1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne===================================
I am interested in the true teaching of Jesus. The true teaching of Jesus does not hinge on Peter's opinion of Paul.
I don't regard a person's opinion to be "important evidence", even if that person knew Jesus. It isn't like Peter had shown himself to be infallible in his time with Jesus. Surely you realize that throughout history people have been ally need to defend advocating living a life of righteousness instead of a life of sin?[/b]
I am interested in the true teaching of Jesus. The true teaching of Jesus does not hinge on Peter's opinion of Paul.
====================================
If you really had regard for "the true teaching of Jesus" you would be concerned about this saying of Jesus concerning Paul:
"But the Lord said to him [the disciple Ananias], Go, for this man [Saul of Tarsus - Paul] is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; For I will show him how many things he must suffer on behalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
This is "the true teaching of Jesus" in His resurrection state speaking from the heavens to Ananias about Paul. This teaching reveals that Paul was not self appointed as an spokesperson for Christ but was a specially appointed vessel.
Do you care for this "true teaching of Jesus"?
Here's another true teaching of Jesus you should care about.
"And He [the ascended Christ] said to me, Go, for I will send you forth far away to the Gentiles." (Acts 22:21)
Paul was sent by Christ to the Gentiles. He did not appoint himself or send himself.
Do you regard the words spoken by the resurrected Christ in His ascension as the true teaching of Jesus?
A Yes or a No will suffice.
========================================
I don't regard a person's opinion to be "important evidence",
==========================================
You don't care but you have to trust Matthew's word and opinion in his gospel. You have to trust Mark, Luke and John in their word about what Jesus said and did.
===================================
even if that person knew Jesus. It isn't like Peter had shown himself to be infallible in his time with Jesus.
=======================================
So your answer is Peter was fallible and on his recommendation of Paul he probably made a mistake.
I guess that Peter needed to sit at your feet and learn more about Christ's teaching. You understand it better than the Apostle Peter ? Had Peter known what you know he never would have recommended Paul ?
Why did the Holy Spirit arrange that 13 of the 27 New Testament books would be authored by Paul? I say it was consistent with Christ's word that Paul would be a special vessel of His to the Gentiles.
==========================================
Surely you realize that throughout history people have been wrong about other people for various reasons.
============================================
I am aware that you are entirely wrong about the Apostle Paul and that in your arrogance you think Peter could have learned a thing or two better at your feet. And this though he was three years and a half walking with Jesus.
The samples of Paul's strictness in warnings to the Christians you have not explained. They contradict your claim of the Paul abdicating righteous living in favor of cheap grace.
No reply to Galatians 5:19-21
No reply to 1 Cor. 6:9.
No reply to Eph. 5:5,6
=========================================
Unless there is more to it than that passage, we don't know what Peter is basing his judgement on, we don't know how good a judge of character Peter was, we don't know what letters Peter saw, if any, etc.
==========================================
He is basing his judgment on the fruit of Paul's labors, the results of his ministry, the impact of his travels and teachings, the testimony of his beatings, imprisonments, and persecutions for the sake of the Gospel. He is basing it on the letters of Paul which were circulating among the churches which were read publically and with which Peter must have been familiar.
He may be basing it on his own conscience knowing that Paul was absolutely right to scold him to his face in public for being afraid to stand firm for the truth.
======================================
Do I really need to defend advocating following the teachings of Jesus? Do I really need to defend advocating living a life of righteousness instead of a life of sin?
=================================
What I am defending against is your erroneous charge that Paul deviated from the teaching of Christ and that he taught what is sometimes refered to as "cheap grace". That means just get your ticket to heaven and continue to live like the sinner you were before.
That charge of yours is false.
I think that your attack is really aimed at the matter of justification by faith. I think you want to make the Gospel another matter of Law keeping as the means of eternal salvation.
You say this is being true to the true teachings of Jesus. But you are being selective to choose those passages which seem to support your new Law Keeping salvation. This is much like the hyper Arminianism expected of some extreme Holiness groups.
It is true that one is born to live. One is not born simply to say "I have been born so I have arrived."
You should not blame superficial presentations of the whole gospel on Paul.
3 edits
ThinkOfOne,
Please tell us whether or not these two passages are part of "the true teachings of Jesus" :
"But the Lord said to him [the disciple Ananias], Go, for this man [Saul of Tarsus - Paul] is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; For I will show him how many things he must suffer on behalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
"And He [the ascended Christ] said to me, Go, for I will send you forth far away to the Gentiles." (Acts 22:21)
Is Jesus Christ speaking in resurrection and in ascension in Acts 9:15,16; 22:21 part of "the true teachings of Jesus" which you are interested in?
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
[b]===================================
I am interested in the true teaching of Jesus. The true teaching of Jesus does not hinge on Peter's opinion of Paul.
====================================
If you really had regard for "the true teaching of Jesus" you would be concerned about this saying of Jesus concerning Paul:
"But the Lord said d not blame superficial presentations of the whole gospel on Paul.
The words of Jesus ring true. Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
This is proven by the following. I suspect that you chose to ignore the following because it doesn't match with your beliefs. You seem to begin with the teachings of Paul and fit everything else, including the teachings of Jesus around it - dismissing the portions that don't fit your beliefs. Hopefully this won't keep you from "bringing it into the light" and discussing it. Hopefully this won't keep you from beginning with the teachings of Jesus and fitting everything else around it. Sadly, I suspect that you'll decline to discuss it. I suspect that you'd rather it remain "in the dark". However you should consider that truth can only be seen clearly in the light. The truth will make you free.
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Notice that Jesus says "everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin". This means that everyone is a slave until they no longer commit sin. How is one freed?
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
One is only freed if one continues in the word of Jesus, i.e., follows His commandments and ultimately follows the will of His Father. When Jesus says "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed", it is a continuation of the same line of thought. But "EVERYONE WHO COMMITS SIN" is a slave.
This is consistent with the following:
Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven... Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne====================================
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
The words of Jesus ring true. Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
This is proven by the follow in heaven... Depart from me, you who work iniquity."[/b]
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
=======================================
Whether "teaching" or "teachings" is proper you have not answered whether Acts 22:21 and Acts 9:15,16 are the true teaching/s of Jesus.
I will not evade your issue. Please do not evade this question. I am not finished yet with your take on John 8.
=========================
The words of Jesus ring true.
===========================
Do the words of Jesus in Acts 9:15,16 and Acts 22:21 ALSO ring true to you? That is what I hope you will address.
=================================
Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
===================================
Okay. And of the passages which I quoted from Paul's letters, why do you not see the same tone and concept ?
For example: "Do not be deceived [CHRISTIANS] : God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption of the flesh, but he who sows unto the Spirit will of the Spirit reap eternal life." (Gal. 6:7,8)
Why do you FAIL to see that the Apostle Paul is ALSO stressing to his Christian audience living righteously in order to reap eternal life?
What is the blind spot in your reasoning which prevents you from seeing Paul emphasizing RIGHTEOUS LIVING unto eternal life?
======================================
This is proven by the following. I suspect that you chose to ignore the following because it doesn't match with your beliefs.
======================================
I am doing my best to get into your thought. I have not finished saying what I would like to about John 8.
However, I see things ignored by you. I demonstrated to you that Jesus Christ prayed that His disciples would be PERFECTED (John 17:23).
No Christian in history has been in their character instantaneously PERFECTED in one moment. Maybe a few martyrs were made mature the moment they faced losing their lives for Jesus. But the normal way is a matter of growth and development.
Now I will prove to you that the kingdom of God is a matter of development.
" And He [Jesus] said, So is the kingdom of God: as if a man cast seed on the earth, And sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens - how he does not know, the earth bears fruit by itself: first a blade, then an ear, then full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he sends forth the sickle, because the harvest has come." (Mark 4:26-29)
Here the kingdom of God is a matter of life growing from a seed:
1.) the seed sprouts
2.) the seed lengthens
3.) the seed develops a blade
4.) the seed further develops an ear
5.) the seed further develops the full grain in the ear
6.) the grain ripens and the harvest
The kingdom of God is a organic life matter which requires time and growth. You want to eleminate the need for growth.
As far as the transformation of the soul, there is the need for successive stages of growth. Paul taught this in terms of Christ being formed in the believers:
" My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ be formed in you. " (Gal.4:19)
They Galatians Christian had been born of God. Now the apostle labored for Christ to be FORMED in them. That is that Christ would spread His life into more and more of their souls perfecting them and transforming them.
The forming of Christ in the Christians is akin to the growth of the seed of the kingdom of God.
Being perfected is a PROCESS, a matter of DEVELOPMENT, a matter of GROWTH unto MATURITY. It seems that you are trying to say that there is no room for GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT in the Christian life. This is absurd.
=====================================
You seem to begin with the teachings of Paul and fit everything else, including the teachings of Jesus around it - dismissing the portions that don't fit your beliefs.
===================================
I am skeptical of your concern for this until you answer my question about Acts 9:15,16 and Acts 22:21.
I do not even have the assurance that you believe in the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ. I am beginning to be suspicious that you may not. And all the while putting up a pretense of Paul deviating from Christ's teaching.
Are you trying to conceal the degree to which you have discarded a large portion of the New Testament?
=========================================
Hopefully this won't keep you from "bringing it into the light" and discussing it.
========================================
No it won't. Yet I am waiting for you to discuss whether Acts 9:5,16; Acts 22:21 constitute [b]"the true teaching/s of Jesus".
Continued below with John 8:32-36.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt isn't like Peter had shown himself to be infallible in his time with Jesus. Surely you realize that throughout history people have been wrong about other people for various reasons. ==============================ToOne===============
I am interested in the true teachings of Jesus. The true teachings of Jesus do not hinge on Peter's opinion of Paul. If you were interested in the true teachings of Jesus, you'd know this.
I don't regard a person's opinion of another person to be "important evidence", even if that person knew Jesus. It isn't like Peter had shown himself to be infal ...[text shortened]... chings of Jesus? Do I really need to defend advocating living a life of righteousness?[/b]
However , Jesus did show himself to be a good judge of character and Peter was someone who felt confident enough to call "the rock" upon which he wanted to build his church. Peter was the one who Christ seemed to feel was the closest to understanding who he was. He was Jesus's right hand man and spent loads of time with Jesus hearing all his teachings.
Peter reccomends Paul. That's a pretty darn good reference if you think it through. Given a choice between ToOne and Peter , who do you think is most likely to understand Jesus's true teachings ? - ToOne or Peter ? How much time has ToO spent around Jesus?
Is it likely that the very man upon whom Jesus placed his faith in would then recomend a false prophet who then goes on to distort the truth?
Indirectly this is tantamount to saying that Jesus was misguided in his faith in Peter's judgement , but if we do that , the whole show is off anyway and how can we trust Jesus's teachings if we cannot trust his faith in Peter?
At the very least (if you are capable of being honest with yourself) you can see the problem here can't you?
It seems you have a problem with Peter also. Jesus did not.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."------------------------------------
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
The words of Jesus ring true. Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
This is proven by the follow in heaven... Depart from me, you who work iniquity."[/b]
I see no reason why "continue in my word" cannot mean " if you continue to follow my teachings as they unfold". To me Jesus is saying here that the truth is unfolding and progressing forward and being revealed. This is backed up by evidence.
