Discussion: Jerry Shugart vs Door

[Nang]

I disagree. It is already become an ontological reality.

If this were so, there would be no restrictions as taught in I Cor. 15:50:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit corruption."

Even though the Christian has been forensically justified ("forgiven," "cleansed") of his sins and legally imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, he remains in a corrupted body which harbors the law of sin, and is still subject to physical death.

The only thing that can ontologically change this corruption of flesh and blood, is the resurrection unto glory, and every Christian has this promise:

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'" I Cor. 15:51-54

Glorification comes through bodily resurrection, and glorification alone ontologically changes sinful mortals into incorruptible (sinless) beings.

Nang

 

[tetelestai]

Even though the Christian has been forensically justified ("forgiven," "cleansed") of his sins and legally imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, he remains in a corrupted body which harbors the law of sin, and is still subject to physical death.

Very good Nang.:banana:

Should I assume “which harbors the law of sin” is a reference to the old sin nature?

 

[Nang]

And since we are discussing John's epistle, I will add this Scripture:

"Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." I John 3:2&3

I believe this hope that "purifies" (keeps us set apart from the world) goes along with John's encouragment in I John 1:9 to admit our proclivity to sin and ". . come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and to find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16)

 

[dreadknought]

The issue still remains the contrast between darkness and light. "We" is a generalization. 1 John 1:9 states that to not be in the darkness (obscurity/unbelief), one must confess to sin. 1 John 2:1-2 discusses Christ as advocate and propriation. This letter shows a progression for the younger men and fathers how to teach spiritually young believers to distinguish between darkness and light. True believers who are in the rest of Jesus Christ do not walk as in darkness but are growing Spiritually in the Light.

 

[godrulz]

Many atheists live better moral lives than Christians. What does this prove?

This proves that we are not saved by 'morality' or behavior.

Tete (means head in French)TETELESTAI: You wrongly assume that all discipline from God will ensure repentance and return to faith. This is true of many people who return to their first love, but is not true of all people. You are close to Calvinism's POTS...God will ensure they remain faithful, not matter what, so they would not be in a state of apostasy at death. Calvin also talked about some kind of trick grace that makes people think they are saved, but then he pulls the rug out in the end and lumps them in with the non-elect. This kind of mental gymnastic loop hole stuff is necessary to prop up unconditional eternal security. By extrapolation, if one can keep people saved against their wills, then He should also save them against their wills (universalism). This limits the love of God and the efficacy of the cross and fails to distinguish grounds vs conditions (Godward vs manward) elements of salvation and perseverance/security.

I think conditional eternal security best explains the biblical and anecdotal evidence (believers are secure, but it is possible to fall away).

I think it is a false dichotomy to say that God will bring them back unilaterally or that they were never saved if they do not come back in the end. The better resolution is to see that some can fatally fall away and forfeit their standing (grace is not irresistible or all would be saved uncond.), while others will be restored if they respond to God. Of course, there is another group who were fakes all along and never saved (but this is not the biblical definition of apostasy, one who falls from truth, not one who never had truth).

 

[tetelestai]

(1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Originally sent by Door to Tetelestai by PM:
Go to hell, you demon possessed liar. You have no integrity. Uou know that what I said has nothing to do with salvation. Feel better about yourself, you bastard?

This was posted by Voltaire in the "What does DOOR know about Gentleness" thread:

Door refutes peoples arguments everyday. his response is justified to those who twist or misapply scripture and otherwise present doctrines of demons.

Then Voltaire said this:

, you might be surprised to find that door is gentle with his wife, his kids especially little ivy, his parents, his friends, his fellow workers, those he preaches to. i even bet he is a courteous driver and is polite to strangers. he does not mince words with those who pervert the word of God though.

How come when the Sadducees and Pharisees twisted scripture Jesus didn’t call them names and tell them to go to hell?

 

[dreadknought]

g-rules is an enemy of the gospel. There is no more doubt in my mind whatsoever.

 

[godrulz]

g-rules is an enemy of the gospel. There is no more doubt in my mind whatsoever.

On the basis of my last post? Or what?

If so, then hundreds of millions of non-Calvinistic evangelicals are going to hell for rejecting OSAS.

This is a serious accusation, so back it up lest you grieve the Spirit and Christ who bought me with His precious blood.

There is no end to myopic:mmph: jerks on this sight.

 

[voltaire]

This is how forgiveness of sins and recognition of sins in the unbeliever and salvation are related to each other. salvation is through having the life of Christ. the forgiveness of all sins for all time makes it possible to receive the life of Christ. the recognition of being a sinner is not absolutely necessary to receive Christs life. the recognition of being a sinner helps the unbeliever realize the perilous situation that he is in. it will make it more likely that he will see his need for salvation.
the statement of john that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us is true. but his statement does NOT say that we MUST confess our sins before they can be forgiven. that is reading your own preconception into verse 9 and does the verse violence.

 

[godrulz]

Rom. 1-3 is about sin and leads to Rom. 4-5 which is about justification. Don't divorce the issues. (Rom. 6-8 is about sanctification).

 

[dreadknought]

On the basis of my last post? Or what?

If so, then hundreds of millions of non-Calvinistic evangelicals are going to hell for rejecting OSAS.

This is a serious accusation, so back it up lest you grieve the Spirit and Christ who bought me with His precious blood.

There is no end to myopic:mmph: jerks on this sight.

I am convinced that Christ does not know you. Your contradictions of Scripture and false doctrines thru 20,000 posts prove you do not have the Holy Spirit to grieve. So don't use Christ's blood as an excuse to lead others astray.

 

[JCWR]

JCWR, in your post 235 you restated much more clearly what i was trying to tell jerry at the beginning of this thread. we dont tell prospective converts to confess their sins in order to be saved. but, that is not what John is saying in verse 9. he is clearly talking about salvation because he says Christ will forgive all our sins. if it was a verse to believers telling them how to be restored to fellowship with God , he would not mention anything about forgiveness of sins. he would simply say that we will be cleansed of all unrighteousness if we confess our sins.
so John is not telling believers that they must confess sins in order to be forgiven. he is reminding believers that they became christians by recognizing that they were sinners in need of Christs salvation. he is showing how they are not in fellowship with those who walk in darkness--- those who have never recognized that they are sinners.

Exactly, voltaire!

This letter has two thrusts. The first is pastoral to believers being exposed to false teachings. The second is polemical to these false teachers. Verse 1:9 is an absurdity if the practicing believer is the assumed explicit audience. The believer can read the verse, be reminded of proper doctrine, and say, 'Yes! That is how it worked for me when I was saved.' But the verse is more specifically and polemically directed at the false teachers, correcting their mistaken views of having special knowledge, rituals, ('gnosis') etc.

 

[dreadknought]

g-rules is added to my ignore list.

 

[tetelestai]

Tete (means head in French)TETELESTAI: You wrongly assume that all discipline from God will ensure repentance and return to faith.

Not at all.

Some believers fall out of fellowship with God and never return to “walking in the light”, but do not suffer the sin unto death. They are saved, and have eternal life, but can expect few rewards in eternity.

Let me clarify something: All believers that are alive today are part of the body of Christ. There is no hierarchy of believers. Every believer is different, and has a different part to play. Just as the foot is different than the hand each believer is different. However, all believers are different in spiritual maturity. The Bible describes believers as lambs, sophomores, and sheep, and uses milk and meat as metaphors regarding believer’s intake of doctrine. While some believers are more mature than other believers, they are still equal in the Body of Christ. The believer who was saved five minutes ago is just as equal as the most mature believer there is.

In eternity there will be a hierarchy. God is not going to say to each believer “Well done good and faithful servant”, only a few will receive this greeting. The believer who does not mature, or spends most of his or her time out of fellowship will still have eternal security, but have few rewards.

Picture a man in a burning house who barely gets out alive. The man loses his house, wife, kids, dog, and everything he owns in the house. The man is naked lying on the grass coughing from smoke. The man is alive, but has nothing. This is what the believer who gets into Heaven by the skin of their teeth will feel like. They will be alive, have eternal security, but will have very few rewards.

Why do you think some people get saved, and live the rest of their lives not to different then how they were before they were saved? Why do some people get saved, and mature at a very fast rate?

The answer is temporal fellowship with God. Some walk in the light more often than others (the bottom circle), are filled with the Holy Spirit more often, and know how to go from carnality to spirituality.

 

[tetelestai]

The believer can read the verse, be reminded of proper doctrine, and say, 'Yes! That is how it worked for me when I was saved.

How what worked? Confessing sins? Who confesses sins when they are saved?

 

[tetelestai]

g-rules is added to my ignore list.

It really cracks me up when people say they are putting so and so on their ignore list.

If someone does put so and so on ignore, why do they feel the need to announce it to everyone. Why can’t they just send a PM to the person they wish to ignore telling them they are being put on ignore?

 

[tetelestai]

1 John 1:9 states that to not be in the darkness (obscurity/unbelief), one must confess to sin. .

What are you saying here?

"That to not be in the darkness one has to confess to sin"?????

What does “confess to sin” mean?

Why is “unbelief” in parenthesis next to darkness?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that to go from darkness (unbelief) to walking in the light, one has to confess their sins? Is this what you are saying?

 

[tetelestai]

Probably the reason there is so much confusion is no one is in agreement as to who the letter is addressed to.

Jerry Shugart said:

The First Epistle written by John is addressed to Christian readers. Its theme concerns a Christian's "walk" as opposed to the Christian's "position" or "standing" in Christ.

Door said:

The letter is written to believers, and much of it is written about unbelievers.

Tetelestai said:

this is all post salvation doctrine.

Choleric said:

He is about to explain the differences between saved people and lost people. He is comparing Light and darkness, and those who are in the light, in Jesus who is the Light (saved) and those in darkness (unsaved).

Godrulz said:

I believe the context of I Jn. 1:9 is about believers subsequent to salvation

Jahdal said:

Since John was writing to Christians,

Voltaire said:

the letter is addressed to a church that is mixed with true believers and those who only think they are saved but in reality, they walk in darkness.

DaSaint said:

I personaly believe that this letter was an open letter to combat the gnostic teaching that was infusing itself into some of the early churches

JCWR said:

the letter has a pastoral aspect, written to believers to strengthen their knowledge of the 'light' of the Gospel and the letter has a polemic aspect, written to those who are false teachers.

student ad x said:

This letter shows a progression for the younger men and fathers how to teach spiritually young believers to distinguish between darkness and light

:dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

 

[godrulz]

I am convinced that Christ does not know you. Your contradictions of Scripture and false doctrines thru 20,000 posts prove you do not have the Holy Spirit to grieve. So don't use Christ's blood as an excuse to lead others astray.

People whom I love in Christ, but do not like in the flesh: (Jesus had preferential relationships, but not exclusive ones... He loved John in a special way, but He also loved all men impartially; one can have personal preferences and relationships in the church, but they cannot be exclusive, disdaining some brethren).

Door, LH, STP, Voltaire, JCWR, studentadx, Nick M., AMR, etc. (generally think I am not saved because myself and millions of other evangelicals differ with their narrow views that I would adopt if I saw them in Scripture). Who have I forgot?

 

[godrulz]

g-rules is added to my ignore list.

Your loss, my gain:loser: :baby: