Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 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 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | what sin, is fiery indignation hell? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63356 | ||
I didn't realize that someone else had already posted the same question that I've just asked. I'll post an opinion. First, no, "fiery indigination" is not hell fire. In fact, fire as used in scripture seldom is such. In 1 Corin. 3 it clearly is not such. Perhaps that is the reference here. I once compared Heb. 10 w/ that passage. There are several parallels, and for those interested it makes for an interesting afternoon pursuit. If you notice it refers to the field burned as "NEAR to being cursed," which seems to parallel 1 Corin. 3 in which that fire tests the quality of ea. person's work. One with all of his works burned up will suffer loss, yet be saved, but as through fire. I would agree that, in general, this does not refer to most believers, as most are responsive to the work of the Spirit in his life. So you could refer to that person as "apostate," but I hesitate to use such a term as many would consider an apostate as one no longer (or never really) saved. I do not. We are saved by His work on the cross eternally. What is at stake is rewards and hearing "well done thou good and faithful servant!" Also, as I stated at some other point on this thread, "willful sinning" is sinning. I suppose that would just qualify it as needing a sacrifice for sins. But earlier in the chapter (10:4) he made it quite clear to the Jewish believer this was written to that the blood of bulls and goats could not possibly take away sins. Only Christ's blood did that. Hence, for the Jewish believer wanting to appropriate the blood of such animals, that just isn't available anymore. Vs. 18 summarizes: "Now where there is forgiveness of these things (vs. 17 - 'sins and lawless deeds' - which perhaps describes the 'sinning willfully' of vs. 26), there is no longer any offering for sin." I believe that is what is meant by "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." |
||||||