12 Mar 10
6 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasDo you really need it spelled out for you more than I already have?
Truth be told, I have no idea what you are talking about. But why don't you stall a little more by explaining what you believe I said that constitutes 'game playing'...
Or, you can answer the question which I posed to you. The choice is yours.
To this:
You know last time I was under the impression that you were interested in a discussion, but based on comments you made and your actions, it became clear that you were interested in anything but. Why should I believe that this would be different? Telling me that you believe you have a strong argument doesn't mean that you sincerely want to have a DISCUSSION and all that that usually entails.
You responded with this:
Am I to conclude that you don't have an answer for my question?
Which was not only a completely illogical conclusion to draw, but had absolutely nothing to do with my post. It's not unlike the games children play. Maybe I've been in the "adult" world too long, but other than you and some others in this forum, this style of "argument" just never comes up. Never. It's as if you, KM, RC, G75, et al. are poster children for arrested development.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnswer my question... or don't.
Do you really need it spelled out for you more than I already have?
To this:
[quote]You know last time I was under the impression that you were interested in a discussion, but based on comments you made and your actions, it became clear that you were interested in anything but. [b]Why should I believe that this would be different? Telling me that ...[text shortened]... draw, but had absolutely nothing to do with my post. It's not unlike the games children play.[/b]
Only stop boring me with the paranoid rationalization for not doing so.
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehaslol. Just more of the same.
Answer my question... or don't.
Only stop boring me with the paranoid rationalization for not doing so.
In case you missed my edit:
Maybe I've been in the "adult" world too long, but other than you and some others in this forum, this style of "argument" just never comes up. Never. It's as if you, KM, RC, G75, et al. are poster children for arrested development.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
lol. Just more of the same.
In case you missed my edit:
Maybe I've been in the "adult" world too long, but other than you and some others in this forum, this style of "argument" just never comes up. Never. It's as if you, KM, RC, G75, et al. are poster children for arrested development.
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teaches that, "every branch (believer) that does bear fruit he (the Father) prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (v. 2). The pruning of God here implies a second work of grace to bring the born again believer closer to perfection. Another example is John 17:17, where Christ prays (speaking of his disciples), “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." And yet further, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus teaches that, following the new birth, one gains a spiritual appetite for righteousness; and that they who “hunger and thirst after righteousness: …shall be filled" (Matthew 5:6).
As far as I can tell, what you are arguing is that Christ demands perfection, and to fall short of that perfection in any way is tantamount to disobeying Christ. Yet this reading does not take into consideration Christ's teachings on sanctification. What is implied in Christ's teaching is that the imperfection of sin which remains in the born again believer is something that is dealt with, by God, progressively. That means that sin must be present, otherwise the Christian ought to be exempt from any further correction. Obedience to Christ cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness.
In your particular theology, ThinkOfOne guy, how do you account for the progressive process of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasEarlier you said:
OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teac ...[text shortened]... process of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.
"Well, I'd like to discuss this matter with you, if you don't mind, since it seems clear to me that the issue I raised falsifies your argument."
This is the post to which you resonded:
]Hopefully the third times the charm:
[quote]Once again:
[quote]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behaviour. The real Jesus is much more patient with us than this and has immense compassion for our failings.
If this was so important to the teachings of Jesus, you should have no problem producing passages from when He walked the Earth and taught something akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior. With this in mind and because of my patience and immense compassion for your failings, everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven."
This is your chance to show how your understanding of Jesus is fully supported by His teachings. After you've posted them all, I can repost the passages of His teachings that support my position. Maybe we can then work on reconciling them together.
It's really simple, KM.
You made the assertions in BOLD above. So show the passages as I stipulated above. [/quote][/quote]
And subsequently made the following elaborations:
Listen, this really isn't that difficult. If this is as important to the teachings of Jesus as you believe, you should be able to produce passages from when He walked the Earth where He makes explicit statements that support your position. If all you can come up with is conjecture based on what you read into His actions, then just say so.
How about if you only try to address the first assertion with a passage akin to, "I have spoken at length as to what is and what is not righteous. However, this is impossible to achieve. You are all flawed and subject to lapses and sinful behavior."? After you've done this, you can tackle the second assertion. Or you can simply admit that you know of no such passages.
What you posted in response doesn't seem to address my argument. In what way(s) do you think it does?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneToOne , you can't even bring yourself to admit that you simply won't answer the question.
lol. Just more of the same.
In case you missed my edit:
Maybe I've been in the "adult" world too long, but other than you and some others in this forum, this style of "argument" just never comes up. Never. It's as if you, KM, RC, G75, et al. are poster children for arrested development.
We could all ask you to outline what you think the rules should be to a fair discussion. But would you answer? I doubt it.
Because the moment you lay out some rules and regs to discussion you would be beholden to keep them , and you don't want that. You want to be able to wriggle , slip away and stay in your comfort zones. That's why you won't go on the record about anything because you don't want to be pinned down on anything.
Everyone knows that this is probably because you don't feel secure enough in your position to open it up to a "proper" discussion. The only way you can work your positon is to slip between the cracks all the time and escape in loopholes that exist because there are no rules. That's the way you like it.
Ephin could suggest that you take alternate goes between you to answer straight questions in a straightforward fashion. But then the loopholes would start to close.
Would you hold yourself to such a threatening idea? The evidence so far is that you prefer things nebulous and woolly. The hypocrisy is that when it suits , you press others to answer straight questions , but when it doesn't suit you never seem to reciprocate.
I have always said that there are certain passages that cause me problems but I have also maintained that there are passages that should cause you problems as well. This is what I pointed out years ago but you would have none of it. It was from that moment I realised that you like to play with loaded dice.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasI patiently await your response
OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teac ...[text shortened]... process of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.
------EPHIN-----------
I suggest War and Peace would be a good read while you are waiting. Follow it up with the complete works of Shakespeare.
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneT.O.One, this is utterly tangential to the discussion at hand.
Earlier you said:
"Well, I'd like to discuss this matter with you, if you don't mind, since it seems clear to me that the issue I raised falsifies your argument."
This is the post to which you resonded:
[quote]]Hopefully the third times the charm:
[quote]Once again:
[quote]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and sub esponse doesn't seem to address my argument. In what way(s) do you think it does?
Did you miss the recent post where I capitulated to your demands? We should begin our discussion at once.
I'll repost my question again....
12 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
Earlier you said:
"Well, I'd like to discuss this matter with you, if you don't mind, since it seems clear to me that the issue I raised falsifies your argument."
This is the post to which you resonded:
[quote]]Hopefully the third times the charm:
[quote]Once again:
[quote]The fact is that no human being is perfect and all are flawed and sub esponse doesn't seem to address my argument. In what way(s) do you think it does?
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teaches that, "every branch (believer) that does bear fruit he (the Father) prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (v. 2). The pruning of God here implies a second work of grace to bring the born again believer closer to perfection. Another example is John 17:17, where Christ prays (speaking of his disciples), “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." And yet further, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus teaches that, following the new birth, one gains a spiritual appetite for righteousness; and that they who “hunger and thirst after righteousness: …shall be filled" (Matthew 5:6).
As far as I can tell, what you are arguing is that Christ demands perfection, and to fall short of that perfection in any way is tantamount to disobeying Christ. Yet this reading does not take into consideration Christ's teachings on sanctification. What is implied in Christ's teaching is that the imperfection of sin which remains in the born again believer is something that is dealt with, by God, progressively. That means that sin must be present, otherwise the Christian ought to be exempt from any further correction. Obedience to Christ cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness.
In your particular theology, ThinkOfOne guy, how do you account for the progressive process of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.
12 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas
OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus te ocess of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.
This is getting AWESOME!
OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you.
For your convenience I reproduce my post here.
[quote][quote]But Jesus did imply that sanctification is a process. For instance, in John 15, Jesus teaches that, "every branch (believer) that does bear fruit he (the Father) prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (v. 2). The pruning of God here implies a second work of grace to bring the born again believer closer to perfection. Another example is John 17:17, where Christ prays (speaking of his disciples), “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." And yet further, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus teaches that, following the new birth, one gains a spiritual appetite for righteousness; and that they who “hunger and thirst after righteousness: …shall be filled" (Matthew 5:6).
As far as I can tell, what you are arguing is that Christ demands perfection, and to fall short of that perfection in any way is tantamount to disobeying Christ. Yet this reading does not take into consideration Christ's teachings on sanctification. What is implied in Christ's teaching is that the imperfection of sin which remains in the born again believer is something that is dealt with, by God, progressively. That means that sin must be present, otherwise the Christian ought to be exempt from any further correction. Obedience to Christ cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness.[/quote]
In your particular theology, ThinkOfOne guy, how do you account for the progressive process of sanctification which Christ taught?
