A Peculiar Kind of Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So as you can see, there is believing, and there is Believing!!






Are you SURE you have your believing all straight?

Believing involves more than an intellectual knowledge that God exists. The devil believes in this sense, but is not saved.

NT study of belief, faith, etc. would show it has aspects of knowledge, mental assent, TRUST, surrender, love, obedience, etc. To believe is to trust and obey and love with one's whole being. It involves denying Self and following Christ as Lord and Savior. The object of our belief is the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is only as good as the object that one trusts in. Putting our faith in a false god or ourselves is worthless.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I John is generally addressed to believers. There are some verses to unbelievers and those in his audience who are unbelievers (cf. John's gospel).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Are you saying that John switched back and forth between who he was writing to, in the same letter? That's the most asinine assumption I've ever heard. Well, one of the most asinine, anyway.

Let me type it out for you:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; ) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy might be full. 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. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
-1 John 1

That chapter was written to unbelievers. Much of it was written to them to dissuade them from the heretical teachings of the time that said there was no such thing as sin.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
What exactly are we talking about when we say 'believers' and 'unbelievers' -- are we talking about belief in God, or belief in sin, or what?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse

John was a Jew. Hew was referring to the Mosaic law. The one that appears in the OT.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. :thumb:


Only God is righteous, by nature. It's hard to put a definition on it, that won't sound human. Humans, by nature are flawed. And this is why righteousness must be imputed from God. Righteousness is sinlessness, but to continue with that line of reasoning we would go right back to what sin is.
Sounds like circular reasoning to me...

If sin is a violation of God's law and if you attribute internal consistency to the deity then he must be sinless/righteous since he cannot disobey himself. Anything he does must, by definition, be righteous...

You're close to hoisting yourself on Euthyphro's dilemma here.

The law points to the One who is righteous, but cannot work righteousness.
Why do your NT authors disagree with those of the OT?

  • In Gen. 7, God calls Noah righteous

    In Gen. 18, Abraham assumes there may be righteous people, even in Sodom, and YHWH does not contradict him

    In Dt. 6, the the observance of the law is righteousness for the Jew
Shouldn't we expect internal consistency in documents allegedly inspired by the same deity?

That's exactly what I'm saying. They have the very nature of God.
So men have the nature of God. In such case they cease to be human, correct?

...He makes them righteous. He changes them from unrighteous to righteous.
According to you, if one is righteous then one is sinless. And better than that, the righteous man cannot sin? :think:


Morality and righteousness are two completely different things.
Maybe, maybe not... :nono:

According to www.dictionary.com :readthis:

Morality is being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

Righteousness is the state of being morally upright or without guilt or sin.

You seem to have your own private definition of the two terms. Care to share them with us? :think:
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

Believing involves more than an intellectual knowledge that God exists.
Yes, it is beleiving to the point of bearing fruit, of "getting it".
Originally posted by godrulz


NT study of belief, faith, etc. would show it has aspects of knowledge, mental assent, TRUST, surrender, love, obedience, etc. To believe is to trust and obey and love with one's whole being. It involves denying Self and following Christ as Lord and Savior. The object of our belief is the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is only as good as the object that one trusts in. Putting our faith in a false god or ourselves is worthless.
Putting faith in your own works(keepinng the law through fleshly means) is worthless. See my previously mentioned thread, link; the Spiritual Law post #28 of this thread.
 

Lawless

New member
Quote: godrulz

To believe is to trust and obey and love with one's whole being. It involves denying Self and following Christ as Lord and Savior.


godrulz......If you do the above, why would you want to put yourself back under the law?



The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do interpret the scriptures to support once saved always saved. Christ love in perfect grace is the motivation to obey, and guide me. How can laws, that condemn, guide or motivate? The strength of sin is the law! Why go back to the law?...as you have stated in previous post?....Trust Jesus as you stated above! You see that is the Differance between us. You believe the grace of Jesus as a license to sin! I believe the grace of Jesus as perfect love.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What exactly are we talking about when we say 'believers' and 'unbelievers' -- are we talking about belief in God, or belief in sin, or what?
I'm talking about people who don't know Jesus is Lord.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

If sin is a violation of God's law and if you attribute internal consistency to the deity then he must be sinless/righteous since he cannot disobey himself. Anything he does must, by definition, be righteous...
:duh:

You're close to hoisting yourself on Euthyphro's dilemma here.
How so?

