sin/sins is not the issue today!

[glorydaz]

The Bible never identifies two types of repentance. It only uses the word metanoia a "change of mind" Whether that meant turning away from idols, a life of sin or from trying to justify oneself by works was an individual matter. Do you think all Jews were acting like Pharisees in trying to keep the whole law? What about the tax collectors who were Jewish but who extorted money from the people. Were they trying to obtain eternal life by good works? What about a Jew who did not practice Judaism - like the prostitutes? What about Gentiles who were trying to be virtuous. Those who were into Aristotle made it their goal to live a virtuous life. They probably tended to be self righteous. Other Gentiles were trying to follow the requirements of the Mosaic law. Every person has their own form of idolatry they turn from when they begin to trust Christ.

Your narrow definition of repentence, intended to support MAD, does not hold up under scrutiny. The fact that your view cannot be found within the text is evidence that it is eisegesis and not exegesis.

I didn't say there were two types of repentance. I said repentance is a change of mind. In fact, I've repented of having responded to your posts at all. :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

The Bible never identifies two types of repentance. It only uses the word metanoia a "change of mind" Whether that meant turning away from idols, a life of sin or from trying to justify oneself by works was an individual matter. Do you think all Jews were acting like Pharisees in trying to keep the whole law? What about the tax collectors who were Jewish but who extorted money from the people. Were they trying to obtain eternal life by good works? What about a Jew who did not practice Judaism - like the prostitutes? What about Gentiles who were trying to be virtuous. Those who were into Aristotle made it their goal to live a virtuous life. They probably tended to be self righteous. Other Gentiles were trying to follow the requirements of the Mosaic law. Every person has their own form of idolatry they turn from when they begin to trust Christ.

Your narrow definition of repentence, intended to support MAD, does not hold up under scrutiny. The fact that your view cannot be found within the text is evidence that it is eisegesis and not exegesis.

That's a lot of rambling. How about some scriptural support?

 

[Shasta]

If you are already saved; you can get to the point where you don't know what you believe, even to the point of believing not, yet He abideth faithful!

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

This scripture cannot mean what you say it does when taken in context. As I understand your remarks you are saying the term "believe not" does not mean that our faith sometimes falters but that we can turn away from Him altogether and live a life of denying the faith without our relationship with Him being altered.

This is not true contextually. This verse with the one before it reads like this:

11 The saying is trustworthy, for:
IF we have died with him,
we will also live with him;
12 IF we endure
we will also reign with him;
IF we deny him,
he also will deny us;

13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
(2 Timothy 2:11-12)

Your interpretation of verse 13 it is contradicted by verse 12 which sets conditions on our future experience, conditions indicated by that very potent word IF. We will not live with Him forever IF we do not die with Him. We will not reign with him in the world to come IF we do not endure this world.

That verse 13 refers to God's continued faithfulness when we go through periods of doubt better fits the tone of an exhortation to endure that is intrinsic to this verse. The reason is that we are more likely, in times of testing, to go through periods of doubt. To keep us from being daunted by the task Paul adds that while we must endure and keep our faith absolute perfection is not demanded. When we waver God will still be with us.

However, the idea that our "faithlessness" means apostasizing from the faith is directly contradicted by the phrase "if we deny him, he also will deny us"

 

[Shasta]

That's a lot of rambling. How about some scriptural support?

My argument was that there was no evidence for the point of view that I read. That the scripture literally does not describe the idea that there are "types" of repentance is evident. All it does is use a few words to describe what it is in general. One of these words is "metanoia" which means a "change of mind" and then there is a similar word "epistrepho" which means to turn from (1 Thessalonians 1:9). The idea that there are species of repentance which are particular to Jews and Gentiles cannot be proven either terminologically or by exegesis.

What I read was that the Jews had to repent from dead works while the Gentiles had to repent from sin in general. The point I was making in my "ramblings" was that this was not always true:

1. Non-religious Jews (e.g., tax collectors and prostitutes) would not have to repent of trying to be good in their own strength. They would have to repent of sin.

2. Jews into "good works" would have to repent of that and admit they were sinners but then so would Gentiles who thought they were virtuous like Judaized Gentiles or those that were into virtue philosophy.

3. The neat categories of Jew and Gentile each with their own variety of repentance break down logically when examined.

I do not necessarily have to "prove" the existence of a doctrine not stated in scripture. I only have to show that it is not stated and that it is inconsistent with what was recorded.

 

[Shasta]

I didn't say there were two types of repentance. I said repentance is a change of mind. In fact, I've repented of having responded to your posts at all. :chuckle:

You said:

Repentance is a change of mind. A change of mind for the Jews, who believed in God but trusted in their works, is different from repentance for the gentiles which is a change of mind from unbelief to belief. That's why you see a difference between Peter's preaching of repentance and Paul's.

Well you see I do not see any intrinsic difference between their preaching other than the terminology they used and their approach. Both taught repentance and faith towards God. While I do appreciate your taking the time to clarify what you meant I still have a disagreement which I will outline here.

First of all, your statement that "A change of mind for the Jews, who believed in God but trusted in their works, is different from repentance for the gentiles which is a change of mind from unbelief to belief" does not take into account (1) the existence of self-righteous Gentiles who believe that their works have some instrinsic virtue and (2) the fact that everyone, Jews and Gentiles must have faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life.

In Hebrews 6:1 the first two rudimentary principles of the faith are "repentance from dead works and faith towards God." These two are linked in that turning TO God necessarily involves turning AWAY from sin (whatever form that might take). The term "works" does not have to mean good deeds in a Jewish sense. At least the word is not limited to that meaning in the text. It can mean anything we did that we do that we believed had value or merit but which, in reality, had no spiritual value at all.

Paul says to Gentiles who had served idols:

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God, (1 Thessalonians 1:9)

The Thessalonians turned away from the dead works of serving idols to believe in Christ. They thought what they did had some virtue until they saw the truth. Repentance is a generic word. It is probably impossible to say that any given audience will make the same assumption about what repentance means unless the preacher specifically focuses on certain sins. Otherwise it means different things to different people according to what their preferred sins are.

Sorry if I misrepresented your view.

 

[j4jesus09]

I just don't think that is what Paul is talking about when he says we are "dead to sin". It takes no power on our part to be crucified with Christ and risen with Him. I think he says the same thing here.

Col. 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.​

We are dead to sin, but we must believe it wholeheartedly. As long as the deceiver is in the world this may be distorted. The enemy wants to attack your hope or belief. There are so many areas in a man and woman that must submit to this truth, because yes we are dead to sin. We must learn this, quickly. The old man still exist though. That's the battle. Christ vs our old man. Jesus already won.

 

[Shasta]

Lord, spare me from these people who think they are such great teachers. :doh:

Yes, we all know people claim what they do not posses. But we all don't seem to know that we are not required to keep the commandments, do we? :hammer:

This is an judgmental response. You do not know me or what I think about myself.


(Christ died) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4)

Paul also taught that the goal was that we should keep the commandments but that they were to be kept through love
(Romans 13:10)

 

[aikido7]

Making sure personal sins are forgiven so that a believer can be assured of salvation and an existence in heaven is the primary focus these days....

Loving one's enemies, giving to the poor and forgiving others as we forgive ourselves is no longer on the agenda.

Christianity has become a faith that requires asserting beliefs like "Jesus died for our sins" and other first-century ancient dogma like "born of a virgin," "Son of God" or "savior of the world."

Treating others in the spirit of Jesus' ethical teachings is off the radar--as is the same quality concerning the Prophet by the Muslims.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Making sure personal sins are forgiven so that a believer can be assured of salvation and an existence in heaven is the primary focus these days....

Eternity, Aikido, eternity. Compared with eternity, this lifetime . . . you actually can't compare them. Living forever doesn't compare with this life in many, many way's, but 1 of the way's it does compare, is Jesus. We believe in Him now, and we will know Him forever.

...Loving one's enemies, giving to the poor and forgiving others as we forgive ourselves is no longer on the agenda...

Say's you. Each of those thing's is literally on the Holy Catholic Churches agenda.

...Christianity has become a faith that requires asserting beliefs like "Jesus died for our sins" and other first-century ancient dogma like "born of a virgin," "Son of God" or "savior of the world."...

But don't you mean that Christianity has alway's (or, if you won't grant that: almost alway's; the Church beginning to veer, in you're view, from the truth, very early on) been a faith that require's asserting these belief's, because the Church has done so from the earliest.

...Treating others in the spirit of Jesus' ethical teachings is off the radar...

I don't think so. See above, Catholic Church.

...--as is the same quality concerning the Prophet by the Muslims.

I don't know what you mean by that wide a paint brush, though it could mean a wide variety of very good thing's that I'm sure we agree on heartily.

:e4e:


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This is an judgmental response. You do not know me or what I think about myself.


(Christ died) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4)

Paul also taught that the goal was that we should keep the commandments but that they were to be kept through love
(Romans 13:10)

What you write comes from YOUR mind, correct? Is not your mind
who and what you are?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We are dead to sin, but we must believe it wholeheartedly. As long as the deceiver is in the world this may be distorted. The enemy wants to attack your hope or belief. There are so many areas in a man and woman that must submit to this truth, because yes we are dead to sin. We must learn this, quickly. The old man still exist though. That's the battle. Christ vs our old man. Jesus already won.

However, our flesh is weak and still capable of disobedience to God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I didn't say there were two types of repentance. I said repentance is a change of mind. In fact, I've repented of having responded to your posts at all. :chuckle:

LOL

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I said earlier: "Jerry S. is a pain in the neck. I don't like that guy!"

Romans 12:18 states: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
To me this verse suggests that, maybe sometimes it's "impossible" to get along with everybody.

There will always be some "pain in the neck" types that are incorrigible and we won't be able to
abide in their presence. However, the verse says that, "If" it be possible as much as lieth in you,
live peaceable with all men.

 

[Shasta]

Shasta, what church or denomination are you/have you, been
affiliated with? Be honest and open as you ought to be as a
believer.

I have been: Presbyterian, Baptist, Wesleyan, Nazarene, and currently am non-denominational. My mother is currently Pentecostal and my father is Russian Orthodox. Is that enough background?

 

[Shasta]

I said earlier: "Jerry S. is a pain in the neck. I don't like that guy!"

Romans 12:18 states: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
To me this verse suggests that, maybe sometimes it's "impossible" to get along with everybody.

There will always be some "pain in the neck" types that are incorrigible and we won't be able to
abide in their presence. However, the verse says that, "If" it be possible as much as lieth in you,
live peaceable with all men.

Now first off, Jerry and I have had long debates in the past so I am not a whole-hearted advocate of everything he says. As far as your not liking him - that is irrelevant to the debate unless you are trying to back him down by rousing personal opposition against him.

Whether you disagree with him or not he is not rude and he always interacts in a discussion. I think you just don't like the fact that he persists in making his point - for the sole reason that you do not agree with it. Would you abandon something you believed because you felt people were starting to dislike you?

 

[Shasta]

What you write comes from YOUR mind, correct? Is not your mind
who and what you are?

What is the point - that from reading a persons opinions about a subject we can know what motivates them? That is not necessarily the case. The fact is, you are predisposed to think badly of me simply because I have expressed an opinion contrary to yours. Presumptions affect perceptions. At any rate, I will not deal with these ad hominem remarks any more. If you have a point to make then present your case instead of sitting on the sidelines heckling.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I said earlier: "Jerry S. is a pain in the neck. I don't like that guy!"

Romans 12:18 states: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
To me this verse suggests that, maybe sometimes it's "impossible" to get along with everybody.

There will always be some "pain in the neck" types that are incorrigible and we won't be able to
abide in their presence. However, the verse says that, "If" it be possible as much as lieth in you,
live peaceable with all men.

You do not like me because I quote verses to you that prove that your ideas are in error. Then everyone can see you running and hiding from those verses. That must certainly embarrass you and of course you do not like being embarrassed.

You also do not like me because I follow what Paul says to do here:

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim.4:2-4).​

You cling to your fables even after being shown the truth because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You sir, do not believe Paul. One cannot very well depart from the faith if they were never in the faith to begin with.

One of the meanings of the words "the faith" is "the religious beliefs of Christians" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So if a Christian departs from just one of those beliefs that they have been taught then it can be said that they have departed from the faith.

Now that I have addressed your verse please give me your interpretation of the meaning of these words from the pen of John:

"The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever" (1 Jn.1:1-2).​

Then explain how what John said there fits what you said here:

If you are already saved; you can get to the point where you don't know what you believe, even to the point of believing not, yet He abideth faithful!

As I said, if you think that any true believer can actually stop believing the facts found in the gospel then you really do not possess true faith.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just don't think that is what Paul is talking about when he says we are "dead to sin". It takes no power on our part to be crucified with Christ and risen with Him.

So do you believe that when a person is saved then he automatically becomes dead to sin?

If your answer is "yes" then please tell me the source of the defilement which can come upon Christians in the following verse:

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor.7:1).​

If your answer is "yes" then tell us why Paul would tell Christians to put to death the things which belong to out earthly nature:

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry" (Col.3:5).​

If this happens upon salvation automatically it would make no sense for Paul to tell that to the saved.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Now first off, Jerry and I have had long debates in the past so I am not a whole-hearted advocate of everything he says. As far as your not liking him - that is irrelevant to the debate unless you are trying to back him down by rousing personal opposition against him.

Whether you disagree with him or not he is not rude and he always interacts in a discussion. I think you just don't like the fact that he persists in making his point - for the sole reason that you do not agree with it. Would you abandon something you believed because you felt people were starting to dislike you?

I really don't care about your opinion. So, would you kindly move along?