A child of the devil....

[sisterchristian]

Ok Drew....Lets take a close look...



Verse 4...The Greek word [ποιέω / commits ]would be better translated ''practices'' John is speaking of habitual sin...
Verse 5... Here John is saying that Christ appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin....This is important....
Verse 6...The Greek word for whoever is πᾶς and this literally means ''everyone'' who lives in sin has neither seen Him nor known Him....So verse 6 makes a clear distinction of two types of people, not three or more...
Verse 7....The Greek noun that John Uses for little children is τεκνίον...Here John is addressing ''ALL'' of Gods Children, his disciples...he is not addressing some....Again John uses the Greek word ποιέω for habitual that precedes the definite article ὁ (that is not in the English translation) δικαιοσύνη righteousness...So Here John is making an emphatic statement, that he who practices righteousness is a child of God.....
Verse 8....Starts of with the Definite Article ὁ that precedes the verb ποιέω that preceded the definite article ὁ leading to the noun ''sin....So John again is emphatic in saying that ''anyone'' who practices sin is of the devil, anyone who lives in sin is of the devil....John is also emphatic in saying that it is for this very reason that Jesus came...to undo the works of the devil...
Verse 9....9πᾶς…οὐ ποιεῖ no one…does (commits), pres. perh. makes a habit of… γεγεννημένος pf ptc pass. γεννάω bear; pass. be born. σπέρμα seed. ἁμαρτάνειν inf. pres. perh. lead a sinful life (pres.) opp. aor. commit a sin...
While the flesh will continue to sin, ( not habitually) the spirit who belongs to God does not sin any longer....

Folks...I hope I did did not confuse you...I felt it was important to spend the time on this....The bible makes it clear...There are only two groups of people...Any questions on these verses or Greek, please let me know...

Super Duck comes to the rescue once again! :smt066

 

[Drew]

Ok Drew....Lets take a close look...

Drew who?

In my most recent post I agreed that sisterchristian provided Scriptural proof of the position that had hitherto not been supported. All along, I was only asking if someone could show scripturally that those who are not children of God are children of the devil. She provided a text that strongly supported that position and I acknowledged it.

So I need no further convincing.

However, along the way I have become even more convinced that it is what one does that provides evidence of who one's father is. I think that many people who represent themselves as Christians and maybe even think of themselves as Christians are really of the devil.

Hear what Jesus has to say in Matt 13:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I think that a life of unrepentent sin, even by a person who claims to be a Christian and even believes himself to be one, will place one in danger of the fire.

 

[sisterchristian]

Drew who?

In my most recent post I agreed that sisterchristian provided Scriptural proof of the position that had hitherto not been supported. All along, I was only asking if someone could show scripturally that those who are not children of God are children of the devil. She provided a text that strongly supported that position and I acknowledged it.

So I need no further convincing.

However, along the way I have become even more convinced that it is what one does that provides evidence of who one's father is. I think that many people who represent themselves as Christians and maybe even think of themselves as Christians are really of the devil.

Hear what Jesus has to say in Matt 13:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I think that a life of unrepentent sin, even by a person who claims to be a Christian and even believes himself to be one, will place one in danger of the fire.

Well if they are indeed wolves in sheeps clothing, then I think God will figure that out. :

 

[Texasgirl]

However, along the way I have become even more convinced that it is what one does that provides evidence of who one's father is.

The separation of the sheep and goats is indeed an interesting glimpse into how Jesus says people become His. No concern for what people believe, or profess to believe or whom they believe in. No correct doctrine. Coming to the Father through Him is achieved simply by a ministry of works to the least of those in society, and is the sole criteria for judgment and access to salvation in this story Jesus himself told.

 

[sisterchristian]

.

Coming to the Father through Him is achieved simply by a ministry of works to the least of those in society

, So are you saying that it's works that get you into heaven? :o

 

[Texasgirl]

. , So are you saying that it's works that get you into heaven? :o

I'm not saying anything except commenting on the criteria in this story Jesus told for being on the 'sheep' side of His judgment. In this story, I see nothing but works for the criteria. Do you see some other criteria He uses to separate the sheep from the goats in this story?

 

[jgredline]

I'm not saying anything except commenting on the criteria in this story Jesus told for being on the 'sheep' side of His judgment. In this story, I see nothing but works for the criteria. Do you see some other criteria He uses to separate the sheep from the goats in this story?

Texas
''IF'' this is what you believe then you have awful hermeneutics....


If you want to study the context of this discorse, start reading...
Matt, mark, luke and John...It is all there...

 

[Texasgirl]

Texas
''IF'' this is what you believe then you have awful hermeneutics....


If you want to study the context of this discorse, start reading...
Matt, mark, luke and John...It is all there...

I have read. All of it. Many times.

My interpretation is simply that in this Gospel story, Jesus gives us a picture of what it's going to be like at the end of the world when He separates the sheep and the goats. The criteria to be a sheep -- "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. "

Not all that hard to understand. Of course it should be read in context with everything else the Bible says about salvation. And everything else the Bible says about salvation should be read in context of this. At least I would think so.

 

[sisterchristian]

Texas
''IF'' this is what you believe then you have awful hermeneutics....


If you want to study the context of this discorse, start reading...
Matt, mark, luke and John...It is all there...

Every time I turn around, you are there, Blinking those accusing eyes at me! :o

 

[jgredline]

Every time I turn around, you are there, Blinking those accusing eyes at me! :o

 

[sisterchristian]

That is hilarious!! :smt116 :smt043

 

[ThreeInOne]

That is hilarious!! :smt116 :smt043

One of the best smiles I've had all day!! :

Gotta love that duck!

 

[sisterchristian]

One of the best smiles I've had all day!! :

Gotta love that duck!

Awwwww! So glad to have you here, I've missed you! :smt039

 

[ThreeInOne]

Hey sis, how are you, my dear? :smt024

 

[Drew]

My reading of the Scriptures tells me that unrepentent sin, including sins of omission such as not giving to the needy (as per the sheep and goats tale) can indeed place you outside the kingdom no matter how much you truly believe that Jesus' sacrfice covers all sins. I think there are just too many warnings about "falling away" to make me believe that "once saved always saved".

Here is what Anglican bishop NT Wright says in a lecture about this (I added bolding):

The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. Indeed, listening to yesterday’s papers, it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.

By reading other things he has written, I believe that NT Wright indeed beleives Paul is arguing that "apostolic work", or its absence, can play a role in determining membership in Heaven.

 

[Drew]

A follow-on to previous post.

My reading of NT Wright suggests that he believes, like most of us in this forum, I suspect, that works are a sign of the reality of a salvation that has been procured by faith, not by those works. However, I think we still need to ask whether we really have "entered the kingdom" by looking at our works - if they are absent or if there is unrepentent sin, then I think one is in danger of the fire.

In other words, we can believe all we want that Jesus' death has covered our unrepentent sin or our failure to clothe the "least of these". But if we cannot show works, our faith is really dead and is not salvific.

Let's take a hypothetical guy named Fred. He has $ 10 million in the bank, a 25 room house and 3 cars (in a world where millions lack the basics of life). He routinely distorts the truth because he believes some higher good is attained by this. He believes that it is OK to militarily "tear them A-rabs a new one" without really knowing or caring whether such military action is truly necessary. And so on.

But Fred believes that Jesus' death will cover all these sins from now till he dies.

Is Fred "in" or "out"?

 

[Texasgirl]

A follow-on to previous post.

My reading of NT Wright suggests that he believes, like most of us in this forum, I suspect, that works are a sign of the reality of a salvation that has been procured by faith, not by those works. However, I think we still need to ask whether we really have "entered the kingdom" by looking at our works - if they are absent or if there is unrepentent sin, then I think one is in danger of the fire.

In other words, we can believe all we want that Jesus' death has covered our unrepentent sin or our failure to clothe the "least of these". But if we cannot show works, our faith is really dead and is not salvific.

Let's take a hypothetical guy named Fred. He has $ 10 million in the bank, a 25 room house and 3 cars (in a world where millions lack the basics of life). He routinely distorts the truth because he believes some higher good is attained by this. He believes that it is OK to militarily "tear them A-rabs a new one" without really knowing or caring whether such military action is truly necessary. And so on.

But Fred believes that Jesus' death will cover all these sins from now till he dies.

Is Fred "in" or "out"?

Hi Drew.

I personally don't believe we can 'procur' or earn our salvation by either faith or works. I believe we are saved by grace, a gift freely offered by God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If we accept the grace that God has bestowed, the evidence in our life will be faith and works.

Only God knows for sure what's going on with Fred. But I would say based on the information you've given, regardless of any statement of faith or what Fred professed to believe, his life showed no evidence of having accepted the gift of grace God offered for his salvation.

 

[sisterchristian]

A follow-on to previous post.

My reading of NT Wright suggests that he believes, like most of us in this forum, I suspect, that works are a sign of the reality of a salvation that has been procured by faith, not by those works. However, I think we still need to ask whether we really have "entered the kingdom" by looking at our works - if they are absent or if there is unrepentent sin, then I think one is in danger of the fire.

In other words, we can believe all we want that Jesus' death has covered our unrepentent sin or our failure to clothe the "least of these". But if we cannot show works, our faith is really dead and is not salvific.

Let's take a hypothetical guy named Fred. He has $ 10 million in the bank, a 25 room house and 3 cars (in a world where millions lack the basics of life). He routinely distorts the truth because he believes some higher good is attained by this. He believes that it is OK to militarily "tear them A-rabs a new one" without really knowing or caring whether such military action is truly necessary. And so on.

But Fred believes that Jesus' death will cover all these sins from now till he dies.

Is Fred "in" or "out"?

But was Fred Born again? :-?

 

[Drew]

I personally don't believe we can 'procur' or earn our salvation by either faith or works. I believe we are saved by grace, a gift freely offered by God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If we accept the grace that God has bestowed, the evidence in our life will be faith and works.

I agree with what you have written here.

 

[Drew]

But was Fred Born again? :-?

The fact that you ask this question highlights the issue.

If one believes that Fred can be born again and still act in the way I described, I would suggest that he is, in reality, not born again.

I do not think that Scriptures support a view that a one-time conversion experience or event "gets you into heaven" if the life that follows has unrepentent sin, including sins of omission such as enjoying wealth that could be used to save lives.