I patiently await your response.[/quote]
EDIT: My take was in one of the first boxes
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, I didn't miss your post. Seeing as how I did a "reply and quote" to it, I'd think that would be evident. So much for your promise to "try [your] best never to avoid a straightforward question". Starting with this childish passive aggressive nonsense doesn't exactly engender confidence in your commitment to discuss this in "mature, forthright" manner. This is exactly the type of nonsense I was looking to avoid.
T.O.One, this is utterly tangential to the discussion at hand.
Did you miss the recent post where I capitulated to your demands? We should begin our discussion at once.
I'll repost my question again....
Nevertheless, I'm willing to try again and will try to spell things out for you in more detail.
You made a post that was in response to a specific post of mine that I reposted in my previous post.
You also later said the following in reference to your post:
"Well, I'd like to discuss this matter with you, if you don't mind, since it seems clear to me that the issue I raised falsifies your argument."
As your post did not seem to address the argument being made in the post to which you responded or the elaborations to that argument (which I also reposted in my previous post), I'm asking you to clarify how you believe your post "falsifies [my] argument". I'm asking you to put your post in context for me. So reread my previous post and respond to the question.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat a load of guff.
No, I didn't miss your post. Seeing as how I did a "reply and quote" to it, I'd think that would be evident. So much for your promise to "try [your] best never to avoid a straightforward question". Starting with this childish passive aggressive nonsense doesn't exactly engender confidence in your commitment to discuss this in "mature, forthright" manner. ...[text shortened]... ost in context for me. So reread my previous post and respond to the question.
This is rapidly becoming a farce. Discussing discussion and who started asking who what and when. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
There's no content , nothing. You're not discussing Jesus anymore.
The sensible approach would be for someone to give in and answer one question and then invite the other to do the same. But that would mean sacrificing your ego , yes?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterLooks like KM needs a time-out.
What a load of guff.
This is rapidly becoming a farce. Discussing discussion and who started asking who what and when. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
There's no content , nothing. You're not discussing Jesus anymore.
The sensible approach would be for someone to give in and answer one question and then invite the other to do the same. But that would mean sacrificing your ego , yes?
13 Mar 10
I suggest that we all just decline to respond to ToOne. He's not likely to have a fair and honest discussion with any of us in the near future and the chances of him answering a question are minimal.
What exactly is the point of even giving him the satisfaction of the credibility that comes from participating in so called "discussion" with him.
13 Mar 10
7 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm asking you to clarify how you believe your post "falsifies [my] argument". I'm asking you to put your post in context for me.
No, I didn't miss your post. Seeing as how I did a "reply and quote" to it, I'd think that would be evident. So much for your promise to "try [your] best never to avoid a straightforward question". Starting with this childish passive aggressive nonsense doesn't exactly engender confidence in your commitment to discuss this in "mature, forthright" manner. ost in context for me. So reread my previous post and respond to the question.
Fair enough; I will try my best.
Here's the context. My understanding of your basic argument regarding what Christ taught is that falling short of perfection is equal to disobeying Christ's commands. You have said before (please correct me if I misrepresent your position) that Christ, in the Day of Judgment, will reject those who have failed to live perfect (i.e., sinless) lives after being born again. Again, this is my understanding of your basic argument; if I have misrepresented you, please tell me so, otherwise I will be falsifying a straw man (which would be rather pointless).
Now, here's how I believe my earlier post falsifies your argument. In John chapter 15 Jesus teaches that, "every branch (believer) that does bear fruit He (the Father) prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (v. 2). The pruning of God here implies a second work of grace to bring the born again believer closer to perfection (i.e., progressively sanctified). The imperfection (i.e., sin) which remains in the believer is something which is dealt with, by God, progressively through discipleship. Sin must be present in the believer, otherwise the believer ought to be exempt from any further correction (i.e., discipleship). Which is, of course, not the case; Christ said, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline" (Rev. 3:19). Obedience to Christ does not and cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness in any way shape or form, since sinlessness would, by its very nature, preclude discipleship.
__________
Basically, the implication of your particular reading of scripture is that true followers of Christ should have no need for discipleship, chastisement or rebuke. If they ever did, they would be pronounced false believers and cast away by Christ. This is, naturally, at odds with Christ's teaching regarding discipleship and sanctification. There is a second work of grace to bring the believer closer to perfection (i.e., progressively sanctified). Christ teaches thus, as do His disciples. Therefore your particular reading of scripture is, as far as I can tell, in grave error.