Originally posted by knightmeister🙄
So tell me what God's grace actually is then.
I was just hoping that you would acknowledge that my refusal of your terminology is actually based on considered reasons that I already presented. If you want to just keep insisting that, instead, my refusal owes to some misfiring of my affective states and attitudes, then whatever.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, you don't understand my position. Try rereading my posts for what the words actually say instead of imposing your preconceived ideas upon them.
I'm sorry if it seems this way to you , but all I am trying to do is figure this one out. I'm confused because the thief has no good deeds , is a sinner by his own admission , and has no track record of following God's will in his life and yet you say he is righteous. I don't see how this is consistent with everything you say about Jesus' teachings. A u correctly? I may have not understood you as much as I think. Where have I got you wrong?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne----------------------------ToOne---------------------------------------------
No, you don't understand my position. Try rereading my posts for what the words actually say instead of imposing your preconceived ideas upon them.
"There is not expectation in the teachings of Jesus that anyone has never sinned. Jesus teaches that an individual can be transformed from being unrighteous to being righteous. Once righteous, the individual follows the will of God, i.e., does not sin. Righteousness is not merely about acting righteous, but actually BEING righteous, i.e., having righteousness as their very being. Jesus teaches that to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" one must become righteous."
-------------------------------ToONE------------------------------------
KM REPLY-
I'm re-reading now....
Ok , so this is where you seem to lay it out. You seem to imply that the thief has "righteousness as his very being" because he a) humbly admits he deserves punishment, b) rebukes the other criminal and c) he recognises that Jesus is being unjustly punished. He is transformed on his cross ? Is this what you are saying?
Do I need to re-read further? Meet me halfway because I'm trying to get this. It's no use talking about "pre-concieved ideas" because we all have them and it's a basic truism that we all see other positions from our own standpoint.
Originally posted by knightmeisterGet serious. I'm supposed to meet you "halfway" when you didn't bother to read them for comprehension in the first place? And you can't even be bothered to reread the whole thing now?
----------------------------ToOne---------------------------------------------
"There is not expectation in the teachings of Jesus that anyone has never sinned. Jesus teaches that an individual can be transformed from being unrighteous to being righteous. Once righteous, the individual follows the will of God, i.e., does not sin. Righteousness is not ...[text shortened]... and it's a basic truism that we all see other positions from our own standpoint.
Reread them in their entirety for comprehension for a change.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have. He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly accepts his fate while speaking against the injustice suffered by Jesus. "
Get serious. I'm supposed to meet you "halfway" when you didn't bother to read them for comprehension in the first place? And you can't even be bothered to reread the whole thing now?
Reread them in their entirety for comprehension for a change.
------------------ToOnE--------------------------------
So this must be the bit then? Here you clearly cite a) the thief's rebuking of mockery b) his lack of defending his past actions c) his humble acceptance of his fate d) his speaking out against the injustice of Jesus's death. You cite these as evidence of righteousness.
Ok , so I get it. My problem with it is this.
This means that if a serial child killer was being executed alongside a paedophile and the paedophile was mocking the crowd and he a) rebuked him b) didn't defend his past actions c) humbly accepted his fate d) declared that Jesus was unjustly crucified ------ would that make him righteous?
What about all those serial killers who do accept their fate and say they deserve to be punished? Are they saved and righteous?
If Ted bundy had been on that cross would you say that he was righteous because of these things? Would Jesus be "obliged" to save Ted because of his near death "transformation"? Or would Jesus have discretion?
Bear in mind that despite his humility and penitnence the thief defintely feels the need to reach out to Jesus and ask him for something. He asks Jesus to remember him. It reads as if Jesus needs to give him something. The thief does not say to Jesus "see you there in heaven , know I'm going there because of my humility" -- the thief is obviously desperate and reaching out for a life line. He knows he hasn't followed the will of God or lead a righteous life , but at this moment (via the Holy Spirit) God has revealed to him who Jesus is and he throws himself upon his grace.
That's the truth you can't handle and must run from at all costs becuase it's a massive fly in your ointment.
Originally posted by knightmeisterC'mon KM, read the actual words:
"Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have. He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly accepts his fate while speaking agai save Ted because of his near death "transformation"? Or would Jesus have discretion?
"Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have. He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly accepts his fate while speaking against the injustice suffered by Jesus."
If you read each sentence in turn while pausing to reflect on what is actually being said there and how it fits with what I've said in other posts prior to moving on to the next one, perhaps you'll be able to understand how your response shows a lack of comprehension.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBear in mind that despite his humility and penitnence the thief defintely feels the need to reach out to Jesus and ask him for something. He asks Jesus to remember him. It reads as if Jesus needs to give him something. The thief does not say to Jesus "see you there in heaven , know I'm going there because of my humility" -- the thief is obviously desperate and reaching out for a life line. He knows he hasn't followed the will of God or lead a righteous life , but at this moment (via the Holy Spirit) God has revealed to him who Jesus is and he throws himself upon his grace.
C'mon KM, read the actual words:
"Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have. He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly acc ...[text shortened]... ne, perhaps you'll be able to understand how your response shows a lack of comprehension.
That's the truth you can't handle and must run from at all costs becuase it's a massive fly in your ointment.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo much for your "trying to get this".
Bear in mind that despite his humility and penitnence the thief defintely feels the need to reach out to Jesus and ask him for something. He asks Jesus to remember him. It reads as if Jesus needs to give him something. The thief does not say to Jesus "see you there in heaven , know I'm going there because of my humility" -- the thief is obviously despe ...[text shortened]... can't handle and must run from at all costs becuase it's a massive fly in your ointment.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI get that the thief is showing humility and penitence which contrasts with the other criminals mockery and arrogance.
So much for your "trying to get this".
I got that.
I also got that it was his inner being you were refering to. There was something within this thief that was not in the other thief.
I also got that.
But I also understand that there have been many serial killers and molesters who have shown humility and have accepted their punishment , but I'm not convinced that makes them righteous enough to merit salvation.
Mind you I don't think I am righteous enough to "merit" eternity , nor you nor anyone else. Any righteousness we have comes from God putting it there (with our co-operation).
You may mock my efforts to understand you but at least I am trying . You are not trying to understand me nor respect my questions.
If you continue to mock me in this way which thief will you sound like? The humble one or the mocking one?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI really think you're capable of being able to read and comprehend what I wrote. Your posts don't read like someone who is sincerely trying to do so. The bulk of your posts are attempts at refutation. What's the point of that if you don't comprehend what was written?
I get that the thief is showing humility and penitence which contrasts with the other criminals mockery and arrogance.
I got that.
I also got that it was his inner being you were refering to. There was something within this thief that was not in the other thief.
I also got that.
But I also understand that there have been many serial kill e to mock me in this way which thief will you sound like? The humble one or the mocking one?
That said, I'll still try to lay it out for you. Just really try to comprehend what I've written here.
ToO: "You even presume to know why Jesus tells the thief, 'today you shall be with Me in Paradise', when Jesus gives no explanation. Yet you point to it as some sort of "proof" of what you believe."
The key phrase here is, "Jesus gives no explanation". He doesn't. Your insistence that it explicitly supports your position is ridiculous. What you've put out there is speculative. We just can't say with certainty why Jesus says what He does. Jesus offers no explanation.
KM: "Surely you don't think that the thief was granted salvation on the back of his righteousness?."
ToO: "Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have."
This is NOT a declaration of the righteousness of the thief. It points out that there's absolutely no indication that he definitely isn't and that what little is there is consistent with someone who is. A key phrase is "he very well MAY have."
ToO: "He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly accepts his fate while speaking against the injustice suffered by Jesus."
These are the indicators that would be consistent with someone who has become righteous, nothing more. There is absolutely no assertion that these are definitive indicators.
The fact is that there isn't enough information to say definitively whether or not the thief has become righteous. The fact is that Jesus does not say why He tells the thief what He does. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Either address the entire post or don't bother to address it at all.
The righteousness of the believing thief who will be with Christ on that day in Paradise is Christ Himself. His justification is Christ Himself. The believing thief's righteousness is there beside him on a cross of His own. It is Jesus.
Someone may protest that this is speculation but it is good speculation and most assuredly accurate. While the disbelieving thief "blasphemed" in his unbelief in Christ's Person and mission (Luke 23:39) the believing thief joined himself to Christ in faith.
He didn't have to do or understand a lot. He only had to believe that this Man was the King established by God Who, in spite of the fact He was about to die, would be vindicated and come into His kingdom.
"And he said, Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."
ToO's pleading to special ignorance is selective. It could be that where there is a desire to obscure and doubt the teaching of the New Testament, some people either doubt that the passage is inspired (not a part of the New Testament canon) or we are not told enough.
But I think we are told enough. The belief of the thief that Jesus would be vindicated and would indeed come into His God appointed kingdom seems very much to indicate that he believed that Jesus would be raised from the dead. In short he must have accepted Christ's divine appointment and office, probably that He really was Son of God.
At any rate the sins of this thief, were cleansed away by Christ's blood. And this not only according to Christ's personal belief and teaching but in fact as what Jesus taught was the truth:
"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)
The "you" there certainly means the disciples. The dying thief besides Jesus became a last minute disciple. Or at least his discipleship was revealed at the last minute. We do not know when he began to believe for sure. But it may have been as he observed the manner in which his co-executionee was behaving Himself.
Matthew says that the robbers (plural) who were crucified with Him derided Him as well as those passing by (Matt. 27:44). And Mark also says "Those (plural) who were crucified with him also reviled him" (Mark 15:32) [/b]
So then it is probably the case that in the six hours in which they hung there together on thier crosses one of the thieves had a change of heart, stopped his disbelieving and deriding, and turned to believe in Christ as the dying King and Son of God.
Jesus pronounced him saved. (To be with Jesus after this horrible ordeal certainly was to be saved (Luke 21:16-17)). That matters. What Jesus pronounces is what matters. Jesus said the new covenant was in His shed blood for the forgiveness of sins of many. The thief was one of the many who benefitted from the blood of Christ's new covenant:
"For this is the blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)
"This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)
It is not necessary that the believing thief was at this table meeting or understood the significance of the new covenant. That does not change the fact that Jesus Christ's blood was shed for the forgiveness of His disciples and for their justification before God.
Being joined to Christ in his belief, Christ became His justification and righteousness before God. And Paul tells us the same concerning all who are in the realm of the Person of Christ:
"But of Him you are in Christ Jesus who became to us ... righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
That as it is written, He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord." (1 Cor. 1:30,31)
Christ Himself is made the righteousness of the one placed in Christ Jesus by God.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe point you made - "we just don't know" - brings up some interesting issues.
I really think you're capable of being able to read and comprehend what I wrote. Your posts don't read like someone who is sincerely trying to do so. The bulk of your posts are attempts at refutation. What's the point of that if you don't comprehend what was written?
That said, I'll still try to lay it out for you. Just really try to comprehend what I' ...[text shortened]... r address the entire post or don't bother to address it at all.
Essentially you might be right. I can sort of see this from what you have said. We don't know for certain what is being implied. Thinking back to my statement that Jesus "explicitly" states this I can see how you felt I was dishonest. By "explicit" I meant that it was obvious to me , but this is the thing - what is obvious to me may not be obvious to you. I wish it was so that you would not think I was always being dishonest.
One of the problems with Jesus is that sometimes he seems very definite and sometimes very woolly and mysterious. He sometimes talks straight and sometimes speaks in metaphors and anecdotes.It's possible that we should all think about this in reading the NT.
Maybe I have been harsh on you in the past (and now for that matter). I'm beginning to see something of how you have focussed on those areas where Jesus is explicit and you have found his other statements less convincing (?) . It's possible that I have over focussed on those passages that are open to interpretation. However, I have an issue with these things in the NT. It's obvious that the thief story is in there for a reason and God is trying to tell us something about the connection between last minute penitence / humility and redemption.
Like you I also believe that BEING and ACTING righteous are very important. Jesus did teach transformation as you say , I think where we differ is in the implied speed and completeness of that transformation in this life. I can't see how the thief could be completely free of sin within a few hours just because he doesn't mock Jesus.