Results 441 - 460 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207731 | ||
Dear Bowler, Could you just not please? If you'd look at the post times for the thread you'll see I've stepped out of this discussion. I lost the spirit to discuss it some time ago now. I repent of ever having brought this issue up, and I repent of having been willing to say that I thought certain explinations were lacking. And since I seem to not have the skill for being able to discuss differing view points without seeming abrasive I simply wish to step away from this discussion. I really do apologize to any I may have offended, I am simply use to an environment where people could debate view points on a verse, seeking the best understanding and cirtiques and counter views were not held in disdain. And I can not say your little jab at me does anything to make me desire to return to the conversation. So if you feel like debating this passage with others do feel free, but please don't do so on my account, rather discuss it with those who still wish to. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
442 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207741 | ||
My apologies bowler. Please understand I have not been short on responses that were telling me that I was simply being hard to talk to and was being given sufficient answers that I simply unwilling to listen to. When your post ended in you saying you wish to give your 2 cents then posted a scripture where the author was saying the reader was hard headed and dull of hearing, it seemed a jab. If that was not your intent, do forgive me, and I hope you can see how it would seem that from my shoes. I should have read your post with more grace assuming the best of my brother in Christ until proven otherwise. Forgive me. My e-mail is jw_dobbins@hotmail.com you are welcome to e-mail me if you wish. I do still eagerly follow this thread, but as I've said, I don't have the spirit to participate in it any further. Regardless, Tim Moran is expressing what I have suspected all along to be the answer so ably that there is little point. Well done, Tim. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
443 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207764 | ||
1. Yes, I have a calvinistic outlook on security of the believer. I ofcourse want to know the intended meaning of the text regardless what that may be. But I originally put forward the question to be resolved within this security of the believer framework not because its what I believe, but because outside of that understanding its not a problem. What I mean is this, if you are comfortable with the idea you can loose your salvation then this text is no difficulty at all, so why debate it with that assumption? However, in a sense you could say I'm trying to fit it into this security of the believer framework because I believe scripture teaches that and therefore whatever the answer to this will therefore be in harmony with that teaching. 2. I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. When I originally stated that I wasn't looking for that explination I meant that I have heard people argue the following: Paul is arguing that if a person lost their salvation they couldn't get it back but it could never happen and he just wants us to know what would hypothetically happen if we could. I find this horribly lacking. These are what I was meaining in my original post when I said those things. |
||||||
444 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207784 | ||
lookn, You had asked if I thought that the author considered apostasy something that could actually happen. My response was that I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. What I meant about that was this: That if apostasy is indeed what he is referring to, then he must see it as a real possibility. I says "whatever" simply because we have not yet determined with any certainty what exactly he is talking about. But whatever it is, whether apostasy, or something else, he is speaking of a situation that is a real threat to whichever group he is talking about. Now granted, a few verses later he is clear that he expects better from his readers, but whatever he is warning of is real. It is hard to be more specific when we are not talking about some concrete examples. For example, if what we determine this text to mean that you can loose the opportunity to be saved but not loose your salvation, then clearly this is a real danger, but it is a real danger that a saved christian could not face. And in such a case the warning would just be to those who have not yet become christians among them. But regardless, that would still be something very real to worry about for whoever it is he is warning. However, I hope I've clarified what I mean. |
||||||
445 | True fact of future sin | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 243814 | ||
EdB, Hebrews 6:4-6 is a hotly debated passage. Nobody can simply quote it in passing as if it can settle a discussion. You would need to defend your interpretation of it at length. I actually think it is not referring to loosing salvation. I believe it is talking about somebody who has been within the church and has been a participant in the blessings of the various ministries of the church over length and yet ultimately reveal themself to have never belong to Christ. Now I am certain you don't believe that, but my whole point is this: you can not simply say "see heb 6:4-6, discussion won." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
