Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 201 of 303 (257685)
11-08-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by iano
11-08-2005 7:32 AM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
As far as I am aware, nowhere in the NT do we see that man is considered righteous in Gods sight because he follows or as a consequence of him following the law.
I think a survey of the places where the NT says "don't be fooled" is very interesting.
quote:
Little children, let no one deceive you. He that does righteousness is righteous. (1 Jn 3:7)
The only thing missing from that quote is the "duh!" at the end.
quote:
Don't you know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters (long list of sins here), nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-11)
quote:
For this you know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor greedy man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.
Finally, one more, in case it's not "obvious" what the NT teaches:
quote:
In this the children of God are obvious, as are the children of the devil. Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
So it is that "righteous in God's sight" means actually, really practicing righteousness. Those who do not are "obviously" not of God.
Little children, don't let anyone fool you with empty words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by iano, posted 11-08-2005 7:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 11-08-2005 11:09 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 211 by iano, posted 11-08-2005 12:27 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 223 of 303 (258157)
11-09-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by iano
11-08-2005 12:27 PM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
Is the person who does right made righteous because of what he does
OR
Is the right things a person does a result of the fact he is righteous.
None of this is relevant. You were trying to draw a distinction between "righteous in God's sight" and actually doing right. So now you have discussed where you think the source of doing right is. Let's suppose I agree, which I don't, but let's suppose I do.
1 Jn 3:7 still says "Righteous in God's sight" refers to the person who actually does righteousness.
truthlover writes:
So it is that "righteous in God's sight" means actually, really practicing righteousness. Those who do not are "obviously" not of God.
jano writes:
It seems this is not the case.
No, it is the case. Just because you changed the subject doesn't mean 1 Jn 3:7 suddenly ceased to exist.
It seems this is not the case. But if it were the criteria there would exist a massive problem. Nobody can practice what you preach.
Then John was out of his mind? He was just babbling nonsense? He said anyone who couldn't practice what he, not I, preached is not of God. In fact, he said they were children of the devil.
He said that, I didn't.
If you don't know anyone who can practice what I preach, which is nothing more than what John preached, then it is because what you preach is powerless and does not cause people to be born of God. I know lots of people who practice what I preach, and I live with them, so I get to see them every day, with their children, with their wives, with their friends, and with strangers.
What you say, jano, is the typical mass of contradictions that always comes from Christians. First you say it must be so for all who are born of God, then you say it can't be so for anyone no matter what.
In the end, it boils down to something very simple..."He who practices righteousness is righteous (duh!)."
That not only can be done, it is being done every day. In the end, it is not non-Christians who oppose John's Gospel, it is Christians, because they can't reproduce it. Non-Christians just ask for proof (you know, the "fruit" Jesus spoke of).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by iano, posted 11-08-2005 12:27 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 4:47 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 228 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 5:06 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 224 of 303 (258158)
11-09-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by purpledawn
11-09-2005 12:29 PM


Re: Seeking, Striving, Trying
Please show me where this is supported in the Bible.
While it does not say "if you are not a Christian, you cannot please God," it does say, "So then those that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:8). It follows that up by saying, "You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God is in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by purpledawn, posted 11-09-2005 12:29 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 11-10-2005 7:35 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 231 of 303 (258341)
11-09-2005 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by iano
11-09-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
I think it is very relevant indeed. I have been stating that the only way a person can be made righteous in Gods sight is if they have their righteousness given to them by God.
You have been stating that a person can be righteous without practicing righteousness. You have said dozens of things, and I could chase you all over the Bible while you jump from any one of those things to another without ever answering anything.
I want to address only one thing you said. You said that a person can be righteous in God's sight without practicing righteousness. Then you are quoting 1 Jn 3:9, which says that a person born of God does not commit sin, as though this somehow supports you instead of flatly contradicting you. Completely bizarre.
You even say, "And if they do then good works (pleasing to God that is) follow as a matter of course."
Great, then let's see them follow, because only the person who practices righteousness is righteous in God's sight. That's what 1 Jn 3:7 says. The source of those good works has nothing at all to do with whether they have to be there to be righteous in God's sight.
It is utter nonsense to say that good works will happen as a matter of course, and then to deny that those good works are possible as you have. Craziness! At that point, no discussion is happening. That's some sort of babbling or something.
I pointed out to you that you only have to go to verse 9, which says "whoever is born of God...cannot commit sin". It is being born of God that puts a stop to sin here. Thus, a flat contradiction only two verses on - it would appear. Which is it: you trying to do it or God ensuring you don't do it.
What in the world are you talking about??? What sort of sane person would find any sort of apparent contradiction between 1 Jn 3:7 and 3:9? One says that the person who practices righteousness in righteous just as Christ is righteous, and the other says that the person born of God cannot commit sin. They absolutely agree.
Which is it: you trying to do it or God ensuring you don't do it.
I don't know who you're talking to, or why you think this has anything to do with what we're talking about. Maybe you've just got yourself into so many discussions you can't keep them all straight, but nothing you wrote makes any sense at all.
