1st John and it's apparent contradictions
hi,
I was not going to post this as this is not directly a tech post about Logos, but it "could" be depending on the answer.
I'm not looking for a flame war...just some answers, some of which may involve Greek Grammar and so I thought that I would go ahead and trust everyone's judgment.
I was looking at 1st John and it's apparent contradictory statements:
1st 1John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
and
1John 3:6
Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.
From what I gather of the views of this situation, there is the
"present participle" αμαρτανων as "continuously" or "habitually" view.
I was leaning toward this but Daniel Wallace seems to poo poo that
notion as "inconsistent" in his intermediate grammar.
Some other commentaries seem to say that John is speaking "hyperbolically" and this is not to be taken as absolutes.
My Q: how do YOU resolve it?
bob
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
Comments
-
hamartia vs. hamartion
Habitual sinning vs. individual, uncharacteristic acts of sin
As Christians, we can't be habitual sinners, because we have received a new nature, and the Holy Spirit enables us to not sin habitually. However, because we still have a fleshly part to our nature while on this earth, there are times when we commit individual, uncharacteristics acts of sin. God promises to forgive us those.
0 -
Joe,
can you elaborate when you say "hamartia vs harartion"?
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
As I alluded to in the original post; here is what Dan Wallace had to say about it:
b. Debatable Examples1 John 3:6, 9πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. (9) Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται.Everyone who remains in him does not sin. Everyone who sins has not seen him nor has he known him. (9) Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God.Many older commentaries have taken the highlighted presents (as well as others in vv 4–10) as customary (a view especially popularized by British scholars, principally Westcott): does not continually sin … does not continually sin … does not practice sin … is not able to habitually sin. Taking the presents this way seems to harmonize well with 1:8–10, forto deny one’s sin is to disagree with God’s assessment. But there are several arguments against this interpretation:(1) The very subtlety of this approach is against it.(2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes “brother” with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement.(3) Gnomic presents most frequently occur with generic subjects (or objects). Further, “the sense of a generic utterance is usually an absolute statement of what each one does once, and not a statement of the individual’s customary or habitual activity.”28 This certainly fits the pattern.How should we then take the present tenses here? The immediate context seems to be speaking in terms of a projected eschatological reality.29 The larger section of this letter addresses the bright side of the eschaton: Since Christians are in the last days, their hope of Christ’s imminent return should produce godly living (2:28–3:10). The author first articulates how such an eschatological hope should produce holiness (2:28–3:3). Then, without marking that his discussion is still in the same vein, he gives a proleptic view of sanctification (3:4–10)—that is, he gives a hyperbolic picture of believers vs. unbelievers, implying that even though believers are not yet perfect, they are moving in that direction (3:6, 9 need to be interpreted proleptically), while unbelievers are moving away from truth (3:10; cf. 2:19). Thus, the author states in an absolute manner truths that are not yet true, because he is speaking within the context of eschatological hope (2:28–3:3) and eschatological judgment (2:18–19).Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
I have a real problem with the whole idea of habitual sin compared to sin that just happens once in a while.
If I brush my teeth daily it is considered a habit and is habitual, if I exercise 5 days a week that is my habit and it is considered habitual.
Show me the believer that is not a habitual sinner.
In Christ,
Jim
0 -
Context here is very important.
If we say ... is an expression of remarkable interest, because the apostle here identified himself with the false teachers, not through any agreement with them, but out of a delicate regard for his readers.
John uses the condition "If we say", as though he was taking up the claim of some whose thinking is to be avoided. These probably claimed to have no sin. If we should so argue, says John, "we deceive ourselves".
Some may really believe that such is true, that they are above sin and do not need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them in order to have fellowship with God, but the idea is not truth. It is a lie, and those who so speak have had their eyes blinded so that they do not perceive their error. If we are in this group, "the truth is not in us".
0 -
Bob,
I am not a grammarian like Wallace only a student of his word and one who loves 1 John. The way I understand the "apparent" contradiction is this:
1:8 is speaking of the reality of our situation. We are utterly steeped in sin so much so that there are unintentional sins that are unknown to us unless God brings them to our attention (Lev 4:14, Hebrews 9:7). We, in ourselves, are unable to be without sin for we do not see ourselves as God sees sin.
3:6 is speaking in the arena of time (thus 3:8 the Devil has been sinning from the beginning). The Devil has never stopped sinning. He perpetually sins. However, the people born of God do not continuously sin. There are breaks from sin unto acts of righteousness. I liken it to a heart monitor. The Devil is a flat line dead in his sin. One who has been born of God breaks from the flat line of sin and has a beat of righteousness. As the spiritual health of the person increases the heart beat becomes stronger and more consistent.
I believe the language supports such an assessment. I hope this helps.
Charlie Nason
Feel to contact me if you want. charlie.nason@sbcglobal.net
0 -
From what I've gleaned; it would seem that the grammar does play into it...and as Jules pointed out; the context also.
The BECGNT says that it's the "false teacher" / believer juxtaposition that's in play.
I asked Dr. James White; mainly because I really respect his integrity in dealing with the text itself and he indicated that the grammar angle was valid.
thanks everyone for chiming in...