446 | True fact of future sin | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 243817 | ||
EdB, I have no problem with you arguing that a person can loose their salvation. I think you are wrong, but I think this forum is a place where you out to be able to discuss that position from scripture if you wish. So don't think I'm objecting to that. But you are mistaken when you think the only people who disagree on Heb 6:4-6 are calvinists. I wrote a paper on this for a Ph.D. seminar, and then I had to give a public defense against the brutal onslaught to my stance. Which does not make me an expert, but it ought to lead credence when I tell you it is hotly contested from many many views. I'm merely letting you know that throwing out "Heb 6:4-6" isn't like throwing out some clear passage where everybody looks at it and says, "oh, that is very plain." I assure you have thought carefully about the passage, and I don't agree with your interpretation. Now I may well be wrong. But all I can say is that if I am wrong then I am honestly wrong. I'm not playing games with it to make it say what I want to say. Finally, I am extremely confident that Doc does not think the quotes from men trumps scripture. He absolutely agrees that scripture is the final measure of truth from which we ought to judge all sstatements. What's more, I'm willing to bet that every single man he has quoted also agrees with that. NOBODY is suggesting that quotes from men trump scripture. But quotes have their value. Not a value of defining what we believe, but there is some value to seeing that Christians throughout history have held to a certain position. And there is also value in knowing when a position has been debated throughout history. Further sometimes people of the past have thought deeply and then stated things in ways much more clear and compelling than we could ever manage. This is valuable too. Doc is not asserting that things are true BECAUSE certain men spoke it. He is simply sharing things he believes were always true, but somewhere throughout the history of the church somebody said it in a particularly edifying way. That's ok. I would equally welcome you quoting great Christians from the past who hold to your view. I would guess John Wesley would be a good place to start as he was opposed to the calvinistic viewpoint and he was a true treasure from Christian history. And I promise, none of us will think you are suggesting something is true simply because John Wesley said it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
447 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220821 | ||
Fundamentals, I've debated this question more than once on this site, so when you asked I was rather determined not to get involved in the conversation once more. However, the answer given by lightedsteps very much should be addressed. To put it simply, what he has told you about the "IF" in the sentence is wrong. His interpretation is literally impossible due to the way it is written in the original greek. Verse 6 says, "Kai parapesontas, palin anakeinidzein" Feel free to take my word for it, but anybody who does not take my word for it let me break this phrase down for you. Kai (and, even, also) This word simply connects this section to what has come before. 'Palin anakeinidzein" means to renew again. It goes on to say "to repentence" but I didn't want to reproduce the entire verse in Greek. Now here is the point. There is one word left, "parapesontas." This is a participle of the verb which means "to fall away." Notice this, there is no IF or WHEN in the text at all. In fact, this is true of all verses 4-6, there is no word in this entire text for IF or WHEN. The word IF isn't even in the text! Either of those words ONLY comes into the text as you try to translate this participle. Participles can be translated in different ways. Some possibilities could be, When they fall away Having fallen away If they fall away because they fall away etc. Translations deal with this participle in different ways. I'm not trying to tell you or anybody how to translate this participle. But what I am saying is that you can not translate it in a conditional sense, into "If they fall away," And then take the if and move it else where into the sentence! The IF is ONLY there by virtue of you taking the "to fall away" participle in that sense. You can not treat the IF as an independent word in the sentence and debate where it is applied. This is literally a grammatically impossible interpretation of the greek. I hope this helps. I know it didn't answer the verse for you, but I didn't want you to go away with an answer that is literally impossible grammatically. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
448 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220830 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not trying to argue that one can loose their salvation. I don't think that this passage is teaching that a person can loose it. I believe whole heartedly in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. But I can tell you for certain where the IF came from. If you want to have IF in there at all it is unavoidably connected to the "falling away." Your end conclusion I wouldn't begrudge. But you have to translate the falling away some how and the options are limited. I can tell you for certain that what it is defined as impossible is the renewing to repentence. In the greek there is really no room for confusion. The main clause is "For it is impossible to renew them to repentence." Now from there you can argue the passage multiple ways, but that much greek grammer constrains us to. There is a fellow that frequents these forums, Bro. Tim. He seems to be more proficient in greek than I am and I would urge him to validate or correct my claims here if he notices this post. But once again, I don't think you are comming to a wrong conclusion, you are just reaching it in a way the grammer won't support. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
449 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220839 | ||
Lightedsteps, Sin seperates us from God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
450 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219950 | ||
Dodoy, I apologize for my other post where I asked about your take on the sabbath/first day debate. Had I read your profile the answer would have been obvious. My bad. Also, I do think you have been taught wrongly on a great many things. However, please let me hold off to write you why, and give scriptual support this coming week. I ask this because I do believe you ask for this in sincerity and from scripture rather than my opinion. As a result, I think you deserve a quality, scripture supported answer. This I can not give such as you and the question deserver at 10:30 PM before I preach the next morning. So, be patient and this week I will write you an answer on this that is fitting. If I think it is too long to trouble the forum with I'll send it to the address in your profile. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
451 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220000 | ||
1 Tim 4:10 "because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." If we are to understand this passage rightly we are going to have to think carefully. First, lets honestly observe what is said. It says that God is a savior. This is qualified by all men, certainly. But at the end of the day it does NOT specifically say, that all men are saved. It simply affirms that God is a savior, and that of all men. Now, the question we must then try to answer is: In what sense is God the savior of all men? It is very important that you understand what I've just said. The verse rightly leads us to this question, and we must strive to answer it, but we must also be honest enough to say that it has not explicitely told us. It has affirmed that God is a Savior of all men, but not how so. Second, whatever interpretation we come up with, it must be in a different sense or in a different degree than how God is a savior to believers. If not, then we render the phrase "especially of those that believe" to be meaningless. So we will not be surprised when we come to a conclusion that does not see unbelievers with the same blissful rewards that accompany believers. Now, consider that for many times and places the name of the LORD was not known. In how many tragedies, and in how many sea voyages, and in how many battles in such places and times have men cried out to heaven to be delivered from their temporal and immediate plights? How many people, who have sternly denied the existence of God, has in those moments found themselves crying out to heaven in hopes that they were wrong, and somebody was hearing who was able to deliver them? Now, who has answered them if we are thinking according to the Christian view? Whether any man ever, has cried out to the name of some strange God, or has cried out with no name but only a desperate hope that "maybe somebody hears," if any deliverance has ever been granted from above to any man of any time, that deliverance has came only from the One True God. Now, don't leap to fast to insert this into the passage, but first contemplate it. From this can we not all here today agree that in this sense God is indeed the savior of all men everywhere of all time. You may think this is not the intent of what Paul is saying here, but if I was to say that God is the savior of all men, and if I meant it in this sense, would you disagree? I would expect most wouldn't. Now, if I were to make such an assertion, that God was in this way the savior of all men. I would then be making a statement about God being a savior, without making any statement of the eternal destiny of those being saved in this fashion. Which is all that we know for certain the text is saying. That God is a savior. But, then we assert that God is much more than just a savior from our temporary plights! To those that believe God is much more. He is the one who saves for all eternity from the wrath of that terrible day of the Lord, in which all men are judged. He is the one who washes us clean of our sin. So not only is He the savior of all men from their temporal plights, He is much more in a special way the savior of those who believe. Now, I find this to be a reading of the text that fits all the pieces of the puzzle. If we claim this is the proper reading we have robbed or slighted no portion of what Paul has stated. But at the end of the day, let us at least admit that what assures us that a reading of this type is the proper one is the rule of faith. What I mean that ofcourse there are other possiblities that while would seem to fit this passage just fine, those readings do make this passage the enemy and at odds with the rest of scripture. Therefore, if we have two possible interpretations of a single passage and both of them are equally fitting yet one contradicts the whole of scripture and one is in harmony with all of scripture, are we not bound to choose the interpretation in harmoney with scripture? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
452 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220006 | ||
