Is Jeffrey Dahmer In Heaven?

[tabibito]

Yes, as a process which is not complete this side of the grave. As long as we are in corruptible bodies, we have a propensity to sin.

Yes - I could not use the diluted comments about Theosis on Eastern-Church-in-America sites as a base for a proper write-up. Even so, there is no-one who promotes the undiluted doctrine who also claims that achieving saint-hood is a certainty. It is considered a mandatory target, not a definite achievement (as Rom 8:4 indicates) but neither is it considered impossible (as Rom 8:4 also indicates). The propensity to sin shows that even when saint-hood has been achieved, the person will not be free from temptation.

Even Paul did? Ah yes, Romans 7:14 and on, where he says that he cannot stop sinning because he is still in the flesh, still a slave to sin ... Oddly, in chapter 8 he says that there are some who are not in the flesh, and that they (at least can) stop sinning.

Rom 8:3 God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Rom 8:7 the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if through the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live.

But there's that whole "When we were in the flesh thing" at Romans 7:5 - which of course couldn't possibly include Paul, because in Rom 7:14 he says "we know the law is spiritual, but I am in the flesh, having been sold to sin." (as previously noted)

Romans 8:3 God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Suddenly, following the "NOW" of Romans 8:1 (there is now no condemnation ...) Paul is included in an "us" who are not in the flesh, as opposed to the "I" who was in the flesh in Romans 7:14 ο νομος πνευματικος εστιν εγω δε σαρκικος. As also opposed to those who in Galatia were spiritual
Gal 6:1 "If a person is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should restore that person gently." (as were some in Rome (8:7))


Romans 7:14 ο νομος πνευματικος [singular] εστιν the law is spiritual
Galatians 6:1 υμεις οι πνευματικοι [plural] you (who are) the spiritual

[One Bad Pig]

Yes - I could not use the diluted comments about Theosis on Eastern-Church-in-America sites as a base for a proper write-up. Even so, there is no-one who promotes the undiluted doctrine who also claims that achieving saint-hood is a certainty. It is considered a mandatory target, not a definite achievement (as Rom 8:4 indicates) but neither is it considered impossible (as Rom 8:4 also indicates). The propensity to sin shows that even when saint-hood has been achieved, the person will not be free from temptation.



Romans 8:3 God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Suddenly, following the "NOW" of Romans 8:1 (there is now no condemnation ...) Paul is included in an "us" who are not in the flesh, as opposed to the "I" who was in the flesh in Romans 7:14 ο νομος πνευματικος εστιν εγω δε σαρκικος. As also opposed to those who in Galatia were spiritual
Gal 6:1 "If a person is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should restore that person gently." (as were some in Rome (8:7))


Romans 7:14 ο νομος πνευματικος [singular] εστιν the law is spiritual
Galatians 6:1 υμεις οι πνευματικοι [plural] you (who are) the spiritual

As is known even in Protestant circles (as evidenced by a revival campaign I attended as a Protestant 30 years ago), the closer one gets to God, the more visible one's sins become to oneself. Even those considered living saints proclaim themselves "the chief of all sinners" when they prepare for communion.

[Apologiaphoenix]

As is known even in Protestant circles (as evidenced by a revival campaign I attended as a Protestant 30 years ago), the closer one gets to God, the more visible one's sins become to oneself. Even those considered living saints proclaim themselves "the chief of all sinners" when they prepare for communion.

Honestly, the biggest verse of the Bible that makes me question inerrancy is when Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners. I think I have him beat. When I talk to people who are Christians struggling with forgiveness, I encourage them to picture themselves at the foot of the cross telling Jesus how much the other person has sinned against them.

[Christianbookworm]

Does not holding a grudge mean I've forgiven someone? Because I can't do a mind wipe and forget. Then again, Everything is between each person and God. Which definitely makes me pray for other people to be saved if they're mean to me. I would not mind if Jesus scolded them, but I don't want them to spend eternity separated from the presence of God just because they chose to be a jerk.

