Back when I was posting articles on a daily basis, I was having a lot of interaction with Bruce Charlton in our articles and in their comment sections. We had been discussing the nature of repentance, faith, forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life. Through various twist and turns I was reminded of a divisive discussion in 2024 that led to two things: a loss in readership and the 40-part series on the eucharist.
No Derek, it is you who do not understand the eucharist.
Our Orthodox brothers have celebrated it in basically the same way as Catholics since the beginning, with only procedural differences. If you are right, like I said before, then all of Christendom, 2000 years of Orthodoxy and 1500 years of Catholicism before the Protestants “corrected” the Church, are wrong about the most basic and fundamental part of the faith. Again, you cherry-pick scripture but cannot refute Christ’s EXACT words of “this is my body”. You cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit and get into Heaven. It’s the one sin that cannot be forgiven.
If you’re right then basically nobody has gotten to heaven since Christ left the earth, and we have effectively had no Church. That does not square up with Christ saying he will have a church on earth and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You’re simply wrong here, and I will not argue with you further. Good luck to you, I hope your false interpretations bring you comfort on judgement day, because you’re going to need it.
Let’s discuss the idea that doctrinal purity is required for salvation. More to the point, what relevance will BtM’s false interpretations have on Judgement Day? Will they even matter?
Lying is a sin, but being wrong—”false interpretations”—is not. On the Day of Judgment, no interpretation that I have ever held—whether true or false—will bring me any comfort because such things will be irrelevant. If it turns out I was wrong, then there isn’t anything I can do to change that: I know that I tried to do right, but ultimately failed in the attempt. I sincerely doubt that Jesus is going to be concerned with whether or not I made doctrinal mistakes. I most certainly have made many, as have you. Given how often I write, I’ve probably made many more mistakes than most, despite how careful I try to be. Moreover, I could spend the rest of my life trying to cleanse myself of false doctrine and I’d never achieve the goal.
But it’s not just mistakes. I’ve lied. I’ve supported the cause of evil. We all have at various points, and we all will again in the future. It is an inevitable fact of human existence. We all will do what we do not want to to: even the saints in Christ.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
If we say that we have fellowship with him but continue to walk in the darkness, we are lying and are not obeying the truth. But if we continue to walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.
It’s not possible for a man to cease sinning.
The Bible speaks rather little of repentance. In particular, it rarely specifies repentance from sin. Repentance in the NT is turning towards God after having been turned away from Him. It is a fundamental reorientation. It is faith.
The key is not wanting to sin. Or, alternatively, knowing that what you do is wrong and acknowledging this fact without lying about it. It is about intentions, not results. Better, after all, the man who sins and understands that what is doing is wrong, than the man who sins and also lies to himself about it.
Insisting on doctrinal purity (i.e.”my church only”) is foreign to the mission of Jesus on this earth. Even Paul, the great Apostle, understood the limitations of this life:
Love never ends, but where there are prophecies, they will be done away; where there are tongues, they will cease; where there is a message of knowledge, it will be done away.
For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when the Completeness comes, that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know only in part, but then I will know fully just as also I was fully known.
But now these three remain: trust, hope, and love—but the greatest of these is love.
So while I spend a lot of time trying to know what there is to know—to always seek to refine my faith—all of that will be set aside on the Day of Judgement. When it comes to faith—which includes correct and incorrect beliefs—hope and love, what matters most is love.
Derek
i remember Scott & that Wayne guy(who was/is SCOTT’S BIGGEST fanboy & brown noser)at Simp Frame jumping on you as a ”legalist instead of a ”RP” legalist” as ST.DAL,VOX & Rollo”90% of MEN are betas” Tomassi” like them on a now ”unpublished” SCOTT post in 2020.
Which brings me to how they like other ””good” MEN” are NOT valiantly righteous but are in continued hatred of MOSES,JESUS & GBFM to this very hour!
(video)
CONCLUSION?
WHY is NOT SCOTT,Wayne & other ””good” MEN” NOT walking in GOD’S righteousness(instead of ST.DAL,VOX & Rollo”90% of MEN are betas” Tomassi ways)?
(video)
YEAH something like THAT!
But this is a double-negative expression. We ought to have positive aspirations, surely?
I would say rather that the key is wanting to live wholly by love – or (same thing), wanting to live wholly in harmony in divine creation (or with God’s will).
“Sin” is all the multitudinous (innumerable) ways that we fail to do this.
Yet “sin” in the IV Gospel is apparently primarily death (i.e. death without resurrection to everlasting life in Heaven).
So the concept of “sin” would then (perhaps) be a term derived from all those things that – if we didn’t give them up – would prevent resurrected life.
I agree that there isn’t much in the NT about repentance or exactly what it entails. The concept seems to be inferred, mostly.
This AI GAL tells SCOTT,Wayne & other ””good” MEN” why they have probs with women, churchs, parents,society & government!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fA9CJy6uYyI
“You’re not broke because life is unfair — you’re broke because you repeat the same lazy ”RP” habits every d@mn day.”
Brutal truth: habits decide wealth of life & gals.
THEY could be as wealthy in life & gals as DEREK,ROISSY,MOSES,JESUS & GBFM otherwise!
This AI gal explains why DAL’ had to leave the ”manosphere” as well as ROISSY & GBFM.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OLzFkudQrh8
“You won’t get rich in life & galz surrounded by ”RP” people who stay broke,locus-focused instead of CHRIST-focused & lame. Wealth demands outgrowing circles that fear growth & loving life & galz.”
Environment shapes wealth in life & galz.
Bruce,
Your critique is fair, but let’s think about this. Here is what you wrote previously (and I largely agree):
…
Love is mentioned many, many times; and seems like the core term – a new and all-transcending principle of life – the new reality that Jesus made-happen.
In the letters of Paul, he explicitly contrasts those who believe and are being saved with those who do not believe and are not being saved. James says that those who have no belief have a dead faith. They are disobedient (i.e. have no works). Throughout the gospels (all four of them), Jesus contrasts faith, obedience, and salvation with unbelief, disobedience, and death (i.e. sin).
In terms of the fourth gospel specifically, “sin” is unbelief. I believe the same is true in the other gospels. But, regardless, let’s talk about sin in terms of ‘violating the moral laws of God.’
Scripture is quite clear that no man can cease sinning:
On this side of death, we cannot ever declare ourselves free of sin or its influences. So the “key,” as it were, is not to think we can stop sinning, but to “want to.” By that, I mean to say that love, faith, and belief are what matters. We must want to follow Christ, to want to stop sinning. We must acknowledge that we cannot actually stop, while acknowledging that we can believe.
I see these as two sides of the same coin. The flip side of wanting to live in harmony is wanting not to live in disharmony. I take your criticism that it is better to refer to this in its positive form rather than its double-negative. I only note that in scripture both forms are discussed with regularity.
I see no practical difference between “not wanting to sin” and “wanting what Jesus came to offer.” You cannot have one without the other. I suppose not everyone thinks this way.
Peace,
DR
Well, they are not flip sides.
In this as in Everything else, a double negative is Not a positive!
This can be seen in mainstream secular values and morality; which is all double-negative (anti-racism, feminism, socialism, anti-climate-change etc).
“We must want to follow Christ, to want to stop sinning. We must acknowledge that we cannot actually stop, while acknowledging that we can believe.”
Yes. The way I put it is that we should “acknowledge” sin – know sin as sin.
But, positively stated, we could say that one who really wants to follow Jesus – to attain salvation (resurrected eternal Heavenly life) will “discard” whatever is necessary to attain this goal – will “leave behind” all sins. Thus the complex-multiple double-negative act (ceasing to sin) is a consequence of the single positive choice and commitment.
This simple and single commitment is surely easier to comprehend; than the more usual practice of focusing attention upon a very long (yet still incomplete!) listing of prohibited sins, that each and all need to be avoided/ repented?