You said that a person could be righteous in God's sight without practicing righteousness. Now that contradicts 1 Jn 3:7, but 1 Jn 3:9 doesn't.
You said that it's impossible for a person to practice 1 Jn 3:7, which is weird for a person who claims to believe the Bible. But worse, you are somehow suggesting that 1 Jn 3:9 has something to do with making it impossible.
You're holding discussions with other people about trying, but you're not holding any discussion about trying with me. I'll give you, as I said in your last post, your idea that God is totally the source without a person's trying (bizarre of an idea as that is, I'll give it to you).
Trying or not trying, the person who is righteous in God's sight is the one who practices righteousness. That's what is says, and 1 Jn 3:9 completely backs this up.
You have got to be the only person in the whole earth who finds an apparent contradiction in those two verses unless there's someone else who's gotten tangled in theological web you're apparently tangled in.
This isn't rocket science. This isn't difficult. This isn't deep interpretation.
And again, trying has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, which is the assertion you made that a person can be righteous in God's sight without practicing righteousness (and worse, that this is impossible!!!)
And John says in verse 9 that a person who is a child of God cannot sin. Are you trying to tell me that you never, ever sin Truthlover. I don't mean tryin' now. I mean, you cannot sin.
Can or can't here is irrelevant. Either only a person who practices righteousness is righteous, as 1 Jn 3:7 says, or 1 Jn 3:7 is wrong or nonsense.
If you want to take 1 Jn 3:9 to mean that a person born of God cannot commit even one sin, go ahead. Then you'll be right, even according to John (1:8-10), that this isn't true for anyone. But you still won't have contradicted 1 Jn 3:7 or produced a good reason to ignore it or disagree with it.
I don't think 1 Jn 3:9 says that a person born of God cannot commit even one sin. Most translators agree with me on this ("the person born of God cannot continue sinning" fits the Greek present tense better), but even if they didn't, you have produced no good reason to disagree with 1 Jn 3:7, which I still say ought to have "duh!" at the end of it.
As for you Gospel at the end, we could chase each other all over the Bible, and I'm confident I could force you to have to explain away dozens of verses, which would make your position look terrible. But that's just a big mess. Let's stick to the one point. Can a person who does not practice righteousness be righteous in God's sight.
John says no, and there's nothing in 1 Jn 3:9 that remotely contradicts that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 4:47 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 7:58 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 232 of 303 (258343)
11-09-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by iano
11-09-2005 5:06 PM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
Simple....hmmm
And what we'll have at the end of all that is 10 squillion people all with differing degrees of righteousness.
Um, I'm sorry you object to 1 Jn 3:7, and that you think it makes it very difficult for God to judge or something. You're the one appealing to the Bible. I'm sorry you don't like what it says, and you think the results will be awful. Maybe you should appeal to a different source of authority or something.
If you want to stick with the Bible, consider this. John said to let no one deceive you at the start of 1 Jn 3:7. Three verses later, he says the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil is "obvious," because whoever doesn't practice righteousness is not of God.
So, my thought is that you say it will be impossible to tell the difference if practicing righteousness shows the difference. John says it will be obvious. John says not to let anyone deceive us; we should agree with him. You say John is inspired by God.
Is the problem with your position "obvious"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 5:06 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 8:21 AM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 242 of 303 (258474)
11-10-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
11-10-2005 7:35 AM


Re: Seeking, Striving, Trying
Maybe you will talk to me and not at me.
I had no idea it sounded like that. My apologies.
OK, given what is also said before 8:8, if one has the spirit of Christ (the annointed) could that also be taken as if one has the disposition of the annointed? Be like Jesus.
I doubt seriously that's what Paul was trying to say.
However, there is an earlier statement in Romans that those who obey their conscience will be justified by their conscience, so even Paul must have thought there was some possibility of humans living pleasing to God.
I would add, on a personal note, that I'm a big fan of Ghandi's. Ghandi was Hindu, but gosh, if he didn't have the Spirit of Christ, I don't know who did. Gandhi was familiar with Jesus' teachings, agreed with the Sermon on the Mount, and said those teachings were better stated in the Baghavad Gita (Vita? sp? I never get this right anymore). In fact, he said if it weren't for Christians, he'd be a Christian.
Anyway, my point is that on a personal basis, I certainly have that kind of flexibility. As John put it, the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Why would God withhold his Spirit from someone just because they didn't subscribe to or know about Christian theology or the crucifixion? (Maybe the better question is why would he give his Spirit to someone who subscribed to current Christian theology? ;->)
The mind that is set on the flesh does not subject itself to the law of God or is not able to supposedly.
To my mind, the flesh is the body with its desires (food, comfort, sex, etc.) Paul talks in Rom 7, just the chapter before the one we're discussing, about the clash between the law God, the desires of the body, and the will of the mind to submit to the law of God. This is really pretty self-evident. The mind set on selfishly following the desires of the body not only doesn't please God, but is not an asset to society. If everyone lived like that, there could be no society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 11-10-2005 7:35 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by purpledawn, posted 11-10-2005 7:44 PM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 244 of 303 (258479)
11-10-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by iano
11-10-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
In all three cases, the action, the cause, is from God - not the person.
You continue to say this. And I continue to say, so what? Are you willing to admit that only those who practice righteousness are righteous in God's sight, like 1 Jn 3:7 says?
"The cause is from God" or "the source is God" is not a rational answer to that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 7:58 AM iano has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 248 of 303 (258495)
11-10-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by iano
11-10-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
"Cannot" or "cannot continue" matters not. It would seem that if a person sins then they are continuing to sin. Or maybe you can explain how someone who 'cannot continue' to do something can continue to do it?
I think that those born of God cannot continue in sin. I think they continually divest themselves of sin and become more obedient to God. I think their righteous lives stand out as "obviously" different than the unrighteous.
So, I don't want to explain how those born of God can continue to sin, because I believe that it's much more normal for them not to.
Not latching limpet- like to a single verse and forming your doctrine from it
Who's forming a doctrine? I'm asking you to agree that 1 Jn 3:7 is true, and you don't.
I don't believe you can think clearly without honesty. Therefore, if 1 Jn 3:9 meant that a person born of God would never commit even one more sin, I'd just say I don't believe it. However, I honestly don't think it says that.
The problem is, you are the one forming a doctrine. You are forming a doctrine that allows you to run to this verse and that verse until you feel like you are really a Bible believer, because you've got your verses, and meanwhile you are telling me and everyone else that you don't believe 1 Jn 3:7.
1 Jn 3:7 is not a doctrine. It's a statement. You don't believe that statement. You should just be honest about it.
Now when you sin you are not doing righteousness. If you are not doing righteousness then you are, according to the bible a child of the devil.
You don't like the results of 1 Jn 3:7. I, on the other hand, since I believe it is true, have resigned myself to the consequences of it. If I am not practicing righteousness, then I am, according to the Bible, a child of the devil.
I happen to believe that's true. However, if I didn't believe it was true, like you apparently don't, then I'd say I didn't believe it. I wouldn't try to get you to agree it's not true--like you're trying to get me to--and then have us both pretend like we believe it.
As far as your statement that if a person sins once, then they aren't doing righteousness, and they are a child of the devil, I don't think even John has said that at any point. Nor do I think that's a normal way of interpreting 1 Jn 3:7. You can ask anyone who might be reading this, but I doubt anyone not of your theological bent would think it means "one sin = practicing unrighteousness."
You might say you are trying and thats what counts.
No, trying is meaningless. If I try and fail, then something is wrong. If I'm reading John, the most likely problem would be that I'm not born of God, because if I was I wouldn't be failing. I would be succeeding. I would be practicing righteousness.
I like to think I am, but I'm not my own judge. I can tell you, though, that I know a lot of other people who are practicing righteousness, who don't continue in sin, and whom I am confident are born of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 7:58 AM iano has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 249 of 303 (258499)
11-10-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by iano
11-10-2005 8:21 AM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
Practice can be used in all kinds of ways. It leaves room for much wiggling; inserting implications of "2 steps forward, 1 step back" for example. But that's not there. Just: Do. And if you examine yourself you will find that very often you don't do: anger, deceit, lies, selfishness, greed etc.
This is nonsense. Yes, as you admit, it does leave room for 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Most everyone would admit that it at least leaves room for that.
But what's not there is the room you create for plain ol' not doing it. Lots of people are doing it, jano. If you're not, and if you believe John, then you need to believe that you're not righteous in God's sight.
Plain as that. I can't imagine why you want to add "it can't be done," when lots of people are doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 8:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 2:16 PM truthlover has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4089 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 285 of 303 (258624)
11-10-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by iano
11-10-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Righteous vs Unrighteous
Changing the words and so pull 'try' out of the hat is not exactly what I expected
I have to ask you: biblically, where do you get the idea that 'do something' means 'trying to do something'
I never got that idea, and it's good, I suppose, that you didn't expect me to pull "try" out of the hat, because I didn't. I specifically disagreed with it. See post 248.
But I ask you to deal with do.
I didn't mean to change anything. I got "practice" from memory without noticing. At one point, I had most of the NKJV NT memorized from reading it, and so its words come quickly to mind. The NKJV has "practice."
I'll be happy to use "does" righteousness, but either way, the tense is the Greek present tense, which is always used on purpose (aorist is the default if you're not trying to indicate linear, continuous, repeated or ongoing action). The person who is righteous in God's sight is the person who is doing righteousness on an ongoing basis.
That's what I've been saying all along, so I'll be happy to stick with it.
I didn't wiggle any "try" out if it. I rejected try. It's succeeding that shows you have something; fruit proves the tree, not an attempt to produce fruit.
So, that out of the way, back to the simple question I already asked, from post 244:
quote:
Are you willing to admit that only those who practice righteousness are righteous in God's sight, like 1 Jn 3:7 says?
"The cause is from God" or "the source is God" is not a rational answer to that question.
You are welcome to change the word "practice" there [NKJV] to "do" [KJV].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 2:16 PM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024