William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

General posts on Evangelical Universalism.

William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:40 pm

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries ... ews-6.html

This might be the best expounding of Hebrews 6:4-6 I've read.
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:41 am

Yea, Barclay's daily bible commentary is great. From my point of view, the issue is that he is reading Hebrews like it was written to himself and all Christians through all of time. The historical significance seems to be lost. Even the site Biblica says:

Hebrews must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70 because: (1) If it had been written after this date, the author surely would have mentioned the temple’s destruction and the end of the Jewish sacrificial system; and (2) the author consistently uses the Greek present tense when speaking of the temple and the priestly activities connected with it (see5:1–3; 7:23,27; 8:3–5; 9:6–9,13,25; 10:1,3–4,8,11; 13:10–11).

Now I don't know about the Greek stuff, but surely the author would have made mention that this sacrificial system WAS as in 'used to be' before the temple destruction. I kind of think that Hebrews was written to the Hebrews. :shock:

As a side note, I remember a Free Will Baptist pastor sitting at my kitchen table and using these very verses to try to convince me that the 'once saved always saved' doctrine was rubbish. :o

Having said that Barclay does end with this:
We may note a final thing. It has been pointed out that in the letter to the Hebrews there are four impossible things. There is the impossibility of this passage. The other three are: (i) It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). (ii) It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). (iii) Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).


Go figure.
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Origen; » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:59 am

"impossible...to renew unto repentance" which some ETers take to mean they can never be saved

1. but does Heb.6:4-6 mean it is impossible for men, or for God, to renew such a one to repentance?

2. does it imply it is impossible forever, or could it be for a limited time, e.g. for this age & the next?

Re 1. above i think of the scripture which asks, is anything too difficult for the Lord? Jesus said,
With man this is impossible, but with God all is possible. So i'd suggest that a possible interpretation
of the Hebrews passage in harmony with UR is that it is impossible for the man himself or other men
to renew him to repentance, but not impossible for God.

Even some bible commentators who do not support UR admit the Hebrews passage is not saying it is
impossible for God to save them & that it is possible for Him to do so. Just that He has chosen not to,
for various reasons.

In Acts 4:8 we read of a lame man who was unable to walk. It was impossible for him to walk.
The same Greek word is used for "impossible" as in Hebrews 6. While it was impossible for the
man to walk or cure himself of his inability to walk, it was possible with God's help. In
verses 9-10 he was healed. In the age to come when all are resurrected by the Lord will they
not also be able to walk?

If God hardens a heart so he cannot let the people of Israel go, then it is impossible for him
to repent (change his mind) and let them go. But if God later allows him to let them go, then
it was not impossible for him to do that forever, but only while God hardened his heart.

While God hardened his heart he was not allowed or permitted to let the people go. The Hebrews
6:4-6 passage also speaks of people doing something only "if God permit" (v.3). So might those for
whom it is impossible to be renewed unto repentance be that way because God does not "permit" it?
Could He at some point in the future permit them again? I don't see anything in Heb.6:4-6 that
says otherwise.

The Hebrews passage paints a contrast between those who can go on to maturity "if God permits"
and those who are not being permitted, as it is presently impossible for them. Why? Because
God does not presently "permit" it to such as those described in the context?

Hebrews references to Pharoah's hardening? Romans.

Re 2. above Heb 6 has similarities to the unpardonable sin of the 4 gospels, which is not forgiven in this
age or the age to come. Both passage speak of the Spirit of the Lord & the age to come. Could
this gospels' account be what the Hebrews writer had in mind? If so, then it leaves open the
possibility of their repentance & pardon in the age after the one to come, since the Scripture
speaks of more than one future age.

For additional perspectives on Hebrews 6:4-6, there is the following:

http://richardwaynegarganta.com/Bible%2 ... lained.htm

"4 This description applies only to those who participated in the Pentecostal blessings. They were enlightened, they' tasted the celestial gratuity,
they became partakers of holy spirit, and God's declaration, and they only experienced the powers of the kingdom eon, and many of them fell aside. These blessings were based on their repentance, or change of mind, which was induced largely by the miracles which they saw. When the kingdom failed to appear, and its powers vanished, their repentance went also. Hence the impossibility of renewing it, for the means which produced it were no longer in evidence. Such a course is not possible in a day of grace, such as we live in. In place of repentance and pardon, we have faith and justification, which know no falling away, being entirely of grace, from first to last." (Concordant Commentary)
http://concordant.org/expositions/conco ... testament/

God is the Saviour of all (1Tim.4:10)

http://biblehub.com/greek/102.htm
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:06 pm

Origen; wrote:"impossible...to renew unto repentance" which some ETers take to mean they can never be saved

1. but does Heb.6:4-6 mean it is impossible for men, or for God, to renew such a one to repentance?