Dodoy, A few points. 1. Unless I missunderstand what you've posted, you didn't actually engage or interact with anything I said. You simply stated that I was wrong. Perhaps I didn't follow what you said well enough. 2. If you will allow me to paraphrase what I'm suggesting the passage says: Verse 10: For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, (Who is the only hope of any salvation for any man), especially of believers who he saves in the greatest of possible ways, from eternal judgement. Now, I you may certainly think that is not what Paul is saying. All well and good. But, you can not argue with any success that based on only the immediate context and basic grammer, that he can NOT be saying that. 3. Are you actually trying to argue that the Bible CAN NOT be using the word savior in any sense other than of eternal salvation, simply because we know that Christ saves? Simply use any Bible search tool and you will see the word is used to refer to being saved on a smaller scale quite fequently, as in being saved from armies, or disease, or hunger, etc. You can argue that he means otherwise if you wish, but you can't simply say because we know Jesus saves from sins, therefore a reference to God being a savior is only and always limited to that sense. 4. Finally, you said "In what context did Paul say God is teh Savior (NOT just a Savior) of all men?" I'm not sure what you are asking, best I can tell you are asking a rhetorical question that you answer in the following line suggesting the context is 1 Tim 1:15. But are you honestly suggesting that 1 Tim 1:15, something stated three chapters earlier is undeniably what Paul has in mind with no unpacking of the things said in between? And saying that as if it should seal the case with no question? My final point is this. Given the immediate context and grammer alone, and if we read it with no other theology in mind, both are completely possible interpretations of the passage. That being said, I would argue that the wider Biblical context (all of scripture) rules out a universal salvation interpretation. I'm not presumming to convince you of that, however. I'm only trying to argue that my interpretation fits the passage. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
453 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220007 | ||
Dodoy, Let me suppliment my arguement with this passage. Isaiah 45:5-7 "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these." This passage affirms that there is no deliverance of any type, nor calamity of any type that is not ultimately from the hand of God. The arguement is simply this: I'm the only God out there, who else could it be? This doesn't prove my reading, but it supports what I'm saying with regards to all deliverance of any type of worldly distress is ultimately from the hand of our God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
454 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220017 | ||
Dodoy, I have not forgotten. I've not found time to type it but I have had time to do some thinking on it and to consider what verses to show you and in what order. But it would help me if you could explain what you just said a little better. Grasping what you believe would help me select scripture. 1.) In what sense can any person be "saved from sin" yet not receive eternal life. The very term "saved" is understood as being saved from something. That thing they are being "saved" from is a guilty verdict from God on the day of judgement. So when we say the word "saved" we are talking about being spared on that day the Lord judges all the earth. So in what sense are they saved, and yet judged on that day? In short, can you explain your terminology. 2. When you say only the righteous will be rewarded with eternal life, can you define what you mean by "the righteous." Do you mean that only those who through their deeds are righteous will receive eternal life, or do you mean only those who receive the righteousness of Christ counted for them through faith? Helping me understand these things will help me know which scriptures to present you with. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
455 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220031 | ||
Dodoy, Doc just gave you some very important stuff. Infact, he just pretty much nailed much of what I was going to write to you. I'm glad he did though because I think he did a better job of it than I would have. If you really do want to learn where you have been taught wrong, it has to begin with the doctrine of man. I suggest you slowly and thoroughly study what Doc has told you in this post, reading every verse quoted. What does scripture really say about who we are? What does it indicate about what we would choose if left to ourselves? This is not the end of what you need to know, but it is the bed rock on which the rest is built. I'm not sure there are many wrong views of salvation that don't have their errors first stemming from cracks in this foundation. On a side note, I still think you need to pursue what you mean by being saved from sin. You keep asserting that we are "saved from our sin." But what does that mean? Why do I need saved from my sin? The answer to that question is going to be important. Because the only reason I need saved from my sin, is because God is going to judge it. Therefore, to be saved from sin, is to be delivered from God's judgment on sin. But, focus not on that, but on what Doc wrote to you. That is where we have to start if you really do want to know where you've been taught wrong. Oh, and well said, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
456 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220055 | ||
Dodoy, Yes, that is absolutely what I mean. God's judging the world and judging sin is the same thing. When God say He is going to judge sin, that means He is going to judge the sinners. Judging sin means judging people. You can't seperate the two. The cross itself should be testimony to this. In order for God to judge the sin of a believer, He had to judge a person! And that judgment fell on our sinless Lord rather than ourselves. Had God been able to judge sin abstractly in some other way than judging people then our Lord died for no reason. But He did die for the sin of those who would receive Him through faith and repentance. So saved from sin, does indeed mean to be saved from the final judgment when God will throw sinful humanity into the lake of fire. Sin isn't what is going to destroy us in the end, a Holy God is going to destroy sinners in the end. This is what it means to be saved, even to be saved from sin. If there was not a judge going to judge me then me and sin would still be getting along wonderfully with no need of anybody to save either us. Also, with regard to the doctrine of man. Doc and I are not introducing a second topic without reason. Discovering where you are wrong has everything to do with what Doc posted. Once you understand what scripture teaches about who we are, then you are going to see how that condition is undone. The point being worked towards is that if any part of this is left to us then we will perish. All portions are entirely from God. Yet your view of salvation leaves all mankind, having had some assistance from God to get us started, no we are left to keep our own names from getting blotted out. To which we are trying to show you, the moment God leaves any part to you and I, we would all fall without exception. Should you then say that God chooses some to effectually work in them to succeed (phi 2:12,13), then you have created an interesting scenario. You say that all are saved from sin, but then God chooses to save some from God, and others He chooses not to save from God. Now, that last part certainly is scriptual. But then once again, you've rendered the idea of "being saved from sin" absolutely meaningless. The fact that Christ died for their sin in your view, has ultimately done not one thing for them, seeing as God has then left them to perish from further sin without the necessary grace to "overcome." What we say, is that it all is one continuous saving grace from beggining to end. Those whom He has saved from sin...and those whom He predestined, He also called, and those whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30) Now the meaning of justification is that we are declared inoccent from sin and stand in Christ's perfect righteousness before God. In other words, this is us being forgiven/saved from sin. Yet you are arguing that there are those who are justified, but they are not glorified. Even though we see clearly that all those he Justified, He also glorified. Which refers to our final ressurection and partaking of Christ's full likeness. I've given more in this post than I can probably reasonably expect somebody to process in one lump, but I'm trying to get you to see that we must look at the whole of it at once if you are to see your error. And so, we were beggining with the doctrine of Man. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
457 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220066 | ||
Light, Doc can certainly answer the question for himself, but I thought I might be able to help you understand it. Basically what the term boils down to, is the teaching that has been what Christians have principally believed throughout the time between Christ's birth and now. Now this isn't to suggest they all believed the same thing. But that on many doctrines any time somebody did disagree it was obvious that they were outside the traditional Christian teaching on the subject. The basically is referring to the teachings of the apostles, the early church, some of what the Catholic Church has believed especially during its earlier time depending on exactly where you want to see it to have begun and ended; then especially what was recovered through the protestant reformation and during the puritan era, all the way up to the last 100 or so years where we have seen such an unbelievable casting off of the old teachings of Christianity for everybody to decide what is right in their own eyes. You would be surprised how much substantial teachings were agreed upon during these time periods. At least agreed upon to the point that the ones that disagreed stood out pretty clearly. Now here is what the word gives us in practical terms. When you believe something that is heterodoxy (different from what Christians have always believed) then in order for you to be right, the entire history of Christian religion must have been wrong in order for you to be right. Now...I heartily agree that just because people have always believed something doesn't make it right. And orthodoxy is not an absolute proof of truth. I am a baptist. I believe that only professing believers should receive baptism, yet if you look at Christian history the vast majority has held to infant Baptism. So I do think sometimes the historical position of Christianity is wrong. (Thought I do not think the apostolic church baptised infants.) Yet at the same time our indipendent times lead us to another error. We need to think long and hard about how serious it is to hold to a heterodoxy opinion. You are saying that you alone have come upon some special wisdom that no soul throughout two thousand years of Christianity has figured out but you. You are saying that throughout all Christianity God has seen fit to leave His people in the dark on a subject, until your brilliance has cast light on what He has left hidden. Once again, I'm willing to weigh all views against scripture, but at the same time I think a man must grasp the seriousness of this. And it should be with great fear and trembling, and with expectations that we may be missunderstanding something that any man should disagree with the entire Christian history of thinkers, in which I assure you there were greater men than you and I applying their minds to such things. So in my opinion it is this practical implication of the word "orthodoxy" that makes it significant to us. I hope this helps. Save me if I've explained this poorly, Doc. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
458 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220068 | ||
Dodoy, I believe its time that I washed my hands of this discussion. Normally I would have known better but your personal profile made me believe you really wanted to learn. I can see now that is not true. At this point I could fully explain your view to another person. Because I've asked questions, listend, and tried to understand you. You have not done so with with my view. Let me address a few statements and then I'll not reply further. 1. You asked if I have scripture to support that judging sin is judging people. Isaiah 53:5 says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities." How is it that the judgment of our sin was the death of a person? And if the judgment of our sins was the death of a person what do you imagine it means when the sins of the world is judged? The rocks and trees? 2. You look for a text that says judging sins is the same as judging people? You might as well look for a text saying that the sky is blue. It is the assumption in every sacrifice made in the old testament when an animal takes the place and the sins of the people is placed upon it. 3. You said that Christ working in us is your defense to God leaving us to finish part of it, but you ignored the part of my post where I predicted that very response from you (because I was listening to you in other posts, trying to understand you.) Because then you must either say that God helps some effectively and others He does not, or once again His working in us gives us all partial help and then we must make up the difference. 4. You want scriptural proof that being saved from sin is to be saved from the lake of fire? My friend that is what all of Christianity has seen the text to plainly mean. Why are any thrown into the lake of fire if not for sin? Failing to overcome? 5. You claim that I need verses to back up such logic then you say "that because Christ came to save sinners, and since all are sinners therefore christ saved all?" Sir, there are children that could show you how short that logic falls. It would be like me saying that I went to the grocery store to buy food, and it is all food, therefore I came to buy all of it. Just because Christ came to save sinners, does not mean all sinners are saved. 6. Yet in all of this you still have not responded to what I think is the greatest hole in your thinking. You still have not explained what being saved from sin does mean to you. Your reasoning is that there are those who are justified and glorified who then perish in the lake of fire? You have robbed "saved" "justified" and "glorified" of any meaning whatsoever. What do these terms then mean if not what I am saying? To sum it up: You continue to cry out for verses to show you wrong, while what you are saying has gaping holes. And you say, do not show me the holes, rather refute the assertions I am making. Understand this, any heresy can make sense out of their favorite verses. It is the verses they DON'T want to discuss that shows them wrong. But I'm finished. The reason I began the discussion is no longer there. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
459 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220550 | ||
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" Colossians 2:16,17 |
||||||
460 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220593 | ||
Daughter, What translation are you using? I vastly prefer the NASB translation which accurately translates the greek conjunction (kata) into "in accordance with the commands and teachings of men." Meaning it is men teaching them to continue doing these things, not referring to whether or not they were found in the old testament scripture. Obviously I disagree with how you consider the context. Not only in the way I said above, but also some of the things he mentions are from the old testament, and some are not. Not marrying and harsh treatment of the body which follows the statement for example. What about circumcision in verses 12 and 13? He is clearly saying christ has ended any need for that. Even should you not agree here, the council in acts 15 makes it clear that there is no need for the gentile Christians to follow the ceremonial laws of moses, which include the festivals. Why? Because all these things pointed to Christ. I agree whole heartedly with John Calvin when he argues in the institutes that it was fit for these things to end with the comming of Christ lest we were unclear about to what they pointed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |