Results 1 - 20 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BadDog Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does I John 3:9 contradict I John 1:8? | 1 John 3:9 | BadDog | 144450 | ||
OK Hank, I posted earlier a background to 1 John, as I see it. I believe that John intentionally presented things in an absolute manner. Why did he do this? By insisting on this point, John was seeking to refute a false teaching going around at that time about sin. Sin is not, nor can it ever be, anything but satanic, evil. It can never spring from what a Christian truly is at the core of his inner regenerate being. (decetism - Cerenthus... which evolved later into gnosticism) Cerenthus' teaching is obviously heresy. It was related to gnosticism. Basically it taught: "flesh, bad; spirit, good." So then none of us really sins since we have this new nature. It resulted in believers saying that they could do whatever they wanted, since the flesh is not of God. It doesn't really matter, Cerenthus taught. You can live like the devil since it can't affect our inner being. So you can see why John wrote many of the things he did in this letter, including saying in chapter 2:22, 23 that anyone who denies the Son also denies the Father, and that this is the spirit of the antichrist. John taught that Jesus was sinless from eternity to eternity, but that we do all sin. If we try to refute that, as Cerenthus did, we are making God a liar. I included in the above vss. 1 John 2:25, 26 - where John explains why he write this letter: "And this is the promise that He Himself made to us: eternal life. I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you." He wrote it to deal with the docetists, and so that they would grab hold of that promise of eternal life which is claimed by faith, and faith alone. See 1 John 5:11-13. There he makes his other purpose clear: "And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. The one who has the Son has life. The one who doesn't have the Son of God does not have life. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." So then, John wrote this letter to deal with the false doctrine of the docetists and so that they would have assurance that they had eternal life. He spoke in absolute terms throughout the letter IOT deal with the docetism heresy. There are 2 basic approaches to 1st John - the "test of life" view and the "new nature" view. (There are a few others, but these are the most common.) The "tests of life" view sees such passages in 1 John as "tests" to use IOT determine if we really are saved - if we really are regenerate. John was writing to encourage his readers to examine their works to find out if they were believers or unbelievers. 3:10 is often taken as an indication of this: "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are. Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." Works distinguish the saved from the unsaved. The existence of "a pattern of" sin is also said to distinguish believers from unbelievers. 1 John 2:29 (see above) makes the new nature approach (I prefer) clear: If you know that He is righteous, you know this as well: everyone who does what is right has been born of Him. The children are righteous because we were not only declared righteous, but we are seated in heavenly places with Him, and in God's eyes, we have the righteousness of Christ. (IMO, John is saying somethingsimilar to what Paul did in Ephesians 2 regarding us being "seated in heavenly places in Christ." Don't know about you, but my posterior is planted firmly here - in a chair. I don't like the liberties that the "tests of life" approach takes - especially in chapter 3. Another name for the "new nature" view is "tests of fellowship." I like that, because 1:3 clearly tells us that John wrote this letter so that we would have fellowship with him and with God. How can we tell if we are in fellowship with God (abiding in Him)? John answers that question in this letter as well as dealing with the docetist doctrine. BTW, the fact that John was dealing with docetism is acknowledged by virtually everyone. As I said before, no The idea is that no believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. To the degree that the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains (abides) in him. So whenever we sin that is not our new nature being expressed, and it goes against our new, regenerated nature. It's just not normal for us to sin. I like this approach, because it places the focus where it should be in 1st John - on Christians not sinning, instead of trying in our own weak little way to not sin too much. Sorry about the length of this post. Hope that clears it up some, though. BD |
||||||
2 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | BadDog | 144449 | ||
