Don't be too hard on yourself

Originally posted by sonship
And I test the sincerity of your asking.
That's allowed here.

A straight forward and obvious question about the things you have been saying and your vanity seems well and truly ruffled by its inconvenience.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You really need to read 1 John 3:4-10 as a whole and in context.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do.

You've made it clear that you don't understand what the writer is saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... ng and the influence of the world is deepening and growing. The darkness is PASSING away.[/b]

1 John 3:4-10 is explicit and unambiguous. If the writer had meant for that passage to be taken as "process", he would have written as such.

C'mon jaywill, You read what is written and you make up stories in your mind as to what you fancy they might say instead of letting the words speak for themselves.

You've done that here with 1 John 3:4-10.

You've done that with that quote from Neil Armstrong where he said, ""There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers,"

You do it quite often with both scripture and what others on this forum have written. As I recall, others have repeatedly complained about it to you. Whether or not you want to accept it, the problem is with how you deal with the written word.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

1 John 3:4-10 is explicit and unambiguous. If the writer had meant for that passage to be taken as "process", he would have written as such.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The darkness is passing away." That reveals a process.

We also have experience of this.


C'mon jaywill,
--------------------------

You don't have it.
You don't know what is being revealed here in First John.


You read what is written and you make up stories in your mind as to what you fancy they might say instead of letting the words speak for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Young children, young men, and fathers " in the brotherhood clearly indicate levels of maturity. And developing maturity indicates a process.

You should begin at the beginning. Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and receive Him into your heart. That would improve your understanding of the New Testament.


You've done that here with 1 John 3:4-10.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The New Testament speaks with one voice. The process of transformation is seen clearly in a passage like Second Corinthians 3:17,18.

"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being TRANSFORMED into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit." ( 2 Cor. 3:17,18)

The word "transformed" there in the Greek is the word from which we get the English word metamorphosis . And metamorphosis is about a process.

The phrase "BEING TRANSFORMED" is not my imaginative insertion. It is was the Apostle Paul wrote. And this "being transformed" is from one degree of glory to another, to another, to another ... successively through degrees of glory. That is degrees of expression of Christ.

The process of transformation is also seen in Romans 12:1 Paul exhorts the believers to be transformed by the renewing of the mind.

" And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be TRANSFORMED by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect." (Rom. 12:2)

John is talking about the same thing. However, his way of utterance there is absolute sounding.

Even God's love being PERFECTED in the audience reveals an ongoing process. He does not say God's love is perfect in them. Rather he says God's love is PERFECTED in them, which reveals a process of perfecting.

"No one has behold God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us." ( 4:12)

This utterance of John reminds us of the prayer he recorded from the lips of the Lord Jesus. That is that His disciples would be PERFECTED into one. And that too reveals a process.

" I [Jesus] in them, and You [Father] in Me, that they may be PERFECTED into one ... " (John 17:23a)

Sanctification is a process.
Transformation is a process.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are an insult to Jesus Christ who must be laughing a your nonsense. Imagine, a professed follower of Christ goes about recommending books and authors of all types but NEVER EVER have you once recommended the teachings of Christ for anyone to read. You in fact do the opposite and tell people that Christ teachings and doctrine do not apply, or are works oriented or are too many. Shameless.

Your argumentation over this topic has made me start to think about this more as it is seems to be contradictory in the Bible. It's is a very good technical point of doctrine that you raise.

However, what grates persistently on me is you clearly not living what you preach and demand of other Christians. You should be flowing with the love, generosity and spirit of Christ. Readers here should be absorbed by how the life of Christ flows through the words, the tone and the spirit of your posts should be as if Christ himself were reaching out. Instead you are just like the rest of us.

So, despite my interest, I end up dismissing your claims as scriptural technicalities and you as a one trick doctrinal pony with a bit of an axe to grind. My opinion doesn't make you technically wrong, in fact you may have something here, it just makes you less interesting and somewhat difficult to accept as sincere. Certainly not very pleasant.

Christ was and is, appealing.

Originally posted by divegeester to Rajk999
However, what grates persistently on me is you clearly not living what you preach and demand of other Christians. You should be flowing with the love, generosity and spirit of Christ.

I think you have your tongue in your cheek. Many of the prominent Christians here are not "flowing with the love, generosity and spirit of Christ" at all and there is no onus on Rajk999 to come across any more or less cuddly on a message board that has headless chicken Christians like josephw and Suzianne on it ~ or sonship's industrial strength vanity and sneering inability to function properly as a person one would want to emulate [when he's knocked off his regurgitation script]. There's plenty of 'grating' going on here .

But Rajk999 has never asked people about how they are living and has never tried to use how he is living to condescend others. He has never denied that he is a "sinner". His conflict with sonship is not a hey-look-at-me or I-be-holier-than-though one (on Rajk999's part, anyway). It's about what the doctrine is, what the Bible means, and whether or not sonship's theology makes him a false teacher.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you have your tongue in your cheek. Many of the prominent Christians here are not "flowing with the love, generosity and spirit of Christ" at all and there is no onus on Rajk999 to come across any more or less cuddly on a message board that has headless chicken Christians like josephw and Suzianne on it ~ or sonship's industrial strength vanity and sne ...[text shortened]... trine is, what the Bible means, and whether or not sonship's theology makes him a false teacher.

No I'm being perfectly serious, as you know 😉

My post addresses my thoughts on the technical merits of Rajk999's doctrine, and he has point, technically, but I don't believe that he actually believes it as a Christian himself as he clearly doesn't seem to be able demonstrate or at least present it here. It's his sincerity of belief it as Christian that I question.

I don't think any other Christian here, including and especially myself, presents in these forums any better form than Raj999.

For example: if I as a sincere Christian was preaching a works based salvation and yet presenting myself no better than anyone else, I would not be surprised if I wasn't taken very seriously.

Originally posted by divegeester
My post addresses my thoughts on the technical merits of Rajk999's doctrine, and he has point, technically, but I don't believe that he actually believes it as a Christian himself as he clearly doesn't seem to be able demonstrate or at least present it here. It's his sincerity of belief it as Christian that I question.

I don't see it as a "technical" matter, for what it's worth, but ~ apparently and arguably ~ as a fundamental matter.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't believe that he actually believes it as a Christian himself as he clearly doesn't seem to be able demonstrate or at least present it here. It's his sincerity of belief it as Christian that I question.

What is it you want him to "demonstrate"?

Originally posted by FMF
What is it you want him to "demonstrate"?

Nothing, actually. I'm commenting on what is demonstrated.

My issue with him in a nutshell, is that I don't believe he is a Christian. I can't prove it of course, but I know. He's dishonest about that and I'm just calling him on it. I fully expect him, yourself and others slap me, and that's ok.

To be clear, although I disagree with him in some points, I do not object to his posts or his argumentation and as I've said above, he makes a good job of it and it has made me think about what I believe to a point.

However, I simply don't find him to be a sincere Christian. It may be of no concern or interest to you or others but I find it interesting why he feels he needs to pretend to be one (as ToO) does.

Originally posted by divegeester to Rajk999
I end up dismissing your claims as scriptural technicalities and you as a one trick doctrinal pony with a bit of an axe to grind. My opinion doesn't make you technically wrong, in fact you may have something here, it just makes you less interesting and somewhat difficult to accept as sincere. Certainly not very pleasant.

I see sonship as the One Trick Pony. Rajk999 is a Two Trick Pony. But, crucially, I don't think there is a Third Trick to Christianity. Belief and deeds... Faith and works... Theory and action. There you have the two ponies. So, if that premise is right, doesn't that make the existence of a Second Trick crucial ~ and the show-ponying of only One Trick, surely, an error? As for the pugnacity demonstrated, it's just a form of verve, I think. At least it's not a kind of furtive, casually dishonest, logical fallacy-strewn, and pouting pugnacity, like sonship's.

Sanctification is a process.
Transformation is a process.[/b]

Early this morning I was bothered by whether I was sure or not that "transformed" in Romans 12:2 and Second Corinthains 3:18 was really a Greek word from which the English metamorphasis was derived. Maybe I recalled incorrectly.

In double checking I found this note from Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
[My bolding] and it would be pronounced as metamorpho in transliteration just below this.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3339: μεταμορφόω

μεταμορφόω, μεταμόρφω: passive, present μεταμορφοῦμαι; 1 aorist μετεμορφώθη; to change into another form (cf. μετά, III. 2), to transfigure, transform: μετεμορφώθη, of Christ, his appearance was changed (A. V. he was transfigured), i. e. was resplendent with a divine brightness, Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2 (for which Luke 9:29 gives ἐγένετο τό εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον ); of Christians: τήν αὐτήν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα, we are transformed into the same image (of consummate excellence that shines in Christ), reproduce the same image, 2 Corinthians 3:18; on the simple accusative after verbs of motion, change, division, cf. Bos, Ellips. (edited by Schaefer), pp. 679ff; Matthiae, § 409; (Jelf, § 636 obs. 2; cf. Buttmann, 190 (164); 396 (339); Winer's Grammar, § 32, 5); used of the change of moral character for the better, Romans 12:2; with which compare Seneca, epistles 6 at the beginning,intelligo non emendari me tantum, sed transfigurari. ((Diodorus 4, 81; Plutarch de adulat. et amic. 7; others); Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 10 under the end; leg. ad Gaium § 13; Athen. 8, p. 334 c.; Aelian v. h. 1, 1; Lucian, as. 11.) (Synonym: cf. μετασχηματίζω.)

http://biblehub.com/greek/3339.htm

Originally posted by divegeester
Your argumentation over this topic has made me start to think about this more as it is seems to be contradictory in the Bible. It's is a very good technical point of doctrine that you raise.

However, what grates persistently on me is you clearly not living what you preach and demand of other Christians. You should be flowing with the love, generosity ...[text shortened]... t difficult to accept as sincere. Certainly not very pleasant.

Christ was and is, appealing.

Thanks for your comments which I appreciate .. both positive and negative ones. I can say that if I raise points which are good [and which make you think] then I have succeeded, as that is all that I am really interested in. What you say about me, orwhat you think of me personally I also appreciate those comments but to be honest [and dont take this personally] ... that is your problem and for you to deal with. Jesus will judge me. I have not judged anyone's personality or personal behavior. Many Christians here call me liar, dumb, devil, satan and other derogatory terms. I dont tell sonship that he does not DO good works neither do I tell him that he does not live righteously as that is for Jesus Christ to judge. I tell sonship that he does not PREACH what Jesus and the Apostles preached [in my opinion].

I am here to discuss the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles. Even if one is not able to live it [which is your opinion of me] that human failing should not stop a Christian from teaching the doctrine of Christ. My personal life, my mannerism my tone of voice my personality is irrelevant. If someone makes that their business then they have a problem... they can deal with it.

Thanks again for your comments which I appreciate. You are more honest and straightforward than most Christians on this site .. 🙂 You are the first to say this .. It's is a very good technical point of doctrine that you raise.

Originally posted by divegeester
Nothing, actually. I'm commenting on what is demonstrated.

My issue with him in a nutshell, is that I don't believe he is a Christian. I can't prove it of course, but I know. He's dishonest about that and I'm just calling him on it. I fully expect him, yourself and others slap me, and that's ok.

To be clear, although I disagree with him in some p ...[text shortened]... ou or others but I find it interesting why he feels he needs to pretend to be one (as ToO) does.

This is all Im interested in : .. he makes a good job of it and it has made me think about what I believe to a point. . My sincerity as a Christian, Christ will judge.

In no way am I likening myself to Paul, but many Christians and Jews and Gentiles did not initially accept what Paul was preaching because they knew his history. The ability to separate what a man says from what a man does is a good skill to have.

Am I speaking the truth as stated in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
Does what I say make sense.
If it is then I am happy. My personal failings should not influence you accepting what Christ said.

On transformation being a process, this portion of ministry is helpful.

The Life Study of Second Corinthian by Witness Lee

http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=052B0F0F75
[my bolding]

A METABOLIC PROCESS

The word transformed is a good word; however, it does not convey the full meaning of the Greek word. Instead of transformed, some versions of the Bible use the word “changed.” This word is very inadequate; it is a poor equivalent of the Greek word. The King James Version renders this Greek word transformed in Romans 12:2, but translates it as changed in 2 Corinthians 3:18.

We need to know the difference between change and transformation. Transformation involves the process of metabolism. However, something may change without being affected metabolically. Many things may change in an outward way without any inward metabolic transformation.

In the process of metabolism a new element is supplied to an organism. This new element replaces the old element and causes it to be discharged. Therefore, as the process of metabolism takes place within a living organism, something new is created within it to replace the old element, which is carried away. Metabolism, therefore, includes three matters: first, the supplying of a new element; second, the replacing of the old element with this new element; and third, the discharge or the removal of the old element so that something new may be produced.

The digestion and assimilation of the food we eat involves metabolism. First we take the food into our stomach. Then the food is digested metabolically to supply our being so that new elements may be added to replace the old and that new cells may be brought into being. Through this process of metabolism we grow and are strengthened. Also through proper metabolism we may be healed of certain illnesses. Constantly a healing is taking place in our physical bodies through the process of metabolism. This healing is not caused by medicine given by a physician; it is the healing that is caused by the proper functioning of the body itself. Daily by the process of metabolism we can experience healing.

I wish to emphasize the fact that transformation is a metabolic process, a metabolic change. We may define transformation as spiritual metabolism. Concerning this, I appreciate Paul's care in choosing words. Paul, a marvelous writer, is always precise in his choice of words. In 3:18 he deliberately chose a Greek word which is best translated by the English word transformed.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you have your tongue in your cheek. Many of the prominent Christians here are not "flowing with the love, generosity and spirit of Christ" at all and there is no onus on Rajk999 to come across any more or less cuddly on a message board that has headless chicken Christians like josephw and Suzianne on it ~ or sonship's industrial strength vanity and sne ...[text shortened]... trine is, what the Bible means, and whether or not sonship's theology makes him a false teacher.

Thanks for these supporting comments FMF. much appreciated.