Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Essential vs Nonessential

Just a suggestion.
Why not use I Corinthians 5:1
(Area already mentioned)
To unwind your discussion?
KJV here
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

The example goes on to church discipline and forgiveness after repentance.

Redneck
eddif
 
Just a suggestion.
Why not use I Corinthians 5:1
(Area already mentioned)
To unwind your discussion?
KJV here
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

The example goes on to church discipline and forgiveness after repentance.

Redneck
eddif

So, are you supporting the view that Christians can commit sexual sin? I'm of the view that the example you have given is an explanation of one possibility Paul was addressing.

Why should sexual sin be excluded from the possibility of sinful actions by Christians that need repentance and forgiveness?

Oz
 
Just a suggestion.
Why not use I Corinthians 5:1
(Area already mentioned)
To unwind your discussion?
KJV here
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

The example goes on to church discipline and forgiveness after repentance.

Redneck
eddif
Yes, Concerning the immorality in 1 Co 15:1 it was no doubt performed by one of the "babes in Christ" which IMO can safely be presumed as a single occurrence, considering the apostle's instruction "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (vs 5), e.g. for the destruction of the sinful nature that repentance will be found concerning this evil deed. Not that it makes any difference concerning the evil done, it should be noted that "his father's wife" was probably his stepmother.
 
Yes, Concerning the immorality in 1 Co 15:1 it was no doubt performed by one of the "babes in Christ" which IMO can safely be presumed as a single occurrence, considering the apostle's instruction "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (vs 5), e.g. for the destruction of the sinful nature that repentance will be found concerning this evil deed. Not that it makes any difference concerning the evil done, it should be noted that "his father's wife" was probably his stepmother.
I really think an in debth study of the passage will help.

1. What was not essential teaching for the Jews, was not yet known by the Gentiles (unless written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit)

2. In the long run this whole issue is doctrinal related. You
Should not inbreed doctrine and form denominational people. IMHO

3. Church discipline is different from public stoning. Restoration is possible rather than instant death.

4. Sleeping (ongoing sin) is not (slept once, and repented) is different. Verb study helps, but wars over language is not needed.

5. New born again Jews are spreading the gospel to Gentiles that can be born again.

This is a complex example that directly relates to the whole issue of essential non-essential. What is necessary for Gentiles is supposed to be old hat for Jews, but Jews that experienced at Pentecost a unique life changing way (the ox is no longer an ox, but a preacher / bishop).

eddif
 
So, are you supporting the view that Christians can commit sexual sin? I'm of the view that the example you have given is an explanation of one possibility Paul was addressing.

Why should sexual sin be excluded from the possibility of sinful actions by Christians that need repentance and forgiveness?

Oz
No.

I am suggesting not immediately stoning a one time sinner, but if a person that has fallen into a consuming sin (constant practice) be restored through discipline.

Folks will know rednecks are strange.
eddif
 
I really think an in debth study of the passage will help.

1. What was not essential teaching for the Jews, was not yet known by the Gentiles (unless written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit)

2. In the long run this whole issue is doctrinal related. You
Should not inbreed doctrine and form denominational people. IMHO

3. Church discipline is different from public stoning. Restoration is possible rather than instant death.

4. Sleeping (ongoing sin) is not (slept once, and repented) is different. Verb study helps, but wars over language is not needed.

5. New born again Jews are spreading the gospel to Gentiles that can be born again.

This is a complex example that directly relates to the whole issue of essential non-essential. What is necessary for Gentiles is supposed to be old hat for Jews, but Jews that experienced at Pentecost a unique life changing way (the ox is no longer an ox, but a preacher / bishop).

eddif
Hi Ed - Appreciate your input! Though I find your reply interesting I cannot determine with enough understanding a point of what you're attempting to share.

Blessings!
 
Hi Ed - Appreciate your input! Though I find your reply interesting I cannot determine with enough understanding a point of what you're attempting to share.

Blessings!
There are several statements by many (about what I believe).

A study of the scripture incident addresses church attitude that parallels / or actually establishes a different direction of thought.

I am suggesting we continue to bring out things in the dealing with the issue. I am trying not to dominate the discussion.

I did mention the difference in a sin now and then repented of, vs a lifestyle of sin that ok'd sin.

I am trying to go slow.
eddif
 
I Corinthians 5:2
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

The whole church was drawn into the situation. Instead of mourning and dealing with the sin they were showing too much tolerance. Tough love is love that can bring change (coming up in verse 5). A nice modern viewpoint of today where we say well those things are going to happen (we are evolved enough to not worry about such things). Wrong. (Trow th bum out)

But after punishment brings about repentance
II Corinthians 2:6 and following after work has been done.
But
That is way after the steps have been done. I leaped ahead so when the repentance comes we are not unforgiving.

This fellow just fits necessary to a T.

eddif
 
I Corinthians 5:2
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

The whole church was drawn into the situation. Instead of mourning and dealing with the sin they were showing too much tolerance. Tough love is love that can bring change (coming up in verse 5). A nice modern viewpoint of today where we say well those things are going to happen (we are evolved enough to not worry about such things). Wrong. (Trow th bum out)
Yes, immaturity was evidenced by that entire body of believers, esp. to the believers committing the aforesaid offense, and this no doubt had to be the babes-in-Christ condition for most of the body of believers in that time until Paul delivered what Christ taught him to share with the Body, which also required time to learn to walk in through the teaching ministry of the Spirit (1 Co 2:13).

But after punishment brings about repentance
II Corinthians 2:6 and following after work has been done.
Once you are Christ's sheep and stray from His fellowship (but can never loose your union with Him which is where redemption is retained) due to immaturity, you will always find Him calling back to fellowship with Himself, as shown in Hebrews 12:5-11, which answers to His proclamation that His sheep shall never perish (Jhn 10:27, 28). Love never centers on possessing faults but on how to correct them!
 
Once you are Christ's sheep and stray from His fellowship (but can never loose your union with Him which is where redemption is retained) due to immaturity, you will always find Him calling back to fellowship with Himself, as shown in Hebrews 12:5-11, which answers to His proclamation that His sheep shall never perish (Jhn 10:27, 28). Love never centers on possessing faults but on how to correct them!

netchaplain,

You would have had a hard time convincing Charles Templeton (former associate of Billy Graham) of that.



'Pathetic preacher dies in unbelief'.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) confirms that apostasy is possible:

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.​

Oz
 
Hebrews 6:4-6 (ESV) confirms that apostasy is possible:

4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.​

Oz
Not that I know who you're showing in your post but apostasy means to permanently separate oneself from a teaching. Those who do not make a show of remaining in the faith show they were never in it. True believers will be shown to remain in the faith.

My belief concerning Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26, 27 coincides with John Gill's commentary here:
http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=gill&b=58&c=6
http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=gill&b=58&c=10

Blessings OS!
 
Not that I know who you're showing in your post but apostasy means to permanently separate oneself from a teaching. Those who do not make a show of remaining in the faith show they were never in it. True believers will be shown to remain in the faith.

My belief concerning Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26, 27 coincides with John Gill's commentary here:
http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=gill&b=58&c=6
http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=gill&b=58&c=10

Blessings OS!

Do you mean to say that you don't know who Charles (Chuck) Templeton was?

You are expressing your presupposition regarding the impossibility of apostasy, including the link to the information from John Gill, a Calvinistic Baptist.

However, I've done my own exegesis of the biblical texts and have provided my exposition in, Is it possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

Oz
 
Do you mean to say that you don't know who Charles (Chuck) Templeton was?

You are expressing your presupposition regarding the impossibility of apostasy, including the link to the information from John Gill, a Calvinistic Baptist.

However, I've done my own exegesis of the biblical texts and have provided my exposition in, Is it possible for a Christian to commit apostasy?

Oz
If you could show me a Bible commentator that disagrees with the one I showed you, I would be able to continue to pursue this issue with you! Thanks and God bless!
 
If you could show me a Bible commentator that disagrees with the one I showed you, I would be able to continue to pursue this issue with you! Thanks and God bless!

If you read the bibliography in my article, you would find this one:

Ashby, S M 2002. A reformed Arminian view, in Pinson, J M (gen ed), Gundry, S N (series ed). Four views on eternal security, 135-205. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Try Adam Clarke, John Wesley, Jacob Arminius and any other Reformed/Classical Arminians, R C H Lenski, Jack Cottrell, etc.

Oz
 
If you read the bibliography in my article, you would find this one:

Ashby, S M 2002. A reformed Arminian view, in Pinson, J M (gen ed), Gundry, S N (series ed). Four views on eternal security, 135-205. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Try Adam Clarke, John Wesley, Jacob Arminius and any other Reformed/Classical Arminians, R C H Lenski, Jack Cottrell, etc.

Oz
I only see two in those you've listed who have free access to what they teach: Clarke seems confusing considering his initial comment is "I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity," and Wesley has too little to comment on to be of much use, which is his usual manner.

The rest of those on your list are not within what I consider to be general commentators, e.g views whose commentaries are popular enough to be listed as public domain due to antiquity (writings after 75 years), or are at a significant level of usefulness desired by the general audience of believers.
 
Galatians 6:1 KJV
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

I Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Two things (that a lie) never just two things.
Flesh
Spirit

Man is not just flesh
Man is not just Spirit

Do I need a theological examination writer to write a 1000 page work, or may the Spirit of the living God lead us?

Redneck
eddif
 
I only see two in those you've listed who have free access to what they teach: Clarke seems confusing considering his initial comment is "I do not consider them as having any reference to any person professing Christianity," and Wesley has too little to comment on to be of much use, which is his usual manner.

The rest of those on your list are not within what I consider to be general commentators, e.g views whose commentaries are popular enough to be listed as public domain due to antiquity (writings after 75 years), or are at a significant level of usefulness desired by the general audience of believers.

Free access to what they teach via public domain should not be the criterion to determine the quality of a commentator. R C H Lenski is a conservative Lutheran scholar who is one of the finest NT exegetes of the 20th century, but you will need a knowledge of Greek.
 
I suggest that you read accurately what I write.
I did read accurately what you wrote in the post. I even quoted it.
If you would have said:
it is IMPOSSIBLE to restore them to repentance, so says Heb 6:4-6 (ESV):
then that's exegesis of Hebrews 6:4-6. Then it's simply a matter of exegesis of the rest of the passage to determine who "them" are that the author mentions that it is impossible to restore to repentance.

How you 'exegete' the "them" into being "Christian apostates" is NOT exegesis, however, but rather an example of the very definition of eisegesis. The passage never says the "them" are Christian apostates. But you do.

You seem to be reading that idea into the Text, versus reading the Text itself. Because the Text never calls "them" either Christians or apostates.

What it does say concerning the “them” in the passage is extensive and quite literally non-Christian, not Christian (a follower of Christ, re-born from above, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, etc.):

It says the “them” are Hebrew people who have:


  1. once been enlightened by the Holy Spirit

    [The word “enlightened” simply means illuminated or to reveal or to make evident. It does NOT mean to become Christian. It does NOT say they have been re-born by the Holy Spirit or indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order to follow Christ. It simply means that the Holy Spirit once made Christ (the Messiah) evident to these particular Hebrews (“them”). Period, nothing more, nothing less.]

  2. tasted the heavenly gift (the Holy Spirit)

    [Again, the word “tasted” does NOT say or mean they have been given the gift of Eternal Life or indwelled with the Holy Spirit or become a Christian, etc. Rather, the “them” have once received a taste of the heavenly gift of Holy Spirit and rejected Him (fell away, v6) from that one-time illumination (light of Christ/Messiah given to them by the Holy Spirit). Once again, this statement by the author in no way justifies assuming the “them” are Hebrews turned Christians. Do you think everybody that hears the Holy Spirit once does in fact yield to the Holy Spirit? Especially a Hebrew used to offering sacrifices over and over for their sins.]

  3. sharers of the Holy Spirit

    [The Holy Spirit shared the message of Christ evidently with these particular Hebrews and they rejected Him, v6. How in the world that makes them a “Christian” (a follower of Christ) as you are claiming, I have no idea. It’s certainly not from exegesis of this verse.]

  4. tasted the good word of God

    [Someone (a Hebrew in this case) must claim Jesus Christ (the good Word of God) as Lord to become a Christian (follower of Christ Jesus), not simply taste/experience Him. Lot’s of people come to a gathering of Christians (church) to “taste/experience” Jesus but lots of them walk away from that experience without accepting Jesus Christ as Lord.]

  5. tasted the powers of the coming age

  6. fallen away

    [This word “parapipto’ is NOT the same word as “apostate”. It simply and uniquely means what it says. To fall away/fall back, Para (close)-Pipto (fall). It’s literally the only time in the whole Bible the word is used. Therefore, its Biblical meaning must come from within this usage as there are no other examples of it being used to compare meanings. It’s a compounding of two words meaning in essence that they were close but fell. Indeed, they were close to becoming a Hebrew turned Christian, but fell short of it. They “fell back” into being a Hebrew believer and sacrificing bulls/goats over and over again versus accepting Jesus Christ’s one-time sacrifice. Though they were offered a taste of Christ by the Holy Spirit, they fell away from that offer. It does NOT mean they became a Christian (a follower of Christ) then un-became a Christian. Evidently you think it does mean that.]

  7. crucified again for themselves the Son of God

    [Falling back into the Hebrew offerings of bulls/goats over and over is to hold Jesus in contempt i.e. to crucify Him again and again, etc. It most definitely is NOT to be a follower of Christ]

  8. held him up to contempt

    [and notice that this is what they did (past tense) when they rejected the one-time enlightenment given “them” by the Holy Spirit]
Metaphorically stated of “them” (ground) that:

  1. produces thorns and thistles

  2. is worthless and near to a curse,

  3. whose end is for burning
[None of this metaphorical language suggests the “them” being a Christian. Quite the opposite really]

In contrast to the other Hebrew people (ground) that:

  1. drinks the rain that comes often upon it [versus once]

  2. brings forth vegetation usable to those people for whose sake it is also cultivated [versus thorns/thistles]

  3. shares a blessing from God [Versus worthless and near to a curse]

  4. are dear friends and belonging to salvation. [versus whose end is for burning]
[Now these people sounds like people that belong to salvation to me [versus those that don’t].
 
Last edited:
Back
Top