PS: I'm absolutely AMAZED that this thread has gone this far without "you know who" getting in on it...George Somsel! Where are you!
Seriously; George, I really did wonder what you'd say...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
I disagree that the grammar angle necessarily helps determine the meaning of the passage
especially in light of Wallace's point
(2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes “brother” with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement.
most recent commentaries that I have consulted agree with that assessment (the point appears to be obvious to me since his use of the present tense must be assumed to be consistent).
I believe that the context yields more useful clues if we assume that the author has not forgotten what he said in 1:8-10
even though I would not argue the habitual view based on grammar, I believe it is hinted at by the context
while not exactly supporting the point I am arguing for, the NET Bible notes are interesting (they argue that the habitual meaning cannot be ruled out, not that it is necessarily proven by grammar)
tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1–2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1–2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ("Biblical Greek" §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215–17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).
sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (”I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1–2 and 3:6–9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1–2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4–10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.0 -
Alain Maashe said:
I disagree that the grammar angle necessarily helps determine the meaning of the passage
especially in light of Wallace's point
(2) It seems to contradict 5:16 (ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον [if anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not unto death]). The author juxtaposes “brother” with the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω with the proclamation that such might not lead to death. On the customary present view, the author should not be able to make this statement.
most recent commentaries that I have consulted agree with that assessment (the point appears to be obvious to me since his use of the present tense must be assumed to be consistent).
I believe that the context yields more useful clues if we assume that the author has not forgotten what he said in 1:8-10
even though I would not argue the habitual view based on grammar, I believe it is hinted at by the context
while not exactly supporting the point I am arguing for, the NET Bible notes are interesting (they argue that the habitual meaning cannot be ruled out, not that it is necessarily proven by grammar)
tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει (hamartanei) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1–2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1–2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ("Biblical Greek" §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights, 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT, 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215–17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).
sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (”I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1–2 and 3:6–9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1–2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4–10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.What a shame Alain Maashe does not live in the UK(London) If only, if only. Thanks, for your input on this verse which has baffled me, and regards to Robert Pavich for raising the question. This is one thread i shall be following, i have not made up my mind yet. I was hoping D.A. Carson forth coming commentary would clarify the issue for me, it seems clarity is coming much sooner than i thought.
Ted.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
The answer is simple, but requires a little thought and humility. The unbeliever does not have a new birth (new nature, new spirit). The unbeliever only has an old nature (spiritual death, Adam's original sin passed, old sin nature, flesh). Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free give of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. The unbeliever is living under Satan's power (Eph.2:2). The unbeliever has not used his free will to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the unbeliever used his free will to become a believer, then he received a new spirit ( II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:18) that is able to relate, associate, or have fellowship with God (Trinity). The believer retains his old sin nature while possessing a new nature. The believer is either controlled by his old sin nature or his new spirit at any time. He chooses which will control him through his free will which remains intact after salvation. If the believer chooses the old sin nature then he sins and lives under the authority of Satan until he (repents) changes his mind. If the believer chooses for the many commands of the Word of God (including 1 Jn. 1:9) then he lives under the control of the new spirit. The believer does not sin under the control of the spirit (notice there are no capital S's here) until he chooses to sin again. The believer does not sin while under the control of the new birth until he (repents) uses his free will located in his heart which in turn changes his mind and allows sin to dominate for awhile. Now go to Galatians chapter 5 and take your pen and make all the capital S's small s's. Then read Galatians 5 corrected, and you should have no problem understanding 1st John 5:18f and 3:9, and how these relate to the rest of 1st John. It's the new nature vs. the old nature, and which one you (the believer) are going to let control your life at any moment. The more spiritual growth one has the better equipped one is to have the new spirit control. But it still remains a matter of volition.
Dr. Gene Yancey
sgyancey@bellsouth.net
0 -
geneyancey said:
Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free give of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.
Isn't it true that the unbeliever may not have heard of God's gift? If so, does the word "rejected" have meaning?
Sorry, I just love keeping people logically accurate - 30+ years of doing so professionally :-)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Dr. Yancey,
Wow...it sounds like your unbeliever is holding all of the cards.. [:O] "Who can resist his will?"
Just ribbing you. I'm a Calvinist and though I know what you are saying when you say "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free gift of Salvation."
I'd have rephrased it like so: "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because the bible says he does not have the ability to do so. He has rejected God's command to repent and believe" [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Alain,
thank you so very much for your post but I'm kicking myself because I HAVE THE NET and didn't look at it's notes...argggg...
My comment on the NET notes would be that alothough they said the following:
(2) Others,
however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone
can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual
clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine EpistlesThe fact that others question it doesn't make it false though I agree, it's not the whole picture, but when you couple that with the context and the fact that we KNOW John is not saying that we are sinless...then this becomes a satisfying answer for me.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
MJ. Smith,
Isn't it true that the unbeliever may not have heard of God's gift? If so, does the word "rejected" have meaning?
"Rejected" has meaning according to Romans 1:18 - 23. They supress (reject and hold down) the truth about God revealled in creation (His invisible attributes defined as His eternal power and divine nature). This rejection condemns man therefore it has meaning.