[tabibito]

As is known even in Protestant circles (as evidenced by a revival campaign I attended as a Protestant 30 years ago), the closer one gets to God, the more visible one's sins become to oneself. Even those considered living saints proclaim themselves "the chief of all sinners" when they prepare for communion.

Paul declared himself "the chief of all sinners" because of?

ah ... his past misdeeds.

but Paul's writing does exhibit tension, notably in Philippians 3: 12-15 ... Paul is not perfected (12) some are perfect (15), but he advises the latter to adopt the same point of view that he expresses in verses 12-14. So, is there really any tension? (tension is such a nice word to avoid having to admit that there is a "conflict")

Or do we find nothing odd about John's "My children, I write these things so that you might not sin; but if any might sin ... (1 John 2:1).
There seems to be some doubt about whether a given person might or might not sin, i.e. continuing to sin is not a foregone conclusion.

[Cow Poke]

As is known even in Protestant circles (as evidenced by a revival campaign I attended as a Protestant 30 years ago), the closer one gets to God, the more visible one's sins become to oneself. Even those considered living saints proclaim themselves "the chief of all sinners" when they prepare for communion.

I was reading the self-published history of a local Church, and was fascinated by the period during the Civil War. Apparently, they had what I like to call "an honest-to-goodness Holy Ghost Revival", where people were getting saved, they were BAPTIZING slaves (yes, and receiving them into the fellowship of the Church) and people were spontaneously confessing sins that you and I might smirk at today.

But when the Power of the Holy Spirit is evident, sin becomes "a big deal", even more so than when things are just "rocking along as usual".

My favorite Biblical example is Isaiah 6, where Isaiah finds himself in the presence of Jehovah, and spontaneously utters "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips".

And WHY did he make such an utterance? "...for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts".

[Faber]

Yeah, that's one of those things I used to tell, then when we got the internetzweb, and I was actually able to track stuff down, I found it's not really confirmed. On the other hand, one of my favorite stories about walking a tight rope across Niagara WAS confirmed. I like to have confidence that the stories I use as illustrations can be verified. You never know when somebody will want to check.

Then there's the story of the young boy who was persuaded to donate blood to save his sister's life, think that he would die in the process.

James Kennedy told the story of a drawbridge operator who intentionally lowered a drawbridge for an approaching train, watching his son being crushed to death in the gearbox. But he gave names and places and other major details of the account, suggesting that maybe this story actually happened.

Anyway, back to the theme of the thread. Is Jeffrey Dahmer in heaven? Maybe. Maybe parts of him are.

[Cow Poke]

Then there's the story of the young boy who was persuaded to donate blood to save his sister's life, think that he would die in the process.

James Kennedy told the story of a drawbridge operator who intentionally lowered a drawbridge for an approaching train, watching his son being crushed to death in the gearbox. But he gave names and places and other major details of the account, suggesting that maybe this story actually happened.

Anyway, back to the theme of the thread. Is Jeffrey Dahmer in heaven? Maybe. Maybe parts of him are.

One of my favorites was when a Japanese POW camp was liberated, and General Jonathan Wainwright - the highest ranking American ever held as a POW - walked into the command center and told his captor - "please get out of my desk - I'm in charge here now". (implication, of course, that when we give our lives to Jesus, Satan is no longer our captor)

Well, I used that illustration in a sermon where several other pastors were in attendance, and one of them called me later in the week asking for the source for that story, as he planned to use it. I told him I heard it at a Bill Gothard event, and I would call Bill Gothard and get the source. Gothard's office was a little evasive, so I went to the internetzweb, and could only substantiate parts of the story.

[rogue06]

Immediate gut reaction is one of oh please don't let someone like that be in heaven. But then, isn't it the saving of those thought irredeemably lost one of the biggest successes we can have? The fact that someone like that could find God and be saved sure makes one think that if someone like that can be saved well then maybe I'm not too far gone after all.

[Adrift]

Immediate gut reaction is one of oh please don't let someone like that be in heaven. But then, isn't it the saving of those thought irredeemably lost one of the biggest successes we can have? The fact that someone like that could find God and be saved sure makes one think that if someone like that can be saved well then maybe I'm not too far gone after all.

Which is why I'm personally against the death penalty. If the worst of us can still repent and make Jesus Lord and can be called a joint heir in Christ, then I want them to have that opportunity (and as a side effect, it may save the life of the tiny percentage of those who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of).

[One Bad Pig]

Paul declared himself "the chief of all sinners" because of?

ah ... his past misdeeds.

but Paul's writing does exhibit tension, notably in Philippians 3: 12-15 ... Paul is not perfected (12) some are perfect (15), but he advises the latter to adopt the same point of view that he expresses in verses 12-14. So, is there really any tension? (tension is such a nice word to avoid having to admit that there is a "conflict")

Where do you get "perfect" in v. 15? My NKJV has "mature".

Or do we find nothing odd about John's "My children, I write these things so that you might not sin; but if any might sin ... (1 John 2:1).
There seems to be some doubt about whether a given person might or might not sin, i.e. continuing to sin is not a foregone conclusion.

Try not to ignore the immediate context (1 John 1:8); not continuing to sin is no more than an aspiration.

[Adrift]

Where do you get "perfect" in v. 15? My NKJV has "mature".

The word τέλειοι/teleioi in this passage is the Greek word "perfect" but is often translated "mature".

Source: Philippians by Frank Thielman

Paul's next statement (v. 15), at least in the Greek text, comes as a surprise. Literally, he says, "Those of us, then, who are perfect, let us think this." Having just denied that he has been "made perfect" (tetleiomai, v. 12). Why? The answer comes through a close examination of Paul's use of the term teleios in his other correspondence. When Paul applies this word to believers, it has the connotation not of perfection in the ultimate sense but of the maturity necessary to distinguish the wisdom of God from the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 2:6; cf. Col. 1:28) and to use spiritual gifts appropriately (1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:11-13).

Paul's use of the term in 1 Corinthians 14:20 provides an example. "Brothers," Paul says, "do not be children in your thinking. In evil be infants, but in your thinking be perfect" (pers. trans.). Paul's contrast between those who think like "infants" and those whose thinking is "perfect" shows that his primary concern is not with ultimate perfection but with spiritual maturity. In Philippians 3:15, then, maturity is a matter of refusing to focus on the spiritual attainments of the past and of realizing how much effort must be expended on the course that lies ahead.

© Copyright Original Source

Moisés Silva offers a slightly different take,

Source: Philippians by Moisés Silva

The word τέλειοι (teleioi, perfect) may be a straightforward reference to spiritual maturity, or more probably it may reflect, by a touch of irony, the group of believers whose error Paul is addressing (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1; Rom. 15:1; and see Lightfoot). In any case, Paul is simply exhorting the Philippian church to share the humble perspective (φρονῶμεν, phronōmen) to which he has just given expression.

© Copyright Original Source

Gordon Fee suggests,

Source: Paul's Letter to the Philippians by Gordon D. Fee

The inferential "therefore" with which this sentence begins tells the story as to Paul's intent in rehearsing his pilgrimage: "In consequence of what I have been narrating," he says, "let us now hear the applications." Which begins: "As many of us are teleioi." This is a clear play on "I have not yet been brought to completion" in v. 12, and appears to be a bit tongue in cheek. After all, he includes himself in the present designation. So he who is "not yet" teleios ("completed") in the sense of eschatological hope, is "already" teleios ("mature"), along with them, in terms of how they live in the present as they await the final glory. Thus teleioi probably means "mature" in the sense outlined in v. 16; those who live in keeping with what they have already attained are thus "complete" to that degree, even though the final completion, when all are fully conformed into the likeness of the Christ whom they desire to know above all else, still remains.

