19 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo what exactly is "good fruit " then? Have you anything to offer other than abstract ideas and selctive verses?
You're the one who brought up Geldolf with the idea that he produces "good fruit" because "in the end he helped save millions."
I brought up the verse in Matthew so that maybe you could begin to understand that doing "good deeds" no matter how "great" are not necessarily an indicator of producing "good fruit".
To me what Geldof initiated was obviously good because it was a release of compassion and awareness of others. Sure there was a sickly do-gooder element to it , but the basic feeling I got was that it was a force for good in a world that is so often unfeeling and uncaring. Jesus taught that we should care for others and that the whole world was our "brother". It also helped many to see that the average man is not powerless and that we can make a difference. It changed a lot of things . Rememeber Live Aid happened in the 80s and was a rebellion against the yuppy "me first" culture. It also lead on to Jubilee 2000 and other events.
(BTW-If you are starving to death I'm not sure you are that bothered about what fruit it is.)
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterRighteousness is "good fruit". "Good fruit" is borne of a pure heart.
So what exactly is "good fruit " then? Have you anything to offer other than abstract ideas and selctive verses?
To me what Geldof initiated was obviously good because it was a release of compassion and awareness of others. Sure there was a sickly do-gooder element to it , but the basic feeling I got was that it was a force for good in a world tha ...[text shortened]... -If you are starving to death I'm not sure you are that bothered about what fruit it is.)
Sin is "bad fruit". "Bad fruit" is borne of an unpure heart.
Why do I have to spend half my time repeating myself with you?
19 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you don't think that Bob's compassion was righteous? Was his love pure enough? He certainly seemed to care to me. He cared enough to get off his **** and do something.
Righteousness is "good fruit". "Good fruit" is borne of a pure heart.
Sin is "bad fruit". "Bad fruit" is borne of an unpure heart.
Why do I have to spend half my time repeating myself with you?
Anyway what is righteousness to you? Is it an abstract concept? If a man's righteousness makes no difference to those around him then what is it worth?
Do you not see the connection between Jesus and social justice?
You always talk about how "the world would be a better place if we followed Jesus's commands" etc etc - well Bob et al were showing compassion to those around them - I seem to remember compassion for your fellow man being quite high on Jesus' agenda somewhere. So here is a man trying to make the world a better place and what is your response?
19 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you capable of understanding a point? I have no idea whether or not Bob Geldoff is righteous. However, once again, doing "good deeds" no matter how "great" is not necessarily an indicator of "good fruit". What is so difficult about this concept that you can't wrap your mind around it? If someone did greater works than Geldoff while all the while was molesting children, would he be a "good tree" or a "bad tree"?
So you don't think that Bob's compassion was righteous? Was his love pure enough? He certainly seemed to care to me. He cared enough to get off his **** and do something.
Anyway what is righteousness to you? Is it an abstract concept? If a man's righteousness makes no difference to those around him then what is it worth?
Do you not see the con here. So here is a man trying to make the world a better place and what is your response?
19 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneUnfortunately it is Paul that you choose to follow. For you the words of Jesus are distorted since you can only see them through the lens of a false prophet.
Yes, Jesus was warning "false prophets and false teachers." A warning which describes Paul whose "bad fruit" is shown Romans 7:15-25:
"...but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin...I do not understand...I am doing the very thing I hate...no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me...I know that nothing good dwells in me...the willi ds of Jesus are distorted since you can only see them through the lens of a false prophet.
I admit, I have learned a great deal from Paul. I have no reason to suspect, however, that Paul is a false prophet. Romans chapter seven testifies to the struggle which all born again people experience, i.e., the conflict between grace and corruption in the heart. In fact, anyone who hasn't experienced what Paul describes here in Romans chapter seven isn't born again at all.
Following Jesus is turning from sin daily; an ongoing process of sanctification.
Jesus says in Luke 9:23-24, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
You falsely imagine that being born again means that a person is somehow no longer able to sin. The truth is that following Christ entails turning from sin every single day! Resisting temptation is part of the deal; temptation is that which Christ's followers must turn away from by "taking up his cross daily." And if there's temptation, then there is always the possibility of sin, my friend.
Yes, Jesus was warning "false prophets and false teachers." A warning which describes Paul whose "bad fruit" is shown Romans 7:15-25
What is your attitude towards the sin that exists in your life, ToO? How do you deal with it? Do you ignore it or excuse it? Does the sin in your life cause you any grief? How does your struggle with sin differ from Paul's?
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI posted the following in another thread for another poster but it seems to fit here. In case you missed it:
[b]Unfortunately it is Paul that you choose to follow. For you the words of Jesus are distorted since you can only see them through the lens of a false prophet.
I admit, I have learned a great deal from Paul. I have no reason to suspect, however, that Paul is a false prophet. Romans chapter seven testifies to the struggle which all born again pe ...[text shortened]... your life cause you any grief? How does your struggle with sin differ from Paul's?[/b]
Let's look at what Jesus teaches instead of what others teach. How radical it would be to actually follow the teachings of Jesus.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;"
"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."
Jesus has set up a dichotomy here. If you commit sin, you are a slave. It is an either/or situation. You cannot be a semi-slave. You cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". This idea is echoed several times throughout His teachings.
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
This time Jesus uses the analogy of death and rebirth. The first life is one of the flesh. It is this life that you must chose to put to death. You cannot be semi-dead. You must entirely loose the life of the flesh. Only then can you be reborn of the Spirit.
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
You are either a good tree that produces good fruit or you are a bad tree that produces bad fruit. You cannot simutaneously be a good tree and a bad tree.
You have reasons for believing as you do. The reasons are NOT based on the teachings of Jesus. Instead you chose to follow the teachings of others.
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou must entirely loose the life of the flesh. Only then can you be reborn of the Spirit.
I posted the following in another thread for another poster but it seems to fit here. In case you missed it:
Let's look at what Jesus teaches instead of what others teach. How radical it would be to actually follow the teachings of Jesus.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the hou ...[text shortened]... on the teachings of Jesus. Instead you chose to follow the teachings of others.
Ah, but you are misrepresenting what Christ said. He explicitly said that we must die daily, yet you claim the opposite, that we die once and that's it. 🙂
__________
(I know you can't admit the fact that you aren't perfect either, ToO, so I won't even bother asking you to stop avoiding the questions in my last post.)
19 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasLet's take a closer look.
[b]You must entirely loose the life of the flesh. Only then can you be reborn of the Spirit.
Ah, but you are misrepresenting what Christ said. He explicitly said that we must die daily, yet you claim the opposite, that we die once and that's it. 🙂
__________
(I know you can't admit the fact that you aren't perfect either, ToO, so I won't even bother asking you to stop avoiding the questions in my last post.)[/b]
Luke 9:23-24, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
Jesus does NOT explicitly say that we must die daily. What He does say is that we must deny ourselves and take up the cross daily. Denying ourselves and taking up the cross daily are a part of the process that eventually leads to the loss of our lives. It isn't "whoever takes up the cross daily". It's "whoever loses his life for me will save it". The problem is that it's difficult to actually "deny [your]self", so many attempts must be made until the "self" is killed.
See how this interpretation fits with the rest of my earlier post.
Also note that Jesus says that we must follow Him. Not the Bible. Not Paul. Jesus.
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou are the one distorting Christ's teaching, I'm afraid. Christ says clearly that those who follow him deny themselves daily. He doesn't say, "and you aren't saved until your self is eventually killed through this process." That's your addition to the gospel and it is a false teaching, my friend.
Let's take a closer look.
Luke 9:23-24, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
Jesus does NOT explicitly say that we must die daily. What He does say is that we must deny ourselves and take up th ...[text shortened]... Also note that Jesus says that we must follow Him. Not the Bible. Not Paul. Jesus.
As long as the flesh lives, temptation exists. No flesh will be justified in God's sight.
19 Jul 08
1 edit
“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.”
Spoken by someone who perhaps did not spend much time picking fruit... 🙂 Part of a tree can “go bad” or die, and needs to be pruned back. An infected part of a tree can bear bad fruit, while a non-infected part can bear good fruit. In such cases, no one just cuts down the whole tree.
It seems to me that there might be a resolution to the argument here. The law of non-contradiction, which ToO is drawing upon I think, says that A cannot be A and not-A at the same time: ~(A & ~A). This does not mean that there cannot be iteration.
Both ToO and myself see “sin” (not exactly sure how you guys are using that word here, though) as the result of illusion. Again, one cannot be both “illusioned” and enlightened about the same thing at the same time (or at least all aspects of the same thing: it is either a rope or a snake), but one can be illusioned about some things without being illusioned about others (Yep, it’s a snake, but I don’t think it’s a poisonous one...). Enlightenment need not be a single, total flash—it may be, but it need not be. To borrow from a Zen parable on the matter, if you keep walking in a heavy mist, eventually you will be all wet—and eventually you will realize that you are. Debates about sudden versus gradual enlightenment are as common in Zen as they are misplaced.
One can also have a moment of total enlightenment (I am using the word here just to mean a kind of clear and unencumbered discernment), and then lose it as all the conditioned illusions wrap themselves once again around the mind.
Metanoia (transformation of the nous) can, in a Christian context, stand in here for enlightenment. Under a soteriology of transformation and healing/whole-making (soterias, salvation can be gradual—that does not mean that eventually it is not complete. The worm eventually does become completely a butterfly.
I want to throw one more consideration into the mix here: addiction. In the time I have spent with AA 12-step folks (some who were/are very mature in the program), none of them will declare—ever—“I am no longer an alcoholic.” There is a reason for that.
BTW, I don’t think ToO is making some kind of OSAS argument here: I think he might be saying that, if someone claims OSAS, it is “the fruit”, not the label, that will tell. I think he’s right; but then, I hold more to the Orthodox idea of soterias as a continuing transformative process—an Orthodox will no more say, “I am (have been) saved”, than an AA member will say, “I am no longer an alcoholic”. And that, of course, implies just a different understanding and use of that word "saved"; from which the parties may well talk past one another.
I think (and I don’t want to put words into his mouth) that ToO may be making a point about someone claiming OSAS for themselves (complete healing for the whole tree) while there is still some bad fruit, and hence some pruning still to be done.
Just some thoughts “out loud”—maybe they shed some light, maybe not...
20 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas"Christ says clearly that those who follow him deny themselves daily."
You are the one distorting Christ's teaching, I'm afraid. Christ says clearly that those who follow him deny themselves daily. He doesn't say, "and you aren't saved until your self is eventually killed through this process." That's your addition to the gospel and it is a false teaching, my friend.
As long as the flesh lives, temptation exists. No flesh will be justified in God's sight.
Agreed. I said so in my post.
You say you disagree, but you don't say what you do with this:
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
I believe that he is saying that you must lose the life of the "self" so that you may save "eternal" life. I see the "self" as being the root of all sin. I see the "life of the self" as being synonymous with being "a slave" and "a bad tree".
So essentially he is saying the same thing three different ways:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;"
"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."
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
Everything about the above says dichotomy to me:
"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
I see no reason to make this the exception:
"whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
Evidently you don't see it this way, so what does Jesus mean when He says:
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
20 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI'd add that I believe Jesus is saying that complete transformation as in your butterfly analogy is required for "enternal life"/"the kingdom of heaven"/"salvation".
“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.”
Spoken by someone who perhaps did not spend much time picking fruit... 🙂 Part of a tree can “go bad” or die, and needs to be pruned back. An infected part of a tree can bear bad fruit, while a non-infected part can bear good fruit. In such cases, no
Just some thoughts “out loud”—maybe they shed some light, maybe not...