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
0 -
Quote:
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
Charles, you're a man after my own heart.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Charles Nason said:
Sorry, I just love keeping people Biblically accurate, which in turn is logically accurate.
An excellent appeal to natural theology. Lawrence R. Farley in his The Epistles to the Romans: A Gospel for All does an excellent job of presenting this view as well as explaining how the law is liberating - the theme that started me reading this thread. (logically, support via appeal to authority which may, of course, also be a fallacy).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Jules, I agree!
Robert, 1 John 1:9 says (Holman) If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:8 is not a statement of perfection, rather it is a statement of denial or wrong. If we say we have NO sin, we call God a liar. Remember that gnosticism was a false gospel at the time. John wrote this book with the help of the Holy Spirit. John wanted the people (apparently believers) to mature in faith, not be babes (1 John 2:1 - My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ the Righteous One). So, Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (He paid the price).`
In regard to 1 John 3:6, I would like to interject the following scripture51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 6:51). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 6:56). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 15:3-4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 4:2-4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.For me the answer is spiritually attained, although I know your looking for an answer in the Greek style of writing. John's style of writing seems to say the same thing to me in English, so I purposely went to the Gospel of John and 1st John. Abide in me and greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world point to Christ. If you are in Christ, you are not in the world, therefore your lifestyle desires to please God (I'm not advocating works righteousness, but I do advocate a fruitful life, which you cannot do without abiding). I realize that I have interjected some other thought into your initial question, but it is hard to be in the will of God if we are not in the word of God. If we are in the word of God and we lead a prayerful life, we are not spending time fullfilling the lust of the flesh and we have the Advocate that we can go to for the confession of known and unknown sin. There is no way in the flesh that we could ever be sinless.6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 3:5-6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.Here is the reason that he does not keep on sinning“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 15:1-6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Col 1:21-23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
so the bottom line for me is FAITH. Sorry, I do not intend to cause debate or war. My only intent is to share the word of God and let it speak for itself, with of course a little of my non-exegeted theology.
0 -
Chris said:
Sorry, I do not intend to cause debate or war. My only intent is to share the word of God and let it speak for itself, with of course a little of my non-exegeted theology.
No need for apologies - yours is exactly the kind of reasoned posts many of us enjoy ... as an occassional addition to the Logos oriented questions. It is ever so much more enjoyable than personal attacks.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Daniel Akin in the NAC commentary has nicely summarized the different views for us
(1) The perfectionist view: the Christian does not commit acts of sin.
(2) The limited view of sin: the Christian does not commit certain sins (1 John 5:16)
(3) The Christian does not sin because what is sin in the life of the unbeliever is not so regarded by God in a believer.
(4) The Christian does not sin in his new nature.
(5) John is describing the theoretical or ideal and not reality. The ideal is, to a limited extent, true.
(6) John is expressing himself by using exaggeration in this extremely controversial issue.
(7) The Christian does not commit willful and deliberate sin.
(8) The Christian does not commit habitual and consistent sin. Sin does not characterize his life.
(9) The Christian who abides in Christ does not commit sin. When (or if) he sins, he is not abiding in Christ
There are a few variations of some of the views above
On the habitual sin view
In support of view #8, Colin Kruse in PNTC mentions Kerry Inman: “Inman supports the traditional resolution of the problem but in a new way. He argues on the basis of a study of the distinctive Johannine vocabulary, especially the Johannine vocabulary regarding sin, that the expression poiein hamartian (lit. ‘to do/commit sin’) as it is used in the Johannine writings does denote habitual sinning. Inman draws attention to John 8:34 (‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins [pas ho poiōn hamartian] is a slave to sin’) as one example of Johannine usage where it is clear that poiein hamartian denotes habitual sinning. Inman also argues that in the context of 1 John 3:8 (‘He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning’) poiein hamartian must be understood to denote habitual sinning. In the light of these Johannine uses of poiein hamartian which clearly involve habitual sin, Inman argues that its use in 1 John 3:9 should be understood in the same way”
Akin (NAC) says something interesting
"Although numerous suggestions have been offered, and none is completely satisfying, the most reasonable still seems to center on John’s use of the present tense verb. John is not suggesting that the child of God will not commit a single act of sin. Instead, John is describing a way of life, a character, a prevailing lifestyle. Here the present tense verb contextually depicts linear, continual action. In other words, the believer will not live a life characterized by sin. From John’s earlier statements it is obvious that the Christian, while enjoying a position or standing of sinlessness through identification with Christ, will sin on occasion and will need to seek God’s forgiveness (1:9; 2:1–2). But what is also apparent from John’s writings is that a genuine believer will not live in continual sin. As D. Smith writes, “The believer may fall into sin but he will not walk in it.”
Alain0 -
Alain,
thank you very much for that additional info. And darn it...I HAVE the NAC but didn't look at it...arggg...
there's a lesson here somewhere [:(]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Dr. Yancey,
Wow...it sounds like your unbeliever is holding all of the cards..
"Who can resist his will?"Just ribbing you. I'm a Calvinist and though I know what you are saying when you say "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because he has rejected receiving God's free gift of Salvation."
I'd have rephrased it like so: "Anything the unbeliever does will not please God because the bible says he does not have the ability to do so. He has rejected God's command to repent and believe"
I dunno, Robert,
Apparently your unbeliever is holding some of the cards if he rejected God's irresistable grace. [6] Just ribbing you, my brother.
I go with the dual nature explanation (no 4 in Akin's list posted by Alain above) since even the Aposrtle Paul had the warring within. I don't believe the unregenerate has a dual nature. Until the Holy Spirit quickens us (brings new life) we are spiritually dead. So only a believer would experience the dichotomy. The spiritual war within begins. We are to renew our minds with the fact of who we now, presently, are in Christ.; free from the power of sin, dead to sin and made "white as snow." That would pretty much make us sinless.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Apparently your unbeliever is holding some of the cards if he rejected God's irresistable grace.
Just ribbing you, my brother.Never heard of such a thing, that a sinner can resist or rejected successfully God's irresistible grace. Grace irresistible accomplishes God's purpose in salvation, common grace perhaps can be resisted successfully but not special grace. Just ribbing you also, my brother - we hold to both common grace & irresistible grace.[:D]
Thanks for the info on the KJV only debate.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
M.J. Smith,
I do not mean to mince words with you but it was an argument from natural "revelation" not natural "theology." There is in my mind a huge difference between the two. Paul's argument is that people reject the natural revelation of God. Therefore, any natural theology they build will be based on a rejection of some part or the whole of natural revelation. In other words, any form of natural theology is at best bent, at worst fantasy, but all is flawed.
This is why special revelation is necessary unto salvation. Without it no one would be saved, without it know one would understand the truth (I know I just loaded the guns and painted a target on myself and if necessary we can discuss the Biblical idea of truth. Simply stated truth is creation understood as it represents an attribute of the glory of God, which He intended it to represent. Okay maybe not that simple).
I am assuming the fallacy you referred to is the circular one. To this I would say, Logic (as a system by itself - not grounded in the God it represents) is circular and faith based. The laws of logic are metaphysical and therefore are assumed true by experimentation of a circular kind (logic and human reason proving logic and human reason by a reasoned logical argument). This is limited to the sphere and data available at the time (life time). One cannot examine all possibilities of A equals not A to say it is impossible. Therefore, the circular argument attack against, the Bible is the word of God because it says so therefore it is infallible, is not really as scary as it first seems.
I apologize for going way off topic. I hope this clears some positions that were presented in this stream that may have been placed in a bad light.
0 -
About myself
did I really write "know one would understand"...wow...please forgive me and replace it with..."no one would understand." Sorry
0 -
charles,
I agree with you 100%.
But I'm not gonna stand in front of you when the shooting starts!! [:O]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Ted Hans said:
Never heard of such a thing, that a sinner can resist or rejected successfully God's irresistible grace. Grace irresistible accomplishes God's purpose in salvation, common grace perhaps can be resisted successfully but not special grace. Just ribbing you also, my brother - we hold to both common grace & irresistible grace.
Ted & Robert,
Since I was not raised Calvinist I am still playing "catch-up" on the whole matter. You don't get much instruction on differentiating "Common Grace" and "Irresistible Grace" in an Armenian church. (PLEASE, Don't everybody start down that road again. Put away your knives & guns. Chill for a moment. Thanks.) That is why I recently bought the Cornelius Van Till collection. I had been familiar with BB Warfield but still found myself with one foot on the dock and the other in the boat. Someday I will add the works of Frame to my library. (btw; when will vol 2 see the light of day?)
Back to the original topic -- 1 John is just about my favorite book of the Bible. Romans taught me where I was & why I had need of God. 1 John teaches me where I now stand. Yes, it is a difficult thing to grasp in toto. But just because my natural mind, and everyone else's put with it, cannot fathom the truths of God's word doesn't negate what is written. I don't accept that God uses hyperbole or is prone to white lies to garner worshipers. I have seen some higher math texts that were nothing more than numerals and symbols. The professor that owned them relished "reading" them because he understood the meaning. I could have dismissed their content as meaningless, contradictory and an attempt at feigned elitism -- based on my ignorance of the deeper meaning contained. I think we sometimes dismiss God's statements thus, all because we are too ignorant to understand and too arrogant to admit it.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Charles Nason said:
it was an argument from natural "revelation" not natural "theology." There is in my mind a huge difference between the two
Interesting. To me they are "the flip side of" each other. God reveals; we try to understand i.e. "do theology".
Charles Nason said:I am assuming the fallacy you referred to is the circular one.
The fallacy I was refering to was "appeal to authority". Obviously, this is something that we intentionally do without fallicious intent in Scripture study. As one who believes that God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason I am quite willing to apply logics (plural) to scripture and theology - in fact I am fascinated by Jewish hermeneutical logic. I agree that logic is a human construct with human limitations.
I appreciate your responses - I learn a great deal from them, having had very little exposure to Calvin.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith
You said, "To me they are 'the flip side of' each other. God reveals; we try to understand i.e. 'do theology'."
I agree they are the same coin but here is where I see the difference. God reveals perfectly and man does not try to understand but supresses the truth of that revelation. Man then exchanges the truth for an image they have created to be truth and then build a natural theology that they are willing to live with. God's revelation is perfect; man's understanding of that revelation is willfully flawed.
You said, "As one who believes that God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason"
God's revelation is beyond sinful man's reason. That is not to say a believer understands perfectly because they are still a sinner. However, God created human reason to understand his revelation. Therefore, we can understand, simply and imperfectly but understandably.
I would love to read on Jewish hermeneutical logic, where would I find such material.
Thank you for the exchange.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
The fallacy I was refering to was "appeal to authority". Obviously, this is something that we intentionally do without fallicious intent in Scripture study. As one who believes that God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason I am quite willing to apply logics (plural) to scripture and theology - in fact I am fascinated by Jewish hermeneutical logic. I agree that logic is a human construct with human limitations.
In fact it's not. Only the language(s) we use to communicate logical ideas is/are a human construct. Logical axioms and all constructs that follow from them are (like mathematical expressions) metaphysical absolutes that exist as part of creation. That is, they must be the same regardless of the frame of reference that discovers them or the methods and symbols that are developed to communicate them.
The reason that it is not possible for logical arguments to encapsulate all things with respect to revelations from God is because logic, like all metaphysical things is constrained by the physical universe. God is not. On the other hand, this reality is probably better explained by your own words, "God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason". I would only amend that sentence to read, "beyond perfect human reason", meaning a more or less imaginary, flawless human argument that exhausts all physical and metaphysical possibilities.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
Charles Nason said:
I would love to read on Jewish hermeneutical logic, where would I find such material.
Much of what I know is through the works of Jacob Neusner. There's also a book about Paul's use of rabbinic methods but it's title escapes me at the moment. Perhaps someone out there remembers. http://community.logos.com/forums/AddPost.aspx?ReplyToPostID=5395&Quote=False is a typical web introduction ... Paul would have been trained in the rules of Hillel. http://www.thelogician.net/3_judaic_logic/3_jl_frame.htm has a formal study of Judaic logic - there are a number of reasons I take this site with a grain of salt but it still has some very useful information. And the Jewish Encyclopedia has a long article on Biblical Exegesis which provides an excellent overview.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John McComb said:
logical axioms and all constructs that follow from them are (like mathematical expressions) metaphysical absolutes that exist as part of creation. That is, they must be the same regardless of the frame of reference that discovers them or the methods and symbols that are developed to communicate them.
You realize, I assume, that the Buddhist logicians would disagree strongly with this very Western view. Quite incidentally, there is a new graphic biography of Bertrand Russell, Logicomix by Apostolos Doxiadis et. al. which covers (lightly) the western search for grounding math and logic in metaphysical absolutes. And, no, I don't usually read graphic biographies - I was given an advanced copy for review and absolutely loved the book.
And, yes, I disagree strongly with the website I recommended for Judaic Logic. His critique "Nagarjuna's Illogic" is very malformed - even in Western logic.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
John McComb said:
"God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason". I would only amend that sentence to read, "beyond perfect human reason", meaning a more or less imaginary, flawless human argument that exhausts all physical and metaphysical possibilities.
Yours in Christ
John
Right John, That is what I was saying a few posts back in my toast & coffee kind of a way. [C]
" But just because my natural mind, and everyone else's put with it, cannot fathom the truths of God's word doesn't negate what is written." (Written = revealed by special revelation)
I have read enough of Japanese Buddhism to know their "logic" is not viable. It is at best pseudo-cathartic. It lulls you into destruction. You become the frog in the slow boiling pot.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
You realize, I assume, that the Buddhist logicians would disagree strongly with this very Western view.
No, but I don't care either. I don't see my view as being "Western", only scientific. Mathematics and metaphysics are not disciplines that can be influenced by cultural woolgathering. Or perhaps I should put it another way. If you happen to be thinking about studying these things and you happen upon a school with math and philosophy departments that are strongly influenced by cultural woolgathering then I recommend you look to enroll someplace else.
MJ. Smith said:Quite incidentally, there is a new graphic biography of Bertrand Russell, Logicomix by Apostolos Doxiadis et. al. which covers (lightly) the western search for grounding math and logic in metaphysical absolutes. And, no, I don't usually read graphic biographies - I was given an advanced copy for review and absolutely loved the book.
I don't know what you're talking about but I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was forced to slurp up large tracts of Russell's Principia Mathimatica when I was in college and I can almost guarantee you that you wouldn't take a shine to that.
Russell hated religion with an obsessive passion. He religiously despised religion. As a Christian I couldn't help but notice that this voluminous monstrosity seemed an awful lot like an attempt to prove order from chaos. Well, if that's what he was doing then of course he didn't succeed. How could he? The chaos that he was using to construct his order was itself well ordered and had its own axioms. Axioms that Bertrand himself used as starting points. He did succeed in demonstrating that mathematical postulates could be derived from purely logical ones though. In the end it's a brilliant work. If you're compelled to read it then you come away with a powerful admiration for the effort even if the purpose of it all kind of eludes you. I don't recommend it for recreational reading though. Stick to the nice, light easy reads like, oh..... say....., Joyce's Ulysses.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:John McComb said:
"God's revelation is not contrary to human reason but rather is beyond human reason". I would only amend that sentence to read, "beyond perfect human reason", meaning a more or less imaginary, flawless human argument that exhausts all physical and metaphysical possibilities.
Right John, That is what I was saying a few posts back in my toast & coffee kind of a way.
Well, it was M.J. that said it, not me. I just tightened it up a little bit. You can't use that "limits of human reason" catch to garner an escape clause that allows you to say that there exists (may exist) some logical argument beyond the gleaning of human reason that will prove or disprove anything about God. In order to reach into God's realm you need information that lies beyond the constraints of all logic.
On the other hand, why would we want to spend the effort. We're given this information free of charge (at least as much of it as God thinks we need to know). You can believe or you can disbelieve it. It's up to the individual. Endeavoring to prove or disprove any of it is like a sea urchin trying to prove or disprove the existence of a desert palm.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
John McComb said:
I was forced to slurp up large tracts of Russell's Principia Mathimatica when I was in college
As a philosophy major in college, I did my senior thesis in logic (model theory to be precise); in graduate school I applied much of the same interests to Theravadan Buddhism; then as a non-student, I applied model theory to university payroll and personnel [translation: computer nerd]. I had a copy of Principia Mathimatica on my shelves for many years but certainly NEVER read it as anything other than a reference for specific points. Nagarjuna on the other hand was more slurpable ... or would have been if it weren't in Sanskrit so shall I call it sippable? [:)]
But sorry, I see our current view of science to be highly Western - external, measureable, repeatable etc. Eastern "science" makes room for the internal, unmeasurable, predictable i.e. psychological, religious, mystical ... Fritz Staal in his Exploring Mysticism has a nice take on the scientific approach from both sides. And to put my prejudices out front, I believe that the best evidence of God is in the similarities of peoples' experience of God across cultures and times. And I believe that 'proof' of the existence of God must precede discussions of God's revelation and incarnation which must precede discussion of Scripture.
But regardless of why you read Russell I am delighted to find another logic junkie on the forums.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith
You said, "And I believe that 'proof' of the existence of God must precede discussions of God's revelation and incarnation which must precede discussion of Scripture."
I am not a logic junky in a league with you. I have only begun to read philosophy in the past 5 years. However, I hold that God's revelation is perfect so I measure all statements made by it. When you said the above my mind shouted, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). Faith (believing what God said in Scripture) does not start with proofs of God's existence. Faith is only generated (regenerated) by hearing Scripture taught with Christ being explained.
But we will say it is not reasonable to think a person will believe the Scriptures taught with Christ being explained if the person does not believe in God. Scripture does not make that distinction. Scripture never attempts to prove the existence of God (that started with Anselm). Before Anselm the call was to believe God. After Anselm it became believe IN God. This shift has caused a major shift in theology and apologetics. It is also a very Western type of thinking (post Anselm developed into a system by Aquinas).
Remember, everyone knows God through natural revelation and suppresses that truth in unrighteousness. They believe in God whether they admit it or not (Scripture says). Therefore, we do not argue proof for the existence of God. We proclaim the truths of God from Scripture and watch to see if they believe, if God graciously grants them repentance. Paul say it this way, "the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 1:14 his conversion testimony). Paul says grace was poured out on him and overflowed from him and what overflowed was belief and love that are in Christ Jesus. Grace overflowed and the result was belief and love. Belief comes by grace. Grace expressed by belief comes by hearing and hearing the word of Christ.
I think we need to spend less time trying to prove that God exists and more time explaining Christ from the Scriptures. Will a lot of the culture reject this? Yes, they will. But they rejected Christ in person as well. We need to focus on the correct method (Biblical method). Call people to believe what God said about Christ.
0 -
John,
You said, "In order to reach into God's realm you need information that lies beyond the constraints of all logic."
Logic is grounded in the character of God. A equals not A is impossible because God does not lie. It never will because God does not change. I am not saying that we will every grasp to the fullness of this infinite God but he is reasonable. Because he is reasonable, He is knowable. Because he is knowable we can point to truths we have learned about him in the natural world. These arguments will not prove indubitably God for without faith (belief) it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6). Belief is a requisite. Absolute provability is not.
0 -
Now this sensitivity is in-line with scripture. You hit the nail on the head instead of dancing around it. See my previous post.
0 -
Charles.
Again, Ditto.
0 -
Charles,
You and Jules have got it right. The bible is very logical and easy to understand, if we let it abide in our hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10-12). It is us humans that have complicated its understanding.0 -
Charles,
I too share this logical thinking approach because it satisfies the command to prove all things (1 Thess 5:19-21) in light of all scripture.
0 -
Charles Nason said:
Scripture never attempts to prove the existence of God (that started with Anselm)
I agree with much of what you say. However, the primary early creeds begin with a statement of belief in God and God's characteristics, followed by the incarnation and death-resurrection, followed by Scripture, church etc. It is this logical progression that I was speaking of - not the methods of evangelization and apologetics.
