Does God Sever Fellowship With Us When We Sin?

[Ariel82]

I've heard this repeated time and again. While we won't lose salvation when we sin, God will, however, break fellowship with us until we "repent" and stop sinning.

My question is this: How many times a day does God cease fellowship with us? Since we sin many times a day (if you're honest, you know this is true) does that mean we have fellowship, lose it, have it back, lose it again, get it back, all day long etc., ad nauseam?

And please don't bring up the old "pattern" of sin thing. As we indeed sin every day, day after day, week after week, etc. we all have such a pattern.

Do any believe we lose fellowship with God when we sin?

If so, why?

I am not sure what you mean by "break fellowship" but God has put me in timeout a few times in my life. Uts not pleasant but He never abandoned me and always came when I called....called in humbleness and repentance versus anger and self righteousness.

God is our heavenly Father and disciplines His children accordingly to teach us right and wro,g and a better way to live our lives and get along with our brethren.

 

[BillG]

Can you elaborate a bit on what I said confuses you?

Concerning Romans 7:13, to my mind Paul at times did communicate in a strange way. Ths is one of them.

Please note that I'm not saying what you have said confuses me but the whole concept of our nature as a believer.
Our New Nature.

Do we have a dual nature?
Righteous and unrighteousness?

So in Romans 7 Paul says

Romans 7:13-23
13 But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my death? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to death. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God’s good commands for its own evil purposes.
14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me.

I just don't get the bit where he says I don't want to do wrong, I don't want to sin but I do it anyway.
But I don't want to do it then it's not me but the sin that resides in me.

Most translations use or say sinful nature

Romans 7:18
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

I understand that the word nature is 'sarx' which means flesh.

But to me if I sin where does it come from?

For me if I sin, when I sin it is in me, it's my nature that sins.

I have no excuse for my sin, I hate my sin, I hate my struggle with sin traits.

So I'm choosing to sin. I don't need seek it. Yes I struggle with it but do not want it.

So is my nature unrighteous?

If so then Paul says

1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,




Galatians 5:19-25


19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

So if I seek fruit but struggle with anger then what.

Am I as person in my new nature/spirit unrighteous or righteous.
What does God see?

Bet your glad you asked

 

[UnderGrace]

We have Christ's actual righteousness.

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:4b ... He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become [FONT=&quot]partakers of the divine nature[/FONT], having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

​

I think you're getting into that same spirit you were in when you falsely accused me of something. Remember?

But back to the issue. We have imputed righteousness, but not actual righteousness. Our spirit is righteous, but we, of ourselves, are not righteous because our body/soul is tainted with unrighteousness. We are clothed with Christ's righteousness through faith.

 

[Marcelo]

still valid, the usage of law is talking about the divine law and that which is assigned, hence usage of the word law.

So, you mean you are not saved by faith and grace? We have to keep a specific number of divine laws?

 

[Ariel82]

We often confuse everyday colloquial language with precise biblical language.

This is happening in several others threads simultaneously right now... it's a very common problem.



Generally, when we say "we break fellowship with God", or "God breaks fellowship with us", we aren't trying to use precise biblical language to describe a precise doctrinal event... we're merely trying to describe, in common language, some kind of change in our personal walk with God.

I don't use this particular phrase much, because it's so incredibly confusing if we view it doctrinally.
This is probably why the OP is bringing it up.

But as a general principle, we DO use words and phrases differently in common everyday speech than we would use when doing precise doctrinal exegesis.

And so we probably need to do two things:
1. Make some allowance for "broader" and "looser" uses of language for common, everyday use.
2. Still recognize there is a difference between "common use" and "precise biblical use", and be able to understand and define them both.

What's going on in this thread is an exercise of point #2.
That's important.
But when we're all done, lets be sure to consider point #1 as well.

Yep totally agree.
.it happens often that people will use the same phrase but it means two totally different things to each person.

"Break fellowship" can mean God will abandon and reject someone...or it can mean that you feel more distant and that God sees your sin and wants you to turn from evil and walk back on the path that God meant for you to walk....less pits and snakes.

Depending on what people mean by the phrase.,,you get a variety of responses.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So is my nature unrighteous?

Our nature is unrighteous, but Christ's nature within us via the holy spirit is righteous. We walk by faith. That walk is transforming us into the righteousness of GOD in Christ where eventually (not in this life) we will be perfected in righteousness when we are given a new body untainted with unrighteousness.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

you have a spirit in you from God, it has a nature, its nature is righteous... that is actual righteousness. you have not purposed anything to discredit that spiritually.

not getting upset with you like then getting confused because you are saying one thing, then saying another. then you are calling others out for what you yourself are doing.

if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, its a duck.

i'm just calling what i see, and i see a duck.

OK, sorry, not trying to be confusing. I don't think I've said anything contradictory. I can agree that we have A righteous nature within us, which is the spirit of Christ, but I disagree that we ourselves - body, soul and spirit - are righteous. Does that make sense?

 

[Honey_Bee]

The flesh is dead to God, and we are dead to sin. Confessing sin comforts the flesh.


We need to understand who we are as the church the body of Christ, in the ministry of reconciliation. That term in and of itself "reconciliation" does not mesh well with minding the flesh. We are to focus on understanding our spirit, the spirit of holiness, we are not born again, we are made alive, we have received the spirit that is of God... and we are called two part, by a high calling(reconciliation), and by a holy calling(fellowship), as "the church the body of Christ"

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Lewiz]

That's why I spoke in general terms to give Ben the opportunity to express what he believes. I know for a fact that he has expressed ideas that align with HG doctrine, and anyone who has looked into the matter knows that doctrine is diametrically opposed to what I said, which Ben said didn't make sense. So if he's following HG doctrine on the matter, that's why.

I might suggest using Freegrace instead of HG. It's the same thing, with no restrictions.

 

[maxwel]

Yep totally agree.
.it happens often that people will use the same phrase but it means two totally different things to each person.

"Break fellowship" can mean God will abandon and reject someone...or it can mean that you feel more distant and that God sees your sin and wants you to turn from evil and walk back on the path that God meant for you to walk....less pits and snakes.

Depending on what people mean by the phrase.,,you get a variety of responses.

Yes.

Once again we have a debate going without any terms defined.

So... all the usual confusion.

: )

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

the new birth, the book of romans for starters.

you have two distinct natures in you the flesh and its desire for the sin nature, and the spirit and its desire for the divine nature. you choose what one you follow.

Yeah, I agree with this.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

you have a spirit in you from God, it has a nature, its nature is righteous... that is actual righteousness. you have not purposed anything to discredit that spiritually.

not getting upset with you like then getting confused because you are saying one thing, then saying another. then you are calling others out for what you yourself are doing.

if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, its a duck.

i'm just calling what i see, and i see a duck.

FWIW, I did not read a post you made about us having two natures until just a moment ago. Sometimes I start with the latest post and work backwards, which apparently I did in this case.

 

[BillG]

Our nature is unrighteous, but Christ's nature within us via the holy spirit is righteous. We walk by faith. That walk is transforming us into the righteousness of GOD in Christ where eventually (not in this life) we will be perfected in righteousness when we are given a new body untainted with unrighteousness.

Thanks for answering.

So do we have a dual nature?

It's the sin residing in the flesh I don't get.

I understand sanctification.

Maybe I'm falling foul of focusing on my sin rather than focusing on not wanting to sin or the other way around.

 

[Lewiz]

​

Originally Posted by HeRoseFromTheDead

Believers are unrighteous by nature, but they do not live in sin. They live in the awareness that they are unrighteous, yet are clothed with righteousness, and repent and acknowledge sin when they commit it.​

I didn't say ignore ⬆. Discuss! Maybe use some contextual Scripture to support your assertions. Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 5 clearly contradict what you say above, and not one Scripture comes to mind that says that believers are unrighteous.




I said to ignore or report ⬇. What you say below IS baiting, and is an attempt to do what you accuse me of doing: stir up trouble to shut down amicable discussion.

​

Originally Posted by HeRoseFromTheDead

It should sound completely backwards to those who've been indoctrinated in hyper-grace doctrine.​

-JGIG

I've read the thread & have noticed no arguments between BenFTW & HRFTD.

If you don't like what they're discussing, you can talk about something else.

You're not a mod, but you're acting like a judge.

If I was him, I'd say the same thing....... mind your own business.

Call a mod. They will find nothing but you judging HeRoseFromTheDead.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Thanks for answering.

So do we have a dual nature?

It's the sin residing in the flesh I don't get.

I understand sanctification.

Maybe I'm falling foul of focusing on my sin rather than focusing on not wanting to sin or the other way around.

I look at myself and realize that I don't know how to do righteousness. There is nothing I received from Adam that knows how to do that. So that makes me realize quite acutely that I am not righteous. That makes me turn to GOD and ask for help in seeing the way to go. Then the words and spirit of the last Adam show me how to do it. So I wouldn't say that we have a dual nature, but that the divine nature lives alongside our unrighteous nature through the miracle of the cross.

 

[BillG]

I always thought of a white lie as not exactly telling exactly what you think. For instance, it's mothers day and we are doing a big feast for mom - ribs on the grill, shrimp, corn on the cob, slaw, beans, etc., etc.

She was getting cranked up in her bedroom trying on outfit after outfit. She felt like she looked fat in every one of them. She has gained a fair amount of weight over about three months. She wanted something where it wouldn't be noticeable. I said I liked best what she had on two outfits ago. I said it hid all her weight gain and was very slimming. It doesn't hide all her weight gain. It hid her weight gain best of all the outfits but it didn't hide it all. So to me, that's a white lie. You aren't brutally truthful and your intent is to make someone relax and not feel bad.

I don't feel the Spirit nagging at my mind that I did a deceitful and bad thing. I feel I made someone feel better. I'll let Him be the judge of if I committed an atrocity. My own mind and heart are not condemning me or telling me to "make things right."

Ok maybe it's semantics.

Take the word lie out if the equation and replace it with tact.

Maybe replace it with truth.

Who gives two hoots if the dress makes you look fat?
The person asking the question.

What's the answer?

You are beautiful whatever you wear, if people are gonna judge you on what you wear or your weight leave them to it.
To God you are beautiful.

 

[BenFTW]

It should sound completely backwards to those who've been indoctrinated in hyper-grace doctrine.

That was unnecessary HeRoseFromTheDead.

Let me ask you, how can believers be unrighteous by nature and yet "they do not live in sin?" If it is your nature, its how you would act. A liar is someone who lies. It is their nature. If sin is our nature, then we would sin and only sin. Who has God called you to be? Who has He made you to be, in Christ?

Knowing that we should reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive unto God, that sin shall not have dominion over us not being under the law but grace, what excuse can we make for sin? How are we who are dead to sin, live therein (as the apostle Paul says)? To say that our nature is unrighteous gives us an excuse, we might as well say, "God made me do it." Yet, we are called to walk in holiness and righteousness. We have been born-again, made new creations. No longer slaves to sin, but of righteousness. Using our members for righteousness unto God.

The doctrine you're espousing gives people an excuse. What I am proposing is that we awake to righteousness and sin not (though if we do sin, we have an Advocate with the Father). For you to define the believer as having the nature of unrighteousness, you leave them in bondage to sin and its dominion.

 

[maxwel]

That was unnecessary HeRoseFromTheDead.

Let me ask you, how can believers be unrighteous by nature and yet "they do not live in sin?" If it is your nature, its how you would act. A liar is someone who lies. It is their nature. If sin is our nature, then we would sin and only sin. Who has God called you to be? Who has He made you to be, in Christ?

Knowing that we should reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive unto God, that sin shall not have dominion over us not being under the law but grace, what excuse can we make for sin? How are we who are dead to sin, live therein (as the apostle Paul says)? To say that our nature is unrighteous gives us an excuse, we might as well say, "God made me do it." Yet, we are called to walk in holiness and righteousness. We have been born-again, made new creations. No longer slaves to sin, but of righteousness. Using our members for righteousness unto God.

The doctrine you're espousing gives people an excuse. What I am proposing is that we awake to righteousness and sin not (though if we do sin, we have an Advocate with the Father). For you to define the believer as having the nature of unrighteousness, you leave them in bondage to sin and its dominion.

Ben, you cannot propose believers DO NOT SIN, because you admit that we DO.

So if you say believers merely SHOULD NOT SIN, that is the same position taken by everyone else.


Therefore, why all the fuss over this issue?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That was unnecessary HeRoseFromTheDead.

Please explain why it was unnecessary. I can't read your mind.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Let me ask you, how can believers be unrighteous by nature and yet "they do not live in sin?" If it is your nature, its how you would act. A liar is someone who lies. It is their nature. If sin is our nature, then we would sin and only sin. Who has God called you to be? Who has He made you to be, in Christ?

Because they obey the divine nature within them that teaches them to deny the longings of their unrighteous nature and do the longings of the holy spirit, i.e., righteousness.