Will a Christian commit certain sins?

Yes, he calls them brothers. If they are not brothers, then what are they? Why did Paul say what he did? Why did Paul write not to keep company with such if "they weren't really saved?" That is pure hypocrisy, and it doesn't make sense. If they arern't saved we are to go to win them to the Lord. There are only two classes of people: the saved and the unsaved. He was either saved or unsaved. There is no third class that you are making up "not really saved." There is no such class in the Bible, Bob.

 

No, his father was the devil and it was plain to see. He need the blood of Christ to escape from the snares of the devil as we all did.

 

Paul did not say he was a brother, only that he was called a brother. Big difference.

Again, if he was a Brother in the Lord, Paul would have instructed the church to deal with it differently.

As a matter of fact, Paul does deal differently in Galatians 6...

Now, why would Paul instruct one Church to excommunicate one who is overtaken in a fault, and tell another to restore one overtaken in a fault?

Sounds hypocritical to me if they are both Brothers.

 

If Paul thought he was a brother he would of said deliver that brother, not deliver that one that is "called" a brother but is a fornicator. The scripture is really very plain DHK. I would of thought you would of seen it before now.

 

There seems to be, on the part of some here, a fundamental misunderstanding of soteriology as it relates to the salvation of body/soul/spirit. Until you study this out and get a grasp of the clear distinctions that are made in scripture, we are not going to get anywhere with this.

This passage is actually a beautiful declaration of the doctrine of eternal security...

Paul shows that the body/flesh can be destroyed because of this horrible sin (fornication which is a sin against the BODY) and yet God still KEEPS the mans spirit until judgment day. Praise the LORD!

Any thing else is a twisting of the text.

Max

 

Why would he need that if he was already a Christian. Deal with vs.11. Why did Paul call these people brothers? You have yet to explain this verse.

 

Then explain what it means? And don't say what you think the Holy Spirit should have said. Why are you dictating to the Holy Spirit? Are you smarter than He?

 

1 Corinthians 5:11 and now, I did write to you not to keep company with him, if any one, being named a brother, may be a whoremonger, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--with such a one not even to eat together; (Young's Literal Translation_
Does that make it any clearer for you?

 

There were brethren there. That is simple but according to Paul he was a fonicator.

Paul knew they "called" him a brother, but Paul didn't.

No, I don't need Young, I stick with the word. But, even young had to put in there "being named a brother" instead of just saying "a brother". "being named a brother" says volumes.

 

This is conjecture!

Max

 

How can you say that? If he were a false professor don't you think Paul would have known that. If he were unsaved then don't you think Paul would have treated him as such? He didn't treat him as an unsaved person that we should try to win to the Lord. He didn't advise the church to preach the gospel to him. He advised the church to discipline him out of the church (for he was already saved), in order that he might repent from his sin, and come back into the church. He was an erring brother--referred to as a brother in verse eleven by Paul himself. Paul is not deceived. Otherwise he wouldn't refer to him (and others) as brethren.

 

Why do you think Bob is dictating to the Holy Spirit because he beleives that the man is unsaved?

I believe the Holy Spirit has revealed this truth to Bob. It has been revealed to me as well.

Paul did not deal with the situation in the manner that he instructs the church in Galatia to deal with one overtaken in a fault. As a matter of fact, he deals with it in the opposite manner.

Paul received his instruction from Christ. Is Christ hypocritical? Christ said a Brother is to be addressed by one, then by two or three, then by the Church.

Paul would have addressed this issue as Christ commanded if the man were a Brother.

 

Paul did know, who do you think brought it up?

 

How can you deny the very words of Paul, when Paul refers to this entire group, of whom this person is as a "brother."
So, yes, Paul refers to him as both a fornicator and a brother, as he does to every one of those mentioned in verse 11.
Demonstrate anyway you can--using Greek or otherwise, that it is somone else other than Paul referring to these individuals as brothers. Was there more than one author of Romans, or what? Where is your logic here Bob? I'm interested in how you get to this point?

 

You are arguing against your own theology. You say that you can't lose your salvation regardless of what you do, but now you want to say: "deliver such a one to satan for the destruction so the spirit "may be saved".
Now you are saying the flesh must be destroyed for the spirit to be saved. I thought you believed the spirit was already saved and that osas, which would include the body also for if the Spirit be in you that raised Christ from the dead, it shall also quicken your mortal body. Paul said deliver this one for the destruction of the flesh, so he couldn't of had the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead.

 

No Sir!

I said no such thing. You saying that I said something, and me actually saying it are two very different things. I think you would do well to sit back and actually think about what DHK and I are saying...instead of just responding so quickly and irrationally.

Max

 

So, now you will turn the attack to personally me. That is a sure sign you have run out of scripture.

Why should I listen to you or DHK; when you are just plain wrong.