Rich Young Ruler failed at maturity not salvation.

[Xian Pugilist]

In this story is a question from Christ to the RYR, "if you would be perfect, sell your old life and give it away never to return, and come follow me."

When people read it and see perfect, they automatically assume failure because perfection, as we see it in today's English is not going to happen.

The dilemma is, the use of the word in Greek, doesn't have the same meaning as the English use today. In fact the KJV 1611 Bible's use of the English word Perfect wouldn't mean the same as it does today either. In the last 100ish years the Utopian flavor has been added to the word.

So, the story goes summ'n like this...

Rabbi how do I get eternal life.
Keep the commandments (their covenant)
I have since my youth.
<<<PAUSE>>>

NOTE; Christ knew if he had or hadn't kept those sins. The samaritan woman at the well, a person a "clean" jew wouldn't be in the viscinity of, was made well aware of her sins when she talked with Jesus.

NOTE: Christ loved Lazarus and raised Him from the dead.

NOTE: Christ loved the RYR by name, one of only a handfulla folks that were.

NOTE: Christ would have corrected the RYR out of Love, if he wasn't telling the truth, not let him continue thinking an error and go to hell on a lie.

This is based on deduction using scripture as the basis of the deduction. Every leg of that argument is based on the Bible.

What Is NOT based on the Bible is "Jesus knew he had not kept the law" (purely supposed into the story, there is NO basis to make that a likely event behind Christ's message), "so Jesus let him walk away and go to hell...."
<<<<<END PAUSE>>>>>

Then Christ says to the RYR, "if you would be perfect...."

In today's sin centric church, where SIN is made more powerful than God and is the focus of all that is taught, when people hear the word perfect they freak out and immediately fall into defensive role. The word PERFECT means mature in this instance.

Christ was saying, if you would be mature, or finished, or complete your growth, you must DIE to your former life and hold on to none of it (see: if a man loves his mother, father, daughter more than me...) then come follow Christ, totally dependent on Him for providence.

This is the very image of being born again. It was a lesson. If you would finish your spiritual maturity, you must die and be born again....

----------------

Since people think of Christ as SAVE YOU OR NOT SAVE YOU only, and ignore that there are saved people of varying degrees of Spiritual Maturity, it's very logical for them to think Christ was being snide there.

Perfection is something that occurs AFTER atonement/salvation. That's why Christ is the gate, you first go through his atonement, and THEN you are made mature. An altar call and magic bath doesn't make you a mature Christian.
WANTING to behave differently, WANTING to be a different person, doesn't make you that different person.

Born again is more than a way you see life, it's a changed life. One that is dependant on Him.
Blessed are the Poor in Spirit.

Look up the Greek word for Poor and tell me if I'm not consistent.

5% of you will read this and ponder it. 55% of you will read it just to find something to argue against. 40% of you will read this and dismiss it because it's not something you have heard before.

Test my work before you write it off. And if I'm wrong AFTER you test it, then show me. :)

I'm prepared for objections now...

(Sits behind his mental blocks with an army helmet on.)

 

[Episkopos]

I agree that the encounter of the rich man with Jesus was not a salvation issue per se. Who would pass this same test today?? I have started a thread on this issue (narrow way) that people get in a snit about or try explaining away the purpose of God in Christ. Jesus came to build something new. He came for a bride without spot or wrinkle. In order to get with the kingdom program we need to forsake all previous programs...and programming (therein lies the rub).

The difference is between being righteous and being holy. Most Christians agree that righteousness has at least some importance...mention holiness and people get very uptight.

The idea of seeing perfection as maturity is good...IF you know what that maturity looks like. IF you understand that perfection is achieved instantly by abiding in Christ...then you have a good understanding. If you see that this perfection, as it is walked in, is to lead to the full stature of Christ in a godly surrender and character...even better! If you see that Christ is in the brethren and that we are to lay down our lives for them (whom we see) as well as the Lord (whom we don't see) ...then you have a biblical understanding of the purpose of God in Christ.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Your other thread was why I started this one. Didn't wanna hijack it.

And I agree with all you said below. The difference being that it sounds like you would claim to be IN HIM and I can't make that claim yet.

IN HIM, would be someone who loves AS HE DOES, and can not sin. The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin, not "god doesn't look at it as sin."....

But I don't have to fret that. I just have to run the race. HE does the changing, I just move the feet.
Moses held the stick up, but God parted the Red Sea.

I agree that the encounter of the rich man with Jesus was not a salvation issue per se. Who would pass this same test today?? I have started a thread on this issue (narrow way) that people get in a snit about or try explaining away the purpose of God in Christ. Jesus came to build something new. He came for a bride without spot or wrinkle. In order to get with the kingdom program we need to forsake all previous programs...and programming (therein lies the rub).

The difference is between being righteous and being holy. Most Christians agree that righteousness has at least some importance...mention holiness and people get very uptight.

The idea of seeing perfection as maturity is good...IF you know what that maturity looks like. IF you understand that perfection is achieved instantly by abiding in Christ...then you have a good understanding. If you see that this perfection, as it is walked in, is to lead to the full stature of Christ in a godly surrender and character...even better! If you see that Christ is in the brethren and that we are to lay down our lives for them (whom we see) as well as the Lord (whom we don't see) ...then you have a biblical understanding of the purpose of God in Christ.

 

[Nomad]

IN HIM, would be someone who loves AS HE DOES, and can not sin. The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin, not "god doesn't look at it as sin."....

What Scripture reference do you have in mind here?

 

[Xian Pugilist]

What Scripture reference do you have in mind here?

Well, directly is 1 john 3:6 and 1 john 4:16-18. Which are the same claims from different angles of the conversation. I can do it deductively in 2 steps with a dozen other verses, and deductively withn 3 steps with dozens more... I think I'm pretty consistent in context from Genesis to Revelations with my claim.

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor,#Leviticus 19:18 and hate your enemy.#not in the Bible, but see Qumran Manual of Discipline Ix, 21-26’44But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,45that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?47If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors#NU reads “Gentiles” instead of “tax collectors”. do the same?
48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Christ is describing how to love. Shows how God loves. THen commands YOU and I are to love as completely as God does. You should love as completely as the father loves.

1 john 4:16-18 shows that if you don't love, you don't know Him and such...
16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has [a]for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

And 1 john 3:6 says you don't know Him and haven't met Him if you still sin. I'd argue it's not the man's ability to not sin as most will read this that is relevant, it's that they learned to love as God does and the result is they don't sin.

6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

 

[Episkopos]

Your other thread was why I started this one. Didn't wanna hijack it.

And I agree with all you said below. The difference being that it sounds like you would claim to be IN HIM and I can't make that claim yet.

IN HIM, would be someone who loves AS HE DOES, and can not sin. The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin, not "god doesn't look at it as sin."....

But I don't have to fret that. I just have to run the race. HE does the changing, I just move the feet.
Moses held the stick up, but God parted the Red Sea.

This is so refreshing brother!!!! :) Well said!!

 

[Nomad]

Well, directly is 1 john 3:6 and 1 john 4:16-18.

O.k. I thought that's what you had in mind, but didn't want to assume anything. With 1 John 3:6 in mind you said, "The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin." The Greek verb for sin in that verse occurs twice, each in the present tense. The Greek present tense indicates on going or continual action in the present. The ESV for example, captures the essence of the present tense in its rendering of 1 John 3:6-10. The idea that John is trying to convey is that no one born of God will be a habitual sinner, or in other words, you will not live a life characterized by constant sinfulness as if you were never regenerated by the Spirit. It doesn't mean that you will never commit "a sin."

1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

 

[Episkopos]

O.k. I thought that's what you had in mind, but didn't want to assume anything. With 1 John 3:6 in mind you said, "The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin." The Greek verb for sin in that verse occurs twice, each in the present tense. The Greek present tense indicates on going or continual action in the present. The ESV for example, captures the essence of the present tense in its rendering of 1 John 3:6-10. The idea that John is trying to convey is that no one born of God will be a habitual sinner, or in other words, you will not live a life characterized by constant sinfulness as if you were never regenerated by the Spirit. It doesn't mean that you will never commit "a sin."

1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

A person cannot sin when he abides in Christ...but a living sacrifice has a tendency to crawl of the altar...

 

[Xian Pugilist]

O.k. I thought that's what you had in mind, but didn't want to assume anything. With 1 John 3:6 in mind you said, "The can not sin in the Greek implies can't commit a sin." The Greek verb for sin in that verse occurs twice, each in the present tense. The Greek present tense indicates on going or continual action in the present.

Much like the sinful nature, a state of humanity that is sinning and will continue to sin....

The ESV for example, captures the essence of the present tense

Everyone has a favorite translation that says what they want it to :)

in its rendering of 1 John 3:6-10. The idea that John is trying to convey is that no one born of God will be a habitual sinner, or in other words, you will not live a life characterized by constant sinfulness as if you were never regenerated by the Spirit.

