Thank you for more details, shows you have some actual disagreements scripturally, and you are not just an internet troll or caught up in some cult of personality. Appreciated.
Thank you also for the resource recommendation. I am always looking for new perspectives, that is kind of the entire point of my article! If we are in Christ, then other perspectives are not fearful, whether we agree or not.
I have read or listened to dozens of not hundreds of resources. Every single one has ignored some aspect of scripture when making their point, Andrew Farley included. Whether this is deliberate or simply an oversight, I cannot judge. In most cases, it is probably simply being human. We all see through the glass darkly.
As to the specific concerns you mention, perhaps there is a misunderstanding for some of them. The two main judgment camps are 1) one judgment for all, or 2) two judgments, with a separate judgment for believers. Andrew clearly is in camp 1, as am I.
He has definitely mentioned the sheep and the goats before, and I believe Romans 9 also. I believe both passages you mention support #1. That little word 'ALL' causes no end of issues though, I admit. But perhaps you simply haven't heard all of his teaching on this. Seems like you would agree with #1 since you pointed out those passages.
As far as both convict and confess, there is scant evidence in scripture for the traditional perspective or emphasis on these. Conviction is tied directly to the Holy Spirit only once (John 16) and confession is tied to sin only once (1 John 1). Thus, these are emphasized much less in scripture than in most churches. Take that as you will, but I try my best to emphasize what scripture does.
Regardless, confession (homologéō) means to "agree with or consent". It is most often used in a positive way, i.e. "confess Christ is Lord", etc. Thus it means that you agree or consent that Christ is Lord. This is slightly different than in English, where it often means getting something off your chest, so to speak.
Once you understand it's meaning, you realize that confession should be a believers lifestyle, no matter the topic. You should agree with God that sin is harmful, destructive, and wrong. Sure. Just as you should also agree with God that you are forgiven of that very sin, past, present, and future. Again, agreeing with God should be a lifestyle. No question.
The main issue with the traditional meaning of confessing sin is it gets tied to forgiveness. This waters down our total forgiveness in Christ. Unless you tie it to forgiveness, I won't wrangle about it. Perhaps an over reliance on a confession ritual can be immature, but how you relate to God is between you and Him.
As far as convict, the issue there is the English translation (convict has a harsh English meaning, like convict a criminal) and the fact that scripture simply doesn't associate it with the Holy Spirit for believers. In John 16, Christ clearly explains that the 'conviction' of sin is for unbelievers. Believers are 'convicted' of their righteousness. He literally says the Holy Spirit 'convicts' those who "don't believe" of sin.
The word translated 'convict' is most often translated 'reprove'. I will quote from Strong's: "1651 elégxō – properly, to convince with solid, compelling evidence, especially to expose (prove wrong, connect)." It is a work that is done to help folks both confess (agree with) and repent (change their mind).
I do believe the Holy Spirit constantly works to convince believers of truth, so in that sense, yes, He reproves us of many things, both in a positive or negative sense. However, we must consider how scripture actually uses this word, not just our traditions.
As an unbeliever, if you are not convinced you have a sin problem, would you ever turn to Christ? Highly unlikely. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince you and expose the sin problem you have.
As believers, we have already acknowledged we have a sin problem by definition. According to Romans 6, we are now free from sin. But are you convinced of that? I know many times I am not. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince us we are truly free from sin because of His work. He convinces us of our righteousness.
You do have times like 1 Timothy 5:20 where this word is used where a church 'rebukes' an elder for open sin. But that is rare. Almost all instances are used for unbelievers (Jude 1:15 is an example).
Again, everything I have just written I have heard Andrew speak of in some form or another, so perhaps you misunderstood or did not hear all his teaching. But I am not here to defend any particular person, simply discuss my understanding of what scripture actually says. All of this is straight from scripture.
If Andrew or anyone else lines up with that great. If they don't, then that is why Romans 14 says we are all individually accountable to God. I don't have to answer for Andrew or anyone else.
But I have gone on far too long for a simple comment. If you would like to continue this discourse, please email me at my substack address: nuntiumvitae@substack.com. That way neither of us have to put our private email on a public forum.
Thank you for the discourse. Continue to walk in God's blessing and grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. Appreciated!
His books can be helpful in some ways, but he doesn't make solid arguments. He ignores texts that when it's convenient. When talking about how we won’t stand before God at the Great White Throne, he doesn't mention Matthew 25 due the fact that it took place before the Cross. Nor does he refer to Romans 14:9-12.
He also portrays those with whom he disagrees in the worst possible light. For example, he hones in on those who think we must confess our sins (post-conversion) and that the Spirit convicts us as thought God's children are condemned when in reality the word "convict" to make aware of one’s sinfulness and guilt.
I just think he could be more thorough in his arguments and more gracious in his presentation. There are more solid teachers out there. A book that may be of good use in understanding sanctification is Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.
I just realized that because I posted in the main thread, you would not get notified. So I have copied my response below into this thread for your convenience. You may or may not fully agree with my conclusions, but greatly appreciate the discussion.
My original response:
Thank you for more details, shows you have some actual disagreements scripturally, and you are not just an internet troll or caught up in some cult of personality. Appreciated.
Thank you also for the resource recommendation. I am always looking for new perspectives, that is kind of the entire point of my article! If we are in Christ, then other perspectives are not fearful, whether we agree or not.
I have read or listened to dozens of not hundreds of resources. Every single one has ignored some aspect of scripture when making their point, Andrew Farley included. Whether this is deliberate or simply an oversight, I cannot judge. In most cases, it is probably simply being human. We all see through the glass darkly.
As to the specific concerns you mention, perhaps there is a misunderstanding for some of them. The two main judgment camps are 1) one judgment for all, or 2) two judgments, with a separate judgment for believers. Andrew clearly is in camp 1, as am I.
He has definitely mentioned the sheep and the goats before, and I believe Romans 9 also. I believe both passages you mention support #1. That little word 'ALL' causes no end of issues though, I admit. But perhaps you simply haven't heard all of his teaching on this. Seems like you would agree with #1 since you pointed out those passages.
As far as both convict and confess, there is scant evidence in scripture for the traditional perspective or emphasis on these. Conviction is tied directly to the Holy Spirit only once (John 16) and confession is tied to sin only once (1 John 1). Thus, these are emphasized much less in scripture than in most churches. Take that as you will, but I try my best to emphasize what scripture does.
Regardless, confession (homologéō) means to "agree with or consent". It is most often used in a positive way, i.e. "confess Christ is Lord", etc. Thus it means that you agree or consent that Christ is Lord. This is slightly different than in English, where it often means getting something off your chest, so to speak.
Once you understand it's meaning, you realize that confession should be a believers lifestyle, no matter the topic. You should agree with God that sin is harmful, destructive, and wrong. Sure. Just as you should also agree with God that you are forgiven of that very sin, past, present, and future. Again, agreeing with God should be a lifestyle. No question.
The main issue with the traditional meaning of confessing sin is it gets tied to forgiveness. This waters down our total forgiveness in Christ. Unless you tie it to forgiveness, I won't wrangle about it. Perhaps an over reliance on a confession ritual can be immature, but how you relate to God is between you and Him.
As far as convict, the issue there is the English translation (convict has a harsh English meaning, like convict a criminal) and the fact that scripture simply doesn't associate it with the Holy Spirit for believers. In John 16, Christ clearly explains that the 'conviction' of sin is for unbelievers. Believers are 'convicted' of their righteousness. He literally says the Holy Spirit 'convicts' those who "don't believe" of sin.
The word translated 'convict' is most often translated 'reprove'. I will quote from Strong's: "1651 elégxō – properly, to convince with solid, compelling evidence, especially to expose (prove wrong, connect)." It is a work that is done to help folks both confess (agree with) and repent (change their mind).
I do believe the Holy Spirit constantly works to convince believers of truth, so in that sense, yes, He reproves us of many things, both in a positive or negative sense. However, we must consider how scripture actually uses this word, not just our traditions.
As an unbeliever, if you are not convinced you have a sin problem, would you ever turn to Christ? Highly unlikely. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince you and expose the sin problem you have.
As believers, we have already acknowledged we have a sin problem by definition. According to Romans 6, we are now free from sin. But are you convinced of that? I know many times I am not. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince us we are truly free from sin because of His work. He convinces us of our righteousness.
You do have times like 1 Timothy 5:20 where this word is used where a church 'rebukes' an elder for open sin. But that is rare. Almost all instances are used for unbelievers (Jude 1:15 is an example).
Again, everything I have just written I have heard Andrew speak of in some form or another, so perhaps you misunderstood or did not hear all his teaching. But I am not here to defend any particular person, simply discuss my understanding of what scripture actually says. All of this is straight from scripture.
If Andrew or anyone else lines up with that great. If they don't, then that is why Romans 14 says we are all individually accountable to God. I don't have to answer for Andrew or anyone else.
But I have gone on far too long for a simple comment. If you would like to continue this discourse, please email me at my substack address: nuntiumvitae@substack.com. That way neither of us have to put our private email on a public forum.
Thank you for the discourse. Continue to walk in God's blessing and grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. Appreciated!
Do you have any particular teaching from Andrew Farley that concerns you or that you can point to? I don't really trust or agree with any teacher for that matter, but I have not found much I disagree with him that is substantial. Curious to know more details rather than just a vague comment.
GD,
Thank you for more details, shows you have some actual disagreements scripturally, and you are not just an internet troll or caught up in some cult of personality. Appreciated.
Thank you also for the resource recommendation. I am always looking for new perspectives, that is kind of the entire point of my article! If we are in Christ, then other perspectives are not fearful, whether we agree or not.
I have read or listened to dozens of not hundreds of resources. Every single one has ignored some aspect of scripture when making their point, Andrew Farley included. Whether this is deliberate or simply an oversight, I cannot judge. In most cases, it is probably simply being human. We all see through the glass darkly.
As to the specific concerns you mention, perhaps there is a misunderstanding for some of them. The two main judgment camps are 1) one judgment for all, or 2) two judgments, with a separate judgment for believers. Andrew clearly is in camp 1, as am I.
He has definitely mentioned the sheep and the goats before, and I believe Romans 9 also. I believe both passages you mention support #1. That little word 'ALL' causes no end of issues though, I admit. But perhaps you simply haven't heard all of his teaching on this. Seems like you would agree with #1 since you pointed out those passages.
As far as both convict and confess, there is scant evidence in scripture for the traditional perspective or emphasis on these. Conviction is tied directly to the Holy Spirit only once (John 16) and confession is tied to sin only once (1 John 1). Thus, these are emphasized much less in scripture than in most churches. Take that as you will, but I try my best to emphasize what scripture does.
Regardless, confession (homologéō) means to "agree with or consent". It is most often used in a positive way, i.e. "confess Christ is Lord", etc. Thus it means that you agree or consent that Christ is Lord. This is slightly different than in English, where it often means getting something off your chest, so to speak.
Once you understand it's meaning, you realize that confession should be a believers lifestyle, no matter the topic. You should agree with God that sin is harmful, destructive, and wrong. Sure. Just as you should also agree with God that you are forgiven of that very sin, past, present, and future. Again, agreeing with God should be a lifestyle. No question.
The main issue with the traditional meaning of confessing sin is it gets tied to forgiveness. This waters down our total forgiveness in Christ. Unless you tie it to forgiveness, I won't wrangle about it. Perhaps an over reliance on a confession ritual can be immature, but how you relate to God is between you and Him.
As far as convict, the issue there is the English translation (convict has a harsh English meaning, like convict a criminal) and the fact that scripture simply doesn't associate it with the Holy Spirit for believers. In John 16, Christ clearly explains that the 'conviction' of sin is for unbelievers. Believers are 'convicted' of their righteousness. He literally says the Holy Spirit 'convicts' those who "don't believe" of sin.
The word translated 'convict' is most often translated 'reprove'. I will quote from Strong's: "1651 elégxō – properly, to convince with solid, compelling evidence, especially to expose (prove wrong, connect)." It is a work that is done to help folks both confess (agree with) and repent (change their mind).
I do believe the Holy Spirit constantly works to convince believers of truth, so in that sense, yes, He reproves us of many things, both in a positive or negative sense. However, we must consider how scripture actually uses this word, not just our traditions.
As an unbeliever, if you are not convinced you have a sin problem, would you ever turn to Christ? Highly unlikely. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince you and expose the sin problem you have.
As believers, we have already acknowledged we have a sin problem by definition. According to Romans 6, we are now free from sin. But are you convinced of that? I know many times I am not. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince us we are truly free from sin because of His work. He convinces us of our righteousness.
You do have times like 1 Timothy 5:20 where this word is used where a church 'rebukes' an elder for open sin. But that is rare. Almost all instances are used for unbelievers (Jude 1:15 is an example).
Again, everything I have just written I have heard Andrew speak of in some form or another, so perhaps you misunderstood or did not hear all his teaching. But I am not here to defend any particular person, simply discuss my understanding of what scripture actually says. All of this is straight from scripture.
If Andrew or anyone else lines up with that great. If they don't, then that is why Romans 14 says we are all individually accountable to God. I don't have to answer for Andrew or anyone else.
But I have gone on far too long for a simple comment. If you would like to continue this discourse, please email me at my substack address: nuntiumvitae@substack.com. That way neither of us have to put our private email on a public forum.
Thank you for the discourse. Continue to walk in God's blessing and grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. Appreciated!
His books can be helpful in some ways, but he doesn't make solid arguments. He ignores texts that when it's convenient. When talking about how we won’t stand before God at the Great White Throne, he doesn't mention Matthew 25 due the fact that it took place before the Cross. Nor does he refer to Romans 14:9-12.
He also portrays those with whom he disagrees in the worst possible light. For example, he hones in on those who think we must confess our sins (post-conversion) and that the Spirit convicts us as thought God's children are condemned when in reality the word "convict" to make aware of one’s sinfulness and guilt.
I just think he could be more thorough in his arguments and more gracious in his presentation. There are more solid teachers out there. A book that may be of good use in understanding sanctification is Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.
GD,
I just realized that because I posted in the main thread, you would not get notified. So I have copied my response below into this thread for your convenience. You may or may not fully agree with my conclusions, but greatly appreciate the discussion.
My original response:
Thank you for more details, shows you have some actual disagreements scripturally, and you are not just an internet troll or caught up in some cult of personality. Appreciated.
Thank you also for the resource recommendation. I am always looking for new perspectives, that is kind of the entire point of my article! If we are in Christ, then other perspectives are not fearful, whether we agree or not.
I have read or listened to dozens of not hundreds of resources. Every single one has ignored some aspect of scripture when making their point, Andrew Farley included. Whether this is deliberate or simply an oversight, I cannot judge. In most cases, it is probably simply being human. We all see through the glass darkly.
As to the specific concerns you mention, perhaps there is a misunderstanding for some of them. The two main judgment camps are 1) one judgment for all, or 2) two judgments, with a separate judgment for believers. Andrew clearly is in camp 1, as am I.
He has definitely mentioned the sheep and the goats before, and I believe Romans 9 also. I believe both passages you mention support #1. That little word 'ALL' causes no end of issues though, I admit. But perhaps you simply haven't heard all of his teaching on this. Seems like you would agree with #1 since you pointed out those passages.
As far as both convict and confess, there is scant evidence in scripture for the traditional perspective or emphasis on these. Conviction is tied directly to the Holy Spirit only once (John 16) and confession is tied to sin only once (1 John 1). Thus, these are emphasized much less in scripture than in most churches. Take that as you will, but I try my best to emphasize what scripture does.
Regardless, confession (homologéō) means to "agree with or consent". It is most often used in a positive way, i.e. "confess Christ is Lord", etc. Thus it means that you agree or consent that Christ is Lord. This is slightly different than in English, where it often means getting something off your chest, so to speak.
Once you understand it's meaning, you realize that confession should be a believers lifestyle, no matter the topic. You should agree with God that sin is harmful, destructive, and wrong. Sure. Just as you should also agree with God that you are forgiven of that very sin, past, present, and future. Again, agreeing with God should be a lifestyle. No question.
The main issue with the traditional meaning of confessing sin is it gets tied to forgiveness. This waters down our total forgiveness in Christ. Unless you tie it to forgiveness, I won't wrangle about it. Perhaps an over reliance on a confession ritual can be immature, but how you relate to God is between you and Him.
As far as convict, the issue there is the English translation (convict has a harsh English meaning, like convict a criminal) and the fact that scripture simply doesn't associate it with the Holy Spirit for believers. In John 16, Christ clearly explains that the 'conviction' of sin is for unbelievers. Believers are 'convicted' of their righteousness. He literally says the Holy Spirit 'convicts' those who "don't believe" of sin.
The word translated 'convict' is most often translated 'reprove'. I will quote from Strong's: "1651 elégxō – properly, to convince with solid, compelling evidence, especially to expose (prove wrong, connect)." It is a work that is done to help folks both confess (agree with) and repent (change their mind).
I do believe the Holy Spirit constantly works to convince believers of truth, so in that sense, yes, He reproves us of many things, both in a positive or negative sense. However, we must consider how scripture actually uses this word, not just our traditions.
As an unbeliever, if you are not convinced you have a sin problem, would you ever turn to Christ? Highly unlikely. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince you and expose the sin problem you have.
As believers, we have already acknowledged we have a sin problem by definition. According to Romans 6, we are now free from sin. But are you convinced of that? I know many times I am not. Thus, the Holy Spirit works to convince us we are truly free from sin because of His work. He convinces us of our righteousness.
You do have times like 1 Timothy 5:20 where this word is used where a church 'rebukes' an elder for open sin. But that is rare. Almost all instances are used for unbelievers (Jude 1:15 is an example).
Again, everything I have just written I have heard Andrew speak of in some form or another, so perhaps you misunderstood or did not hear all his teaching. But I am not here to defend any particular person, simply discuss my understanding of what scripture actually says. All of this is straight from scripture.
If Andrew or anyone else lines up with that great. If they don't, then that is why Romans 14 says we are all individually accountable to God. I don't have to answer for Andrew or anyone else.
But I have gone on far too long for a simple comment. If you would like to continue this discourse, please email me at my substack address: nuntiumvitae@substack.com. That way neither of us have to put our private email on a public forum.
Thank you for the discourse. Continue to walk in God's blessing and grow in grace and knowledge of Christ. Appreciated!
You should be wary of Andrew Farley and look for more solid teachers.
Do you have any particular teaching from Andrew Farley that concerns you or that you can point to? I don't really trust or agree with any teacher for that matter, but I have not found much I disagree with him that is substantial. Curious to know more details rather than just a vague comment.