Not By Works

[dcontroversal]

Well let me delve into this with you and see if I can persuade you.

Grace is being persuasive AHAHHAHA HEY.....that is true......and then FAITH saves HAHAHAHHAHH

 

[dcontroversal]

Ummm...my interpretation is correct. Peter had said “even if all deny you, I will die with you”, and when the test came his weakness was revealed. So now he is ashamed and hesirmtant to make such a claim again. Remember Jesus said “ live-streams thou more than these. That is why Peter uses the weaker word phileo instead of agape. But the threefold denial was followed by the threefold question and the threefold commission, feed my sheep. And a prophecy that Peter would stand in the future, even unto death

This Jesus telling Peter that he meant what he said when He said earlier, “when you are converted, strengthen the brethren”, now stated as “feed my sheep”

1st bolded...NOPE

2nd and 3rd bolded....nothing but an opinion with no factual evidence from scripture = guessing, surmising, supposition....NOTHING more, nothing LESS

 

[Macabeus]

1st bolded...NOPE

2nd and 3rd bolded....nothing but an opinion with no factual evidence from scripture = guessing, surmising, supposition....NOTHING more, nothing LESS

The evidence is in the context, Sherlock. You see, but you do not observe.

I didn’t look at any commentaries when I got what I got out of the passage, but when you mocked it, I went ahead and checked commentaries to see if my interpretation was novel. Every commentary I checked agreed with my interpretation.

O mighty DC, why don’t you give your take on the text?

 

[Macabeus]

what makes bible interpretation difficult is many contradicting verses that need to harmonize.and its in same book so like in 1 john it says you cant sin and you do sin or your liar

so we need to make some explanation for that to make sense. the explanation is different for people but its clearly made sense to st.john in the Spirit when he wrote it.

dispensationalism gets rid of many these problems. but sometimes like 1john is just contradiction after another so you need to make a balance from those verses. i dont mean contradiction in bad way, its intentional by Holy Spirit but you know what i mean. things that look to be completely opposite used one verse after another.

You’re talking about tension. Things that appear contradictory but are not.

What our eminent Greek scholar in these forums doesn’t tell people is that the function of the tense in Greek is not to indicate time of action, but rather type of action. He doesn’t tell people this, because it undermines his view of 1 John 3:1-10

The present tense indicates an action that is either continual or repetetive. Any Greek student who has studied Greek for one year will tell you this. It’s onevof the first things you learn, like in the first month

So when John says whosoever is born of God does not sin, it is speaking of a continuous state of sin as a way of life.

The eminent (supposedly) Greek scholar here either knows this or should, but he continues to teach that text in a way that is utterly foreign to johns thought

 

[dcontroversal]

The evidence is in the context, Sherlock. You see, but you do not observe.

I didn’t look at any commentaries when I got what I got out of the passage, but when you mocked it, I went ahead and checked commentaries to see if my interpretation was novel. Every commentary I checked agreed with my interpretation.

O mighty DC, why don’t you give your take on the text?

See...that is the difference between us....I cannot even begin to surmise why Peter said what he said without contextual evidence which states clearly WHY he said it. You on the other hand just whip things out of a hat and post them as biblically factual truths.....and you think a commentary that surmises as to the reason why he said something makes it factual....well heck....I guess that settles it hey.....!

And I never mocked...I made a factual statement.......YOU, I, and EVERY COMMENTATOR on the planet CANNOT give as factual evidence an opinion WITHOUT biblical evidence backed by contextual truth.....

There is NOT one shred of evidence that supports your conclusion.....WHY do you constantly KICK against the truth man when you are called on something that you cannot back biblically........

 

[Melach]

The best...but concentrated....must mix with water or it will fry your mouth off

View attachment 204543

i am crazy i try it without water lolz if i find it.

i sometimes use pure alcohol if i have like gum infection. dont worry guys im not drunkard i dont dirnk it i just rinse it in my mouth

 

[Macabeus]

See...that is the difference between us....I cannot even begin to surmise why Peter said what he said without contextual evidence which states clearly WHY he said it. You on the other hand just whip things out of a hat and post them as biblically factual truths.....and you think a commentary that surmises as to the reason why he said something makes it factual....well heck....I guess that settles it hey.....!

And I never mocked...I made a factual statement.......YOU, I, and EVERY COMMENTATOR on the planet CANNOT give as factual evidence an opinion WITHOUT biblical evidence backed by contextual truth.....

There is NOT one shred of evidence that supports your conclusion.....WHY do you constantly KICK against the truth man when you are called on something that you cannot back biblically........

It’s there. You just don’t see it

Why do many see it and you don’t?

So why did Peter say Phileo instead of Agape? And what was the purpose of Jesus foretelling Peter’s martydom

Don’t just make fun of what someone drew out of a text. Why don’t you walk us through the text

If you can’t do that, you words have the weight of a feather on this matter

 

[Lafftur]

Grace is being persuasive AHAHHAHA HEY.....that is true......and then FAITH saves HAHAHAHHAHH

Hmmm.....interesting concept...”grace is being persuasive”......

I do know the kindness of the Lord leads us to repentance, which can be persuasive....
So, maybe so, maybe “grace is persuasive.” I’ll need to “chew the cud” on that one (think and discuss it with the Holy Spirit).

Great post! It got me thinking.....

 

[Melach]

You’re talking about tension. Things that appear contradictory but are not.

What our eminent Greek scholar in these forums doesn’t tell people is that the function of the tense in Greek is not to indicate time of action, but rather type of action. He doesn’t tell people this, because it undermines his view of 1 John 3:1-10

The present tense indicates an action that is either continual or repetetive. Any Greek student who has studied Greek for one year will tell you this. It’s onevof the first things you learn, like in the first month

So when John says whosoever is born of God does not sin, it is speaking of a continuous state of sin as a way of life.

The eminent (supposedly) Greek scholar here either knows this or should, but he continues to teach that text in a way that is utterly foreign to johns thought

i dont know DCs view of 1 John 3:1-10 put i would like to hear it @dcontroversal

i just heard a sermon of it by pastor lawson i believe. he said its also means continual lifestyle not falling into some sin.

 

[Macabeus]

See...that is the difference between us....I cannot even begin to surmise why Peter said what he said without contextual evidence which states clearly WHY he said it. You on the other hand just whip things out of a hat and post them as biblically factual truths.....and you think a commentary that surmises as to the reason why he said something makes it factual....well heck....I guess that settles it hey.....!

And I never mocked...I made a factual statement.......YOU, I, and EVERY COMMENTATOR on the planet CANNOT give as factual evidence an opinion WITHOUT biblical evidence backed by contextual truth.....

There is NOT one shred of evidence that supports your conclusion.....WHY do you constantly KICK against the truth man when you are called on something that you cannot back biblically........

You are making bare assertions. Back up your assertion by walking us through the text and tell us the answer to questions like why did Peter use phileo instead of agape, what was Jesus’ intention in the exchange, and why did Jesus foretell Peters future martydom.

Are all these things in a bubble and unrelated.

Unless you give your take on a text using exegesis, your criticism is nothing but bare assertions

 

[Macabeus]

i dont know DCs view of 1 John 3:1-10 put i would like to hear it @dcontroversal

i just heard a sermon of it by pastor lawson i believe. he said its also means continual lifestyle not falling into some sin.

Pastor Lawson is correct.

 

[Macabeus]

Hmmm.....interesting concept...”grace is being persuasive”......

I do know the kindness of the Lord leads us to repentance, which can be persuasive....
So, maybe so, maybe “grace is persuasive.” I’ll need to “chew the cud” on that one (think and discuss it with the Holy Spirit).

Great post! It got me thinking.....

Bill g posted a great definition of grace earlier today. It involves active works of God, nor just a state or position, though it can mean that too

 

[CherieR]

It’s there. You just don’t see it

Why do many see it and you don’t?

So why did Peter say Phileo instead of Agape? And what was the purpose of Jesus foretelling Peter’s martydom

Don’t just make fun of what someone drew out of a text. Why don’t you walk us through the text

If you can’t do that, you words have the weight of a feather on this matter

I did like the idea you said about why Peter may have used the word phileo instead of agape. I am not an expert at the Greek at all though. I believe what you said about why Peter may have responded the way he did is a possibility though there could be other reasons for how he responded.

 

[Guojing]

what makes bible interpretation difficult is many contradicting verses that need to harmonize.and its in same book so like in 1 john it says you cant sin and you do sin or your liar

so we need to make some explanation for that to make sense. the explanation is different for people but its clearly made sense to st.john in the Spirit when he wrote it.

dispensationalism gets rid of many these problems. but sometimes like 1john is just contradiction after another so you need to make a balance from those verses. i dont mean contradiction in bad way, its intentional by Holy Spirit but you know what i mean. things that look to be completely opposite used one verse after another.

Get rid sounds so negative.

We simply read Galatians 2:9 literally: John, together with Peter and James, agreed to restrict their ministry to the Jews only and agreed to let Paul and Barnabas be ministers to the gentiles.

 

[Melach]

Get rid sounds so negative.

i am sorry. i dont speak english as my mother language. i didnt mean to be negative

 

[Macabeus]

I did like the idea you said about why Peter may have used the word phileo instead of agape. I am not an expert at the Greek at all though. I believe what you said about why Peter may have responded the way he did is a possibility though there could be other reasons for how he responded.

If you read the passage in context...

This is the second miracle involving a catch of fish. The first was when Jesus called Peter to be a fisher of men

Three questions of affirmation in contrast to the three denials of Peter

The repeated commission to “ feed my sheep/lambs”

Peter using phileo instead of agape. Agape is a a love that is willing to lay down life, phileo is a much weaker word

Jesus telling Peter about how he would die a martyr

These are all things to take into consideration when interpreting the text

It’s observing the text before you interpret it

 

[dcontroversal]

i am crazy i try it without water lolz if i find it.

i sometimes use pure alcohol if i have like gum infection. dont worry guys im not drunkard i dont dirnk it i just rinse it in my mouth

It will cure it HAHA

 

[CherieR]

If you read the passage in context...

This is the second miracle involving a catch of fish. The first was when Jesus called Peter to be a fisher of men

Three questions of affirmation in contrast to the three denials of Peter

The repeated commission to “ feed my sheep/lambs”

Peter using phileo instead of agape. Agape is a a love that is willing to lay down life, phileo is a much weaker word

Jesus telling Peter about how he would die a martyr

These are all things to take into consideration when interpreting the text

It’s observing the text before you interpret it

What word did Peter use the third time? Phileo or agape?

 

[dcontroversal]

i dont know DCs view of 1 John 3:1-10 put i would like to hear it @dcontroversal

i just heard a sermon of it by pastor lawson i believe. he said its also means continual lifestyle not falling into some sin.

Not sure why he is mouthing yet again.....one of these days he will pay the price.....and his over all statement is false concerning the Greek verb tense.....it depends WHICH verb tense is being used at the time.....some like the perfect tense sets forth a present continuing result from a past completed action.....yes...1st John concerning sin in a believer primarily points to a continual lifestyle of sin...…….

 

[dcontroversal]

You are making bare assertions. Back up your assertion by walking us through the text and tell us the answer to questions like why did Peter use phileo instead of agape, what was Jesus’ intention in the exchange, and why did Jesus foretell Peters future martydom.

Are all these things in a bubble and unrelated.

Unless you give your take on a text using exegesis, your criticism is nothing but bare assertions

Called factual statements....NOT surmising....NO ONE can judge MOTIVE unless STATED clearly....and the TEXT does not support motive from Peter's perspective no matter how many times you blather on about it....