tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post4808260435666875749..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Communicable DefilementDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-81994416581559169402016-04-29T21:39:04.421-04:002016-04-29T21:39:04.421-04:00And I tremble at the possibility of being accosted...And I tremble at the possibility of being accosted by Tom. However, if we do agree that, as Jesus said, "You must be born again," (John. 3:7) then yeah, we're on the same page. <br /><br />Good talking to you again.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-18176665503259064382016-04-29T15:34:15.956-04:002016-04-29T15:34:15.956-04:00Hi IC, really, but your comment strikes me as no d...Hi IC, really, but your comment strikes me as no different from what I said except it was put somewhat differently. However, you are in the religious instruction business (including on this website) and I am not and I will not quibble or split hairs concerning what I consider to be minor differences. Also, I know Tom would come to my defense if you were completely wrong O.O. <br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-81278399256849981232016-04-28T22:14:11.448-04:002016-04-28T22:14:11.448-04:00Actually, that's not quite what I said.
It ...Actually, that's not quite what I said. <br /><br />It is true that the Bible makes some mention of everyone being the "offspring" of God, as in (Acts 17:28), as a mere result of having been created by Him. That is, we are all "children" of a sort. EVERY human being is, the worst sinner and nicest person alike.<br /><br />But this has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and is very clearly NOT what John is talking about. Many of those who are "offspring" or "children" in that first sense only are actually rejectors of salvation, as seen in John 1:11 -- in fact, that very verse draws the stark distinction: everyone is "His own" by right of creation, but not "His" by way of salvation. Some of those who are only "children" in a creation sense are actually bound for a lost eternity (see John 8:44, which identifies them as actually "children of the devil," not by creation but in regard to salvation).<br /><br />The key question for all of us, then, is "Are you ONLY a 'child' in the sense of having been originally created by God, as all human beings are, regardless of their moral condition -- or are you His SPIRITUAL child, born again into the family of God through faith in Jesus Christ?" <br /><br />Only the latter enjoy a genuine parent-child relationship with God; the rest have abdicated any relationship with God they might have had, and have claimed the Evil One as their true "father," just as Christ Himself said of them. And I don't hesitate to stand on HIs assessment there: He would know, and would have the right to say that.<br /><br />As for our being "found worthy, " I submit to you that none of us ever is. The only way we get to God, and to become His true children, is through faith in Jesus Christ, His true Son. If, then, we are "found" in our own strength, standing on our good deeds, we shall only be "found lacking." So we'd best be "found in Him," (Phil. 3:8-9) that is, not on the basis of what WE are, but on the basis of who Christ is, not recommending ourselves to God on our own works of righteousness.<br /><br />I hope that is clearer. It's an important distinction, I believe.<br /><br />Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-83041929388039438042016-04-28T12:05:37.371-04:002016-04-28T12:05:37.371-04:00Should have done this earlier but did a little mor...Should have done this earlier but did a little more research, and yes, you are basically correct. The bible does refer to all men indeed as being children of God the creator, and him caring for us in that capacity. Except that there is still the issue of original sin and our fallen nature. The distinction in most people's mind comes in where we associate childhood with a father figure, which is the natural and immediate way to think about that relationship but then Christ and the NT additionally contrasts or extends that with the fact of our redemption and adoption into divine sonship, which is different. It is then when we are redeemed and found worthy to be in the eternal presence of God but only with our active consent and willingness to accept the consequences of believing in and living by Christ's teaching. So, yes, that adoption is indeed different by requiring a certain level of responsibility and by then elevating us closer to God beyond the mere human concept of a child-parent relationship.<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-44239294501050691792016-04-27T18:10:20.644-04:002016-04-27T18:10:20.644-04:00As you say, we don't know who is saved and who...As you say, we don't know who is saved and who is not. Agreed. However, that does not imply that God does not know, or that they do not, of course -- especially when there are specific criteria in scripture for what is required for one to truly become a "child of God." Others clearly DO know what you and I do not.<br /><br />Of course you're right to say that a father always has regard for his children: but not everyone is his child, as scripture also makes clear. As you say, there are those who will persistent refuse to become "children of God," even though they could, if they wished to do so. And yes, we can lament their choice, but hardly fault God for honouring their free will in respecting that bad choice when they have decisively and repeatedly made it.