Results 221 - 240 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207896 | ||
walkforchrist Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." We should not lie. I have heard arguments about this like; Rahab the Harlot lied and it was suppossedly accounted to her for righteousness. I dunno, her hiding the spies in peace was counted as righteous, but the Bible does not say the lying was. I have heard the ridiculous argument that Exodus 20:16 only refers to that you should not lie against your neighbor, but that it is okay to lie if you think it would make things better. Consider this problem though; in Natzi Germany if some of those Germans had not lied about hiding some of those Jews that would not have been a good thing. So if we say that it is right when it protects a life, what are we to think really? If someone wips out a gun and says they are looking for so and so, and you don't lie to protect them is that good? The problem with thinking it is all right because you want to save a life is the Bible is clear that lying is out. But some say, choose the lesser evil, being trouble with God for lying to save a life, over telling the truth and being partially repsonsible for their death. Then there are sins of ommission, where we lie by leaving part out and think it isn't lying for real. If it was me, just speaking for myself, I would lie to save a life, but not to fix every day problems big or small. Although I am quite sure I have been guilty of it anyhow. When we stand to lose something do we trust God to have our backs and fix things? Or do we lie? Question; what is a "right motive" for lying? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
222 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207913 | ||
Steve I agree that God's laws are perfect and absolute. But what about Rahab? What are we to think? What if laying down your life for the person someone else is trying to kill is not an option being laid out on the table, like Jonathon's lie of ommission in letting David go free when Saul was trying to kill him? Question; according to scripture was Rahab's motive to save her own hide? Yes, and to recognize God. Question was Jonathon's motive to save his own hide? No, it was to save David's and recognize David's right to be the future king of Israel. Both had their actions approved by God and that included lying, although the scriptures do not say that God condoned that particular part. But since there was never going to be plan B, then God ordained that they would lie, whether that was a sin or not, to save some lives that were central to God's plan that they remain alive; all of Israel through the actions of 4 spies to take Jericho, and David to be king of Israel. I am not saying God condones sin, but He used it to His own ends. That makes me think hard about Bathsheba, there was never going to be a plan B, David's adulterous relationship was always going to result in Solomon, of the direct lineage of Jesus. God chose not to do it any other way, and that involved two sins, murder and adultery. Man is still responible for his sins, whatever they are, they will be punished, but sin is also part of God's plan. Doc turned me on to a whole bunch of posts on this, but I can't find them right now. I think if you type "Secondary Causes" or "Causes as Secondary Causes" or some such you will be able to find it. Interesting stuff. This also makes me think about the woman who got caught by the Germans for hiding Anne Frank. If I have the story right, she never spent even one day suffering, or being punished in any way for hiding Anne Frank by the Germans. Her motive was not self protection in lying by ommission and illegaly hiding Jews. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy descisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect. Question; why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying? Which one is worse lying, or being complicit in murder? That reminds me of a certain group of people that believed you could not do anything on the Sabbath because it was one of the Ten Commandment sins, as is lying, but Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" to paraphrase that is the jist of what He meant. I think that says it all right there. I think we should be willing to consider that there are higher goods and acts than law keeping and preservation of somebody elses life might be one of them. Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?" blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
223 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207920 | ||
Azure I already pointed out in the cases of Rahab and Jonathon that it was the saving of lives that God accounted as right, and that they lying was not mentioned in the Bible as also being condoned. I was not condoning lying, but saving lives. Are you going to ignore what Jesus told the Pharisees? That they would of course break the law to save a life and that according to Jesus that was the right thing to do? Where did I say lying was right? I said to look at Doc's posts wherein he outlines the theological concept of God's use of Second Causes which sometimes includes man sinning to get done what He alone ordains by plan A because there is no plan B. I am not advocating lying. The entire problem here goes well beyond a simple it is wrong it is right outlook of what a Christian should do, as Jesus pointed out it is right to break a lesser law to save a life. Jesus was not merely showing Pharisees their sin, He was saying that they were hypocrites because anyone in their right mind would do what is necessary to save a life, even break a Ten Commandment that holds lesser weight than preserving a life. How often did Jesus say to the Pharisees that there law keeping of lesser things was not truly righteous. They had laws they made up and laws God made up and Jesus made a point of showing them that they once again were concerened about jots and tittles and were missing the larger intent of the law, which was not keeping jots and tittles in order to be righteous. It was to honor the "intent" of God's laws which could be summed up in two commandments - the Love the Lord they God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself - as He said all the other laws are summed up by these two. Therefore it is not right to allow someone to be murdered because you are so very concerned about lying, it is right, however to do what is in your power to do to save them because the excercise of love towards God and man in preserving a life that God preciously created is more important than maintaining the appearance of personal righteousness, whether virtual or real, keeping that does not trump saving a life. That is not condoning sin, it is choosing a higher commmandment by which to make a decisoin saving God's precious creation over lying. We are not law keepers, the love of Christ prevails over the law. The blood of Jesus is efficasious to cover as smaller sin of lying over being complicit in murder. The concept of saving a life over lying does not lend itself to other less dire reasons to lie, this is not about laying down normative principles of Christian behavior that lying is right. That is taking what I said way out of context. If you had to choose and God did not provide a way out for you, did not provide you another option; would you save the life or hold on to your righteous ability to not lie? God does not always provide a way out. "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. " This text is often misused to pressupose that God will make a way out of any situation as if "temptation" is referring to anything but what it means - to be tempted by a "desire" to sin, not a dire situation you cannot get out of. God did not allow David to escape from Saul for 13 years while he was on the run, God did not provide a way out when David had no choice by the run to Ziklag where he had to slaughter whole towns so that the ruler there would not discover David was lying to his face to survive, the lives of 600 plus people under David's resonsiblity were at stake. God did not provide a way out for any of the sticky situations David was in within which David resorted to subterfuge in various situations to survive until Saul was dead. God does not always provide an avenue where you will be able to do everything right. If he has done so for you, then God bless you. There are plently of people who have endured war time as civilians who did things to survive, it was either do what is necessary to survive or die. I do not think anyone except Jesus is so noble as to be able to endure all things the way He did that God would allow to happen. The Bible teaches that we are to strive and struggle with our salvation and to suffer for the sake of Christ. It does not say that we are supppossed to allow others to die so that we can appear to be righteous people simply for the sake of keeping God's laws. That is what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
224 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207967 | ||
Val Thank you Val. I really do believe that there are higher goods and lesser sins, although I have to admit that that concept of lessers sins has some problems with it. For instance if we break one sin, we break them all, so how could there be a lesser or a greater sin? Do you have any information or thoughts on this troublesome area of things Val? Mathew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gte; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
225 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207968 | ||
Azure I meant you no harm and was not trying to say you said that. I was asking if you were willing to ignore what Jesus said, not saying you did, but asking. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
226 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207970 | ||
Steve No, Steve I said that Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees would break a law to save a life, not that Jesus would or did! By the way I am not as Cheri pointed out so nicely teaching anything, I am setting forth a view without pushing it on anyone of how to resolve a Biblical difficulty to a life problem, which is not teaching at all, it is studying. I do believe you are hitting around to the point here Steve, you say here in your post what Jesus was demonstrating was that doing right on the Sabbath is not actually breaking the law, although on a technicality it most certainly is. That is why I was so wrongly adding to all my posts, according to you, just a worthless son, to make it known that I do not have all the answers because someone who will remain nameless accused me of thinking I had all the answers. A while badk Tumbleweed tried to point that out to you. It still seems to be a problem for some when anyone in here sets forth what they believe to be true using scripture to support it. Just because a person sets forth reasons and scriptures why they think something is true does not make them a teacher or mean they are trying to teach. Doc is a bona fide teacher, and there are pastors in here too, as well as us lay folk. We are all entitled to our own view based on scriputure of what things are. I happily agree to disagree with you without saying to you that you wrongly interpet anything. You however, continue to feel free to express yourself concerning your true take on what I post because that is your right. I tried to say before and will say again, the problem with saying God does not allow sin in His plan is that there is such a thing as Secondary Causes of Causes, which concept Doc laid out in detail. Might I suggest you use the search feature to try to understand how God does not condone sin, but does allow it as part of His plan. I did not come up with all of this on my own, and as well there are others here who agree with me about this because they searched the scriptures and not because "I taught them anything". On a technicality lying is always wrong, but when it is done to save a life it is no longer wrong, but right in the same way "breaking the Sabbath law" to save a life is no longer wrong, but right. :-) blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
227 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207971 | ||
Tim Moran The isssue is not whether or not God will deliver and trusting Him. The issue is that He does not always choose to as is shown by scripture to be true, and in cases such as those what would we have done? God does not deliver us from every single situation, He often calls us to make hard decisions and does not provide a way out. The concept is not why we should condone sin, the concept is as Jesus was showing the Pharisees that their concept of law keeping was flawed and that they would seek to do that which was more right in a dire situation, that we may be called upon to do the same thing. Steve said something intereseting. He said that Jesus was showing the Pharisees that to save a life by exertion on the (paraphrasing) Sabbath was not breaking the law, it was right to do. Now technically they would have to break the Sabbath to save the life, but according to Jesus it is no longer wrong to do. I think perhaps God has never placed you and some others in a situation where you did not have any options that were good and there was no time left to wait it out to see if God would deliver. Immediate death of someone else may not wait for you to hear or see from God, then what do you do? God's will is good, and complete and holy, but He promised us suffering, not good times. We are never going to be as holy as God, or as holy as we would like to be, we strive for that. Look again at David, he was a man after God's own heart who did a lot of things besides his two major sins to survive, and you never hear of God saying that was wrong David, only on the two great sins. Just a thought. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
228 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207973 | ||
Steve You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? Yes I am thinking my way through this before answering, please see the link Doc gave me to try to understand that the reasoning is not that God "condones sin", but that allowing it is all part of His plan, and whatever is in His plan He ordains, or it does not happen. The link says some very interesting and illuminating things about why the fall was ever allowed, why sin itself was ever allowed - they are part of God's plan. Before I studied what Doc tried to explain to me, I had trouble with this whole concept myself. But this is about what He pointed out to me - If we say that anything were able to happpen which God has not ordained than He is no longer a Sovereign God with sovereign power over all things, - it would be like saying something has more power than God to affect, or effect something to be able to happen - if that indeed can be true then God is not any longer God, but less than God. Think about that one for a while if you please while you try that link down there. I finaly hunted down for you what I keep referring to that Doc laid on me about Secondary Causes which serves to explain some of what I have been talking about - http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/god_evil.html I can see from your post you are still stuck on that you think, mistakenly that I am condoning lying as right, as that "doing good" is breaking the Law. Do you really believe that since "How much more valuable then is man than sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath"? Please tell me how saving someone's life is any different than this example that Jesus gave? I am not interested so very much in the technical terms of whatever gets done to save a life as "breaking the law" as opposed to "doing what is lawful". What I keep trying to say is that saving a life is right and worrying about how your righteousness meter is measuring up because you keep all the laws is not in the face of saving that life. If it is a fallacy for man to think that he had to lie to save a life then how come no one, including God never confronted David or Rahab or Johanthon for lying to do so? How come Rahab was not condemned for doing so? How come none of them were? Parting thought; if there was only plan A which God ordained, and if that plan included sin, then how is it that God did not ordain sin in some sense or another to be able to happen? Or else there would be a plan B, which there is not and never shall be. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
229 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207977 | ||
Hank Yeah it is late. Things to do. Here is that link I keep on yammering on about. http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/god_evil.html I appreciate your concerns and I hear you about Ty Ty's prayer. I still would like to know from anyone, what their take is on David, Jonathon, Rahab and why no one including God had anything to say to them about them lying to save lives as if that were bad. Plenty here say something about that, but the Bible is strangely silent about it as if it were some how a non issue in the face of what they did to save lives. God does not deliver us from every single situation, He often calls us to make hard decisions and does not provide a way out. 1 Samuel 27:1-12, 1 Samuel 29:4-8, 1 Samuel 30:1-6 1 Samuel 21:1-6, 1 Samuel 20:1-42, Joshua 2:1-24, 6:22-24, Judges 16:4-17, Exodus 1:15-20, Exodus 2:1-3 - In each and every case a sin of commission or of ommission was committed to save lives, lives that were within God's plans to be saved, and there was never going to be a plan B, there was only plan A. Another good example is David and Bathsheba, there was only plan A, Solomon came from an adulteress relationship whether we think it was right or not, which I do not, but there was never going to be a plan B by God to bring it about. See that link of Doc's above to see why that is even possible on any level. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
230 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208012 | ||
Tim Moran You and perhaps others would not, but I would separate dying for Christ for the sake of saying "I am a Christian", from making sure someone else did not die for other reasons. What I keep seeing here is that a lot of folks are trying to take what I have been saying and to apply it accross the board to all Christian issues as if I am trying to make a new "normative" for all Christians to now follow, as that "it is all right to lie if the situation warrants it whatever situation that is". That is not something I am trying to do, make an new Christian normative. I am trying to say something about the concept of higher goods and lesser sins in an application "only to the saving of another human life in circumstances for which God is not supplying an alternative". The expamples I keep using are of David lying to his enemies and killing whole towns when he went to Ziklag, David and his men eating consecrated bread, Rahab lying to save the spies and by attrition all of Israel, the midwives in Exodus, Moses mother and father in Exodus - in all of these cases there were lies or sins of ommission or commission and it was withing God's plan A that these things were done, or else we are rewritting the Bible and what happened in it. As I keep on saying the Bible is strangely silent about these sins that were committed, or if you like these "good deeds" were committed in order to save lives. I never said that God never says sin is sin, I said He did allow it and therefore ordained it as part of His plan A, and that if we are to say that He did not ordain it, then we are saying that someone else has more power to affect, or effect something, and thereby would be more powerful than God, and that tramples on the sovereignty of God. I did not say in my post to Steve that Jesus condoned "sin" to save a life, I said that technically to exert oneself on the Sabbath is breaking it. Your statement that the Sabbath was created for man is true, Jesus said it, that does not abbrogate Moses understanding from God that absolutely no work was to be done on the Sabbath - I would call what Jesus did progressive revelation about the meaning of the Sabbath. But I also believe that Jesus was doing more than just declaring the Sabbath to be for man, He was also saying, "look your measuring stick of righteousness is wrong, you keeping the law is not the point, doing what is right in a given situation is the point - saving a life is a higher notch on that measuring stick than keeping laws." I may be very wrong about that, but that is the whole crux of what I keep saying. In looking at the following which you said, I got to thinking some more - Our lives are His bowler, not ours! I have no right to sin to protect myself, or others, based on the notion that God might not deliver. Then how come we have David, Jonathon, Rahab, Exodus mid-wives in the Bible doing what had to be done and God never addressed it, never condemned it, but said some of it were acts of faith? We can't rewrite the Bible, I agree with Val, we should not try to go beyond the Bible, if it does not explain it or condemn it why are we? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
231 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208015 | ||
Tim Moran I wish I could find, and I keep on trying to find some of Doc's older posts on this issue, but I lost the sticky. You said the following - The author claims that God is the first cause of everything, but He is not the author of sin. This statement doesn't even make logical sense, let alone Scriptural sense. :-) How can someone be the first cause of 'everything', but at the same time, not be responsible for 'something'? Here is how this works as it was explained to me that I cannot now find the post number to - God is the first cause of everything, He created everything. Sin is not something that was ever created by God or any one else, sin is the absence of God's righteousness in created beings, much in the way that the absence of health is sickness. God never caused sin, He allowed it. Whatever God allows He has ordained, although He may not have created sin, or evil, He allows them as part of plan A. God is not the author of sin, God never sins, He is holy, but He allows others to sin. God allowed Adam to sin, but why? If Adam had been allowed to be righteous by his own abiblity to be righteous, that would have been salvation by works. Adam being made righteous by works, would have resulted in Adam having salvation apart from the gift of the grace of God. Allowing Adam salvation apart from God results in idol worship, resulting again in the fall with no recourse for repentance to the faith of the grace of salvation if salvation is only by works. God had to allow Adam to sin and fall in order to be able to give Adam's race the free gift of the grace of salvation so that salvation would not rest in works. Therefore God allowing sin is God ordained to outwork God's total plan for humanity although God never does sin. This is the concept that God does the primary Causes and that man does the secondary Causes and that God is not the author of secondary Causes but that He does ordain them and use them to further and complete His plan. This explains David and Bathsheba as adulterers having Solomon as God's plan A, it explains David and Jonathon lying to Saul with a plot to save David's life as God's plan A, it explains Rahab lying to save the spies and Israel as God's plan A, it explains the Hebrew mid-wives lying to protect the babies and Moses from Pharaoh as God's plan A, it explains David killing whole towns to save the lives of his troup and lying about it as God's plan A. How can the Ten Commandments be binding on God as the Law is given to those who sin? The do not apply to God becuase He will never ever break them. I agree however that the premise as described by the author in that link regarding Isaiah is faulty becuase the text does not say that God causes evil, it says He causes "calamity", which is like saying He causes Typhoons or earthquakes, or plagues - but all those things do take place to fulfill His purposes although many are killed by them. I wil attempt to check out your book there as I am always willing to remain open to further examination of things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
232 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208018 | ||
... | ||||||
233 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208024 | ||
Tim Moran I appreciate your concerns and am a little concerned that we all got off onto something the original questioner was not quite talking about, or asking about in the way we are pursuing this. In light of that, I myself will follow suit and leave off the subject. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
234 | Fruitless Scripture Discussion? | 1 Tim 1:6 | bowler | 206753 | ||
How would you see this verse in light of talking about the scriptures? Being that, all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, is there any Biblical subject that should be off limits for discussion between the saints? According to this scripture "all" scripture profits and should have an application and we need them all to be eqquipped for every good work. What topic could possibly be off limits between saints? I am sincerely seeking an answer to this because I need to hear and read what others think of this. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
235 | Fruitless Scripture Discussion? | 1 Tim 1:6 | bowler | 206782 | ||
Steve Thank you very much for everything you said. Somethig stood out that was very important to me in terms of how it is viewed the word "opinion". I have found that often when one gives the Bible verses and then takes the meaning that the author had for his audience, there is only usually one, that others think one is oferrig their "opinion". This is distrubing. There is indeed only one interpretation of scripture, but various applications. When one sticks to the application that the author had in mind according to his intent, that is sticking to the most literal interpretation that there could possibly be, but that does not mean that there are not other applications for the scripture that are valid, there are. For instance 1 Peter 4:16 "if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed" - this can apply to suffering for preaching, and it can apply to obeying Christ in your personal life in all circumstances. That is two very different applications, one interpertation, two applications. When someone asks a question that is personal in nature, but there is definetely scripture that attends the problem with a literal interpretation, then this should not be seen as offering and "opinion" or pushing ones' view. Literal interpretation is literal interpretation, it is not an opinion, or advice, or pushing a view. I hear you that people who need counseling should go to counseling, but giving them scripture with a literal interpretation without proscribing what exactly is the course of action they should take is not counseling them, or giving advice, or pushing a view, or giving them your opnion. What they do with it is up to them. That is a shame, if it is true, that Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be discussed here. I actually went through some of the branches on that to see what you were talking about. What I found was that some only appeared to have grace on the surface and once the line of sovereignty was crossed in the discussion it digressed into the judgmental, or bordering on being crass in response. I myself am now trying to tread carefully on a number of subjects in here becuase there are people who strongly beleive what they beleive, but I am afraid that presenting evidence to the contrary will only result in either an arugument, or in my post being pulled. I am not here to offend by stating what I believe, I am not here tp push my views. 1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. By the way what I was asking for was how to interpret a specific scripture in how to apply it - the whole paragraph there before and after in the scripture is definitely about what topics are acceptable to be discussing - to try to understand which ones would be off limits is not asking for an opinion, it is asking for clarification. Thanks for everything you said. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
236 | Fruitless Scripture Discussion? | 1 Tim 1:6 | bowler | 206816 | ||
Immanuelsown Amen brother, amen! You are making me think harder about this now - my mind was more leading towards not talking about endless genealogies and myths as being the only things we shouldn't be talking about. But in context of not causing the "weak", although who knows, I may be the "weak", to stumble I agree that is correct. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
237 | Fruitless Scripture Discussion? | 1 Tim 1:6 | bowler | 206829 | ||
Steve Thank you for clarifying everything again. I think I said "some only appeared", as in "some" and not all! To be without grace! My good fellow you were not at all not "measuring up", far from it. I am not looking for what my answer should be. I was not trying to imply you had not ansered the question or did not provide scripture! Although I do try hard to stick to the text and not give opinion, I am sure I am guilty of this too. Sorry for the misunderstandings. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
238 | Christians Apostate Same As Anit-Christ? | 1 Tim 4:1 | bowler | 206392 | ||
What is meant here by falling away from the faith? I do not by any means pretend to know. How can one fall away from the faith if one has an assurance of faith? Is this talking about those back then who at first were doing the right things, but then taught to do the wrong things, and does this mean they have the spirit of the anti-Christ, or is it that they are still saved but believe the wrong things? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
239 | Christians Apostate Same As Anit-Christ? | 1 Tim 4:1 | bowler | 206403 | ||
Cody Mac Thanks for the input. I see exactly what you are saying about the difference between apostasy and being of the spirit of the Anti-Christ. I got to thinking about what Jude says in 1:22, 23 about having mercy on some who doubt, save others snatching them out of the fire, and on some to have mercy with fear. And what I thought was that those who are apostate it may be possible to pull back to the faith because they have gone dangerously astray due to false teaching or doctrine, and that these are all apostate. This would make them believers who went wrong, but if they never come back were they ever saved? But that those who believe that Jesus is not God, these are the ones with the spirit of the Anti-Christ and they cannot be pulled back from something they were never truly a part of, the body of Christ. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
240 | Christians Apostate Same As Anit-Christ? | 1 Tim 4:1 | bowler | 206441 | ||
Immanuelsown Thank you for your thoughts Immanuelsown, I appreciate your point of view. I will stop after this but would be more than happy to hear more from you or others on the matter as it does edify me. I am looking at 2 Peter 2 and wondering if Peter is really talking about apostates and those who had the spirit of the Anti-Christ at the same time, that is grouping them together, or is he only talking about those with the spirit of the Anti-Christ? He speaks of those who creep in to the congregation to teach false things, heresies, denying the Christ as being the Christ. He speaks about them sinning immoralities and of reviling angelic majesties. This seems to contrast those whom Paul had described as being fallen away from the faith "apostate" as being not immoral, but forbiding from marriage, forbidding the eating of all foods, and as generally purporting that ascetisim is the way to "Christ". These apostates that Paul was speaking of did not preach another "Christ", they taught that the way to Him was through "denying the body" as Paul put it (see previous branch). This is why I keep seeming to try and make a disctinction between "apostate" and "spirit of the Anti-Christ". An "apostate" can be pulled back from destruction and "renewed to the faith", as those who believe false beliefs about how to make it to Christ and be "saved" (not so sure about this part, see Hebrews chapter 6?)- having less to do with continuing in sin than with "false doctrine" (that is according to one instance of Paul). One instance of Paul describing a sinner who had fallen away, "was apostate" was the man who had his father's wife in bed and lived with her. Paul speaks of "giving him over to Satan for the desctruction of his flesh in order to save his soul" - meaning this "apostate" could be pulled back from total desctruction and would still be "saved". That is two types of being "apostate". People who believe in the real Christ but "fall away". Being one with the spirit of the "Anti-Christ" is to preach another Christ and the fruits of such a person is that they will commit gross immoralities and as John says in I, II, III John they will keep the brethren out of the congregation and will not love their brothers by seeing to their needs and "their deeds are evidence that they are not His", and will try to go from house to house to get "things". But the major emphasis is that they preach another Christ, a false Christ. I do hear you about "apostates" being thrown out of churches. States punish apostates? I thought the church was in authority over what happens to "apostates" in Christianity. Maybe you mean "foreign states of other relgions in other nations". A good question remains - at what point do we say that a "former believer" was ever saved? How could one be "former"? One is either a believer who repented and asked for salvation or they aren't, there is no gray area that gets created because they fall into the next sin and have trouble with it. Once saved always saved, by faith alone, by grace alone, the Sola's. Another good question might then be, is one who fell and never turns around to repent and get back up ever said to have been a "former believer"? Many have no patience for that waiting period, saying it was too long, and decide that person was never saved and then call them "apostate", but you had to believe at first in order to "fall away", not be an unbeliever (former believer?). blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |