I ask in this way, because I believe it has 2 answers. Yes and No. Yes, because of Sin generally. If not for sin, there would not have been a fall, and thus, people will go to Hell because of sin. However, they will not be in Hell because of their sin. Christ died for the sins of the world and thus, they will specifically be in Hell because of their unbelief.
I want to quote "Grace" by Lewis Chafer for a moment (breaking or bending my own rules, but I hope it triggers some biblical discussion).
"....through the substitutinary death of Christ for all men as Sin-Bearer (John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:14,19) the ground of universal divine condemntation is now beause of the personal rejection of the Savior who bore the sin. This is set forth in His Word: "He that believeth on him is not condemnted: bue he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18); "But he that believeth not shall be damnted" Mark 16:16."
"In confirmation of the fact that men are now condemned because of unbelief, it should be note that when the Spirit of God approaches the unsaved to convince them of sin, he does not same themk or blame them conerning the sins they have committed, instead he convicts them of the one sin only." Of sin, becuase they believe not on me" (John 16:9). So also, Christians are said to be free from all condemtnaion on the sole ground that they have believed on the Savior. (John 3:18. Cf 5:24; Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 11:32; 2 Cor 5:19)"
"At this point God offers but one remedy. That remedy is Grace."
"Men are either utterly condemned under the universal decree of the Judge of all the earth, or they are perfectly saved and safe in the grace of God as it is in Jesus Christ" Quotes are from pages 41-43.
I do not agree with everything Chafer says, but he puts this well in my opinion.
I submit that Christ died for all sin, and that people will only be in Hell if they do not believe in him. But, they will be in Hell because of sin, because with out the fall, we would not need a savior. All sin was put on Christ at the Cross. If we believe in Christ, we have life in his name or "eternal life."
Christ even died for the sin of unbelief. If he had not, we would all be going to Hell. But eternal life is gained by belief in Christ.
Thus, repentance cannot be a condition of eternal life, becuase the sin is already paid for. If we had to turn from it, then it was not paid for. If I must do something to have eternal life, then it is not unmerited, nor is it grace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
543 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 543 of 543Trent said...
Rom 3:23 All have sinned, HOWEVER as you will see in 1 JN, only the new creation inside of us enters heaven which has not sinned. That is why I am trying not to answer. I want you to see what scripture says. Lets continue in 1 Jn. :)
In other words, Trent says that people who sin are allowed into Heaven. Or does Trent say that people who sin aren’t allowed into Heaven? Which is it, Trent?
Do you agree with me that people who sin are not allowed into Heaven?
Trent said...
Is walking in the light a condition for eternal life in your opinion?
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin
There’s a comma after “another.” Either walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another but not for having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin or for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin.
Which is it?
I assumed you say walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin.
If walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another but not for having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin, walking in the light is not a condition for eternal life.
If walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin, walking in the light is a condition for eternal life.
Your theology is blinding you to what Paul is saying. Its like you saying you have to be an armenian or calvinist. I choose neither of your views and stick to Pauls. All does not mean everything, its based on context. Since all things are lawful, but then we can sin, you have two options. One, is that something can be lawful and sin, or two, his context of lawful is not including sinful acts. I tend towards that, and am willing to study that with you later. What we do KNOW positively is whether we are discussing Paul, Jesus, or John, it is obvious a believer can Sin.
Since only our new creation enters eternity, no sin enters, yet at one time we were only the old creation which did sin. I believe as we continue in John you will understand that better.
1 John Study
LB says "There’s a comma after “another.” Either walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another but not for having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin or for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin."
LB in the greek, there are no commas.. no punctuation. Is there anything then there that would lead you to believe he is changing topics, or does it seem to make more sense that they are both related?
LB says "I assumed you say walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin.
If walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another but not for having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin, walking in the light is not a condition for eternal life.
If walking in the light is a condition for having fellowship with one another and having the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin, walking in the light is a condition for eternal life. "
well put. So the question is, based on 1 John, does it seem like the thrust is that these are conditions for cleansing, or for eternal life. John is very clear in his gospel that actions do not give eternal life as you know. Since I know you agree with me there I will go to the next verse.
1 Jn 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
Is WE and US still the same people as the first 7 verses? If not why.
What does it mean if the truth is not in us?
If WE are not believers, then how are they deceiving ourselves?
Please note the continuation from vs 6-7. It is building to something.. Remember Vs 6.. IF WE walk in darkness, then we do not have fellowship with Him.
Antinomianism cries Christendom. What does it mean that all things are lawful? Just this. It means nothing is unlawful. It has to mean this. But it isn’t for everybody. This is what it means for us, we who believe it We who live by it. See how easy that is? How good? There is nothing to condemn you. You are free from that law.
I know it doesn’t sound right, but it is. This of course is not true for everyone. Then why should I think it is true for me, or for the apostle Paul? Not everyone believes the things that pertain unto his freedom and also unto his salvation. But we do, Paul and I and many others. See the difference. It is true for everybody, Yes, of course. But most refuse to believe it. Even those who consider themselves advanced in Christianity and schooled in spiritual things--especially them.
How did it happen that all things became lawful to me? It happened at the same time it became lawful for everybody else. It happened by the same event, the resurrection. It happened when He spoiled principalities and powers, the force of law they employ to maintain their power and principality. Spoiled as they now are, all things are lawful.
For those who don’t believe, all things are not lawful for them.
http://secrettemple.blogspot.com/2005/12/for-me-all-things-are-lawful.html
Trent said...
All does not mean everything, its based on context. Since all things are lawful, but then we can sin, you have two options. One, is that something can be lawful and sin, or two, his context of lawful is not including sinful acts. I tend towards that, and am willing to study that with you later.
Something can be lawful and sin. Like what?
His context of lawful is not including sinful acts. Like what?
Trent said...
What we do KNOW positively is whether we are discussing Paul, Jesus, or John, it is obvious a believer can Sin.
Like what?
Trent said...
Since only our new creation enters eternity, no sin enters, yet at one time we were only the old creation which did sin. I believe as we continue in John you will understand that better.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven?
Trent said...
well put. So the question is, based on 1 John, does it seem like the thrust is that these are conditions for cleansing, or for eternal life. John is very clear in his gospel that actions do not give eternal life as you know. Since I know you agree with me there I will go to the next verse.
Being saved and walking in the light and being washed in the blood are all the same thing. And people don’t have the payment for their sins applied to them until they believe on Christ.
WALKING IN THE LIGHT AND WASHED IN THE BLOOD
BY C. H. SPURGEON
1 John 1:7
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs663.pdf
1 Jn 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
Trent said...
Is WE and US still the same people as the first 7 verses? If not why.
Yes. John is talking to believers about unbelievers who say they have no sin and have no need of being saved and walking in the light and being washed in the blood.
Trent said...
What does it mean if the truth is not in us?
It means those proto-Gnostics aren’t saved and aren’t telling the truth.
Trent said...
If WE are not believers, then how are they deceiving ourselves?
It means those proto-Gnostics aren’t saved and aren’t telling the truth.
Trent says "His context of lawful is not including sinful acts."
LB says "Like what?"
Breaking the sabbath.
Trent said...
What we do KNOW positively is whether we are discussing Paul, Jesus, or John, it is obvious a believer can Sin.
Lb says "Like what?"
Murder, rape, Adultery, immorality. Are you ignoring the context I am pointing you too?
LB asks for the 3rd time "Are people who sin allowed into Heaven?"
I answered this. Please reread the post. Do you Sin?
LB Says "Being saved and walking in the light and being washed in the blood are all the same thing. And people don’t have the payment for their sins applied to them until they believe on Christ."
Since you can't show me this by scripture, only by quoting fallible people, and by not using exegesis, I disagree.
LB quotes more reformed scholars instead of dealing with context.
*sigh* stick to scripture.
Ok, this is going to be hard, but I want you to stick to context of 1 John for this.
1 Jn 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
Trent said...
Is WE and US still the same people as the first 7 verses? If not why.
LB says "Yes. John is talking to believers about unbelievers who say they have no sin and have no need of being saved and walking in the light and being washed in the blood."
Ok, you said yes, then contradicted yourself. What besides your theology tells you that We is no longer John and the believers but not unbelievers?
LB says "It means those proto-Gnostics aren’t saved and aren’t telling the truth."
LB, where in the context do you get this? PLEASE, be honest with yourself. did you read http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html ? I think that will help you understand what you are doing?
LB says "It means those proto-Gnostics aren’t saved and aren’t telling the truth. "
Ok, so John though is telling the truth, right? You are saying the WE is both John, Believers, and unbelievers gnostics in spite of NOTHING except your theology indicating it. If that is true, then John is still deceiving himself if he says there is no Sin. Do You sin? To try and keep you focused on context, I am only going to post things directly related to this post, and 1 JN ok? People who are uncomfortable with a text like to jump and quote Man. I want to deal with God's word.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
Murder, rape, Adultery, immorality. Are you ignoring the context I am pointing you too?
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
People who sin are not allowed into Heaven.
Trent said...
I answered this. Please reread the post.
Are people who sin allowed into Heaven? Yes or no.
Trent said...
Do you Sin?
No. How could I?
LB says "People who sin are not allowed into Heaven.Are people who sin allowed into Heaven? Yes or no."
I will answer this again and then hopefully point something out to you. yes, but the sinful nature CANNOT. so sin does not enter. If you continue in 1 John you will see.
LB says "No, I can 't sin"
LB, I just realized that you are a gnostic (at least partially) and 1 John is written to you. Let me show you. (paraphrase) John the apostle writes.. Dear LB, WE proclaim to YOU that which we have seen and touched.. eternal life (Jesus Christ) which was with the father and appeared to US and that which WE have seen and heard.
LB answers "WHY"?
John replies. "so that YOU may have fellowship with US. And OUR fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ, and so that YOU may be filled with JOY.(not so that you will have eternal life, that was my previous book) This is the message we have heard from him and declare to YOU: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. "
LB replies. "No, I am good, you see, there is no darkness in me either. My fellowship is all good"
John Replies. "If WE, even MYSELF the beloved Apostle, claim to have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, I, and the rest of US lie and do not live out the truth. But if WE walk in the light, as he is in the light, WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies US, even me from all sin."
LB Answers. "No, you don't understand, I can rape, murder, lie, steal, and its all good, its not sin because I can't sin anymore. God's definition of my actions changed now. "
John answers vs 7 and 8 "If WE including myself beloved claim to be without sin, WE deceive ourselves and the truth is not in US. Thats why if WE are walking in darkness, and confess OUR sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us OUR sins and cleanse US from that darkness.. all of it."
LB says "NO, I refuse to accept that because other teachers have told me I can't sin so I reject that. I can do what I want to and not sin."
John replies vs 10 "If WE, even I John, claim WE have not sinned, WE make him out to be a liar and his word is not in US."
Please reread these 10 verses, and follow what John is saying. do not let someone else tell you what it means, let the Holy Spirit help you interpret it. Pray that God will help you and confess to him your sins. Do not fall into the trap that Johns audience and fallen into.
Grace and Truth
Trent
And what I mean is that you have taken on some gnostic beliefs not that you are an unbeliever. 1 John is written to believers who were getting confused on some issues. Apparently the same issue you are getting confused on.
Note that the same condition for being cleansed of sin is the same as for fellowship with other believers. As you acknowledged, we are to refuse fellowship with other believers that fall into sin thus, these are believers. "...WE have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies US, rom all sin."
One Hundred Reasons Why Born Again Believers Cannot Lose Their Salvation
By James H. Warden, Jr.
•Chapter 13 I am Persuaded
Rom. 8:38
Many seminary trained pastors are reluctant to dispense such knowledge for fear their congregations would run amuck and turn the grace of our God into a license to sin instead of in service to God. (2 Pet. 2:6, Gal. 5:13) Consequently, many Christians are ignorant that sin is not being charged against them. According to Romans 4:8, Christians are the ones “whom the Lord will not impute sin,” because they are not under the law. For “where there is no law there is no transgression,” i.e. sin. (Rom. 4:15) For “sin is not imputed (charged against you) when there is no law.” (Rom. 5:13)
As pertaining to “the power of sin,” i.e. sins strength, Jesus Christ “abolished” it by “taking it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” (Col. 2:14) Remember, the strength (power) of sin is the law. (1 Cor. 15:56) Recall that “without the law (sin’s strength) sin is dead,” rendered powerless against you, by the cross to which it was nailed.
Beloved, Paul, did not list sin for the simple fact that he couldn’t. Jesus Christ took sin out of the way of the born again, that’s why Paul didn’t list it, because by the death, blood, and resurrection of Jesus Christ it is no longer there to list. For not only did Christ “take away the sin of the world,” he also pulled its teeth. For the Bible states that:
“without the law (sin’s strength) sin is dead.” (Rom. 7:8)
When Jesus nailed, the law of Commandments to his cross the power of sin was “slain,” “abolished,” and “taken out of the way” being crucified with Christ. (Col. 2:14, Eph. 2:15-16) Born again believers cannot be separated by something that is void. Is it not written that Jesus “was made manifest to take away our sins? At his crucifixion, Jesus Christ took the power of sin (the law) “out of our way” because it “was against us and contrary to us nailing it to his cross.”
And, believers the believer’s life is where there is no law (sin’s strength) and that place is “in Christ in God” being saved by grace. (Col. 3:3-3, Rom. 4:5) The lost are under God’s wrath, for God is angry with the wicked each day, whereas the saved are under God’s grace sheltered by the Father’s love which no one can separate them from. Paul did not list sin because our sins have been washed away and never to be remembered against us again forever. For as far as the east is from the west that is as far that he has removed our transgressions from us. Like the east and the west our sins have been forever removed. (Psalms 103:12)
FYI: Legalists will point an accusatory finger at you and say, “The Bible states:
“If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and
the truth not in us.” (1 John 1:8)
Nevertheless, I submit to you that if you have sin, you are lost and the truth, Christ Jesus, is not in you! Plain and simple either Jesus has taken away your sin, and you have none, or you have sin and are counted guilty of every sin in the book. Now, what’s it going to be?
http://www.haveyouheardthegoodnews.com/Chapter_13.pdf
Trent said...
Since you can't show me this by scripture, only by quoting fallible people, and by not using exegesis, I disagree.
You’re saying it’s impossible that being saved, walking in the light and being washed in the blood are the same thing? Where in Scripture does it say that it’s impossible that being saved, walking in the light and being washed in the blood are the same thing?
Trent said...
LB quotes more reformed scholars instead of dealing with context.
*sigh* stick to scripture.
Where is C.H. Spurgeon wrong? C.H. Spurgeon is full of Scripture.
If 1 John 1:7 does not refer to being washed in the blood, where in the Bible is being washed in the blood mentioned?
You do believe in being washed in the blood, don’t you?
Isn’t 1 John 1:7 a delightful description of being washed in the blood?
You’re saying that the blood of Christ cleanses us only if we confess our sins. The blood of Christ cleanses all Christians.
Trent said...
Ok, you said yes, then contradicted yourself. What besides your theology tells you that We is no longer John and the believers but not unbelievers?
Trent said...
LB, where in the context do you get this?
There you go saying that John can only be talking about believers and aren’t open-minded enough to think that John could be talking about nonbelievers.
Trent said...
Ok, so John though is telling the truth, right? You are saying the WE is both John, Believers, and unbelievers gnostics in spite of NOTHING except your theology indicating it.
What about your non-Exchanged Life theology affecting your view?
Trent said...
If that is true, then John is still deceiving himself if he says there is no Sin. Do You sin? To try and keep you focused on context, I am only going to post things directly related to this post, and 1 JN ok?
Post everything I have submitted and everything I submit.
Trent said...
People who are uncomfortable with a text like to jump and quote Man. I want to deal with God's word.
As if non-Exchanged Life people never quote man. And if it wasn’t for extrabiblical sources, how would we understand the Bible?
Many believers are taught that whenever they sin, they must confess their sins to God in order to be cleansed and made righteous again. But is this teaching, based on 1 John 1:9, for the believer? Join Joseph Prince as he explains the historical context of 1 John 1:9 and uncovers who it was really written to. Listen to this important message and discover how perfectly God has forgiven you through Jesus’ sacrifice at the cross. Be forever delivered from sin-consciousness and bondage to sin as you hear how, as a believer, you can never lose communion with God because of Christ’s finished work!
http://www.josephprinceonline.com/2011/06/hear-joseph-princes-latest-message-what-about-1-john-19-understanding-the-power-of-complete-forgiveness/
Perhaps this was written in reply to those who claimed to have special insight and knowledge and a special relationship with Jesus, yet persisted in sinfulness. Their claims were false.
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume25/TM025095.html
Joseph Prince claims that 1 John 1 was not written to Christians and that the dialogue to Christians didn’t begin until chapter 2. He claims that chapter one was written to a certain group of people referred to as Jewish gnostics. The case put forward, as I understand it, is that sins are not imputed to a Christian (cf Rom 4:8). Therefore, they argue, that it is not relevant to ask God for forgiveness, today.
You may wish to compare with Andrew Wommack’s teaching on the same verse from here. He makes a similar case.
http://splatblogger.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/joseph-prince-1john-1v9-10-sermon-discussion/
Trent said...
I will answer this again and then hopefully point something out to you. yes, but the sinful nature CANNOT. so sin does not enter. If you continue in 1 John you will see.
Is that a Yes or a No?
Trent said...
LB, I just realized that you are a gnostic (at least partially) and 1 John is written to you. Let me show you. (paraphrase) John the apostle writes.. Dear LB, WE proclaim to YOU that which we have seen and touched.. eternal life (Jesus Christ) which was with the father and appeared to US and that which WE have seen and heard.
Trent said...
And what I mean is that you have taken on some gnostic beliefs not that you are an unbeliever. 1 John is written to believers who were getting confused on some issues. Apparently the same issue you are getting confused on.
Am I an antinomian?
LB says "Nevertheless, I submit to you that if you have sin, you are lost and the truth, Christ Jesus, is not in you! Plain and simple either Jesus has taken away your sin, and you have none, or you have sin and are counted guilty of every sin in the book. Now, what’s it going to be?"
Paying for something does not make it not exist. Still not dealing with the context.
LB says "You’re saying it’s impossible that being saved, walking in the light and being washed in the blood are the same thing? Where in Scripture does it say that it’s impossible that being saved, walking in the light and being washed in the blood are the same thing?"
LB since the conditions are different, its logic. You are making a reformed or lordship argument. I am surprised. There is one condition for eternal life. Walking in the light is not it. Even the Lords prayer discusses asking for forgiveness. You are posting 8 posts quoting people instead of dealing with the scripture. :(
LB says "Where is C.H. Spurgeon wrong? C.H. Spurgeon is full of Scripture."
anytime he contradicts scripture he is wrong.
LB says "If 1 John 1:7 does not refer to being washed in the blood, where in the Bible is being washed in the blood mentioned? "
Where does it say washed in the blood? PLEASE read that article on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
LB says "You do believe in being washed in the blood, don’t you? "
Apparently not your definition which apparently means you can do anything you want with out sinning. Deal with the context.
LB says " Isn’t 1 John 1:7 a delightful description of being washed in the blood? "
show me where it says that? where is Christ's blood mentioned contextually?
LB says "You’re saying that the blood of Christ cleanses us only if we confess our sins. The blood of Christ cleanses all Christians."
Nope, you are bringing it up to avoid dealing with context.
LB says "There you go saying that John can only be talking about believers and aren’t open-minded enough to think that John could be talking about nonbelievers. "
Yep, because context is clear. You only demand it because your theology requires it. You have no biblical argument for it as I showed.
Trent said...
Ok, so John though is telling the truth, right? You are saying the WE is both John, Believers, and unbelievers gnostics in spite of NOTHING except your theology indicating it.
LB said "What about your non-Exchanged Life theology affecting your view?"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can we stick to 1 John?
LB says.Post everything I have submitted and everything I submit.
No because if we cannot stick to context we are wasting time. As long as we are dealing with this issue. Lets finish exegesis of 1 JN, then we can take on another context instead of ripping verses out of context. If you are unwilling to discuss scripture, and consider mans comments equal or above scripture, then we are wasting time, and you should be mormon or catholic.
LB says "As if non-Exchanged Life people never quote man. And if it wasn’t for extrabiblical sources, how would we understand the Bible? "
still don't know what nonexchanged life people are. Are they people who use exegesis? We understand scripture with scripture and the Holy Spirit. I am sorry you do not agree.
LB quotes "Perhaps this was written in reply to those who claimed to have special insight and knowledge and a special relationship with Jesus, yet persisted in sinfulness. Their claims were false."
Yep, this I agree with. believers claiming they were sinless and had a special connection to God.
Joseph Prince claims that 1 John 1 was not written to Christians and that the dialogue to Christians didn’t begin until chapter 2. He claims that chapter one was written to a certain group of people referred to as Jewish gnostics. The case put forward, as I understand it, is that sins are not imputed to a Christian (cf Rom 4:8). Therefore, they argue, that it is not relevant to ask God for forgiveness, today.
We reviewed context and you agree it is clearly talking from and to believers. Even if it was talking to unbelievers, when he says WE he is talking about believers and you have the same problem with your theology.
LB asks "Am I an antinomian?"
You are a sinner, and you are one of those believers Paul was addressing when he said "shall we sin more so grace abounds?" no, of course not.. but you are saying sure.. but we won't call it sin.
LB says "Christians always are part of the body of Christ and have their sins cleansed and walk in the light. "
IF WE is unbelievers, then unbelievers walk in the light and are cleansed with out believing so that screws you all up. Of course since you are ignoring context that won't matter either
LB says "Nevertheless, I submit to you that if you have sin, you are lost and the truth, Christ Jesus, is not in you! Plain and simple either Jesus has taken away your sin, and you have none, or you have sin and are counted guilty of every sin in the book. Now, what’s it going to be?"
I reject both of your manufactured choices. I was a sinner. I still sin because God's definition has not changed. Thankfully Jesus paid the price for my sin, past present and future. Because I have life, a new life that is untouched by that sin as John tells me, I will live with him forever. Now deal with the verses in context instead of quoting people who disagree. Tell me WHY in context it is not believers? Why is John According to you giving a different condition for eternal life? Why according to you can an unbeliever walk in the light and be cleansed?
Trent said...
LB since the conditions are different, its logic. You are making a reformed or lordship argument. I am surprised.
I think of it as a Free Grace-Exchanged Life argument.
Trent said...
There is one condition for eternal life. Walking in the light is not it.
Romans 8:1: There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The unsaved don’t have the Spirit and the light. The saved have the Spirit and the light and can never lose it. Therefore, the saved walk in the light.
Trent said...
Even the Lords prayer discusses asking for forgiveness.
The Lord’s Prayer was under the Old Covenant.
Trent said...
anytime he contradicts scripture he is wrong.
C.H. Spurgeon contradicts you and you haven’t shown me where C.H. Spurgeon is wrong.
Trent said...
Where does it say washed in the blood? PLEASE read that article on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
Trent said...
show me where it says that? where is Christ's blood mentioned contextually?
I talked and posted about being washed in the blood and the substitutionary atonement a long time ago. Surely, you think they are biblical, don’t you?
The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice
Moreover, because in the Old Testament the sacrifice of a victim was expiation, that is, it removed the sins of the people, both concepts applied to Christ's sacrifice. That He acted for humans by becoming one of them while remaining "very God of very God" meant a vicarious sacrifice because finite human power could not pay the infinite price: He acted in humanity's stead, atoned, that is "paid the price" demanded by God's justice, and "washed" humans in His blood.
http://jsr.fsu.edu/mathews2.htm
spurgeon is reformed. Are you reformed? If not, then you disagree with him as well.
Really? The Lords prayer is not for us? Then why was it given to us under the new convenant? Remember the NT was written after the Ressurection. Dude... you are really picking and choosing to make your theology work.
LB quotes. "Romans 8:1: There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The unsaved don’t have the Spirit and the light. The saved have the Spirit and the light and can never lose it. Therefore, the saved walk in the light."
Look, even Romans 8:1 qualifies for those who walk after the Spirit. I need you to answer this. Are you stating that not only is it impossible for a believer to sin, but that he Will Never even walk in the flesh? That sounds long the most Lordship I have ever heard. I still am waiting for you to come right out and say rape and murder are not sin, but you can't come right out and say it can you? Ok, stop avoiding the issue and answer my questions to you on 1 JN
Trent said...
Apparently not your definition which apparently means you can do anything you want with out sinning. Deal with the context.
Trent said...
Nope, you are bringing it up to avoid dealing with context.
All Christians are washed in the blood. You even say that everybody was washed in the blood at the cross.
Trent said...
Yep, because context is clear. You only demand it because your theology requires it. You have no biblical argument for it as I showed.
Oh, no, my Exchanged Life theology has literary creativeness and open-mindedness. Your non-Exchanged Life view demands that you stick to your “1 John 1:9 obsession with confession.”
Trent said...
No because if we cannot stick to context we are wasting time. As long as we are dealing with this issue. Lets finish exegesis of 1 JN, then we can take on another context instead of ripping verses out of context. If you are unwilling to discuss scripture, and consider mans comments equal or above scripture, then we are wasting time, and you should be mormon or catholic.
I posted a lot of good stuff that is relevant. I submitted a lot of stuff saying that 1 John was obviously specifically combating something such as proto-Gnosticism and you never posted it.
LB said "I talked and posted about being washed in the blood and the substitutionary atonement a long time ago. Surely, you think they are biblical, don’t you?"
The issue is context LB. You don't understand reading scripture and understanding by context. that is not under discussion here. Thats my point.
LB says "
All Christians are washed in the blood. You even say that everybody was washed in the blood at the cross. "
*sigh* no, I never said that. BUT if you want to discuss a verse that says that, then wait till we finish 1 JN. Or admit that John does not agree with your theology. If you are unwilling to discuss context, then we are wasting our time. I can prove anything I want by quoting verses out of context and so can you. Thats how cults, lordship, and the catholic church does things. Or saying things like JN 3:16 was old covenant and so does not apply. Really? Jesus Christ did not know how to teach us to pray? Please deal with 1 JN and show me where you are getting your assumptions that popped up when we hit vs 6.
Trent said...
No because if we cannot stick to context we are wasting time. As long as we are dealing with this issue. Lets finish exegesis of 1 JN, then we can take on another context instead of ripping verses out of context. If you are unwilling to discuss scripture, and consider mans comments equal or above scripture, then we are wasting time, and you should be mormon or catholic.
LB said "I posted a lot of good stuff that is relevant. I submitted a lot of stuff saying that 1 John was obviously specifically combating something such as proto-Gnosticism and you never posted it. "
You posted a lot of opinions of people who did not discuss context either. I posted probably over 100 links you gave. My brother in law who is catholic is like that. He refuses to think for himself, and instead quotes "authorities" that he has chosen to put his faith in, instead of God's word. He does not want to discuss context or God's word either. IF you would finish discussing 1 Jn, I would be willing to discuss a different passage, but I know as soon as we did, you would want to quote People who you have put your faith in and then change to a different context to avoid having to think. PLEASE consider allowing me to discuss with you instead of 100 other websites. Are you one who believes the majority is always right?? IF you already know everything, then we are wasting our time. I am here to learn from God's Word.
LB says "oh. Trent says if you’re Free Gracer but not a Grace Evangelical Society non-Exchanged Life Free Gracer you should be Mormon or Catholic. Pretty strong words."
misquoting me to avoid talking about Scripture or the points I bring up. I have not mentioned the GES. Your issue is with scripture and you are trying to avoid it.
LB says "The grace walk or grace life stresses allowing Christ to live His life through us. A careful reading of the New Testament makes it clear that we do not live the Christian life by self-effort but by abiding (resting) in Christ and allowing Him to manifest His life through our own (ref. John 15:5; Romans 15:18; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 2:13; and II Thessalonians 2:13)."
Actually, I agree with you here. Totally! But what about if you don't abide?
LB says "If it wasn’t for extrabiblical material, how would we know what Pharisees and Saducees were, for example? "
Acts 23:8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection--and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.
You would be surprised what you can learn by just using the Bible. But I am ok with reading it, but not when it contradicts clear teaching. You seem obsessed with extra biblical wiht a side order of scripture. You should be obsessed with Scripture with a side order of mans opinions.
Trent said...
IF WE is unbelievers, then unbelievers walk in the light and are cleansed with out believing so that screws you all up. Of course since you are ignoring context that won't matter either
Christians always are part of the body of Christ and have their sins cleansed and walk in the light. You can’t undo that fact from a passage in 1 John.
WE is whoever is reading 1 John, people walking in the light and people not walking in the light, and whoever is being discussed in 1 John, people walking in the light and people not walking in the light. Agreed? And John is potentially talking about people who walk in the light to people who aren’t walking in the light and talking about people who aren’t walking in the light to people who are walking in the light. Agreed? So we have two groups of people being addressed and two groups of people being discussed. Agreed? So, if there could be two groups of believers here there just might be instead one group of believers and one group of nonbelievers. Agreed?
Trent said...
I reject both of your manufactured choices. I was a sinner. I still sin because God's definition has not changed. Thankfully Jesus paid the price for my sin, past present and future. Because I have life, a new life that is untouched by that sin as John tells me, I will live with him forever.
It sounds like you ought to just live in your new life. I guess that’s what they call The Exchanged Life.
Trent said...
Now deal with the verses in context instead of quoting people who disagree. Tell me WHY in context it is not believers?
Mainly because me and most other Exchanged Life people are sick and tired of confessing sins and being legalistic and are reexamining what we think Christianity is.
Trent said...
Why is John According to you giving a different condition for eternal life?
We know there’s basically only one condition for eternal life. Believe you’re saved and you’re saved.
Trent said...
Why according to you can an unbeliever walk in the light and be cleansed?
No, but you said the payment for everyone’s sins was applied to them at the cross.
LB, We can't be the readers, because its a letter to the readers. It would make the whole book make no sense. Try it and see. "WE write to you? the reader is writing??? It makes no sense. There is one group of people being addressed, and its the YOU. Now since they are beleivers, then yes, I would say sometimes they are included in the WE, but so is John. Try Praying and asking the Holy Spirit to help you understand. I tried to read it the way you are discussing it, and its ridiculous. He cannot be addressing unbelievers because of the topic. unbelievers CANNOT walk in the light so when he says WE, how can it be unbelievers as you are suggesting? Thank you for discussing the passage at hand again. Shall we start at verse 1 again since it sounds like you have changed your mind or lets stay were we are, and instead of speculating about Could something be.. what does it say and why would it? The reason you are suggesting WE is unbelievers is because your theology demands it, not because of anything John has said.
LB said "Mainly because me and most other Exchanged Life people are sick and tired of confessing sins and being legalistic and are reexamining what we think Christianity is."
wow.. thats a good reason to go against scripture. Why is agreeing with God legalistic?
Trent said...
Why is John According to you giving a different condition for eternal life?
LB says "We know there’s basically only one condition for eternal life. Believe you’re saved and you’re saved."
Walking in the light and Confessing your sins is not belief. Both are actions.
Trent said...
Why according to you can an unbeliever walk in the light and be cleansed?
LB said "No, but you said the payment for everyone’s sins was applied to them at the cross. "
Agreed, but you are arguing that 1 john We are unbelievers and that would mean they are being told to do so.
Here is my challenge.
Show me some evidence that the WE in1 John 1:1-5 changes to a different WE for vs 6-10 in the context. I know your theology demands it, but I don't want mans opinion. Where in the context does everything switch? Then explain how IF you are correct, how an unbeliever can walk in the light and be cleansed from all sin.(can't be a believer in your theology since he has sin) If as you say walking in the light is avoiding all Sin, then avoiding all Sin is a condition for eternal life. You have to jump back and forth to make your theology work.
Trent said...
If you are unwilling to discuss scripture, and consider mans comments equal or above scripture, then we are wasting time, and you should be mormon or catholic.
Ooh. Trent says if you’re Free Gracer but not a Grace Evangelical Society non-Exchanged Life Free Gracer you should be Mormon or Catholic. Pretty strong words.
Trent said...
still don't know what nonexchanged life people are. Are they people who use exegesis?
The grace walk or grace life stresses allowing Christ to live His life through us. A careful reading of the New Testament makes it clear that we do not live the Christian life by self-effort but by abiding (resting) in Christ and allowing Him to manifest His life through our own (ref. John 15:5; Romans 15:18; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 2:13; and II Thessalonians 2:13). Through the years various other believers have described the grace life with other terms such as: The Exchanged Life (Hudson Taylor), The Abiding Life (Andrew Murray), The Crucified Life (L. E. Maxwell), Life on the Highest Plane (Ruth Paxson), The Interior Life (Hannah Whitall Smith), The Normal Christian Life (Watchman Nee), The Victorious Christian Life (Alan Redpath, Ian Thomas), and The Miracle Life (David Needham). For further reading refer to Grace Walk, by Steve McVey chapter five, "Experiencing His Life."
http://www.gmint.org/go/about/FAQs/
Trent said...
We understand scripture with scripture and the Holy Spirit. I am sorry you do not agree.
If it wasn’t for extrabiblical material, how would we know what Pharisees and Saducees were, for example?
Trent said...
Yep, this I agree with. believers claiming they were sinless and had a special connection to God.
Trent said...
We reviewed context and you agree it is clearly talking from and to believers. Even if it was talking to unbelievers, when he says WE he is talking about believers and you have the same problem with your theology.
So, you’re saying John is specifically going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life view people in 1 John and there is no way John is going after proto-Gnostics even though there enough evidence to support the possibility that John is going after proto-Gnostics?
Trent said...
You are a sinner, and you are one of those believers Paul was addressing when he said "shall we sin more so grace abounds?" no, of course not.. but you are saying sure.. but we won't call it sin.
So, you’re saying I’m an antinomian? What is an antinomian and what is wrong with being an antinomian?
Trent said...
spurgeon is reformed. Are you reformed? If not, then you disagree with him as well.
This sermon was preached in 1865. You’re faulting Spurgeon for being Reformed in 1865 when there was hardly any Free Grace?
Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (19 June 1834 – 31 January 1892) was a British Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon remains highly influential among Christians of different denominations, among whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers". You still haven’t shown me where Spurgeon went wrong. You say you’re right by your exegesis, but how do we know Spurgeon wasn’t right by his exegesis?
LB says "
So, you’re saying John is specifically going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life view people in 1 John and there is no way John is going after proto-Gnostics even though there enough evidence to support the possibility that John is going after proto-Gnostics? "
I am saying John does not say anything about all these words you are throwing around trying to confuse the issue. I am saying, he is not trying to confuse anyone and thus we should look at it that way. You know he is a believer, and is talking to believers so why try and change that because you don't like what he says?
LB says "This sermon was preached in 1865. You’re faulting Spurgeon for being Reformed in 1865 when there was hardly any Free Grace? "
I am saying he was doctrinally off base and thus when you have the basics wrong, you are going to mess up from there on. LB, you are amazing. Lets talk about John, and stop bringing up reasons not to believe God's word means what it says. Oh, and we can save the antominain issue later. Whether I consider you one or not, or me one or not (which I don't know) has no bearing on what John is saying.
Trent said...
Really? The Lords prayer is not for us? Then why was it given to us under the new convenant? Remember the NT was written after the Ressurection. Dude... you are really picking and choosing to make your theology work.
The NT may have been written under the New Covenant, but Jesus gave the Lord’s Prayer under the Old Covenant.
Trent said…
Look, even Romans 8:1 qualifies for those who walk after the Spirit. I need you to answer this. Are you stating that not only is it impossible for a believer to sin, but that he Will Never even walk in the flesh? That sounds long the most Lordship I have ever heard.
Romans 8:1 is one of the great Free Grace verses and it says that all Christians walk after the Spirit.
The unsaved don’t have the Spirit and the light. The saved have the Spirit and the light and can never lose it. Therefore, the saved walk in the light.
You’re telling me a believer can totally walk in darkness and in the flesh?
Trent said…
I still am waiting for you to come right out and say rape and murder are not sin, but you can't come right out and say it can you? Ok, stop avoiding the issue and answer my questions to you on 1 JN
I already said rape and murder are not sin to believers. But they’re not necessarily expedient.
Trent said...
The issue is context LB. You don't understand reading scripture and understanding by context. that is not under discussion here. Thats my point.
Being washed in the point and the substitutionary atonement are fundamentals of Christianity. They’re elementary to all discussions of Christianity. And you’re saying they don’t belong in this discussion. They DO belong in this discussion. Understanding them is key to understanding what we’re discussing.
When are the substitutionary atonement and the washing in the blood applied to people?
Trent said...
*sigh* no, I never said that. If you are unwilling to discuss context, then we are wasting our time.
You said that the payment for sin was applied to everybody at the cross. If that isn’t being washed in the blood, what is?
Trent said...
Jesus Christ did not know how to teach us to pray?
Trent said...
If you are unwilling to discuss context, then we are wasting our time.
The context is Jesus was talking to His disciples.
Trent said...
misquoting me to avoid talking about Scripture or the points I bring up. I have not mentioned the GES. Your issue is with scripture and you are trying to avoid it.
Well, which is Trent more likely to subscribe to: Grace Evangelical Society or an Exchanged Life ministry?
Trent said...
Actually, I agree with you here. Totally! But what about if you don't abide?
What is abiding? Resting. And is confessing your sins resting?
Trent said...
You would be surprised what you can learn by just using the Bible. But I am ok with reading it, but not when it contradicts clear teaching. You seem obsessed with extra biblical wiht a side order of scripture. You should be obsessed with Scripture with a side order of mans opinions.
So you admit that extrabiblical material is necessary for understanding the Bible?
Trent said...
Here is my challenge.
Show me some evidence that the WE in1 John 1:1-5 changes to a different WE for vs 6-10 in the context. I know your theology demands it, but I don't want mans opinion. Where in the context does everything switch? Then explain how IF you are correct, how an unbeliever can walk in the light and be cleansed from all sin.(can't be a believer in your theology since he has sin) If as you say walking in the light is avoiding all Sin, then avoiding all Sin is a condition for eternal life. You have to jump back and forth to make your theology work.
We can assume John is addressing believers mainly, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be describing proto-Gnostics. After all, what if that is the truth in this case?
Trent said...
I am saying John does not say anything about all these words you are throwing around trying to confuse the issue. I am saying, he is not trying to confuse anyone and thus we should look at it that way. You know he is a believer, and is talking to believers so why try and change that because you don't like what he says?
Trent practically said John was going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life people. Now, is John going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life people or is there a possibility that John is going after proto-Gnostics, Trent?
Trent said...
Oh, and we can save the antominain issue later. Whether I consider you one or not, or me one or not (which I don't know) has no bearing on what John is saying.
No. Antinomianism is relevant to this discussion. What is antinomianism? What’s wrong with it? I can give you three quotes saying that you’re not preaching Free Grace if you’re not being charged with preaching antinomianism.
Trent said...
I am saying he was doctrinally off base and thus when you have the basics wrong, you are going to mess up from there on. LB, you are amazing. Lets talk about John, and stop bringing up reasons not to believe God's word means what it says.
Frankly, Trent, you speak against men preaching so much you sound anti-preacher and anti-sermon.
Wow.. Ok, Jesus apparently had the writers give it to us.. and gave it to the apostles, with out telling them that it was only a good prayer for a few years?
LB says "I already said rape and murder are not sin to believers. But they’re not necessarily expedient. "
Ok, thank you for stating that clearly.
LB says "So you admit that extrabiblical material is necessary for understanding the Bible? "
No. I will say it can assist and expedite, but it is not necessary. Otherwise, how did the recipients of the Letters understand them?
LB says "We can assume John is addressing believers mainly, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be describing proto-Gnostics. After all, what if that is the truth in this case?"
Why would you think that, and Why would he say WE including himself in the parts about sin?
LB says "No. Antinomianism is relevant to this discussion. What is antinomianism? What’s wrong with it? I can give you three quotes saying that you’re not preaching Free Grace if you’re not being charged with preaching antinomianism. "
I don't care about the opinions of Man. I care about God's word, and right now we are discussing what John is saying in GOD's word. Since eternal life is not under discussion currently, lets deal with 1 issue.
LB says "Frankly, Trent, you speak against men preaching so much you sound anti-preacher and anti-sermon. "
I suggest you read ACt 17:11. I am highly critical of Heresy, and you are calling God a Liar according to John. That is heresy. You claim you are not, but you do not seem to want to discuss what John is saying.
Ok, I have a great idea. I want you to teach me verse by verse what 1 John means. I don't want quotes from other people's opinions, and I want you to explain why it does not mean what John seemed to clearly teach. I want you to address why We means you all of the sudden in verse 6 and onward. If you refuse to deal with scripture, then we are wasting time. So far, here is your arguments.
1. Maybe 1 John is not infallible scripture
2. Some people think that 1 John is not written to believers
3. The Lords prayer is not applicable EVEN THOUGH it was written in the new covenant
4. RAPE, Murder, Incest, Theft, Lying, when done by a believer ceases to be SIN.
5. Maybe confessing your sins means the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ
6> Maybe Walking in the light is the same thing as believing in Jesus
the last two in spite the context does not mention belief or eternal life, both of which John Knew a lot about. IF you are unwilling to acknowledge that scripture has more authority then opinions, and are unwilling to deal with context, then lets move to a different topic.
Trent said...
There is one group of people being addressed, and its the YOU. Now since they are beleivers, then yes, I would say sometimes they are included in the WE, but so is John. Try Praying and asking the Holy Spirit to help you understand. I tried to read it the way you are discussing it, and its ridiculous. He cannot be addressing unbelievers because of the topic. unbelievers CANNOT walk in the light so when he says WE, how can it be unbelievers as you are suggesting?
Trent says unbelievers CAN NOT walk in the light and believers CAN NOT walk in the light just like unbelievers.
Trent said...
wow.. thats a good reason to go against scripture. Why is agreeing with God legalistic?
If confessing your sins is so important, how come God didn’t tell us more about how to do it right?
Trent said...
Walking in the light and Confessing your sins is not belief. Both are actions.
What is we say living instead of walking?
Did I ever say confessing your sins is how to become saved?
Trent said...
Agreed, but you are arguing that 1 john We are unbelievers and that would mean they are being told to do so.
You assume John is addressing believers, but perhaps he is addressing humanity as a whole from a believer’s viewpoint.
Trent said...
Wow.. Ok, Jesus apparently had the writers give it to us.. and gave it to the apostles, with out telling them that it was only a good prayer for a few years?
The context is Jesus is talking to His disciples under the Old Covenant, correct?
Trent said...
No. I will say it can assist and expedite, but it is not necessary.
No, extrabiblical material is necessary for understanding the Bible.
Trent said...
Otherwise, how did the recipients of the Letters understand them?
They were there at the time. We are here at this time.
Trent said...
Why would you think that, and Why would he say WE including himself in the parts about sin?
Suppose I was John and I wanted to go after proto-Gnostics. I might write exactly what John wrote.
Trent said...
I don't care about the opinions of Man. I care about God's word, and right now we are discussing what John is saying in GOD's word. Since eternal life is not under discussion currently, lets deal with 1 issue.
You’re supposed to be the big expert on sin, so you ought to be the big expert on antinomianism. What is it? Are Free Gracers often accused of it unjustly?
Trent said...
1. Maybe 1 John is not infallible scripture
I may have said that about James but not 1 John.
Trent said...
2. Some people think that 1 John is not written to believers
Yes, some Exchanged Life people but not all Exchanged Life people.
Trent said...
5. Maybe confessing your sins means the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ
Trent is accusing me of saying something I have never said.
Trent said...
6> Maybe Walking in the light is the same thing as believing in Jesus
People who don’t believe in Jesus are walking in darkness, correct?
Trent said...
Paying for something does not make it not exist.
This is supposed to make sense?
Trent said...
I suggest you read ACt 17:11. I am highly critical of Heresy, and you are calling God a Liar according to John. That is heresy. You claim you are not, but you do not seem to want to discuss what John is saying.
A. Power To Cleanse – The word “purge” means “to cleanse and free from filth.” It refers to the cleansing of the lepers, or to a ceremonial cleansing. The blood of the Old Testament sacrificial system could never completely cleanse the stains of sin away. However, the blood of Jesus cleanses the sinner completely! (Ill. Rev. 1:5; 1 John 1:7.) That is why the writers of the New Testament are able to say that we have been “justified”. That is, we have been declared right with God, 1 Cor. 6:9-11!
http://www.sermonnotebook.org/new%20testament/Hebrews%209_1-15.htm
Nowhere in Scripture do we find the idea of daily recurrence for cleansing to the blood of Christ. The argument inferred from the use of the word "cleanseth" in 1 John 1:7 is not admissible. True, the word is in the present tense, but it is used simply to point out the inherent property of the precious blood. We so use the present tense in ordinary conversation.
But Scripture does speak, as we have seen, of our repeatedly being washed in the water; and to insist on this clear distinction is not mere theological accuracy of a technical sort. To teach that we must have repeated recurrence to the blood for fresh applications thereof does great harm in a twofold way. First it dishonours the blood of Christ, almost putting it back on to the level of the blood of Jewish sacrifices offered under the Law; and second, it repeatedly puts back the saint into the place of the sinner to go through the cleansing and justifying process over and over again.
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/hole/Art/Blood_and_Water.html
According to 1 John 1:7, Revelation 1:5, and Revelation 7:14 we have been washed in the blood of the Lamb:
http://www.hilltopbaptistnewport.net/TheBloodOfJesus.html
LB says "If confessing your sins is so important, how come God didn’t tell us more about how to do it right?"
umm... because its not hard? You said it already, its just agreeing with God its sin. Or use Jesus's prayer. did you notice that most of your arguments are not based on the Bible? It does not matter even if it was tough if its the truth.
LB says "What is we say living instead of walking?"
Because they are different and I prefer to use what the Bible says, not change it to my convenience.
LB says "Did I ever say confessing your sins is how to become saved?"
You said "However, verse 9 says that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." In other words, if the Gnostics were to confess they had sins, then God, Who is faithful and righteous, would forgive and cleanse them from their unrighteousness. In the Greek language, the words "forgive" and "cleanse" mean past actions that have results today and will continue to have results in the future. Also, the word "all" used in these verses means all. It doesn't mean that we are cleansed of our past sins and our past unrighteousness, it means we were cleansed of all our unrighteousness. And if God cleanses us from all unrighteousness, then we are cleansed forever! "
your claim that it is addressing unbelievers, requires it to be that, Or John is lying.
LB says "You assume John is addressing believers, but perhaps he is addressing humanity as a whole from a believer’s viewpoint. "
You say this over and over, but refuse to show me in the context what would lead you to that.
LB says "Suppose I was John and I wanted to go after proto-Gnostics. I might write exactly what John wrote."
Why? what would be your purpose? this is why I am asking you to teach me what it means so you will see the illogical problems that are brought up.
LB says "You’re supposed to be the big expert on sin, so you ought to be the big expert on antinomianism. What is it? Are Free Gracers often accused of it unjustly? "
who called me an expert on Sin? We are in a sad state if someone who just quotes the Bible is considered an expert. :( We can take this on after you finish in 1 John.
Trent says "5. Maybe confessing your sins means the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ
LB says Trent is accusing me of saying something I have never said. "
perhaps not in those words, but when you state that John is talking to Unbelievers, then please explain how an unbeliever can confess their sins and be forgiven since to you that is done at the moment of belief?
LB says "People who don’t believe in Jesus are walking in darkness, correct? " I can agree with that, but they are not being discussed, believers are.
Trent said...
Paying for something does not make it not exist.
LB says "This is supposed to make sense?"
exactly. Your theology is based on the fact that since Jesus paid for your sin and they were applied, all of the sudden Sin is no longer sin. He paid for it because it is sin, and that did not change what it was. Let me ask you a question. Why do you believe this when James and 1 John are so clear, and you even have to say that the Apostles after the resurrection did not correct the Lords prayer and Paul discusses sin in the body as well. Why do you believe you cannot sin so strongly?
As for now discussing washed in his blood, I noticed you again avoided discussing 1 JN and its context at all. Lets finish one then go somewhere else in context. I wonder why Jesus had to die? Why didn't he just redefine Sin like you have? very disappointing. :(
Trent said...
umm... because its not hard? You said it already, its just agreeing with God its sin. Or use Jesus's prayer. did you notice that most of your arguments are not based on the Bible? It does not matter even if it was tough if its the truth.
You have to be truly sorry for and cease committing and make restitution for every sin you have ever committed or else you aren’t adequately confessing your sins. There is no easy way out for a 1 John 1:9er. You are the freethinker.
LB says "You have to be truly sorry for and cease committing and make restitution for every sin you have ever committed or else you aren’t adequately confessing your sins. There is no easy way out for a 1 John 1:9er. You are the freethinker. "
LB, that is not inherent in the word confess, NOR is it in the context, BUT even if it was, the question is if it God's word. You make to many excuses. WHY do you think that when JOHN says WE he means someone other then himself and believers? I have asked this like 5 or 6 times and you say "well maybe" or "He could be" You need to be willing to change your view if God's is different then yours. I have had to do the same before, so I understand its hard and pride is involved.
Trent said...
Because they are different and I prefer to use what the Bible says, not change it to my convenience.
Does 1 John 1: 7 “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”, mean that the blood must be applied again and again each time we sin so that we are kept clean?.
If 1 John 1: 7 were to be interpreted according to the question, then it should rather read “If we do not walk according to the light, then the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us …” But it doesn’t say that! It is not a question of how I walk, (according to the light), but where I walk (“in the light”), that is in the light of divine revelation. Why is the present tense (“cleanses”) used then if repetition is not meant? Because the point here is not one of time at all. It is the intrinsic value of His blood that is in view. It is what it does; not when it does it, and for that the present tense must be used.
http://www.judev3.co.uk/3QA.htm
Trent said...
http://www.watchmanscry.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10336
your claim that it is addressing unbelievers, requires it to be that, Or John is lying.
The proto-Gnostics wouldn’t admit they had sin. If they would admit they had sin, then they could believe on Christ for salvation. I never said any different.
Trent said...
You say this over and over, but refuse to show me in the context what would lead you to that.
I guess a person would need a sense of literary creativity or something to imagine this.
Trent said...
Why? what would be your purpose? this is why I am asking you to teach me what it means so you will see the illogical problems that are brought up.
Just imagine that I am John and I am going after proto-Gnostics and I am writing 1 John exactly the way John did. Frankly, 1 John seems rather illogical for any other reason.
Trent said...
who called me an expert on Sin? We are in a sad state if someone who just quotes the Bible is considered an expert. :( We can take this on after you finish in 1 John.
Are you calling me an antinomian or not? How dare you criticize me for saying I have no sin if you don’t come out and call me an antinomian?
Trent said...
perhaps not in those words, but when you state that John is talking to Unbelievers, then please explain how an unbeliever can confess their sins and be forgiven since to you that is done at the moment of belief?
The proto-Gnostics wouldn’t admit they had sin. If they would admit they had sin, then they could believe on Christ for salvation. I never said any different.
Trent said...
LB says "People who don’t believe in Jesus are walking in darkness, correct? " I can agree with that, but they are not being discussed, believers are.
How do you know believers are being discussed?
Who walks in darkness?
Who walks in the light?
Trent said...
exactly. Your theology is based on the fact that since Jesus paid for your sin and they were applied, all of the sudden Sin is no longer sin. He paid for it because it is sin, and that did not change what it was. Let me ask you a question. Why do you believe this when James and 1 John are so clear, and you even have to say that the Apostles after the resurrection did not correct the Lords prayer and Paul discusses sin in the body as well. Why do you believe you cannot sin so strongly?
Jesus saved us from the law of sin and death by destroying the law of sin and death. True?
Trent said...
As for now discussing washed in his blood, I noticed you again avoided discussing 1 JN and its context at all.
I have been talking about 1 John 1:7 referring to being washed in the blood.
Trent said...
LB, that is not inherent in the word confess, NOR is it in the context, BUT even if it was, the question is if it God's word. You make to many excuses. WHY do you think that when JOHN says WE he means someone other then himself and believers? I have asked this like 5 or 6 times and you say "well maybe" or "He could be" You need to be willing to change your view if God's is different then yours. I have had to do the same before, so I understand its hard and pride is involved.
Putting yourself under requirement to confess your sins by 1 John 1:9 is like putting yourself under the law. Confess, confess, confess, just so I’m in fellowship with God and I still end up out of fellowship with God.
I might as well go the whole hog and stay out of fellowship with God all the time on purpose.
I take my chances.
LB Says "Does 1 John 1: 7 “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”, mean that the blood must be applied again and again each time we sin so that we are kept clean?."
what does it say? IF we walk in the light. Condition. Result? We have fellowship with other believers and our sins are cleansed. It cannot be unbelievers clearly. How do we do it? read the next few verses.
LB says "The proto-Gnostics wouldn’t admit they had sin. If they would admit they had sin, then they could believe on Christ for salvation. I never said any different. "
Ok, but the veres does not say they have to believe to be cleansed. So if its talking to unbelievers, belief is not required. If its talking to believers like seems clear, then its relationship at stake.. which it also CLEARLY says.
LB says "I guess a person would need a sense of literary creativity or something to imagine this."
this is not a fictional novel. Imagine instead of taking the clear teaching?? really?
LB says "Just imagine that I am John and I am going after proto-Gnostics and I am writing 1 John exactly the way John did. Frankly, 1 John seems rather illogical for any other reason. "
it makes perfect sense meaning just what it says if you use exegesis instead of eisegesis. For an explanation of this error http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html. IF YOU stand behind this, please walk me through it verse by verse starting with vs 1. Lets do one verse at a time and show me how logical it is please.
Trent said...
LB says "People who don’t believe in Jesus are walking in darkness, correct? " I can agree with that, but they are not being discussed, believers are.
LB says "How do you know believers are being discussed?
Who walks in darkness?
Who walks in the light?"
LB I don't think I can handle this anymore. How do I know believers are being discussed?? because vs 2 says ..."WE declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us" That clearly says WE are believers. You refuse to deal with context, and run to heretics to back up a belief scripture condemns. This book was written to address the heresy of believers claiming to be in fellowship while walking in darkness. How do I know? because it comes right and and says it. Your refusal to deal with the context appears to be a purposeful ignorance that I will pray the Holy Spirit works on. I acknowledge that I cannot convince you
LB says "Putting yourself under requirement to confess your sins by 1 John 1:9 is like putting yourself under the law. Confess, confess, confess, just so I’m in fellowship with God and I still end up out of fellowship with God. I might as well go the whole hog and stay out of fellowship with God all the time on purpose. I take my chances. "
Yes, you can choose to ignore scripture, and create your own theology. You will not be the first and you are taking a chance. I am not sure why you feel prayer is such a burden.. when you realize you sinned, to just say "God I screwed up, please help me do better" Really? thats the equivalent to being under the law?? very well, Lets move on to a different topic. If you want to do more here, then I want you to deal with context and explain how WE goes from believers in vs 2, to unbelievers when its inconvenient to your theology. I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but prefer to deal more with what Scripture says, then what we can do with our imagination.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Trent said...
Ok, but the veres does not say they have to believe to be cleansed. So if its talking to unbelievers, belief is not required. If its talking to believers like seems clear, then its relationship at stake.. which it also CLEARLY says.
But you say John is talking to believers. So, why would John have to tell unbelievers how to become saved when he is talking to believers?
Trent said...
this is not a fictional novel. Imagine instead of taking the clear teaching?? really?
Good grief.
Trent said...
it makes perfect sense meaning just what it says if you use exegesis instead of eisegesis. For an explanation of this error http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html. IF YOU stand behind this, please walk me through it verse by verse starting with vs 1. Lets do one verse at a time and show me how logical it is please.
This difficulty in understanding the structure and organization of 1 John is not limited to modern biblical scholarship.
https://bible.org/seriespage/structure-and-purpose-1-john
The book of 1 John may be one of the most difficult books within the Bible for the Christian to understand, particularly in light of the plethora of scriptural passages in the New Testament that clearly teach that eternal (spirit) salvation (justification) is by faith alone in Christ alone, that this salvation once received by faith is not subject to change by God or man, and that even though one may possess it there is still the possibility of serious sin in the believer’s life.
http://bibleone.net/print_tbs113.html
2 difficult verses in the book of "1John" are: 1John 3:9 and 5: 16
1 John 3:9
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin . . ."
1John 5: 16-17
"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death . .."
http://www.battleinchrist.com/what_does_1john_3.htm
Trent said...
LB I don't think I can handle this anymore. How do I know believers are being discussed?? because vs 2 says ..."WE declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us" That clearly says WE are believers. You refuse to deal with context, and run to heretics to back up a belief scripture condemns. This book was written to address the heresy of believers claiming to be in fellowship while walking in darkness. How do I know? because it comes right and and says it. Your refusal to deal with the context appears to be a purposeful ignorance that I will pray the Holy Spirit works on. I acknowledge that I cannot convince you
Now, is John going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life people or is there a possibility that John is going after proto-Gnostics, Trent?
Trent said...
Ok, but the veres does not say they have to believe to be cleansed. So if its talking to unbelievers, belief is not required. If its talking to believers like seems clear, then its relationship at stake.. which it also CLEARLY says.
LB says "But you say John is talking to believers. So, why would John have to tell unbelievers how to become saved when he is talking to believers?
you are catching on. Because he is not talking about gaining eternal life
LB says "Now, is John going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life people or is there a possibility that John is going after proto-Gnostics, Trent? "
John says he is writing to believers. That means 1 JN is not that hard to understand. You are attempting to make things more complicated then needed.
LB says "2 difficult verses in the book of "1John" are: 1John 3:9 and 5: 16
1 John 3:9
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin . . ."
1John 5: 16-17
"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death . .."
I do not believe they are difficult, and if you would continue and work through the context of 1 John you would see what I mean. When you take them out of context yes. In context no
Trent said...
I am not sure why you feel prayer is such a burden.. when you realize you sinned, to just say "God I screwed up, please help me do better"
Prayer is not a burden IF you feel like doing it. And we are not required to pray if we do not feel life doing it.
Trent said...
you are catching on. Because he is not talking about gaining eternal life
If John is talking to believers about unbelievers, John doesn’t have to tell believers how unbelievers become believers but John can tell believers that unbelievers have to confess they have sin before they can become believers.
Trent said...
John says he is writing to believers. That means 1 JN is not that hard to understand. You are attempting to make things more complicated then needed.
So you’re saying John is going after Free Grace-Exchanged Life people and definitely not after unbelievers? Yes or no.
Trent said...
I do not believe they are difficult, and if you would continue and work through the context of 1 John you would see what I mean. When you take them out of context yes. In context no
You are wrong. Grace Evangelical Society would say that 1 John is difficult to understand.
LB says "Prayer is not a burden IF you feel like doing it. And we are not required to pray if we do not feel life doing it. "
If you do not feel like talking to a friend, perhaps you are out of fellowship.
LB said "If John is talking to believers about unbelievers, John doesn’t have to tell believers how unbelievers become believers but John can tell believers that unbelievers have to confess they have sin before they can become believers."
Why do you think he is talking about unbelievers? eisegesis again. did you read that link?
John says he is talking to believers who don't have fellowship with other believers and are not walking in the light because they say they are not sinning and thus making God a liar. If that Is what you are calling a FG Exchange life believer, then yes.
LB says "You are wrong. Grace Evangelical Society would say that 1 John is difficult to understand. "
You seem to think I am tied in with GES much tighter then I. I study scripture to determine truth, not follow fallible people. remember Acts 17:11? Anyway, I specifically said those verses are not difficult IF you go with the context. 1 John is not as easy as say John.. but then its written to believers so that can be expected.
Please note, you keep posting the post http://www.judev3.co.uk/3QA.htm which is above and I dealt with it. The other long quote from some other author who gives his opinion with out discussing HOW it could mean what he says I am leaving off because it is not you thinking for yourself, and it is not dealing with context. You follow men to much, and that can be dangerous. If you have determined to follow Men instead of scripture on this issue, then lets discuss a different issue and passage. If you reject 1 John, but want to discuss Sin further, lets discuss James.
Trent said…
If you do not feel like talking to a friend, perhaps you are out of fellowship.
And who says I am out of fellowship? People like you. People like you say I am out of fellowship because I don’t pray and I don’t pray because I am out of fellowship.
The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
By Reuben Archer Torrey
17. Praying, Returning Thanks, Worshipping in the Holy Spirit
True prayer is prayer in the Spirit (i. e., the prayer that the Holy Spirit inspires and directs).
The longings which the Holy Spirit begets in our hearts are often too deep for utterance, too deep apparently for clear and definite comprehension on the part of the believer himself in whom the Spirit is working--"The Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii. 26, R. V.). God Himself "must search the heart" to know what is "the mind of the Spirit" in these unuttered and unutterable longings. But God does know what is the mind of the Spirit; He does know what these Spirit-given longings which we cannot put into words mean, even if we do not, and these longings are "according to the will of God," and God grants them.
There is no true and acceptable worship except that which the Holy Spirit prompts and directs. "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and truth; for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers" (John iv. 24, 23). The flesh seeks to intrude into every sphere of life.
http://articles.ochristian.com/article12993.shtml
How dare you criticize me for not confessing my sins when the Holy Spirit doesn’t make me confess my sins?
Trent said…
Please note, you keep posting the post http://www.judev3.co.uk/3QA.htm which is above and I dealt with it.
When you confess all of your sins for forgiveness, are you crucifying the Son of Man afresh? The blood cleanses us only once, not daily. Therefore, John is not talking about believers.
Trent said…
The other long quote from some other author who gives his opinion with out discussing HOW it could mean what he says I am leaving off because it is not you thinking for yourself, and it is not dealing with context.
Fourth, no one could possibly cite ALL of his sins to God...no one ever has. Even a sincere attempt to do so would leave you and me without time to sleep, eat, or brush our teeth. And even if it were possible to name ALL of them, we would still have our sinful natures that are opposed to God and His Word (Romans 8:7). What would confession do for that? The Book of Romans shows us that our REAL problem is OUR SIN NATURE, not sin, the act.
Most "short accounters" admit the inability to confess all sins. There are sins of omission, sins that we forget that we committed, sins of ignorance, and sins of stubbornness...sins that we go to our graves refusing to admit are sins.
Fifth, if John really taught short accounts, and if he had the Body of Christ/the Church in mind, why aren't the Pauline Epistles full of instruction about "confessing" one's sins in order to gain forgiveness and "restore fellowship"?
http://rickbrooker.blogspot.com/2010/06/obsession-with-confession.html
If you go by 1 John 1:9, you have to confess every sin you have ever committed, be truly sorry for it and never commit it again, or else you are a 1 John 1:9 hypocrite and you are the freethinker.
Trent said…
Why do you think he is talking about unbelievers? eisegesis again. did you read that link?
If you want to talk about eisegesis, I can play that game too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWue7Qn_aok
LB, have you noted, that I quote God's word, you quote men?
Trent said…
If you do not feel like talking to a friend, perhaps you are out of fellowship.
And who says I am out of fellowship? People like you. People like you say I am out of fellowship because I don’t pray and I don’t pray because I am out of fellowship.
How dare you criticize me for not confessing my sins when the Holy Spirit doesn’t make me confess my sins?
LB, please read what i said. If you don't want to talk to someone, perhaps you are out of fellowship. That's just a true possibility with people as well, and your argument is with John, not me.
LB says "When you confess all of your sins for forgiveness, are you crucifying the Son of Man afresh? The blood cleanses us only once, not daily. Therefore, John is not talking about believers."
No, therefore you are playing word games and making assumptions trying to understand scripture through your theology instead of letting God's word form your theology. Have you look at http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html yet?
LB says "Fourth, no one could possibly cite ALL of his sins to God...no one ever has. Even a sincere attempt to do so would leave you and me without time to sleep, eat, or brush our teeth. And even if it were possible to name ALL of them, we would still have our sinful natures that are opposed to God and His Word (Romans 8:7). What would confession do for that? The Book of Romans shows us that our REAL problem is OUR SIN NATURE, not sin, the act."
Please note the context of Sin in this passage is walking in darkness, not an individual sin. BUT again, the issue is what does God's word say? If it said every sin, then IF you wanted fellowship you would have to do it. It does not, but stop using man's logic as an argument of why you don't need to do what God says.
LB says "Fifth, if John really taught short accounts, and if he had the Body of Christ/the Church in mind, why aren't the Pauline Epistles full of instruction about "confessing" one's sins in order to gain forgiveness and "restore fellowship"?
because they were praying the way God told the apostles to pray, and were making disciples per the Command of Jesus.
LB says "If you go by 1 John 1:9, you have to confess every sin you have ever committed, be truly sorry for it and never commit it again, or else you are a 1 John 1:9 hypocrite and you are the freethinker."
nope, thats why you use context. I suggest you read through 1 John completely at one sitting every day for the next week and you will be surprised how things start to tie together.
LB says "If you want to talk about eisegesis, I can play that game too."
What game? I wanted you to understand why you were confused about context. This is not a game to me, I want you to learn to interpret scripture so that false teachers cannot entrap you. You are bring thoughts into 1 John that you CANNOT get from the context. What is that called?
Trent said...
Have you look at http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html yet?
It gave a simple little story about some king not going to church.
Trent said...
What game? I wanted you to understand why you were confused about context. This is not a game to me, I want you to learn to interpret scripture so that false teachers cannot entrap you. You are bring thoughts into 1 John that you CANNOT get from the context. What is that called?
1 John 1:1-4 “We” is John writing on behalf of the Apostles to the churches, correct?
5 John says the message of the Apostles is “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” to mankind, correct?
Now John expounds on God’s message to mankind, correct? The “we” is now referring to mankind, correct?
6 If we do not have absolute holiness, we are not saved, correct?
7 But if we have absolute holiness, we are part of the family of God and are washed in the blood of the Lamb, correct?
8 If we say we have absolute holiness when we do not, we deceive ourselves, correct?
9 If we confess we do not have absolute holiness, we may then be forgiven and given absolute holiness, correct?
10 If we say we have absolute holiness when God says we don’t have absolute holiness, we call God a liar and do not agree with God’s Word, correct?
Trent said...
No, therefore you are playing word games and making assumptions trying to understand scripture through your theology instead of letting God's word form your theology.
You are saying the blood cleanses us every time we confess our sins, correct? However, the blood cleanses us only once, correct? Therefore, John cannot be talking about believers, correct?
Trent said...
Please note the context of Sin in this passage is walking in darkness, not an individual sin. BUT again, the issue is what does God's word say? If it said every sin, then IF you wanted fellowship you would have to do it. It does not, but stop using man's logic as an argument of why you don't need to do what God says.
It says to confess your sins. Confess all of your sins, be sorry for them and don’t commit them again. Show me how a 1 John 1:9er can get away with anything less than that.
Trent said...
because they were praying the way God told the apostles to pray, and were making disciples per the Command of Jesus.
But it is highly unusual of God to mention such a major doctrine, one which would apply every day and hour of our lives, only one time in the New Testament.
http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=55
The belief that we won’t be forgiven if we don’t confess our sins is a major doctrine of the church, and it only has one supporting verse in New Testament.
http://www.cityharvestalbany.com/files/sermons/2010/11032010/doc-11032010.pdf
LB says "1 John 1:1-4 “We” is John writing on behalf of the Apostles to the churches, correct?"
To believers specifically. For what purpose? for fellowship. He spells that out
5 John says the message of the Apostles is “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” to mankind, correct?
there you go. Why did his audience change?
Now John expounds on God’s message to mankind, correct? The “we” is now referring to mankind, correct?
why would you say that? You just hijacked the purpose of his letter.
6 If we do not have absolute holiness, we are not saved, correct?
No but at least I see where you are confused. You are trying to change the entire context and ignore who John is talking too. If this was to unbelievers, you just made eternal life conditioned on forgiveness & holiness. Do you really believe that is what John is saying?? LB, stop listening to what people are saying about it, and let John tell you what he is talking about. He is talking to believers like you. Use Exegesis.
LB says "You are saying the blood cleanses us every time we confess our sins, correct? However, the blood cleanses us only once, correct? Therefore, John cannot be talking about believers, correct?"
Contextually it has to be fellowship. WHy ? because John says it is. It has to be believers. WHy ? John says so. so he is talking about a cleansing that takes place when we confess our sins after walking in darkness. So in context, yes it can happen more then once. If it can happen more then once to John the Apostle, it can happen to me.
LB says "It says to confess your sins. Confess all of your sins, be sorry for them and don’t commit them again. Show me how a 1 John 1:9er can get away with anything less than that. " No, it does not say confess all your sins. It discusses walking in darkness, then confessing your sins. What sins? the ones that you are walking in darkness with. use context. However, what you are claiming it is saying is closer then what you were saying.. that he switched the purpose of his letter with out telling anyone. talk about confusion.
LB says "But it is highly unusual of God to mention such a major doctrine, one which would apply every day and hour of our lives, only one time in the New Testament.
The belief that we won’t be forgiven if we don’t confess our sins is a major doctrine of the church, and it only has one supporting verse in New Testament."
Umm.. Jesus taught it. Your claim that he taught it before his death is like saying JN 3:16 does not apply because it was before his death. There are heretics who say that too. John devoted an entire book to how to have eternal life. Only one book. Then he devotes an entire book to believers on how to have joy and fellowship with God and other believers. Seems pretty consistent to me. You are trying to isolate one verse instead of taking the entire book. When you understand what John is saying then you understand the joy. Even though we Sin, the new nature that is born from above cannot sin. It is impervious and will enter eternity untouched. But you are still stuck on 1:6 trying to argue with John and saying "I don't sin" and trying to make God a liar.
http://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
LB says "It gave a simple little story about some king not going to church."
really? It is showing how you can input meaning into scripture to get what you want instead of what it says. LB PLEASE consider letting scripture speak for itself. I assume you have a relationship with people you keep quoting. They are men. They are fallible. If they say they are without sin, they are liars. Love them, but stop letting them lead you astray. There is a reason why the scripture is so strict on false teachers. I honestly am getting frustrated having you just repeat the same thing over and over contradicting scripture. it APPEARS like you are just trying to bug me because it so obvoius that context does not support, but I assume you are sincere. Please consider talking to your father in heaven and asking him. Talking to God is something we do to have a relationship with him. You talk to those you love. If you are not, there is an issue. Please consider that.
Trent said...
To believers specifically. For what purpose? for fellowship. He spells that out
You admit that “We” in 1 John 1:1-4 is the Apostles or perhaps the successors to the Apostles since this was written in the A.D. 90s?
Trent said...
there you go. Why did his audience change?
5 John says the message of the Apostles is “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” to mankind, correct?
Who says the audience changed? What is the message and who is the message to? Mankind.
Trent said...
why would you say that? You just hijacked the purpose of his letter.
I’m going by the context.
Trent said...
No but at least I see where you are confused. You are trying to change the entire context and ignore who John is talking too. If this was to unbelievers, you just made eternal life conditioned on forgiveness & holiness. Do you really believe that is what John is saying?? LB, stop listening to what people are saying about it, and let John tell you what he is talking about. He is talking to believers like you. Use Exegesis.
6 If we do not have absolute holiness, we are not saved, correct?
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
Well, Trent, if mankind says he has fellowship with God and mankind walks in darkness, mankind lies and does not have the absolute holiness required to have fellowship with God. In order to be saved and have fellowship with God, mankind has to have absolute holiness and no darkness.
Trent said...
Contextually it has to be fellowship. WHy ? because John says it is. It has to be believers. WHy ? John says so. so he is talking about a cleansing that takes place when we confess our sins after walking in darkness. So in context, yes it can happen more then once. If it can happen more then once to John the Apostle, it can happen to me.
When are we washed in the blood? You wouldn’t answer that for me. We are washed in the blood only once in any context.
Trent said...
Umm.. Jesus taught it.
Where did Jesus teach it?
Trent said...
John devoted an entire book to how to have eternal life. Only one book. Then he devotes an entire book to believers on how to have joy and fellowship with God and other believers.
Wouldn’t having eternal life give you joy and fellowship with God and other believers?
Trent said...
You are trying to isolate one verse instead of taking the entire book.
Trent is trying to isolate one verse instead of taking the entire book.
Trent said...
When you understand what John is saying then you understand the joy. Even though we Sin, the new nature that is born from above cannot sin. It is impervious and will enter eternity untouched.
But when you sin, aren’t you cut off from fellowship and joy because it isn’t enough to have a new nature and you have to bring the old nature into submission to God?
Trent said...
But you are still stuck on 1:6 trying to argue with John and saying "I don't sin" and trying to make God a liar.
1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
John doesn’t want mankind to have sin.
LB said "You admit that “We” in 1 John 1:1-4 is the Apostles or perhaps the successors to the Apostles since this was written in the A.D. 90s?"
It is clearly John and other believers. Since most if not all of the other apostles were dead that would be doubtful.
Trent said...
there you go. Why did his audience change?
5 John says the message of the Apostles is “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” to mankind, correct?
LB says "Who says the audience changed? What is the message and who is the message to? Mankind."
read vs 2-4. you are familiar with John, and you know what evangelism is. BUT even if the audience is unbeleivers, WE is still John and believers and as you pointed out earlier, maybe his audience which if so, makes them have to believers as well. Since his purpose was fellowship and joy, not evangelism (jn 20:30-31 I think context makes them believers
Trent said...
why would you say that? You just hijacked the purpose of his letter.
LB says "I’m going by the context. "
What context. saying it does not make it so. You have to be intellectually honest. YOu have argued for almost 100 posts with out giving a clue from context that does not require eisegesis
LB says "When are we washed in the blood? You wouldn’t answer that for me. We are washed in the blood only once in any context. "
different terminology, different context. We are what Scripture says we are. According to John, our fellowship is restored when we confess our walking in darkness and his blood cleanses us from even other sins since it says all.. or at least all we need for fellowship.
LB says "Well, Trent, if mankind says he has fellowship with God and mankind walks in darkness, mankind lies and does not have the absolute holiness required to have fellowship with God. In order to be saved and have fellowship with God, mankind has to have absolute holiness and no darkness. "
LB, try hard. Answer this question. If we pretend that John did change his focus of his letter, then according to John, right here, how is a person saved? Don't change the subject, or go elsewhere, I want you to see where you end up if that was true. Until you deal with these two issues there is no reason to continue as we are not using exegesis. 1 what context makes you think the purpose of the letter changed, and 2 if it did, how do you get saved according to 1 John (even though saved is not there)
LB goes to Galations.
Not going to have you hijack it further till we finish. Make your argument from only 1 Jn on those two topics.
Trent said...
No, it does not say confess all your sins. It discusses walking in darkness, then confessing your sins. What sins? the ones that you are walking in darkness with. use context.
Trent said...
LB goes to Galations.
Not going to have you hijack it further till we finish. Make your argument from only 1 Jn on those two topics.
Aren’t you walking in darkness with all of your sins? If it’s necessary to confess one sin and make restitution for it, isn’t it necessary to confess all sins and make restitution for them all? God is righteous and it wouldn’t be righteous to not make restitution for every sin you have ever committed.
LB lets discuss your points.
LB says "Wouldn’t having eternal life give you joy and fellowship with God and other believers? "
Not automatically. Especially when you see the condition for joy and fellowship. walking in the light? confessing sin? thats what you have to do for eternal life?
LB says "But when you sin, aren’t you cut off from fellowship and joy because it isn’t enough to have a new nature and you have to bring the old nature into submission to God?"
again the context is not simply sin, but walking in sin. What does it say?
LB quotes "1 John 2
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
John doesn’t want mankind to have sin. "
so you are saying that when he says "my little children" intimately he was writing the world? But I though We was the world? You need stop jumping for your convenience. Does stop sinning give you eternal life?
LB says "Aren’t you walking in darkness with all of your sins? If it’s necessary to confess one sin and make restitution for it, isn’t it necessary to confess all sins and make restitution for them all? God is righteous and it wouldn’t be righteous to not make restitution for every sin you have ever committed. "
what does it say? it says walking in darkness, confess your sins, his blood cleanses all. If you say no sin, you are lying. IF you understand it to mean all your sin, then go for it, but I think context with fellowship is continuous. Example, a good friend says something offensive to me and then keeps going. I can ignore it and move on, and there is no problem. Now on the other hand, if he begins to change and put me down at every opportunity, there will be a break in fellowship. I think you confusion is, you don't know what fellowship is because you are out of it. You don't talk to God, because its to much work. That does not sound like a relationship to me. Do you do that with your friends and family? Why do you think a relationship with God is different?
Trent said...
It is clearly John and other believers. Since most if not all of the other apostles were dead that would be doubtful.
I guess we agree more or less that the “We” refers to the Apostle John and the Apostles or the successors to the Apostles or the believing community.
Trent said...
read vs 2-4. you are familiar with John, and you know what evangelism is. BUT even if the audience is unbeleivers, WE is still John and believers and as you pointed out earlier, maybe his audience which if so, makes them have to believers as well. Since his purpose was fellowship and joy, not evangelism (jn 20:30-31 I think context makes them believers
Trent said...
What context. saying it does not make it so. You have to be intellectually honest. YOu have argued for almost 100 posts with out giving a clue from context that does not require eisegesis
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
What is the message? God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
What is light? Holiness.
Who is the message to? Mankind.
What does mankind need to have holiness and fellowship with God? Salvation.
Who claimed to have holiness and fellowship with God but didn’t have salvation? Proto-Gnostics.
Glad we agree We is John and other believers. So if WE say we have no sin, we make God a liar. Read chapter 1 with We being believers regardless of who you want the audience to be. You will now change your mind who WE is probably and so lets end it on that note. If you agree WE is still believers and want to continue through 1 John, I am willing, but otherwise I don't feel as though it is worth continuing. Lets discuss a different post. :) Or give me a suggestion for a new one.
Grace and Truth
Trent
EX:
My daughter stole a car from my Neighbor, Eli.
When in Court, it turns out that Eli was the judge. Eli told her she had to pay for the Car or she would face life imprisonment.
She had no money, but a friend of hers who did our yard for us named Jesus, went ahead and paid off the car for Eli, so she did not have to go to jail. He actually had a billion dollar diamond that he gave him to make sure anything else that popped up would be paid for as well.
In spite of it being PAID for Eli was still pretty standoffish until my daughter finally went and confessed to him that she screwed up and was sorry. Now they get along fine, though I am sure if she graffitti's his house or anything there will be issues again.
I hope that helps you understand the issue of fellowship.
Take care,
Grace and Truth
Trent
Benefits of Christ’s Blood:
Restricted and Unrestricted?
Bob Wilkin
Of course confession is only effective for the one walking in the light. The person who is walking in the darkness may acknowledge something he has done as wrong, but if he simultaneously plans to go right on doing it, then he is not walking in the light.
So, it is possible to walk in the light without confessing your sins? Then why not walk in the light and not confess your sins?
LB says "So, it is possible to walk in the light without confessing your sins? Then why not walk in the light and not confess your sins?"
LB its not about what you want, its about what God says. You seem to be missing the point. You have send me like 30 posts, all quoting peoples thoughts, and either proclaiming them as truth or arguing against them but not dealing with the text.
Trent Said "Glad we agree We is John and other believers. So if WE say we have no sin, we make God a liar. Read chapter 1 with We being believers regardless of who you want the audience to be. You will now change your mind who WE is probably and so lets end it on that note. If you agree WE is still believers and want to continue through 1 John, I am willing, but otherwise I don't feel as though it is worth continuing. Lets discuss a different post. :) Or give me a suggestion for a new one.
I stand by this. You agreed it was WE was believers. So based on that how do you understand 1 JN.
There are only 2 kinds of inner life, Adam-life or Christ-life (Romans 5:14-19). All of us are born with Adam-life; a spirit without the life of God. It was the life of God that Adam lost in the garden. Therefore, our sins are not our only problem, but rather the dead spirit within. The blood of Christ washes away our sin, but it does not wash away the Adam-life. We are sinners because we are born spiritually dead, without the life of God that we were created to function from. It is a matter of birth, heredity, and parentage, not behavior that makes us sinners. We were born into sin and the only way out is to be born into another, to change our birth, to change our parentage. We came in by birth, we must go out by death and receive a new birth, a new spirit, one born of God. That is what the cross of Christ accomplishes.
http://crossroads-ne.org/wp/?page_id=21
People will be in Hell because they don’t have life.
BUT why should Jesus’s payment for sin be applied to people before they receive the life of Christ?
“Sin is no longer the issue.”
But sin never was the issue: life was the issue.
You still are not dealing with 1 Jn, but I thought this was worth responding to. Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden? What was God preventing and why? (hint: He said why) What would have happened if Adam and Eve had gained LIFE with out payment being made?
Trent said...
You still are not dealing with 1 Jn, but I thought this was worth responding to.
You won’t admit the Exchanged Life view could be right. And you’ve still got to deal with 1 John 3:9.
1John 3:9
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
Trent said...
Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden? What was God preventing and why? (hint: He said why) What would have happened if Adam and Eve had gained LIFE with out payment being made?
Uh, they would have lived forever in their sinful state? But how would that prove your argument instead of prove my argument?
Unborn babies and born babies who die may not have committed any sins yet, but I figure they go to Hell because they don’t have life and that’s where they belong.
LB you like to look at verses out of context, thats why you are having difficulties understanding scripture. I want to take 1 Jn 3:9 in context and follow the train of thought. When you are ready to continue, let me know.
LB says "Uh, they Adam and Eve" would have lived forever in their sinful state? But how would that prove your argument instead of prove my argument?
Ok, what does live forever mean? and how is that different from what happens if they don't eat from it?"
Trent said...
Ok, what does live forever mean?
Live forever in their sinful mortal state.
Trent said...
and how is that different from what happens if they don't eat from it?"
They live forever in their sinless mortal state. Which is why Adam and Eve wanted a sinless immortal state and ate the fruit and ended up getting a sinless immortal state.
When Jesus said “It is finished,” what was finished? The payment for sins is part of the substitutionary atonement which isn’t applied until saving faith.
LB says "They live forever in their sinless mortal state. Which is why Adam and Eve wanted a sinless immortal state and ate the fruit and ended up getting a sinless immortal state."
I am talking about the tree of Life LB. Why was it a concern that Man not eat of it after he had sinned?
LB says "When Jesus said “It is finished,” what was finished? The payment for sins is part of the substitutionary atonement which isn’t applied until saving faith. "
so you are saying that Jesus did not mean it was finished.. what he meant to say was "it will be finished for each individual after he believes because I am going to cause confusion and separate payment and application so I can pretend to die for the world when in reality I did not." See, we need to have you work through 1 John verse by verse or 1 Cor, Or Romans, Or Revelation or James so that you can see that the Bible is clear that believers can Sin. You want to keep jumping around everywhere and pick one verse 1 Jn 3:9 without following Johns train of thought. You make up things like "Jesus commands and instructions to disciples prior to his death don't apply" and more silliness. Let God's word be your guide, not a church that teaches heresy. Use your passion for God!
Trent said...
I am talking about the tree of Life LB. Why was it a concern that Man not eat of it after he had sinned?
They would live forever in their sinful mortal state.
Trent said...
and how is that different from what happens if they don't eat from it?"
They live forever in their sinless mortal state. Which is why Adam and Eve wanted a sinless immortal state and ate the fruit and ended up getting a sinless immortal state.
LB Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Life. So please reconsider your answer.
Trent said...
so you are saying that Jesus did not mean it was finished.. what he meant to say was "it will be finished for each individual after he believes because I am going to cause confusion and separate payment and application so I can pretend to die for the world when in reality I did not." See, we need to have you work through 1 John verse by verse or 1 Cor, Or Romans, Or Revelation or James so that you can see that the Bible is clear that believers can Sin. You want to keep jumping around everywhere and pick one verse 1 Jn 3:9 without following Johns train of thought. You make up things like "Jesus commands and instructions to disciples prior to his death don't apply" and more silliness. Let God's word be your guide, not a church that teaches heresy. Use your passion for God!
Dr. Curtis Hutson
Now let me briefly sum up what I have said: We are sinners. We owe the sin debt. God transferred our guilt to Jesus. Jesus shed His blood. He died on a cross. He paid what we owe. That is what he meant when he cried out from the cross, "It is finished." Now for us to be washed in the blood, or to accept the payment, we must do it by faith.
http://www.dividedbytruth.org/BTP/hbatqah/hbatqah_chap8.htm
You’re saying that is heresy?
The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.
The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.
I got that from the Grace Evangelical Society.
Trent said...
LB Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Life. So please reconsider your answer.
What’s wrong with my answer?
because you stated they ate it. Did I misunderstand? I am curious what you think would have happened if they had eaten, and how that is different then what happened.
LB you are missing the point. Someone stating something does not make it true, whether GES or the people you like to quote. Teaching that a believer can do anything he wants with out sinning and eternal consequences is heresy BECAUSE it goes against scriptures warning and John deals with that heresy directly. That is why you are uncomfortable discussing it.
Did you know that I can make the same argument that unbelievers can have eternal life with out believing in Jesus using the same word games you are? By ignoring context and changing who the we and you are I can make the Bible say anything. 1 Jn 3:9 is talking about all humans, and therefore no one can sin. See, no one needs to believe. Consider that and lets focus on 1 Jn again. Exegesis is important, or false teachers can have a heyday. context context context.
Grace and Truth
TRent
Trent said...
because you stated they ate it. Did I misunderstand? I am curious what you think would have happened if they had eaten, and how that is different then what happened.
Adam and Eve didn’t eat from the Tree of Life, but they ended up getting a sinless immortal state. After all, you said their problem was not sin but their lack of eternal life.
LB said "Adam and Eve didn’t eat from the Tree of Life, but they ended up getting a sinless immortal state. After all, you said their problem was not sin but their lack of eternal life."
My question is, why did God want them not to eat it after they had sinned... and what would have been different? By not eating, you are stating they got a sinless immortal life. We will get to eat it in the New Jerusalem.
LB I want you to walk me through 1 JN, starting chapter one. One post each, and I want you to show me how and where John starts including unbeleivers when he rights "we" or "us" Start verse one, and just show me. I don't want quotes about what people say about it, I want you to quote each verse in 1 Jn, and lets work all the way through it. I started, but you changed the subject as soon as you did not like where it lead you. So show me with Context how 1 Jn says what you are claiming. No more rabbit trails. Do each verse 1 post at a time. Thus far, I still cannot follow your interpretation. Perhaps this will helps us get on the same page.
Trent said...
LB you are missing the point. Someone stating something does not make it true, whether GES or the people you like to quote.
You like to say I quote heresy, but what heresy do I quote?
Trent said...
Teaching that a believer can do anything he wants with out sinning and eternal consequences is heresy BECAUSE it goes against scriptures warning and John deals with that heresy directly.
Is that your definition of antinomianism? I suppose that would be mine, but not Lordship Salvation’s.
Trent said...
That is why you are uncomfortable discussing it.
Have you ever known me to be uncomfortable discussing anything?
Trent said...
Did you know that I can make the same argument that unbelievers can have eternal life with out believing in Jesus using the same word games you are?
Well, I did say you were using universalism arguments.
Trent said...
By ignoring context and changing who the we and you are I can make the Bible say anything. 1 Jn 3:9 is talking about all humans, and therefore no one can sin. See, no one needs to believe.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
How’s that?
Trent said...
Consider that and lets focus on 1 Jn again. Exegesis is important, or false teachers can have a heyday. context context context.
In your opening post, Lewis Sperry Chafer said:
"....through the substitutinary death of Christ for all men as Sin-Bearer (John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:14,19) the ground of universal divine condemntation is now beause of the personal rejection of the Savior who bore the sin.”
If condemnation is from rejecting Christ, does that mean that nobody is condemned who never heard of Christ?
Also, Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Romans 8:1 as proof that Christians are said to be free from all condemtnaion on the sole ground that they have believed on the Savior. However, you reject that, don’t you?
Trent said...
My question is, why did God want them not to eat it after they had sinned... and what would have been different? By not eating, you are stating they got a sinless immortal life. We will get to eat it in the New Jerusalem.
Adam and Eve in their original state didn’t have immortal sinless eternal life, did they? Christians have immortal sinless eternal life, don’t they?
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Cor 5:10. Again, quoting anyone, or using verses out of context does proves your bias, not what scripture says. Paul, John, and James could not be more clear that Sin is an issue for believers. I will take their words over self proclaimed experts anytime. And when people try and avoid dealing with scripture to make their argument, It validates my point.
Rom 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.
Rom 6:10 For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.
Rom 6:13 And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God.
Rom 7:17 But now, [it is] no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I will not [to do], it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
sounds a bit like 1 John, doesn't it?
Jam 1:15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Jam 2:9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Jam 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do [it], to him it is sin.
1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1Jo 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin [which does] not [lead] to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not [leading] to death. There is sin [leading] to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not [leading] to death.
1Jo 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.
How can you hold to your theology in the face of scripture? If a brother sins? Is that another of your unbelievers? A sin that does not lead to death? Please let scripture be your guide my friend. If you refuse, then we are at an impasse because you will not let scripture speak, and I refuse to let something be more authoritative then scripture.
I am getting bored of having my questions answered by questions or quotes instead of you studying scripture for yourself. I became bored with my catholic brother-in-law for the same reason. He quoted the people he had put his faith in, and did not care what scripture said. He, like you was unwilling to discuss scripture, but instead felt that people "smarter and holier then he" had all the answers. I will let God determine holiness, and as for intelligent.. there are plenty of ignorant intelligent people. The bible tells me to study to show myself approved and that I will do. So I pray for him and I will do the same for you. If you would like to study scripture with me, lets continue, otherwise lets do a different topic. You have exhaustively explained your position, and I think I have done the same. You believe scripture says that you may rape, pillage, murder and burn with out sinning, and I think John, Paul and James have harsh words for you and even harsher for your teachers. I do believe that Jesus paid for the Sins of the world however and as a believer in him you have eternal life. Thank you for spending this time explaining your position and I hope you either choose to continue in scripture or take on a different post.
Trent said...
I am getting bored of having my questions answered by questions or quotes instead of you studying scripture for yourself.
So, Dr. Curtis Hutson and Lewis Sperry Chafer are heretics?
You see what you just did right? Rather then dealing with anything, you ask a question, insinuating something I did not say to change the subject away from scripture. :(
Trent said...
You see what you just did right? Rather then dealing with anything, you ask a question, insinuating something I did not say to change the subject away from scripture. :(
What good does all your Bible-thumping exegesis do you if you don’t have the guts to call somebody a heretic?
And don’t Dr. Curtis Hutson and Lewis Sperry Chafer have to be heretics or else they prove that you are a heretic?
Nothing in what I read that you sent me on Chafer said a believer cannot sin. BUT if anyone teaches something contrary to scripture, he is teaching heresy Correct? Does not matter what their name right? IF someone says a believer cannot sin, that is heresy. Is that clear enough? Now, are you ready to get back discussing 1 John? John the Apostle, the beloved said that if even he said he did not sin he would be a liar. That is the word of God. For you to state you are perfect and with out sin is arrogant and makes you a liar according to John. Did you ignore all of the passages I quoted above discussing Sin in a believers life?
I the way, I just completed "Grace" by
Chafer and I thought it was outstanding. He clearly taught that a believer avoids sin by living in the Spirit and does not teach the heresy we are discussing in that book.
DISCIPLINED BY GRACE
BY
John Frederick Strombeck
Service under grace must be voluntary.
Inasmuch as grace gives everything freely, out of the promptings of God's love, anything that the recipient of grace does for God, must be of his own free will.
Admonitions denote a voluntary compliance. All admonitions in the apostolic epistles are in words that clearly denote a voluntary response. Beseech was a favorite word with Paul. John and Peter also used it.
Two other words frequently used are exhort and admonish. Though more authoritative than beseech, they still allow voluntary compliance. They exclude the idea of compulsion.
The most common expression used is the little word let. It also implies freedom of will to comply or not comply.
From the above it is clear that Christ does not seek a forced, slavish, or coercive service. He desires a voluntary and joyous labor of love that issues from the heart.
Von, some excellent articles, that I agree with, but off topic. I posted one, and Chafer was great, but these are not on topic.
Trent said...
Nothing in what I read that you sent me on Chafer said a believer cannot sin. BUT if anyone teaches something contrary to scripture, he is teaching heresy Correct?
a. The perfect law of liberty.
The child of GOD is free.
He has been delivered from every aspect of the law - as a rule of life, as an obligation to make himself acceptable to GOD, and as a dependence on the impotent flesh. Likewise, he has been delivered from ideals and conventionalities of the world. He is as free in himself as though he had already passed on into Heaven. He has been brought into the priceless liberty of grace.
The word liberty is defined thus: "The state of being exempt from the dominion of others, or from restricting circumstances." It is freedom to do according to one's own preference and choice. It is emancipation. The thought of necessity and servitude is of the law. Grace glories in liberty and freedom.
Is it not imperative that the children of GOD should be placed within the bounds of reasonable law? Absolutely No! The Christian's liberty to do precisely as he chooses is as limitless and perfect as any other aspect of grace. But GOD has provided a sufficient safeguard which consists in the fact that the divine ideal is first wrought in the heart: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
b. The law of expediency.
Thus it is seen that the law of expediency contemplates the danger to the believer's own life in the matter of personal habits or injury, and the responsibility to others in the matter of edification.
Much that he is free to do, so far as his relation to GOD is concerned, he is not free to do when contemplating his own personal good and the good of others.
I see the point you are trying to make. You are assuming that because we are freed from the law, that is the same as not being able to sin, but that is the error of assuming two different things are the same when it has not been stated that way. Especially in light of scripture which is clear that a believer can sin. Since the Apostles clearly state that you can sin and that we are not under the law, they cannot be the same thing. You are still doing everything BUT dealing with the scripture however. I gave you quite a few verses and I tried to avoid the Gospels since you also assume that a believer could sin before the cross but not after. If your theology is different the God's word, should you not change it? I know I have had to before.
Trent said...
Did you ignore all of the passages I quoted above discussing Sin in a believers life?
It’s impossible for there to be anything unlawful to a Christian and impossible for there to be anything sinful to a Christian. That which is not expedient is called sin.
Trent said...
I the way, I just completed "Grace" by
Chafer and I thought it was outstanding. He clearly taught that a believer avoids sin by living in the Spirit and does not teach the heresy we are discussing in that book.
I read those Chafer and Strombeck books 25-26 years ago and they were sort of my introduction to grace.
Trent said...
I see the point you are trying to make. You are assuming that because we are freed from the law, that is the same as not being able to sin, but that is the error of assuming two different things are the same when it has not been stated that way.
Much that he is free to do, so far as his relation to GOD is concerned, he is not free to do when contemplating his own personal good and the good of others.
And he is free to do anything so far as his relation to GOD is concerned, correct?
LB I want you to read what you said
LB said "It’s impossible for there to be anything unlawful to a Christian and impossible for there to be anything sinful to a Christian. That which is not expedient is called sin. "
Ok.. so to rationalize your doctrine, you have to say that A Christian cannot sin, but he can do things not expedient that are called sin but are not sin... Is that really.. I mean.. what if I say a person does not have to believe in Jesus, he just has to say he does but we will call it belief? Do you see how silly that sounds? And these things that are called sin but not sin are also called sin for unbelievers. You are trying to argue that the same things are called sin but are not sin depending on the individual.. whew.. mind bender there dude.
Hbr 12:6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
Of course we are free to do what we want, but there are consequences, and it is still Sin and Sin is Sin and it called Sin because it is sin. If it was not sin, it would be called something else. So when John says if he says he does not sin he is a liar, is that Sin or Sin?
Trent said...
Ok.. so to rationalize your doctrine, you have to say that A Christian cannot sin, but he can do things not expedient that are called sin but are not sin…
Can a person with sin on his account have eternal life? Therefore, anybody with eternal life cannot sin.
Trent said...
You are trying to argue that the same things are called sin but are not sin depending on the individual.. whew.. mind bender there dude.
Well, you’re the one who says that the payment for sin was applied to everybody at the cross.
Trent said...
Hbr 12:6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
I can prod a horse, but that mean the horse is necessarily sinning?
Trent said...
So when John says if he says he does not sin he is a liar, is that Sin or Sin?
John could have been talking about proto-Gnostics.
*sigh*
LB says "Can a person with sin on his account have eternal life? Therefore, anybody with eternal life cannot sin."
Jesus paid for the sins of the world. I have stated this numerous times. I wish you would just answer questions instead of asking the same ones over and over.
Trent said...
You are trying to argue that the same things are called sin but are not sin depending on the individual.. whew.. mind bender there dude.
LB said "Well, you’re the one who says that the payment for sin was applied to everybody at the cross."
yes, but see for some reason, you are assuming that because something is paid for, it ceases to be what it was when paid for. That makes no since
Trent said...
Hbr 12:6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
LB says "I can prod a horse, but that mean the horse is necessarily sinning? "
Scourge is whip. If you whip a horse when he did not do anything wrong, you would not be just. Nice way to avoid every single scripture still. LB, since you refuse to deal with scripture on this issue, please consider praying and moving on. I understand I cannot change your view or anyone's who does not believe scripture is inerrant and the authority or does not use exegesis so lets do something else.
Trent said...
So when John says if he says he does not sin he is a liar, is that Sin or Sin?
LB says "John could have been talking about proto-Gnostics. "
there goes the silliness again. maybe he was talking about aliens from Mars? Course there is nothing the context to show that, but who cares right? If it does not work for your theology, make things up. IF you honestly believe this, then I CHALLENGE you. :) take me verse by verse through 1 John and show me how he changes We from himself the apostle John and the believers you admitted he including in the WE and US and changed it back and forth whenever the theology does not fit yours. Deal with Scripture using context, I challenge you. If you cannot, then your theology has holes.
Trent said...
Jesus paid for the sins of the world. I have stated this numerous times. I wish you would just answer questions instead of asking the same ones over and over.
"Can a person with sin on his account have eternal life? Therefore, anybody with eternal life cannot sin.
Trent said...
yes, but see for some reason, you are assuming that because something is paid for, it ceases to be what it was when paid for. That makes no since
If something is the same as it was before it was paid for, what’s the sense in paying for it?
Trent said...
Scourge is whip. If you whip a horse when he did not do anything wrong, you would not be just.
You know much about driving horses, oxen and mules?
Trent said...
there goes the silliness again. maybe he was talking about aliens from Mars? Course there is nothing the context to show that, but who cares right? If it does not work for your theology, make things up.
The Exchanged Life people can make a considerable argument for it.
As for there being differences between the Exchanged Life/Keswick view of sanctification and whatever your view of sanctification is, isn’t there really no difference? Think of it as a paradox that a Christian can and can’t sin. As for confessing your sins, Lewis Sperry Chafer said “True confession is the expression of a very real repentance, or change of mind, which turns from the sin.” So, confession of sins shouldn’t have to be verbal.
LB says "If something is the same as it was before it was paid for, what’s the sense in paying for it?"
Please explain to me one thing that disappears when you pay for it? If that was true, then no one sins because Jesus paid the price of all Sins. Or now you are going to say they disappear after its applied? Do you see how tangled you are becoming? If you bought a car and it became a bicycle you would be upset. I really feel at this point, you are just playing and you don't believe it either. Its becoming that silly.
LB said "You know much about driving horses, oxen and mules?"
Yes, I worked with them both riding and driving for about 15 years, not that it has anything do with my point. If I whipped my kids, they better have done something wrong.. and scourging? Is God unjust that he would whip you for not doing something wrong? My God is Just.
LB says "The Exchanged Life people can make a considerable argument for it."
don't care when it obviously contradicts the clear meaning of scripture. If you read 1 John with out all the bias you have from others, you would be able to understand what he is saying, and would not have any idea it meant what you are claiming. Consider that.
Post a Comment