Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf anything, you are reading things into it that aren't there. I don't know how you can support your claim that "iniquity" is limited to "people who deliberately do grossly sinful acts." If you can support it from the text, I'd like to see it.
[b]"I personally find it improbable that the words are Jesus' exact words anyway. I believe the text was written long after Jesus' death by someone who had never met Jesus in person."
I hope you understand that this is completely irrelevant. Please reread the issues.
"In fact I find it rather unlikely that Jesus (or the writer) did classify e ...[text shortened]... uded unless there is evidence that only a subset is to be included.
--------------ToO----------------------------------------------
How do support your counter claim that "iniquity" means all sin? How do you know that Jesus wasn't refering to committing (wilful) sin and iniquity (wickedness and deliberate defiance of God)? It's you that has made the original claim on these verses and you claim to know what they mean with some certainty. How do you support your claims? I'd like to see that.
You seem to take it as a given that your interpretation is actually true and that it's only counter claims that require backing up. The problem is that the "text" is the entire context of the NT and it does not support your interpretation.
Originally posted by jaywillI'm pretty sure we've already covered the most important ones in one way or another:
ToO,
I take it that you really don't have examples of contradictions between Jesus and Paul His apostle.
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Jesus taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "heaven"/"eternal life"/"salvation". Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne===============================
I'm pretty sure we've already covered the most important ones in one way or another:
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Jesus taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "heaven"/"eternal life"/"salvation". Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
====================================
Paul firstly experiened this freedom. Then he taught it in his epistles. He lived this freedom and he wrote of it to the churches under his ministry.
==============================
Jesus taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "heaven"/"eternal life"/"salvation". Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
===============================
The way you phrase this is a little confusing. But in the past I gave three specific passages from Paul's epistles warning Christians about things which would exclude them from inheriting the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 5:5,6
These passages are about the loss of reward not the loss of eternal redemption. The reward is spoken of as the kingdom of God.
The audience is Christians in churches. Churches only consist of Christians in the normal biblical standard. The looseness of today's practice where a "church" can consist of a mixture of unbelievers and believers or even be entirely made up of unbelievers, is not the normal standard in the Bible.
Anyone saying that Paul did not warn Christians that spiritual defeat could indanger a saved disciple of losing the inheritance of the kingdom of God, at least temporarily, simply doesn't know the New Testament too well.
===========================
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
=============================
For the sake of some others who have not seen this exchange before, it might be worth me rehashing. If you intend to be stubburn about it and ignore my proofs, to rehash for your sake alone, is probably pointless.
No offense is intended. All due respect is intended. But if you are just going to be stubburn and say that Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Eph. 5:5,6 are not relevant, you're simply wrong.
The warnings of Christ to His disciples and the warnings of Paul to the believers in the churches echo one another precisely.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne============================
I'm pretty sure we've already covered the most important ones in one way or another:
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Jesus taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "heaven"/"eternal life"/"salvation". Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
=========================================
It would be a good excercise for you to get a concordance and look up free and freedom in ALL of the Pauline epistles.
That is each passage dealing with freedom.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt is not that important, but if we are going to analyze every word, we must not loose sight of its origin. As far as I know (and my knowledge on the subject is limited), Jesus spoke Aramaic. The verses in question were written in Greek. So already we have one translation at a minimum.
I hope you understand that this is completely irrelevant. Please reread the issues.
I don't understand this comment at all. Once again, what is germane is what Jesus says about the relationship between committing sin and entrance to "the Kingdom of Heaven". How is such a classification relevant? Jesus never made a claim of such a classification and I certainly never did.
You seem to equate 'doing the will of the father' with 'not sinning'. I disagree. You also seem to equate 'not doing the will of the father' with sinning. Again, I disagree. And lastly I do not think one should equate 'work iniquity' with sinning. There are relationships surely, but they are not equivalences.
On one hand you claim that I am "reading meaning into it that the writer did not intend." On the other you say, "I have no real way of knowing what the writer intended." Aren't these contradictory?
Not at all. I am saying two things:
1. I do not think that you have understood the writer.
2. I cannot be sure what the writer was saying (and hence cannot be certain of 1. either).
There is no contradiction.
If anything, you are reading things into it that aren't there. I don't know how you can support your claim that "iniquity" is limited to "people who deliberately do grossly sinful acts." If you can support it from the text, I'd like to see it. If someone says, "Acts of terrorism will be punished", would it be reasonable to assume that it is limited to "egregious acts of terrorism"? I think you have to assume that all acts of terrorism are included unless there is evidence that only a subset is to be included.