That's apologetic nonsense. I'm not picking at you here, but the argument. And that's the argument for the present perfect tense, not the present tense. And the word that makes that argument is found in the PRE CONJUNCTION "sin" of 3:9.

The GREEK WORD for you to study is OU. If one can not sin, every, in the present tense,and you are missing the "perfect" part of the present tense, it means one can not be at a point where one sins.

It doesn't mean that you will never commit "a sin."

No, that is after the conjunction in 3:9. It's the same conversation, same claim and same context. And if you take 1 john 1 where JOHN writes HE is in fellowship with GOD and the people he writes to are NOT in fellowship with GOD, because to be in fellowship with GOD You must walk in the light AS HE DOES, then praytell how can you walk in the light as HE does and still sin, UNLESS HE SINS, which is preposterous. Which means, if HE walked in the light as HE DOES, and HE DOES NOT sin then neither did John at that point. There is no darkness in HIM, and the people John wrote to needed to have a little more darkness washed off "to arrive in Him" 2:8, and they were getting there via love not avoiding sins.

So when you consider the folks John wrote to weren't in fellowship with him, who was in fellowship with GOD, but they DID HAVE the son as their mediator, they were most assuredly saved, but weren't yet in fellowship. Which would be akin to 3:6 if you still sin (had darkness) you don't know Him and haven't met Him. (not in fellowship).

I'm VERY comfortable with the exegetics here and will stand against whatever authority there is with my argument. The linguists can make quicker arguments than I can because I've not had that training, but I have tools.

1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

AND HE CAN NOT KEEP ON SINNING. The word there for sinning, is hamartano, it's the same as in vs 6. Hamartein is the word before the Conjunction. It's the one with the continual sense.

Thus 3:9 is something like if you are born of God, the continual sinfulness of you will be gone (sinful nature), and you can not sin.

Convert that to Paulian theology, you have, "if you are indwelled by the spirit you are not in the sinful nature". AND, "If you walk by the Spirit you won't give into temptations". Rom 8:9 and Gal 5;16 respectively.

Something for you to chew on.

I'm not blowing smoke, I knew what I said when I said it.

Regardless, the verse still says what it says, and if you are going to claim to be IN HIM nad HIM IN YOU, then you better have the love 4:16-18, and Christ said that love would be as perfect as God's is, (or walk in the light as HE does), ANd if you love as HE does, I'm really having a tough time thinking you would have the occasional sin. Especially since it's HIS spirit in you that stops you from doing it, and I think that's an omnipotent force you'd have to whup which seems tough to me, but I'm sure narcissus would have fought him to keep looking to himself... AND with HIS SPIRIT keeping you from temptation it's important to know the sinful nature is GONE if the Spirit of God resides in you rom 8:9 by a circumcision done by Christ, not your ability. So I guess HE might have failed..... but again that omnipotence....

 

[Nomad]

That's apologetic nonsense. I'm not picking at you here, but the argument. And that's the argument for the present perfect tense, not the present tense. And the word that makes that argument is found in the PRE CONJUNCTION "sin" of 3:9.

The GREEK WORD for you to study is OU. If one can not sin, every, in the present tense,and you are missing the "perfect" part of the present tense, it means one can not be at a point where one sins.

There's no such thing in Greek as a "present perfect" tense. What I said regarding the Greek present tense is text book and not up for opinion or debate.

There's no such thing in Greek as a "pre conjunction." The word "sin" (hamartanein) in the latter portion of 1 John 3:9 is not a conjunction of any kind. It is a present tense verb, which again, indicates on going or constant action in present time.

The word "ou" is a negative particle which simply means "no" or "not." There's no need for me to study it, but thanks for your concern.

The portion of 1 John 3:9 in question reads "ou dunatai hamartanein." It reads "not able to keep on sinning" or "not able to practice sin." Either is a proper and accurate translation.

I will refer you once again to my previous post as to the message that John is conveying.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

There's no such thing in Greek as a "present perfect" tense. What I said regarding the Greek present tense is text book and not up for opinion or debate.

Errrr I was typing at work while on the phone... I meant PERFECT but I'll have to fire up the tools to verify..... and it appears that it's not perfect tense for hamartano it's present tense. Since most of my answers come from work, I beg some forgiveness. I've admitted anywhere I had the chat I'm not a linguistic scholar, nor any study in the Biblical languages. But I have the tools and when I study I hit them. HOWEVER for you to make the argument that "goes on sinning" is the ONLY way to read it, is quite simply not accurate. And I've given reason in argument of context to support my view. I"ll give you I screwed up the "present perfect". (When in doubt make up words and such... j/j.) But I'm sticking to my guns on the rest and calling you out on continuing sin being the MUST DEFINE answer to it.

There's no such thing in Greek as a "pre conjunction."

I never said IN GREEK it was pre conjunction. Are you wanting to talk about this, or posture as a great scholar on my back? Get real or I'm out. THERE IS A CONJUNCTION IN EVERY TRANSLATION I HAVE EVER READ IN ENGLISH. YOU HAVE SIN BEFORE THAT CONJUNCTION AND AFTER. If you want to turn this into a posturing and slap fest, my last name is Dickey, I have years more experience than you do. Let's not go there. I'm more than happy to be guilty of what I screw up on, but if you keep making up offenses I'm taking it as personal and aggressive as it would prove to be.

The word "sin" (hamartanein) in the latter portion of 1 John 3:9 is not a conjunction of any kind. It is a present tense verb, which again, indicates on going or constant action in present time.

Help me what is the difference in the two words for sin in 3:9?

The word "ou" is a negative particle which simply means "no" or "not." There's no need for me to study it, but thanks for your concern.

So, you would contend that if that particular word there for NO is present, that it is possible that something MIGHT happen where OU said it can't happen?

The portion of 1 John 3:9 in question reads "ou dunatai hamartanein." It reads "not able to keep on sinning" or "not able to practice sin." Either is a proper and accurate translation.

In the NT what is the "continuous" sinful part of a living person? in 3:9
no one who is born of God has a commits/practices/executesa sin lifestyle AND is not able to continue sinning (if we assume both words mean exatly the same but are spelled differently.) NOW great scholar that you are, tell me something.... IF the attribution of not sinning is to GOD'S SEED IN HIM would your theology argue that HIS SEED IS incapable, or unwilling to do it's job? And how does Paul feel about his similar comment if you walk in the Spirit you won't give into temptations of the flesh? Is the Spirit not capable or not willing?

And what about the rest of the arguments/reasoning I presented. Are you going to ignore that and stick with pedantics? Are you going to posture as a great language scholar? Are we going to end up with an appeal to numbers on how many scholars would argue which of the two ways you can interpret those words goes? I'm not a big fan of using fallacies to win arguments. I prefer to put the puzzle together. I think I did that with my arguments, SANS the created greek tense. Sure is a great way to trump an argument though, to just make stuff up as you go. :| I really wasn't making it up, I was speaking before I checked my study notes, not being a language student, I screwed up. Now, back to the context...

I will refer you once again to my previous post as to the message that John is conveying.

Your previous post on what he's conveying can sit there and collect dust til you answer the context arguments above. But I'll expound on them here.... Here is why my interpretation of 3:9 is more relevant than your pedantic position.

I'll use corroborating works of Paul and John.

I'll work backwards from 3:9/6

3:9 deals with the continuous nature of sin, the sinful nature in one instance and says you can't continue sinning or can't sin in the other instance. The continuous aspect is not a given as you present EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WISHING TO TRY TO PEDANTICALLY eliminate this conversation with an authoritative play.

If you back up to chapter 1 you'll find that John is in fellowship with GOD AND HIS SON, but not the people he writes to. HOWEVER the people he writes to have Christ as their mediator, so I'm assuming they are post atonement/saved/whatever word you choose there, but aren't in fellowship with JOHN. That is fine but you have an option here. If JOHN is in the kitchen with GOD and His Son, but he's NOT in the same room with the people he writes to, they may not be in fellowship with GOd either.

"I'm in fellowship with God, and you aren't in fellowship with us so we want you to be here with us and God and His son too." <<<< sorta how it would look. Now most presume a fellowship with GOD the minute they claim to be saved, altar call, magic bath what the heck every is the threshold for it. HOWEVER, presumption is what it is, it's not an absolute. So to presume that is to kick exegetics out the window and go for eisegetics. There has to be a way in context and in text to figure this out. So how to find out if the recipients are in fellowship with GOd or not.

The criteria for being in fellowship is that you walk in the light AS HE DOES. Now if we accept YOUR position, you would claim, "I walk in the light as HE DOES but I still sin, and HE doesn't so it's really not AS HE DOES at all." Which is just plain silly if you ask me as an old debater. It's like saying I'm in the water but I am not wet!

So, JOHN walks in the light as GOD does, as does those with him when he wrote the letter.
Are those he wrote to walking in the light?
In 2:8 we see they still hadn't arrived they still had some darkness to be washed away.

So, if walking in the light as HE DOES means what it says, and there is no pedantic present (or present perfect :|) tense argument here; then if they still had darkness to be washed away, they aren't yet walking in the light as HE DOES because there is no darkness IN HIM.

