Originally posted by karoly aczelThe best to you too.
Think about it.
I can see your viewpoint.
I'm not about adding new viewpoints, I'm about taking them away,stripping back people to their "origonal faces".
A stronger conviction may lead to a harder, swifter fall. Perhaps.
Happy Easter Sunday from down under,ThinkOfOne. All the best
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat you have posted here once again does not address any of the three counter-arguments.
The absurdity continues. Yet another prime example for anyone who wonders how those in delusion manage to hold onto irrational beliefs.
Once again, the topic of discussion is your following assertion:"a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned"
Once again, I made the followin YOU? Doubtless the "consequences" for her would be extremely painful.
I'll say it again, the 'incoherency' you've highlighted is a product of your interpretation of scripture (an interpretation which I reject). If I reject your interpretation of scripture, that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, how is it my responsibility to address the incoherency which arises as a result of adopting such a position? It is you who needs to answer for the incoherence your position produces, not me.
You claim that " even Christ's most ardent followers aren't capable of that level of perfection". However Jesus says otherwise. Jesus states in the strongest possible terms that this commandment is to be followed...
Jesus does not say otherwise in the following verses, i.e., he doesn't say explicitly that his followers will be capable of perfection. What he does do is stress the importance of holiness, but he certainly doesn't explicitly say that his followers will be perfectly holy. Nice 'come back', ThinkOfOne. 🙂
Inconsequential? What a ridiculously self-centered position to take. This is yet another prime example for the topic of this thread. Evidently you believe that the only thing of consequence is whether or not you believe YOUR "salvation" is in jeopardy.
Oh, stop. We are talking technicalities here, not personal attitudes. The point is this: if a believer sins and confesses, he is forgiven; if he is forgiven, he can henceforth be said to be in God's will; the forgiven sin is thereafter to be considered 'inconsequential' to God's final judgment. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). No where did I suggest, even remotely, that sin was without consequence in the believer's life, or that I cared nothing for the consequences of my own sins. But I'm happy you are trying this hard (even if failing miserably) to slander me; it shows how bankrupt your position is.
Even if forgiveness is granted, it does not change the fact that the "believer" did not keep His commandments in the first place.
Ah, but that's not the point. If forgiveness is granted, then it doesn't matter, from God's judicial perspective, that the believer did not keep His commandments. It is God's willingness to forgive his children that really throws a wrench into your entire 'sinless perfectionism' theology. If God has forgiven a believer who has confessed, truly forgiven him, of what use would it be for someone like you, or even the devil himself, to bring accusation against the believer? It would be a useless gesture indeed.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'll say it again, the 'incoherency' you've highlighted is a product of your interpretation of scripture (an interpretation which I reject). If I reject your interpretation of scripture, that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, how is it my responsibility to address the incoherency which arises as a result of adopting such a position? It is you who needs to answer for the incoherence your position produces, not me.
[b]What you have posted here once again does not address any of the three counter-arguments.
I'll say it again, the 'incoherency' you've highlighted is a product of your interpretation of scripture (an interpretation which I reject). If I reject your interpretation of scripture, that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, how is it my respon ation against the believer? It would be a useless gesture indeed.[/b]
lol. Your position that both "when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments" and "a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned" are true is incoherent in and of itself. End of story.
Jesus does not say otherwise in the following verses, i.e., he doesn't say explicitly that his followers will be capable of perfection. What he does do is stress the importance of holiness, but he certainly doesn't explicitly say that his followers will be perfectly holy. Nice 'come back', ThinkOfOne.
You've created yet another straw man. I never said that Jesus "explicitly [says] that his followers will be capable of perfection."
Not that there's much chance that it'll help, I'll lay it out for you:
In Mathew 5 Jesus said:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
You claim that this is impossible to follow. If that were the case one would expect Jesus to explain that it is impossible and it is not expected to be followed.
However Jesus says something very different:
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Jesus states in the strongest possible terms that anything that causes them to sin needs to be removed.
Oh, stop. We are talking technicalities here, not personal attitudes. The point is this: if a believer sins and confesses, he is forgiven; if he is forgiven, he can henceforth be said to be in God's will; the forgiven sin is thereafter to be considered 'inconsequential' to God's final judgment. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31). No where did I suggest, even remotely, that sin was without consequence in the believer's life, or that I cared nothing for the consequences of my own sins. But I'm happy you are trying this hard (even if failing miserably) to slander me; it shows how bankrupt your position is.
Ah, but that's not the point. If forgiveness is granted, then it doesn't matter, from God's judicial perspective, that the believer did not keep His commandments. It is God's willingness to forgive his children that really throws a wrench into your entire 'sinless perfectionism' theology. If God has forgiven a believer who has confessed, truly forgiven him, of what use would it be for someone like you, or even the devil himself, to bring accusation against the believer? It would be a useless gesture indeed.
Of course there are consequences other than "God's final judgment" and that's the point. If the His commandments were kept, there would not be any. But with the act of sin, i.e, the breaking of His commandment, there are consequences especially for whoever was transgressed. To believe that you have kept His commandments even though these consequences exist is extremely self-centered. It is very much the point that even if forgiveness is granted, it does not change the fact that the "believer" did not keep His commandments in the first place.
The following response does not assume to speak for Epi. It is my own view of how to address ToO's challenge using Matthew 5:27-31.
ToO writes:
==========================================
In Mathew 5 Jesus said:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
You claim that this is impossible to follow. If that were the case one would expect Jesus to explain that it is impossible and it is not expected to be followed.
However Jesus says something very different:
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Jesus states in the strongest possible terms that anything that causes them to sin needs to be removed.
===========================================
It needs to be and CAN be via the resurrected Christ as the Spirit of life indwelling the believers. The passage does not support sinless perfectionism as ToO teaches.
Jesus calls His followers to follow even if it were impossible. The possibility does not lie with man but with God and what God's life can do in man.
Whether Epi said adherinig to Matt. 5:27-31 was very hard or impossible, I cannot remember. Either way, it doesn't matter.
The expressions of amputating body members are not to be taken liturally. But the expressions do show the seriousness of not dealing with the innermost motive of such a sin. Jesus is saying the motive of such a sin must be dealt with at any cost in order to live a kingdom life.
Following Christ in this does not depend on what man is able to do. It depends on what Christ in man is able to do. So Jesus demands that we follow. For He knows that what is impossible for man is possible with God.
And He knows that He will resurrect and come to indwell the believers to be their life and divine nature. He knows that He will become the divine seed which cannot sin impanted within them. He knows that He will make them "partakers of the divine nature". And He knows that His death on the cross will provide not only the redeeming blood but the terminating power to put to death the practices of the sinful fallen flesh.
It is true that Christ's words in Matthew 5:27-31 show that His followers have to deal with the very root motive of such sin. They should deal with it at any cost. It should be serious to them to deal with it.
And it is true that in some cases a Christian could be burned in the fire if he does not deal with the motive of such a sin at any cost. If it is not possible that a Christian in some instance could be burned in a fire then Jesus would not have told the Christians in the church in Smyrna that as a reward some of them would not be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:11) .
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall by no means be hurt of the second death."
Both Matthew 5:27-31 and Revelation 2:11 show that a member of the church, a saved disciple who has been justified forever, can be disciplined by being hurt by fire after the second coming of Christ.
The passage is serious and severe. But it has to be taken with what ELSE Jesus says.
1.) With God things are possible even if with man they are impossible.
2.) Those who are merciful will also obtain mercy.
3.) With the judgment that the disciples judge they will be judged.
4.) If they do not judge they will not be judged.