2. does it imply it is impossible forever, or could it be for a limited time, e.g. for this age & the next?

Re 1. above i think of the scripture which asks, is anything too difficult for the Lord? Jesus said,
With man this is impossible, but with God all is possible. So i'd suggest that a possible interpretation
of the Hebrews passage in harmony with UR is that it is impossible for the man himself or other men
to renew him to repentance, but not impossible for God.

Even some bible commentators who do not support UR admit the Hebrews passage is not saying it is
impossible for God to save them & that it is possible for Him to do so. Just that He has chosen not to,
for various reasons.

In Acts 4:8 we read of a lame man who was unable to walk. It was impossible for him to walk.
The same Greek word is used for "impossible" as in Hebrews 6. While it was impossible for the
man to walk or cure himself of his inability to walk, it was possible with God's help. In
verses 9-10 he was healed. In the age to come when all are resurrected by the Lord will they
not also be able to walk?

If God hardens a heart so he cannot let the people of Israel go, then it is impossible for him
to repent (change his mind) and let them go. But if God later allows him to let them go, then
it was not impossible for him to do that forever, but only while God hardened his heart.

While God hardened his heart he was not allowed or permitted to let the people go. The Hebrews
6:4-6 passage also speaks of people doing something only "if God permit" (v.3). So might those for
whom it is impossible to be renewed unto repentance be that way because God does not "permit" it?
Could He at some point in the future permit them again? I don't see anything in Heb.6:4-6 that
says otherwise.

The Hebrews passage paints a contrast between those who can go on to maturity "if God permits"
and those who are not being permitted, as it is presently impossible for them. Why? Because
God does not presently "permit" it to such as those described in the context?

Hebrews references to Pharoah's hardening? Romans.

Re 2. above Heb 6 has similarities to the unpardonable sin of the 4 gospels, which is not forgiven in this
age or the age to come. Both passage speak of the Spirit of the Lord & the age to come. Could
this gospels' account be what the Hebrews writer had in mind? If so, then it leaves open the
possibility of their repentance & pardon in the age after the one to come, since the Scripture
speaks of more than one future age.

For additional perspectives on Hebrews 6:4-6, there is the following:

http://richardwaynegarganta.com/Bible%2 ... lained.htm

"4 This description applies only to those who participated in the Pentecostal blessings. They were enlightened, they' tasted the celestial gratuity,
they became partakers of holy spirit, and God's declaration, and they only experienced the powers of the kingdom eon, and many of them fell aside. These blessings were based on their repentance, or change of mind, which was induced largely by the miracles which they saw. When the kingdom failed to appear, and its powers vanished, their repentance went also. Hence the impossibility of renewing it, for the means which produced it were no longer in evidence. Such a course is not possible in a day of grace, such as we live in. In place of repentance and pardon, we have faith and justification, which know no falling away, being entirely of grace, from first to last." (Concordant Commentary)
http://concordant.org/expositions/conco ... testament/

God is the Saviour of all (1Tim.4:10)

http://biblehub.com/greek/102.htm


Much of what you are addressing is simply about Jesus' mission to the Israelites, my contention is the idea that the bible is pretty clear that He (Jesus) came 'but for the house of Israel'. We want to superimpose all the words of Jesus and all of scripture to be speaking to us (us here and now) but there is an alternative view that would say that Jesus did great things for His people, and thus did what was foretold through Abraham to all of humanity was that God would through Israel, bless all people.

Thus many of these Ect and annihilationist believers are going to have to deal with this fact.

What The Hell Is Hell?
by Don (Beres) Bartlett | Apr 14, 2017
The first church fathers, mostly Greek speakers, understood the common collection of NT greek writings from a greek mindset. And NONE of them taught of an eternal hell used by God to punish humans.
The later Latinizers of the Bible; (the Latin gang of four were Jerome, the translator of the Greek and Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate, Augustine, the dogma dictocrat, who once boasted that he would never learn Greek or Hebrew, yet is called a Saint, Damasus the Pope, all standing on the shoulders of Constantine who most successfully married Paganism to Christianity); these four were principally concerned with a common Bible in the Latin tongue for cohesive political clout and an empire wide religion of uniform beliefs.
In this process, and towards this end, simple basic greek words were outrageously, permanently and deliberately mistranslated. Among which was “hell”, a word which neither Jesus nor Paul, ever used.
The word “hell” in the English, came to us via the “set in concrete” religious dogma of the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), and was never seen until some 700 years after the life and death of Jesus. The Latin word used was “infernum”. How multiple Greek words meaning a rubbish dump, a grave, and other things, can be translated into ONE single English word is an insult to intelligence and logic.
This conflation of gehinnon (a valley outside Jerusalem), outer darkness (No one knows exactly what that is, though many pretend to), tartarus ( a place of underground torture for those who threatened the gods, and straight out of Greek mythology), and the grave (hades – sheol in the O.T.), have all gone into building the Latinizers false narrative of Hell, then Limbo, and then Purgatory.then commercialized prayers for the dead.
Mistranslate as well, the greek term “aeonian” and voila! Now you have an ETERNAL Hell!!! WooHoo! Such religious shenanigans!
Then to take these false translations, forced interpretations, and religious contortions to prove that Jesus ever spoke of “hell”, is to call me either ignorant, a liar, or an idiot.
I call BS!
IF truth requires manipulative fear to succeed in its success, then you can keep it.
“I am God, and I love you so much that I created Hell just in case you don’t love me back!”.
Knock Knock;
Who’s there?
Jesus, your loving Saviour;
What do you want?
I want to tell you the good news;
What good news?
The good news of what I am going to do to you if you don’t open the door!
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:15 pm

Re 1. above i think of the scripture which asks, is anything too difficult for the Lord? Jesus said,
With man this is impossible, but with God all is possible. So i'd suggest that a possible interpretation
of the Hebrews passage in harmony with UR is that it is impossible for the man himself or other men
to renew him to repentance, but not impossible for God.







Jesus also said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then a rich man to go to heaven so obviously it's hyperbole and he is warning that riches can become your god and keep you from heaven. IMO this is the same type of warning as the writer says to his fellow Hebrews that they have tasted the Holy Spirit and if they then fall away back into Judaism because of peer pressure they may not be able to recover again. The rest of the NT tells us numerous times that believers who fall away can and should recover so this letter must be read with the context of this message kept in mind. It's a very specific message intended for a very specific group of people.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:36 pm

steve7150 wrote:The rest of the NT tells us numerous times that believers who fall away can and should recover so this letter must be read with the context of this message kept in mind. It's a very specific message intended for a very specific group of people.

This is key IMO and the old saying says it well… “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text.

steve7150 wrote:IMO this is the same type of warning as the writer says to his fellow Hebrews that they have tasted the Holy Spirit and if they then fall away back into Judaism because of peer pressure they may not be able to recover again.

Again YES! And Paul had this to say…
Gal 2:18 For if I build again (reversion) those things which I destroyed (i.e., Judaism), I make myself a transgressor.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:16 pm

1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
3 And this we will do if God permits.
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned
.

You might find the following an interesting interpretation. When was in my late teens I attended and was a member a conservative Baptist Church at the time. According to them, the writer is talking about leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, not trying to preach repentance from dead works and faith toward God etc., because backslidden Christians have already done that. They are Christians, and so they need to be fed and so go on to maturity (vs 1). It was impossible for those backslidden Christians be restored to repentance, because they had already repented and were saved. So they couldn't get saved all over again (once saved always saved). These Christians have fallen away from their life in Christ, and no longer bear good fruits. However, the text does not say that the LAND (these backslidden Christians) will be cursed but rather NEAR to being cursed. Also land itself is not burned but the thorns and thistles that grow upon it are burned. Sometimes people say that land is burned, but that is a manner of speaking. They mean that the land is burnt OVER. That is, the unwanted growth on it is burned up. So those backsliding Christians will not go to the fiery hell, but their useless works will be burned up.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:04 pm

Paidion wrote:
You might find the following an interesting interpretation. When was in my late teens I attended and was a member a conservative Baptist Church at the time. According to them, the writer is talking about leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, not trying to preach repentance from dead works and faith toward God etc., because backslidden Christians have already done that. They are Christians, and so they need to be fed and so go on to maturity (vs 1). It was impossible for those backslidden Christians be restored to repentance, because they had already repented and were saved. So they couldn't get saved all over again (once saved always saved). These Christians have fallen away from their life in Christ, and no longer bear good fruits. However, the text does not say that the LAND (these backslidden Christians) will be cursed but rather NEAR to being cursed. Also land itself is not burned but the thorns and thistles that grow upon it are burned. Sometimes people say that land is burned, but that is a manner of speaking. They mean that the land is burnt OVER. That is, the unwanted growth on it is burned up. So those backsliding Christians will not go to the fiery hell, but their useless works will be burned up.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.


The idea that there is such a thing as a 'backsliding' Christian is an interesting view. If Christ 'atoned' for our sins, then backsliding is funny, if he did not 'atone for our sins,' His crucifixion might well be questioned. The other view is that Christ was the savior Messiah of Israel, and thus as per Genesis, is the savior of the nations, or more precisely, for all of humanity... And it has happened. :lol:

You seem to want people to pay for their misdeeds... Or at least want to tell folks that the bible tells them that. What would you say that people need to do or not do to escape this correction? :shock:
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:19 am

steve7150 wrote:Jesus also said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then a rich man to go to heaven so obviously it's hyperbole and he is warning that riches can become your god and keep you from heaven.


Certainly Jesus could have meant a camel through the eye of a sewing needle. But there is evidence that the eye of the needle was a way into Jerusalem, a very small opening which only allowed a camel through after everything was taken off of him, was laying down and forced through. Basically, this was a small gate. It had to be such, otherwise a military force could send an army through it.

First thing, it makes complete sense if you think about it. How does a rich man get to heaven? By basically disregarding his possessions. The same thing one must down (unload the camel of their possessions) to get through into the city. Also, if this wasn't the case, then Jesus should have said "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a rich man to..." I mean, everyone knows a camel cannot literally go through a sewing needle. It isn't possible, period.

MacDonald, also, was a believer that Jesus did not use hyperbole at all. It was all serious. What we attribute hyperbole to Jesus, it allows us to explain away his hard meanings... Maybe they are hard because we don't understand the culture of the context of words. I mean, did Jesus really mean for the young rich ruler to part with his wealth... Most people say no, he didn't. It was just a 'test' and he failed. I say, no, it wasn't just a 'test' anymore so than God asking any of us to do things. We can view them as a test, but basically God is inviting us to do his work with Him.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-25583,00.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7398/the-eye-of-the-needle-gate-today

This is a very quick post, excuse typos, random thoughts, incomplete thoughts, etc... Off to church!
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:24 am

maintenanceman wrote:Paidion wrote:
You might find the following an interesting interpretation. When was in my late teens I attended and was a member a conservative Baptist Church at the time. According to them, the writer is talking about leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, not trying to preach repentance from dead works and faith toward God etc., because backslidden Christians have already done that. They are Christians, and so they need to be fed and so go on to maturity (vs 1). It was impossible for those backslidden Christians be restored to repentance, because they had already repented and were saved. So they couldn't get saved all over again (once saved always saved). These Christians have fallen away from their life in Christ, and no longer bear good fruits. However, the text does not say that the LAND (these backslidden Christians) will be cursed but rather NEAR to being cursed. Also land itself is not burned but the thorns and thistles that grow upon it are burned. Sometimes people say that land is burned, but that is a manner of speaking. They mean that the land is burnt OVER. That is, the unwanted growth on it is burned up. So those backsliding Christians will not go to the fiery hell, but their useless works will be burned up.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.


The idea that there is such a thing as a 'backsliding' Christian is an interesting view. If Christ 'atoned' for our sins, then backsliding is funny, if he did not 'atone for our sins,' His crucifixion might well be questioned. The other view is that Christ was the savior Messiah of Israel, and thus as per Genesis, is the savior of the nations, or more precisely, for all of humanity... And it has happened. :lol:

You seem to want people to pay for their misdeeds... Or at least want to tell folks that the bible tells them that. What would you say that people need to do or not do to escape this correction? :shock:


I could not resist (I have to get going to Church) but... The idea of two types of Christians - backsliders and non-backsliders is rubbish to me. I can see in everyone Christian's life visibly on the outside that they daily, take 2 steps forward, 1 step back, sometimes 3 steps back and 2 steps forward... Some days are better than others, some days are worse. People are foolish, in my opinion, to think they are on 'fire' for God and that their live is only taking steps forward. The more honest ones are likely to feel that they are backsliders. The ones who are not honest with themselves don't realize that day in and day out, they have attitudes of the heart that are constantly in flux. Some of the arrogant people I have met imply they don't sin in their lives and they have their act together. Not sure why someone would even suggest and say it, but they do. It is crazy.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:05 am

MacDonald, also, was a believer that Jesus did not use hyperbole at all. It was all serious. What we attribute hyperbole to Jesus, it allows us to explain away his hard meanings... Maybe they are hard because we don't understand the culture of the context of words.











