Born Again?

[Guojing]

You're pretending I don't already know my views are my "interpretation." I've not said otherwise. Your views are equally your interpretation. So where does that get us? It's a matter of considering the evidence--not arguing over words like "interpretation."

I cannot read your mind, so that was why I asked you this earlier Born Again?

Now if you were truly interpreting, you won't be insulting people saying they have no common sense, or don't understand English, just because they have a different interpretation from yours.

 

[RandyPNW]

I cannot read your mind, so that was why I asked you this earlier Born Again?

Now if you were truly interpreting, you won't be insulting people saying they have no common sense, or don't understand English, just because they have a different interpretation from yours.

There is a right and a wrong, and there is a devilish insistence on false logic. I can't say what I think your issue is, because I don't really know you.

For example, the Mormons may insist that Joseph in Eze 37 refers to Joseph Smith, against all logic. They insist on it because they choose to believe it in deliberate rejection of common sense, readily available to us all.

You raised the question whether John in 1 John required Christians to be virtually sinless in order to prove themselves genuine Christians. My argument was reasonable, that John was talking about a choice to live by the rule of righteousness as opposed to sinless perfection in that chosen course of living. John makes a number of statements to that effect, not just in our current text.

Then you claimed that John was speaking of sinless living because he was, you thought, speaking of our glorification, in which we display sinlessness in our glorified bodies. I argued that nothing in the context suggests anything other than John's wish to prove who are genuine Christians in the here and now. And I gave evidence for that perspective, which I admit was my interpretation.

If these things seem as clear to me as the fact Joseph Smith was not in the book of Ezekiel then yes, I will have to say you are defying common sense. But I have no wish to insult you for no reason. The purpose is to provoke you to recognize the path you're going down when you reject every reasonable argument I bring to you.

1) John's purpose in the letter seems to be to expose false Christianity and to present what true Christian traits are--not in the eternal future, but now in the current churches.
2) John makes it clear that we are not sinless at present but choose currently to live like Jesus.

If you can't accept that, so be it. We have nothing more to discuss. We will just be rehashing what we believe.

I suppose it's possible that you just don't know the letter that well? I memorized the entire letter back in the early 1970s.

You really have to read it as a whole to understand what I'm talking about. I'm not bragging--I just want to help you get on the right track. Take care...

 

[Guojing]

Then you claimed that John was speaking of sinless living because he was, you thought, speaking of our glorification, in which we display sinlessness in our glorified bodies. I argued that nothing in the context suggests anything other than John's wish to prove who are genuine Christians in the here and now. And I gave evidence for that perspective, which I admit was my interpretation.

As I said, you have your interpretation, I have mine.

We agree to disagree and move on.

The main difference is that I don't make any comments on whether you have common sense, nor whether English is your first language.

You understand that difference?

 

[RandyPNW]

As I said, you have your interpretation, I have mine.

We agree to disagree and move on.

The main difference is that I don't make any comments on whether you have common sense, nor whether English is your first language.

You understand that difference?

That's a false difference. I was quite sincere in asking you that. Your name suggests you may have English as your 2nd language. My wife is from the UK, and I sometimes have trouble understanding her English even as an American who speaks English!

I find it interesting that you wouldn't answer the question.....

But I'll take this one step farther. We may legitimately have different positions and different interpretations on disputable matters. But it is not okay to just take any random position you wish to take, and then declare it's okay because "it's my interpretation."

We will be judged on our "interpretations," whether we choose to believe Joseph Smith was in the book of Ezekiel, or whether we wish to believe John laid down principles by which to determine who is a true Christian.

Just beware of using the saying, "we agree to disagree." In this matter I don't.

I think you are clearly wrong to confuse the message the Apostle John wished to bring. If you were confused about it, or still questioning it, that would be fine. But you are clearly adamantly opposed to what I call "common sense." You're perfectly welcome to clarify anything you have not yet made clear about your position on this?

 

[Guojing]

But I'll take this one step farther. We may legitimately have different positions and different interpretations on disputable matters. But it is not okay to just take any random position you wish to take, and then declare it's okay because "it's my interpretation."

Romans 14:5 would be my response to you.

 

[RandyPNW]

Romans 14:5 would be my response to you.

As I said, some matters are "disputable," because we "see through a glass darkly." That is, spiritual growth is gradual, and we can't understand everything all at once. We have to give room for changing opinions.

But it is different to be obstinate, and to intentionally reject a rational argument simply because it threatens our comfort zone. I don't want you to fall into the latter category, and I don't want to be there myself.

 

[Guojing]

But it is different to be obstinate, and to intentionally reject a rational argument simply because it threatens our comfort zone. I don't want you to fall into the latter category, and I don't want to be there myself.

We are always the protagonist from our own perspective.

The one that disagrees with us is always the one that is being obstinate, its never ourselves

 

[RandyPNW]

We are always the protagonist from our own perspective.

The one that disagrees with us is always the one that is being obstinate, its never ourselves

True! Sometimes I'm my own best friend--sometimes my own worst enemy!

 

[Guojing]

True! Sometimes I'm my own best friend--sometimes my own worst enemy!

That is why when you disagree with others on the Internet, there is no real need to say anything negative to the other party.

You point a finger at him, 3 fingers are always pointing back at you.

 

[RandyPNW]

That is why when you disagree with others on the Internet, there is no real need to say anything negative to the other party.

You point a finger at him, 3 fingers are always pointing back at you.

I don't regret anything I said. It is a false argument to say that all disagreements are equal, that we should just be buddies and let the other believe in his own way. You didn't seem to understand how far afield you were going in saying that John's statement about not sinning had to do with our glorification. That seems absurd to me, both before and now.

Instead of arguing the point, you try to make this personal. My concern is that if you don't use common sense you're going to land in heresy-land. And that's where, I believe, you are. It is my concern for you that overrides these so-called "personal matters." I'm sorry you can't see that in your fussing over your "hurt feelings."

 

[Guojing]

I don't regret anything I said. It is a false argument to say that all disagreements are equal, that we should just be buddies and let the other believe in his own way. You didn't seem to understand how far afield you were going in saying that John's statement about not sinning had to do with our glorification. That seems absurd to me, both before and now.

Instead of arguing the point, you try to make this personal. My concern is that if you don't use common sense you're going to land in heresy-land. And that's where, I believe, you are. It is my concern for you that overrides these so-called "personal matters." I'm sorry you can't see that in your fussing over your "hurt feelings."

Haven’t you noticed I have never attacked you, in our discussion?

You are making it personal by remarking about lack of common sense, poor English etc

 

[RandyPNW]

Haven’t you noticed I have never attacked you, in our discussion?

False. You are in fact attacking me. You are apparently unable or unwilling to see that.

You are making it personal by remarking about lack of common sense, poor English etc

It is *my view* that you have abandoned common sense in your argumentation or simply struggle with the English language in understanding how the English translation means to convey "Christians don't sin." As much as it may seem to insult you to think someone considers this a possibility, it is nevertheless my opinion that it may be so.

You seem to be all about having one's "own interpretation," and this is how I interpret what you may be doing. It strikes me as strange when some do not understand John's statement that "Christians don't sin" as a generalization.

So you offend me--absolutely you do, when you try to attack me as if I am not now conveying my own personal opinion and only wishing to personally attack you. If indeed I sense that you are trying to justify an errant form of Legalism then I feel I am justified in thinking that's either what you're intentionally doing or simply do not understand English well.

Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question about whether English is your 2nd language? I was quite serious in asking you that. It is your suspicion that I have malicious motives that appears to cause you to refrain from taking the question seriously.

You have a slanderous mentality in thinking I only wish to attack you rather than express my own thoughts about what you may be doing. I wish to get past the false notion that we should "accept each other's interpretation" to look honestly at...
1) what John means by "Christians don't sin" and
2) whether John is speaking about our glorification or our current Christian attitude?

 

[Aaron112]

As I said, you have your interpretation, I have mine.

Both are wrong then. Give up what you were taught, is necessary, to learn what Jesus teaches.

 

[RandyPNW]

Both are wrong then. Give up what you were taught, is necessary, to learn what Jesus teaches.

No, it doesn't follow that when there are 2 different interpretations of something that both are wrong simply because they are "interpretations." Your own interpretation of this is no different--it may be right or it may be wrong.

 

[Aaron112]

It's wrong no matter what because it is not permitted.

 

[RandyPNW]

It's wrong no matter what because it is not permitted.

I don't know what you're talking about? You think it isn't permitted for me to ask if someone's logic is bypassing common sense? Or, you think it isn't permitted for me to ask if someone has English as a 2nd language?

 

[Aaron112]

it isn't permitted

Any private (human) interpretation of Yahweh's Word. He Says This Directly in Scripture.

 

[RandyPNW]

Any private (human) interpretation of Yahweh's Word. He Says This Directly in Scripture.

Yes, I guess that's the whole point, that common sense understanding of the "written Word" demands that we accept it. However, the written Word also indicates that we have not yet arrived....

Phil 3.12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

Rom 14.1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

We can only do the best we can. We can't mature overnight or avoid the process required to grow. "Iron sharpens iron," and so we have to put up with a little healthy combat, and apologize where we need to.

But I will never accept that all positions are equal--only try to be at peace with all, if possible.

 

[Guojing]

False. You are in fact attacking me. You are apparently unable or unwilling to see that.

Please quote my post where you consider the words as an attack.

 

[RandyPNW]

Please quote my post where you consider the words as an attack.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. You may view my questioning your use of "common sense" logic as an "attack." Or you may see my questioning your capacity to understand English properly as an "attack."

From my point of view, however, I'm being completely honest in my approach to your reasoning. It doesn't appear to me that you care whether the passage in question mentions "glorification" or not. To you, John is referring to "not sinning," and without any more proof you accept this as reason for declaring the passage to be about "glorification."

To me this is less than a "common sense" approach to your interpretation. I realize that it sounds insulting, but perhaps I should feel insulted that you wish to convince me to believe something in God's Word that stands purely on your whim, as opposed to common sense arguments. A common sense argument would require evidence from within the verse to indicate it is about "glorification," where it does not include any
such argument.

Instead of feeling insulted you should counter by providing something more than a "claim," and indicate where in the passage evidence exists for it talking about "glorification?" On the other hand, should I feel insulted that you wish to consider our arguments equal when I give reason within the passage for my belief when you do not?

But the real insult from you comes when you depart from the arguments entirely to focus on how hurt you are over my considering your argument not a "common sense" argument. I'm not at all saying you are stupid or lack common sense. I mean to say only that *in this one particular argument* you are not providing any "common sense" proof.

But when you insist that my rejection of your argument is an insult and "personal," then you do, in fact, offend me, because that's not what I'm doing. I'm not calling you stupid. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. I'm just suggesting that your argument is much weaker than mine because you provide zero evidence in the matter of internal proof within the passage.

If all you want to do is bicker, I'm not interested. This is what is offensive to me--insisting on the personal bickering, instead of on the issue we were discussing. If you have nothing more to add to your arguments, I have no problem with that. I just will not dignify it as "equal" to my own position, which has the support of all scholars I would know.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin - This passage must either mean that they who are born of God, that is, who are true Christians, do not sin habitually and characteristically, or that everyone who is a true Christian is absolutely perfect, and never commits any sin. If it can be used as referring to the doctrine of absolute perfection at all, it proves, not that Christians may be perfect, or that a "portion" of them are, but that all are. But who can maintain this? Who can believe that John meant to affirm this? Nothing can be clearer than that the passage has not this meaning, and that John did not teach a doctrine so contrary to the current strain of the Scriptures, and to fact; and if he did not teach this, then in this whole passage he refers to those who are habitually and characteristically righteous.