Matthew 5:27-31 stands along with Christ's other teachings that if a believer is merciful to others while strict with himself, he will be shown mercy by the Lord in the coming manifestation of the kingdom:
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy." (Matt. 5:7)
The passage also stands along with what Christ taught about avoiding judgment because the follower does not judge others:
"Do not judge, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you. And why do you look at the splinter which is in your brother's eye, but the beam in your own eye you do not consider." (Matt. 7:1-3)
The teaching of Matthew 5:27-31 also stands along side of Christ's words about forgiving others:
"For if you forgive men their offenses, your heavenly Father will forgive you also; But if you do not forgive men their offenses, neither will your Father forgive your offenses." (Matt. 6:14,15)
And our Christian brother Paul illuminates much more about such passage because his experience as a disciple was so deep. His discussion in Romans 6 and 8 are the most helpful.
1.) Through the Holy Spirit we can put to death the practices of the body.
2.) If we identify with Christ His death has put to death the old man.
3.) Walking in the Spirit nullifies the lust of the flesh.
4.) We can apply the death of Jesus to kill off the old habits of the flesh.
5.) The one who has died with Christ is justified from sin.
6.) The Christian can bring every thought unto the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor. 10)
7.) The requirement of the law can be fulfilled to those who walk by the Spirit.
8.) The apostles seek to present every believer full grown in Christ.
So maturity is a matter of growth.
Of course in the Matthew passage physically cutting off the hand or physically plucking out the eye will not cure the inward lust. A Christian gambler in China actually did have his gambling hand cut off in misunderstanding of this passage. he found that it did not put in check his inward tendency to gamble though. But utilizing the undwelling Holy Spirit to terminate the practices of the body does bring one into harmony with Matthew 5:27-31.
This understanding requires that I expect Jesus to have a large lattitude of possibilities to deal with His saved and eternally justified Christians. And I do. From rewards to disciplines, Christ the King will dispense a wide range of remedies and rewards to those have been granted the gift of eternal life through faith in Him.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis isn't a Christian issue as much as a human one.
Many a time the observation has been made of “inability to reason” of many Christians when discussing spiritual beliefs. From what I’ve seen, this is not unwarranted. A couple of recent examples from two different posters on this forum:
[quote][b]Those who are “born of God” cannot and do not sin, yet will continue to sin
Even when the above contra ...[text shortened]... ristians exhibit an "inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs?
Thoughts?[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt true that the problem of "ego and delusion" is a "human issue", but that wasn't the point of the post. What makes it an issue amongst Christians is that many Christians hold beliefs that are decidedly ego affirming such as: assurance of eternal life; assurance of love and acceptance from God; assurance that one can continue to commit sin and not lose the assurances above; etc. It provides some insight as to why many Christians exhibit an "inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs.
This isn't a Christian issue as much as a human one.
Kelly
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat makes it an issue amongst Christians is that many Christians hold beliefs that are decidedly ego affirming such as: assurance of eternal life; assurance of love and acceptance from God; assurance that one can continue to commit sin and not lose the assurances above; etc.
It true that the problem of "ego and delusion" is a "human issue", but that wasn't the point of the post. What makes it an issue amongst Christians is that many Christians hold beliefs that are decidedly ego affirming such as: assurance of eternal life; assurance of love and acceptance from God; assurance that one can continue to commit sin and not lose t ...[text shortened]... o why many Christians exhibit an "inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs.
Why does assurance have to be ego affirming? If a humble person can enjoy the assurance of eternal life, then how is the assurance of eternal life 'decidedly' ego affirming? One could more accurately say that such assurances are life affirming rather than ego affirming. You haven't established yet that the assurance of eternal life and of God's love are experiences and beliefs known only by those nursing an ego, therefore you've yet to establish that such beliefs are linked in any real way to an 'inability to reason.'
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI imagine there are a lot of reasons people (Christians too) exhibit and
It true that the problem of "ego and delusion" is a "human issue", but that wasn't the point of the post. What makes it an issue amongst Christians is that many Christians hold beliefs that are decidedly ego affirming such as: assurance of eternal life; assurance of love and acceptance from God; assurance that one can continue to commit sin and not lose t ...[text shortened]... o why many Christians exhibit an "inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs.
"inability to reason" when discussing spiritual beliefs or other matters in
general.
Kelly