Featured SIN TO DEATH

Why, as I have already addressed verse 13 in posts #49 and #56!!!!!

 

1 John 5:16 (NASB)
If anyone sees his brother sinning not leading to death, he shall ask and God will, for him, give life to those who commit sin not leading t o death. There is sin to death; I am not saying that he should ask about that.

The OP claims that brother must mean a person already given eternal life, rather than a relation, such as a professing member of his local church, but this view is precluded. For a sin does not cause "death" immediately, but the condemnation results in the loss of life when judgement occurs at physical death. Thus any sin will not lead to death for those already given life when they were made alive together with Christ spiritually during their physical life. However a "professing believer" would not already have eternal life, and thus can be forgiven. However, a professing believer not having eternal life cannot obtain that life if he or she is continues to commit the sin leading to death, which is rejection of Christ and His gospel.

What is so hard to see that the professing "brother" does not have eternal life, and therefore rejection of the gospel is the sin leading to death?

 

No believer would ever badmouth the Holy Spirit. I'm quite familiar to Heb. 6:4-6

 

Hebrews 10:29, . . . of how much worse punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and esteemed the blood of the covenant, whereby he has been sanctified, common, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Never a believer!

 

Always. Compare for example Acts of the Apostles 7:51, . . .Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. . . .
Sanctification comes from hearing the word of God. [John 17:17.] One needs to hear the gospel to reject it. [John 3:18.]

 

Huh. Hebrews 6:4-8. And again Hebrews 10:29.

 

There wasn't at the time of that writing. Israel, by that writing, had been cut off and the previous dispensation with its gospel of the kingdom had been set aside. Those who were saved under it prior to this happening were still under that dispensation for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29) and so, the brevity of my answer gave the wrong impression here. There were not two gospels that were active at the same time but there were two groups that existed at the same time, one that was saved under the Kingdom gospel (what Paul called the gospel of circumcision) , and the other that was saved under the gospel of grace (what Paul called the gospel of uncircumcision) - (see Gal. 2:7-9).

No. This ignores the entire context of the passage. If this were so, then why would Paul have needed to explain what Paul repeatedly calls "my gospel" to the Twelve Apostles? Indeed, if what you're suggesting here is so, then where was the need for Paul in the first place? The Twelve had been given the "Great Commission" and yet they agreed with this newcomer who was entirely unknown to them and who was preaching a gospel that they were not familiar with that they would forgo the great commission and stay in Jerusalem and minister the "gospel of the circumcision" to Israel and that Paul would take 'his gospel", the "gospel of circumcision" to the whole rest of the world.

There is no evidence that Peter, James and John, et al. ever preached such a gospel. Salvation by faith alone apart from works is Paul's gospel. The followers of Peter, James and John were, as James puts it in Acts, "zealous for the law", as well they should have been because they came to belief in Christ under the dispensation of law.

Prior to Paul it was faith plus works, as James makes very very clear.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.​

While Paul teaches the opposite concerning works....

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

Which explains why Paul was sent by revelation to explain "his gospel" to the Twelve. (Galatians 2:2)

I've never heard of Ruckman Theology but, regardless, my response here is to say simply that saying it doesn't make it so.

On the contrary, "rightly divide" does not mean to merely "handle and understand", it means to divide correctly. The original Greek is orthotomeō which literally means to "cut straight" it is a compound word "orthos" (cut) "tomos" (straight). The idea being expressed is definitely to divide or separate correctly.

 

You want to believe so. I do not. And how can I cause you hear and understand my view? I have come to the understanding that sanctification precedes saving faith.
1 Peter 1:2, . . . Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: . . .
And 2 Thessalonians 2:13, . . . because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: . . .

 

Yes, to saved people about physical death. I see nothing at all in the context that points to spiritual death.

 

One must hear the gospel first. [John 17:17. Romans 10:17].

 

Mark 1:15.

One cannot believe what one does not hear about.