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-45468062176479367382016-04-27T00:53:28.456-04:002016-04-27T00:53:28.456-04:00I think this point has come up before in our discu...I think this point has come up before in our discussion, and I think we agreed that we do not have insight regarding who is and who is not saved since that knowledge belongs to God alone. At no point in a person's life are we therefore entitled to draw that conclusion. Nevertheless we are entitled and even obligated to assign probabilities to that or we could not warn our neighbor in the face of sin, as we must. And that is only part of how God shows his fatherly concern also for those who have not yet accepted him. This therefore proofs that he indeed values the actions of all as his children even if they are still removed from him, (and who Protestants would therefore not call his children?) just what you would expect a father to do. I am a father and there would be no circumstance where I would not care for my child. Where the confusion comes in is that there is the bitter fact that we are temporal and there will come a point of no return for both parties for the sake of maintaining peace in a household (in heaven). Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-238749991871156262016-04-26T20:31:48.852-04:002016-04-26T20:31:48.852-04:00I like your thought that there is no "strikin...I like your thought that there is no "striking a bargain with God before or after to have works count toward salvation." On the basis of the Word of God, I think that's very sound. And I agree with the idea that the Lord knows His own, even before they know Him. I don't disagree that anyone -- Christian or not -- is going to derive certain practical advantages (having nothing to do with salvation, of course) if they choose to behave well. Or rather, they may...or they may simply experience a lot of inconvenience from having to behave morally when others do not...or they may even experience resentment and persecution from those who are determined to be less moral. But either way, all of that has nothing to do with salvation, of course. I think we agree on that.<br /><br />But as the Word of God says in John 1, "...to as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God." That is, only to "as many as received Him," meaning to those who are born again through faith in Christ. To be God's child, you have to be born into His family, you see. <br /><br />He's not the Father of the wicked, nor is He the father of those who by their own efforts behave well but are not born again through faith in Him. And in Scripture, there is no other basis for entrance into the family of God but through faith in Jesus Christ: first things first.<br /><br />So we may not be disagreeing all that much. Maybe our only current point of discussion is whether works done before salvation are of any interest or merit in the eyes of God. Other than that, perhaps we're actually agreeing.<br />Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-87451812598099225092016-04-26T15:53:52.225-04:002016-04-26T15:53:52.225-04:00Again, I disagree. As I said, the hypothetical per...Again, I disagree. As I said, the hypothetical person being discussed was raised and tried to act rightly before discovering God (reborn by the Protestant definition) with no intention of striking a bargain with God before or after to have works count towards salvation. Nevertheless that person will have derived benefits from their upbringing and good character even just due to the natural order of things. Second, God is our father and as such I will certainly impute fatherly motives to him regardless of where his children currently are in life. As a matter of fact he is even more concerned, like any parent, about those children who are net yet safely in his fold, and will not be stingy with his concern and love towards them regardless of where our particular human ethics and understanding will place them.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-77707047912402267252016-04-25T22:13:36.196-04:002016-04-25T22:13:36.196-04:00Well, whether it's for you or me would seem le...Well, whether it's for you or me would seem less important than what it is for God, no? <br /><br />The Bible is quite clear on the point that deeds do not ingratiate us to God, nor do they have any value to Him unless they're done by one of His children, those "born again of the Spirit." Gratitude, not hope of earning salvation, is the only motive that makes deeds truly good.<br /><br />If that's right, then what you and I think is neither here nor there, is it? Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-5725411681680281932016-04-24T23:54:33.760-04:002016-04-24T23:54:33.760-04:00IC, "born again" is already included in ...IC, "born again" is already included in "God whom they may not yet have paid attention to but might at some later point in life." See this.<br /><br />http://www.answers.com/mobile/Q/Is_protestant_and_born_again_different<br /><br />My final take on this. If you have strived to live a good life you have traded up simply because you have a greater chance to maintain that demeanor also after becoming "born again." There is less probability for the person who did not live that way and they might more easily fail and revert again. The former would be more pleasing to me (and by extension I can also assume to God) hence the good works of the former before being born again certainly do pay off, count for me (and God) and cannot be ignored as being immaterial. That to me is sound psychology and we will simply have to disagree if it is not for you.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-84715379495961580212016-04-20T15:58:02.897-04:002016-04-20T15:58:02.897-04:00You missed it, Q.