So, they have forgiveness, confession, Christ as a Mediator, thus they are saved, but they are not yet in fellowship with God. I'd argue this is the MILK/MEAT Xians. Some are mature some aren't mature. Some are perfect some aren't perfect, yet. You have a group of mature believers writing people who aren't yet mature and are facing misleading teachings out there, and John is trying to help them get in fellowship as that would make his joy complete.

Thus when he writes, if you still sin, you don't know Him and haven't met Him.
Put next to,
You have forgiveness but you aren't in fellowship as you still walk in the darkness, you have a consistent theme in 1 john.

If you take it to PAUL, you'll find if the Spirit indwells you, then you aren't inm the flesh anymore.
If you walk by the Spirit you won't give into temptations of the flesh.
If you are indwelled by the Spirit the Flesh was removed by Christ like a circumcision.

Two facts, circumcisions don't grow back.
Christ is a competent surgeon.

Would you maintain that Paul was wrong when he wrote that,
that Christ can't do the snip,
or that Christ WON'T do the snip?

And would you agree that this sinful nature being removed Col 2:11 by circumcision, which Paul didn't have any longer 7:5 would remove the thing that FORCES you to do what you don't wanna do and not do what you wanna do as romans 7's hypotheticals read from 15ish to 24ish?

Yes, I played the IF card which eliminates the fake required conclusion Paul spoke of himself there in the last third of chapter 7.

I can go into Christ's words to corroborate, and I can go into James some, and Peter some as well. If I find the right notebook I can hit the OT which is riddled with this thought....

But what I have is a context that is consistent.

You have a pedantic position that creates a contradiction.

I don't appreciate your tone from the get go. The presumed mightier than me tone just annoys me. I'm accustomed to Xian chat forums being filled with narcissistic must be right claimants of my faith. I'd as soon NOT run into it here and have real conversations. Come to me and address the arguments, ALL OF THEM, and let's progress the conversation, or come at me in condescension. One will have chats, the other will be less than pretty.

 

[Nomad]

HOWEVER for you to make the argument that "goes on sinning" is the ONLY way to read it, is quite simply not accurate.

Show me a Greek Grammar that defines the present tense in any way other than I have defined it here.

I never said IN GREEK it was pre conjunction.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

And the word that makes that argument is found in the PRE CONJUNCTION "sin" of 3:9.

The word sin is not a conjunction of any sort in Greek or English, so your assertion that you didn't say that, "IN GREEK it was pre conjunction" is simply an attempt at dodging your error. Honesty is the best policy here.

Help me what is the difference in the two words for sin in 3:9?

"Hamartian" in the beginning of the verse is an accusative noun followed by the present tense verb "poiei" which means "doing." "Hamartanein" in the latter portion is a present active infinitive verb.

So, you would contend that if that particular word there for NO is present, that it is possible that something MIGHT happen where OU said it can't happen?

No, I would not. No means no and not means not. It's very simple. The verse in question says you cannot practice sinning. It does not say that you cannot sin.

Now let's put this matter to rest.

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

First, I'm going to preempt an objection here. John includes himself in what he has said. Notice carefully his use of the pronoun "we."

Your reading of 1 John 3:6:10, which completely ignores the grammatical import of certain verbs, would have John contradicting himself in the same epistle. I'm happy to say that this isn't the case when we translate properly. The difference between what John says in the first two chapters and what he says in the third is very easy to see. Here it is in a nutshell: Believers will struggle with the flesh and sometimes fall, but we will not be given over completely to the flesh to live a life of habitual sinfulness as if we had never been born again.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

I assume you ignored all the reasoning and stuck to pedantics for a reason. Very telling. If this is a contest for you to see who can make the longest yellow line in the snow, please, let me know now.

Show me a Greek Grammar that defines the present tense in any way other than I have defined it here.

http://www.ntgreek.o...inter-tense.htm
For action happening at the present time, only the 'present tense' is available. Whether the writer is wishing in any particular instance to emphasis the progressive aspect of the verb or just indicate a simple occurrence at the present time, there is only one choice of tense to use. Therefore, one must consider the context and the basic meaning of the verb to determine whether the emphasis is on the continuous aspect of the action or merely on the present time element. It may be that no real emphasis on progressive action is intended but, for a statement requiring the element of present time, there is no choice but to use the 'present tense'. (Of course outside the indicative mood the emphasis almost certainly will be on the progressive element of the verb, since the aorist tense could readily be employed).

Done. Context defines it. It's not clear cut like putting an S on the end of a word makes it plural. Your claim is a false premise, and since you can't answer the contextual arguments, you fight to hold on to the only argument you have left. That's not honest conversation. That is debate.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

Yes, I referenced a greek word, by the English conjunction. What's your point. There are two Greek words for Sin. I noted the place of one I referenced to. Pedantics suck when they make you look silly. Can we stop that now?

The word sin is not a conjunction of any sort in Greek or English,

Good thing no one said it was. Are you that desperate to show me up to just make up arguments you can win?
1Jo 3:9 No one who is [fn]born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is [fn]born of God.

The Greek word KAI is a conjunctive word, it's using AND here. You have the words for sin before and after it. After it, it is simply NOT SIN. THE NEGATIVE WORD does not allow for a MIGHT HAPPEN or MAY OCCUR. The two words for sin are different in this verse. So I've asked you to explain the difference in them, because as best I can tell so far you claim they are different words but mean exactly the same thing. And I don't buy that. Either you are wrong, I'm an idiot, or I misunderstand you which is just a nice version of the second. I'm ok being an idiot. I'm not ok with your tood and refusal to do anything but lecture pedantics ignoring the rest of the conversation.

so your assertion that you didn't say that, "IN GREEK it was pre conjunction" is simply an attempt at dodging your error. Honesty is the best policy here.

You are ranting and ignoring the obvious. You are reaching to either make a case or to save face. Just own it, you read it wrong. There is a conjunction. There is a word for sin before, and a word for sin after, the pre conjunction "sin" is the sin that occurs before the conjunction. I REALLY hope this is just a big misunderstanding and you aren't doing this on purpose.

"Hamartian" in the beginning of the verse is an accusative noun followed by the present tense verb "poiei" which means "doing." "Hamartanein" in the latter portion is a present active infinitive verb.

TY, I have to digest that, but it gives me a simplified place to start.

No, I would not. No means no and not means not. It's very simple. The verse in question says you cannot practice sinning. It does not say that you cannot sin.

Why do you put the practice sinning after the conjunction when it's not there. Poieo/poiei whatever is not present after the conjunction. There is an odd little rule that sometimes means you can carry that continual aspect forward after the conjunction. It's an assumption that the statement is the same and not a progressive thought. Like there are growing eggs and apples... would hint that both are growing. But it can also be there are growing eggs and rocks. Which the rocks aren't growing and to add the growing part to it is silly. This is lame examples but I'm sure as educated as you are, you can see the argument.
And, I've read many folks who work on translations that have commented that rule is highly unlikely, but not impossible.
Anyone who would like some sources for this may click the link to the NET Bible's notes and references on the topic.
http://classic.net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=1Jo%203:6,9#n2

Now let's put this matter to rest.

And now the attitude is out in full force. Why does this make you so angry. What about GOD do you doubt in His abilities here?

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And how does this say that you will sin forever?
How does that contrast with JOHN who said he walked in the light AS HE DOES. Would you argue HE SINS, (God...) or that John lied? Those are about your only two positions to take. Which are you more comfortable with?
But every one of us has sin. Big deal. That's why Christ came. We all have sinned and fallen short.....right? Not a one of us is without sin. THAT DOES NOT SAY EVERY ONE OF US WILL SIN FOREVER UNTIL THEY DIE.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

The people he wrote to are not in fellowship with GOD. To be in fellowship you must walk in the light as HE DOES and there is no darkness in HIM. JOHN IS IN FELLOWSHIP as well as others with him. THOSE HE WRITES TO ARE NOT. To help them get there they must walk in the light as HE DOES (not sin....) and there is no darkness in HIm. which is why in 2:8 the darkness needs to be washed a little more away before they are there in fellowship. AND THE TOPIC is not about sin, but about growing in love. The non sinning is just a result of getting the love right. At least according to John.

I have a MUCH more consistent view exegetically. Yours causes you to dance with contradictions and play pedantic games.

First, I'm going to preempt an objection here. John includes himself in what he has said. Notice carefully his use of the pronoun "we."

Said and answered, I preempted your preemption. hehe

Your reading of 1 John 3:6:10, which completely ignores the grammatical import of certain verbs, would have John contradicting himself in the same epistle.

Only to someone who presumed a conclusion and went way out of their way to make stuff up to maintain their presumption.AND since I have already given 22 paragraphs of argument to justify/argue/reason/logicly assess the context and it was ignored, I'm assuming you didn't read it, or couldn't understand it. My money is on didn't read it. Why would someone who has a presupposed conclusion read something that didn't support their presupposition. What it shows me is you are a fundamentalist lecturer, not a conversationalist.

I'm happy to say that this isn't the case when we translate properly. The difference between what John says in the first two chapters and what he says in the third is very easy to see. Here it is in a nutshell: Believers will struggle with the flesh and sometimes fall, but we will not be given over completely to the flesh to live a life of habitual sinfulness as if we had never been born again.

Yeah. bluster and blabber.

Go answer the arguments. Stop ignoring them and just preaching. Talk with me, not at me, or shut up.

You flat out ignored a page of argument towards context. That's nothing if not arrogantly disrespectful.

You can choke to death on your hubris for all I care. Defend the arguments and get off my personal back.

 

[mark s]

Just a point of reasoning (logic), whether or not Jesus disputed with this young man over whether he had kept all the Law does not certify whether or not he had in fact kept the Law.

In point of fact, one is not made righteous by keeping the Law, and Jesus knew that. So whether or not this young man actually did or did not keep the Law is beside the point. In fact, the Bible teaches that none have kept the Law, and that the Law does not justify, it only condemns. This is because no one keeps it.

You can choke to death on your hubris for all I care.

Wow! I hardly know what to say . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[us2are1]

The importance of asking God for His Spirit. God's Spirit in you can achieve perfection. The world can keep you from God.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Just a point of reasoning (logic), whether or not Jesus disputed with this young man over whether he had kept all the Law does not certify whether or not he had in fact kept the Law.

Agreed.

In point of fact, one is not made righteous by keeping the Law, and Jesus knew that.

Correct again. And he wasn't asking how to be righteous..... so...

So whether or not this young man actually did or did not keep the Law is beside the point. In fact, the Bible teaches that none have kept the Law, and that the Law does not justify, it only condemns. This is because no one keeps it.

Err that's not true. Well, it's true by the word, but not the message nor the intent.

Gentiles were never under the law. A priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, as Christ's Church is established, exists independent of the law. Mel lived before the law, before the jews, before the gentiles....

Wow! I hardly know what to say . . .
Love in Christ,
Mark

Yeah me neither. I did really good with the attitude for a long while. I don't like being talked down to. I responded kindly several times, that got no where, so I resorted to mimicking their behavior.

Sorry.

 

[mark s]

Err that's not true. Well, it's true by the word, but not the message nor the intent.

Gentiles were never under the law. A priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, as Christ's Church is established, exists independent of the law. Mel lived before the law, before the jews, before the gentiles....

Hi XP,

I'm not sure what you're saying here . . . whether someone was under the Law or not doesn't change whether they are declared righteous by the Law, or can be made righteous . . . does it?

Yeah me neither. . . .

Hey, nice response!

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Hi XP,

I'm not sure what you're saying here . . . whether someone was under the Law or not doesn't change whether they are declared righteous by the Law, or can be made righteous . . . does it?

While what you say isn't technically wrong, it's a little shallow to all the issues found in the discussion and the scriptures behind them. I'm not saying YOU are shallow, nor assuming you haven't thought on the topic or anything. But you have Christ telling the RYR that had he kept the decalogue he'd have eternal life. So, err. that implies... the law and decalogue are different, in one sense at least. That the focus ws on the decalogue, not the levitical law, etc.... These apparent inconsistencies show up when we start crosing conversations. There is an intent that is consistent, but the words may be different but coming from different angles in the approach mean the same. It's that consistent intent we have to find. A good example or two, Paul said he wasn't in the flesh and that he struggled with the flesh in Romans 7. And in Phil 3 he said he wasn't then that him and others were perfect. The words appear in contradiction, but there is a consistent message. (Paul got kicks out of making confusing statements I think...)

Paul said he was blameless when it came to the law in one place. Put that with Christ's comment to the RYR. They seem to support each other, but Paul referenced the levitical law, not the decalogue in his statement, so they don't really have the same claims at all. BUT THERE IS A CONSISTENT messsage there.

Now, I could just give you how I see it, but if you don't do the work to discover it on your own, it won't matter and you won't trust it.

NONE OF THIS is a bagging on you comment. My speach style is just very forward. In person I come across much warmer than my text.... :)_

 

[Nomad]

XP,

This is getting ridiculous. I honestly don't know where to begin in untangling the mess that was your last post. You clearly do not have even a basic understanding of Greek grammar and syntax. This is apparent by that commentary/resource you posted regarding the Greek present tense. That comment makes my point loud and clear and yet you post it as if it goes against me. Since you obviously do not understand what the author is saying, I'll explain.

