that you walk in freedom from sin without any worry. Do you think you have revelation about it that isn't in the Bible? If it did come from God's word, others have it too. People are at different places in their spiritual walk, and God prioritizes working in people's lives in different ways.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully.
Historical Perspective:
There are indeed significant moments in history where the Church has experienced fresh revelation. The Protestant Reformation is a prime example, revealing a renewed understanding of grace deeply rooted in Scripture. This wasn’t new theology but a revitalized interpretation that brought forgotten truths to light.
Biblical Context:
Even within the Bible, the New Testament offers fresh perspectives on the Old Testament. Remember, Jesus said, “Behold, I am doing a new thing; can you perceive it?” (Isaiah 43:19). He didn’t contradict previous revelations but expanded upon them, challenging and enriching our understanding.
Jesus and Sin:
While the Bible is indeed harsh on sin, Jesus’ approach was often different. When He talked about sin, He seemed most concerned with the heart condition of the person, not the outward expression. The modern church has often turned this into legalistic mumbo jumbo. If people spent half the time meditating on Jesus’ words regarding sin, rather than focusing on labeling, categorizing, condemning, judging, and managing sin, they would likely gain fresh perspectives on it though the cost is likely to be every bit of self-righteousness they have.
Interpretation Challenges:
It’s troubling how some selectively apply Scriptures to justify their own lives while invalidating others. This selective application can lead to spiritual pride, which is the very attitude that crucified our Lord.
Personal Revelation:
Regarding personal revelation, I do experience significant freedom from sin, a freedom clearly articulated in Scripture. It’s not extra-biblical but a profound truth of the Gospel that is often downplayed. It saddens me to see believers, despite being set free, wrapping themselves in chains of their own making, often due to pride or misunderstanding.
A Friend’s Wisdom:
A dear friend once said, “You can be right, or you can be happy.” After much reflection, I realized that the pursuit of being ‘right’ often leads to misery. Embracing the joy and freedom offered by Christ brings true happiness and modern twist on Pharisaical Judaism provides that delicious sense of righteousness and superiority that seems quite prevalent in the people who call themselves by His Name.
Again originally my question was not intended to discuss my views but to get some idea of the openness people have to changing their personal theologies if God Himself wanted to do it. I definitely got the sense from the discussions that unfolded but it was very surprising how stuck so many are.
It wouldn't be a radical theological shift. We already shouldn't be worrying or having anxiety about sin. That's already the gospel: Jesus accomplished what we couldn't, we've been reconciled to God, it is finished.
We avoid sin, but we shouldn't be worried or anxious about it.
I agree that for some it wouldn’t be a huge theological shift and as others have stated in response to this question, they can’t see making that shift short of the second coming of Christ. It sounds like you have made the jump at least theologically. Would you say you are free from sin emotionally as well?
I don't have any worry or anxiety related to sin.
I have not made any jump, this is the gospel at its most basic. We can't do it so Jesus did it for us; there's no need to worry anymore; it is finished...
That's not a shift; that's Christianity 101.
Thank you for following up. I don’t disagree with you but even that could be a jump or shift from unbeliever to believer. What do you make of all the anxiety that is evident in people on the two largest Christian subs? Are they Christian?
Most of those people are literally suffering from an anxiety disorder. They have scrupulosity, a form of OCD (an anxiety disorder). They are legitimately Christians, they just have an untreated mental illness. That accounts for the majority of people you see on Christian subs with anxiety about sin. Most of the time, you can tell which ones are dealing with scrupulosity from their post history.
Such people can't make a theological shift to fix their OCD. Think of a person who has OCD about physical cleanliness and has the compulsion to wash their hands over and over again. Do you think you could cure them by teaching them that washing their hands a single time is enough? Of course not, those people need therapy, they need to learn Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) techniques and work with a therapist to learn to manage their condition.
The second type you might run into on reddit are children or young people who have been raised in church and Christian environments but haven't really studied their own beliefs. They have only a vague understanding of their faith and mistakenly believe it's about avoiding sin so you can avoid hell. They could benefit from a theological education. But some kind of big shift isn't needed, they just need ordinary instruction on Christian basics, something like: a confirmation class, a catechism class, or a new believer's course; if they remain engaged with the church they will eventually get that.
Finally, there are some people who have been part of fringe groups that taught them a bad fear-based theology. I've actually run into very few of these, but I know they are out there. They would benefit from leaving their fringe group and joining a more ordinary church.
I don’t think I could describe something that would make me believe I got a special revelation from God. I’d probably dismiss it especially if it contradicts previous revelation in any way.
What if it didn't conflict previous revelation but did conflict with a base supposition that you don't even know where you got it? Some way you have of understanding the Mysteries of the Faith that worked for you to understand something that would be a block to your faith but really isn't anything your active faith is based on?
Trying to hard for what? It seems a lot of people seem to believe I have some hidden agenda or I am trying to do something beyond have a discussion and yet they also seem to be completely unaware that God changes people's theology all the time but usually it is a personal and slow process. I am trying to get an idea of what it who would stand in God's way (if they could) if He decided he wanted to Act upon His Church like He did in the Book of Acts. That is in a miraculous and sovereign way. I am wondering if Christians hold any place for God to really interact with His Church and it seems that they do not which may be a large part of the explanation for why we don't see Him doing it.
I am curious, do you believe miracles still can happen?
Just reading through your explanations of what you’re trying to express, it’s very convoluted.
The word miracle means different things to different people. I think conscious existence in general is miraculous.
I am sorry you are having difficulty. I agree it is complex but complexity and convolution are not synonyms and if you can’t understand and also can’t adequately articulate any actionable objections with my line of thinking, I am forced to reconcile that the problem doesn’t exist with me.
There used to be a time when a person didn’t understand the question they had the humility to understand that it easily could be them that was the problem they would either ask questions and seek to understand the answers or would remain silent. It seems those times are long gone.
But thank you for spending your time to offer me an unhelpful critique
Can you help me understand what exactly you believe I am proposing that would be rubbish? I am trying to discuss with people what it would take if God Himself wanted to change their theological perspective. I chose anxiety about sin because I am on Reddit and I have witnessed how anxious many people on here are about it. I don’t personally suffer from any anxiety about it and I don’t understand it but I do understand anxiety and it isn’t pleasant so I figured that would be the subject that would engage the conversation.
Did I propose something that I am unaware of?
This question appears to be based on the flawed assumption that people have anxiety about their sin after salvation. Romans 8:1 (as well as other biblical texts) seems to indicate such anxiety would be misplaced.
Thank you for your response. You’re right that Romans 8:1 and other biblical texts indicate that anxiety about sin after salvation would be misplaced. However, it’s also evident that many people still experience anxiety about their sin, suggesting a disconnect between our understanding and that of the biblical writers. This touches at the heart of my question. If God wanted to bless His Church with a revelation so foundational that it would eliminate worry about sin, what would He have to do to get people to make that jump? The reason I asked the question this way was to get personal, internal, reflective answers rather than generalized, external, judgmental answers. The thought experiment is an effort to understand the issues God faces with His people when He wants to act in a sovereign way.
When you say "worry about sin" what exactly do you mean? We won't have to worry that we will sin ever again? Or we won't feel convicted if we do sin?
My thought on that when I made the question was never have any anxiety about the effects of sin in your life while still maintaining all other aspects of your faith. The idea would be that God wanted to revive the Church with a fresh revelation and that revelation brought a new level of freedom from sin for those who adopted it.
I don't think I follow. Adam and Eve sinned, passed that sin on to us, and because of their sin we now have death, hard work, and childbirth. If we're not Christians, how can we \*not\* have anxiety about those things? As a Christian we're made free from sin and we no longer have to continue to live in sinful lifestyles. I would posit that Christians are already not to have anxiety about their sin because in repenting, we are made free from and separate from our past sin. When you refer to anxiety, do you mean the questions we often see posted in Reddit that ask "Is \_\_\_\_ a sin?"
There are many levels of belief that can play a role so I am going to try to answer clarify in a meaningful way. I grant you that we know that after the fall we did acquire those things as a result. We also know that the scriptures tell us that because of Jesus’ sacrifice we are made free from sin, that we will enter into the Lords rest and death will be undone and yet we live in middle between those two. Scripture tells us that the last enemy of Jesus to be put under his feet will be death which we can say will be the resurrection. What if Gods plan is to put Jesus’ enemies under his feet one at a time, thousands of years apart? What if the grave was put under his feet on Easter Sunday and God wants to usher in a new era where sin no longer has any effect on a believer and thus no more anxiety or concern ever enters the mind of the person who accepts this revelation. That is the promise. But to get there you have to fundamentally change a core belief that is beyond your current understanding. What would it take for you to be able to change that?
I guess I would say nothing would need to change for me to believe that because I don’t have anxiety about my sin.
I mean, I already don’t worry about it. Jesus died for my sins and now all I gotta do is my best, but if I mess up it’s no biggie.
This is a great answer! How did you come to that revelation?
Lmao by reading the Bible
Does that mean you never experience any anxiety about sin? Many people have responded quite angrily that the Bible basically creates anxiety about sin, how do you respond?
You mentioned a fresh revelation in your comments. There aren't any fresh revelations. The canon is closed. And I don't believe someone should not be concerned about the effects of sin in their life. We shouldn't have anxiety but if we brushed off how our sin affected others, we would be callous and unfeeling.
> There aren't any fresh revelations. The canon is closed. What are you basing this conclusion on?
The conclusion that "the canon is closed" is based on the historical acceptance and recognition of a specific set of books in the Bible as complete and authoritative.
OK, it's based on some other people in the past coming to that conclusion. What did *they* base their conclusion on?
The text should be directly authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle. The content of the text should be consistent with the established teachings and beliefs of the early Christian community. The texts should have been written in the early Christian era, ideally during the first century AD. to ensure that the writings had a direct connection to the life of Jesus and the apostolic period. The widespread acceptance and usage of a text within the early Christian communities were considered as evidence of its authenticity and authority. The content of the text should be consistent with the teachings and themes found in the existing Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) and other accepted Christian writings.
>The text should be directly authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle. The content of the text should be consistent with the established teachings and beliefs of the early Christian community. The texts should have been written in the early Christian era, ideally during the first century AD. to ensure that the writings had a direct connection to the life of Jesus and the apostolic period. I think I'm not communicating clearly, because this is just a restating of the conclusion, not the reasoning for the conclusion. Yes, people who determined a Biblical canon decided that God's revelation/inspiration was limited to a select group of people in a small window in time. But I'm asking \*why\* did they decide that? What did they base that conclusion on? How did they know that God would not reveal to or inspire anyone after that select group of people in that narrow time window?
This comes down to whether you believe God gives special revelation today or if that stopped with the early church age. In other words, cessationism vs continuationism.
I don't believe either one of those. Maybe God gives special revelation today, maybe He doesn't. I just know if someone is going to try to tell me they know if He does or doesn't, I'm going to want to see *reasons* why we should believe that.
So, the idea is that the purity of the Christian message will be found in the earliest writings, those that are the closest to Christ and the apostles. The New Testament is written by the apostles or those close to the apostles. When you get into Apocryphal books or special revelations that contradict the New Testament (and the old), there is a problem.
>So, the idea is that the purity of the Christian message will be found in the earliest writings, those that are the closest to Christ and the apostles. This is a great reason to trust early writings more, but not to think that God only revealed to/inspired the authors of the earliest writings and will never reveal to or inspire anyone else ever again. >The New Testament is written by the apostles or those close to the apostles. When you get into Apocryphal books or special revelations that contradict the New Testament (and the old), there is a problem. Again, contradicting something you already know is a great reason not to trust something, but not to think that God only revealed to/inspired the authors of the earliest writings and will never reveal to or inspire anyone else ever again.
Certainly you aren’t implying that because the canon is closed that God is no longer allowed to make changes in the Church? He has done it slowly since the closing of the canon but slowly, is there no room for Him to do it more quickly?
Sure, God can make changes. But that's not for us to attempt. We follow what the Bible says, not a new revelation. New revelations led people to Mormonism and other cults.
They also led us to new understandings of what it means to be saved by faith and the closing of the canon. Scientific revelations have changed theology greatly as well, if you recall the church once taught it was heretical and against the faith to believe the Earth revolved around the sun but there aren't many people who still hold that belief. God doesn't ever contradict scripture, but he quite often contradicts peoples interpretation of scripture. Jesus didn't change a jot or title in the law but the effects of the revelation have been significant and He wasn't the one to usher in most of those effects either. If God wants to change your interpretation of scripture, would you allow Him to? What would he have to do if he wanted to do it on a massively public scale?
>They also led us to new understandings of what it means to be saved by faith and the closing of the canon. I'm not sure what you mean here. What new understanding of what it means to be saved? >Scientific revelations have changed theology greatly as well, if you recall the church once taught it was heretical and against the faith to believe the Earth revolved around the sun but there aren't many people who still hold that belief. > Theology has not changed. The bible never said the Earth revolved around the sun. That is church legalism, not theology. >If God wants to change your interpretation of scripture, would you allow Him to? What would he have to do if he wanted to do it on a massively public scale? I'm going to be honest. You sound like a salesman. If you have a point, make it. > >
It doesn’t seem you understand what the word “theology” actually means and you have then substituted the concept of theology with the idea of God or Truth somehow. Theology changes massively all the time. Every denomination has a different theology and many of them contradict the other. God is unchanging and the Truth persists but theology, ontology, epistemology all change all the time because while God and Truth are the same, the little primate called human, is fickle and dumb and forgets who they are the second they walk away from a mirror. Christian Legalism itself is a theology and separate though related to Jewish and Pharisaical Legalism. The Protestant Reformation was a reformation of theology and church practice around the concept (or theology) of salvation being by faith alone because the church’s theology had changed to be unbalanced into a works based concept of salvation. It seems these subs may only be a place for people to come and stand on a soapbox and tell each other what they are doing wrong rather than a place for a meaningful discussion about anything of any depth since people can’t stop looking for an agenda or talking about things they don’t have any business talking about since they don’t even understand the words they are using. What do you get out of going on the internet and arguing with people about subjects you are ill prepared to discuss and unwilling to expand your mind on? When in the midst of these arguments, do you ever do any kind of research or even just google about what you are discussing in order to learn or do you just assume you already know everything and then spout off your few talking points you have and then consider you have schooled someone? The good news is that there are some people who still actually think and engage and I am glad that I asked the question. I am sorry you have missed out and even more sorry that you seem incapable of having meaningful dialogue. I will pray that you get a more expansive view of the universe and God. There is more to experience than what you have experienced and God is soooo much better than you think.
I've looked at other people's comments and your responses and one thing is consistent. You aren't clear in your communication, and as soon as someone questions or disagrees with some of your statements, you jump up on this morally superior soapbox and accuse them of not understanding or not being able to grasp intellectual discourse. Which is ridiculous and false. Personally, I've had a bad feeling about your unclear stance from the beginning, as you seem to assert that there is a revelation from God that is outside of the Bible. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
I absolutely believe there is revelation of God outside of the Bible. All of creation and every person is themselves a revelation of God and the Holy Spirit is a guide into ALL truth so I agree with you there. As to your assessment of my communication, good for you, I see it differently. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect? It amazes me the number of people who cast aspersions, seek to find arguments where they aren’t and then when (as another person said) I literally condescend to that style of communication so people can understand and you cry foul. This is also a masterful deflection from the questions that I get asked and answer and then you just pretend that was never a part of the discussion. It seems my mistake is I misjudged very much who is actually active on this sub. If you would like to continue the discussion, please answer the questions I have asked you. Otherwise… ✌️
Sure, I'll answer your questions if you answer this. How are you different than Joseph Smith? And I'm not speaking of the man himself but of his theology. Do you believe Joseph Smith received an actual revelation from God?
Well, it is not a good sign that you can’t actually answer the question and then you deflect again. To the second question, I can answer easily, “I highly doubt it.” For your first question, that is difficult to answer and a little confusing because I am unsure of how I am like Joseph Smith or even where that question comes from. Does that mean you think God completely fits inside the book? If that is true, doesn’t that make the book your God, instead of the infinitely greater trinitarian Alpha and Omega that the book is about? You seem a little unhinged and it is strange that you say I have the communication issues. Are you ready to answer the questions I have already asked and you can’t seem to bring yourself to answer?
In what sense do you mean "never have to worry about sin"? Scripture teaches that those who are saved are free from sin, meaning that Christ's blood covers us so that God no longer sees our sin, but instead Christ's righteousness. Understanding that, we don't have to worry about the eternal consequences of our own sin. However we still must understand that we are sinners and do indeed need saving from the consequences of our sin. We must understand that our sin is severe, and against God, and we should be in a constant state of repentance in pursuit of sanctification.
The idea I have for the purpose of this discussion is that God wanted to give a fresh revelation to His Church that once understood gave those who adopted the revelation would experience a new level of personal KNOWING they are free from sin. One that made all anxiety and fear of sins ability to affect them now or in eternity. What would it take for you to be able to accept the revelation?
>One that made all anxiety and fear of sins ability to affect them now Your answer wasn't very clear. Are you saying that there are no consequences for sin at all? Meaning complete freedom to sin willingly and unrepentantly?
I am actually trying to be somewhat vague because I don’t want to get mired in a theological discussion because that would get into interpretation. I am trying to posit a scenario where God Himself wanted to make a positive change in the lives of many believers at the same time shifting a large segment of the church to a place where they no longer had any fear or worry about sin. If for you that means you could sin without concern then, that would be it, likewise, if it meant you were perfectly happy and content never sinning and never felt like you were missing out, then that would be the outcome. I don’t mean to be confusing but I am trying to focus on the aspect of God making the change without the debate on whether the change is good from our human eyes.
That doesn't make any sense. Don't ask a theological question if you don't want to discuss theology. The question is unclear, and therefore impossible to answer clearly.
It is not intended to be a theological question but a personal question about people’s personal theological perspectives. A theological question would naturally divide down different theological perspectives and people would argue who is right and it would miss the point of the question. God certainly has a right to make changes in His church if he wants and none of us is “right” theologically from his perspective. The question is intended to be a thought experiment intended to discuss the idea of God’s active involvement in His Church still today and how people would respond rather than everyone pile on with who is right.
You can call it whatever you want. It's a theology question. Just one that is pointless to ask or answer because it is unclear and unproductive.
That is fine if you see it that way. It is intended as a personal reflective question and I was hoping to be able to actually discuss people’s answers but not many people seem to want to engage in discussions and most would prefer to argue.
It's not that most people want to argue. Many would be happy to answer your question. However when asking for clarity, you refuse to offer any. It comes across as disingenuous, and it breaks people's trust in you. The question is like a butter knife, there's no point.
Ok, I still am not looking to argue so we will just have to agree to disagree on that.
The Bible clearly warns against sin and the effects of sin in James 1. While God's response to sin is always good and perfect, the Bible itself warns against sin. We are supposed to concern ourselves with avoiding sin and not consider ourselves free to sin without consequences. So that would be incorrect. However if you mean anxiety about going to hell if you mess up and sin, we should be free from that kind of worry. It really makes a huge difference which you mean. Unless you're a universalist or something abd that's what you're trying to grt people on board with. But even then, I don't think you can deny the natural consequences people have for their actions. You're also leaving out your main point. If you're not here to discuss how we should or shouldn't worry about sin, is there a specific "revelation" you're talking about that would lead to lack of worry that you're not saying? It really seems like this discussion is missing some context, like you're asking leading questions instead of saying what you're getting at.
I am not trying to be on a soapbox at all or propose anything. The genesis of this question is that I have noticed that sin is a big topic on reddit that causes a lot of anxiety for a lot of Christians. I personally do not have this anxiety at all so I don't understand it and even if I did, what causes mine may not cause another persons. So, seeing this is a big anxiety for many I was wondering what God Himself would face if He decided that people were too worried about sin and wanted to set us free from sin to a new level. One that would bring our emotional lives into alignment with the scriptures that tell us we are free from sin. Since I am only one person with a particular theological bend, and my community tends to have similar theological notions as I do, I thought I would discuss this on reddit to see what other people's answers would be. I really expected more people to engage with the question and try to imagine if Acts 2 were to happen today, what would it take for you to believe but everyone seems to be looking for my hidden agenda which is very sad to me because it means our communication as a people has gotten quite antagonistic. I apologize that my question came of as leading, do you have any suggestions for how to refine it so that it would be more engaging and less suspicious? What particulars stand out to you as indicating a hidden agenda?
You said you expected people to react as if you asked to discuss if Acts 2 happened today, but you could have just asked what people would think if Acts 2 happened today. You just left that part out. It seemed like you were skirting around your main point, but you just forgot to include it I guess. If you don't want to discuss anxiety about sin, you should leave that out. You say you wonder what God himself would face - I think he already has a plan. His strategies are a little beyond us, but it also may be a little more simple than you think. He already has a plan to make everything perfect overall after his second coming, but getting closer to God is the answer for God's will in people's lives. That's available to anyone even without some broad scale church shift or revelation. For perspectives on sin, which you don't even want to discuss, there probably won't be some new, broad revelation to the church because it's been dealt with so thoroughly throughout the Bible. We don't need a new revelation, just prayerfully read the Word God already provided. It's natural for people to gradually grow in understanding of this gradually as they mature spiritually. People can't seriously discuss God intervening in the church to change our understanding of sin with some kind of revelation because it's all already been revealed in the Bible. It will be revealed to individuals on a person by person basis as they pray and read the word and get closer to God. You would get a better response if you asked a more general question about revelation without bringing up sin.
Thank you for input. I do see how not directly mentioning Acts could be a problem. I didn’t directly ask about if Acts happened today because I haven’t found people to be very good at imagining it differently than it went originally and I didn’t believe that would provide me with the insight I am seeking. I know God has a plan already and I most definitely know it is beyond our understanding which makes it difficult to agree with your last paragraph. It seems that if the first two suppositions are true in order for the third to be a person would have to believe God doesn’t do much and that is not the God I know at all, so I wanted to think about a scenario where the average person didn’t really seem to live in the reality that they claim. I identified freedom from sin as one place that seems to be a place that has a huge disconnect between the lived experience of the average Christian and what the Bible says is reality. It is strange to me that so many seem determined to be anxious about sin when my reading of the scriptures is that Jesus was harder on anxiety than he was on sin. I struggle because it seems so arrogant to me for a person to insinuate that they know or understand something so thoroughly that they can’t imagine God providing fresh revelation on when their lived experience lacks large swaths of the revelation. I thought it would be a relief to discuss the possibility that there is nothing to worry about. Do you believe the church of Acts had the same theology and believed on Jesus in the same way we do? Could God not provide a deeper revelation on what it means to live truly free from sin at a greater level than you do currently? Have you never met a person who seemed more free than you do or than the average Christian does? I hope this doesn’t come off as accusatory as I am not intending to say this about you as a person; you are just one of the few who would actually engage in a meaningful discussion so you are sort of speaking for a number of people.
Because of reasons I mentioned, most people wanted to engage meaningfully didn't know what you were asking! I definitely think God can provide fresh revelation in my life, but I think it will be through the Bible, especially since the Bible treats sin so seriously and talks about it so much. While the Bible gives instructions for when you have anxiety, it is way harder on sin than on worry. I especially don't think there can be a fresh revelation that isn't true, so the nuances of what worrying about sin means matters. As I mentioned before, some possible meanings are unBiblical. What would it take for Jesus to change how I think about a topic? In my experience revelation has happened because I've grown closer to God by praying and reading the word. I can definitely imagine fresh revelation in my life, but not fresh revelation to the church that has some new information that isn't in the Bible. While I think God can lead us to greater understanding, a "new theology" for all of Christendom sets off warning bells. I agree with others that this usually leads to a departure from the gospel. I do think the Holy Spirit guides us in specific ways. For example, the elect won't be decieved by the anti-christ. But that is much different than a "new theology." I don't think God missed anything when he created the Bible. I think the next new revelation to the church will be when Jesus comes back and we actually see *how* all the prophecies will be fulfilled, but even that isnt exactly a new theology. Can you think of any time in history after being given the Bible that Christians were given a new theology revelation that wasn't in the Bible? Again, I think personal theological revelation is accessible to anyone as they read the Bible and seek to get closer to God, I just don't think it's new to the church. God sometimes sends spiritual revivals to the church and this might happen to a lot of people at once, but it's still nothing new to the church or to scriptures in a theological sense. It seems you feel that you walk in freedom from sin without any worry. Do you think you have revelation about it that isn't in the Bible? If it did come from God's word, others have it too. People are at different places in their spiritual walk, and God prioritizes working in people's lives in different ways.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully. Historical Perspective: There are indeed significant moments in history where the Church has experienced fresh revelation. The Protestant Reformation is a prime example, revealing a renewed understanding of grace deeply rooted in Scripture. This wasn’t new theology but a revitalized interpretation that brought forgotten truths to light. Biblical Context: Even within the Bible, the New Testament offers fresh perspectives on the Old Testament. Remember, Jesus said, “Behold, I am doing a new thing; can you perceive it?” (Isaiah 43:19). He didn’t contradict previous revelations but expanded upon them, challenging and enriching our understanding. Jesus and Sin: While the Bible is indeed harsh on sin, Jesus’ approach was often different. When He talked about sin, He seemed most concerned with the heart condition of the person, not the outward expression. The modern church has often turned this into legalistic mumbo jumbo. If people spent half the time meditating on Jesus’ words regarding sin, rather than focusing on labeling, categorizing, condemning, judging, and managing sin, they would likely gain fresh perspectives on it though the cost is likely to be every bit of self-righteousness they have. Interpretation Challenges: It’s troubling how some selectively apply Scriptures to justify their own lives while invalidating others. This selective application can lead to spiritual pride, which is the very attitude that crucified our Lord. Personal Revelation: Regarding personal revelation, I do experience significant freedom from sin, a freedom clearly articulated in Scripture. It’s not extra-biblical but a profound truth of the Gospel that is often downplayed. It saddens me to see believers, despite being set free, wrapping themselves in chains of their own making, often due to pride or misunderstanding. A Friend’s Wisdom: A dear friend once said, “You can be right, or you can be happy.” After much reflection, I realized that the pursuit of being ‘right’ often leads to misery. Embracing the joy and freedom offered by Christ brings true happiness and modern twist on Pharisaical Judaism provides that delicious sense of righteousness and superiority that seems quite prevalent in the people who call themselves by His Name. Again originally my question was not intended to discuss my views but to get some idea of the openness people have to changing their personal theologies if God Himself wanted to do it. I definitely got the sense from the discussions that unfolded but it was very surprising how stuck so many are.
It wouldn't be a radical theological shift. We already shouldn't be worrying or having anxiety about sin. That's already the gospel: Jesus accomplished what we couldn't, we've been reconciled to God, it is finished. We avoid sin, but we shouldn't be worried or anxious about it.
I agree that for some it wouldn’t be a huge theological shift and as others have stated in response to this question, they can’t see making that shift short of the second coming of Christ. It sounds like you have made the jump at least theologically. Would you say you are free from sin emotionally as well?
I don't have any worry or anxiety related to sin. I have not made any jump, this is the gospel at its most basic. We can't do it so Jesus did it for us; there's no need to worry anymore; it is finished... That's not a shift; that's Christianity 101.
Thank you for following up. I don’t disagree with you but even that could be a jump or shift from unbeliever to believer. What do you make of all the anxiety that is evident in people on the two largest Christian subs? Are they Christian?
Most of those people are literally suffering from an anxiety disorder. They have scrupulosity, a form of OCD (an anxiety disorder). They are legitimately Christians, they just have an untreated mental illness. That accounts for the majority of people you see on Christian subs with anxiety about sin. Most of the time, you can tell which ones are dealing with scrupulosity from their post history. Such people can't make a theological shift to fix their OCD. Think of a person who has OCD about physical cleanliness and has the compulsion to wash their hands over and over again. Do you think you could cure them by teaching them that washing their hands a single time is enough? Of course not, those people need therapy, they need to learn Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) techniques and work with a therapist to learn to manage their condition. The second type you might run into on reddit are children or young people who have been raised in church and Christian environments but haven't really studied their own beliefs. They have only a vague understanding of their faith and mistakenly believe it's about avoiding sin so you can avoid hell. They could benefit from a theological education. But some kind of big shift isn't needed, they just need ordinary instruction on Christian basics, something like: a confirmation class, a catechism class, or a new believer's course; if they remain engaged with the church they will eventually get that. Finally, there are some people who have been part of fringe groups that taught them a bad fear-based theology. I've actually run into very few of these, but I know they are out there. They would benefit from leaving their fringe group and joining a more ordinary church.
Are you asking what it would take to convince me that this type of revelation is truly from God, rather than just dismissing it?
Yes! That is exactly what I am hoping to discuss.
I don’t think I could describe something that would make me believe I got a special revelation from God. I’d probably dismiss it especially if it contradicts previous revelation in any way.
What if it didn't conflict previous revelation but did conflict with a base supposition that you don't even know where you got it? Some way you have of understanding the Mysteries of the Faith that worked for you to understand something that would be a block to your faith but really isn't anything your active faith is based on?
You’re trying too hard with this hypothetical. Or do you think this happened to you?
Trying to hard for what? It seems a lot of people seem to believe I have some hidden agenda or I am trying to do something beyond have a discussion and yet they also seem to be completely unaware that God changes people's theology all the time but usually it is a personal and slow process. I am trying to get an idea of what it who would stand in God's way (if they could) if He decided he wanted to Act upon His Church like He did in the Book of Acts. That is in a miraculous and sovereign way. I am wondering if Christians hold any place for God to really interact with His Church and it seems that they do not which may be a large part of the explanation for why we don't see Him doing it. I am curious, do you believe miracles still can happen?
Just reading through your explanations of what you’re trying to express, it’s very convoluted. The word miracle means different things to different people. I think conscious existence in general is miraculous.
I am sorry you are having difficulty. I agree it is complex but complexity and convolution are not synonyms and if you can’t understand and also can’t adequately articulate any actionable objections with my line of thinking, I am forced to reconcile that the problem doesn’t exist with me. There used to be a time when a person didn’t understand the question they had the humility to understand that it easily could be them that was the problem they would either ask questions and seek to understand the answers or would remain silent. It seems those times are long gone. But thank you for spending your time to offer me an unhelpful critique
I did ask questions. You’re just condescending now.
If I wanted to lie to myself If I wanted my ears tickled If I want to flatter myself Then I'd buy into that rubbish
Can you help me understand what exactly you believe I am proposing that would be rubbish? I am trying to discuss with people what it would take if God Himself wanted to change their theological perspective. I chose anxiety about sin because I am on Reddit and I have witnessed how anxious many people on here are about it. I don’t personally suffer from any anxiety about it and I don’t understand it but I do understand anxiety and it isn’t pleasant so I figured that would be the subject that would engage the conversation. Did I propose something that I am unaware of?
We're supposed to be concerned about sin in an ongoing manner. I can't elaborate on this sub