Hank, I imagine that I didn't make myself very clear. Of course - no one can come close to living a life completely free from sin. Obviously, looking at 1:6-10 and 2:1,2, John expected that his readers would have to deal with sin. I agree with what you've said here, BTW. The penalty for our sin has already been paid - once for all. The purpose of "confession" is not to get sins forgiven that otherwise would result in hell-fire. That's been dealt with once-for-all. 1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship along with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. This is what I believe to be the thematic verse for 1st John. 1st John is all about how to have fellowship with God (and other believers). Now I imagine that no one on this board really thinks that John is saying here that a true believer does not sin AT ALL - EVER. So then, just why did John express it in 1 John 3:6-9 like this? Was he trying to confuse us? Obviously not. It only makes sense IMO in view of the Cerenthus heresy which was rampant at the time. Remember that John did start out this letter in a similar manner to his gospel with "That which was from the/a beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld and handled with our hands, concerning the Word of Life." This is a clear reference to Jesus in the flesh - they saw and touched Him. And John's reference to "beginning" here negates Cerenthus' claim that the man Jesus had a beginning separate from the Son of God. You see, at the time of the writing of this letter, John faced a serious heretical teaching. His chief opponent was Cerenthus. (Cerenthus taught that when the man Jesus was baptized that at that point that the Son of God entered into Him. Then, when He gave up His spirit on the cross, the Son of God left the man Jesus. He did not believe in a literal resurrection.) What developed form this heretical teaching was a "docetist" claim that when we sinned it was merely our body, our flesh, and hence didn't matter. Of course, this isn't true. Whenever we sin such sinning does not proceed from God... ever. And that, IMO, was what John meant by saying that one "born again" does not sin. IMO the key to understanding 1 John is just that - the absoluteness... When we use expressions instead of "continue in sin" or "keep on sinning" we miss John's point. 1 John 1:5 - Now this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him. 1 John 1:6 - If we say, "We have fellowship with Him," and walk in darkness, we are lying and are not practicing/doing the truth. 1 John 1:8 - If we say, "We have no sin," we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:10 - If we say, "We have not sinned," we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 2:2 - He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:4 - The one who says, "I have come to know Him," without keeping His commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:9 - The one who says he is in the light but hates his brother is in the darkness until now. 1 John 2:11 - But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and doesn't know where he's going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:15, 16 - Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. Because everything that belongs to the world ... is not from the Father, but is from the world. 1 John 2:22, 23 - Who is the liar, if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son can have the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father as well. 1 John 2:25, 26 - And this is the promise that He Himself made to us: eternal life. I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 1 John 2:29 - If you know that He is righteous, you know this as well: everyone who does what is right has been born of Him. 1 John 3:4 - Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law. 1 John 3:5 - You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him. 1 John 3:6 - Everyone who remains (abides) in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him or known Him. OK, gotta stop here - post getting too long. BD |
||||||
3 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | BadDog | 144418 | ||
Of course, just saying such a thing sounds ludicrous. But our new nature - the one created by the Spirit when we trusted in Him, is not able to sin. BD |
||||||
4 | RU saying some sanctified aren't saved? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63546 | ||
Joe, Thanks much - this was a very good response to my question. The 1 Corin. 7 passage is a good example of the general use of "sanctified" for unbelievers as meaning "set apart for a purpose," and you are right. However, FWIW, this idea of being set apart for a purpose really has to do w/ its use re. things according to the lexicons. When referring to people, it, in general, has the idea of "making holy." However, the context of Heb. 10:29 makes it clear that inward sanctification is in view, IMO: 10:19 "Therefore BRETHREN, since WE have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus... and since..." 10:22 - 25 several "let us" - The author is including the readers w/ himself as believers in this exhortation. 10:26 "For if we sin willfully (The NASB "go-on sinning willfully" is really stretching a simple present tense in Gk.) after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. (capitalized by NASB as an OT quote). 10:30 - "... And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (They are HIS PEOPLE, not unbelievers) 10:32ff "But remember the former days, when, *after being enlightened* (these are believers who are enlightened), you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations (They suffered as believers for Christ), and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. (They suffered all those things before because, like Abraham, they were looking to a better possession - *a lasting one.* How can these not be believers?!) 10:35, 36 "Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great *reward*. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. (Believers are rewarded for faithful service - "Well done thou good and faithful servant" Unbelievers are not offered the possibility of rewards.) Now we come to 10:39 - 38, 39 BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. (This is again cap. by NASB as OT quote) 39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul (SUXH - is often best translated LIFE, as in 1 Peter 3:20 - "8 persons/lives were brought safely...). Preserving of the soul here just means saving the life. It can and often does mean the physical life in the NT - actually more often than anything else. So, if the Jewish believers Barnabas (or whoever the author was) was writing to were to endure, they would preserve a life lived for Him. A life that meant something, as of value to God. Anyway, that's how I see this passage and the context, Joe - FWIW. Thanks for this insightful and energetic interaction, Joe. The above ideas are just how I see it. Thanks for giving me something to consider, and I hope you, and others on this list who may not have considered Hebrews in this light before, will consider my ideas also. BadDog |
||||||
5 | RU saying some sanctified aren't saved? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63506 | ||
Joe, Thanks for your comments - good stuff to ruminate over. I'll address the last one 1st. If you look back at my previous response, I did respond to vs. 39 - destruction does NOT always refer to E. life destruction, and is often used in the NT to refer to temporal destruction, waste, etc. Before I answer your other comments, I have a question - I am aware of the theological concept of progressive sanctification (and agree that there isa distinction between sanctification that occurs to all believers at the new birth and prog. sanct.) But my question is whether or not you are saying that this passage here does say that these people were sanctified, yet that does NOT mean that they were regenerate!? Are you saying that one can be sanctified but not a Christian? Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
6 | What sort of judgment is this? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63493 | ||
Joe, Thanks for your clear response. I agree w/ much of it. But I would like to make a couple of points which would indicate, at least to me, that believers are in view here. Let me start w/ your quote of Heb. 10:28,29: "Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant *by which he was sanctified*, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" Notice the portion I highlighted between *s. "by which he was sanctified." Unbelievers are not sanctified. I'd also like to briefly look at Heb. 10:39, the vs. which leads people to assume that this could not be referring to believers here: Hebrews 10:39 "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." Now I agree w/ you that when he says "we are not of those who shrink back to destruction..." that he is addressing believers here. Of course, he says, "we," including his Jewish readers. However, the Gk. APOLEIA (trans. "destruction" here) is used in the NT for temporal as well as eternal destruction, and other meanings as well. (Matt. 26:8 - "why was this WASTED?" is one such example.) It basically means to destroy, ruin or lose. I point this out so that it is accepted that to say that this could be referring to the physical destruction of life you mentioned above is well within the realm of lexical meaning here. Once that is accepted, the entire passage opens up as referring to believers as the more logical interpretation, taken in context, IMHO. Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
7 | Phil 1:6 what means | Phil 1:6 | BadDog | 63482 | ||
Camham00, I'm going to basically repeat what I said earlier in response to "eternal security." Yes, the Bible does teach eternal security. However, I am convinced that this is not what is being taught here in 1:6. The good work is not that of eternal life. The context ( esp. chap 4) is that this is a thank you letter from Paul to the Philippians, who renewed their financial support. The "work" was their (plural) giving to him. One thing that can't be seen in modern English is that the "you" here is plural in the Greek (EN hMIN) - he's talking of God having begun a good work in the corporate body of Christ at Philippi: "that He who began a good work in you(pl) will perfect it (complete it) until the day of Jesus Christ." That's why in vs. 5 he speaks of a partnership (KOINONIA) they have, just as we also are in partnership w/ the missionaries we support. Now, of course, eternal security is clearly taught elsewhere in the NT. But this was not Paul's point here. BadDog |
||||||
8 | How can we be sure of eternal salvation? | Phil 1:6 | BadDog | 63481 | ||
Let me suggest a couple of great verses (besides 2:8,9) from Ephesians: 1:13, 14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge (or down-payment) of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of (God's own) possession, to the praise of His glory. The Spirit is given as a guarantee that God will redeem His own possession -- us. and 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. These vss. refer to our having been sealed by the Holy Spirit. It is also called a sort of pledge (or down-payment). Now, the idea of the seal here comes from a seal that was placed on cargo. The receiver could have confidence that the merchandise wasn't tampered w/ when it arrived. Similarly, God's seal (the Holy Spirit, which all believers have indwelling in them) guarantees us that we will arrive safely at the port w/o anyone tampering w/ the merchandise. BadDog |
||||||
9 | does bible teach eternal security? | Phil 1:6 | BadDog | 63479 | ||