But one item in your post puzzles me:
Charles Nason said:Call people to believe what God said about Christ.
I would quibble on two points (1) Christ is God (2) we are to believe in Christ.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
But sorry, I see our current view of science to be highly Western - external, measureable, repeatable etc. Eastern "science" makes room for the internal, unmeasurable, predictable i.e. psychological, religious, mystical ...
Well my background is in mathematics and is only heavily augmented with symbolic logic and metaphysics (something I regarded as important with respect to algorithmic theory in computer science. On the practical side it ended up making me a better problem solver than a designer, something I was most often tasked with before I was X'ed from society). So my "Westerness" is nothing more than an insistence that one disregards one's external influences for just one second and recognize that pi is pi wherever you go and nothing in Horatio's philosophy will ever change that. The same is true for all metaphysical laws, including the axioms of logic. You can say whatever you like but you're stuck with them, here, there and everywhere.
You know, I had a very difficult time trying to figure out how I was going to properly word this sentence (form my last post):
"If you happen to be thinking about studying these things and you happen upon a school with math and philosophy departments that are strongly influenced by cultural woolgathering then I recommend you look to enroll someplace else."
Philosophy is such a broad discipline that it's really foolish to try and pigeonhole it like that. I mean really, how do you hold a course on Tibetan philosophy that isn't colored by religion or culture? It's absurd. I think of Philosophy as a whole as the "art of inquiry". Science and philosophy are very strongly linked because all scientific exploration begins at that point and the initial steps can always be classified as "woolgathering" of some sort. The problem with the pigeonhole is that philosophy is also the beginning for many types of inquiry that have nothing to do with science. In the end, though, I couldn't figure out a better way of saying what I was trying to say so I just left it to the reader to glean my meaning.
MJ. Smith said:But regardless of why you read Russell I am delighted to find another logic junkie on the forums.
Well, I've read bits and pieces of other works, mostly out of curiosity. You know, cruising through the library, you encounter a publication by Russell so you pick it up and read parts of it to see what he has to say. Kind of like an exploration for your next favorite fictional author. To be honest I thought his obsession with religion really affected his reason. In fact I thought that was so self evident that it was a wonder that nobody else ever picked up on it. Or admitted it. That's the thing about philosophers (or, perhaps just philosophy students). They seem to have an aversion to the practical. The main reason why ordinary university students secretly want all of the philosophy students banned from their coffee areas and locked in a cellar room somewhere. "Who cares if it's impossible to prove that the sun rises and sets every day, you insufferable twit!!!!" (Sorry. I'm sure you always used to leave your tweed cardigan and pipe at home when you left for school).
Anyway, practical is good and should never be disregarded. Sometimes it is absolutely essential if you want your thinking to be clear and other times necessary to understand the argument being presented to you. I've never been able to understand why it is that someone has to be an offended Christian to see the obvious flaws in Nietzsche's thinking (I know what you're going to say. That cafeteria passion play also features a thoroughly anti-Nietzsche type arguing loudly with the Nietzsche proponent but I still think they both miss the point). Practical removes Nietzsche from our view altogether and allows us to focus our sight on far more beneficial activities.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
Charles Nason said:
Logic is grounded in the character of God.
How do you know that? Logic is a created thing. God precedes logic. I can't say that what you say is false because nothing has been revealed to me, either in scripture or in natural evidence to say it is false. However, neither can you say it's true for the same reason. We have no evidence in God's revelation or otherwise that says it would not be possible for God to create a universe with completely different logical paradigms.
Charles Nason said:A equals not A is impossible because God does not lie. It never will because God does not change.
Careful. You're tip-toeing on that line that divides theism from pantheism (the nature of God is encapsulated by the nature of the universe). I don't want to see you trip, fall and land on the wrong side.
The nature of the universe may be encapsulated by the nature of God but you have no evidence to support that view or the notion that this view even makes any sense from God's perspective. There does exist the possibility that "A equals not A" can be a true statement and not be a lie in some frame of reference, albeit not one that lies within the constraints of our physical reality. In fact scripture hints at that very possibility when the risen Christ walks along side his disciples and is not recognized until he decides to make his presence known. It's just a hint, mind you. We can come up with lots of different conjecture about why that may occur. However I defy anyone to come up with any reasonable explanation as to how the risen Christ can be physical but not constrained by physical barriers (like walls) or be present one second and gone the next. The underlying implication from what we know about the risen Lord is that his reality includes our own but exceeds it as well.
Charles Nason said:Belief is a requisite. Absolute provability is not.
Yes, I agree. Faith is imperative. I don't know why that is so but it certainly is.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
MJ. Smith,
Yes, the creeds started with belief in God but not an apology of God. The creeds stated what they believed about God and those beliefs were based in Scripture. This is the same with the Christ and his death and resurrection. They were not trying to prove these things to an unbelieving mind on the basis of natural revelation, natural theology, or logic. They were simply stating them as clearly as they could based on their understanding from Scripture. Did they use logical method and argument? Yes, based on Biblical president and the design of man not to remain within the bounds of some extra-biblical logical system.
Like the Biblical writers our prepositions are powerful. Our two statements are not so dis-similar.
