Discussion: Jerry Shugart vs Door

Status
Not open for further replies.

Door

New member
Anyone (who confesses Christ) may post their comments, questions, etc., in this thread in response to the One On One debate that Jerry and I are having Here.

I hope that Jerry and I do the text justice, and that we all learn something from it.

:cheers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Choleric

New member
Anyone (who confesses Christ) may post their comments, questions, etc., in this thread in response to the One On One debate that Jerry and I are having Here.

I hope that Jerry and I do the text justice, and that we all learn something from it.

:cheers:

Put me down on the side of Door on this one. Not only is it clear from 1 John 1:1-10, it is also a concept that is absent from the rest of Scripture. If I had to confess my sins or be damned, don't you think that the concept would be all over the writings of the NT?

Here is how I see 1 John:

1Jn 1:5 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.

Notice John is setting up the next few verses here. 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).

1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

He starts off with darkness. This is a message to professing Christians who have never been saved and are in darkness. Christians do not walk in darkness, they are in the light.

1Jn 1:7 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.

Now he contrasts light to the previous verse on darkness. Those of us who have been born again are in the light.

It is not some work we do to make sure we are continually walking in light. We do not go back and forth from saved and unsaved. It is a fact of position, that those who are in Christ are in the Light.

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

Back to darkness here. There are people in this world right now who have never called out to God, because they think that they are alright and don't need a savior. They are deceiving themselves. This is not a verse speaking about believers, but unbelievers. Notice he is keeping with the theme he began of light and darkness.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Back to the light here. Notice he is also comparing directly with the previous verse in regard to the realization of sin.

He is not saying that we must confess continually (in spite of the grammar). He is saying that those of us who recognize our condition can confess our sins and He will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This is what happens to an unbeliever when they become a believer.

1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Back to darkness here. Same point made previously. Notice he has kept up with the theme throughout. He compared the saved with the unsaved. The light and darkness.

It is not our responsibility to continually confess to continue to be saved. If it were, we would certainly have it in more than one place. We do not, because it is not necessary.

I am looking forward to the debate though!! :)
 

Mr. 5020

New member
Ultimately, it seems as if the debate will filter down to the topic of this one paragraph in Jerry's introduction...
First of all, we can understand that John's words here are addressed to Christians (ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins). Next, John says that "whoever abideth in Him sinneth not." Surely John is not telling anyone that the Christian "sinneth not," because all Christians do sin at one time or another. Instead, John is saying that when the Christian is "abiding" in Him then he does not sin.

Should be interesting! I'll be reading it!
 

Choleric

New member
I hope Jerry will take the time to explain what the implication is for those Christians that do sin and do not confess them.

It would be interesting to see the doctrine taken to its' end.

I agree with Jerry that a Christian can walk after the flesh or after the Spirit, but I am unclear as to where Scripture teaches we must confess our sins to get back into the light or back into fellowship.
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
Door had a good, strong introduction.

I believe the context of I Jn. 1:9 is about believers subsequent to salvation (fellowship/discipleship issues vs justification issues like tracts and TV evangelists use it as cf. Rev. 3:20 is about believers, not a call to unbelievers to open the door....context is key).

I will agree with Jerry for the gist of things (but not details). When I spouted Jerry's views on I John vs what I thought was a 'sinless perfectionism' error, I was called demon possessed, worse than Hitler, etc.

I wonder if Door considers Jerry a fellow believer. If so, then I should also be in that category. If not, then Jerry should object to the debate. If one's interpretation (most commentators favor I Jn. 1:9 as about believers) of this verse is not salvific, then neither should similar issues like OSAS be heaven or hell.

I think the fact that John identifies with believers as 'we' and 'us' supports the Christian context. Televangelists abuse the context in using this verse evangelistically, though the principle applies with qualification.

I hope sound exegesis will prevail, not just a subjective interpretation based on one's preconceived theological views on sin, salvation, etc. (i.e. avoid proof texting one verse out of sync with all relevant verses).:think:
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
I hope Jerry will take the time to explain what the implication is for those Christians that do sin and do not confess them.

It would be interesting to see the doctrine taken to its' end.

I agree with Jerry that a Christian can walk after the flesh or after the Spirit, but I am unclear as to where Scripture teaches we must confess our sins to get back into the light or back into fellowship.

I see it as a fellowship/intimacy issue, not a heaven or hell issue. The key is that apostasy or unbelief is a unique sin, unlike run-of-the mill sins like gossip or stealing.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It's odd that Jerry would take this position, seeing as how he was on the side saying that after the cross salvation could not be lost, even before the dispensation of grace, in a Battle Royale on the subject some years back.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
It's odd that Jerry would take this position, seeing as how he was on the side saying that after the cross salvation could not be lost, even before the dispensation of grace, in a Battle Royale on the subject some years back.
Lighthouse,

Please read my initial post again. I never said anything about anyone losing their salvation. In fact, I stated that the believer is sealed by the Spirit until the time when he will put on his immortal body.

Also, I have always said that no one, before the Cross or after, can lose their salvation.

So before you make your comments I would ask you to get your facts straight.

In His grace,
Jerry
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse,

Please read my initial post again. I never said anything about anyone losing their salvation. In fact, I stated that the believer is sealed by the Spirit until the time when he will put on his immortal body.

Also, I have always said that no one, before the Cross or after, can lose their salvation.

So before you make your comments I would ask you to get your facts straight.

In His grace,
Jerry
That's what I'm saying. You are not the person Door was looking for in this debate. He wanted someone who said we must confess regularly to keep our salvation.
 

JCWR

New member
I will agree with Jerry for the gist of things (but not details). When I spouted Jerry's views on I John vs what I thought was a 'sinless perfectionism' error, I was called demon possessed, worse than Hitler, etc.

I wonder if Door considers Jerry a fellow believer. If so, then I should also be in that category. If not, then Jerry should object to the debate. If one's interpretation (most commentators favor I Jn. 1:9 as about believers) of this verse is not salvific, then neither should similar issues like OSAS be heaven or hell.
</p>
Of course, it is all about you, isn't it, godrulz? Unbelievable!
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
That's what I'm saying. You are not the person Door was looking for in this debate. He wanted someone who said we must confess regularly to keep our salvation.

Right. Shugart does not and will not fit the bill, but simply gives Door an opening to proclaim his unorthodox theories.

This will not prove to be a debate.

No Christian MUST confess his sins, for all Christians are totally forgiven and justified by the blood atonement of Jesus Christ . . .PLUS imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

All very legal.

Thus, there is no necessity for Christians to seek forgiveness by confessing their sins in order to receive legal justification.

BUT, the Apostle John addressed Christian sanctification, not legal justification.

Sanctified and forgiven sinners, saved by the blood and grace of God . . .DO confess their sins as a matter of being spiritually converted while still retaining the law of sin in their members until resurrection to glory.

They have the Holy Spirit abiding within earthly bodies, thus there is a continuing tension existing in every Christian between the natural proclivities of the flesh (lust and sin) and the presence of the Holy Spirit of Christ (repentance and spiritual service of righteousness).

Door does not comprehend or recognize the difference between legal justification and the resultant sanctification unto holiness.

Shugart does not clarify these doctrinal matters, either, so this "debate" will prove to be a hodge-podge, predestined to end up in an ugly stalemate, with a good dose of hateful ad hominen from Door.

My prediction . . .

Nang
 

Da'Saint

New member
I believe to really seal a debate on this issue (my own personal oppinion!) you should include 1John 2:1-2 in the discussion! These two verses are clear as to who John was speaking too and are also a continuation on the matter of sin!

once again, just my oppinion!!:wave2:
 

Da'Saint

New member
Right. Shugart does not and will not fit the bill, but simply gives Door an opening to proclaim his unorthodox theories.

This will not prove to be a debate.

No Christian MUST confess his sins, for all Christians are totally forgiven and justified by the blood atonement of Jesus Christ . . .PLUS imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

All very legal.

Thus, there is no necessity for Christians to seek forgiveness by confessing their sins in order to receive legal justification.



BUT, the Apostle John addressed Christian sanctification, not legal justification.

Sanctified and forgiven sinners, saved by the blood and grace of God . . .DO confess their sins as a matter of being spiritually converted while still retaining the law of sin in their members until resurrection to glory.

They have the Holy Spirit abiding within earthly bodies, thus there is a continuing tension existing in every Christian between the natural proclivities of the flesh (lust and sin) and the presence of the Holy Spirit of Christ (repentance and spiritual service of righteousness).

Door does not comprehend or recognize the difference between legal justification and the resultant sanctification unto holiness.

Shugart does not clarify these doctrinal matters, either, so this "debate" will prove to be a hodge-podge, predestined to end up in an ugly stalemate, with a good dose of hateful ad hominen from Door.

My prediction . . .

Nang


Then why don't you take the debate so we can have a oppertunity to see both sides more clearly?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Then why don't you take the debate so we can have a oppertunity to see both sides more clearly?

Because Door hates my guts and says he doesn't give a "flying turd" for my opinions.

Not that such dopey and hateful sentiments will keep me from weighing in on this subject . . .

Nang
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Stop your whining Nag, I didn't choose to debate you because you do nothing but 8itch and complain about everything.

I did not ask to debate you, Door.

So what are YOU whining about?

You do not deserve to debate Nang!
 

Jahdal

New member
Since John was writing to Christians, they already had to have confessed their sins before they were baptized (if we're reading the NT literally). So what would he need to say, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves...If we confess our sins..."? Why would John say "we"? That would include John himself (if we're reading the NT literally).

Chapter 2 continues, "...if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father...," John continues, "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning." These believers heard the commandments, so they had their past sins forgiven them, but were assured that their future sins would have to be, and commanded to be, asked for forgiveness.

James wrote to the Jews saying, "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him...Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another...Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him...," James 5:15, 16, 19. It is the prayer of the faithful that the sick will be saved from their sins, which is why confessing their faults one to another is important, and humbling.
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse,

Please read my initial post again. I never said anything about anyone losing their salvation. In fact, I stated that the believer is sealed by the Spirit until the time when he will put on his immortal body.

Also, I have always said that no one, before the Cross or after, can lose their salvation.

So before you make your comments I would ask you to get your facts straight.

In His grace,
Jerry

The older, original MAD guys, did they believe in OSAS for OT and NT? I thought Bob Hill said Jews could lose salvation, but Christians cannot? In my mind, if one can argue against OSAS for some 'believers', I should not be condemned to hell because I see the same principle in Pauline writings.
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
That's what I'm saying. You are not the person Door was looking for in this debate. He wanted someone who said we must confess regularly to keep our salvation.

Who says that? Maybe Jesse, but few others, including myself. I can't imagine the things I could confess, but never do, without any risk to my destiny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top