But what is an 'act of terrorism'? You have not as far as I can recall yet explained what you mean by sin. According to the Bush administration, a terrorist is anyone who supports a terrorist (which the US itself does), which when you add it all up results in the whole world being terrorists. Similarly the Bush administration quite readily labeled the political assassination of a head of state an 'act of terrorism'. Again, loose definitions quite quickly lead us to the conclusion that all violence is terrorism. Don't shout at your wife as you might be terrorizing her and end up in Guantanamo.
Here again is one of ToO's criticism of the Apostle Paul.
========================================
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
=======================================
Let's see if we can find evidence of the falseity of this charge.
"For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." (Rom. 6:14)
Sin not lording it over the believers means that they are free from committing sin. Less we misunderstand the immediately preseeding sentences should that this freedom is dependent upon disciplined cooperation with Christ's salvation;
"So also you, reckon yourselves to be dead to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus. Do not let sin therefore reign in your mortal body so that you obey the body's lust: Neither present your members as weapons of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your members as weapons of righteousnes to God.
FOR SIN WILL NOT LORD IT OVER YOU ..." (See Rom. 6:11-13 my emphasis)
This freedom from sin taught by Paul is dependent on presenting and on reckoning. It is [/b]in Christ[/b]. It does not take place outside of the enfluence of being in the whole active sphere and realm of Christ's operating.
The teaching is not that automatically everyone born again is free from sin. It is a teaching that the presenting of oneself to Christ in a moment by moment way, being in Christ causes one to be dead to sin and alive to God. Sin shall not have a lording, slaving effect on such a Christian.
This is learned through practice, patience, and over entire Christian's lifetime. He or she can come into freedom from sin.
Here again Paul teaches the possibility of freedom from sin:
"There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." (Rom.8:1,2)
Paul, as an experienced and victorious Christian disciple, is encourageing his audience based on his personal experience. The law of sin and of death has been escaped by him via a more powerful freeing law - "the law of the Spirit of life ... in Christ Jesus".
When he or we abide moment by moment in the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life frees us from the law of sin and of death (meaning separation from God). It also frees us from the self condemnation elaborated on in the previous chapter. Paul no longer feels "Wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" That is SELF condemnation.
The law of the Spirit of life has freed him from self condemnation and from the law of sin and death. This proves that the Apostle Paul DID teach the disciples about the possibility of freedom from sin living.
Here again Paul writes about freedom from sin:
"Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, THAT WE SHOULD NO LONGER SERVE SIN AS SLAVES; for he who has died is justified from sin." (Rom. 6:6,7)
No longer to serve sin as a slave is no doubt to be free from sin. This proves ToO's charge that Paul did not teach this freedom as utterly false.
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17)
To be saturated with the Spirit of the Lord is to come into freedom from sin. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. So the believer needs the Spirit of the Lord to fill every part of their personality. The Spirit of the Lord filling the character of the disciple makes freedom from sin a possibility.
This is the result not of sudden birth but of gradual transformation. For taken with the very next passage the context states thus:
"And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, ARE BEING TRANSFORMED into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
The transforming Spirit brings the one, who beholds in his heart, the glory of the Lord, is reflecting the Lord. He is also being TRANSFORMED from one degree, to another degree, to another degree, degree by degree into the same image of the Lord.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. Paul speaks of coming into freedom from sin by beholding and reflecting the Lord Spirit Who indwells the heart of the Christian.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you see much point in rehashing this?
I'm pretty sure we've already covered the most important ones in one way or another:
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Jesus taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "heaven"/"eternal life"/"salvation". Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
-------ToO----------------------------
Jaywill , this loosely translates as "I have already decided what Jesus taught and what St Paul taught and it's not up for discussion".
ToO cannot move outside the comfort zones he has pre-drawn for himself. He cannot look at his own pre-conceptions. Even Whitey cannot get him to re-visit the concept of sin and get him to define it. He's a one trick pony stuck in a repeating groove.
I've come to the conclusion that unless he is prepared to meet any of us halfway and be prepared to answer straight questions then maybe we should just ignore him rather than give him the pleasure of wasting our time?
ToO's charge against the Apostle Paul again is:
==================================
Jesus taught that by following His teachings one can be made free from committing sin. Seems to me that Paul taught otherwise.
=======================================
Some points:
1.) What Paul experienced himself personally is what he taught to the Christian church.
2.) Did Paul speak of freedom from sin in his own personal experience ?
I submit this passage as one, to demonstrate that he did, and how he did:
" I am conscious of nothing against myself; but I am not justified in this, but He who examines me is the Lord." (1 Cor. 4:4)
Paul tells the critical Corinthians that his Christian conscience is not aware or conscious of any personal sins. He excercises himself to have a conscience void of offense before God and man (Acts 24:16)
Nothing in his conscience concerning sinning is a bother to him. Is this freedom from sin? I say that it is. Let me say though what it is not.
It is not Paul saying that he no longer has a sinning nature. It is not that he no longer has any possibility that he could sin. It is not Paul saying that the sin nature in his fallen Adamic being no longer exists.
It is also not Paul justifying himself before God. He follows on to say - "but I am not justified in this, but He who examines me is the Lord."
I take this to mean that God knows Paul much better than Paul does. The sins which God has enlightened to Paul, Paul has overcome. God, at this point in his experience, is not convicting him of other sins which he may still be doing. They are not manifested to his conscience by the Holy Spirit.
I count this a freedom from sin in so far that his conscience has no conviction of offense between him and God. This is not freedom based purely on ignorance. It is freedom based on having OVERCOME the sins that were made aware to him. He has a clean slate. He as a free conscience because of his victory over all known offenses.
But he leaves room - God is the one who examines him. God has given him freedom of conscience at this point. He does not stand to be examined by ToO or me or the Corinthians. It is God who informs him that up to this point, he is without any sense of wrong doing in his conduct.
Lets see the context again. The Corinthians were tough critics trying to find some faults and weaknesses in Paul's character - some sining in his methods of work:
"Here, furthermore, it is sought in stewards that one be found faithful.
But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you or by man's day; rather I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of NOTHING against myself; but I am not justified in this, but He who examines me is the Lord." (1 Cor. 4:3,4)
Paul is free from sining. Paul teaches his congregations that they too can and must come into the same experience of freedom from sining.
"Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern." (Phil. 3:17)
That means he is an example, a pattern for them to follow. Not only he, but also others who serve as examples to be followed in the churches.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree. I did labor some before I read this post, for the sake of those who would are interested in dealing with the verses.
Do you see much point in rehashing this?
-------ToO----------------------------
Jaywill , this loosely translates as "I have already decided what Jesus taught and what St Paul taught and it's not up for discussion".
ToO cannot move outside the comfort zones he has pre-drawn for himself. He cannot look at his own pre-conceptions. Even Whitey can ...[text shortened]... then maybe we should just ignore him rather than give him the pleasure of wasting our time?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wonder if the way to corner him on this is to find out what the original translation of iniquity actually is. My research into this suggests to me that Judaism did contain different catagorisations of sin and wicked defiance of God (iniquity) was one of them.
It is not that important, but if we are going to analyze every word, we must not loose sight of its origin. As far as I know (and my knowledge on the subject is limited), Jesus spoke Aramaic. The verses in question were written in Greek. So already we have one translation at a minimum.
[b]I don't understand this comment at all. Once again, what is germ ...[text shortened]... r wife as you might be terrorizing her and end up in Guantanamo.
Maybe if we can show that the word Jesus used in the iniquity passage relates to the Jewish term for that catagory of sin , it would prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was not refering to all sin in these verses.
What interests me is that ToOne has obviously not raised this and so we can assume that he doesn't know himself. This is interesting because if he doesn't know then how can he be so certain he has interpreted Jesus correctly?
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]"But what is an 'act of terrorism'? You have not as far as I can recall yet explained what you mean by sin. According to the Bush administration, a terrorist is anyone who supports a terrorist (which the US itself does), which when you add it all up results in the whole world being terrorists. Similarly the Bush administration quite readily labeled the political assassination of a head of state an 'act of terrorism'. Again, loose definitions quite quickly lead us to the conclusion that all violence is terrorism. Don't shout at your wife as you might be terrorizing her and end up in Guantanamo."
It is not that important, but if we are going to analyze every word, we must not loose sight of its origin. As far as I know (and my knowledge on the subject is limited), Jesus spoke Aramaic. The verses in question were written in Greek. So already we have one translation at a minimum.
[b]I don't understand this comment at all. Once again, what is germ r wife as you might be terrorizing her and end up in Guantanamo.
It seems as if "terrorism" carries a lot of connotations for you. I suspect that "sin" does also and so you read things into the words that aren't there. How about if we try something neutral like "marbles"?
If someone left a note that said, "Remove the blue marbles from this jar".
Which action do you think takes the request at face value?:
1) Removing all the blue marbles
2) Removing only the large blue marbles.
To decide that it's #2, you have to read something into the text that isn't there. Can you not see how you've done similarly when you said, "'those who work iniquity' sounds much more like he is referring to people who deliberately do grossly sinful acts."?
When Jesus says, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity", there's no reason to believe that He meant only "deliberately...grossly sinful acts" unless you are bringing in preconceived notions just as there's no reason to believe the note writer meant only the "large blue marbles". If there is, I wish you'd plainly state it.
You also seem to keep losing sight of the fact that there are two other passages that I cited in support of my position. My position is based upon the cumulative meaning of these three passages as well of others. Perhaps if you looked upon the passages taken together, you'd be able to see the coherence and understand the meaning.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhen Jesus says, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity", there's no reason to believe that He was speaking only of "deliberately...grossly sinful acts" unless you are bringing in preconceived notions.
"But what is an 'act of terrorism'? You have not as far as I can recall yet explained what you mean by sin. According to the Bush administration, a terrorist is anyone who supports a terrorist (which the US itself does), which when you add it all up results in the whole world being terrorists. Similarly the Bush administration quite readily labeled ...[text shortened]... rossly sinful acts" unless you are bringing in preconceived notions.
------------ToOne-------------------------------------
My research into this suggests that in Hebrew and the Jewish tradition there are many different words for sin and different catagories of sin (-eg chet, pesha, avone, ashma, aveira). It's logical to assume that it's very likely Jesus used one of these words in the verses you have quoted.
If he did use one of these words then your position is going to be in trouble because it will imply that he used a specific catagory. What's also interesting is that as far as I can see there is no all encompassing word for sin in hebrew. If that's true then it would be impossible for Jesus to have been saying what you think he was saying because he would have had to have created a new hebrew word (although I believe he spoke Aramaic - anyway we'll see)
What will you say if that's what we find out?
Will you backtrack and admit you were off target in your assessment?
This post is a practical one for those, like me, wanting to be free from sinning.
A few helpful things I have learned:
1.) Struggling against your sinning in your own power is exactly the WRONG thing to do.
It is far better to go to Jesus and pray "Lord Jesus, I am hopeless. I am helpless to overcome these sins. The more I try the more I sin. If you, Lord, do not set me free I will not be free. Save me from self effort. Save me from trusting in my ability to stop my sinning.
Lord Jesus , You have to come in. You have to release me. You have to deal with my sinning. " --- Something like that, in your own words of course.
So the first thing is to realize that the power is not with you. It is with Christ as your Savior and your Lord. You better receive Him and let Him into your heart.
2.) Spend your morning's first order of business to enjoy God and the word of God, prayerfully. Make the first transaction of the day be with God.
Many people come at the end of the day with tongue hanging out to give whatever is left over to God. The world has spent you up and used you up. Then with your tongue hanging out you try to spend your last moments of the day with Jesus.
It is far far better to make your time with Jesus the FIRST thing of the day. You should build up a habit TO START EACH DAY with God - reading the Bible, calling on His name, praying over what you read in the Bible, making confession. A song, a prayer, general enjoyment of the Holy Spirit.
To BEGIN each day with God is better. It is like getting control of the center of the chess board.
Every chess player knows that in the early game it is important to get your share of control of the center of the board. Am I right, all you chess buffs?
Well, having your FIRST business of the day with Jesus Christ, is like that. In the long run it will make for a much much stronger Christian daily life.
IF you can only start with five minutes each morning, then start with five minutes. Eventually you can work your way up to 20 minutes or more. You may not need more. Perhaps 15 minutes each morning is a good goal to work up to.
What will happen? Without you struggling, the taste of Jesus and God will grow more and more precious. And the taste of sinning will grow less and less.
Believe me, without struggling, spontaneously, some old sins will just start to drop off. Something within will just start to say "I don't enjoy that anymore."
Something will just rise up during the day "I don't want to react that way anymore. I don't enjoy that anymore. I enjoy the taste of God more."
The secret to overcoming sins is to ENJOY something else instead. More specifically, it is to ENJOY Jesus Christ instead. And this is a habit you should build up in the first part of the day, if at all possible.
Listen, no debate today on this. BEGIN YOUR DAY WITH JESUS CHRIST.
That I recommend as one of the single MOST effective ways to be freed from sins. Start each day with enjoying the Lord Jesus in His word. Then get up and go about your affairs.
This is a start and is very effective.
(I am still learning after many years of enjoying Jesus).