Why do your NT authors disagree with those of the OT?

  • In Gen. 7, God calls Noah righteous

    In Gen. 18, Abraham assumes there may be righteous people, even in Sodom, and YHWH does not contradict him

    In Dt. 6, the the observance of the law is righteousness for the Jew
Shouldn't we expect internal consistency in documents allegedly inspired by the same deity?
The law was for righteousness, before Christ. Christ was the end of the law for righteousness.:doh:

So men have the nature of God. In such case they cease to be human, correct?
No. The Spirit is above the flesh. Though the flesh exists, the nature of God, that is imputed unto men overrides it.

According to you, if one is righteous then one is sinless. And better than that, the righteous man cannot sin? :think:
That's what I'm saying.

Maybe, maybe not... :nono:
:confused:

[qutoe]According to www.dictionary.com :readthis:

Morality is being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

Righteousness is the state of being morally upright or without guilt or sin.[/quote]
Righteousness is the state of being without guilt or sin. That's what I said. But who is completely morally upright? No one but God. And in the frame of mind of an atheist, such as yourself, no one is completely morally upright. Right? So morally upright and righteous are different things. But righteousness effects morality in those who are made righteous by God.

You seem to have your own private definition of the two terms. Care to share them with us? :think:
Moral: Never having sinned.
Righteous: Free of guilt from sin.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Lawless



godrulz......If you do the above, why would you want to put yourself back under the law?




You believe the grace of Jesus as a license to sin! I believe the grace of Jesus as perfect love.

Why would I want to put myself under the law? Who said I did? Those who commit adultery and murder will not escape the sanctions of the law. I do neither, but there have been some believers who have had affairs, coveted, etc.

Paul refuted the idea that grace is a license to sin in Romans. I have concurred with his teaching for 25 years. There are others here who suggest we are perfect in Christ and under grace. They call what God calls sin 'unprofitable acts'. Who really uses grace as a license to sin? Those who suggest that the universal, eternal law of God is meaningless and worthless (love God, hate idols, obey your parents, do not steal, covet, lust, do not use name in vain, etc.).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Most commentators suggest that I John is addressed to genuine believers. It warns the leaders about false teachers. Careful exegesis, verse by verse, will support the idea that the letter was primarily intended for a Christian audience.

2:1 My dear children= believers..exhorts them to not sin...but IF (possibility for believers to sin, contrary to lighthouse/sozo) they sin, we have an advocate.

we/us= believers
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse
How so?
Do you know what Euthyphro's dilemma is? If you do, you'll understand my point. ;)

The law was for righteousness, before Christ. Christ was the end of the law for righteousness.:doh:
If righteousness could be obtained by obedience to the desires of YHWH (summed up in the law), as shown by the examples I gave, the the atonement was unncessary and redundant - this is the position that orthodox Jews have held for over thirty centuries.

It is also the reason why the Christians came up with the doctrine of "original sin" - an unconscious, uncontrolled rift with the deity that could not be dealt with by the Jewish methods of reconciliation with YHWH.


Righteousness is the state of being without guilt or sin. That's what I said. But who is completely morally upright? No one but God.
... and, according to you, certain humans...

... And in the frame of mind of an atheist, such as yourself, no one is completely morally upright. Right?
I would say that is an accurate assessment, yes.

So morally upright and righteous are different things. But righteousness effects morality in those who are made righteous by God.
How does it do so? It sounds as if you are asserting that no action done by a "righteous individual" can be immoral.

How does someone judge whether another individual's actions are moral or not?

How does someone discern whether another individual is "righteous" or not?

Moral: Never having sinned.
Righteous: Free of guilt from sin.
Those are very different from the common usages of the words, thank you for explaining. :thumb:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

Why would I want to put myself under the law? Who said I did? Those who commit adultery and murder will not escape the sanctions of the law. I do neither, but there have been some believers who have had affairs, coveted, etc.

Paul refuted the idea that grace is a license to sin in Romans. I have concurred with his teaching for 25 years. There are others here who suggest we are perfect in Christ and under grace. They call what God calls sin 'unprofitable acts'. Who really uses grace as a license to sin? Those who suggest that the universal, eternal law of God is meaningless and worthless (love God, hate idols, obey your parents, do not steal, covet, lust, do not use name in vain, etc.).
Grace is not a license to sin. It is freedom from sin! We are dead to sin! That is what Paul teaches. And he teaches that we are free from the law! We are free from the condemnation brought on by the law!

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
-Romans 8:1

So, yes...those who are in Christ are free from the law. They are free from the sanctions of the law. And until you get that through your head, you will be bound to your sin. When I realized that I was free from the law, and condemnation, I was aware of my freedom. You can either manage your sin, or be free from/dead to it! What would you prefer? To manage your sin, or let go and know that God has accomplished it all, and truly be dead to sin? Huh? Which would you prefer?!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

Most commentators suggest that I John is addressed to genuine believers. It warns the leaders about false teachers. Careful exegesis, verse by verse, will support the idea that the letter was primarily intended for a Christian audience.

2:1 My dear children= believers..exhorts them to not sin...but IF (possibility for believers to sin, contrary to lighthouse/sozo) they sin, we have an advocate.

we/us= believers
See. Chapter 2 was where John switched over. Chapter 1 was written to unbelievers. And what about 1 John 2:2?

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

What do you think that means?

The bottom line is that we, believers, do not suffer the wages of sin. And we are not condemned.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

Do you know what Euthyphro's dilemma is? If you do, you'll understand my point. ;)
Is that the one where Jesus was one of three things?

If righteousness could be obtained by obedience to the desires of YHWH (summed up in the law), as shown by the examples I gave, the the atonement was unncessary and redundant - this is the position that orthodox Jews have held for over thirty centuries.
And I hold that position as well. And that is what Paul says. I've already posted the verse that says, if the law could work righteousness, then Christ died in vain.

It is also the reason why the Christians came up with the doctrine of "original sin" - an unconscious, uncontrolled rift with the deity that could not be dealt with by the Jewish methods of reconciliation with YHWH.
The reason the rift between God and man cannot be dealt with by the law, is because no one can keep the law, perfectly.

... and, according to you, certain humans...
No. No one is completely moral, or morally upright but God. Morality and righteousness are two different things.

I would say that is an accurate assessment, yes.
Okay.

How does it do so? It sounds as if you are asserting that no action done by a "righteous individual" can be immoral.
Uh, no. Those made righteous by Christ can commit immoral acts. But they are not condemned. Those who are in Christ will not continuously commit such acts, though. Those who are made righteous by Christ are slaves to righteousness. Those who understand that don't tend to commit immoral acts. And they have no desire to.

How does someone judge whether another individual's actions are moral or not?
The law of God. However, not all things in the law are matters of morality. Eating shrimp is not immoral. Murder is. I'm sure you understand that. But I would say it is up to God, more than it is anyone else. But, if God has already judged, and has made His judgment known,, then we have all we need to uphold His judgment.

How does someone discern whether another individual is "righteous" or not?[/quoute]
We don't. That is completely up to God. But those made righteous by Christ bear His fruit. And they show evidence of being slaves to righteousness, such as living as though they are free, because they know they are.

Those are very different from the common usages of the words, thank you for explaining. :thumb:
No problem.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
We are to walk in the light as He is in the light. We are to walk after the Spirit rather than live in the flesh. We are to be holy as He is holy. Those who are in Christ are free from sin, condemnation, and death. These truths do not preclude the possibility of a believer lapsing into sin or the flesh (hence the exhortations to the above...implies the possibility of doing the opposite). I think we agree some believers have affairs. This is the sin of adultery, whether you are a Christian or not. A theology that negates choice and will is fatalistic determinism. So, if a believer can have an affair, a believer can sin. I do not understand how you can maintain that it is impossible for a believer to sin unless you say we no longer have a will and intellect. We do not have to sin, we should not sin, we can be free from sin and live holy unto the Lord, but it is still theoretically possible to sin. You can rationalize it away, but the fact is, some believers sin. This is consistent with a proper exegesis of I John.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

We are to walk in the light as He is in the light. We are to walk after the Spirit rather than live in the flesh. We are to be holy as He is holy. Those who are in Christ are free from sin, condemnation, and death. These truths do not preclude the possibility of a believer lapsing into sin or the flesh (hence the exhortations to the above...implies the possibility of doing the opposite). I think we agree some believers have affairs. This is the sin of adultery, whether you are a Christian or not. A theology that negates choice and will is fatalistic determinism. So, if a believer can have an affair, a believer can sin. I do not understand how you can maintain that it is impossible for a believer to sin unless you say we no longer have a will and intellect. We do not have to sin, we should not sin, we can be free from sin and live holy unto the Lord, but it is still theoretically possible to sin. You can rationalize it away, but the fact is, some believers sin. This is consistent with a proper exegesis of I John.
:doh:

You're not listening!

What we are saying is that it is nopt counted agaisnt us. It is not counted as sin, because we are not condemned, for we are as dead to the law as we are to sin. Just as free from both. Christ, the law and sin were all naile dto the cross. Only Christ rose again. We are forgiven. We were frogiven before we even asked. In fact, asking wasn't even necessarry. All we had to do was accept, in faith. And that faith was a gift from God. For He is the author and finisher of our faith.

I never said it was impossible for a believer to act according to the flesh. I said that the flesh is not the Spirit. And sin is not in the Spirit. And we are in the Spirit. For the Spirit is in us. Sin is in the flesh, but we are no longer the flesh, for it is the part of us that is made dead, when our spirit is made a live in Christ. It is then that we are in the Spirit, and we walk after the Spirit. Are you your flesh, godrulz? Or is your flesh dead, as your spirit is in the Spirit and made alive in Christ? Which is it? Who are you? Are you outside of Christ, where sin is? Or are you in Christ, where no sin can dwell? If one is in the light, there is no darkness, because darkness can not dwell in the light. This does not mean that one can not make a choice, in one direction or another. It doesn't even mean they can't make a bad, or wrong, choice. It only means that they are not those choices. They are God's, and when He makes you His, you ARE His.

And, as far as whether someone who is in Christ can walk away or not, remember Romans 11:29:
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by lighthouse

Is that the one where Jesus was one of three things?
Nope, not at all. Take a look on Google, you might find it interesting to see just how old this argument actually is... ;)

And I hold that position as well. And that is what Paul says. I've already posted the verse that says, if the law could work righteousness, then Christ died in vain.
And I hold that position... that your "messiah" died in vain.

The reason the rift between God and man cannot be dealt with by the law, is because no one can keep the law, perfectly.
Did Jesus of Nazareth keep the law perfectly?

Can one, born before Jesus lived, be "righteous" without keeping the law?

No. No one is completely moral, or morally upright but God. Morality and righteousness are two different things.
They're two sides of the same coin.

Uh, no. Those made righteous by Christ can commit immoral acts. But they are not condemned. Those who are in Christ will not continuously commit such acts, though. Those who are made righteous by Christ are slaves to righteousness. Those who understand that don't tend to commit immoral acts. And they have no desire to.
So let me get this straight...

On one hand you claim that those who are righteous cannot sin (i.e. commit immoral acts)

One the other hand you claim that those who are righteous can commit immoral acts (i.e. sin).

Which is it? :think:

BTW, isn't the "desire" to commit sin also called temptation? Are you saying that the righteous humans cannot be tempted?

If not, why do they sin?

The law of God. However, not all things in the law are matters of morality. Eating shrimp is not immoral.
Probably depends on whether you're a shrimp or the eater of the shrimp. ;)

Murder is. I'm sure you understand that.
I think you're mixing metaphors here... isn't any disobedience of the "law of God" (i.e. sin) immoral? Are there sins that are morally neutral?

If so, then your deity sends people to hell for committing morally neutral acts?

:think:

But I would say it is up to God, more than it is anyone else. But, if God has already judged, and has made His judgment known,, then we have all we need to uphold His judgment.
Don't you think if that were true then there would not be such a divergence of opnion among his followers about what is and is not his will?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by lighthouse


Who are you? Are you outside of Christ, where sin is? Or are you in Christ, where no sin can dwell? If one is in the light, there is no darkness, because darkness can not dwell in the light. This does not mean that one can not make a choice, in one direction or another. It doesn't even mean they can't make a bad, or wrong, choice. It only means that they are not those choices. They are God's, and when He makes you His, you ARE His.

And, as far as whether someone who is in Christ can walk away or not, remember Romans 11:29:
"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

I am listening, but I am not understanding your view. God says certain things are sin. You say an unbeliever who murders sins, but if a believer shoots someone it is not sin and is not counted against them?! God commands repentance and obedience. You suggest we just have to accept blanket forgiveness for past, present, and future sins. This would not stand up to a judge in any court of law based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. If a Christian murders someone (theoretically possible if we can shoot a deer), how is it that it is not counted against us and we are let off with no consequences. If this murderer feels guilt and hardens his heart and drifts from God to the point of rejecting His love, grace, and provision, why is it not counted against him? He has immunity while the poor religious unbeliever goes to jail and hell for the identical act, thought, and motive?


Why not call sin, sin? You dance around it by saying it is flesh, unprofitable acts, or bad choices (which we are supposedly not responsible for/flesh, even if we chose to yield to it, contrary to the Spirit). Your theology will not allow for the possibility of a believer to sin, so you argue in circles to avoid the obvious ( I reiterate that the norm is for believers to not sin and to not yield to the flesh).

Romans 11:29 is NOT talking about individual salvation and destiny. It is talking about the corporate election of Israel and roles/offices/responsibilities. The nation of Israel was called to bring forth the law and Messiah. Despite their rebellion, their calling remained to be the people of God. This is rarely used as a proof text for OSAS (there are much better ones), and demonstrates your tendency to read your ideas back into texts.

I agree that we should emphasize our hope and victory in Christ to be holy as He is holy (NT command). We should recognize, by faith, our newness of life in Christ and walk in this truth. I merely am trying to point out (cf. Paul; John) that it is theoretically possible to sin and that their is still provision if we do (I Jn. 1:9...commonly applied to unbelievers in evangelistic tracts, but actually about believers if the context is closely examined).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Zakath

Nope, not at all. Take a look on Google, you might find it interesting to see just how old this argument actually is... ;)

"Plato's challenge concerning the nature of goodness is still being heard today: Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?"

God says so, because it's right. I have always held that position.

And I hold that position... that your "messiah" died in vain.
I know you do.

Did Jesus of Nazareth keep the law perfectly?
Yes.

Can one, born before Jesus lived, be "righteous" without keeping the law?
Without keeping it perfectly? Yes. Without keeping it at all? No.

They're two sides of the same coin.
Not according to the Bible.

So let me get this straight...

On one hand you claim that those who are righteous cannot sin (i.e. commit immoral acts)
Nope. I never said that.

One the other hand you claim that those who are righteous can commit immoral acts (i.e. sin).
That is what I said. However, it is not counted against them as sin. They are not under condemnation. So, I don't call it sin. Mostly because sin is transgression of the law, Christians are not under the law, and apart from the law there is no transgression.

Which is it? :think:
See above.

BTW, isn't the "desire" to commit sin also called temptation? Are you saying that the righteous humans cannot be tempted?
If one is in Christ, and knows the truth...and allows Christ to work within them, as He wants to, then His desires replace theirs and they lose the desire to commit immoral acts. And therefore, they can no longer be tempted.

If not, why do they sin?
For some, the above is a process. For others, it's just a matter of believing the truth, and letting God do what God does. But, as they are not under the law, they do not transgress the law.

Probably depends on whether you're a shrimp or the eater of the shrimp. ;)
:chuckle:

I think you're mixing metaphors here... isn't any disobedience of the "law of God" (i.e. sin) immoral? Are there sins that are morally neutral?
First question, no. Second, no. Why? Because the laws that were not about morality are no longer valid, for anyone. When they were valid there were sins that were morally neutral. And those were only for Israel. However, disobeying God is immoral, in and of itself. If He were to tell someone, directly, to do, or not to do, something, and they disobeyed, even though the command had nothing to do with morality, that person still disobeyed God, directly.

If so, then your deity sends people to hell for committing morally neutral acts?
Well, as you can see above, He doesn't.

:think:

Don't you think if that were true then there would not be such a divergence of opnion among his followers about what is and is not his will?
The divergence exists, because people don't submit to Him. When one submits to Christ, then His will replaces theirs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top