As Jesus goes through his ministry he reveals more and more about who he is and what the truth is. He talks more and more about the Holy Spirit and slowly the role of his death takes greater precendence. He even says that there is more to be revealed (" I have more to tell you , more than you can bear right now" + " when he the comforter comes he will guide you into ALL truth" )
It's absolutely clear that some of his followers still hadn't figured out the truth even towards the very end. And yet you still treat this verse (amongst others) as catagorically self evident in it's meaning (which is of course the meaning that ToO has assigned to it)
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOne is only freed if one continues in the word of Jesus, i.e., follows His commandments and ultimately follows the will of His Father. When Jesus says "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed", it is a continuation of the same line of thought. But "EVERYONE WHO COMMITS SIN" is a slave.-------------------------------------------------------------------ToO-------------------------
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
The words of Jesus ring true. Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
This is proven by the follow in heaven... Depart from me, you who work iniquity."[/b]
So to you , the Son makes us free by giving us his teachings? He is merely a messenger then who gives instruction?
This is contrary to what Jesus says about himself at the last supper and the prophecies of Isaiah regarding Jesus (which he would have been aware of ) and the his role as the Lamb of God on the cross (again imagery that Jesus explicitly bought in to for "remission of sin" ) .
So simple question really. What exactly did Jesus achieve on the cross for us do you think? Would it have mattered if he hadn't done it and just lived to a ripe old age?
How many flies in the ointment does it take for you to step back and question whether you really have got this right ToO?
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneToO,
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
The words of Jesus ring true. Jesus taught that one must be righteous and, in being righteous, act righteously in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
This is proven by the follow in heaven... Depart from me, you who work iniquity."[/b]
Are you aware of how many sins your commited this week ?
Is it possible that you commited sins of which you are not yet aware?
Does continuing in Jesus word take time?
If it does take time then could that mean a gradual process of being freed from more and more sins as they are made aware to you?
Is is possible that today you have been freed from a certain sin yet there are other sins which you have not YET been freed ?
=======================================
This is consistent with the following:
Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...
=========================================
That concerns entering into the kingdom of the heavens. You are reading "enter into the kingdom of the heavens" but you are substituting in your mind "have the gift of eternal life".
Do not murmur that eternal life is not a gift. The "true teachings of Jesus" said it was "the gift of God"
Right Here:
"Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the GIFT OF GOD and who it is who saus to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." (John 4:10)
Strictly speaking the gift of God here is the Spirit. But Christ installs the Spirit into the believer and it springs up into eternal life.
"... whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall by no means thirst forever, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life." (John 4:14)
Christ will install the Holy Spirit which will be an internal fountian springing up into eternal llife. This is a "GIFT."
The crux of the problem may be that the phrase "eternal life" is used in more than one way in the New Testament. Most often in John's gospel it is the gift from receiving by believing.
A few times in Matthew it speaks of entering into eternal life as if it is a destination to move towards. The epistles also use phrases like "unto eternal life' or "reap eternal life" as to emphasize the growth INTO the enjoyment of it.
In John's epistles he assures the disciples that they presently "have" eternal life, on one hand. Yet he also warns that a murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him.
These various emphasises may be confusing. The important thing is to not FAVOR one utterance over the other.
We must understand that the eternal life is really Christ Himslf - I am the way and the truth and the life." We may have Him. But we need for Him to spread and grow within us.
The spreading of Christ within the soul is also the growing into righteousness dispositionally. The receving of the gift is being justified positionally.
You seem to have have taken one of the passages emphasizing the dispositional righteousness and making two mistakes:
1.) Not reckonizing the need for growth and development
2.) Falsly claiming that Paul has no teaching along the lines of dispositional righteousness.
Following your line of reasoning, there are no growing Christians with eternal life, there are no developing Christians with eternal life, there are no Christians who are still yet to overcome certain sins and weaknesses who have eternal life.
It surely confirms that you yourself do not have eternal life unless you commit no sins ever at all. And this I dount after over 30 years of Christian living myself.
==================================
Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
================================
During the thousand year kingdom some Christians will be told to depart from the Lord into a realm outside of His kingdom. That will be an outer darkness. It is not eternal perdition. It is not eternal punishment.
The outer darkness is a temprary punishment which cannot last longer than 1,000 years. It may be a portion of it. This goes back to Paul saying that some would be saved yet so as through fire. They lose a reward and "suffer loss".
Not all suffering of loss need be eternal.
If you doubt me that Christ could temprarily punish a eternally saved person then I would ask you to consider this parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23-35. Please read the whole parable and notice this conclusion:
"Then his master ca;;ed him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave even as I had mercy on you. And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed.
SO ALSO WILL MY HEAVENLY FATHER DO TO YOU IF EACH OF YOU DOES NOT FORGIVE HIS BROTHER FROM HIS HEART." (my emphasis)
Notice these points:
1.) This parable is a teaching about the second coming of Christ so the dealing with the evil slave means a dealing with the slave of Jesus after His second coming.
2.) The punishment of the unforgiving slave is not eternal. It is temporary - " delivered him to the torturers UNTIL ... he would repay all that was owed."
The punishment is UNTIL. It is not forever. The unforgiving servent must learn the lesson of forgining his fellow servant.
The point here in brief is that Christ can say "depart from me" to one who is eternally saved for a temporary dispensational discipline. This is not eternal punishment. It is not the loss of eternal redemption. It is however a punishment lasting UNTIL the servant is adjusted.
The thousand year millennial kingdom would be the time AFTER the second coming yet BEFORE the age of eternity, when Christ could so discipline His servants who are eternally redeemed.
In fact Christ sets up this period PRECEEDING the eternal age as an incentive to cooperate with the GRACE of Christ in the church age.
One can lose the REWARD because of unrighteous living. He can [b]"suffer loss", told to depart because he called "Lord, Lord," but did not do the Lord's will. One cannot lose the GIFT of eternal redemption and the GIFT of the implanted eternal life seed within the human spirit of the Christian.
Originally posted by jaywillToO,
ToO,
Are you aware of how many sins your commited this week ?
Is it possible that you commited sins of which you are not yet aware?
Does continuing in Jesus word take time?
If it does take time then could that mean a gradual process of being freed from more and more sins as they are made aware to you?
Is is possible that today ...[text shortened]... al life seed within the human spirit of the Christian.
Are you aware of how many sins your commited this week ?
------------------------------jaywill---------------------
He must have committed none otherwise his position is utterly hypocritical.
Mind you , I have noticed that he has become irritated and impatient with me and others. He can also be very judgemental as well. Maybe these are not actual sins in his book though? If your definition of sin is very loose then maybe it's possible to live sinlessly.
He will tell you of course that none of this has any bearing on what Jesus said. My argument is that if he is not able to live his philosophy then what's the point in telling us all about it? He teaches what he most needs to learn as far as I can see.
I have been down this road with him myself , so good luck to you jaywill. He won't tell you anything though , it's like trying to hack into the CIA to get any meaningful info on whether he actually practices what he preaches. I find it all so suspicious myself. He sees fit to preach to others and question our salvation before God but if you ask him about whether he is saved or sinless -zilch.
Maybe he should save himself first and then move on to others. Jesus did say something about planks and specks didn't he?
If he would only tell us about how free he is himself then maybe we could take him more seriously. For those of us who are only interested in a theology that actually works , that's quite important. If only he could see this.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThank you very much for the warning.
ToO,
Are you aware of how many sins your commited this week ?
------------------------------jaywill---------------------
He must have committed none otherwise his position is utterly hypocritical.
Mind you , I have noticed that he has become irritated and impatient with me and others. He can also be very judgemental as well. Maybe these a ...[text shortened]... ted in a theology that actually works , that's quite important. If only he could see this.
I hope I can find out a little more about what he really believes. We will see if he wants to tell me.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf so then it is a monsterous hypocrisy. While accusing the Apostle Paul of being "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and a "false prophet" the poster pretends to concerned for "the true teaching/s of Jesus". However, all the time discarding those words of Jesus which he does not like.
I have my suspicions that he may just be an Atheist who doesn't believe in God anyway.
The tactic is to done on the appearance of a Christian disciple, quite concerned for the purity of orthodox teaching, when in reality he is an athiest looking for an occasion to embaress Christians with difficult passages.
What deceit, if this is the case.
I am not occustomed to retreating from any difficult passage one would like to submit. I just don't see the harm in being honest about one's overall acceptance or rejection of the Gospel.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't recognize "the need for growth and development." I very much recognize that it is a process. What I don't believe is the concept that one can have "eternal life"/"heaven"/salvation" while one continues to commit acts of sin. This is supported by Jesus in John 8 and Matthew 7. While the concept of "positional" and "dispositional" righteousness is interesting, it's not a concept taught by Jesus so far as I know. Jesus would have to have been a very poor teacher not to have framed everything within this concept. On the whole, I find the teachings of Jesus to be quite deep and profound. I can't reconcile that kind of depth of understanding with an omission that obvious.
[b]====================================
When I responded to your post I didn't realize that when you said "true teaching of Jesus", it wasn't just a typo that meant "true teachings of Jesus".
=======================================
Whether "teaching" or "teachings" is proper you have not answered whether Acts 22:21 and Acts 9:15,16 are th eaching/s of Jesus"[/b].
Continued below with John 8:32-36.[/b]
No, the words attributed to Jesus in Acts 9:15,16 and Acts 22:21 do not ring true to me. If I don't find Paul credible, why would claims such as those be credible to me? You keep talking about me "evading" this question, but maybe you should consider that you've yet to address John 8 despite your continual assurances that you will.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't recognize "the need for growth and development." I very much recognize that it is a process. What I don't believe is the concept that one can have "eternal life"/"heaven"/salvation" while one continues to commit acts of sin.[WORD TOO LONG]
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't recognize "the need for growth and development." I very much recognize that it is a process. What I don't believe is the concept that one can have "eternal life"/"heaven"/salvation" while one continues to commit acts of sin. This is supported by Jesus in John 8 and Matthew 7. While the concept of "p ou've yet to address John 8 despite your continual assurances that you will.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction here? If one is 100% free of sin and perfected then how can one grow and develop? A man who is 100% free of sin has perfect temperament/character and never has any need of any confession or contrition before God.
Now , think about this please , if a man has no need of contritition before God then how can he grow and develop further? If he is absolutely pure in his heart and completely free of human mistakes or any pride whatsoever then where does he develop to? How can he grow any further?
The only way a "process" can take place is if there is an on going battle with sin / imperfection and pride. If such a process is taking place then inevitably such a person will still have some sin (however small) in his life.
Jesus tells us what level of holiness is required and that we should aspire to. He goes beyond the Jewish Law and , for example, says that even a stray glance at a woman can constitute adultery.
If , as you say , a man can overcome sin 100% but still grow and develop could you explain what further things he has to overcome once sin has bitten the dust?
Can you explain what this process is for you? I think your philosophy doesn't add up very well. I can see exactly how jaywill came to the conclusion that he did . I think it's something to do with your concept of sin that causes the problem here. For you to talk about sin being overcome so easily suggests you do not understand what sin actually is.
1 edit
ToO,
=============================================
What I don't believe is the concept that one can have "eternal life"/"heaven"/salvation" while one continues to commit acts of sin.
==============================================
I am limited on time. References you will have to look up.
This is a tricky complaint. Because answering it may give the impression that I am justifying continued sinning after being a Christian. I trust that you know I am not.
The eternal life is a Person. It is Christ Who said "I am ... the life". If you have the Person you have the life. "In Him was life ...". When Christ comes into you the eternal life is He Himself.
He is the resurrection and the life. And the Apostle John says he who has the Son has the life. You should therefore stop thinking that eternal life is something separate from Jesus Himself.
Now, having hopefully communicated that, it is one thing to have the gift of Christ and eternal life. It is another thing to LIVE by that life. The living by the life, ie. the living in "organic" oneness with Christ is a process needing a lifetime to learn. This process we could call sanctification or transformation.
Now you may have eternal life as a gift. But you may not be living that life which you have received. That is not good.
Recieving eternal life is a matter of a spiritual birth. One if born again. Or you could say that Christ is born within you. Now you cannot reverse the matter of birth. Birth can never be undone.
You were born of your father and mother. You can never be UNBORN from your father and mother. Now you may not be on good terms with them. You may not be speaking to each other for a time. However you cannot NOT be thier child. You cannot be UNBORN once you are born.
Once you are born again you cannnot be unborn again. You and the heavenly Father may for a season not be in close fellowship. Suppose you are backslidden and living in sin. You are sinful. However, you cannot be unborn from the Heavenly Father.
You can never lose the gift of eternal life once you have been born of God.
Does this mean that the heavenly Father is so unwise as to let you live any old sinful way you want? Of course not. The degrees of discipline or punishment vary depending on His choice. It may be as serious as being hurt by the second death. It may be less serious and simply losing your reward in the kingdom.
As the worldly judge has great latitude and wide scope in order to meet out the appropriate punishmemt an offender so is God the Heavenly Father. He has wide scope of possibilities short of eternal perdition.
Once you are born of God and receive the gift of eternal life you cannot be unborn again and lose the gift of eternal life. You may lose the reward. You may be punished after the second coming of Christ temporarily.
I went through this before.
===================================
This is supported by Jesus in John 8 and Matthew 7. While the concept of "positional" and "dispositional" righteousness is interesting, it's not a concept taught by Jesus so far as I know. Jesus would have to have been a very poor teacher not to have framed everything within this concept. On the whole, I find the teachings of Jesus to be quite deep and profound. I can't reconcile that kind of depth of understanding with an omission that obvious.
No, the words attributed to Jesus in Acts 9:15,16 and Acts 22:21 do not ring true to me. If I don't find Paul credible, why would claims such as those be credible to me? You keep talking about me "evading" this question, but maybe you should consider that you've yet to address John 8 despite your continual assurances that you will.
=====================================
I am at the public library and do not have unlimited time.
But what concerns me is that you talk about the "true sound" or something like that. Something "sounds true".
I am afraid that you do not accept the revelation of the New Testament in is entire scope. Though you seem to conceal what you have truncated and discarded, you only listen to what "sounds true" which I take to mean agrees with your concept.
In the ACTS passages, The first is Christ speaking to Ananias. Paul is not yet been baptiszed. There is no reason to reject this as NOT Christ speaking. That is unless you reject the resurrection of Jesus.
In the second passage I used in ACTS it is Paul recalling what Christ said to him. There is no reason to reject this either. Paul as an apostle has NO authority of his own. No apostle had any independent authority to do anything. His authority derived from Christ the Head of the Body of Christ.
Further more the Holy Spirit separated Paul and Barnabus to be apostles in ACTS 13. That was a decision from the authrity of the Head. In John 16 the Holy Spirit ALSO does not speak from Himself but receives what to speak from Christ Who in turn receives all He does and speaks from the Father.
Paul had no independent authority. He was a man under submission. And what ministry he had was due only to his own submission to the authority of Christ and His Body.
Please do not try to impress me with "I take Jesus. But Paul messed things up so I reject Paul."
Your problem with Christ's apostle is a problem with Christ. He said if He were to send a child in His name, if you reject the child you also reject Him.
Besides all this I showed you a number of CLEAR examples that what Jesus taught Paul taught. Same tone, same flavor, same concept, same warnings, same sobriety, same seriousness ... you have NO excuse to discard Paul or try to play the apostles against the Lord who ordained and sent them.
Thanks for FINALLY revealing that you apparently discard much of the book of Acts. This is not good.