|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 21, 2009 22:14:17 GMT -5
Here's something I posted on another forum. "If Christ did something his Father did not do, that means they are not the same being or entity." (Because a single being or entity cannot both DO and NOT DO something simultaneously.) "The son of God did not become man only in his consciousness (aka his person). He became mortal man in his being. The Father never became mortal man. Therefore the Father and Son are not two centers of consciousness in the same being or entity. I believe that to be exactly true. Here's a completely free 8 hour debate on the Biblical teaching of the God head versus Modalism: www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/Debates/ReevesWeatherlyDebate/tabid/98/Default.aspxI know that you understand why Modalism is wrong, however, listen to brother Reeves proposition on the Godhead if you find the chance.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 21, 2009 22:09:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Johnathan, Ben, I'm interested to hear you elaborate on what you believe. More specifically, what did you mean when you said: “I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means.” I don't know if I can explain what I do believe as much as what I don't believe. Hopefully that'll help explain somehow. I was raised Roman Catholic and thus Trinitarian. I think the doctrine of the trinity (that God is not only one essence or one substance but also one being, one entity, etc with three centers of consciousness aka "persons") is confusing, weird, and probably false. It makes me think of Cerberus or conjoined triplets. When I read the bible I do not get this impression. It seems more like a theory of interpretation rather than a necessary conclusion. I also read the surviving letters from the Arian controversy about whether Jesus ever had a beginning and looked into the scripture about it and talked with a Jehovah's Witness. I was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether there was ever a time before Jesus was. The closest I found was a verse in Micah (I think) that says "from everlasting" in some translations but it doesn't seem to necessarily mean "from eternity past" in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew. So if the apostles taught that Christ is similar or identical to God, I don't know what exactly they would mean by that. Would it necessarily mean that Christ had no beginning? I don't know. I think the Christadelphians (or Unitarians also?) are wrong. I'm open to discussing with them and hearing their views but I'm just about convinced otherwise until then. They both seem to believe that Jesus has never been anything other than human. I think he existed in heaven with the Father before and that he created the world with the Father. Does that mean that he had the same attributes as the Father? I don't think it would mean that. But maybe he did. Then there's the Oneness theory. I believe they rightly accuse Trinitarians of polytheism. However, I also believe they effectively "deny the Father and the Son" by saying that Father and Son are different roles of the same being. I actually hate their doctrine. They make the love that the Father has for Jesus into self-love. So where does that leave me... I'm inclined to reject Trinitarianism, Unitarianism/Christadelphianism, and Oneness theology. I don't know what to think about Arianism/JW and also about my polytheism theory. Like I said, I'm neutral here until I see proof one way or the other. I'm not sure what I think about the classical view of deity, that is, the "Omni"s and "Im"s. As for omnipotence, I believe the world was made by Jesus and the Father but I don't know if Christ had the same power as his God. I'm not real big on omnipresence (no pun intended). Immortality? I think the son generally derives life from the father so I don't know how this would work with God and his son. Amen to that. The bread of life which came down from heaven. You mean they are two beings with the same attributes who are in complete agreement? That is interesting. I've considered "the two shall become one" in reference to the concept of unity before but I didn't know it was the same word. Paul seemed to use the same word to describe the authority of God over Christ as he did to describe the authority of man over woman. Also Jesus' prayer in John 17 is that the church would be united in the same sense that he and his father are united. That's one of my favorite passages right now. As far as I know, only the Oneness believers would take issue with that statement. Fascinating. So you would reject the term polytheism for its historical connotations even though it seems to be technically accurate according to what you've said here. I really appreciate this summary of the difference between the two ideas. It will be helpful in explaining myself to others. I was using polytheism in more of a technical sense. I just meant that if Christ is God second only to his Father then that would be more than one God. If that can be called polytheism then I don't really care. I only care about whether it is true or not. I meant polytheism in the most orthodox Christian way possible Poly = "more than one" + Theos = "God" --- If Christ is called God and his Father is HIS God, that's two who are called God. Two who are called God = more than one who are called God = Polytheism. Someone might say Bi-theism or Tri-theism but these would be subsets of poly-theism as I understand the word. I'm not interested in the label so much, it's basically just an icebreaker. Hope that clarifies some. Howdy Ben, I would consider the Catholics to be closest to believing in the true God of the Bible. Here is a chart that explains exactly what they believe and why it is in error. This is an excellent chart which I believe you will completely agree with after you study it. www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-ontology-views.htm From reading your post, I believe we disagree on what God is. I believe that God is technically "Divine Nature" and even more simply, an office which is to be filled by divine individuals. I believe we're using the same words but in different ways. For instance, when you say "Christ is God" I can agree. However, I believe this statement means that "Christ possess divine nature." Whereas, it appears as though you mean that "Christ is the person 'God.'" The God of the Bible is monotheistic in it's most historical sense. There is but one God (Divine Nature, office, class, position) which is possessed by three divine individuals. Polytheism in it's historical sense means that there are many gods (Divine Natures, offices, classes, positions) and of those gods (Divine Natures, offices, classes, positions) division is found in their conflicting wills, purposes, attributes, and even natures. Jehovah's Witnesses are in error because they believe that Jesus was a created being as well as the creator. In Romans 1:25 we read: "Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen." This verse implies that the Creator is not a creature. Moreover, it condemns those who worship the creature. If Jesus is a created creature, why didn't he condemn the man in John 9:38 for worshiping him? Jehovah's witness doctrine contradicts the scriptures in more ways than one, that is why they had to make their own Bible. That chart also explains how Arianism is doctrinally wrong. Tell me what you think about that info after you check it out. Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 20, 2009 23:15:08 GMT -5
Ben,
I'm interested to hear you elaborate on what you believe. More specifically, what did you mean when you said:
“I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means.”
I believe the scriptures teach that Jesus has always existed. The he, before he took upon the form of a man, possessed characteristics that one would attribute to divinity (Omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, etc.”) I believe that at one point, Jesus humbled himself (the incarnation) even to the point of death on the cross. Jesus was God because his existence, will, purpose, and attributes were no different than the Father who also possessed and still possess' these attributes. They are distinct and different. They are a united plurality.
You also made the comment:
"I'm not sure there's any verse that says Jesus and his Father are the same God. Can you think of any? "
It seems to me that in this statement you presuppose that the word “God,” as used in the scriptures, is a numerical singular noun. As logic noted earlier, the word Elohim does not necessarily demand a numerical singular noun. Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated as “One” in Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 6:4 is “Echad” which does not demand the interpretation of such as a numerical singularity. For example: Echad is used in Genesis 2:24 to say that man and woman should be “One” flesh in marriage. This is considered to be a united plurality.
It is true that the scriptures do not teach that the Father and the Son are the exact same person. The scriptures teach that both the Father and the Son occupy the same office or class of being the creator, author, and ruler of all that has ever existed.
I believe that the Biblical view is that “God” is a class of being which three bodies occupy. The difference between this and polytheism is that Jehovah God is united in will, purpose, and attributes whereas polytheism consists of many divine bodies which are all divided in at least one of the following characteristics: will, purpose, and attributes.
So, to answer your original question: "What is so wrong with Polytheism?" I would have to respond by asking how you define polytheism?
Interested in hearing your beliefs.
Take care,
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 15, 2009 7:53:47 GMT -5
Although I believe that God will preseve me till the end, I still need the Bible to be encouraged an exhorted or I might harden my heart and sin greatly; thus, causing God to be angry with me so that he disciplens me as he did David. I dont fear hell. Again God will rebuke me as a Son, but not as an enemy. God preserves no Calvinists, only Christians!
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 15:12:45 GMT -5
Withholding information's approved of God on several occasions a lying tongue's not. Rahab did not only Withhold information, but lied about what she did & where the men went. Jos 2:4-5 " I know not from where they were, and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: where the men went I know not." Or "The men are Hebrews & they are on my roof right now" She had to say something; she would have sinned if she told the truth. She didn't have to say anything. She would not have sinned if she would have told the truth in verse 4.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 12:06:58 GMT -5
If you can provide any verses to support situational ethics, please do so. Joshuah 2:14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if you utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD has given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with you.IOW, don't tell any one what you & we are up to, even if they come to you and ask, you must lie to them in order for you to live and for us to be successful in our mission. Withholding information's approved of God on several occasions a lying tongue's not.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 8, 2009 9:34:10 GMT -5
I thought I did. I didn't realize it was more than one video. I referenced the general vs specific concept in a previous post in order to let you know that I had watched it. How many videos is it? How long altogether? It was three videos long. (30 Mins) - "The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information." - "Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life?" - "For instance the obvious fact that human life is more valuable than communicating accurate information." I've grouped these three together in order to address them easily: We know that the right to live is not greater than the right to accurate information because in Romans 1:29 we are told that deceivers are not worthy of life, but of death! "being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." We also need to remember that life never ceases to exist. Our bodies turn to dust and our souls live eternally. So to say that the value of a fleshly body outweighs the transmission of accurate information is to compare everlasting truth to a destructible material! Further more, there are more options than speaking the truth. For instance, I can choose to say nothing like Jesus did in Luke 23:9. I'm glad Jesus didn't value human life more than the transmission of accurate information. - "It just seems ridiculous to me to say that telling the truth is more important than someone's life." - "It sounds so much like the pharisees to make the accuracy of communicated information more valuable than a human being." I believe we need to stop using our own understanding to prove what is right and just in the eyes of God. I'm not, for one instance, saying that we should not love the Lord with all of our mind, I'm only taking into consideration the proverb which says "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Proverbs 14:12 NASB.) It is not reasoning within ones self that is considered loving the Lord with all of ones mind but instead the reasoning within the scriptures to understand what the good and pleasing will of the Lord is. In fact, reasoning within ones self is anything but loving God with all of our minds. - "we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life" There can be no general authority unless there is first specific authority and feelings do not constitute as specific authority. It also appears that this "natural revelation" you refer to is some sort of supernatural inclination to do and know good. I would agree that we have a "bible-vindicated natural revelation" but it is not supernatural. God's laws have been naturally instituted and we are born into a world which, for the most part, upholds these moral inclinations. These moral inclinations also came about through the transmission of accurate information! To say that this "Bible-vindicated natural revelation" is a supernatural endowed attribute that exists within every individual is to say that our ethics are purely subjectional because not everyone agrees on aspects of morality. The only reason human government has rights and value is because individuals have rights and value. The reason why the Government has rights is because God has given them to it. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God."
The rights and value of individuals are more fundamental than the rights and value of human government. The rights of an individual are equally important and fundamental to that of the governments rights. It is for this reason: A right cannot be had unless it has been given to one from God. Therefore every right that an individual has is just as fundamental as the right that the government has because both have been established by God himself. The value of individuals is what prompted God to establish human government. If the government has the right to use deception in order to defend the lives of its individual citizens then individual citizens must have the right to use deception to defend their own lives if the government fails to protect them. Not really. That's like saying "since the government can put men to death, I can put men to death." (I would not recommend you exercising this logic any more than deception.) An individual only has the right to defend himself if the government has given him the authority to do so. For instance, in the state of Arkansas, I have the right to exercise my right in baring arms. That is, if an individual breaks into my house, the Government has given me the authority to defend myself and my family. The government can not have any rights that are not rooted in the rights of individuals. The Government has every right that God has given to it and the individual has every right that God has given to them. The Government has been given the right to take vengeance and execute wrath upon those who do evil. The individual is to turn the other cheek. (Romans 13:4 Matthew 5:39) The Government has been given the right to use deception in secret operations. An individual cannot participate in these secret operations unless that authority has been given to him from the government. I believe you'd go to jail for impersonating a government official. There's a clear distinction made between the government, the church and individuals within the scriptures. We all realize, believe, and understand that not all forms of deception are condemned by God. However, the way that we know which ones are approved or condemned are by searching the scriptures, and not our feelings. Your objective is to find just one instance where God ever approved of the deception of a lying tongue. If the government has rights beyond what the natural rights of individuals allow then the government becomes a tyranny. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Romans 13:3
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 7, 2009 19:21:34 GMT -5
Yes, Ben. I wish you would watch the video series I posted. The Bible can authorize things by principle. However, you have failed to show a single Bible principle that would authorize an individual to speak falsely. Also, let us not confuse the authority of the Government with the authority of the individual. The individual cannot act on behalf of the Government unless that authority has been given to him from the Government. The Government cannot act on behalf of the church either.
This dialogue is getting old. If you can provide any verses to support situational ethics, please do so.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 7, 2009 7:58:18 GMT -5
Why do you require specific authority for camouflage when we are given general authority by the bible-vindicated natural revelation of the value of human life? The general principle does not restrict the specific application. Does the bible teach that communicating accurate information is more important than preserving human life? If so then what principle would justify the use of camouflage? Numbers 13 authorizes the use of secret operations for the military by an approved example. The Bible teaches that you should trust in God when you're tempted to sin instead of taking the matter into your own hands and committing sin. Does the bible prohibit deceptive sign language? The Bible condemns such. First you said: I guess we could go back and forth pointing out that a particular instance of dishonesty is not condemned or commended in a passage. Maybe that's not the right approach.And then you turned right around and said: If lying for certain reasons is not wrong, I wouldn't expect a verse to spell that out for me. I would! You continue: There is plenty of good teaching that wasn't recorded in the bible. Though it is true that there are good teachings outside of the Bible. However, they are only good teachings because they agree with what the Bible teaches. God has given us everything that pertains to life and Godliness and the scriptures are able to furnish an individual unto every good work. If lying is ever accepted as a good work then we would expect the scriptures to explain that to us in some way or another. If searching the scriptures for approved or condemned examples is not the right approach, and we shouldn't find specific approval of situational ethics, then I can only fear how you would justify the practice of such. who said anything about subjectivity? Perhaps you should summarize what you think I believe because it seems like you might have misunderstood me. You've made yourself very clear that our situation dictates our moral response. Ben, if you would just show us one Bible verse where God approves of a lying tongue, then we can all shake hands and be on our way. If you cannot do this then you are only defending sin. JDW
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 6, 2009 22:20:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 6, 2009 22:10:06 GMT -5
Which makes me wonder.. if lying is always wrong, then it would be wrong to use any form of deceit as a military tactic. Is camouflage a sin? Would you consider it a dishonorable practice? What about stealth aircraft technology? Aren't they lying to the enemy radar operators by pretending to be empty airspace? Spies, camouflage, and anything of the such are acceptable because we can find passages in the Bible which prove that the Lord accepted such. However, a lying tongue has never been accepted or commended by God. What about David when he pretended to be insane? Did he deserve hell for that? Regardless of what you believe, you cannot say that God was pleased with his actions because the passage does not say. Here's a video on Biblical authority. I hope this video will help you to understand what it means to do all in the name of the Lord (Col 3:17). www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZVAtU2O3UBen, if our ethics are to be governed by our situations, then why did Jesus rebuke Peter for cutting off Malchus' ear? Was this not a situation where ethics would have been subjective? After all, Peter was defending an innocent man! When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness to turn stones into bread he said "Man should not live by bread alone but by every word of God" (Luke 4:4) Surely one can see how this situation called for Jesus to feed himself with these stones. When we're faced with temptations, we need to respond in the same manner that Jesus did: "Man should... live... By every word of God." To which, you are challenged to show just one verse in the entire Bible that authorizes a lying tongue in any situation. JDW
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 2, 2009 11:10:14 GMT -5
So lying is not a sin that will send us to hell? Didn't Jesus lie? When He said, "I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." (John 7:8) Then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as it were, in secret. (John 7:10) Verse 10 reflects on verse 4 wherein his brothers said: "For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret..." Jesus' response in verse 8 did not mean that he was to never step foot at the feast but instead that he should not proceed to the feast publicly as his brothers encouraged him to do at this moment. Jesus' point was that he did not want to go to the feast at this moment. He then waited until his brothers left and went up to the feast secretly (not publicly as Jesus explained). We don't know how long Jesus waited until he left. However, it could have been as late as 2-4 days. "Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught." Verse 14 Not only is it blasphemy to say that Jesus was a liar but illogical. "In hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie promised before the world began."Furthermore, even if Jesus changed his mind, that would still not make him a liar.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 2, 2009 10:44:43 GMT -5
would you lie to save my life? If I were temped to sin in order to save your life, I would let the word's of Christ dwell in me richly: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 30, 2009 23:23:48 GMT -5
If any individual can inherit the kingdom of God without first going through Christ, then the death of Christ was in vain. What does "going through Christ" mean? If you mean Christ himself - the kingdom of God is the kingdom of Christ. No one would suggest that you can go AROUND Christ to get TO Christ. If you mean the atonement of Christ or the forgiveness made possible by it then you are mistaken. 99 percent of mankind could enter God's kingdom without ever sinning and Christ dying for a lone sinner, one in a million, would not be in vain. No reason? No benefit in hearing about Jesus at all? Is Christ only a ticket to heaven then? Or is Christian fellowship only valuable as part of the salvation package? This makes the gospel sound like a burden and a curse rather than good news. - How do we go through Christ? On his own terms. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 No one is exempt from the commandments of Christ: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God..." 2 John 9 Jesus said " No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him..." (John 6:44) "Ever man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." (John 6:45) This is what Jesus said about those who believe that individuals are exempt from the commandments of God. John 10:1 "Verily Verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but clibeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Jesus said "Verily, Verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep." John 10:7 Let us be careful not to rob God of his holiness. - Of course there's earthly blessings to be found in Christ. The Gospel contains the plans for successful living, governmental structure, and satisfaction in being set free from error through the truth. To propose or even entertain the idea that these earthly blessings of the Gospel are good enough to risk the destruction of the heathen's souls is to forget what Jesus said in Mark 8:36 "For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?" To say that the heathen can be saved without hearing the gospel would only turn the gospel into an instrument of destruction. - The preaching of the Gospel would only be a "burden" or "curse" if it were non-essential to salvation.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 30, 2009 21:52:37 GMT -5
I agree. 1Cor7:19 providing accurate information is nothing, and providing misleading information is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. The right to live is more fundamental than the right to accurate information. How can you speak the truth if you are dead? The law is made for man and not man for the law. Exodus 1:15-21 The midwives disobeyed and lied to Pharaoh because they feared God and so God was pleased with them. 1 Corinthians 7:19 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the keeping of the commandments of God." ? I'm hoping that you'll further explain this. I'd hate to think that you're trying to deceive individuals. Furthermore, verses condemning lying are abundant and verses commending lying are absent. No one can show a single verse where God was pleased with lying. Yes, the midwives feared God and refused to murder the young boys. When faced by the king himself, they lied to him. This passage does not say that God was pleased with their lies. God was pleased with these women because they refused to murder children. (Also, you must prove that the Hebrew women had not vigorously gave birth prior to their arrival) As for Rahab's faith causing her to lie: If you define "faith" as fear toward God then: Yes, her fear toward God caused her to lie. However, if you're referring to faith in the sense of Romans 10:14 "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." then perhaps a verse should be supplied wherein God commanded her to lie. Even if Rahab's fear toward God caused her to lie, the verse still must be supplied wherein God was said to have been pleased with her lie.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 30, 2009 21:06:41 GMT -5
Gibbor,
Apart from faith in Christ you cannot obey God, because that is disobeying God in itself, to not believe on his son. 1John 5:10 What about jungle people who die and have never heard the gospel of Christ? If they obeyed their conscience and the law written on their heart and lived moral lives from their heart, will God honor that, or will they burn in hell for never hearing the gospel of Christ? No. Unfortunately, the Bible's very clear on this. Jesus said "...Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:24 David wrote in Psalm 9:17: " The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, Even all the nations that forget God." The truth of the matter is that there exists no "unreached" nations throughout the world. The Apostles were given the command to preach the gospel to the whole of creation. This was accomplished no latter than the date when Paul authored his letter to the the church at Colossae. Paul wrote: "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" If any individual can inherit the kingdom of God without first going through Christ, then the death of Christ was in vain. In fact, if an individual could be saved without obeying the commandments of God (believe, repent, confess, and be baptized, the Lord's supper, giving to the church treasury, assembling on the first day of the week - among many others) then there would be no reason in preaching to the nations which have forgotten God. It would have been better for us to leave them be. If anyone believes that anyone is exempt from these commandments, I'm inclined to believe that they are walking in darkness.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 27, 2009 18:15:49 GMT -5
Can you show me a few scriptures that support that idea, that you can sin and not be in danger of hell? Joshuah 2:4-6 My point was that if someone seems to have sinned objectively, they may not have sinned subjectively and actually. Some say that all lies are sinful. Rahab the Harlot lied and it saved her. She sinned objectively, but not subjectively and actually. Her sin of lying was not a true sin. No where does the text say that God was pleased with her lying. Nor does the bible teach that Rahab was rewarded for her lying. No where is she commended for lying.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Nov 27, 2009 14:44:49 GMT -5
What does "without God" mean?
We couldn't live or breath without God... I'm going to assume you mean apart from faith in Christ, can someone stop sinning?
I would say no. Sorry, I guess I could have worded my question better. Let me try again: Is it possible for someone to obey God's commandments and stop being an active criminal towards him without having accepted him into their heart? (note: this isn't a question of forgiveness of sins, but of ability to obey) Thank You. Yes and no. Yes, we have to stop committing sin and obey the commandments of God before we are able to be saved. and No, we cannot live a life of obedience without becoming a Christian because one of the commandments of God is to be baptized for the remission of our sin and no one can be baptized for the remission of their sin unless they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. It is certainly possible for an unsaved individual to obey "this command" or "that command" before and without becoming a Christian. However, it is impossible for anyone to obey all of the commands and not become a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 27, 2009 16:53:58 GMT -5
Some people believe that sin is a substance, not a choice. They believe that it is a quality of matter, not a state of the will. I once asked a Calvinist “Is this body a sin?” They said, “Yes, our bodies are made of sin”. I asked, “So you can put sin under a microscope and look at it?” He said, “sure”. Here are some points to consider as to why our flesh, or body, is not sinful. 1. God is the author of our flesh (Exodus 4:11, Isaiah 44:2, Jer. 1:5). 2. Sinfulness is violation of God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). God’s law tells us what type of choices we should and shouldn’t make (Exo. 20:3-17), not what type of body or nature we should or shouldn’t have. 3. Our flesh is just dirt (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 3:19). 4. Our flesh is the occasion of our sin, or the source of temptation (James 1:14), but sin itself is a choice (John 5:14, John 8:11, Rom. 6:12; Rom. 6:19 Eph. 4:26). 5. The body needs to be kept under subjection (1 Corinthians 9:27). 6. It is sinful to live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to be living to gratify our flesh (Rom. 8:7). 7. But it is not sinful to have a flesh, because Jesus Christ had a flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). 8. Jesus had the same type of flesh that we have (Heb. 2:14; Heb. 2:17). 9. Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) which means Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). The word “flesh” is sometimes used synonymous with men (Gen. 6:12, Matt. 16:17). 10. Jesus was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) before He had a glorified or resurrected body. 11. The Gnostic’s taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7). 12. Our flesh is an instrument or tool which we could use for sin or for righteousness (Rom. 6:13, Rom. 6:19). 13. Our flesh can be sanctified (Rom. 12:1, 1 Thes. 4:4, 1 Thes. 5:23, 1 Tim. 2:8). GOOD QUOTES RELATED TO THIS TOPIC: GOD IS THE CREATOR OF OUR FLESH OR NATURE WE ARE BORN WITH "If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.” Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43) “Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it.” Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers) “If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers – of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man’s nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all.” Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart) “To represent the constitution as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin.” Charles Finney (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261). “… it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault.” Unknown (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 168, published by The Boydell Press). “To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78). “The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men ‘deserve God’s wrath and curse, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.’ If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and ‘bound over to the wrath of God.’ Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of ‘every soul of man.’ As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself… If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God.” Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115). “Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78). THE DESIRES AND APPETITITES OF OUR FLESH: GOOD OR EVIL? SIN OR TEMPTATION? “Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142) “Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83). “God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite… The infant cannot think of terms of duty, responsibility, or moral choice…. The self-centeredness of infants has all the appearances of a vice. But they are acting on natural, God-given impulses to survive and seek their own pleasure…. They do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to say “No” to appetites and impulses. They cannot yet be held responsible. They begin life in innocent self-centeredness…. But the growing child or adult who doesn’t rise above self-indulging desires has fallen from God’s intention and design. The root of all sin is founded in runaway indulgence of God-given desires… Drives which are not in themselves evil, nonetheless, form the seedbed on which sin will assuredly grow… When does this innocent, natural selfishness of a child become sin? In other words, when is a child to blame? Keep in mind that a child will not come under condemnation until his moral faculties are fully operative… When a child goes against his conscience, however limited and incomplete his understanding may be, he is then guilty. The degree to which his understanding has developed is the degree to which his actions can be called sin…. As the body of flesh was the medium of Eve’s sin and of Christ’s temptation, so it is the implement of your child’s development into selfishness – which, at maturity, will constitute sinfulness.” Michael & Debi Pearl (To Train Up A Child, No Greater Joy, pg. 15-20) “The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215). "We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135). "Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36). “If these feelings are not suffered to influence the will… if such feelings are not cherished, and are not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not sin. That is, the will does not consent to them, but the contrary. They are only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to break forth in words and actions, then there is sin; but the sin does not consist in the, but in the consent of the will, to gratify them.” Charles Finney (Systematic Theology pg. 191). This is also good to remember when talking to a oneness Pentecostal. The UPC teaches that it was just flesh that suffered and died on a cross. In other words: Dirt.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 26, 2009 21:33:50 GMT -5
A.W. Pink, a noted Calvinist said, "A dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything." (Sovereignty, p. 141). R.C Sproul said that "A corpse cannot revive itself. It cannot even assist in the effort. It can only respond after receiving new life". I'm amazed that one must be brought alive only to be buried again in baptism with Jesus Christ. It's illegal to bury people alive in Arkansas.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 25, 2009 8:13:26 GMT -5
I have always agreed with Dan Corner that sins such as worry (Phil. 4:6) or unthankfulness (Col. 2:7) are not shown anywhere to send one to hell. For anyone that does not know, Dan Corner is an evangelist who wrote the book, "The Believer's Conditional Security." His ministry is Evangelical Outreach and he focuses heavily on refuting the doctrine of Once Saved, Always Saved. In Scripture, we are given specific lists by both Paul and Jesus of certain sins that will condemn one to hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Eph. 5:5-7, Gal. 5:19-21, Rev. 21:8, etc). These lists usually include sexual immorality, adultery, murder, theft, lying, greed, etc. There are more of these lists in Scripture but I am just giving a few. If these lists are not exhaustive, why would Jesus or Paul not include more sins? Surely they knew that this is an extremely important issue. Why would they give us incomplete lists over and over again if they knew more that could cause spiritual death for the believer? Dan Corner defends his belief by saying that some sins are not shown anywhere to cause someone to not inherit the Kingdom of God. He also says that we can read about different degrees of sin by reading Ezekiel 8 which talks about there being more detestable sin. Also he says that some commands are greater than others (Mt. 22:36-39). I am not sure about the last two points but I do agree that sins like worry or unthankfulness are not shown anywhere to cause spiritual death like adultery or murder do. I have also thought of a few arguments of my own. Didn't Jesus command us to not do our acts of righteousness before men (Matt 6). If we disobeyed this command, would we not be committing sin? The punishment for this sin is not condemnation to hell but rather loss of rewards in heaven. So we see that not all sin is condemnable but some causes loss of rewards in heaven. When Jesus is speaking about loving our enemies in Matt. 5, he did say in Matt. 5:46 that if we do not love our enemies, we will not get any reward. This sounds like rewards in heaven similar to Matt. 6 and not condemnation to hell. Jesus did say a good tree can not bear bad fruit (sin) (Matt. 7:18). We could assume Jesus meant all sin but look what Jesus said about what sins would make a man "unclean". 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " Another slightly different list can be found in Mark 7:20-23. So we see that Jesus named specific sins that would cause a man to be unclean. Jesus never said that worrying or not turning your cheek would cause you to be unclean. The Apostle John did say the Christian isn't sinning at all (1 Jn. 3:9), but didn't John only define sin as transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4)? Could we say that he was speaking only of the moral law when he said a Christian does not sin? Paul said not to have any filthy language from your lips (Col. 3:8). So, any time a believer would let a curse word slip under his breath in a moment of anger, he is condemned unless he repents? Also where is the line drawn about filthy language? I know some people's opinions vary on this. This just sounds like it is getting into legalism to me. And what about the sermon on the mount? If a Christian does not turn his cheek if he is slapped, is he condemned to hell unless he repents? I am not saying that Christians should not strive to do these things. I do believe all Christians should strive for them. But I believe that things like worry, unthankfulness, not turning our cheek, etc. are rewards issues and not salvation issues. I believe that the specific lists of sins given to us by Paul and Jesus are salvation issues. So, you believe that someone who worries a lot will be set on the corner of Heaven in sack cloth and ashes? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 23, 2009 19:06:20 GMT -5
OH....please don't misunderstand. I do believe that we WILL one day come into the unity of the faith! Indeed. But, we haven't yet. This is apparent. So, I conclude that Apostles, Prophets...etc. are for today....and probably for tomorrow too! You also wrote: Your guess would be wrong of course.....sorry. Doesn't it amaze you that, after claiming to know what the One Bible says, so many denominations are in disagreement with each other and, in fact, teach the exact opposite of what others teach about the same subject? Peace, dmatic I'm sorry sir. I don't agree with anything you've said. I don't believe any denominations are in the faith. All denominations are an abomination toward God (1 Corinthians 1:10). No denominations will be saved. If you want me to believe that a denomination will be saved show me a denomination in the Bible that will be saved. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Unless I can find a saved denomination within the scriptures I cannot have faith that they will be saved. We can all come to the unity of the faith by believing what the Bible says. Departing from man made creeds and strictly believing what the Bible says: Nothing more and nothing less. Take care, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 22, 2009 19:18:21 GMT -5
Ephesians 4 speaks of giftings...for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry...and that these gifts would be here "TIL" we ALL come in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man.... Obviously, after reading this thread, this has not yet occurred! Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers are still for today. As well as the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Good questions for thought and prayer logic.... Peace, dmatic Verse 7 makes it very clear that this passage is refering to the miraculously gifted Apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. I believe that we can come into the unity of the faith. Why wouldn't you believe that? I guess you would take the position that we cannot know what the Bible says. If that is so, then what are you doing on a religious forum discussing the scriptures?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 19, 2009 6:22:28 GMT -5
If "That which is perfect has come" is refering to the return of Christ then you have a problem. This passage clearly teaches that when "that which is perfect" comes; Faith, hope, and love will continue (Verse 13). Faith and hope will not exist after the return of Christ. Romans 8:24 "For we are saved by hope but hope that is seen is not hope..." Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see." Consider this: Verse 12 is speaking of the same time of the cessation of these gifts as verse 9. This is indicated by the contrast between the "now" and "then" in verse 12. What does verse 12 say about that time when the gifts will cease? It says then we will see "face to face". This is an O.T. expression for seeing God personally (see Gen 32:30; Ex 33:11; Dt 34:10; Jdg 6:22; Eze 20:35). If you believe this is talking about the completion of the canon (?), then I ask, when did the canon get a face? Also when Paul says in verse 12 that at this time "I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." it seems evident that this is a reference to the Lord's return (see 1 Jn 3:2; Rev 22:4) Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said this about the view that connects "when the perfect comes" with the completion of the N.T.: It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God's truth....It means that we are altogether superior...even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position in which...'we know, even as also we are known' by God...indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense." (Prove All Things, pp. 32-33) Let me throw in one more text from 1 Corinthians that I think is relevant. It 1 Co 1:7 "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ". Here Paul connects the gifts in the church as Corinth with the return of the Lord. Surely, the Corinthians would understand Paul to be speaking of this as well in chapter 13. Question: If you do not believe this is speaking of the return of Christ, then what do you believe it is speaking of? Steve "For now we see in a mirror darkly but then face to face..." 1 Corinthians 13:12 My dear friend. May I dare ask what you see in a mirror? The scriptures do not have a face. We will see ourselves face to face. He continues: "Then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known." James compares the revelation of God to being a mirror. James 1:22 As for your quote: I have no clue who this dude is and it makes no difference. Also, let us not make the mistake of adding the word "miraculous" into every passage that speaks of gifts. Furthermore, will you chose to counter my rebuttal on verse 13?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 18, 2009 17:12:48 GMT -5
So then when did they ceased ? When the revelation of God was brought into completion.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 17, 2009 22:46:08 GMT -5
No one can choose to speak in miraculous tongues because they have ceased. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 "Being filled with the spirit" has a wide range of meanings in the New Testament. This is a very hard post to follow. Would you please supply definitions for: The gift of tongues.
Healing.
Wisdom.
Being filled with the Spirit.
Prophecy.
etc. And Bible verses for many of the things you wrote. To answer your original five questions I would have to know how your defining the terms. For instance: Knowledge --> I can speak a word of wisdom and of knowledge at anytime I want by quoting the New Testament. However, if we're refering to the receiving of miraculous revelation that some received through the laying on of the apostles hands, then no, I cannot choose when to receive or produce this knowledge for many reasons. One being that I do not have an apostle to lay his hands on me. Jon Jon, I have a challenge for you: Show me ONE text that is intended to show that the gifts of the Spirit would cease. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 teaches that these gifts will cease at the return of Christ. Steve If "That which is perfect has come" is refering to the return of Christ then you have a problem. This passage clearly teaches that when "that which is perfect" comes; Faith, hope, and love will continue (Verse 13). Faith and hope will not exist after the return of Christ. Romans 8:24 "For we are saved by hope but hope that is seen is not hope..." Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 17, 2009 21:20:03 GMT -5
Can you choose when to give a word of wisdom or knowledge? Can you choose when to have uncommone faith? Can you choose when to heal or to do a miracle? Can you choose when to take the gift of prophecy? Can you choose when to discern spirits? Last question: Are you deciding when you will speak or pray in tongues? No one can just say, "I'm going to pray in tongues now", as much as they can say that they will take any of the other gifts of the Spirit now; if you do, all you will be truly doing is babbling. If you, yourself are inducing the so called "tongue", it is not of the Spirit. The true gift of tongues is like a cup of water filled to the brim (no more room for water), then one comes along and puts a refreshing ice cube into the cup; the water can't help but to over flow and spill out. The same with the gift of tongues, when praying and becoming filled with His Spirit, you will find yourself overflowing and the gift will spill out of you (if you let it). No one can choose to speak in miraculous tongues because they have ceased. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 "Being filled with the spirit" has a wide range of meanings in the New Testament. This is a very hard post to follow. Would you please supply definitions for: The gift of tongues.
Healing.
Wisdom.
Being filled with the Spirit.
Prophecy.
etc. And Bible verses for many of the things you wrote. To answer your original five questions I would have to know how your defining the terms. For instance: Knowledge --> I can speak a word of wisdom and of knowledge at anytime I want by quoting the New Testament. However, if we're refering to the receiving of miraculous revelation that some received through the laying on of the apostles hands, then no, I cannot choose when to receive or produce this knowledge for many reasons. One being that I do not have an apostle to lay his hands on me. Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 17, 2009 20:47:04 GMT -5
Sorry about that, I haven't studied this passage in a while. After restudying this passage my mind has been refreshed. Thanks for refreshing my mind. However, the sins that are not unto death are those that have been repented of. This passage is teaching that "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." That is, if a brother commits a sin and it is not unto death. That is he confessess his sin (1 John 1:9). Then we are too pray with and for the individual just as James 5:16 says: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another..." Furthermore, the sin unto death is the sin that has not been repented of. To which, we are not to pray for a brother. There are a wide variety of interpretations of this passage. Even in this very thread there have been very different beliefs. Jesse believes this is physical death and you would say this is spiritual. Thank you for that answer. I think it could possibly mean that. What do you think about sins of omission? What types of sins do you believe these would be? Can a Christian commit these sins without being in danger of hell? What are your thoughts? To answer your question: "Do you believe in sins of omission?" Yes, Another passage that deals with this is the parable of the good Samaritan. Wherein the priest and the Levite chose not to do that which was right. Thus, resulting in doing that which is wrong. A Christian can, in fact, commit a sin of omission and not be in danger of hell fire. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins." Hebrews 10:26This verse would seem to imply that there remains remission of sin toward un-willful sin. Also, let us acknowledge the recipients of this message: " We." "We" refers to those who have received the knowledge of the truth. To say that those who have received the knowledge of the truth may not be saved is to say that the writer of this epistle also may have not been saved. If a Christian, one who has received the knowledge of the truth, commits an "omissible" sin the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all unrighteousness just so long as he is walking in the light. One who walks in the light continually confesses his sins of omission and commission.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 17, 2009 20:20:30 GMT -5
1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God.” “Doeth no sin” is translated from the phrase “ Hamartian ou poiei.” It is the present active indicative of “ poieo” which literally means, as the NIV has correctly translated (surprisingly); “Does not keep on committing sin.” Had John intended that one who is born of God could not commit a single act of sin he would have used the aorist tense of the verb instead of the present tense. Who does not sin → Him who is begotten of God. Who is begotten of God → He, in whom His seed abides. The seed: “The word of God...” Luke 8:11 Abides: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly...” Col 3:16 He that is begotten of God is he that lets the word of Christ dwell in him richly. Then, He that let's the word of Christ dwell in him richly cannot “keep on committing sin” because by letting the word of Christ dwell in him richly, he will walk in the light. If, One keeps on committing sin Then, The word of Christ is not dwelling in him richly and he is walking in darkness. Thus, He is not, at this time, begotten of God because 1 John 3:9 is a conditional clause which is indicated by the word “because.” So one can not keep on continuing in sin and still be a Christian. That makes sense for the first part of 1 John 3:9. Does this also apply for the second part which says he cannot sin? This would also mean he cannot keep on continuing in sin and still be a Christian? Thanks for that in-depth analysis on this verse! If he is begotten of God then he does not sin because he is letting the word of Christ dwell in him richly. Through which he has an advocate with the Father wherein the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses him from all unrighteousness. Furthermore, 1 John 1:9 is part of walking in the light. For our Calvinist friends to say that this verses teaches that Children of God cannot commit sin is to assert: A.) Children of God will never commit any sin. (Literally) or B.) God overlooks the child of God's sins. I believe the majority of our Calvinist friends would entertain the thought of proposal B. However, if this is so, terrible problems will occur in the following verse. "In this the children of God are made manifest..." According to the following verse we can see the children of God because they have been made manifest through: C.) Their sins which we can see. or D.) Their sins which we can see --> that God overlooks. The logical conclusion one would have after choosing proposal letter B (God overlooks the child of God's sins) would lead them to proposal letter D. If this be so, then the children of God cannot be made manifest for we do not possess the wisdom God.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Oct 16, 2009 6:12:25 GMT -5
The sins " not" unto death are those that the Christian doesn't realize he committed. These sins are not unto death in this particular Christians mind. However, all sin separates us from God and God is no respecter of persons. I don't believe this passage teaches that there exists a state of blissful ignorance for mentally capable individuals. There are other examples within the scriptures which use this same type of language. John 9:41 Jesus said " If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. But now ye say, We see. Therefore your sin remaineth." Jesus was not teaching that ignorance is bliss. If these men were blind then they would have seen what Christ taught. Hence, the blood of Jesus Christ would have washed away their sins when they obeyed from the heart his form of doctrine. So the sin not unto death would be ignorant sins? But are you saying the person would still be accountable for those sins? If so, how could they not be unto death? Have you considered Dan Corner's interpretation that the sins not unto death would be sins such as worry, unthankfulness, or not being completely humble and gentle? What do you guys believe about sins of omission? Do you believe there are sins of omission? Do you believe Christians commit sins of omission? The only verse I have seen people use to prove this is James 4:17 where James says if anyone knows to do good and doesn't do it, sins. Would not preaching the gospel be a sin of omission? If so, I would think this would fall under the category of fruitlessness. After a time of not producing fruit and being lukewarm, a Christian is cut off or expelled from the body of Christ. Sorry about that, I haven't studied this passage in a while. After restudying this passage my mind has been refreshed. Thanks for refreshing my mind. However, the sins that are not unto death are those that have been repented of. This passage is teaching that "If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." That is, if a brother commits a sin and it is not unto death. That is he confessess his sin (1 John 1:9). Then we are too pray with and for the individual just as James 5:16 says: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another..." Furthermore, the sin unto death is the sin that has not been repented of. To which, we are not to pray for a brother.
|
|