This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You really don't understand that it isn't his dirty feet that would cause 'completely clean' but dirty footed Peter to have no part of Jesus, but rather Peter's refusal to get his dirty feet washed that would cause that? You 'hand-on-the-Bible' honestly can't see that?
Peter's refusal to have Jesus do what, Jethro? Haven't you been saying from the beginning that it's his refusal to have his daily sins removed? A believer can refuse to have daily sins removed, yet still have faith in Christ. This is a fact you keep ignoring. People sin, even believers, and this is what Jesus is addressing, not lack of faith of the believer, but the sin of the believer. If a believer refuses to repent, he can still remain a believer, but lose justification. This is what Jesus is saying. It couldn't be more clear. Jesus is saying that believers, if they don't get their daily sins removed, will lose justification. This is a possibility and what Jesus is addressing. Jesus is not addressing the faith of Peter at all, that's being taken for granted. "If I do not remove your (believer) daily sins, you (believer) will not remain justified". This is what the verse says and what you have to honestly deal with, instead of slipping in the word "faith" and saying "see?" His "refusal" is nowhere called a "lack of faith"...Nowhere. Jesus didn't address Peter's faith...Anywhere. You are adding your own "doctrine" to the text.
Nope, but, as I have been saying from the beginning without changing the meanings of words, I disagree that "completely clean" here means "justified forever". If you believe that, you have set up a contradiction.
LOL...completely contrary to my doctrine and common sense. Keeping daily sin "has no effect" on justification, yet in the verse above, keeping daily sin makes a believer have "no part with" Jesus, lose justification. You can clear up this quagmire by simply showing how a believer can refuse to repent and have sins forgiven and still remain justified, while at the same time losing justification. Pretty simple...
OK. A believer says "I refuse to have Jesus wash my feet. I refuse to allow Him to remove the stain of my daily sins".
By "explain it", I meant show me some kind of exegesis into the doctrine of "commendable faith" and how faith can be trusting, obedient faith in the Triune God, yet not justify. All you did was just do a word search for the word "commendable" and say "see". That is what you are trying to prove Abraham's faith was in Gen. 12 and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever anywhere in Scripture that there is such a thing as a faith that trusts, obeys, has "works attached" yet doesn't justify. You can call it "commendable", "wonderful", super-duper", or whatever, but it is not described in Scripture. I see justifying faith described all over the place. In fact, this is the default unless there is a reason to think the faith being described is a dead faith, which is also described in detail in James 2. This "commendable faith" is just something you are making up so you don't have to admit to the overwhelming evidence of Abraham's justification by faith in Gen. 12.
I have seen other members complain about you only posting half verses to prove your point. You have done this before with me, and here is yet another example. Here is your half verse in context:
As I said. I missed all these that came before the closing. Here is a good example of one of your mistakes. What you fail to grasp, here is that Peter has already "come to" Jesus, both physically and metaphorically. He already has faith. Once Peter understands what Jesus wants, he fully submits to the metaphorical "daily sin cleaning". Peter doesn't decline to have his feet washed out of his need to keep his "daily sin", but out of humility. He misunderstood Jesus at the outset, and never refused to have his sins "washed", never refused to "come to" Jesus. Please read that again. He refused to have his feet physically washed because Jesus was his master and Peter didn't fully understand the metaphor. Jesus is not talking about "continuing in the faith", or increasing faith or preaching the faith or anything at all about faith. You are cramming "faith" into these verses simply because you think they have to do with justification and your "doctrine" teaches that justification is by faith alone. This is pure and simple eisegesis...
I'm amazed that after all this explanation you still don't understand the argument.
That's not even the argument. You haven't been paying attention. The (former) believer does lose his justification if he does not seek Christ for the proverbial washing of his dirty feet, not just because he has dirty feet as your doctrine says.
"Completely clean" and "the bath", as I have been saying from the beginning, and never waffling on, means WATER baptism! Please read that again...Water Baptism. At baptism, actual sins and original sin are removed (Acts 2:38). This puts the soul in the state capable of enjoying Heaven. This is what Jesus means by "completely clean". Peter only needs to have his daily sins removed, not be re-baptized. This is the only way there is not a contradiction here. Jesus is saying that Peter, a believer, has to come to Jesus to have his daily sins removed, but does not need to be re-baptized because his soul is already in a state of Grace. This doesn't mean it will always stay that way, as the example of Judas shows. "Completely clean" doesn't mean "never to lose justification in the future" So, we have Jesus saying to believers:
You aren't paying attention to my argument. There is zero contradiction in my argument. Being "completely clean", despite his dirty feet (John 13:10), means he does not need to be made completely clean again as your doctrine says. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to lose that (you're adding that argument, not me). It means that the dirty feet isn't what can lose that for him. Jesus said so. What can lose that for him is being cut off from Jesus.
Having your sins forgiven is justification.
Like a dung heap covered by snow. You're sounding really Protestant here.
I'm following your argument better than you are. Your lack of clarity and failure to answer direct questions bear this out. Let me try it this way. I'll lay out your argument and you tell me where I'm not "paying attention".
He is completely clean in the sense that he is baptized and his soul is capable of enjoying Heaven. He is justified at that point in time. That isn't to say that he is "justified despite the stain of his daily sins". Jesus says those exact words to him in v.8. The words "completely clean" don't carry with them a connotation of ongoing justification. They don't assume that Peter will remain justified "despite the stain of his daily sin". This is another one of your mistakes and why you are still having trouble comprehending Jesus' meaning here. This episode happened right before the last supper and we know what Peter did later that night. Was he "completely clean" after he denied Jesus three times?
Yes he did, and you agreed. He said that unless He removed his daily sins, left his feet dirty, he would "have no part with" Jesus. You have agreed that this means "unless Jesus removes Peter's daily sin, leaves his feet dirty, he loses justification". I can post your quotes that say those exact words. "Completely clean" does not mean "justified despite the stain of his daily sins". This is what you have been saying and what contradicts v.8, which says "If I do not remove your sins you will lose justification". This is contradictory, and blatantly obvious. Just admit you made a mistake, for goodness sake. This is getting embarrassing...
You are now only quoting half of my thoughts? And I thought you only saved half-quotes for Scripture. I guess I'm in good company. Here is what I really said:
