Jesus & James

[fhansen]

I have already answered this profusely in the past, but you have ignored it for reasons unknown. But I'll explain it again, just in case you finally decide to have an open mind.

1. John in 1 Jn. 3:9 says in black and white: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Either you agree with John, or you disagree with him. One reason you might disagree with him is because you don't understand what he said. You might not agree with what he said because you assume that you understand his statement, when you really don't.

2. Since John also said in 1 Jn. 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," then in 3:9 he cannot possibly mean sinless perfection. The apostle does not speak with forked tongue.

3. What this has to be about is having an ongoing attitude of repentance. 1 Jn. 2:1 "If anyone sins..." gives hope that our abject failure to live up to God's glory will be rectified by God's promised forgiveness and guidance.

4. So then, 3:9 saying "cannot sin" means that the child of God continues in God's direction and can't go back into spiritual death, because "God's seed remains..." and he is protected by the power of God (1 Pet. 1:5). Therefore, it's about direction of life.

Is this an adequate answer?

Yes, it clarifies it. I was aware of your thoughts on John and yet certain statements of yours made it sound like believers are immune from sinning. Instead, what you've said here is that believers are immune from not persevering by the end of the day-and that I cannot accept either. Forgiveness must not be taken for granted, and I'm sure you agree. Turning to God also involves a serious turning away from sin, not only the acceptance of its forgiveness, Without that repentance, a change of heart, forgiveness doesn't happen-our faith would be a mockery, in fact. But our repentance, while also grace-driven, is still not guaranteed since grace is resistible. And thls is a point where we differ.

Your understanding, that perfect sinlessness is not to be expected or required while overcoming sin is nonetheless necessary, is consistent with original Christian teachings and is far better than the idea that sin is merely overlooked. It's just that said overcoming is not guaranteed, as you believe. Why? Because we're not passive puppets; our slavery to righteousness remains a choice.

Either way all of this points to the fact that faith is the vehicle, the means to salvation, rather than some onetime act that guarantees entrance into heaven apart from how we live our lives. Faith is the doorway to the only One who can make us right, who can set our paths straight. But to say that we cannot jump off that path is unbiblical and inconsistent with historical teachings of the church east and west as well as the early fathers.

A question still remains in any case. Since you're not antinomian, as antinomianism would imply that no positive change in the person or his actions, towards holiness, must result from justification, you instead believe that a positive change in this way-without perfect sinlessness/holiness-is a necessary mark of a true believer. But that would also mean that you'd have to possess some idea as to what level or degree or persistence in sin would mark an unbeliever-one who is not really on God's path. Care to elaborate on this? We both know that the elect will persevere to the end but, since we still sin, how do we know that we have the fruit that should mark us as one of the elect. let alone that we'll continue in that fruitful vein? What kind of sin marks us as an unbeliever-or should give us pause in thinking that we're the real thing?

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, it clarifies it. I was aware of your thoughts on John and yet certain statements of yours made it sound like believers are immune from sinning. Instead, what you've said here is that believers are immune from not persevering by the end of the day-and that I cannot accept either. Forgiveness must not be taken for granted, and I'm sure you agree. Turning to God also involves a serious turning away from sin, not only the acceptance of its forgiveness, Without that repentance, a change of heart, forgiveness doesn't happen-our faith would be a mockery, in fact. But our repentance, while also grace-driven, is still not guaranteed since grace is resistible. And thls is a point where we differ.

Your understanding, that perfect sinlessness is not to be expected or required while overcoming sin is nonetheless necessary, is consistent with original Christian teachings and is far better than the idea that sin is merely overlooked. It's just that said overcoming is not guaranteed, as you believe. Why? Because we're not passive puppets; our slavery to righteousness remains a choice.

Either way all of this points to the fact that faith is the vehicle, the means to salvation, rather than some onetime act that guarantees entrance into heaven apart from how we live our lives. Faith is the doorway to the only One who can make us right, who can set our paths straight. But to say that we cannot jump off that path is unbiblical and inconsistent with historical teachings of the church east and west as well as the early fathers.

A question still remains in any case. Since you're not antinomian, as antinomianism would imply that no positive change in the person or his actions, towards holiness, must result from justification, you instead believe that a positive change in this way-without perfect sinlessness/holiness-is a necessary mark of a true believer. But that would also mean that you'd have to possess some idea as to what level or degree or persistence in sin would mark an unbeliever-one who is not really on God's path. Care to elaborate on this? We both know that the elect will persevere to the end but, since we still sin, how do we know that we have the fruit that should mark us as one of the elect. let alone that we'll continue in that fruitful vein? What kind of sin marks us as an unbeliever-or should give us pause in thinking that we're the real thing?

God knows those who are His. So why do you have to delve into splitting hairs over whether a certain person is a believer or not? We are not to judge people that way. We are commanded to love others as Christ loves us, unconditionally. If a brother refuses to repent from sin, we are given a process in Mat. 18 to induce repentance. If he refuses at last, we are to "treat him as an outcast and a sinner."

Unless, of course, you are wondering about your own salvation. If that's the case, then why not just keep trusting Christ to guide you? Read the NT often and carefully, you'll find out that all the apostles exhort believers to make sure about their relationship with God. Perhaps you don't agree with saints immune from not persevering, because you really don't believe in 1 Pet. 1:5?

 

[fhansen]

I'll get back to you. Meanwhile have a great Christmas.

 

[fhansen]

God knows those who are His. So why do you have to delve into splitting hairs over whether a certain person is a believer or not? We are not to judge people that way. We are commanded to love others as Christ loves us, unconditionally. If a brother refuses to repent from sin, we are given a process in Mat. 18 to induce repentance. If he refuses at last, we are to "treat him as an outcast and a sinner."

Unless, of course, you are wondering about your own salvation. If that's the case, then why not just keep trusting Christ to guide you? Read the NT often and carefully, you'll find out that all the apostles exhort believers to make sure about their relationship with God. Perhaps you don't agree with saints immune from not persevering, because you really don't believe in 1 Pet. 1:5?

If we understand that God loves and died for us despite our sin not so that we can become comfortable in our sin but so that we can overcome it now, so that we can be freed from its captivity, then we better and more fully understand the gospel. And He doesn't leave us without instruction on this which is what revelation is all about-so that we may know. Children of God will be uncomfortable with sin. Our fruit-good or bad-is a gauge of the truthfulness of a faith-born union with Him. And that union, itself, is our salvation.

 

[fhansen]

We are not to judge people that way. We are commanded to love others as Christ loves us, unconditionally. If a brother refuses to repent from sin, we are given a process in Mat. 18 to induce repentance. If he refuses at last, we are to "treat him as an outcast and a sinner."

This is not quite cogent. We don't judge for the purpose of condemning (Matt 7:1-6), but we're to judge rightfully, for the purpose of discernment (John 7:24). Otherwise we'd have no way of even knowing what the brother needs to repent of, or why he must. IOW we can know, without hair-splitting, what kind of sin leads to death, or means that we're not a child of God, telling us if we're really believing in, hoping in, and loving Him.

 

[fhansen]

No, in conversations with me, you have not answered it previously, and you have not agreed that man is justified by faith alone, and not by anything a man can do. Rather, you previously agreed that salvation (IOW, justification) is obtained by faith + works. I know you haven't agreed, because in previous discussions I made it clear that if a man is justified, he is saved, in which you did not object to that. Therefore, it appears to me here that you are changing your tune. It looks now like you are agreeing that a man is justified by faith alone (but not by a kind of faith that is merely imaginary).

Ok, so if you agree that a man is justified by faith alone, and that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, then what exactly are you objecting to? And why this question "can a true believer sin"? What's this about?

Ok, this deserves clarification and explanation. Being justified means that we're saved. And since justification consists of more than a merely declared justice/righteousness, but also includes the actual righteousness necessary to overcome sin, then we can also compromise that state of justice; we can live and act unjustly, and then remain unrepentant.

You've agreed on two points here, as I understand it, that more than the act of believing, itself, makes us righteous or marks us as justified but that real righteousness from God, which will result in action, good fruit, is an aspect of our now being righteous, of marking a person as justified. But you believe that we will automatically act upon and express that gift of righteousness while I believe it's always an option, as it was for the rulers in John 12:42, for example, who believed while nonetheless refusing to express it because they loved the praise of men more than that of God. And at the same time, you acknowledge the second point, that a true believer can sin-and we both agreed on that.

