Results 1 - 20 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BadDog Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | Hebrews 6:6 explained | Heb 6:6 | BadDog | 63467 | ||
Matt, Right on! BadDog |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | 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 |
||||||
9 | What does this verse mean? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63350 | ||
I would agree with wdc. IMO, this clearly is referring to believers. I have a question also: Does this *sacrifice* refer to the OT sacrifice? I see it as such, and so this passage would be referring back to earlier in the chapter in which the OT sacrifice system and its drawbacks is described. If we as believers consider that we should go back to following the OT sacrifice system (This letter was clearly written to Jewish believers. If we ignore that fact, I don't think there is any way to get an accurate understanding of this text.) then we don't have any sacrifice effective for us. This is notto say that we are now in our sins again, since Christ paid for them once-for-all, but there are consequences for such an action. Temporal sonsequences, IMO, but significant ones. I'd be curious what others think re. the use of *sacrifice* here. |
||||||
10 | What does this verse mean? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63351 | ||
IMO, all believers sin willfully... is there any other way to sin? Probably, but I don't think that any believer can exclude himself/herself from this category of willful and deliberate sinners. | ||||||
11 | What does this verse mean? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63352 | ||
I agree that what has been said here is true... for the one who is seeking or confused, stuck in some cult. But how about the believer? IMO, as I've expressed in other posts on this passage, this cannot be understood outside of the fact that Hebrews was clearly wand expressly written to Jewish believers. | ||||||
12 | Is the consuming fire in Heb. hell fire? | Heb 10:26 | BadDog | 63353 | ||
Is this "consuming fire" one and the same as the fire of hell or the lake of fire? IMO, no. This is not referring to eternal damnation. I'd be interested in what others think, and why. | ||||||
13 | 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." |
||||||
14 | 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 |
||||||
15 | 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 |
||||||
16 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |