-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can a believer sin?
- Thread starter James_Newman
- Start date
- Status
Brother Bob
New Member
I had two leave my house going down my driveway swinging their fists at me.. I hollowed out "The scripture says to get angry, but sin not". The shook their fist even harder. My house now has been on their "black list" for 20 years.
Jam 2:18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James was simply referring to works such as Abraham.
Luther even call the book of James "straw" for he did not understand it but even from the beginning you had to believe that Jesus died for our sins and I think the church did. It seems the church had some trouble knowing in whose works to have faith in, but they still believed in the works of Christ. It seems that Luther did not think too much of the following:
Jam 2:18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James was simply referring to works such as Abraham.
Last edited by a moderator:
It wasn't considered heretical. It wasn't studied very carefully either.Brother Bob said:
It seems that your position is "ignorance is bliss."
If the early churches didn't believe such a doctrine, or had not progressed that far in their theological outlook of eschatology, then it must be wrong. Yet you fail to use the Bible as your final authority. You are doing the same thing as the RCC--using history and the ECF as your authority and not the Scriptures. Here is what you need to account for (at least in part):
During the Kingdom:
Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
When have you seen these things happen, heard of them happening? Do we have any evidence in history of these things happening. Have you ever witnessed the wolf and the lamb feeding together; and the lion eating straw like the bullock. Why are these not common events now if the millennial kingdom has already taken place? Why don't all nations come and worship the Lord, and at what period in time did they ever do that?
Hope of Glory
New Member
In all fairness, the RCC only looks at history back to about the 6th century or so. They reject much of "their" history prior to that.
Brother Bob
New Member
If we read through the teachings of Christ, we will find that though He used earthly examples and terminology.such as being born, sowing, harvest, a kingdom, a sheepfold,etc.. He used them to show things that were spiritual. Such
usage was obviously not to be taken in a literal sense.
No one would say that when Christ told Peter to feed His lambs He was telling him to go feed actual lambs. Everyone would agree that the wolves in sheep's clothing were referring to men.
Mat 5:44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Do you think the US is the only one worshipping the Lord? They did not play ignorance either, they taught it was spiritual and many still believe today. As a matter of fact it was a big issue with them. You are following John Darby. The greatest one of all, Jesus Christ according to you had it all wrong..........
I take the same stance Jesus took, so if what ever you call me, you are calling Him.
Rom 15:
12: And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Luke 17:
20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22: And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23: And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24: For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25: But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
What you going to do with the Lord saying the Kingdom of God is within you, I didn't just come up with this out of history, I use scripture of which you deny?
You are doing exactly the same thing Israel did. There is four beasts in Heaven too, but I haven't seen them. Is your Kingdom for the animals?
Mat 21:43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, I have never "attacked" anyone, as to the person. (I have no doubt, opposed some in lifestyle, perhaps, when they were living contrary to Scripture, as I see it.) I fully admit to have opposed or "attacked" what I consider to be unBiblical positions or teachings. Ellen White's beliefs and the Jehovah Witnesses are two examples of general positions I strongly oppose, FTR. Preterism is another that I oppose, even if I do not often see it, ususally. And I also continue to oppose any and all ""new" revelationism", as well. BTW, that "new revelationism" would include the 'allegorical' interpretations of Origen and the 'heresies' of Marcion, the Heretic, whose ideas were grabbed and run with by Augustine, and the real basis for opposition to the "literal" interpretations of a kingdom. However, that is not the point I was making. Let me use your exact words, and substitute exactly five words for a few you used. Here goes: And I quote your words, with five snipped because they referred to the kingdom, and I cannot reword them to refer to the doctrine of Justification by faith.Brother Bob said:
>
The correct understand of scripture is the key. If it were just the scripture itself without the understanding of the Lord, it would profit you nothing, I dare say. That is why we have so many different beliefs today.
Common sense would cause one to at least give it some thought why the doctrine of justification by faith, alone was considered heretic for around 1600 years. I did not make this happen, but it happened and I think it deserves some thought, for we believe the scriptures were given by the God, so why were they not revealed until four hundred years ago, or were they in fact revealed [five words snipped], as Jesus Christ Himself said.
You can attack me all you want and I will do whatever is necessary to keep my sanity, but the truth will stand when the world is on fire. We should not stick our heads in the sand because it goes against out theology. There were some pretty smart Godly men that have lived and died during those 1600 years. I thought we had got past this "new" revelation doctrine, or is Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventist correct after all.
Close the quote.
Explain this difference, please.
I submit that Luther, Staupitz, Farel, Erasmus, and the rest of the "reformers" were absolutely right about the teaching of "justification by faith". That teaching is clearly taught in Scripture. And that in 1600 years, the consensus of "the church", as a whole, and of "church history" had done about all it could to subvert this doctrine, by claiming that 'salvation was only possible through the church and the sacraments', with the result that anyone who opposed this was branded "heretic" because it took away from the power of the church and the pope.
(I prefer to be found in the general company of these 'heretics', as opposed to the company of the Roman church, in this, personally, but maybe that is just me, I admit. I do not want to be associated with the 'heretics', Origen and Marcion, as refers to kingdom teachings, but maybe that is just me, again, as well.)
The point I was attempting to make is that just because any teaching is considered a heretical teaching by some consensus of church history, at some particular time, does not make it so.
And FTR, as some others have pointed out , and " Me, too!" (and several times, at that), the earliest of the church leaders for 300 years, when they actually spoke or preached concerning an earthly kingdom, saw it as literal, with the primary exceptions of such as Celsius, Marcion, the Heretic, and Origen, the allegorist. The first two are considered, rightly, to be out and out heretics, because of their teachings, apart from those that touch on 'kingdom' teachings. There were a few of the early leaders with enough understanding to see that the kingdom went beyond a single facet, which I also agree with.
Interestingly, enough, you have recently, albeit unwittingly, cited a Greek word, that actually gave name to this teaching, in post No. 89 on this thread.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41928&page=9
FTR, "of uncertain affinity" does not mean of uncertain "definition" but rather of uncertain "lineage" in this word, "χι'λιοι" as cited by James Strong. The meaning of the word is clear (It is the word from which we get "kilo", for a thousand - the prefix as in kilogram), and had been for hundreds of years, and was brought forward into koine Greek from the Greek of an older era; the genealogy of the word is/was not as clear, or at least, was not, as of 1900 or so. (Strong's, as Young's is now a century old, FTR.) I would suspect that BAGD or some later compilations of scholarship might have some more on the lineage of the word, but that is only my guess, at best.
Now, in conclusion, since this thread has long since been adequately derailed)
what does any of this (including my own response, here) have to do with whether or not "Can a believer sin?" which is, after all, the thread topic??
"ME" teaching, right or wrong, does not contradict this question, in any way. It merely offers a scenario as to what happens when a believer sins.
And I cannot be accused of even offering a position on this teaching, for I have not, and am not even now. I simply don't have the free time necessary to give a thoughtful exposition and/or response, which would take a great deal of time. Snappy answers do not take near as much time, but I prefer to offer substantive answers to substantive questions, personally.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob
New Member
So, why attack my posting about a thousand in Greek is uncertain affinity, of which I said it meant "uncertain time" and you say you don't have the answer then you should not be jumping in on something you know nothing about.
Again, I do not understand this response when you admit to not knowing anything about the subject.
Peace,
Brother Bob
New Member
If history of early doctrine confirms the scripture, then there is absolutely nothing wrong in confirming that our forefathers were on the right track when they taught the Mill to be Spiritual, as so did Jesus Christ.
Challenge the scripture, not me!
Rom 15:
12: And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Luke 17:
20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
22: And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23: And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24: For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25: But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
What you going to do with the Lord saying the Kingdom of God is within you, I didn't just come up with this out of history, I use scripture of which you deny?
What do you think caused the split which had been brewing for years no doubt, maybe since they chose a Pope to lead them, that did not sit well with the true believers either. Luther did not get enough to split from the Catholic over night.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bro., The most unwise thing any man of God can do, is measure truth by people or history. When you have the Scriptures, that's all you need, whether your position on this subject is right or wrong. Christ edited the Jews with making vein the worship of God through the tradition of their fathers. Also of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. All I am saying is it does not matter what you find to be historical, for many have been historically WRONG. The Scriptures are the FINAL Authority.Brother Bob said:
I never said I did not have the answer. We do, in fact, have the answer, as to the definition. (The 'heritage' or lineage of the word is, here, a 'red herring', which is my point.) The word "χι'λιοι" means a thousand. Always! It does not ever mean an indefinite time or indefinite number, nor has it ever meant any such for at least 2500 years, which takes us back to at least 500 BC.Brother Bob said:
I do not admit not knowing anything about ME. In fact, I'm pretty sure I do know a very fair amount about the teaching. But I merely choose not to address it, here, from any perspective (leaving all wondering where I actually stand as to the subject
), for as I have already said, to address it adequately would take much more time than I have, so I will refrain.I have no intention of giving a quip or snippet that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood, due to brevity, on any substantive issue, be it "ME", or any other.
Ditto!
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob
New Member
Show me where I ever said the scripture was not the final authority, please do not accuse me of something I did not do. Now the scripture says to honor the elders as fathers and if what is written in history is a record of the fathers, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with studying them to see the movement of the church from the beginning. Unfortuantly, The Baptist did not keep very good records, but the Catholics did. So we have to read their history and take it with a grain of salt. Or we can stick our heads in the sand.
Brother Bob
New Member
Psa 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.
2Pe 3:8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I thought we were supposed to take the scripture???
Brother Bob said:
I agree. This is exactly what I was addressing Bro. Bob. I am not getting into the ML argument. I was merely supporting the truth that as far as doctrine goes. If all of history apposes you on a matter, If Scripture declares a truth, you better go with Scripture. Do you agree? I mean you brought out a great point here. Christians were being persecuted in small numbers who rejected Romes heresy before Luther came out of it. The so called "church's authority" did not define doctrine to these few believers.
You are reading into what I am saying something I am not intending. I am not accusing you. I am showing that history nor men should play a deciding role in what doctrinal position we take. And I would rather stick my head in the sand before I take counsel from catholics. Dirt could not do me any worse than them.Brother Bob said:
Brother Bob
New Member
Absolutely, but I went with the teaching of Jesus, long before I knew of St Augustine or Luther.
The Kingdom is within you.
The ones on here saying use the scripture, everytime it does not fit his theology, he runs to the Greek, so we should not throw rocks in glass houses. Also, he has quoted history, I will say several times but its probably many, for he had mentioned names I never heard of before. I have to look them up.
I do not care for someone accusing me of using History, when he probably used it as much as anyone on here as a matter of fact, he just mentioned at least 4 names of history, he did not find what they believed in scripture, so its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you talking about me using history? If so, Give an example of me using it to back up a doctrinal stand. I never said it is wrong to study history. I said it is wrong to use what you find as a back up for ANY doctrine. Who cares if it is not found in history? If the Bible teaches something. Believe it.Brother Bob said:
Last edited by a moderator:
(My emphases, in your cited Scripture references) We are "supposed to take the scripture", at least IMO.Brother Bob said:
And how do you manage to miss the simile, with the use of "as", in these? Were the word in the two comparisons "is", that would be adifferent story. The real pont the authors are making, here, is that God transcends time, and in fact, He created 'time'. And, as such, God is not limited by time, such as we are, currently, Ol' Albert Einstein (Time is relative!) notwithstanding.
One should note that the AMP gives both renderings, here, as both are basically consistent with the Greek. BTW, the word "entos" only occurs twice in the NT, and the phrase "entos humOn", only here. Some renderings of Hebrew words \as "entos" do occur in the LXX, but I do not know the number.
The point is debatable, I admit, but not completely limiting, to meaning "inside". And in fact, I think "among you" better serves the sense and context. As obviously do some (not all) translators.
Gotta' run.
Ed
- Status