So, we cannot be justified; we cannot enter into that justified state, apart from faith, but we can separate from that righteousness at any point; we can turn back away from God. To put it another way, excerpted from a letter I recently wrote:

“In Catholicism faith is also central, but it’s the beginning, the foundation, not the end, of salvation. Faith is the doorway to God, the Vine, with whom all things are possible but apart from whom we can do nothing (John 15). It connects us to his life-blood, so to speak, to the Holy Spirit and the life of grace that can flow through us and produce good fruit, that produces a love in us that wants to act, by its nature, for the good of others and for the glory of God, to the extent that we remain with and in Him. With that grace we work out our salvation. This life, in communion with God, is what we were created for. And simple faith, acknowledging His existence, goodness, mercy and boundless love is the entry point for nearness to Him-and a game-changer for we humans. That's why Jesus came-to reveal that God-and reconcile us with Him. That relationship, that grafting into the Vine, is the basis and essence and source of man’s righteousness. And that reconciliation is actualized within each of us as we come to believe, as we turn to God above and before ourselves or anything else, IOW.”

 

[tdidymas]

This is not quite cogent. We don't judge for the purpose of condemning (Matt 7:1-6), but we're to judge rightfully, for the purpose of discernment (John 7:24). Otherwise we'd have no way of even knowing what the brother needs to repent of, or why he must. IOW we can know, without hair-splitting, what kind of sin leads to death, or means that we're not a child of God, telling us if we're really believing in, hoping in, and loving Him.

"you shall know them by their fruit"

 

[tdidymas]

If we understand that God loves and died for us despite our sin not so that we can become comfortable in our sin but so that we can overcome it now, so that we can be freed from its captivity, then we better and more fully understand the gospel. And He doesn't leave us without instruction on this which is what revelation is all about-so that we may know. Children of God will be uncomfortable with sin. Our fruit-good or bad-is a gauge of the truthfulness of a faith-born union with Him. And that union, itself, is our salvation.

Paul commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, because if we really are born of God, then we have no rest until our life has obeyed the command. The transformation has to be based on the realization that we have been made one with Christ.

 

[tdidymas]

Ok, this deserves clarification and explanation. Being justified means that we're saved. And since justification consists of more than a merely declared justice/righteousness, but also includes the actual righteousness necessary to overcome sin, then we can also compromise that state of justice; we can live and act unjustly, and then remain unrepentant.

I disagree with your conclusion, because John clearly says that the one born of God (having the Holy Spirit) cannot continue sinning - that is, cannot remain unrepentant.

I get that you like to harp on opposing the idea that justification is "merely" declared. I don't know of any Protestant theologian who teaches that idea. Faith is not "merely" a mental assent, although it does include it.

You've agreed on two points here, as I understand it, that more that the act of believing, itself, makes us righteous or marks us as justified but that real righteousness from God, which will result in action, good fruit, is an aspect of our now being righteous, of marking a person as justified. But you believe that we will automatically act upon and express that gift of righteousness while I believe it's always an option, as it was for the rulers in John 12:42, for example, who believed while nonetheless refusing to express it because they loved the praise of men more than that of God. And at the same time, you acknowledge the second point, that a true believer can sin-and we both agreed on that.

Such shortcomings in John 12 doesn't mean they weren't already born of God. According to 1 Jn. 5:1, they believed in Jesus, therefore they were born of God. It doesn't automatically mean they will be mature in faith and give themselves to martyrdom. Chances are, those men were later part of the church and confessed it, thus John could write it.

So, we cannot be justified; we cannot enter into that justified state, apart from faith, but we can separate from that righteousness at any point; we can turn back away from God. To put it another way, excerpted from a letter I recently wrote:

“In Catholicism faith is also central, but it’s the beginning, the foundation, not the end, of salvation. Faith is the doorway to God, the Vine, with whom all things are possible but apart from whom we can do nothing (John 15). It connects us to his life-blood, so to speak, to the Holy Spirit and the life of grace that can flow through us and produce good fruit, that produces a love in us that wants to act, by its nature, for the good of others and for the glory of God, to the extent that we remain with and in Him. With that grace we work out our salvation. This life, in communion with God, is what we were created for. And simple faith, acknowledging His existence, goodness, mercy and boundless love is the entry point for nearness to Him-and a game-changer for we humans. That's why Jesus came-to reveal that God-and reconcile us with Him. That relationship, that grafting into the Vine, is the basis and essence and source of man’s righteousness. And that reconciliation is actualized within each of us as we come to believe, as we turn to God above and before ourselves or anything else, IOW.”

It all sounds good, but doesn't prove that justification is by faith + works. Sure we struggle with understanding, faithfulness, etc., it's called "growing pains."

Any backsliding is done out of spiritual immaturity. Yes, sin is deceitful. But God will scourge His children for it, that they be taught to trust Him in all matters. Condition of spirit is hidden beneath the surface behavior. So if someone does turn away from God, they are simply revealing a condition of spirit that indicates they were pretending.

 

[fhansen]

"you shall know them by their fruit"

Ok? And this means that a true believer can sin, as we've agreed to, producing bad fruit, and he may not repent, leading to his demise. It also means that we can know what constitutes that fatal fruit, we can identifyy sin that leads to death, whether it's our's or someone eles's. And this relates back to my post #161, which you called hair-splitting. Its hardly hair-splitting if it means knowing God's wll for us in relation to sin and its potential for ruining relationship with Him. The church has always had a sound understanding of this.

 

[fhansen]

Paul commands us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, because if we really are born of God, then we have no rest until our life has obeyed the command. The transformation has to be based on the realization that we have been made one with Christ.

Ok, and the proof of all this will be in the pudding- in how well we've carried out His will during the course of our lives. We may or may not obey Paul's command.

 

[fhansen]

I disagree with your conclusion, because John clearly says that the one born of God (having the Holy Spirit) cannot continue sinning - that is, cannot remain unrepentant.

He says we cannot continue sinning. But, if we do break from that path, we can repent and confess. And then, "If we confess He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

 

[fhansen]

I get that you like to harp on opposing the idea that justification is "merely" declared. I don't know of any Protestant theologian who teaches that idea. Faith is not "merely" a mental assent, although it does include it.

It has nothing to do in this case with the kind of belief we have, it has to do with what God does, what justification consists of, what it means to be right in the eyes of God. Are you worthy of heaven because your sins are not counted against you at justification, or because your sins are forgiven and you've overcome sin due to righteouness given-the life of grace-at justification? I don't believe I've ever heard a Protestant apologist acknowledge that righteousness is actually given or infused/imparted at justification such that our justice/righteousness is dependent on that fact, on that free gift, rather than dependent strictly on God's forgivness and declaration of righteousness. Depending on denomination and individuals, Sola Fide can have some variations, some nuances of meaning, but it only serves to muddy the waters at the end of the day in our understanding of God's will regarding man and sin, on the need to have righteousness and act accordingly. IOW, justification, the main doctrine that Luther saw as the crux of the Reformation, that which it really stood or fell on, was already correctly understood by the existing church.

 

[fhansen]

It all sounds good, but doesn't prove that justification is by faith + works. Sure we struggle with understanding, faithfulness, etc., it's called "growing pains."

Any backsliding is done out of spiritual immaturity. Yes, sin is deceitful. But God will scourge His children for it, that they be taught to trust Him in all matters. Condition of spirit is hidden beneath the surface behavior. So if someone does turn away from God, they are simply revealing a condition of spirit that indicates they were pretending.

But I think you're givng with one hand what you take back with the other. To the extent that we sin, we aren't yet fully on God's side even as He's alway there to forgive, to build up, to restore. Again, the wildcard is never Him, but us. Augustine had this to say:

“It is the grace of God that helps the wills of men; and when they are not helped by it, the reason is in themselves, not in God.”

 

[fhansen]

Such shortcomings in John 12 doesn't mean they weren't already born of God. According to 1 Jn. 5:1, they believed in Jesus, therefore they were born of God. It doesn't automatically mean they will be mature in faith and give themselves to martyrdom. Chances are, those men were later part of the church and confessed it, thus John could write it.

I think the real point is that it's speculation; they could've also been in God's family and later left home-or were never there to begin with. We can't really know- except to know that loving the praise of men over the praise of God is not a good thing while it's nevertheless a common problem and challenge for us all, and, in fact, harkens back to the orignal disobedience- and reasons for it- in Eden: pride, fear of fellow man over God, etc.

 

[prodromos]

"you shall know them by their fruit"

Ah, so works are involved.

 

[tdidymas]

Ok? And this means that a true believer can sin, as we've agreed to, producing bad fruit, and he may not repent, leading to his demise. It also means that we can know what constitutes that fatal fruit, we can identifyy sin that leads to death, whether it's our's or someone eles's. And this relates back to my post #161, which you called hair-splitting. Its hardly hair-splitting if it means knowing God's wll for us in relation to sin and its potential for ruining relationship with Him. The church has always had a sound understanding of this.

No, it does not mean what you claim. Jesus spoke that in context of knowing who is His and who is not.

 

[tdidymas]

Ok, and the proof of all this will be in the pudding- in how well we've carried out His will during the course of our lives. We may or may not obey Paul's command.

You're not proving that salvation is gained by faith + works. Being saved is not a sliding scale where there is some point that the "fruit" tips over to God's wrath and eternal condemnation. This statement you made looks to me like you don't believe 1 Pet. 1:5.

 

[tdidymas]

He says we cannot continue sinning. But, if we do break from that path, we can repent and confess. And then, "If we confess He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

You're still not proving that someone can lose eternal life. 1 Jn. 2:2 "If anyone sins, we have an advocate..." The point of 1 Pet. 1:5 is that confession will be made by the true believer. If one does not confess and continues in mortal sin, such a person has no assurance that he ever had eternal life. If such a person thinks he has it, what he really has is a false sense of security. John wrote "these things I have written to you that you might know that you have eternal life." So every person who reads that has the responsibility to examine what he wrote in order to determine if they measure up to what he wrote about.

IOW, what he wrote is a DESCRIPTION of those born of God, not a PRESCRIPTION. His writing is about who is born of God and who isn't. It's not about HOW to get saved. The "how" is believe. Most of the writings of the NT is not about how to get saved, but about how to believe and who believes and who doesn't. If a person isn't willing to repent and surrender to Christ, then that person is not born of God, no matter what they profess. So assurance is about knowing we belong to Him, not about how well we can obey.

 

[tdidymas]

It has nothing to do in this case with the kind of belief we have, it has to do with what God does, what justification consists of, what it means to be right in the eyes of God. Are you worthy of heaven because your sins are not counted against you at justification, or because your sins are forgiven and you've overcome sin due to righteouness given-the life of grace-at justification? I don't believe I've ever heard a Protestant apologist acknowledge that righteousness is actually given or infused/imparted at justification such that our justice/righteousness is dependent on that fact, on that free gift, rather than dependent strictly on God's forgivness and declaration of righteousness. Depending on denomination and individuals, Sola Fide can have some variations, some nuances of meaning, but it only serves to muddy the waters at the end of the day in our understanding of God's will regarding man and sin, on the need to have righteousness and act accordingly. IOW, justification, the main doctrine that Luther saw as the crux of the Reformation, that which it really stood or fell on, was already correctly understood by the existing church.

I don't care what you think about what Protestant apologists have acknowledged or not. That's a side issue not related to the truth I'm trying to convey here. I'm only interested in what the Bible teaches, and that's my standard.

The NT repeatedly calls believers saints, righteous ones, etc. Jesus clearly stated "by their fruit you shall know them." He is talking about how to discern who belongs to Christ and who doesn't. Granted, new converts may commit even mortal sins, but they will not continue therein, according to 1 John 3:9. So I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

If the "existing church" correctly understood justification, then why was there so much controversy? I think you are ignorant of how leaders in the Catholic church were back then. There was major corruption, and Pope Leo was part of it. In fact, there were many Catholic theologians who agreed with Luther on the issue of justification and other Reformed doctrines. Just because Erasmus and some others wrote against it doesn't mean they "correctly understood." In fact, they didn't understand, just as Trent didn't understand. But I'm not going to rehash all that.