So when Jesus said to cut off our hand he was literal? That culture did use hyperbole to make a point and using it didn't mean the speaker wasn't serious, it was simply a method to emphasize a particular point.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:47 am

Gabe, what denomination is your church?
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:08 am

steve7150 wrote:So when Jesus said to cut off our hand he was literal? That culture did use hyperbole to make a point and using it didn't mean the speaker wasn't serious, it was simply a method to emphasize a particular point.


I think you are confusing terms. Just because it wasn't hyperbole doesn't mean it should be taken literally. In other words, literal and hyperbole are not mutually exclusive.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:42 am

I look at Hebrews 6:1-3 like the Lampstand(diagram linked below)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByNoccsZg_58SnRrN0pQZzBUd0U/view?usp=sharing

The central post rising up from the base is the doctrine of Christ- "There is no other foundation which any man can lay but Jesus Christ" ... "I am determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified".

The first two branches coming out from the central post are "repentance and faith towards God" (salvation)

The next two are "doctrines of baptisms and laying on of hands" (membership in the body and ministries/functions)

The two at the top "resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment" (the restoration of all things and Gods reason\plan of the ages)

At the top of the central post is the bowl of oil from which the florets are fed and receive fuel for the illuminating flame, representing that all light flows out of Christ.(referred to in biblical description not shown on drawing)

The requirements for the condition defined in verses 4-6 are that a person has " enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come".

IMO this is not a newly saved believer who is struggling with sin. the person described in 4-6 is impossible to "renew unto repentance" because there is nothing you can say to them they do not already know. I think the best description of this is John 15

If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

and it has to do with "abiding, dwelling, continuing" in Christ, not some momentary lapse or even necessarily some egregious sin, because there are many examples where repentance is renewed for egregious sinners, such as David(murder, adultery). Most of the examples of "being cut-off and gathered and thrown in the fire" that I see are examples of willful persistence in the face of merciful appeals and correction.
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:31 pm

qaz wrote:Gabe, what denomination is your church?


North American Baptist. I don't subscribe to some of their ideas, but there are quite a few good people there. Small church. Pastor does believe in ECT quite firmly. In fact, I recall him joking about Annihilation by saying "Wow, who thunk up that idea? Had to be someone who wanted to excuse away things" basically inferring someone who believed that way was deceiver and ear tickler and apostate, etc... lol, I just laugh in my head. I don't care. He is good guy in his inner most being and on a human level, probably just scared it is true so he believes it is true. Indoctrination does that to you.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:56 pm

Nothing wrong with worshipping with folks who hold different doctrines. Yesterday I attended service at a UMC church, and I'm a universalist preterist who thinks communion should be served as wine! :lol:
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:29 pm

qaz wrote:Nothing wrong with worshipping with folks who hold different doctrines. Yesterday I attended service at a UMC church, and I'm a universalist preterist who thinks communion should be served as wine! :lol:


I agree, especially about the wine. ;)
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:03 pm

Eaglesway, what denomination church do you attend?
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:22 pm

maintenance man, you wrote:
Paidion wrote:You might find the following an interesting interpretation. When was in my late teens I attended and was a member a conservative Baptist Church at the time. According to them, the writer is talking about leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, not trying to preach repentance from dead works and faith toward God etc., because backslidden Christians have already done that. They are Christians, and so they need to be fed and so go on to maturity (vs 1). It was impossible for those backslidden Christians be restored to repentance, because they had already repented and were saved. So they couldn't get saved all over again (once saved always saved). These Christians have fallen away from their life in Christ, and no longer bear good fruits. However, the text does not say that the LAND (these backslidden Christians) will be cursed but rather NEAR to being cursed. Also land itself is not burned but the thorns and thistles that grow upon it are burned. Sometimes people say that land is burned, but that is a manner of speaking. They mean that the land is burnt OVER. That is, the unwanted growth on it is burned up. So those backsliding Christians will not go to the fiery hell, but their useless works will be burned up.[/quote}

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15
If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.



