-
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!
Under Grace or Under Law Part 4
- Thread starter Claudia_T
- Start date
Hope nobody gives me a ticket
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
D28guy said:
Well i agree that "He will suffer loss" in 1Cor 3 speaking of those who build on the Foundation of Christ without the purest of doctrine - does reference either results in this life (the undoing of his teaching since in some form in error) or the loss of rewards in heaven ... But 1Cor 3 is not a discussion on the LAW and the problem of rebellion against God's commandments.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob Ryan,
It doesnt have to specifically say that. The teaching is a general priciple that could apply to literally anything under the sun that could come up that would cause a loss of reward.
It was being argued that willful sinning must result in damnation. When those on our side mentioned loss of rewards only as a possible penalty (since the Spirit born christian can not become "un-born" and be damned again) they asked for scripture, so it was given.
Grace and peace,
Mike
It doesnt have to specifically say that. The teaching is a general priciple that could apply to literally anything under the sun that could come up that would cause a loss of reward.
It was being argued that willful sinning must result in damnation. When those on our side mentioned loss of rewards only as a possible penalty (since the Spirit born christian can not become "un-born" and be damned again) they asked for scripture, so it was given.
Grace and peace,
Mike
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
D28guy said:
Since a Spiritually born person cannot be unborn, maybe the one who thought he was born again never was.
Brother Bob
New Member
It has been around for a while and is just another was of saying I will put my Laws in their Heart and in their minds I will write them, therefore they become a part of a child of God and righteous of the Law (Commandments) is fullfilled in us. We have the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" which leads and guides us, for the steps of a "good man" are ordered of the Lord.
Regardless of either way the Commandments are not being broken.
When some brethren are really questioned about the Ten Commandments they agree we can't commit such acts but don't want to call it the Ten Commandments but the Law of the Spirit of Christ. As long as they believe we can't go around breaking them, I am satisfied.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Quote:
err - umm isn't that what good Bible exegesis is supposed to STOP us from doing? A "text without a context is merely a pretext" and all??
As in the case of Matt 18 "forgiveness revoked" IS being addressed along with willful sinning. (This is seen again in Romans 11)
So why not go to the texts that actually HAVE that as their subject?
Why rip another text (say 1Cor 3 which is not about willful sinning and whether that results in being cast out of the vine of Christ (John 15) or removed from Christ (Romans 11) or Forgiveness revoked (Matt 18)) and try to get it to apply in contexts totally foreign to that specific text?
And then of course everybody all up and down the street observes that they have taken a text about EVANGELISTS teaching and preaching FOR the kingdom where some are teaching less pure truths than others - and tried to bend that around to a topic about REBELLION and sinning against God seen in Matt 18, Romans 11, John 15..
How could we possibly MISS that subtle inconvenient point?
In Christ,
Bob
err - umm isn't that what good Bible exegesis is supposed to STOP us from doing? A "text without a context is merely a pretext" and all??
As in the case of Matt 18 "forgiveness revoked" IS being addressed along with willful sinning. (This is seen again in Romans 11)
So why not go to the texts that actually HAVE that as their subject?
Why rip another text (say 1Cor 3 which is not about willful sinning and whether that results in being cast out of the vine of Christ (John 15) or removed from Christ (Romans 11) or Forgiveness revoked (Matt 18)) and try to get it to apply in contexts totally foreign to that specific text?
And then of course everybody all up and down the street observes that they have taken a text about EVANGELISTS teaching and preaching FOR the kingdom where some are teaching less pure truths than others - and tried to bend that around to a topic about REBELLION and sinning against God seen in Matt 18, Romans 11, John 15..
How could we possibly MISS that subtle inconvenient point?
In Christ,
Bob
Bob Ryan,
Bob, the verse in question can apply to anything that fits.
Let me as you a question. What if someone came to you and said "Bob, how can you tell us that "we must be born again" and quote from that passage where Christ was talking to Nicodemus? Bob...the text makes clear that Christ was TALKING TO NICODEMUS! Not us!"
Kinda silly isnt it?
The text we were talking about spoke of loss of rewards. And prior to that the writer tells us what was going on. He speaks of carnality, envy, strife, and divisions. The believers were sinning, and those were given as examples of what was going on. The context is believers sinning. Does God play favorites? Does God say "Hmmm. Lets see for the sins of carnality, division, strife and envy It'll cost them rewards, but for gossip, lust, lying and stealing I'll yank away their salvation...even though those sins were placed on Christ of course."
God just doesnt work that way.
God bless,
Mike
Bob, the verse in question can apply to anything that fits.
Let me as you a question. What if someone came to you and said "Bob, how can you tell us that "we must be born again" and quote from that passage where Christ was talking to Nicodemus? Bob...the text makes clear that Christ was TALKING TO NICODEMUS! Not us!"
Kinda silly isnt it?
The text we were talking about spoke of loss of rewards. And prior to that the writer tells us what was going on. He speaks of carnality, envy, strife, and divisions. The believers were sinning, and those were given as examples of what was going on. The context is believers sinning. Does God play favorites? Does God say "Hmmm. Lets see for the sins of carnality, division, strife and envy It'll cost them rewards, but for gossip, lust, lying and stealing I'll yank away their salvation...even though those sins were placed on Christ of course."
God just doesnt work that way.
God bless,
Mike
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
D28guy said:
Agreed -- that is the whole point of applying careful rules of exegesis and observing that the text is actually talking about Evangelists all SERVING the Lord with some having a few bogus ideas in their teaching -- Yet God overuling and bringing out Gospel evangelism anyway.
Indeed - and 1Cor 3 is written TO the Christians at Corinth - I have no problem saying that the SAME rule of "Evangelists and their teaching" applies to US as well.
I have no problem saying that the SAME rule of "the New Birth" applies to us as well.
That is where we agree.
Where we do NOT agree would be in taking John 3 and applying it to sometjhing ELSE - like Christian denominations "Except a man be in my denomination he can not be saved" for example.
Applying the SAME loss of heaven and salvation to something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in terms of context.
Just as you would apply the loss of rewards to an ENTIRELY different context.
Avoiding the practice of make such wild context subtitutions is the whole point of the study and science of exegesis.
How can "sola scriptura" arguments even HAVE value or benefit if such wild substitutions (eisegesis) is permitted?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
D28guy said:
Actually the immediate context is FAithful Evangelists (in this case Paul and Apollos) PREACHING - evangelizing.
"One plants, one waters another reaps".
The problem is the CHURCH that says "I am of Paul" accordiong to the TEXT. But the "Loss sufferred" is NOT in reference to the bad behavior of the church but rather to the EXAMPLE given of a faithful evangelist whose teaching might be inferior in some way...
Sticking with the inconvenient details of the text - there is no way to bend this around to an entirely different subject.
You say you NEED to use this text to show loss of rewards in heaven for the wicked - or for sin... but that is a NEED you bring to the text it is not exegesis in the least.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob Ryan,
Here are some more scriptures for you...
This small excerpt is from this site...
http://www.epm.org/articles/rewards2.html
God bless,
Mike
Here are some more scriptures for you...
This small excerpt is from this site...
http://www.epm.org/articles/rewards2.html
God bless,
Mike
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Mike -
I agree that there are in fact many NT texts and OT texts all speaking of the same future judgment where the saints are involved -- but none of them gives the 1Cor 3 notion of "they are saved but suffer some loss" in reward or results.
And that is the problem with the "future judgment for loss of rewards" doctrine. It has one example of loss (1Cor 3) but it has nothing to do with evil deeds or judgment - it has to do with faithful evangelists and the quality of their doctrine. Then we have OTHER texts that ARE about evil deeds and future judgment -- different subjects - different texts.
Then they seek to "blend that" with other texts that are about salvation and judgment -- AS IF a mix is possible between the two topics.
In Christ,
Bob
I agree that there are in fact many NT texts and OT texts all speaking of the same future judgment where the saints are involved -- but none of them gives the 1Cor 3 notion of "they are saved but suffer some loss" in reward or results.
And that is the problem with the "future judgment for loss of rewards" doctrine. It has one example of loss (1Cor 3) but it has nothing to do with evil deeds or judgment - it has to do with faithful evangelists and the quality of their doctrine. Then we have OTHER texts that ARE about evil deeds and future judgment -- different subjects - different texts.
Then they seek to "blend that" with other texts that are about salvation and judgment -- AS IF a mix is possible between the two topics.
In Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That's the part where I mention "many scriptures" speaking to the subject of "evil deeds" and future judgment as we see in 2Cor 5:10 "We must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ".
But 1Cor 3 is the only one that speaks of STILL being saved in says NOTHING about evil deeds. It is just dealing with faithful devoted evangelists whose teaching may be inferior in one case to another's.
Very different form "evil deeds" getting the reward of the lake of fire.
in Christ,
Bob
But 1Cor 3 is the only one that speaks of STILL being saved in says NOTHING about evil deeds. It is just dealing with faithful devoted evangelists whose teaching may be inferior in one case to another's.
Very different form "evil deeds" getting the reward of the lake of fire.
in Christ,
Bob