Nice point, John. It reminds me of the following, form the Desire of Ages:

TE: Right thinking is not what empowers born again believers to think right. You really think it's necessary to make this point?

MM: Here’s what I wrote:


MM: So, again, knowing what is right is not what empowers born again believers to have holy thoughts, feelings, words, and actions.

TE: Let's try it this way:

1.The way that we do right is by thinking right.

MM: I disagree. The “way” that we are able to “do” right is by cooperating with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Right thinking is not the source of righteousness.

2.Our brain controls our actions, and our words.

MM: In the realm of righteousness our brain, by itself, is powerless to produce holy thoughts, words, and beahvior. It is by cooperating with the indwelling Holy Spirit that we are able to use our faculties of mind and body to resist sinning and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

3.To do right, we must make right decisions, which comes about by thinking right thoughts.

MM: I disagree. See my response to 1 and 2 above.

4.God empowers us to do right by teaching us to think right.

MM: I disagree. See above.

5.This is why we are enjoined to do things like meditate upon the life of Christ an hour a day, especially upon the latter scenes; because by beholding we become changed.

MM: These things, in and of themselves, do not empower us to resist sinning and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit. The reason they work is because the Holy Spirit makes it efficacious.

TE: You've constructed an argument which can never be valid. That's because the last part of your premise "do not lost the ability or freedom to sin" is always false. . . The whole problem is with the phrase "do not lose the ability or freedom to sin". Since this never happens, you cannot make any inferences from this.

MM: Tom, I wrote “born again believers do not lose the ability or freedom to sin” in response to the idea that rebirth is the reason why they “cannot sin”.

Before people are born again and begin abiding in Jesus “cannot sin” is not an option. People are not truly free to sin until they are free from sin. They are sin-slaves until they experience the miracle of rebirth and abide in Jesus.

“Cannot sin” only applies to born again believers abiding in Jesus. Rebirth, by itself, is not enough. Both are necessary. In order to enjoy the “cannot sin” experience, people must be born again and abide in Jesus.

TE: That's because the last part of your premise "do not lost the ability or freedom to sin" is always false.

MM: I disagree. People retain the ability and freedom to sin throughout eternity. Though they will never use it, they, nevertheless, will never lose it.

TE: "Eye for eye" is an example of holding the righteousness of God amiss. Loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, etc. are examples of holding it aright.

MM: Why, then, if one cancels the other, did Jesus command both in the OT?

TE: For the same reason He commanded this [Deut. 24:1-4 quoted]:

MM: How does the law governing divorce and remarriage explain why the laws governing retribution (“eye for eye”) are examples of holding the righteousness of God amiss?

Since it was Jesus Himself who created and commanded the “eye for eye” principle, how can you say it is an example of holding the righteousness of God amiss?

John already answered this, by the way.

Why did Christ give the command in Deut. 24:1-4?

Responding to post #84840.

1.Of course right thinking cannot be that which enables right thinking.



How can this make sense?

2.I think you're being excessively nit-picky, just looking at things to pick at rather than trying to understand the overall point being made, which is from Christ who said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is He." But just to mention one of the points you disagree with:



Please explain to me how we can do right while making wrong decisions and thinking incorrectly.

The server is down right now, but I suggest doing a search on "right thinking." You might find some interesting things out.

In general, the weakness, as I see it, of your opposition to the importance of right thinking is the implication that we can do right in some way which doesn't involve thinking.

You're still not dealing with the logic of the argument. Perhaps you'd like to consider the analogy that I gave and deal with that. I've pointed out that you are preoccupied with the content rather than considering the logic. The analogy may help because, since it is not an argument you presented yourself, but just a made up one, you should feel no pressure to defend it, which may leave you free to concentrate on the logic. Here's the analogy.



Do you see the problem with this argument? (that is, with the logic). If so, what is it? If you can answer this question, you should be able to apply this answer to your own argument, of which this is an analogy.

MM: So, again, knowing what is right is not what empowers born again believers to have holy thoughts, feelings, words, and actions.

TE: Let's try it this way: The way that we do right is by thinking right.

MM: I disagree. The “way” that we are able to “do” right is by cooperating with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Right thinking is not the source of righteousness.

TE: Of course right thinking cannot be that which enables right thinking. “Right thinking is not what empowers born again believers to think right ...” How can this make sense?

MM: I do not believe God points out the truth so people can think right and then turns them lose to “go and sin no more”. Knowing what is right is not what empowers born again believers to have holy thoughts, feelings, words, and actions. Right thinking is not the source of holy thoughts.

TE: Please explain to me how we can do right while making wrong decisions and thinking incorrectly.

MM: I do not believe it is possible. "Right thinking" (understanding what is right) is necessary, but it is not what empowers people to have holy thoughts (thinking right thoughts).

TE: In general, the weakness, as I see it, of your opposition to the importance of right thinking is the implication that we can do right in some way which doesn't involve thinking.

MM: Here are my comments on this thread regarding right thinking:


MM: None of my comments can be construed to mean I am implying “we can do right in some way which doesn't involve thinking.”

PS - I do not see how your analogy reflects the insights I've been posting. I see no corollary connection.

1. Rebirth and abiding in Jesus empowers born again believers to not sin and to mature in the fruits of the Spirit.

2. Rebirth and abiding in Jesus, however, does not cause them to lose the ability or freedom to sin.

MM: So, again, knowing what is right is not what empowers born again believers to have holy thoughts, feelings, words, and actions.

TE: Let's try it this way: The way that we do right is by thinking right.

MM: I disagree. The “way” that we are able to “do” right is by cooperating with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

When we cooperate with the Holy Spirit, what is it that He does? Doesn't He enable us to think right? How can we do right without thinking right?

TE: Of course right thinking cannot be that which enables right thinking. “Right thinking is not what empowers born again believers to think right ...” How can this make sense?

MM: I do not believe God points out the truth so people can think right and then turns them lose to “go and sin no more”.

Right thinking does not come about merely as a result of God pointing out the truth. Why do you suggest this?

Knowing what is right is not what empowers born again believers to have holy thoughts, feelings, words, and actions. Right thinking is not the source of holy thoughts.

This is irrelevant to my point.

TE: Please explain to me how we can do right while making wrong decisions and thinking incorrectly.

MM: I do not believe it is possible. "Right thinking" (understanding what is right) is necessary, but it is not what empowers people to have holy thoughts (thinking right thoughts).

Right thinking is not what empowers people to have right thoughts. Again you're pointing this out. I don't know why. Of course right thinking doesn't enable right thinking. Why would it? Why do you feel this point needs to be made even once, let alone repeatedly?