Go on the record ToOne!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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.

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 to bring the believer closer to perfection (i.e., progressively sanctified).[/b]

You know, you still didn't respond to my question. Be that as it may, is it correct to say that you had something completely off-topic you wanted to discuss and your post had nothing to do with the post to which you replied? If so, you could have gone about it in a better way.

I'll get to your post, but I want to make sure I understand this part.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Okay, is it correct to say that you had something completely off-topic you wanted to discuss and your post had nothing to do with the post to which you replied? If so, you could have gone about it in a better way.

I'll get to your post, but I want to make sure I understand this part.

Yeah, sorry. I could have gone about it in a better way.

Note: I made a few corrections to my most recent post.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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.

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 ...[text shortened]... efore your particular reading of scripture is, as far as I can tell, in grave error.[/b]

I'm not sure how you meant for me to take this. Does this completely replace your OP or is it meant as an elaboration of it? If it is an elaboration, are there parts of your OP that you no longer see as valid? If so, what are they?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure how you meant for me to take this. Does this completely replace your OP or is it meant as an elaboration of it? If it is an elaboration, are there parts of your OP that you no longer see as valid? If so, what are they?

My only concern is clarity. I guess it can replace my old post, but you can feel free to respond however you wish.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure how you meant for me to take this. Does this completely replace your OP or is it meant as an elaboration of it? If it is an elaboration, are there parts of your OP that you no longer see as valid? If so, what are they?

ToOne - look beyond the irrelevant details and you can see the point Ephin is making. He's asking you how you explain the process of sanctification within your interpretation of Christ.

Any fool can see that sanctification creates a problem for you because perfected believers should have no need of it after repentance.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My only concern is clarity. I guess it can replace my old post, but you can feel free to respond however you wish.

Well, the very reason for my questions IS for clarity. Clarity is what I'm seeking via those questions, not permission. Telling me that I can respond as I wish does nothing to clarify your intention and exactly what your argument is. You promised to "try [your] best never to avoid a straightforward question". I've asked you to answer three questions. How about answering them?

While KM continues to show that he doesn't have what it takes to have a mature discussion, I'm hoping that you do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure how you meant for me to take this. Does this completely replace your OP or is it meant as an elaboration of it? If it is an elaboration, are there parts of your OP that you no longer see as valid? If so, what are they?

I've asked you to answer three questions. How about answering them?

OK.

(1) Does this completely replace your OP or is it meant as an elaboration of it?

It is meant as an elaboration...

(2) If it is an elaboration, are there parts of your OP that you no longer see as valid?

No, I don't believe there are parts of my old post that are no longer valid. Like I said, I am going for clarity, not changing my position.

(3) If so, what are they?

[Not applicable; see answer to question 2.]

Originally posted by knightmeister
ToOne - look beyond the irrelevant details and you can see the point Ephin is making. He's asking you how you explain the process of sanctification within your interpretation of Christ.

Any fool can see that sanctification creates a problem for you because perfected believers should have no need of it after repentance.

Exactly. Discipleship, correction, rebuke, chastisment, sanctification, etc., all imply the presence of imperfection (i.e., sin) in a believer's life.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, the very reason for my questions IS for clarity. Clarity is what I'm seeking via those questions, not permission. Telling me that I can respond as I wish does nothing to clarify your intention and exactly what your argument is. You promised to "try [your] best never to avoid a straightforward question". I've asked you to answer three questions. How ...[text shortened]... ow that he doesn't have what it takes to have a mature discussion, I'm hoping that you do.

While KM continues to show that he doesn't have what it takes to have a mature discussion, I'm hoping that you do.
------ToOne---------------------

And now that Ephin is making efforts to answer your questions will you reciprocate?

He's playing ball , but now will you?

I would love to know your defnition of "mature discussion" but that would require you to go on the record , and I've already explained why you don't want to do that.

I presume by "mature discussion " you mean a bit of give and take and each individual taking a responsibility to live up to their side of the bargain? If you watch the way children debate and argue they tend to find it very difficult to admit any failings in their position because unlike adults they cannot tolerate any discomfort or uncertainty.

