2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy hang on to a "messy and contradictory" belief system?---ToO----
[b]I have already accepted that the teachings in NT are messy and sometimes seem contradictory. In some parts it says one thing and then in another it seems to cut right across the previous points.
Try following the teachings of Jesus instead. On the whole, you'll find them to sound and remarkably coherent. Why hang on to a "messy and contradictory wonder no more.
It really is a shame. Jesus spoke the truth. The truth will make you free.[/b]
LOL !!!Because life is messy and contradictory. Life and humans do not fit neatly contrived , abstract formula. Your belief system may be more coherent but in order to achieve that you end up having to sidestep so many flies in your ointment (eg not answer questions) . It also ends up being highly abstract and unreal (eg you cannot define sin or talk about it in any real way).
Anyone with half a brain can see that you have sidestepped my question neatly and moved on. You dare not address the flies in the ointment. For you they just cannot be allowed to exist. You have to preserve your black and white belief system , and you will seemingly go to great lengths to preserve it.
I prefer reality . I prefer trying to grasp the nettle , however it may sting . This is much harder because you have to face up to the messy bits and there are loose ends. But hey ho, that's the difference between living Spirituality and rigid dogma.
If you want to cling to a nice, neat black and white version of the world there are many fundie cults out there who will happily oblige you. Don't ask them awkward questions though , they won't like it and they will rationalise your questions away.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"First John establishes that God is Light and that in Him there is NO darkness. Then John establishes a stipulation that IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light, only then does Jesus cleanse us from all sin. Then John elaborates on this sin that Jesus cleanses in 8-10. In 8-10 John is speaking of the sin committed PRIOR to walking in the Light. The sin that is cleansed only IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light."
If you place 1 John 1:8-10 in context, there is no contradiction or even "paradox".
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in ...[text shortened]... does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.[/b]
------------------------ToO-----------------------
So let me clarify then. Is this what you believe?
a) We respond to the message of Jesus by deciding to overcome sin and walk in the light.(in a sinless way?)
b) We have then done away with/ overcome sin altogether although we cannot by definition be 100% cleansed from all sin.
c) Jesus then cleanses us from all the sin up to that point. But will not cleanse us from any sin committed after this point , because if we then sin we are finding out that we haven't done a) in the first place.
d) Sin is seen as an event or act in your view , rather than a part of our nature. St Paul's idea of us having a "sinful nature" is false?
So what is "walking in light" to you? It suggests to me some process whereby we walk in the light but are not yet fully cleansed (because Jesus has yet to do that and will not do it until we walk in the light)
Maybe you need to define more clearly what stage b) is all about?
6 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI gonna try one last time because I know you have difficulty with reading comprehension as well as logic and reason.
So you think we can walk in the light but NOT be free or cleansed of sin??
This contradicts what you have said many times about your view of sin.
This is what you actually said.....
"Then John establishes a stipulation that IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light, only then does Jesus cleanse us from all sin". ---ToOne-------- it's your turn to show how capable YOU are.
Can you get out of it without sidestepping?
KM: "But (in your view) in order to walk in the light we must be free of sin , if any sin is in us then we cannot be in the light."
This premise is incorrect because it is NOT my view. My position is that one cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
KM: "This is what you actually said.....
'Then John establishes a stipulation that IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light, only then does Jesus cleanse us from all sin'. ---ToOne-------------"
Another concept that you seem to be struggling with once again has to do with context. My interpretation of what John said is my interpretation of what JOHN SAID. Not everything he said necessarily reflect my beliefs. There's an important distinction to be made here. I'm sure with a proper amount of thought and reflection that you'll be able to make this distinction.
I can only hope that you will now be able to understand the fallacy of your "logic".
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterToO: "Why hang on to a "messy and contradictory" belief system?"
Why hang on to a "messy and contradictory" belief system?---ToO----
LOL !!!Because life is messy and contradictory. Life and humans do not fit neatly contrived , abstract formula. Your belief system may be more coherent but in order to achieve that you end up having to sidestep so many flies in your ointment (eg not answer questions) . It also ends wkward questions though , they won't like it and they will rationalise your questions away.
KM: "LOL !!!Because life is messy and contradictory."
I can only surmise that your abandonment of logic and reason is part and parcel of this.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFirst John establishes that God is Light and that in Him there is NO darkness. Then John establishes a stipulation that IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light, only then does Jesus cleanse us from all sin. Then John elaborates on this sin that Jesus cleanses in 8-10. In 8-10 John is speaking of the sin committed PRIOR to walking in the Light. The sin that is cleansed only IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light. ---------------------ToOne----------------
I gonna try one last time because I know you have difficulty with reading comprehension as well as logic and reason.
[b]KM: "But (in your view) in order to walk in the light we must be free of sin , if any sin is in us then we cannot be in the light."
This premise is incorrect because it is NOT my view. My position is that one cannot continue to only hope that you will now be able to understand the fallacy of your "logic".[/b]
Another concept that you seem to be struggling with once again has to do with context. My interpretation of what John said is my interpretation of what JOHN SAID. Not everything he said necessarily reflect my beliefs. There's an important distinction to be made here. I'm sure with a proper amount of thought and reflection that you'll be able to make this distinction---------------ToOne------------------
But surely your interpretation of what John said is founded on your belief system? This just sounds like a bad case of backtracking here. Why would you interpret John in this way if it were not based on what you believe?
Maybe you are realising that your interpretation of John makes no sense because it does not hold together logically? Ok , I will accept the distinction that John does not represent you in your beliefs , but what you have said above does not add up because it implies that ........
a) we must be able to be cleansed/free of sin BEFORE Jesus cleanses us thereby making Jesus's sacrifice redundant.
or
b) it must be possible to walk in the light without being totally cleansed of sin or being 100% perfected?
I would assume that you DON'T actually believe that it is possible to walk in the light without being 100% free/cleansed of sin ?
If so you then your interpretation of John doesn't add up does it?
All I'm asking for here is some basic honesty , and an admission that you have tripped yourself up here. If you can't see the logical contradiction nor be man enough to admit your mistakes it doesn't say much for your position.
You may get away with saying that John and you do not share the same beliefs but you can't get away with saying that your interpreation does not have any flaws.
Does the great, perfected, overcoming ToOne ever make mistakes?
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet's back up and put things in context once again. Your contention was that 1 John 1:8-10 was in conflict with 1 John 3:4-10. However if you look at what precedes 1 John 1:8-10, we see that 1 John 1:5-7 is very much in agreement with 1 John 3:4-10. So does John, in the next breath, reverse himself with 1 John 1:8-10? Not necessarily. Not if John is referring to the sin he speaks of in his prior sentence. The sin committed prior to walking "in the Light as He Himself is in the Light". Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walking in the light"/"practicing righteousness".
First John establishes that God is Light and that in Him there is NO darkness. Then John establishes a stipulation that IF we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the light, only then does Jesus cleanse us from all sin. Then John elaborates on this sin that Jesus cleanses in 8-10. In 8-10 John is speaking of the sin committed PRIOR to walking in the L ot have any flaws.
Does the great, perfected, overcoming ToOne ever make mistakes?
I realize that there are concepts here that are difficult for you to wrap your mind around. However, with adequate time and reflection, I don't think that this is beyond your grasp. Try taking your time to really understand what is being said here. Take a long and hard look at 1 John 1:5-7 and 1 John 3:4-10. They are parallel thoughts. And most importantly, as I keep pointing out, they also parallel the teachings of Jesus. Once you understand this, then look at how 1 John 1:8-10 fits with 1 John 1 5-7.
1 John 1:5-7
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 John 3:4-10
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.[/b]
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne" Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walking in the light"/"practicing righteousness".
Let's back up and put things in context once again. Your contention was that 1 John 1:8-10 was in conflict with 1 John 3:4-10. However if you look at what precedes 1 John 1:8-10, we see that 1 John 1:5-7 is very much in agreement with 1 John 3:4-10. So does John, in the next breath, reverse himself with 1 John 1:8-10? Not necessarily. Not if John is refer ...[text shortened]... righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.[/b][/b]
-----------------------------------ToO---------------------------
As you no doubt realise I am not interested in understanding John at this point in time. What I am interested in is understanding your position / beliefs. I understand that deflecting this whole line of reasoning on to John suits you because it takes attention away from what YOU believe , and that's something you don't like talking about in any explicit and clear way.
The above quote suggests (unless I can't read) that (in your opinion)one can still be tarnished with sin but also practice righteousness/ walk in the light. Now to me being tarnished with sin means that one has not overcome sin. The reason I say this is because if one still requires the cleansing of Jesus to remove the tarnish then it must still be there within us. If it still there with us then we have not overcome sin.
If the above is true then it contradicts what you have often said about salavtion and righteouness. The only other possibility is that you think that someone can walk in the light but not be saved.
I'm strongly wondering if your conception of sin is limited to just things done in the past (ie acts of sin , or wrong deeds) . To me sin is much more than that . Sin is more like a lump of darkness within us , like a sinful nature. Once one has felt the full gravity of one's own sinful nature within oneself , that person will know that without grace one is capable of anything. It makes it harder to judge even the most depraved individual because one is fully aware of the extent of evil/sin within oneself.
I'm really beginning to feel that the whole problem all along has been that you underestimate sin completely. You see when you talk about overcoming sin 100% , to me , I don't think you actually realise what that means to someone who has experienced the depth of their own sinful nature. I don't think you have experienced this. It's only once you have experienced it that you see the need for Jesus to have died for YOU (not the world) but YOU.
My guess is you see Jesus as someone who just does some buffing up/cleansing on your soul , but you don't really understand why he should have to die for ToO.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm not sure what part of the following you don't understand?
" Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walkin soul , but you don't really understand why he should have to die for ToO.
"My position is that one cannot continue to sin and have 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'."
I see it as pretty much synonymous with "overcoming sin". Now you say you don't, but stop pretending that you don't know what I've been saying all along.
Seems like it was just a post ago, you were saying things like:
"If so you then your interpretation of John doesn't add up does it?
"You may get away with saying that John and you do not share the same beliefs but you can't get away with saying that your interpreation does not have any flaws."
After I've refuted your assertions, it's now:
"As you no doubt realise I am not interested in understanding John at this point in time. What I am interested in is understanding your position / beliefs. I understand that deflecting this whole line of reasoning on to John suits you because it takes attention away from what YOU believe , and that's something you don't like talking about in any explicit and clear way."
You're the one who brought up those passages from John. That's what we've been discussing for some time now. It's amazing that you now assert that I'm somehow changing the subject.
How can so much dishonesty continue to pour out of such a little man?
Perhaps it's because that little man has no regard for the God of Truth.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSurely you know by now that your "little man" jibes mean nothing to me. From someone who doesn't have the basic honesty to answer a simple question from seemingly anyone in a straightforward manner , it's almost laughable.
I'm not sure what part of the following you don't understand?
"My position is that one cannot continue to sin and have 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'."
I see it as pretty much synonymous with "overcoming sin". Now you say you don't, but stop pretending that you don't know what I've been saying all along.
Seems like it was just a post ag ...[text shortened]... it's because that little man has no regard for the God of Truth.
You and I both know that the wider context of our discussions is about your beliefs and mine. John is just a cul-de-sac off the main highway. You simply cannot say that what you say about John has no bearing on your beliefs or position.
I understand that your position is ...." that one cannot continue to sin and have 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'."
It seemed to me that your interpretation of John was in conflict with this because you suggested that...........
" Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walking in the light"/"practicing righteousness". ---ToO-----
All I'm trying to establish with you is what walking in the light actually means to you and whether it constitutes salvation or not.
It's a simple enough question but expect you to pen many lines before you get close to answering it.
I'll give you a hand here....
answer a) Yes KM I do believe that it's possible to walk in the light but not have completely overcome sin.
answer b) No KM a) is not possible.
I know simple answers are not your speciality but go on , indulge me.
(BTW- They used to say about Helmut Kohl - "Er spricht viel , aber sagt nichts" - "he speaks a lot but says nothing" - I think this applies to you , many of your posts sound eloquent and full of information , but none of it seems to be revealing what you actually believe )
Originally posted by knightmeisterWe both know that you painted yourself into a corner with our discussion on John when you once again distorted my position. This is what you do in your attempts to "win a point". The bottom line is that you brought up John, you tried to make a big deal out of how "incoherent" my position was and when you had to face the fact that it is your postion that is incoherent, you try to pretend like I had changed the discussion to John.
Surely you know by now that your "little man" jibes mean nothing to me. From someone who doesn't have the basic honesty to answer a simple question from seemingly anyone in a straightforward manner , it's almost laughable.
You and I both know that the wider context of our discussions is about your beliefs and mine. John is just a cul-de-sac off ...[text shortened]... ut none of it seems to be revealing what you actually believe )
Let me know if you think you can manage to have a discussion in an adult manner.
BTW, your question is moot. You know my position. It's clear and it's explicit. I'm not interested in playing your games.
2 edits
I suspect that what is a problem here is someone's failure to clearly see the two aspects of God's full salvation in Christ.
There is an aspect which we may call the judicial aspect.
There is an aspect which we may call the organic aspect.
The judicial aspect has to do with eternal redemption. That is the legal basis for being justified before a righteous God forever.
The "organic" aspect has to do with a person being more and more filled with the life of Christ so as to live Christ out and express Christ in his daily life. That is "saved in His life." Both aspects are important to God. And we might say that the organic aspect of salvation rests upon the finished work of the judicial aspect of salvation.
Now here is a great passage from Paul's writing which nicely highlights both aspects in one verse. You should be able to see both the judicial aspect of salvation and upon it the organic aspect of salvation. Try to see them.
"For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Romans 5:10)
1.) The Christian has been judicially reconciled to God through the death of Christ. He is saved from eternal perdition and will never perish. He is no longer at enmity with God. He is no longer an enemy in need of God .
2.) There is a "much more" salvation to come. It is the salvation "in His life". That means that the life of Christ has been imparted into the believer. From within the growth of that life "much more" becomes a salvation of thier disposition, their charachter, there reactions, their daily walk, their moment by moment living.
Again, HAVING BEEN RECONCILED is the JUDICIAL base. Upon this base there is the ORGANIC salvation which is "much more". That means in addition to. That means compounded with. That means extended.
Some passages in the New Testament expound on the judicial redemption which has taken place once for all. Some other passages speak more about the organic much more salvation of the spreading and growth of Christ's life in the believer.
Having been reconciled we shall much more be saved in His life.
These two aspects can be termed THE JUDICIAL REDEMPTION upon which is based THE ORGANIC SALVATION.
Problems in interpretation occur when students of the Bible fail to discriminate passages which emphasize these two aspects of God's full salvific work.
"For if we, being enemies, were RECONCILED [passed tense - already accomplished forever ] to God through the death of His Son, much more .... we shall be saved IN HIS LIFE, having BEEN reconciled."
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWhile this is an interesting concept, I don't see it as being supported by the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I see it as being contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
I suspect that what is a problem here is someone's failure to clearly see the two aspects of God's full salvation in Christ.
There is an aspect which we may call the [b]judicial aspect.
There is an aspect which we may call the organic aspect.
The judicial aspect has to do with eternal redemption. That is the legal basis for bei much more .... we shall be saved IN HIS LIFE, having BEEN reconciled."[/b][/b]
I have some questions about this concept, but first I'd like to know what you believe are the minimum requirements for being "judicially reconciled to God".
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=================================
While this is an interesting concept, I don't see it as being supported by the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I see it as being contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
I have some questions about this concept, but first I'd like to know what you believe are the minimum requirements for being "judicially reconciled to God".
While this is an interesting concept, I don't see it as being supported by the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I see it as being contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
==================================
It is from Jesus that Paul derived the teaching.
========================================
I have some questions about this concept, but first I'd like to know what you believe are the minimum requirements for being "judicially reconciled to God".
======================================
Believing into Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThanks. Can you explicitly define what "believing into Christ" entails?
[b]=================================
While this is an interesting concept, I don't see it as being supported by the teachings of Jesus. In fact, I see it as being contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
==================================
It is from Jesus that Paul derived the teaching.
========================================
I reconciled to God".
======================================
Believing into Christ.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBelieving unto a union of the Spirit of Christ with the human spirit.
Thanks. Can you explicitly define what "believing into Christ" entails?
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
Believing into the realm and the sphere of the living Person of Christ. The human spirit is joined to Christ the Spirit resulting in "one spirit".
The believer is united with Christ in the innermost being - one spirit with the Lord.