Yes, the Bible does teach eternal security. However, I also am convinced that this is not what is being taught here in 1:6. The good work is not that of eternal life. The context ( esp. chap 4) is that this is a thank you letter from Paul to the Philippians, who renewed their financial support. The "work" was their (plural) giving to him. One thing that can't be seen in modern English is that the "you" here is plural in the Greek (EN hMIN) - he's talking of God having begun a good work in the corporate body of Christ at Philippi: "that He who began a good work in you(pl) will perfect it (complete it) until the day of Jesus Christ." That's why in vs. 5 he speaks of a partnership (KOINONIA) they have, just as we also are in partnership w/ the missionaries we support. Now, of course, eternal security is clearly taught elsewhere in the NT. But this was not Paul's point here. BadDog |
||||||
10 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | BadDog | 63478 | ||
Isa, This has been puzzling to many, including myself. I think we need to look at the context of 1st John IOT see where he is going w/ this. Because in 1 John 1:8, 10 John says that if anyone says that he doesn't sin, he is a liar! So is he contradicting himself in such a short space of the same letter?! No. A main reason for writing 1 John was in response to gnostics, who were teaching that it was OK for believers to sin, since that was the physical, not the spiritual. So here in 3:9 John is saying that the believer, who has been born-again, is sinless in his inner man. John contrasts light/darkness, death/life, and also (here) sin/righteousness. Some try to make a simple present tense in Greek say something to the effect that no one born of God will "continue to sin." (NIV) However the NASB has it right here. When a person trusts in Christ, he in reality becomes a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). That regenerated inner man does not sin. of course, we can and each of us does sin - daily, but lets not pretend that that is OK, and try to distinguish between the body (which the gnostics taught was inherently bad) and the spirit. John teaches here that the inner man cannot sin. This was his point, IMO. BadDog |
||||||
11 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63477 | ||
Lonelyblue12, FYI, Charles Stanley has a good book that covers this passage well, IMO: Eternal Security, Can you be sure? BadDog |
||||||
12 | What sort of judgment is this? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63476 | ||
Reformer Joe, Yours is clearly a reformed position, while mine is not (free grace). Hence w/ a different set of assumptions, we've arrived at some different conclusions here (though neither is Arminian). We are both saying something similar re. the eternal security of the believer, but while I view the believer as being in view here (and eternally secure), you say above that such a person must never have been Christ's in the 1st place. Now, my question: Is judgment always eternal judgment? And if not, then what sort of judgment is in view here? BTW, everyone should feel free to comment on this. Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
13 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63472 | ||
Jesusman, I don't have time to dealve into this in much detail, but let me at least give you something to think about: I do agree, BTW, that this is not talking about losing E.Life salvation. However, the context - "those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit" - is in my mind clearly referring to believers. So how to settle the at-1st apparent contradiction? The key, in my mind, is misunderstanding that repentance has to do w/ salvation (eternal life) here. It does not. When a believer reaches the pt. in which he continues to harden his heart, he is then at a pt. in which it is impossible (for us) to renew to repentance. God may take him home. But God may also bring about things in his life such that he will eventually respond (be renewed to repentance). IOW, though this person may have reached a pt. at which it is humanly impossible for us to renew to repentance, if we continue to pray, God can eventually perhaps renew them to a repentant heart. It will be a painful process for that believer. But that which is impossible for man is possible for God. You might want to look at other posts by myself and others regarding this. Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
14 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63467 | ||
Matt, Right on! BadDog |
||||||
15 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63466 | ||
Cyclist, Excellent. I couldn't agree more. If we continue to harden our hearts to the work of the Spirit, it will take a special work of God to change our ground so that he can use it again (burning w/ fire - which will burn off all those weeds!) BadDog |
||||||
16 | Impossible to renew to repentance? | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63463 | ||
