Discussion: Jerry Shugart vs Door

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
And there's even more, Door!
JCWR,

In case you didn't know, I completely refuted Door's slander against me, the same slander which you quoted in your last post. Here is my letter to him where I show that his accusation against me had no basis in fact and that I deserve an apology:

Oh my gosh Jerry, you really are a godless deceiver!!!

:sozo: Please pay close attention to what Jerry just did. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the evidence is now obvious!

Jerry stops at the end of verse 10, to try and convince you that you need to confess your sins, because only part of you is clean. If Jerry wanted you to know the truth, he would have quoted you verse 11, which says EXACTLY why Jesus said what He did.
There you go again, projecting your lack of integrity to others.
John 13:10-11

Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean."

The "not all of you" is referring to JUDAS!!!

Jerry is not interested in the truth folks. The evidence is blatantly clear!
If I am not interested iin the truth then why did I quote a translation that says:

"And you are clean, though not every one of you."

You need to get your facts straight before you accuse others of deception!

Why didn't you answer my question, Door?

Instead of answering you build a strawman in order to attack, probably in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answer.

Tell me, Mr. Accuser of the Brethren, why would I be trying to deceive others by somehow suggesting that the words "not all of you" is referring to the Apostles since I did not even quote those words. Instead, here are the words which I quoted:

"And you are clean, though not every one of you."

You made another blunder and you should apologize, but I will hold my breath.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Peter's rejection of this gift is infinitely more significant than refusing the offer to have his dusty feet washed. He is spurning Jesus' personal gift of cleansing in His blood. The washing of Peter's feet points to Jesus' saving example on the Cross.
That idea seems very unlikely, since the whole person must be cleansed and not just a part of him.

We can undertstand from the Lord Jesus' words that the total person is in view when it comes to being washed. If the washing of Peter's feet represented a cleansing by the Lord's blood then why would not the Lord wash his hands and his head and the rest of him as well?:

" 'Then, Lord,' Simon Peter replied, 'not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!' Jesus answered, 'A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean."

Here the Lord says that the "whole body is clean." If you are right as to the meaning of the washing of the feet then the Lord was washing their feet so that they would be cleansed by his blood. That raises the question, How did the rest of them become clean?

The two fold cleansing makes much more sense. In the book Study of the Types Ada Habershon writes:

"The interpretation of the scene in the thirteenth of John is evidently the explanation of the laver; and from our Lord's comment on His own act of washing the disciples' feet, we see both were types of His provision for maintaining communion with His people...The disciples were clean, for they had been bathed, but could have no part in fellowship with their Lord unless their feet were washed" (Habershon, Study of the Types [Kregel Publications,1993], p.82).​

In His grace,
Jerry
 

Da'Saint

New member
John 13 is simply a teaching on servanthood as shown in vereses 14 - 17.

Joh 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Joh 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Joh 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Notice he says to wash one anothers feet! Not be sure to wash your own feet!
To say this is in relation to your doctrine of confession would mean that you would have to confess one anothers sin. As opposed to your own!
 

JCWR

New member
That idea seems very unlikely, since the whole person must be cleansed and not just a part of him.

We can undertstand from the Lord Jesus' words that the total person is in view when it comes to being washed. If the washing of Peter's feet represented a cleansing by the Lord's blood then why would not the Lord wash his hands and his head and the rest of him as well?:
" 'Then, Lord,' Simon Peter replied, 'not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!' Jesus answered, 'A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean."
Here the Lord says that the "whole body is clean." If you are right as to the meaning of the washing of the feet then the Lord was washing their feet so that they would be cleansed by his blood. That raises the question, How did the rest of them become clean?

The two fold cleansing makes much more sense. In the book Study of the Types Ada Habershon writes:
"The interpretation of the scene in the thirteenth of John is evidently the explanation of the laver; and from our Lord's comment on His own act of washing the disciples' feet, we see both were types of His provision for maintaining communion with His people...The disciples were clean, for they had been bathed, but could have no part in fellowship with their Lord unless their feet were washed" (Habershon, Study of the Types [Kregel Publications,1993], p.82).​
In His grace,
Jerry

:nono:And to think godrulz likes to side with you. :think:Next time you and he chat, explain to him why you think Jesus existed in some glorified body even before He was incarnated. There is no end to how far afield you (and godrulz) have strayed from the Gospel's teachings.
 