I see Jesus as wanting your entire being. Not a divided one.
Mark 12:30
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
Luke 6:46
"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
20 Jul 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe only thing I’d add is that I think that is—not so much a “requirement”—but a statement of definition. How could I want anything less than a (my) whole being? Wholeness is the—whole point.
I'd add that I believe Jesus is saying that complete transformation as in your butterfly analogy is required for "enternal life"/"the kingdom of heaven"/"salvation".
I see Jesus as wanting your entire being. Not a divided one.
[b]Mark 12:30
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first a ...[text shortened]... words
Luke 6:46
"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?[/b]
But that wholeness is (paradoxically?) dynamic, not static. I’ll try to think of a better way to express that...
20 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNotice, Jesus never actually says what you claim he's saying; he never actually says that no one is saved until the self is killed in the process of denying oneself. That's your addition to his gospel message. You give me three passages and say, "Look, see," yet in every scriptural instance cited you've disregarded the context.
[b]"Christ says clearly that those who follow him deny themselves daily."
Agreed. I said so in my post.
You say you disagree, but you don't say what you do with this:
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."
I believe that he is saying that you must lose the life of the "self lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it."[/b]
__________
Here's the proper context:
"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
>>>Jesus convincing the Jews that they were sinners in need of justification despite being law-abiding descendants of Abraham.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
>>>Jesus explaining the meaning of being born again to the Pharisee, Nicodemus.
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
>>>Jesus speaking about how to recognize false prophets (which we've already discussed).
__________
You need to stop trying to put Jesus in a little box, ToO.
It just doesn't work.
Have you forgotten these passages:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life" (John 5:24).
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:15-16).
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36).
"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47).
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).
"And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin... because they do not believe in Me" (John 16:8,9).
"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
"And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39).
Etc., etc....
__________
Folks are justified before God because they believe in Jesus, and because they believe in Jesus, they follow him. This is what Jesus attests to.
Your teaching is the exact opposite of what Christ teaches. You say that people follow Jesus by denying themselves (which is true, but then you add), and they aren't justified until they die to themselves and become perfect beings.
How can you abide contradicting the words of Christ?
20 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Folks are justified before God because they believe in Jesus, and because they believe in Jesus, they follow him. This is what Jesus attests to.
Notice, Jesus never actually says what you claim he's saying; he never actually says that no one is saved until the self is killed in the process of denying oneself. That's your addition to his gospel message. You give me three passages and say, "Look, see," yet in every scriptural instance cited you've disregarded the context.
__________
gs.
How can you abide contradicting the words of Christ?
What Jesus attests to is more than just himself as Jesus. Otherwise, your statement veers toward the Sabellenaism (damn, I hope I’ve got my heresy right!) that I just saw referenced (I’ll try to find it) as the Protestant tendency. Even within a Chalcedonian framework, Jeeezus is not the issue. People are justified because they “think right” about Jesus? If that’s not what you mean, then clarify the phrase “believe in”—or drop it for a statement that does not confuse belief with faith. What could “following Jesus” possibly mean but following what Jesus taught and did? And if one does that—without calling upon, or even knowing the name “Jesus”...? (Or do you "believe in" name-magic? I don't think that you do; but the question seems generally relevant in these threads.)
You know, Epi, one of the reasons that—in PinkFloyd’s thread—I decided that I will no longer answer those label-name-game questions is: I suddenly realized that I might be more Christian than many Christians (you can put the quote marks there anywhere you would like). I am no longer convinced that most Christians have the slightest notion of what ho Christos is/means—let alone ho Christos as the incarnate logos tou theou. And that is frightening to me—and that fright is behind my fear of being simply arrogant (as I noted before in this thread).
That does not mean that I agree totally with ToO. In fact, this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, except as per the quoted phrase above.
I am, of late, not very confident of my ability to communicate clearly on here. Maybe, given our personal history, you have an idea of what I am trying to say...