Interestingly , I have yet to see you ONCE on this forum over ANY comment like " actually , KM that does confuse me a bit and I find this passage a bit of a problem" or " I suppose you have a point Ephin , I hadn't thought of it like that" .

Anyway , let's see how you respond in an "adult" way to Ephin's attempts.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Exactly. Discipleship, correction, rebuke, chastisment, sanctification, etc., all imply the presence of imperfection (i.e., sin) in a believer's life.

"Discipleship, correction, rebuke, chastisment, sanctification, etc., all imply the presence of imperfection (i.e., sin) in a believer's life"
-----------ephin-------------


You can logically see this , I can , and so would many (even many Atheists) . The logic is inescapable , just like the logic that goes with the Lord's Prayer and
" forgive us our trespasses". Why ask believers and followers to confess sins to God on a daily basis if they are meant to be perfect?

It also simply makes no sense to rebuke , chastise , sanctify a believer who is already perfected. Any child can see this.

So where does this leave us?

ToOne is obviously not lacking in intelligence , so it can't be that his mind lacks the ability to see the logic. The only conclusion can be that he simply refuses to see it and denies it because if he can't see the logic of what you are saying then there's no common ground to work with anyway.

If he so blatantly refuses to accept that there is a problem here then what's the point? He's got his position and he's sticking to it come hell or high water. Nothing that anyone can say will get through such rigid , narrow thinking.

He's either jerking us off or he is a virtually lost individual in some cult or something. Either way the only approach (after years of this) is to ignore him until he comes to his senses a bit.

We all have to start reflecting back to him the rigidity of his thinking and let him know that it's him that is the problem. As long as we humour him with these "discussions" that always go nowhere he will continue to feign debate and frustrate us.

This is the ToOne trick , to feign and make it look like a discussion when actually it is nothing of the sort.

He won't go on the record , he won't abide by any reasonable logic , he won't admit any flaws in his position , he's already made his mind up.

So give up.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"Discipleship, correction, rebuke, chastisment, sanctification, etc., all imply the presence of imperfection (i.e., sin) in a believer's life"
-----------ephin-------------


You can logically see this , I can , and so would many (even many Atheists) . The logic is inescapable , just like the logic that goes with the Lord's Prayer and
" forgive ...[text shortened]... t any flaws in his position , he's already made his mind up.

So give up.

Was this post meant for my benefit? Or as a subtle attack on that ThinkOfOne fellow? 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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.

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 efore your particular reading of scripture is, as far as I can tell, in grave error.[/b]

This is in response to a merging of the argument in your OP and this elaboration of that argument.

Your argument seems to rest upon the following conclusion that is propped up by conjecture derived by taking verses (or portions thereof) out of context:

. 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...Sin must be present in the believer, otherwise the believer ought to be exempt from any further correction (i.e., discipleship). ...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.

As a necessary consequence of this, for one to be obedient to Jesus, one must continue to sin which is contrary to the essence of the teachings of Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, etc. Your conclusion is absurd.

I can only wonder how you might reconcile verses such as the following with your conclusion:

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

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...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

Your conclusion is based in part upon the following for example:

"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).

Here you've taken a portion of a verse that's embedded in a metaphor. It is usually unwise to glean meaning from text taken out of context - especially text that is embedded in a metaphor. You seem to not understand the overall meaning of the metaphor.

Following is that portion in context:

John 15
1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Those who abide in Jesus are those who bear fruit. Those who keep His commandments are those who abide in Jesus.

As another example, your conclusion is also based in part upon the following:

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).

Not that I put much stock in the Book of Revelation, here you’ve once again taken a portion of a verse out of context.

Following is that portion in context:

Revelation 3
. 19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

It is better for one to be zealous and repent, rather than be subject to reproval and discipline.

