Perfection versus maturity

[GadFly]

Yes I agree too .. "within the boundaries of human imperfection". The thing I got wrong when instructed in the doctrine as a younger person. It's possible to be entirely sanctified but one will still fall into the sins of ignorance (didn't know it was wrong), and/or make mistakes. It's this misunderstanding that probably causes the controversy with non-Methodists

Oh and that was the point that I tried to make for my first post in the fundamentalists forum, who were having a chat about it. Wish I'd summed it up like Mr_Dave did up there

Good job all!

 

[GraceSeeker]

You call your post rambling but I find it a very good example of reflective thinking. That is a mark of Christian maturity. What you have done for us is to ask the correct questions about holiness and perfection. What you have done is to show us that accepting a search for truth as finding and discovering how the Scriptures operationally defines christian perfection and maturity, which is, in this case, a willingness to accept what the Scriptures are actually trying to say to us.

Very well said. Stefan did an excellent job of processing his thoughts, and we are all the better for it.

 

[Stefan P]

A very excellent point and an excellent chance to point out the need for operationally defined terms (ODT) to be clearly used is this type of debate or discussion. What do you think about ODT's?

Um .. I am not 100% sure I know what you mean! I looked up "operational terms" on Wiki and it didn't make a lot of sense to me (but I am a little hurried at the moment so perhaps with some more reflection a little later I might figure it out!).

Thanks for the kind words too from everyone - I haven't been here very long but feel welcomed, and starting to feel at home with you all

 

[GadFly]

Um .. I am not 100% sure I know what you mean! I looked up "operational terms" on Wiki and it didn't make a lot of sense to me (but I am a little hurried at the moment so perhaps with some more reflection a little later I might figure it out!).

Thanks for the kind words too from everyone - I haven't been here very long but feel welcomed, and starting to feel at home with you all

Operationally defined terms are used to identify exactly what one is talking about. For example, in motivational psychology, in a lab, you might be studying behavior of hunger using rats. Motivation would be defined as the time the rat would have been the time the rat went without food. During that time of deprivation the rats ability to preform task might be measure such as a search for food. In other studies of motivation, electric shock would be defined as the motivating factor.

In Christian theology, in many ways, it is important to use ODT's to define love, God, ontology and knowledge. It is important when we talk about God that we are all talking about the same God. When we talk about the source of wisdom, the source of wisdom is important.The premise for logic is important and needs to be defined. The way to do this is to use ODT's.

 

[Stefan P]

Ok .. still losing me brother heh! I think you are suggesting that before we can discuss perfection, maturity, God, love, etc those terms need to be clearly defined? In which case, has that already been done here, or is this the thread where we can do that.

Sorry, a little slow on the uptake!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Sometimes it helps to hear the same thing different ways, so if I may (and I'm sure Gadfly will correct me if I say something different than what he means by ODT).

The T (Terms) in ODT just means that we are talking about certain sets of words. An Opertational Defined Term is a term (a word or phrase) that has a particular meaning in a given context. For instance. imagine the word "read". All on its own, you don't even know if it is to be pronounced <red> or <reed>. You determine that from the context. Also it can be an adjective, a verb or a noun. As a verb it can be a transitive verb or an intransitive verb. There are at least 8 different meanings it has as a transitive verb from doing what you are doing right now (i.e. to receive or take in the sense of symbols (such as letters) by either sight or touch (think braille) when you read this post. Another meaning is as a synonym for "to indicate", as in the therometer "reads" freezing. We also speak of a computer "reading" a floppy disk. Each of these (and all the other) meanings that might be used of the single word "read" create a new and specific term that has a meaning specific to that context.

So, to speak of an operational defined term is to speak of a term (a word with a specific meaning) in which the meaning is derived from (i.e. defined by) the context in which it is used.

As Gadfly indicated the concept is important when talking about God for the statement "God is love" needs to be defined by that which is actually being discussed at the time, not some other connotations that the reader brings to the context.

Some people think of love as an emotion. But in the context in which it is used in the Bible to say God is love is not to speak of feelings but actions. So, if you will, term "love as used in scripture is defined not by our human experience but by the way God operates. Hence it is an operationally defined term.

And don't think that this is all that difficult. Without knowing it you've used operationally defined terms all your life. For instance, what do you think of when you encounter the word "bait"? If you are one type of fisherman you might be thinking of worms; a different type of fisherman might be thinking of baitfish that are caught and then cut up to use for fishing for other fish; and nonfishermen might have an completely different thing in mind when they think of the word "bait". Each different concept is, in its own unique setting, an operationally defined term with one and exactly one precise meaning meant by it in that context. (I.e., if a catfish fisherman asks for some bait, he does NOT want you to hand him a worm.)

Even "God" (not the divine being himself, but the 3-lettered word "God") is an operationally defined term. Just ask those who seek to argue whether or not Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same God or not. But that leads to another thread we don't need to discuss here.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Ok .. still losing me brother heh! I think you are suggesting that before we can discuss perfection, maturity, God, love, etc those terms need to be clearly defined?

Yep.

In which case, has that already been done here, or is this the thread where we can do that.

Both. Some of us have already been involved in doing that. But that doesn't mean that the task is completed.


A few cautions:

1) Given that we are working with a text that has been translated into English from another language, be aware that what we really need to be clear about is not just the definition of our English terms, but the Greek (or in some cases the Hebrew) term from which our English terms are translated. For instnace, in English, John 21 has Jesus ask Peter 3 times "Do you love me?" But the actual Greek text shows the use of two different Greek terms "agapao" and "phileo" to communicate the one English word "love".

2) Given that the text we are working with has multiple authors, don't assume that because a term means one thing in John that it therefore must mean the same in Paul. Indeed, because terms have their meaning dependent on context and context is relative to the audience and the situtation of the writing, care must be taken to be sure that what Paul means by a term in writing to the Galatians in AD 48 and what he means by writing to the Romans in AD 58 is the same; often the connnotation of those words has been polished somewhat by the experience of 10 years of ministry so that they may actually be understood as different terms. For instance, the way that Paul writes about "the Law" in the two books is very different.


One assumption of English Bible study is that the Bible can still speak to us even when we are unaware of these nuances. But another is that if a student is going to go into any depth in his/her study, that they will take the time to learn some of this background preferrably from their own ability to read the original langauges, and if not then at least consulting something other than a devotional commentary, but also an exegetical commentary, before passing hastily drawn conclusions on to others.

 

[GadFly]

Ok .. still losing me brother heh! I think you are suggesting that before we can discuss perfection, maturity, God, love, etc those terms need to be clearly defined? In which case, has that already been done here, or is this the thread where we can do that.

Sorry, a little slow on the uptake!

Sorry for losing you brother. As familiar as you seem to be with theology, I was surprised operational terms had to be explained. Sometimes I assume people know more than they do.
The way theologians on the CF have many ways of defining terms, it is helpful to define your terms. This is not a scientific breakthrough. You should use reasoning and sound logic on all threads so you are on the correct thread to use common sense and timely definitions. Than you for asking.

 

[GadFly]

Sometimes it helps to hear the same thing different ways, so if I may (and I'm sure Gadfly will correct me if I say something different than what he means by ODT).

The T (Terms) in ODT just means that we are talking about certain sets of words. An Opertational Defined Term is a term (a word or phrase) that has a particular meaning in a given context. For instance. imagine the word "read". All on its own, you don't even know if it is to be pronounced <red> or <reed>. You determine that from the context. Also it can be an adjective, a verb or a noun. As a verb it can be a transitive verb or an intransitive verb. There are at least 8 different meanings it has as a transitive verb from doing what you are doing right now (i.e. to receive or take in the sense of symbols (such as letters) by either sight or touch (think braille) when you read this post. Another meaning is as a synonym for "to indicate", as in the therometer "reads" freezing. We also speak of a computer "reading" a floppy disk. Each of these (and all the other) meanings that might be used of the single word "read" create a new and specific term that has a meaning specific to that context.

So, to speak of an operational defined term is to speak of a term (a word with a specific meaning) in which the meaning is derived from (i.e. defined by) the context in which it is used.

As Gadfly indicated the concept is important when talking about God for the statement "God is love" needs to be defined by that which is actually being discussed at the time, not some other connotations that the reader brings to the context.

Some people think of love as an emotion. But in the context in which it is used in the Bible to say God is love is not to speak of feelings but actions. So, if you will, term "love as used in scripture is defined not by our human experience but by the way God operates. Hence it is an operationally defined term.

And don't think that this is all that difficult. Without knowing it you've used operationally defined terms all your life. For instance, what do you think of when you encounter the word "bait"? If you are one type of fisherman you might be thinking of worms; a different type of fisherman might be thinking of baitfish that are caught and then cut up to use for fishing for other fish; and nonfishermen might have an completely different thing in mind when they think of the word "bait". Each different concept is, in its own unique setting, an operationally defined term with one and exactly one precise meaning meant by it in that context. (I.e., if a catfish fisherman asks for some bait, he does NOT want you to hand him a worm.)

Even "God" (not the divine being himself, but the 3-lettered word "God") is an operationally defined term. Just ask those who seek to argue whether or not Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same God or not. But that leads to another thread we don't need to discuss here.

Good job, GraceSeeker.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I was surprised operational terms had to be explained.

Though a simple concept, it's actually technical language that I didn't run into until an English Bible class in seminary. I suspect that biologists, economists, educators all have some way of expressing the same thing, but each is going to have their own unique language for doing so. Indeed, "ODT" is NOT the operationally defined term we use to describe the concept either, but from my experience I was pretty sure I knew what you meant by it.

 

[Stefan P]

Ok so let me take a stab at this. Would I be correct in saying that in order to discuss perfection, the word needs to be defined first as (for example) "the perfection of love"? If we defined perfection as "never doing anything wrong", that would mean we were discussing two completely different things ... and it's possible for perfection in love, but not in works?

 

[Mr Dave]

Sounds good

 

[GraceSeeker]

Ok so let me take a stab at this. Would I be correct in saying that in order to discuss perfection, the word needs to be defined first as (for example) "the perfection of love"? If we defined perfection as "never doing anything wrong", that would mean we were discussing two completely different things ... and it's possible for perfection in love, but not in works?

I don't know. Is it "perfection in love" that you want to talk about? If so, then YES.

But if you are wanting to talk about it as found in the verse "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48), then you need to study the term "perfect" in that context. It may or may not have something to do with "perfection in love." And you won't really be able to answer that question in advance.

Honestly, it is that temptation that we all have to answer the question almost before we've asked it, because we just assume we know the answer to the question, that I think leads to the biggest problems we have with interpretation.

Indeed, over the years I've noticed that those who research questions and come up with differing answers seem to get along with one another better than just who simply jump to conclusions. And I think that fact (especially if others also experience it as true) tells us mountains about what is really important in biblical research -- the process of doing the research even more than the answers. I find counterintuitive and very strange (and I don't mean to imply that coming up with good, solid, biblically sound answers isn't important), but frequently true.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Is this pretty much the same thing as theosis?

 

[Maid Marie]

Is this pretty much the same thing as theosis?

I believe so, yes.

 

[Lee52]

Ok, after coming into this discussion a bit late and reading over the previous posts, I feel it necessary to inject some simplicity.
GOD is the originator of the KISS method of doing things with HIS creation, we humans. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Let's redesign the word perfect by emphasis on the syllables.
PERfect and perFECT. The first is an adjective. The second is a verb.

We are perFECTed in Christ Jesus' blood washing. We are not PERfect, and Jesus was/is/will be PERfect and He in us makes GOD see us as through Jesus, therefore PERfect in GOD's view.

Sanctification is to be made PERfect through perFECTion by the Holy Spirit, or the catalyst of GOD in us as we surrender to His workings. Even Paul called himself a wretched man on the earth and goes on to explain his perFECTion in Christ Jesus, Who, makes all things PERfect. His making is an on-going process in our human lives constrained by the concept of time on earth. Think about that last sentence for a moment or two. On this earth time exists. In Heaven, in eternity, there is no such thing as time. GOD exists in timelessness. GOD is. GOD is in all time, at all times. GOD sees the past, present, future as it is, in existence, all at the same time.

On the day that a Christian dies on earth in human form, we are made PERfect forever. That Jesus is in us in the form of the Holy Spirit while here, perFECTs us now and forever in GOD's sight. We are made PERfect now and forever. Our flesh and blood is left behind here on earth and returns to the basic elements of the earth from which GOD formed us in our spiritual death on this earth even while we are physically alive. We are not made alive spiritually until Christ Jesus' sacrifice in our place on the cross is fulfilled by our acceptance of that PERfect, perFECTing sacrifice.

So, while we are on this time-dependent earth, the Holy Spirit is perFECTing us and GOD, who is timeless, and sees us in our perFECT (verb-ongoing) state as HE is PERFECT, causes us to be PERfect and perFECTed in Christ Jesus for all time.

Not that we have arrived, and are not PERfect, here on earth, and that we are arrived PERfect in eternity through our salvation in Christ Jesus' blood for all eternity, there.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[Stefan P]

Is this pretty much the same thing as theosis?

Great ... something else to look up on Wikipedia

 

[jacks]

Great ... something else to look up on Wikipedia

LOL I know just how you feel....

 

[GraceSeeker]

Is this pretty much the same thing as theosis?

Pretty much the same??? Yes, as long as we don't think that we actually end up ontologically sharing in the divine nature, even as the reality of the divine essence becomes made alive by the presence of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) within us.


I like what Lee said, "Sanctification is to be made PERfect through perFECTion by the Holy Spirit, or the catalyst of GOD in us as we surrender to His workings." I believe part of that perFECTing process is what Paul is speaking of here: "And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man" (1 Corinthians 15:49). This is how we are ultimately completed, finished, made into the person that God wants us to become. And, as a Wesleyan, I argue that we don't have to wait for heaven to experience that work of God's grace in our lives, that his Spirit alive and within us can bring about that work in our spiritual being even now if we will let him. Jesus even offered this possiblity to the rich young ruler -- "if you want to be perfect" (Matthew 19:21) -- but he heart was devoted to something other than being God's man. And really, that's the problem all of us face. If we could make God truly #1, and #1 all the time, we would already be PERfectly perFECTED.

 

[GadFly]

Pretty much the same??? Yes, as long as we don't think that we actually end up ontologically sharing in the divine nature, even as the reality of the divine essence becomes made alive by the presence of God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) within us.

Just a friendly question GraceSeeker, did you intend to use the word don't in the above statement? If you are filled withe the Holy Spirit, are you not sharing in the divine nature of God?