Door

New member
John 13 is simply a teaching on servanthood as shown in vereses 14 - 17.

Joh 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
Joh 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Joh 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Notice he says to wash one anothers feet! Not be sure to wash your own feet!
To say this is in relation to your doctrine of confession would mean that you would have to confess one anothers sin. As opposed to your own!
And if others will not let you cleanse the dust off their feet, you wipe them off your own.

'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.'
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Futility

Futility

Just getting caught up on the latest posts on the one-one-one.

Both Door and Jerry are wrong.

Neither comprehend the sovereign election of God, and the particular nature of salvation . . .thus this most recent run-around between two blind mice . . .

:sigh:

Nang
 

Door

New member
Just getting caught up on the latest posts on the one-one-one.

Both Door and Jerry are wrong.

Neither comprehend the sovereign election of God, and the particular nature of salvation . . .thus this most recent run-around between two blind mice . . .
All according to your puppetmaster, of course.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
:nono:And to think godrulz likes to side with you. :think:Next time you and he chat, explain to him why you think Jesus existed in some glorified body even before He was incarnated. There is no end to how far afield you (and godrulz) have strayed from the Gospel's teachings.


Jesus did have appearances as theophanies, the pre-incarnate Christ, the Angel of the Lord in the OT. He did not exist in a glorified body before the incarnation.

Jerry is relatively civil and smart. He may not think much of me. Neither of us is right about everything all of the time.
 

Da'Saint

New member
1John Chapter 1
The way that I read this chapter. Again, I believe it to be written concerning doctrine corrections for the believer! (that may be where I am getting sidetracked here? :think: ) I don't see the connection between the verses on fellowship and the verses on attacking the issue of sin! The first chapter in my oppinion, could be broken down into 3 seprate topics.

Verses 1-4 Now in verse one, John is stating and trying to establish the fact that Jesus came into this world in the flesh, and that he is an eye witness to this. In verse three, once again John repeats that he himself a eyewitness to Jesus in the flesh. “Have fellowship with us” the us in this statement is representative of the believers. “Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son”. This statement implies that there are some who are not in fellowship with the Father and the Son. In verse four, “ these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full”, the “we” in this statement is once again the believers. This brings up the question, who were they writing too? Who's joy did they want to be full?

Verses 5-7 In these three verses John is talking about fellowship with the father. In doing so he uses the comparison between the light and the darkness. This comparison is generally and prodominately used through out the scriptures as a comparison between the believer and the non-believer. Why would one assume these three verses to be different? Now Christ said “I am come a light in the world, that whosoever believeth on me shall not abide in darkness”. (John 12: 46) Also, Paul assures us that “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness”. (1Thes. 5: 5) Notice in verse seven, “walk in the light”, Christ states that “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Paul teaches us that, we, the believer, are in Christ Jesus! (or in “The light of the world”!) “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal.3: 26,27,28) There is only one way to be in fellowship with God the Father, and that is through his son Jesus Christ! It doesn't matter how holy you think you may be, if you are not in Christ, you are not in fellowship with the Father.

Verses 8-10 These three verses aren't specifically talking about fellowship, rather John is attacking the issue of sin. John is stating that sin is what is keeping the readers from having “fellowship with us, and fellowship with the Father and his Son”. Verse 8 – If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. This is a very intriguing statement! What believer or christian claims that he has no sin? If he or she is sinless or believes themselves to be sinless, then Christ “has become of none effect”. This is the very basis of christian philosophy, that we as believers are aware of our sinfulness and therefore in need of an atonement for our sins, through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ! “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever” (Heb. 10: 12)

In verse 10, John reaffirms his stance that he had made in verse 8. That if you say you have no sin, the truth is not in you, and you make God a liar, and never had fellowship to begin with!!

As for verse 9, I think that John answers this best in the first and second verses of the second chapter of this letter when he states- 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. 2)And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Here John is clearly writing to the believer, (my little children) he states that if any believer sins he should stop right there and confess that little bugger or he will break his fellowship and it won't be forgiven unto him. No, thats NOT what he said at all!!! He says that if you the believer sins, you have an advocate in Jesus Christ who is the propitiation for your sins. Jesus came and gave himself on the cross a perfect sacrifice, to restore the relationship between sinful man and a holy God! Ephesians 2: 16 “And that he may reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity by it”. Ephesians 2: 19 “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God”;
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
As for verse 9, I think that John answers this best in the first and second verses of the second chapter of this letter when he states- 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. 2)And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Here John is clearly writing to the believer, (my little children) he states that if any believer sins he should stop right there and confess that little bugger or he will break his fellowship and it won't be forgiven unto him. No, thats NOT what he said at all!!!
As you admit, this epistle was wrtitten to the believer. And here are John's words to the believer:

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

Since John is addressing Christians then common sense dictates that he is telling Christians to confess their sins, and once they do so the Lord will cleanse them from that sin.

So why are there some people who just flat out deny that John is telling these Christians to confess their sins?

In His grace,
Jerry
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Gentlemen:

Should not our 'walk' be consistent with our 'standing'. The popular idea that God does not see you sinning, but just sees Jesus does not add up. He is holy and omniscient, not deaf, dumb, and blind.

As to the consequences of not confessing a particular sin, Jerry's opponents may rightly ask what happens if they die before they confess the sin. Since he is OSAS (I think), I assume it is not a salvation issue? In my mind, there is a sense that the blood continually cleanses us (who knows our hidden faults?) and that only godless unbelief risks our relationship with God (denying the person and work of Christ, apostasy, is fundamentally different than gossiping about someone in church).

P.S. I am vindicated in my reluctance to be trapped in a one-on-one with Door (more heat than light and more argumentum ad hominem than dialogue).
 

Door

New member
As you admit, this epistle was wrtitten to the believer. And here are John's words to the believer:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).​
John is writing to believers about unbelievers who say they have no sin (verse 8). Those who have been cleansed (verse 7) are not lying if they say they have no sin, because it has already been cleansed! You believe that Jesus never truly cleanses anyone! Everyone must agree that they have sin, and the only One who is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness is Jesus. You are turning a declaration of the glory of God into an exaltation of your will and self-righteousness.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jerry is relatively civil and smart. He may not think much of me. Neither of us is right about everything all of the time.
godrulz, I think highly of you, although we may not agree on many things. You conduct yourself in a dignified manner and you are an intelligent man.

Thank you for your comments about me, and anyone appears "relatively civil" when compared to certain other people who post on this thread.

These people who deny confession have had no reasonable answers in regard to the two washings of John 13 so in their frustration they attempted to undermine my credibility by playing the old "guilt by association" card, saying that since godrulz supoorts some of my contentions then I must be wrong.

Just a sign of their desperation. They should hope that the same "guilt by association" card is not played against them, a card linking them to Door! Ha!

In His grace,
Jerry
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
:think: Door is saying it is day. Jerry is saying it's night. Go figure... :crackup:

If Jerry and the sky say it is night, Door will say it is day. If it is day and Jerry sees this, Door will say it is night.

Jerry and other MAD:

I thought you guys say John is writing to Jewish Christians (circ.) and that they would have to confess sins, but Gentile Christians (uncirc.) would not since faith is paramount? Saul to Paul would dismiss I Jn. as non-Church truth?
 

Da'Saint

New member
As you admit, this epistle was wrtitten to the believer. And here are John's words to the believer:

Written to believers as a whole concerning doctrine corrections!

So why are there some people who just flat out deny that John is telling these Christians to confess their sins?

He is telling them that this is the way that they become christians!!

Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Phm 1:6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

If I shall live by faith!
Faith becomes effective by the acknowledgement of all the good things that are in me in Christ!
Wouldn't confession and dwelling on my short comings be the opposite of faith?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
godrulz, I think highly of you, although we may not agree on many things. You conduct yourself in a dignified manner and you are an intelligent man.

Thank you for your comments about me, and anyone appears "relatively civil" when compared to certain other people who post on this thread.

These people who deny confession have had no reasonable answers in regard to the two washings of John 13 so in their frustration they attempted to undermine my credibility by playing the old "guilt by association" card, saying that since godrulz supoorts some of my contentions then I must be wrong.

Just a sign of their desperation. They should hope that the same "guilt by association" card is not played against them, a card linking them to Door! Ha!

In His grace,
Jerry

David had a heart after God. I know he was not NT 'born again', but basic redemptive/relational principles apply. Ps. 51 is worth adopting as a heart attitude before God IF we sin (2 Tim. 3:16= OT, not NT).

One of the hallmarks of revival (church) and spiritual awakening (world) is a brokenness before God where the Holy Spirit gets us to take off our masks. This sends us running to our great Savior, full of grace, truth, and mercy.

Confession, repentance, renewed obedience, etc. are not works, but a sign of a soft heart towards God (I Peter 1:13-16; Rom. 6-8 is in my Bible...walk and standing, right?). They are the conditions or remedy for dealing with lapses. The exhortations and imperatives in Pauline writing (and sad state of some churches/believers cf. Rev 2-3) show that any subtle form of 'sinless perfectionism' is wrong.

As to all the details to quibble about, fight away. Minimally, those who are married or in any kind of relationship should understand issues surrounding unforgiveness, hurt, offense, sin (adultery), etc. Humility, repentance, obedience, confession, etc. are themes throughout the Bible, even in contexts of believers. One's view of the atonement, sin, sanctification, etc. will cloud interpretation at times, so context will be the key (vs propensity to proof text).

I am convinced that I Jn. 1:9 is about believers. Even if I am wrong, I don't understand why some see this as proof that I deny Christ?!
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
As to the consequences of not confessing a particular sin, Jerry's opponents may rightly ask what happens if they die before they confess the sin.
godrulz, remaing in fellowship with the Lord Jesus is the same as abiding in Him. Once we sin and do not confess that sin then we are no longer abiding in Him.

And abiding in Him is essential to the Christian's fruit bearing, or his "work" in the service of the Lord:

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (Jn.15:4-5).​

If the Christian continues to sin and fails to confess that sin then his fruit bearing will suffer. But even if his fruit bearing or "work" of service comes up short he will be saved nontheless:

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Cor.3:13-15).​

That is why Paul tells us that keeping ourselves "holy" is an integral part of our work of "service":

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (1 Cor.12:1).​

In His grace,
Jerry
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jerry and other MAD:

I thought you guys say John is writing to Jewish Christians (circ.) and that they would have to confess sins, but Gentile Christians (uncirc.) would not since faith is paramount? Saul to Paul would dismiss I Jn. as non-Church truth?
I stand with the MAD that says that the Jewish epistles apply to the Body of Christ. That is the sme teaching espoused by the great Mid Acts teachers of the past, including Sir Robert Anderson, Charles Baker, J.C. O'Hair and Cornelius Stam.

In His grace,
Jerry
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I can live with that (except I see unbelief as a unique sin and apostasy as a possibility, but that is another can of worms).

Sin separates, does it not? David did not feel the intimate presence of God when he had a wall of unconfessed sin. God does not want us to wallow in sin, but to agree with Him (confess...say the same thing), so we can jettison it in His power. The Holy Spirit convicts, for our good. He does not just want us positionally 'holy', set apart to God, but practically holy, having the character of Christ as we grow in grace and knowledge (fruit of the Spirit is the Holy Spirit reproducing the character, life, attitutes of Christ in us progressively, consistent with our position).

There are several major views on the nature of sanctification, all agreeing on the basics, but differing on the balance between God's work on our behalf and our responsibility to yield and obey (Rom. 6). Door is convinced that my understanding of a practical Christian walk/discipleship (John Wesley emphasis) is a denial of Reformational justification by grace through faith alone. Since sanc. is not self-righteousness (except in the cults or world religions), do you agree that we can differ on details of sanc. without denying justification truths? Because I am saved, I live in the light vs darkness and walk in the Spirit vs the flesh. I do not muster up an effort to do things or works in order to earn or keep salvation (impossible).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top