15 Mar 10
9 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am in no way arguing, or insinuating, that in order for one to be obedient to Jesus, one must continue to sin.
[b]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, raw my argument or reformulate it based on the information you provide.[/b]
When you said, "Obedience to Christ does not and cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness in any way shape or form", perhaps you meant to say, "DISCIPLESHIP does not REQUIRE sinlessness". If so, you could have worded it better, because as it was stated, one could not be both obedient and sinless. Note that when one sins, one is disobeying Jesus.
You seem to be preoccupied with the concept of DISCIPLESHIP whereas Jesus spoke of becoming righteous, i.e., becoming one with God, following the will of God, keeping His commandments, etc. From what I can tell about what you call discipleship, these are very different things. When one sins, is one one with God? When one sins, is one following the will of God? When one sins, is one keeping His commandments?
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... What Christ is teaching is that even those who keep His commandments are subject to discipline, correction, rebuke, etc.
Once again, when one sins, is one keeping His commandments? You seem to be indicating "Yes", but of course the answer is "No". You are reading what you want to see into this metaphor.
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.
The verse is in two parts. The first is a warning that rebuke and discipline will be given as required to those who are loved. The second says that for that reason, one should take heed and be zealous and repent. Also keep in mind that this snippet of a verse is taken from a "vision", not what Jesus taught as He walked the Earth.
Also keep in mind that your argument seems to rest upon conjecture derived by taking verses (or portions thereof) out of context and cobbling them together in an attempt to support what you want, while you ignore what's being said in the passage in the case of John 15.
15 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne...perhaps you meant to say, "DISCIPLESHIP does not REQUIRE sinlessness". If so, you could have worded it better, because as it was stated, one could not be both obedient and sinless.
[b]I am in no way arguing, or insinuating, that in order for one to be obedient to Jesus, one must continue to sin.
When you said, "Obedience to Christ does not and cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness in any way shape or form", perhaps you meant to say, "DISCIPLESHIP does not REQUIRE sinlessness". If so, you could have worded it better, because ...[text shortened]... you want, while you ignore what's being said in the passage in the case of John 15.[/b]
I like that. "Discipleship does not require sinlessness" is much clearer. Thanks. However, I would add that Christ's command not to sin never changes, and in one sense discipleship does require sinlessness. But while this is true, what remains self-evident is that discipleship is also a learning process, wherein one is allowed to fail and yet remain in God's will provided the disciple responds to the Lord's rebuke with repentance; that is, provided one is learning.
Note that when one sins, one is disobeying Jesus.
And I do not deny that when one sins, one is disobeying Jesus. How could it be otherwise? (Note, also, that when one repents, on is being obedient to Jesus.)
You seem to be preoccupied with the concept of DISCIPLESHIP whereas Jesus spoke of becoming righteous, i.e., becoming one with God, following the will of God, keeping His commandments, etc. From what I can tell about what you call discipleship, these are very different things.
Again, I don't see how Christ's commandments are at odds with discipleship wherein one learns how to follow Christ's commandments. What your particular understanding of Christ's teaching does not account for is the indispensable learning/maturation process called discipleship, wherein failure is expected and progressively dealt with.
Not only is there a learning process involved in discipleship, but a progressive putting to death of the flesh and its lusts (Luke 9:23) by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 19:26). Temptation, ignorance, and lack of vigilance are the enemies of every disciple, no matter how mature in Christ. As such, it is always possible for a disciple of Christ to fall into sin. A rebuke from the Master deals with any failure in the disciple, and the obedient response of the true disciple to the Master's rebuke will always be repentance; in this way the process of sanctification via discipleship proceeds.
When one sins, is one one with God?
No.
When one sins, is one following the will of God?
No.
When one sins, is one keeping His commandments?
No.
Once again, when one sins, is one keeping His commandments? You seem to be indicating "Yes", but of course the answer is "No". You are reading what you want to see into this metaphor.
I'm not saying that when one sins, one is keeping Christ's commandments. What I'm saying is that even those who keep Christ's commandments are susceptible to sin, and as such they too are from time to time in need of discipline, correction, rebuke, etc. Christ indicates this in John 15:2; a branch in need of pruning is, of course, an imperfect branch. Christ also indicates this in Revelation 3:19, "Those whom I love (i.e., those who keep my commandments, per John 15) I rebuke and discipline."
If we understand Rev. 3:19 in the context of John 15, it's easy to see that those whom Christ loves are those who abide in Him, and those whom abide in Christ are those who obey His commandments; and so, according to Rev. 3:19, those whom obey Christ's commandments must still receive from Him rebuke and discipline. Again, this is 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 [i.e., those who obey his commandments], as a father the son he delights in."
Also keep in mind that this snippet of a verse is taken from a "vision", not what Jesus taught as He walked the Earth.
Regardless, it echoes Psalm 3:11-12.
Also keep in mind that your argument seems to rest upon conjecture derived by taking verses (or portions thereof) out of context and cobbling them together in an attempt to support what you want...
You have not established that I am using the texts in question in a way that is in discord with the context.
...while you ignore what's being said in the passage in the case of John 15.
Neither have you shown how I am ignoring what is being said in John 15.
__________
P. S. Are you going to clarify your position for me or not, ThinkOfOne? It would be kind of you to do so, since it would save me from wasting my time defending an irrelevant argument. In the interest of pursuing a mature discussion with you.
15 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd I do not deny that when one sins, one is disobeying Jesus. How could it be otherwise?
[b]...perhaps you meant to say, "DISCIPLESHIP does not REQUIRE sinlessness". If so, you could have worded it better, because as it was stated, one could not be both obedient and sinless.
I like that. "Discipleship does not require sinlessness" is much clearer. Thanks. However, I would add that Christ's command not to sin never changes, a gument. In the interest of pursuing a mature discussion with you.[/b]
That's what I've been asking. Seems like maybe you've lost the context of this discussion. You're the one who drew the conclusion, ""Obedience to Christ does not and cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness in any way shape or form".
At this point I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, though it doesn't seem to be coherent.
P. S. Are you going to clarify your position for me or not, ThinkOfOne? It would be kind of you to do so, since it would save me from wasting my time defending an irrelevant argument.
I've posted this what seems like dozens of times by now, but once again here it is in a nutshell:
The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" according to the teachings of Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc. Anything that falls short of this is "cheap salvation".
16 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAt this point I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, though it doesn't seem to be coherent.
[b]And I do not deny that when one sins, one is disobeying Jesus. How could it be otherwise?
That's what I've been asking. Seems like maybe you've lost the context of this discussion. You're the one who drew the conclusion, ""Obedience to Christ does not and cannot, therefore, involve sinlessness in any way shape or form".
At this point I'm not ue to commit sin, etc. Anything that falls short of this is "cheap salvation".[/b]
Here's my argument in a nutshell, and it is quite coherent:
(1) Even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), require discipline (Rev. 3:19; Psalm 3:11-12).
(2) Individuals already perfectly sanctified (i.e., without sin) would not require discipline, therefore even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), cannot be said to be perfectly sanctified (per 1 John 1:8).
(3) If they cannot be said to be perfectly sanctified (per 1 John 1:8), and yet they are loved by Christ (hence obedient to His will), then obedience to Christ does not mean sinless perfection.
(4) Christ's teaching implies this; that there is a second work of grace (e.g., the Lord's pruning in John 15:2) which shall bring a born-again believer (i.e., the branch) closer to perfect sanctification (i.e., greater fruitfulness).
The absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" according to the teachings of Jesus: One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc. Anything that falls short of this is "cheap salvation".
(a) If by "one cannot continue to commit sin" you are insinuating that Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, then you are in error (as I have shown above).
(b) If you do not think that Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, then your argument, as you've presented it here, is not in substantial disagreement with Christ's teaching. But neither is it in disagreement with my argument. In which case my argument ought to be withdrawn.
which is it, a or b? Or perhaps another possibility I have overlooked?
16 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehaswhich is it, a or b? Or perhaps another possibility I have overlooked?
[b]At this point I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, though it doesn't seem to be coherent.
Here's my argument in a nutshell, and it is quite coherent:
(1) Even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), require discipline (Rev. 3:19; Psalm 3:11-12).
(2) Individuals already perfectly sanctified (i.e., witho ...[text shortened]... n.
which is it, a or b? Or perhaps another possibility I have overlooked?[/b]
Do you really think this a proper question?
Think about what you've done here.
16 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasJust to make things a little more interesting, let us suppose that sanctification involves more than mere sinlessness.
[b]At this point I'm not sure what your argument is anymore, though it doesn't seem to be coherent.
Here's my argument in a nutshell, and it is quite coherent:
(1) Even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), require discipline (Rev. 3:19; Psalm 3:11-12).
(2) Individuals already perfectly sanctified (i.e., witho n.
which is it, a or b? Or perhaps another possibility I have overlooked?[/b]
This has to be the case because Jesus who was sinless said that He sanctified Himself for the sake of His disciples:
"As You have sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sake I sanctify Myself they they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth." (John 17:18,19)
Jesus Who was absolutely holy nevertheless SANCTIFIED Himself for the sake of His disciples. Why?
He set Himself apart so that there would be even no appearance or misunderstanding even though He was thoroughly holy. For example, in John 4 Jesus was seen speaking with a woman at the well. He did so in the middle of the day at noon in public.
The disciples marveled that He was speaking with a woman period. This must indicate that Jesus did not often speak with women privately. But here He does not speak to a woman in a closed room in private. He waits until it is noon time and in public, at a public place. And there He carries on a conversation with a member of the opposite sex.
I do not believe there was any lack of holiness in Christ. But for the sake of His disciples not misunderstanding or being stumbled, He sanctified Himself. He avoided even any appearance of sinfulness even though He was thoroughly holy.
He had the freedom to do many things and they not defile His holiness. But for the sake of not discouraging His disciples or providing any possible ground for their misunderstanding, He sanctified Himself -
"And for thier sake I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth."
Here sanctification seems to be a setting apart, a dedication, a avoiding even the appearance of impropriaty even though no intrinsic sinfulness is involved.
Carry on.
16 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasClarify? Seems more like you were looking to assign a loaded label that you presented in what is in essence a false dichotomy and used loaded language in building it. No need to artificially assign a label - especially one that doesn't seem to have an agreed upon definition and is used for disparagement. Assigning such a label not only doesn't "clarify", it is misleading and is an appeal to emotion. I stand by what I said.
What I've done is ask you to further clarify your position.
You referred to your argument here:
"If by "one cannot continue to commit sin" you are insinuating that Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, then you are in error (as I have shown above).
Did you intend an implication here that your argument refutes that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?
16 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDid you intend an implication here that your argument refutes that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?
Clarify? Seems more like you were looking to assign a loaded label that you presented in what is in essence a false dichotomy and used loaded language in building it. No need to artificially assign a label - especially one that doesn't seem to have an agreed upon definition and is used for disparagement. Assigning such a label not only doesn't "clarify", ...[text shortened]... one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?
My argument is a refutation of the belief that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, i.e., the doctrine which teaches that a believer can arrive at a level of perfection wherein he no longer sins.*
What you've revealed of your position strongly suggests that you advocate this doctrine, or at least intend to argue that Christ teaches it. However, it is possible, judging by the particular wording of your position, that you do not intend to advocate or adopt anything of the sort.
Are you in fact arguing that Christ taught sinless perfectionism as I've just described it?* Or is there some other possibility that I've overlooked? Please clarify.
No need to artificially assign a label - especially one that doesn't seem to have an agreed upon definition and is used for disparagement. Assigning such a label not only doesn't "clarify", it is misleading and is an appeal to emotion.
I had no idea this was an issue, and certainly did not intend to use the term in order to appeal to emotion. If you'd rather use a different label, that's fine with me. How about sanctificationism? Or something along those lines? Anyway, I've attempted to define the term above; feel free to suggest any tweaks you have in mind.
16 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy are you so preoccupied with putting a label on it? There is no reason to do so. Trying to find a label to assign to it imparts no further meaning and may be misleading.
[b]Did you intend an implication here that your argument refutes that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?
My argument is a refutation of the belief that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, i.e., the doctrine which teaches that a believer can arrive at a level of perfection wherein pted to define the term above; feel free to suggest any tweaks you have in mind.[/b]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus taught that His true disciples will know the truth and be made free from committing sin:
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."
Jesus taught that only those who do the will of His Father, i.e., only those who do not work iniquity, i.e., sin, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
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. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the most part, your argument is not built upon the teachings of Jesus, but uses the teachings of others. The first three points leverage teachings of those other than Jesus.
The fourth point of your argument tries to build upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion.
Furthermore, your argument is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology.
Be that as it may, let's take a closer look at John 15 anyway. Much of it is put in very abstract terms, though Jesus does make it more concrete by giving the underlying meaning for the following:
Who is thrown away: Those who do not bear fruit; Those who do not abide in Him;
Who bears fruit: Those who abide in Him.
Who abides in Him: Those who keep His commandments.
However there are some things for which no underlying meaning is given:
What is meant by "fruit".
What is meant by "prune".
Using the underlying meaning provided by Jesus we can draw the following conclusions:
1) Those who bear fruit are those who abide in Him who are those who keep his commandments.
2) Those who are thrown away are those who do not bear fruit who are those who do not abide in him who are those who do not keep his commandments.
Earlier you agreed that when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments. These are those who fit the second conclusion above.
Similarly those who do not sin are those who keep His commandments. These are those who fit the first conclusion above.
Note that the fourth point of your argument seems to rely heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus, but rather an underlying meaning that was provided by you.
Which do you think is more likely to be correct?
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy are you so preoccupied with putting a label on it? There is no reason to do so. Trying to find a label to assign to it imparts no further meaning and may be misleading.
Why are you so preoccupied with putting a label on it? There is no reason to do so. Trying to find a label to assign to it imparts no further meaning and may be misleading.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus taught that His true disciples will know the truth and be made free from commit ...[text shortened]... at was provided by you.
Which do you think is more likely to be correct?
Not necessarily. For instance, according to your post, Jesus teaches that His followers, if they truly are His followers, are perfectly free from sin and therefore never sin. As such, labeling your argument 'sinless perfectionism' imparts no further meaning, since your claim and the definition of 'sinless perfectionism' are identical. You may disagree, but I would ask then, what other significance might you be intending to glean from quoting the two passages you've chosen?
Note that the fourth point of your argument seems to rely heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus, but rather an underlying meaning that was provided by you.
Regardless, you have yet to provide an answer to my argument. Christ's teaching implies that imperfection persists even in those whom He loves. Why do those who are purportedly sinless require discipline? Why do those who obey Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves, need to be pruned?
17 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis reply is a general one not specific to Epi or ToO.
[b]Did you intend an implication here that your argument refutes that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation"?
My argument is a refutation of the belief that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, i.e., the doctrine which teaches that a believer can arrive at a level of perfection wherein pted to define the term above; feel free to suggest any tweaks you have in mind.[/b]
He (ToO) doesn't believe that Jesus is real. He doesn't believe that Jesus is alive. He doesn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And he will not come out and say so.
He thinks the resurrection is irrelvant. Can you imagine that ? He thinks that in the New Testament the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is irrelevant. It has no meaning for him. Christ's ministry after His resurrection is beside the point.
Can you imagine such darkness ?
He complains about us not taking seriously the words of Jesus while He "walked on the earth".
How about these words of Jesus as He walked on the earth?
"And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed and after three days rise" (Mark 8:31) Taught by Jesus while Jesus "walked the earth".
He teaches of His death and resurrection - Matthew 16:23 while walking the earth.
He teaches again of His being killed and rising from the dead - Luke 9:22 - "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders ... and be killed, and on the third day rise."
While walking on the earth AFTER His resurrection - " ... O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? " (Luke 24:25,26)
While walking on the earth after His resurrection - " .... Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day. And that repentence for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46,47)
Christ should rise from the dead, He taught. And repentence and forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name around the world.
But does ToO take these passages seriously? I haven't ever heard him say a solitary word about the resurrection of Christ. But he condemns some of us Christians for not taking seriously the words of Jesus while He "walked on the earth".
Preaching a dead Jesus is preaching an antichrist message no matter what else ToO is trying to preach.
Expect silence on the matter of the resurrection of Christ from ToO. Perhaps he hopes we won't notice.
Now, this resurrected Jesus is ABLE TO SAVE TO THE UTTERMOST THOSE WHO COME FORWARD TO GOD THROUGH HIM. So the resurrection is important to the Christian life -
" But He, [Christ] because He abides forever, and has His priesthood unalterable. Hence also He is able to save to the uttermost those who come forward to God through Him, SINCE ... He lives always to intercede for them." (Hebrews 7:24,25)
we Christians cannot avoid being SAVED to the uttermost. We are being saved from the guttermost to the UTTERMOST. We can slow Him down. We can procrastinate. WE cannot put off forever this great salvation. For He lives perpetually in resurrection to intercede for us.
And He is able to present us "holy and without blemish before Him in love" (Eph. 1:4)
" ... to Him who is ABLE to guard you from stumbling and to set you before His glory without blemish in exultation." (Jude :24)
He is able to perfect every single born again Christian and WILL. He may not perfect all at the same time. I assure you though ALL will be perfected. He is not righteous if He is not able to perfect us all. His new covenant is carried out according to His faithfulness and His righteousness to carry out what He has promised to carry out.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot necessarily. For instance, according to your post, Jesus teaches that His followers, if they truly are His followers, are perfectly free from sin and therefore never sin. As such, labeling your argument 'sinless perfectionism' imparts no further meaning, since your claim and the definition of 'sinless perfectionism' are identical. You may disagree, but I would ask then, what other significance might you be intending to glean from quoting the two passages you've chosen?
[b]Why are you so preoccupied with putting a label on it? There is no reason to do so. Trying to find a label to assign to it imparts no further meaning and may be misleading.
Not necessarily. For instance, according to your post, Jesus teaches that His followers, if they truly are His followers, are perfectly free from sin and therefore never si line? Why do those who obey Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves, need to be pruned?[/b]
Labels are merely tokens for underlying meaning. Ultimately the only thing that matters is the underlying meaning, so assigning a label is a waste of time. What can be of benefit, is to better understand the underlying meaning. The two passages I quoted and the explanatory text were to make the underlying meaning clearer.
Regardless, you have yet to provide an answer to my argument. Christ's teaching implies that imperfection persists even in those whom He loves. Why do those who are purportedly sinless require discipline? Why do those who obey Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves, need to be pruned?
Three of the four points of your argument have been clearly refuted as they employ the teachings of those other than Jesus. The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion;as it is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology; and as it relies heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus.
Once again, Jesus did not provide the underlying meaning to "fruit" and "prune". As such, all attempts to derive meaning from them is conjecture. For example, substituting "disciplines" for "prunes" is conjecture. It could just as easily be "guides".
You seem to have ignored quite a bit of my post. Maybe you should make another pass. Based on your response, it seems likely that taking the time to better understand it would be of benefit.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe two passages I quoted and the explanatory text were to make the underlying meaning clearer.
Not necessarily. For instance, according to your post, Jesus teaches that His followers, if they truly are His followers, are perfectly free from sin and therefore never sin. As such, labeling your argument 'sinless perfectionism' imparts no further meaning, since your claim and the definition of 'sinless perfectionism' are identical. You may disagree, seems likely that taking the time to better understand it would be of benefit.
I'm sorry, but merely copying and pasting two passages from scripture doesn't an argument make; i.e., it isn't plain that John 8:32-36 and Matthew 7:21-23 teach sinless perfectionism. You are using these two passages to prop up your argument, but it isn't a given that they, in fact, support your argument. Therefore, yes, it is completely legitimate to separate what your position is from the texts themselves. And your position is clearly sinless perfectionism.
Three of the four points of your argument have been clearly refuted as they employ the teachings of those other than Jesus.
Merely pointing out that I've employed the teachings of those other than Jesus does not refute my argument. Address the argument itself in order to refute it. Why did Christ take disciples? If His followers are perfect, what need do they have for discipline? Why did He teach them to pray daily: "forgive us our debts (i.e., sins) ? (Matt. 6:12). Why does Christ discipline those He loves if they are perfect? You have a lot of questions to answer.
The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion...
What is weak is your insistence that drawing a conclusion from Christ's metaphor is weak. At the very least, whatever 'pruning' might entail, the fact is Christ is alluding to a second work of grace meant to bring the believer greater sanctification. This of course implies imperfection. You seem to have no problem drawing definitive conclusions from the rest of the metaphor. If Christ has assigned specific meanings to the remainder of His metaphor, it is reasonable to conclude that John 15:2 also refers to something real.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI'm sorry, but merely copying and pasting two passages from scripture doesn't an argument make; i.e., it isn't plain that John 8:32-36 and Matthew 7:21-23 teach sinless perfectionism. You are using these two passages to prop up your argument, but it isn't a given that they, in fact, support your argument. Therefore, yes, it is completely legitimate to separate what your position is from the texts themselves. And your position is clearly sinless perfectionism.
[b]The two passages I quoted and the explanatory text were to make the underlying meaning clearer.
I'm sorry, but merely copying and pasting two passages from scripture doesn't an argument make; i.e., it isn't plain that John 8:32-36 and Matthew 7:21-23 teach sinless perfectionism. You are using these two passages to prop up your argument, but it is metaphor, it is reasonable to conclude that John 15:2 also refers to something real.[/b]
You're insisting on creating a straw man. I am not and never have claimed that Jesus taught "sinless perfectionism" as I keep pointing out to you. Go back and read my previous posts and address the points of my argument as written.
Merely pointing out that I've employed the teachings of those other than Jesus does not refute my argument. Address the argument itself in order to refute it. Why did Christ take disciples? If His followers are perfect, what need do they have for discipline? Why did He teach them to pray daily: "forgive us our debts (i.e., sins) ? (Matt. 6:12). Why does Christ discipline those He loves if they are perfect? You have a lot of questions to answer.
This is your argument:
Here's my argument in a nutshell, and it is quite coherent:
(1) Even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), require discipline (Rev. 3:19; Psalm 3:11-12).
(2) Individuals already perfectly sanctified (i.e., without sin) would not require discipline, therefore even those who keep Christ's commandments, whom Christ loves (John 15:10), cannot be said to be perfectly sanctified (per 1 John 1:8).
(3) If they cannot be said to be perfectly sanctified (per 1 John 1:8), and yet they are loved by Christ (hence obedient to His will), then obedience to Christ does not mean sinless perfection.
(4) Christ's teaching implies this; that there is a second work of grace (e.g., the Lord's pruning in John 15:2) which shall bring a born-again believer (i.e., the branch) closer to perfect sanctification (i.e., greater fruitfulness).
My argument is a refutation of the belief that Christ... teaches that a believer can arrive at a level...wherein he no longer sins.*
The argument above has been addressed and refuted (Note that I removed "straw man language" from the last statement). Go back and read my previous posts.
What is weak is your insistence that drawing a conclusion from Christ's metaphor is weak. At the very least, whatever 'pruning' might entail, the fact is Christ is alluding to a second work of grace meant to bring the believer greater sanctification. This of course implies imperfection. You seem to have no problem drawing definitive conclusions from the rest of the metaphor. If Christ has assigned specific meanings to the remainder of His metaphor, it is reasonable to conclude that John 15:2 also refers to something real.
You've taken a portion of a compound statement out of context. Address it in it's entirety. If you don't understand compound statements, just ask for clarification and I'll explain it to you.