If John had wanted to convey the idea that a believer cannot sin ever, he would have used the aorist which can indicate simple summary occurrence. Had John used the aorist he would have contradicted himself in chapters 1 & 2 as I have already demonstrated. The good news is that he used the present tense, with it's progressive aspect, making his point loud and clear. If he used the present tense with summary occurrence in mind, the idea he was communicating would have only been true at the time he was writing as the present tense used this way would say nothing about the future. Therein is the contextual consideration your resource mentions. I don't know how you could have missed what the author/commentator was saying when he says it so clearly.

So, in the future XP, stick to English. When it comes to Greek, it's readily apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

XP,

This is getting ridiculous. I honestly don't know where to begin in untangling the mess that was your last post.

Your posturing is disgusting.

You clearly do not have even a basic understanding of Greek grammar and syntax. This is apparent by that commentary/resource you posted regarding the Greek present tense.

Yes, it's a Greek language class textbook. Dallas Theological Seminary and their Greek department agree with it. But you know better than them.> Have you translated as much as they have? Have you been counseled for your skills in the language as they have?

That comment makes my point loud and clear and yet you post it as if it goes against me. Since you obviously do not understand what the author is saying, I'll explain.

In other words, you can't answer the context arguments, so you'll stick to pedantics. Ever hear of appeal to authority?

If John had wanted to convey the idea that a believer cannot sin ever, he would have used the aorist which can indicate simple summary occurrence.

Had Paul meant he wasn't perfect yet he wouldn't have said he would, Phil 3. Had Paul meant he struggled with the flesh still, he wouldn't have said he wasn't in the flesh, Romans 7. You are asking for JOHN to speak in a way that satiates your desires, vs you spend the time to understand his words. My contextual arguments are infinitely more sound than yours and reach less. I'm very comfortable with that. The fact you can't answer those arguments tell me you are incapable, or unwilling. If unwilling then you are trying to save face or build rep as the Greek man.

If JOHN didn't think he no longer sinned, why/how could he claim to walk in the light AS GOD DOES? How can you walk in the light AS GOD DOES and still sin? Does GOD SIN? Then if John still sinned and walked as HE DOES then HE must sin or JOHN LIED. Which does your great intellectual theology wish to defend?

Why is it that those he wrote to, wouldn't be in fellowship until they had a little more darkness washed off of them? And why is there no darkness in HIM? Think those are connected?

Sit here and make yellow pedantic lines in the snow. You still are wrong and facing an uphill battle. You may feel free to condescend, cut me down, call me ignorant blah blah blah I don't care. I admitted to my mistake. :) I'm proven to not be afraid of being wrong. You fight against all odds to save face....

Had John used the aorist he would have contradicted himself in chapters 1 & 2 as I have already demonstrated.

Your "demonstration" has been answered. I note that you had no answer for the answer. So you are just being petulant and stomping your hands and feet on the ground shouting MINE MINE MINE MINE. I see no reason to talk to someone too proud to admit to the possibility of being wrong. And when that person won't face the rebuttals just demands someone to accept their proclamations AS IF THEY WERE THE AUTHORITY, I'm dealing with more ego than intellect. :) I'm not insulting here, it's not name calling, it's the summary of how this chat goes from THIS side of the table. And empirically established behavior backs me up.

The good news is that he used the present tense, with it's progressive aspect, making his point loud and clear.

How do you walk in the light AS HE DOES and sin? That wouldn't be as HE DOES now would it?

AND since it's HIS SEED that keeps you from sinning in 3:9, why do you find GOD INADEQUATE to do what he published in the canon? What else can God not do?

If he used the present tense with summary occurrence in mind, the idea he was communicating would have only been true at the time he was writing as the present tense used this way would say nothing about the future. Therein is the contextual consideration your resource mentions. I don't know how you could have missed what the author/commentator was saying when he says it so clearly.

So, in the future XP, stick to English. When it comes to Greek, it's readily apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Nomad, I just figured out your name is a compound word. No, Mad. Can we talk with you? NO! Why? You are mad.

YOu have made arguments, that have been refuted. Rather than go to context and place the right meaning, you choose pedantics and denying people who get paid to teach people like you the Greek language and translational skills know what they write. You can't answer the refutations, nor the contextual support. You choose a position that creates more contradictions than it reconciles, and you have the coconuts to sit there and posture like I'm the idiot and you the braniac. You are intellectually incapable or not brave enough to face the arguments.

Either way, this is a grandiose waste of time. You have about 4 pages of things to answer. You dodge that.

You are truly a legend in your own mind.

Shoo, get off the grown ups table.