BTW, your understanding of my position is not correct. However, your conclusion is contrary to the teachings of Jesus regardless, so there doesn't seem to be much point in correcting it for this discussion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Was this post meant for my benefit? Or as a subtle attack on that ThinkOfOne fellow? 🙂

Both really. I'm done with subtlely. He's never going to take anything you say seriously , so yes I'm having a pop , but also I think you could save yourself some time and try bashing your head against a brick wall instead. It would be far more satisfying.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is in response to a merging of the argument in your OP and this elaboration of that argument.

Your argument seems to rest upon the following conclusion that is propped up by conjecture derived by taking verses (or portions thereof) out of context:

[quote]. That means that sin must be present, otherwise the Christian ought to be exempt from any ...[text shortened]... regardless, so there doesn't seem to be much point in correcting it for this discussion.

As a necessary consequence of this, for one to be obedient to Jesus, one must continue to sin...

The teachings of Jesus on discipleship, i.e., those involving purging, rebuking, chastisement, correction, etc., of the disciple, imply the imperfection of sin. I am in no way arguing, or insinuating, that in order for one to be obedient to Jesus, one must continue to sin. Neither is that conclusion a 'necessary consequence' of my argument, as you claim. The imperfection of sin is implied; i.e., it goes without saying that those who are rebuked and corrected have not yet attained perfection. This is a far cry, obviously, from saying that in order to be obedient to Jesus, one must sin.

I can only wonder how you might reconcile verses such as the following with your conclusion: John 8:11, "And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

There isn't anything to reconcile. Of course Christ is going to teach his disciples to cease sinning and live holy lives. That is the purpose of discipleship: to learn how to live a holy life. Learning, as we all know, naturally involves failure. For instance, Peter was present when Christ taught the world that whoever denies the Son, the Son will deny before His Father, and yet Peter went on to deny Jesus three times. The same applies in this verse. Christ commands the woman to sin no more. If she falls into sin three times thereafter, does she cease being His disciple? No, if we take the example of Peter seriously, she can only cease to be Christ's disciple if she ceases to repent. Christ taught thus, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him" (Luke 17:3).

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...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."

Again, there isn't anything to reconcile here between Christ's commands and what Christ teaches about discipleship.

Here [John 15:2] you've taken a portion of a verse that's embedded in a metaphor. It is usually unwise to glean meaning from text taken out of context - especially text that is embedded in a metaphor. You seem to not understand the overall meaning of the metaphor.

Every branch (i.e., believer) that bears fruit (and by implication, keeps Christ's commandments) is pruned so that it (he or she) will be even more fruitful. It is not a great stretch, nor a betrayal of the context, to say that this verse teaches that a born-again believer is worked upon by a second work of grace in order to achieve greater sanctification. What Christ is teaching is that even those who keep His commandments are subject to discipline, correction, rebuke, etc. Pruning involves removal of diseased, damaged, dead, non-productive, or otherwise unwanted tissue from a plant. If the plant were free of such materials, it would not require pruning. Likewise, if a believer were perfect, he or she would not require discipline. Therefore, it is only natural to conclude from this verse that even born-again believers are not without sin.

Revelation 3:19, "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. " It is better for one to be zealous and repent, rather than be subject to reproval and discipline.

Your reformulation of this verse is incorrect. Christ is not teaching that zealousness and repentance are better, as you say, than being subject to reproval and discipline. What he is saying is that rather than be discouraged, the proper response to the Lord's reproval and discipline is zealousness and repentance. Why? Because the fact that you are being disciplined itself is proof that you are a child of God; discipline is something to be welcomed. We see this same sentiment being echoed in Psalms 3:11-12, "My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in."

BTW, your understanding of my position is not correct. However, your conclusion is contrary to the teachings of Jesus regardless, so there doesn't seem to be much point in correcting it for this discussion.

Don't worry, you haven't even remotely established that my position is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so you are free to correct my understanding of your position at once. I promise that I will either withdraw my argument or reformulate it based on the information you provide.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Both really. I'm done with subtlely. He's never going to take anything you say seriously , so yes I'm having a pop , but also I think you could save yourself some time and try bashing your head against a brick wall instead. It would be far more satisfying.

Lucky for me, it's not necessary to convince your opponent that he is wrong in order to win the argument.