© Copyright Original Source

At any rate, it doesn't appear to have the hard literal meaning that tabibito if giving it. Context doesn't really allow for that. I like how the NET Bible handles the passage,

Scripture Verse: Philippians 3:12-16

Not that I have already attained this—that is, I have not already been perfected—but I strive to lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself to have attained this. Instead I am single-minded: Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out for the things that are ahead, 14 with this goal in mind, I strive toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Therefore let those of us who are “perfect” embrace this point of view. If you think otherwise, God will reveal to you the error of your ways. 16 Nevertheless, let us live up to the standard that we have already attained.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks, Adrift. I was considering adding a commentary on Paul's use of the word, which seemed to be somewhat tongue in cheek in any case, but didn't want to go off half-cocked.

[tabibito]

Where do you get "perfect" in v. 15? My NKJV has "mature".

Try not to ignore the immediate context (1 John 1:8); not continuing to sin is no more than an aspiration.

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

It won't go where you want it to. "Have no sin ..." doesn't mean "do not (continue to) sin" {even omitting the "continue to"}
The ISV provides an interpretive translation, "If we say we do not have any sin" which in view of its rendering of verse 10 is quite good.
and speaking of context, verse 8 shouldn't be cited without verse 10
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Likewise "have not sinned" doesn't mean "do not (continue to) sin" {even omitting the "continue to"}
And again, the ISV gives an accurate interpretive translation - "If we say we have never sinned."

"Have" and "have not" are both perfect tense - they refer either to a/ action conducted in the past which leaves a result, or b/ a prior experience.

So - leaving the English grammar, on to the Koine Greek grammar - just to be sure that the translators haven't messed with the tenses.
verse 8: αρματιαν ουκ εχομεν - is perfect tense - hold no sin.
verse 10: ουχ ημαρτηκαμεν - is perfect tense - have not sinned.

Nope - the translators got it right. Of course, by comparison with Koine Greek, English doesn't make the facts stand out quite so starkly - it is necessary to actually indulge in a bit of text interrogation to properly work it out. Not that recourse to KG is (strictly speaking) necessary in this instance.

Aside:
Try to tell a Japanese person that v10: 罪をしたことがない (wooden translation: the matter of "did sin" does not exist) means "does not sin" - the idea would be laughable.

By all means - let us take context into account: all of it.

[One Bad Pig]

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

It won't go where you want it to. "Have no sin ..." doesn't mean "do not (continue to) sin" {even omitting the "continue to"}
The ISV provides an interpretive translation, "If we say we do not have any sin" which in view of its rendering of verse 10 is quite good.
and speaking of context, verse 8 shouldn't be cited without verse 10
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Likewise "have not sinned" doesn't mean "do not (continue to) sin" {even omitting the "continue to"}
And again, the ISV gives an accurate interpretive translation - "If we say we have never sinned."

"Have" and "have not" are both perfect tense - they refer either to a/ action conducted in the past which leaves a result, or b/ a prior experience.

So - leaving the English grammar, on to the Koine Greek grammar - just to be sure that the translators haven't messed with the tenses.
verse 8: αρματιαν ουκ εχομεν - is perfect tense - hold no sin.
verse 10: ουχ ημαρτηκαμεν - is perfect tense - have not sinned.

Nope - the translators got it right. Of course, by comparison with Koine Greek, English doesn't make the facts stand out quite so starkly - it is necessary to actually indulge in a bit of text interrogation to properly work it out. Not that recourse to KG is (strictly speaking) necessary in this instance.

Aside:
Try to tell a Japanese person that v10: 罪をしたことがない (wooden translation: the matter of "did sin" does not exist) means "does not sin" - the idea would be laughable.

By all means - let us take context into account: all of it.

The perfect tense relates to the past continuing into the present. To fully unpack the interpretation, the ISV should say, "If we say we have never sinned and continue to not sin...."

I have no idea why you're dragging Japanese into this.