17 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThis reply is a general one not specific to Epi or ToO.
This reply is a general one not specific to Epi or ToO.
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 and His righteousness to carry out what He has promised to carry out.
But specifically about ToO. You're really something, JW.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am not and never have claimed that Jesus taught "sinless perfectionism" as I keep pointing out to you....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.
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 mpound statements, just ask for clarification and I'll explain it to you.
I've looked, there is not a single instance during our conversation where you've pointed out the difference between your position and the definition of sinless perfectionism. You claim (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus taught that His followers have been set free from sin and therefore will never sin. That is what the doctrine of sinless perfectionism is. All protestations regarding the 'sinless perfectionism' label are and will continue to be superfluous.
The argument above has been addressed and refuted...
Nope. All you've done is point out that I've used sources other than Christ himself and that my fourth point is based on a metaphor. You haven't established that the sources I've used are unreliable or at odds with Christ's teaching, and neither have you established that my reading of John 15:2 is incorrect, so I'm still awaiting a refutation.
You've taken a portion of a compound statement out of context. Address it in it's entirety.
And you haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am not and never have claimed that Jesus taught "sinless perfectionism"
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... mpound statements, just ask for clarification and I'll explain it to you.
---------------ToOne-------------------------
Not explicitly , but the logical implications of your position stil lead to it.
It's because you haven't really thought through what you are saying that you can't understand the objections.
A man repents and then is not permitted to fail or sin lest he lose eternal life. No forgiveness or cleansing from sin for him who fails after repentance . That's what you teach - that's sinless perfectionism. How dim are you?
17 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasListen, this is the third post by you that has ignored major portions of my post. I don't know if you're reading them in their entirety. Judging by your responses, it's evident that there are certain concepts that you just aren't comprehending. This is pointless.
[b]I am not and never have claimed that Jesus taught "sinless perfectionism" as I keep pointing out to you....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.
I've looked, there is not a single instance during our conversation where you've pointed ou haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context.[/b]
Earlier you said, "I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you.."
You're not living up to your promise.
For example:
You took a portion of a compound argument out of context instead of addressing it in it's entirety
I asked you to address it in it's entirety and you responded with:
"And you haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context."
It's a response I'd expect from a twelve year old who is arguing just to argue. It's just one step above, "Well, your mother sews socks that smell".
What part of "mature" and "forthright" don't you get?
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMaybe if you told Ephin what the rules are and how to play he might have a chance. But that would mean ToONE going on the record.
Listen, this is the third post by you that has ignored major portions of my post. I don't know if you're reading them in their entirety. Judging by your responses, it's evident that there are certain concepts that you just aren't comprehending. This is pointless.
Earlier you said, "I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you.."
...[text shortened]... a twelve year old.
What part of "mature" and "forthright" don't you get?
Don't you see the game? Keep the parameters woolly and nebulus and then you can move them around , but as soon as you define what "mature" and "forthright" mean to you then you are beholden to follow the same rules yourself , and in ToOneworld that must not happen.
It's pretty obvious that in order to have a discussion with you one needs to have something akin to a legal contract that clearly defines the rules of play.
Your ideas on what is forthright and mature are obviously different from ours. Given that I have yet to see you answer a straight question with a straight answer in about 2-3 years , then I have no idea what "forthright" means to you.
Why don't you either set some clear parameters with Ephin or stop going on about so called rules of discussion which you refuse to define clearly.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI asked you to address it in it's entirety and you responded with:
Listen, this is the third post by you that has ignored major portions of my post. I don't know if you're reading them in their entirety. Judging by your responses, it's evident that there are certain concepts that you just aren't comprehending. This is pointless.
Earlier you said, "I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you.."
...[text shortened]... cks that smell".
What part of "mature" and "forthright" don't you get?
"And you haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context."
You are the one who is claiming that John 15:2 doesn't support my argument, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't. It isn't my responsibility to do your arguing for you.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasI have a question to ask you and I'd like you to answer honestly.
[b]I asked you to address it in it's entirety and you responded with:
"And you haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context."
You are the one who is claiming that John 15:2 doesn't support my argument, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't. It isn't my responsibility to do your arguing for you.[/b]
When you read my posts, are there portions where you don't really understand what I'm saying and so try to bluff your way past them?
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIs this how you plan on losing the argument? By flattering yourself and insulting me?
I have a question to ask you and I'd like you to answer honestly.
When you read my posts, are there portions where you don't really understand what I'm saying and so try to bluff your way past them?
Or would you rather explain how the term 'pruning' in John 15:2 doesn't imply a second work of God's grace effecting greater fruitfulness in a believer's life? That God finds such a work necessary in one of His obedient children, regardless of what 'pruning' may or may not entail, implies that incompleteness and imperfection persists even in those who obey Christ's commandments.
Why don't we stick with the argument at hand rather than let the conversation devolve into tangential personal attacks, OK? In the interest of pursuing a mature discussion...
18 Mar 10
7 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt was an honest question.
Is this how you plan on losing the argument? By flattering yourself and insulting me?
Or would you rather explain how the term 'pruning' in John 15:2 doesn't imply a second work of God's grace effecting greater fruitfulness in a believer's life? That God finds such a work necessary in one of His obedient children, regardless of what 'pruning' to tangential personal attacks, OK? In the interest of pursuing a mature discussion...
Then why do you continually ignore large portions of my posts that contain germane points and respond as if they don't exist?
For example, I summarized the following points that I had made previously since you ignored them when I initially made them:
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.
You quoted the first point of three and responded as follows:
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.
The above effectively ignores second and third points of the argument entirely, makes a completely insubstantial reference to the first, only to go off on a largely unrelated rant.
So I asked you to address it again:
You've taken a portion of a compound statement out of context. Address it in it's entirety.
And you responded by not addressing it again:
And you haven't shown that my reading of John 15:2 is incompatible with the context.
And later again:
You are the one who is claiming that John 15:2 doesn't support my argument, therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't. It isn't my responsibility to do your arguing for you.
I wasn't asking you to do "[my] arguing for [me]". I was asking you to address my argument. How many times do I need to ask?
You also summarized my argument against your fourth point as follows:
All you've done is point out ...that my fourth point is based on a metaphor.
The reality is I pointed out much more than that. This was my original argument against your fourth point:
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?
Look at your summary. It has effectively ignored almost my entire argument.
18 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat's what I said. It is about ToO. But it is not specifically TO you or Epi (although it was a reply to Epi just by convention).
[b]This reply is a general one not specific to Epi or ToO.
But specifically about ToO. You're really something, JW.[/b]
Either one is welcomed to read or ignore.
What post TO you have you answered specifically ? Not many. You leave many of my specific questions TO you ignored - unanswered as has been noted by other posters as well concerning your reaction to thier questions. Particulary, you choose to ignore my questions about resurrection.
I don't even think about you addressing my specific questions TO you anymore. So I write ABOUT you. You don't even have to read it.
18 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillThat's what I said.
That's what I said. It is [b]about ToO. But it is not specifically TO you or Epi (although it was a reply to Epi just by convention).
Either one is welcomed to read or ignore.
What post TO you have you answered specifically ? Not many. You leave many of my specific questions TO you ignored - unanswered as has been noted by other pos my specific questions TO you anymore. So I write ABOUT you. You don't even have to read it.[/b]
Actually, it's not what you said. You used "specific" as follows:
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specific:
2 a : restricted to a particular individual, situation, relation, or effect <a disease specific to horses>
Evidently what you meant was "not SPECIFICALLY to" which is very different.
What post [b]TO you have you answered specifically ? Not many.[/b]
This just isn't true JW. I've responded to the vast majority of posts addressed to me, though I do tend to ignore stalking posts.
Particulary, you choose to ignore my questions about resurrection.
I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable to make a valid argument on the topic at hand. That and whining about it and stalking the person who calls them on it.
So I write ABOUT you.
I guess that's just the kind of guy you are.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThen why do you continually ignore large portions of my posts that contain germane points and respond as if they don't exist?
It was an honest question.
Then why do you continually ignore large portions of my posts that contain germane points and respond as if they don't exist?
For example, I summarized the following points that I had made previously since you ignored them when I initially made them:
[quote]The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metap ...[text shortened]...
Look at your summary. It has effectively ignored almost my entire argument.
I might ask you the same question.
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.
It depends upon what you consider a definitive conclusion. If by definitive you mean, 'pruning' is too vague a notion to ascribe a certain meaning to (a particular disciplinary action, etc.), then you are right. However, my argument doesn't require that level of definition. Christ said, "every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (John 15:2). You don't need to know exactly what Christ is referring to by 'prunes' to be able to conclude that God is dealing with some incompleteness or imperfection in the believer's person. If the rest of Christ's metaphor in John 15 can be used to conclude something significant about what it means to be a disciple, it stands to reason that verse 2 can as well. Therefore your attempt to refute my argument based on the fact that it is derived from a metaphorical saying is toothless; at worst you are employing a double standard.
Furthermore, your argument is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology.
This isn't even an attempt at developing your argument or addressing mine. It is merely a claim that my sources are disparate, that is, in conflict with one another, and that I've cobbled them together, which is to say you believe I've fashioned my argument poorly. This is entirely subjective on your part, however, despite your attempt to legitimize it with words like "...not a very reliable methodology." The fact is Rev. 3:19, whether or not you personally accept it, is attributed to Christ, in all seriousness. Furthermore, it mirrors a passage from the Old Testament that Christ Himself was familiar with in his lifetime, i.e., Psalm 3:11-12. Clearly my sources are anything but disparate and cobbled together; quite the opposite. But that is neither here nor there...
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.
I was in agreement with you up until your last two paragraphs. You forget that one of Christ's commandments is also repentance (Matt. 6:12). Therefore, a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned. Therefore it is not as clear as you make it out to be, that only those who do not sin keep Christ's commandments. I get where you're coming from, though, and what you're going for, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
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.
So? Not everything Christ said has been explained in the text. That doesn't mean we cannot arrive at accurate conclusions about their meaning. As I pointed out earlier, you don't need to know exactly what Christ is referring to by 'prunes' in John 15:2 to be able to conclude that Christ is teaching that God deals with some incompleteness or imperfection in the believer's person in order to effect greater fruitfulness. It's a conclusion we can draw without needing to know exactly what the metaphor is referring to.
19 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne==============================
[b]That's what I said.
Actually, it's not what you said. You used "specific" as follows:
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specific:
2 a : restricted to a particular individual, situation, relation, or effect <a disease specific to horses>
Evidently what you meant was "not SPECIFICALLY to" which is very different.
What post it.
[b]So I write ABOUT you.
I guess that's just the kind of guy you are.[/b]
This just isn't true JW. I've responded to the vast majority of posts addressed to me, though I do tend to ignore stalking posts.
==================================== [/b]
Stalking posts ?? That is a very interesting phrase - "stalking posts".
So when you convey to us that you have deep and accurate understanding of the teachings of Jesus, that you can be relied upon to clearly interpret the message of Jesus, elaborating and providing trustworthy insight in the ministry of Christ, and I ask you about His words on RESURRECTION of Christ ...
That is a "stalking post?"
A "stalking posts" is a point that you desperately need to evade, is that it ?
Without the resurrection of Christ the New Testament believers are of all people the most pitiful and the Gospel is useless.
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; and you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If it is only that we have hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor. 15:17-19)
You are trusting in what man in his own natural energy can do to "follow" Jesus.
You mistake yourself for the person you wish to be.
You do not understand the work and power of the grace of Christ. Of this you apparently have no concept whatsoever. Worse, I think you conceal your disbelief and contempt for the resurrection of Christ behind stubburn silence.
That is the way I see it. Some of us can tell the difference between a person steadfastly holding to the teaching of the Bible and a person who is just being plain stubburn.
What does this passage mean for you ? On THIS side of the resurrection of Christ the apostle writes:
"Finally, be empowered in the Lord and in the might of His strength" (Eph. 6:10)
If Christ is not risen, it doesn't matter how much you muster up energy to follow Jesus "as He walked on the earth". You do not have the power. The indwelling Christ is like power steering on an automobile.
We need to be empowered by the resurrected and indwelling Christ.
"Being empowered with all power, according to the might of His ghlory, unto all endurance and long suffering with joy." (Col. 1:11)
Those are not just pretty sounding vain words ToO. The Christian needs the indwelling grace of Christ to EMPOWER her or him. It is much like power steering in an automobile.
"You therefore, my child, be empowered in the grace which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 2:1)
The resurrected Christ imparts Himself into those who receive Him. And then they can cooperate to BE EMPOWERED by the enjoyment of His nature.
Now I wish you would say these two passages aloud and grasp them by the mercy of God.
1.) "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)
2.) "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit , brothers, Amen." (Gal. 6:18)
Because the Lord Jesus can BE with a man's innermost being, the grace of His life can be with his innermost being.
Because Christ in His resurrected state as "life giving Spirit" can be with my spirit, the grace of His life can EMPOWER me from within.
The grace is not only the favor from without over man. The grace is the empowering from within the regenerated man. The grace of Christ is the empowering of Christ's life from within the man who receives Christ.
No resurrection - no grace. No grace - no empowering. No empowering - NO CHRISTIAN LIFE period.
19 Mar 10
1 edit
Grace reigns for the Christian. Grace is the enjoyment of Christ blending with your personality. Grace rules at its rule culminates in eternal life.
Justification puts man in a righteous standing before God. And in that standing the inwdelling grace can empower man to be transformed.
So Paul wrote " ... so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)
19 Mar 10
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt depends upon what you consider a definitive conclusion. If by definitive you mean, 'pruning' is too vague a notion to ascribe a certain meaning to (a particular disciplinary action, etc.), then you are right. However, my argument doesn't require that level of definition. Christ said, "every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (John 15:2). You don't need to know exactly what Christ is referring to by 'prunes' to be able to conclude that God is dealing with some incompleteness or imperfection in the believer's person. If the rest of Christ's metaphor in John 15 can be used to conclude something significant about what it means to be a disciple, it stands to reason that verse 2 can as well. Therefore your attempt to refute my argument based on the fact that it is derived from a metaphorical saying is toothless; at worst you are employing a double standard...
[b]Then why do you continually ignore large portions of my posts that contain germane points and respond as if they don't exist?
I might ask you the same question.
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.
It depends upon what you consi hout needing to know exactly what the metaphor is referring to.[/b]
Not everything Christ said has been explained in the text. That doesn't mean we cannot arrive at accurate conclusions about their meaning. As I pointed out earlier, you don't need to know exactly what Christ is referring to by 'prunes' in John 15:2 to be able to conclude that Christ is teaching that God deals with some incompleteness or imperfection in the believer's person in order to effect greater fruitfulness. It's a conclusion we can draw without needing to know exactly what the metaphor is referring to.
There are certain concepts that seem to be beyond you at this point.
Let's try looking at the passage from John 15 from a different perspective.
John 15:4-10 contains the intended purpose for this teaching. This is what is important and what is to be learned.
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.
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.
The main point is that one must keep His commandments in order to abide in Him and thus bear fruit. Those who do not do so are thrown away.
John 15:1-2 are a metaphor that serve as a pedagogical device for remembering the teaching and as a framework for the teaching.
If the phrase "every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" was important to the teaching, He would have offered a detailed explanation as to its underlying meaning in John 15:4-10. The fact is He did not. As such all attempts to assign meaning to the phrase is conjecture. Therefore, your attempt to assign meaning is conjecture and therefore cannot be definitive. It is not a "double standard" to draw conclusions from the underlying meaning provided by Jesus in John 15:4-10 and to discount conclusions that are drawn directly from the pure metaphor of John 15:1-2.
In John 15:2b all we have to draw on is pure metaphor: "Every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit". If Jesus provided the underlying meaning for "fruit" and "prunes" and "more fruit", we might be able to draw a conclusion that is more than conjecture. As it is, we cannot.
Here more conjecture:
1)Perhaps John 15:2b is merely intended to convey that those who keep His commandments will be nurtured and thrive as opposed do those who do not keep his commandments that will be thrown away and burned.
2)Perhaps John 15:2b is intended to convey that "sanctification involves more than mere sinlessness" as JW posited several posts back.
The fact is that it is too ill-defined to draw a definitive conclusion as to its intended meaning.
I hope this helps.
This isn't even an attempt at developing your argument or addressing mine. It is merely a claim that my sources are disparate, that is, in conflict with one another, and that I've cobbled them together, which is to say you believe I've fashioned my argument poorly. This is entirely subjective on your part, however, despite your attempt to legitimize it with words like "...not a very reliable methodology." The fact is Rev. 3:19, whether or not you personally accept it, is attributed to Christ, in all seriousness. Furthermore, it mirrors a passage from the Old Testament that Christ Himself was familiar with in his lifetime, i.e., Psalm 3:11-12. Clearly my sources are anything but disparate and cobbled together; quite the opposite. But that is neither here nor there...
You are taking phrases from different sources, i.e., passages and/or authors and /or even speakers, and piecing them together and saying that it is definitively what Jesus taught. The point is that such a methodology is unreliable.
The fact is that Rev. 3:19 is attributed to a vision where the author claimed that Jesus spoke to him.
If someone had a vision of Albert Einstein and related what Einstein said to him. Would you consider that to be a teaching of Einstein's?
I was in agreement with you up until your last two paragraphs. You forget that one of Christ's commandments is also repentance (Matt. 6:12). Therefore, a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned. Therefore it is not as clear as you make it out to be, that only those who do not sin keep Christ's commandments. I get where you're coming from, though, and what you're going for, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
That a sinner repents does not change the fact that he did not keep His commandments. In fact, if he had kept His commandments, there would have been no need for him to repent. In fact, earlier you agreed that when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments. Your point is absurd.