God isn't interested in our...You missed it, Q.<br /><br />God isn't interested in our righteousness. It can't hold a candle to His, and it's no favour to Him whatever we do or don't do. That's how the Bible sees it. <br /><br />So nobody's "trading up, because "relationship" with God is something they don't have at all. There's nothing to "trade" with.<br /><br />You *must* be born again. Just as Jesus said.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-58313339529648893122016-04-20T00:13:52.644-04:002016-04-20T00:13:52.644-04:00What I am saying is that with good parenting child...What I am saying is that with good parenting children can learn that good behavior is rewarding. And that can continue later in life. Further, there are therefore people who are good people whose motivation is to live like that under their own impetus. Their impetus is not necessarily to please God whom they may not yet have paid attention to but might at some later point in life. When they do they will inadvertently have traded up in their relationship with God due to having been "good people." <br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-54383586681842220932016-04-19T13:11:27.345-04:002016-04-19T13:11:27.345-04:00"Since God will certainly prefer for a person..."Since God will certainly prefer for a person to be such rather than vile it nevertheless comes down to an (inspired) transaction of good works for salvation."<br /><br />That doesn't follow at all. <br /><br />I may want my child to be good, but that doesn't mean he's my child merely *because* he's good, or *only if* he's good. The prior question is this "Is he my kid?" <br /><br />Jesus said, "You must be born again." Without the new birth from God, good works are of no value or consequence to Him. You are simply not His child; and whether or not you do good says nothing at all about Him -- just about you.<br /><br />But, of course, which one of us can be as good as God? And even if we could (which we clearly cannot), what is that to Him? Isaiah 64:6 tells us that even a person's "righteous deeds" can be nothing more than "filthy rags" in the eyes of God. How much more "filthy" are those self-righteous deeds we use to hold up before Him and say, "See? You have to accept me. I'm good enough for you."<br /><br />This is the point: our "righteousness" is nothing to Him unless we are His children already. And for that "you must be born again." (John 3:7)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-15278309169442569092016-04-18T23:35:45.644-04:002016-04-18T23:35:45.644-04:00So, let me get this straight ...
You're sugge...So, let me get this straight ...<br /><br />You're suggesting some people are aware enough to recognize that their good behaviour gets them ahead with God (you've said it's trained into them because they are able to grasp that there's an incentive to be had; they wouldn't engage in that behaviour if they hadn't got that far in their thinking), and yet these same people remain not quite aware enough to recognize that it is their good behaviour that is getting them ahead with God (you say they don't perceive it as a transaction, even though they are now mature adults)?<br /><br />Is that a fair characterization?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-53695206538451405712016-04-18T22:35:33.667-04:002016-04-18T22:35:33.667-04:00I disagree Tom. You must realize that I describe a...I disagree Tom. You must realize that I describe a situation where this early learned good behavior in response to deriving benefits is what a child already does without consciously linking it to Christ. This often can and will continue in a person's life, undoubtedly due to God's goodness, even though such a conscious linkage may come for a person (sometimes much) later or not even until death. Hence what you perceive as a transaction of good works for salvation never happens (in the person's mind). And yet it is clear that God is interested in and inspiring people even in that goodness that temporarily seems removed from him. Since God will certainly prefer for a person to be such rather than vile it nevertheless comes down to an (inspired) transaction of good works for salvation. Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-76941094113369636792016-04-12T21:11:53.875-04:002016-04-12T21:11:53.875-04:00Well, the contrast in the Hebrews passage is betwe...Well, the contrast in the Hebrews passage is between the futility of works as a means to obtain salvation and the work of Christ applied by faith to the believer, which is wholly sufficient in the eyes of God. What I could not do, Jesus did.<br /><br />Now if I choose out of love for Christ to engage in works after the fact solely because I love him, that's an entirely different thing, no?<br /><br />There's no <i>quid pro quo</i> there that I can see.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-51095691454302003572016-04-12T21:01:05.431-04:002016-04-12T21:01:05.431-04:00"Here we are reminded that it is not only fut..."Here we are reminded that it is not only futile but actively defiling to rely on our good deeds as a means of salvation."<br /><br />Does this need clarification? I thought, if I recall correctly, that you yourself had previously drawn a distinction that should go along with this. By that I mean the following. If you are a Kindergartener, e.g., your teacher will certainly inculcate you with the notion that good behavior will get you farther in her/his class compared to unruly and disruptive behavior. This of course then extends throughout a lifetime where putting your best foot forward in any life situation (job, social, etc.) is generally perceived as a beneficial method of obtaining advancement, approval, appreciation, in short, is rewarded. Thus, the religious, mature, person certainly would/should not imply that there is a direct transaction, an exchange of goods going on with God to purchase favors or salvation but is following learned behavior that God himself undoubtedly wants us to have for our own benefit. In a sense though that can nevertheless also be interpreted as a type of trade - I'll follow your rules if there is a benefit derived from doing so that I would like to have. A trade after all?Qmannoreply@blogger.com