Charles Nason:Call people to believe what God said about Christ.You said, "I would quibble on two points (1) Christ is God (2) we are to believe in Christ."
Yes, Christ is God. Christ is the second person of the trinity embodied as the man Jesus. As such, the Son became man all the while maintaining all of who he is as God. This is what it is to believe IN Christ. We believe who he is based on what God said about his person. However, God said things about the Christ before the Son came as the Christ. Jesus accomplished these things showing that he was the Christ. God placed meaning on the things Christ accomplished otherwise just another Jew dyed on a cross 2000 years ago. The meaning for Christ's death is based on what God (Father, Son, and Spirit) said through Scripture about the Christ before he came and after he ascended. Therefore, we believe what God said about the Christ in Scripture (his perfect life giving us righteousness, his death bearing our penalty, and these two acts bringing those who believe into fellowship).
We believe what God said about the Christ and we call others to do the same. I do not disagree with the order of the process (God, Christ's person and work, Scripture and so forth). I am only trying to be clear of the focus of this process. We do not call people to believe in the existence of God. We call people to believe him. Believe what he said in Scripture.
0 -
Charles Nason said:
We believe who he is based on what God said about his person. However, God said things about the Christ before the Son came as the Christ.
Although it is not your intent, your use of the word "God" to refer to God-the-Father makes it sound as if the REAL God is God the Father and Jesus Christ is God as an afterthought. The God who created the world was triune ... see the Prologue to the Gospel of John for the role of the Son/Word.
Charles Nason said:God placed meaning on the things Christ accomplished otherwise just another Jew dyed on a cross 2000 years ago
Again I don't believe it is your intent, this sounds suspiciously like man-became-God rather than God-became-man (the incarnation).
I think that the root of the difference in wording/focus derives from a fundamental difference of seeing "The Word" primarily as Jesus vs. as Scripture. While I have found this discussion very informative, I suspect it's time to let the forum get back to its real focus - Logos [sigh]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Jules lamond said:
Now this sensitivity is in-line with scripture. You hit the nail on the head instead of dancing around it. See my previous post.
Hi Jules.
I think you should get in the habit of quoting the bits of other people's posts that you're responding to. Of course this is for my benefit (and others I suppose) but I'm interested in what you're point of view is and I can't tell from this post what you are talking about. Even the one where you mention Charles by name is confusing because Charles wrote more than one post and I can't tell what you're agreeing to when you just say, "Charles, I agree".
Anyway, just a suggestion, not a demand.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Again I don't believe it is your intent, this sounds suspiciously like man-became-God rather than God-became-man (the incarnation).
Now this I like. This is precisely the view I hear professed from modernist pulpits. I like to think of it as "new-age gnosticism". That is, gnosticism with a twist. We're given an opposite view of the nature of Christ. Wholly man but only inspired and, perhaps "ascended" (if you've ever watched that utterly ridiculous tv show, "Stargate SG1").
MJ. Smith said:I think that the root of the difference in wording/focus derives from a fundamental difference of seeing "The Word" primarily as Jesus vs. as Scripture. While I have found this discussion very informative, I suspect it's time to let the forum get back to its real focus - Logos [sigh]
Oh come on, this is interesting. Here we are talking about the problems of reason within the scope of theological thought and you and Charles inadvertently stumble upon the greatest paradox in Christian theology, the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine has been responsible for more arguments and given birth to more heresies than any other and here you've provided us with a vivid illustration of how these difficulties arise.
The simultaneous impossibility and indisputability of the Trinity doctrine puts us in a bind. In my opinion Charles is endeavoring to make a perfectly valid point but your objection and the nature of the Trinity is blocking him from expressing this point without saying something that sounds heretical. Our only recourse is to agree on terms and try to express/accept the thought in the simplest way we can. This dilema illistrates our point about proving things about God exactly. You can't reconcile the doctrine with the physical universe and, if you try (as obviously many have) you wind up contradicting God's word and producing an heretical view.
Yours in Christ
John
0 -
John McComb said:
The simultaneous impossibility and indisputability of the Trinity doctrine puts us in a bind. In my opinion Charles is endeavoring to make a perfectly valid point but your objection and the nature of the Trinity is blocking him from expressing this point without saying something that sounds heretical. Our only recourse is to agree on terms and try to express/accept the thought in the simplest way we can. This dilema illistrates our point about proving things about God exactly. You can't reconcile the doctrine with the physical universe and, if you try (as obviously many have) you wind up contradicting God's word and producing an heretical view.
I agree wholeheartedly. The image that I like is that we can see truth through a window - reason can narrow the window frame i.e. can eliminate more that is untrue. But I also have to admit to a strong affinity with Orthodox apophatic theology. I also admit to a strong affinity to discussions that force me to use language carefully and be aware of (or have exposed) my pre-assumptions.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I agree wholeheartedly. The image that I like is that we can see truth through a window - reason can narrow the window frame i.e. can eliminate more that is untrue.
I like the images you come up with a lot. Sooner or later I'm going to wind up stealing them and using them as illistrations for my own arguments.
Yours in Christ
John
0