LiferJ511, You might want to look at some of my comments in Heb. 10:26, to get a feel for how I view Hebrews in general. Also, let me point out one significant point: repentance (noun: METANOIA - verb: METANOEO) has a root idea of "to change the mind/attitude." It often is in relation to sin, but not always, in the NT. It does not mean to "turn around and go in a different direction," though that may certainly happen. Now let me point out 1 other very interesting thing about METANOIA/METANOEO: The gospel of John is the one book in the entire Bible which clearly states in 20:30,31 that's its purpose is evangelistic. Hence, if repentance is required to be saved, it would appear many times there, right? Well, it appears not once in John's gospel, though he does use it in Revelations and some of his letters. Repentance, I then maintain, is a state that the Spirit may bring us to so that we are responsive to the gospel. But it is not HOW we are saved... which is through faith, and faith alone. Repentance is also something that believers do, or must do if God is going to be able to use us (when there is unconfessed sin in our lives which we continue to refuse to deal with.) So repentance, then, is not a synonym for eternal life salvation. My contention would be that "impossible to renew to repentance" is NOT referring to loss of eternal life at all. It is referring to loss of rewards and inheritance certainly. But as you've noted, if we take this to its necessary conclusion, to say that this refers to loss of salvation, then we must also say that once someone has lost eternal life, it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever gain it back! Now obviously that does not make any sense. That doesn't fit the God of the Bible. That this passage is directed toward believers I would take as "yes." It refers to being "partakers of the Holy Spirit." Sure sounds like a believer to me. You might want to compare 1 Corin. 3 (part regarding building on the foundation). Notice how parallel the passages are. Both use fire symbolically. Both refer to near loss of salvation (Hebrews - "close to being cursed. Its end is to be burned." and 1 Cor. 3:15 - "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.") Both refer to rewards. It's interesting that one passage makes it clear that we won't lose our salvation even if our works do not glorify God (1 Cor. 3 passage), while the other passage (Heb. 5:11 - 6:9) has been taken by many to teach just the opposite. I contend that they say much the same thing. Thanks, BadDog |
||||||
17 | Robert, so is it the fire 1 of damnation | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63452 | ||
Robert, Excellent points. This section probably does refer to apostacy... though I would say (not sure if you'd agree) that those believers who commit apostacy are saved... it's a free gift of ETERNAL life. My view is that this fire is NOT the fire of hell. It appears that you don't agree w/ that, but I'm not sure. So, let me ask again: "Is this 'consuming fire' the fire of hell/lake of fire - eternal damnation?" Thanks, Robert. Bob |
||||||
18 | Is the consuming fire in Heb. hell fire? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63451 | ||
Ray, Excellent comments! They make sense, and you support them with scripture. I would like to add one additional thought to yours for everyone to consider: The Israelites who refused to believe the good report of Joshua and Caleb and instead believed the bad reports of the other 10 spies... what happened to them? Well, we know that they wandered in the wilderness because of their lack of faith for 40 yrs.. To quote one of your CRefs above (Heb 10:29) "Vengeance is mine. I will repay,' and again, 'The Lord will judge HIS PEOPLE.' It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God." And earlier (in Deut. 9:5) - "The Lord your God is giving you this good land to POSSESS..." Now my contention is that Hebrews was written to Jews, but believers. The admonitions (5 warnings in Hebrews) are therefore written to believers... not to those who no longer believe, or to those who were apparently never saved in the 1st place. Now I realize that this may be a new way of viewing Hebrews for some, but bear with me for a moment. Those Israelites who died in the wilderness are not those who weren't saved. IOW, I expect that we will meet some of them... after Christ returns. They did not POSSESS the land - they didn't receive the inheritance. Let me quote from Hebrews 6:-12, right after the well known "impossible to renew to repentance" section: Heb. 6:9-12 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way. For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the *full assurance of hope* until the end, 12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience INHERIT the promises. Notice the reference to realizing the "full assurance of hope" and "inheriting the promises?" This is truth for believers. It is believers who inherit. But if we are sluggish, and not faithful, then we will not inherit the promises... just as those other Israelites of old. But we WILL still receive the free gift of eternal life. We are heirs of God. We are fellow/joint heirs with Christ PROVIDED we suffer with Him... God will judge His people (that must be believers)... and it will involve fire. But let me suggest that the fire burns off the old vegatation, so that the ground may possibly, by God's power, be used by Him again. Earlier in Chap. 6 we are told that it is impossible to renew again to repentance. Unfortunately, we've been conditioned to read "repentance" as referring to eternal life salvation, and to read salvation as the same. I don't think it is referring to that in either Heb. 6 or the Heb. 10 passage here. The METAXOI (Gk. - those who are partners with him... a stronger word than the well-known KOINONIA - fellowship/partnership idea) are those who like Joshua and Caleb are joint-heirs with Him (Romans 8:16 and 17. In this Romans passage we are told that we are heirs of God and fellow/joint heirs with Christ PROVIDED we suffer with Him...) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! And He will burn away the vegetation so that the new ground is perhaps ready to bear fruit worthy of salvation. Fire actually seldom refers to eternal damnation, IMO. Consider 1 Corin. 3, in which the useless works are burned off. We also read in 1 Peter 1:6,7 how our works more precious than gold are tested by fire so that they may be purified. Took a long time to write about that one thought! Thanks, Ray. Bob |
||||||
19 | What does this verse mean? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63374 | ||
Kalos, I use IMO in order to not come across as rigid or dogmatic, and with a degree of humility. I did cite scripture references, though perhaps not in every note posted: Hebrews 6, 10:4 and 18 and 1 Corin. 3. Since Hebrews was written to the Jewish believer, I consider that internal CRefs are most significant, as well as the Greek behind the text. My understanding is that this forum isn't one in which original language background was assumed, so I refrained from such arguments. IMHO, the text is quite plain if taken in context and if we can avoid personal biases affecting how we read passages, which is certainly, IMO, often not so easy to do. Also, I did not notice many cross references in any other posts - just quotes from commentaries and study Bibles. Incidentally, I found an interesting brief commentary from Ryrie's NASB stdy Bible. I agree with most of what he says, but I didn't agree completely with this one and it didn't really answer the original question, so I didn't reference it. But I certainly can provide more of such CRefs in future posts, if that is an expectation for this forum. Lastly, one of my posts was a question, so CRefs would make no sense there, of course. Now, if you would like to give some CRefs for any differences in opinion you have, that would certainly be appropriate, IMO But in responding to a question such as "what does this verse mean" I did not expect that this was expected. If I'm wrong, or missed some post requirements on this, I apologize. Could someone enlighten me about such. Probably this was not intended as such, but is it due to the opinion expressed that this critical response was made? Because I thought that this would be a friendly encouraging forum to post opinions, ask questions and to consider others' opinions. But it took just minutes to be "blasted." You don't intend it as such, clearly from above, but that's what it was in effect. Before you use the words "no ... whatever" even as an observation it would be best to go back and review the person's posts. Would I provided was an opinion different than any others I noticed, so I was hoping it might be stimulating to some, bringing about KALOS responses and inquiring questions and opinions. I don't want to foster arguments or critical responses. If that's common on this forum, count me out, please! In Christ, BadDog |
||||||
20 | What does this verse mean? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63359 | ||
Kalos, I use IMO in order to not come across as rigid or dogmatic, and with a degree of humility. I did cite scripture references, though perhaps not in every note posted: Hebrews 6, 10:4 and 18 and 1 Corin. 3. Since Hebrews was written to the Jewish believer, I consider that internal CRefs are most significant, as well as the Greek behind the text. My understanding is that this forum isn't one in which original language background was assumed, so I refrained from such arguments. IMHO, the text is quite plain if taken in context and if we can avoid personal biases affecting how we read passages, which is certainly, IMO, often not so easy to do. Also, I did not notice many cross references in any other posts - just quotes from commentaries and study Bibles. Incidentally, I found an interesting brief commentary from Ryrie's NASB stdy Bible. I agree with most of what he says, but I didn't agree completely with this one and it didn't really answer the original question, so I didn't reference it. But I certainly can provide more of such CRefs in future posts, if that is an expectation for this forum. Lastly, one of my posts was a question, so CRefs would make no sense there, of course. Now, if you would like to give some CRefs for any differences in opinion you have, that would certainly be appropriate, IMO But in responding to a question such as "what does this verse mean" I did not expect that this was expected. If I'm wrong, or missed some post requirements on this, I apologize. Could someone enlighten me about such. Probably this was not intended as such, but is it due to the opinion expressed that this critical response was made? Because I thought that this would be a friendly encouraging forum to post opinions, ask questions and to consider others' opinions. But it took just minutes to be "blasted." You don't intend it as such, clearly from above, but that's what it was in effect. Before you use the words "no ... whatever" even as an observation it would be best to go back and review the person's posts. Would I provided was an opinion different than any others I noticed, so I was hoping it might be stimulating to some, bringing about KALOS responses and inquiring questions and opinions. I don't want to foster arguments or critical responses. If that's common on this forum, count me out, please! In Christ, BadDog |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |