SIN

This post requires feedback. Thanks.


Ok. A friend of mine was talking to me over coffee the other night and began drawing a diagram of different thoughts he had for the upcoming part of his life. Although the conversation was primarily about him, I tried to make it equally applicable to me, so I would too gain from it. I tried to redraw his diagram for you.

So here is my question.
Is there a difference between sin being covered and sin being destroyed? Previously, I recognized the phrases as they were used as interchangeable. But is it possible that they are quite different? This is just a thought. Not a belief.

In his diagram you will see the left side showing a lower foundation of sinful nature. Theft, lust, adultery, lying, etc. Jesus' blood covers over that sin and He begins to lay a mroe righteous foundation. But slowly the previous sin nature begins to stack up on this new structure. And Jesus' blood is once again needed to cover the sin and lay a new foundation. Eventually, had the diagram continues, there would be a tall unstable structure of sin and covering that would seem unsightly. The right side of the diagram suggests the destruction of sin. The untraceable lack of it. Here, the blood of Jesus destroyed sin and then laid a new foundation. There is no remnant of past sin that would even suggest recognition.

Is there a difference?
Is it not worth thought??

Alot of verses talking about sin being covered. In 1 Peter 4:8 in talks about LOVE covers sin. So what if love covers sin. But grace destroys it. Do we have to receive grace in a different way to love? And does it affect our sin nature in a different way?

Does one allow a remnant of flesh? Does the other conquer flesh??

Hmmmmm.