The idea that there is such a thing as a 'backsliding' Christian is an interesting view. If Christ 'atoned' for our sins, then backsliding is funny, if he did not 'atone for our sins,' His crucifixion might well be questioned. The other view is that Christ was the savior Messiah of Israel, and thus as per Genesis, is the savior of the nations, or more precisely, for all of humanity... And it has happened. :lol:


Why cannot a Christian fall away from his walk with Christ, stop submitting to Christ's authority, and live his life for himself again? Do you think he is FORCED to continue following Christ? Or do you think Christ's atonement somehow "covers" him so that God is okay with him WHATEVER he does or however he lives his life?

Is not the very purpose of Christ's death to DELIVER us from wrongdoing? That's what I have found is the purpose, according to Paul, Peter, and the writer to the Hebrews:

Peter wrote:I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
Healed from our sinsickness!

Paul wrote:II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.


The writer to the Hebrews wrote:Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.


You wrote:You seem to want people to pay for their misdeeds... Or at least want to tell folks that the bible tells them that. What would you say that people need to do or not do to escape this correction? :shock:


You seem to presume that I still hold the same view that I did in the Baptist church as a teenager. What are your grounds for this assumption?
Indeed, there is nothing I wrote that indicates that even at that time I wanted people to "pay" for their misdeeds. That's why as a teenager, I felt the need to tell them how to get "saved" so that they wouldn't have to suffer eternal punishment in hell.

As for my present view, I believe that God doesn't penalize people but corrects them to bring them out of their wrongdoing. It's the most loving thing He could do for them. How horrid it would be if God did nothing but just allowed them to continue to go ever deeper in their hurt and harm of themselves and of others!
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:58 am

qaz wrote:Eaglesway, what denomination church do you attend?


I do not attend any particular church regularly. I attend several different churches. I was saved by a sovereign revelation of Jesus Christ when God intervened in my life in 1974, I was a hippie who was losing his mind to too many drugs. I started out in a Nazarene church, but then I went into an independent street ministry in Detroit. It was charismatic in nature, and I was involved in the charismatic renewal in the denominational churches after that for a number of years in music and prison ministry and youth ministry. Later I went into the Assemblies of God for awhile but numerous doctrinal differences arising out of my continuing independent studies led me out of there. It was then, in a small fellowship in Denver Co. that a brother named Darrell Scott (writer of God's Sacred Secret) introduced me to UR. I hovered between annihilationism and UR for awhile, until I started getting into languages of antiquity and translation. SInce I came up solid in UR, I have been a vocal proponent of it, so I am a happy heretic unfit for ministry in established churches, but I have been involved in a few home fellowships and music ministries. The pastor of the last church I attended regularly became a UR proponent and we both got kicked out :)

A good friend of mine once said, "The Spirit of God has a lot to say, be careful not to structure a 'brand' with your religion that prevents Him from illuminating."
Last edited by Eaglesway on Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:04 am

Paidon wrote,
"How horrid it would be if God did nothing but just allowed them to continue to go ever deeper in their hurt and harm of themselves and of others!"


Amen!

This is a quote from a post on another forum....

Tribulation and punishment are separate things. Tribulation tests and teaches, revealing fault lines and renewing the mind in the Spirit of life and love in Christ.

Punishment, in God, is for correcting a child to return it to "the way it should go" when it has gone astray- and only after many appeals to reason and love, does God resort to correction, for the purpose of restraining one from pursuing ways that lead to destruction for themselves and others.

The scriptures actually have quite a bit to say about punishment, in terms of correction, and the destination intended, which is mercy- but the primary source of such correction is "reaping what we have sowed" and even then, God is extremely merciful, for if we all reaped everything we have sown we would all be in dire straights.

"If you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption. If you sow to the spirit you will reap life"

"For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace."

It is ignorance of the scriptures that leads to a "punishment oriented mind-set". Intimate familiarity with the scriptures always reveals the truth that "mercy triumphs over judgment".

Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:31 pm

Paidion said:
Why cannot a Christian fall away from his walk with Christ, stop submitting to Christ's authority, and live his life for himself again? Do you think he is FORCED to continue following Christ? Or do you think Christ's atonement somehow "covers" him so that God is okay with him WHATEVER he does or however he lives his life?


First of all, I would ask how you or any one else would come to the conclusion that a person was fallen away... You seem to be confusing a Christians sin or sins with his /her standing with God. If God sent Christ to take care of or 'ATONE' for our sin, as it says in Romans the 'imputed sin of one man was taken care of by the imputed righteousness of one man in Christ. Thus, we are all taken care of. HOLY CRAP that shoots many evangelical and universalist ideas down the toilet. :lol:

You continue to think we (as in our daily dealing with God) have a place in our standing with God.

God was is and has been merciful, and kind to us. :shock:
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:07 am

maintenanceman wrote:Paidion said:
Why cannot a Christian fall away from his walk with Christ, stop submitting to Christ's authority, and live his life for himself again? Do you think he is FORCED to continue following Christ? Or do you think Christ's atonement somehow "covers" him so that God is okay with him WHATEVER he does or however he lives his life?


First of all, I would ask how you or any one else would come to the conclusion that a person was fallen away... You seem to be confusing a Christians sin or sins with his /her standing with God. If God sent Christ to take care of or 'ATONE' for our sin, as it says in Romans the 'imputed sin of one man was taken care of by the imputed righteousness of one man in Christ. Thus, we are all taken care of. HOLY CRAP that shoots many evangelical and universalist ideas down the toilet. :lol:

You continue to think we (as in our daily dealing with God) have a place in our standing with God.

God was is and has been merciful, and kind to us. :shock:


As to who has fallen away, I don't think we can judge that easily. As to whether anyone can fall away, I think the scriptures are clear that this is possible and happens and is worthy of regard and certain responses from God and man. The end result will be mercy for all, following repentance by all, but not always without "kolassis"- which is unnecessary if we "continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast".

While we know that "As in Adam all died so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in His own order"- and we know all men shall live because the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to mankind as a whole, but along the way to the realization of all that we know that there are stages, and accountability, and judgments, that is, if we hold to the testimony of scripture at all(even in the fullfilled view what remains of our lives is a stage within which there are consequences). So in the interim, in this "evil age" there is a great fluctuation of allegiances and response to the mercy of God that has been revealed consistent with the chaos, or futility, to which God has subjected creation, and in that soup, we are warned to "watch and pray, for the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", and to 'work out our own salvation with fear and trembling". So God's mercy is not without discernment, exposure and correction of hidden things, which is why we are continually brought to His feet by trials and tribulations gauged towards the purification of our faith, a faith that tho given by God, requires a response that embraces the salvation given- a response that must be renewed in order to be enjoyed, therefore we pray, and also warn and encourage one another as the Day approaches to walk as children of the light, so that the thief does not break in and steal- reaping the reward of the sons of disobedience who, tho eventually reconciled, will walk a path to it that our Lord and the apostles and the prophets recommended against.

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Col 1

“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. John 15


Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

37FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE,
HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.

38BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH;
AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.

39But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. Heb 10
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:01 pm

eaglesway said:
While we know that "As in Adam all died so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in His own order"- and we know all men shall live because the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to mankind as a whole, but along the way to the realization of all that we know that there are stages, and accountability, and judgments, that is, if we hold to the testimony of scripture at all(even in the fullfilled view what remains of our lives is a stage within which there are consequences).


So God's mercy is not without discernment, exposure and correction of hidden things,


Yep He is all knowing. :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS

Postby Paidion » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:36 pm

Maintenance man wrote:If God sent Christ to take care of or 'ATONE' for our sin, as it says in Romans the 'imputed sin of one man was taken care of by the imputed righteousness of one man in Christ. Thus, we are all taken care of.


That idea of "imputed righteousness" has emerged out of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism and seems to have made its way into universalist thought. It is part of the concept of "penal substitution"—that through Jesus' death, He paid the penalty for our sin so that our sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven in such a way that they don't need to be dealt with. Extending this to its ultimate application, implies that OUR sin is imputed (or ascribed to Christ) and His righteousness is imputed (or ascribed) to us whether we are practically righteous or not—that now, when God looks at us, He no longer sees our sin, but Christ's righteousness. For the universalist, this means that everyone is righteous in God's sight. You can torture, kill, and rape little girls, but God is blinded to it all. All He sees in you is Christ's righteousness. It is my position that this is the doctrine of demons.

How would it be if a human father ascribed wickedness to his oldest and only good son, tortured and killed him, and that "satisfied" him so that his other children could do every wicked deed imaginable, but the father wouldn't recognize their evil acts? He would be blinded to their deeds, and see in his mind only the acts of his good and loving son. Would that constitute a loving father? I think such a father would be demonic or possibly insane.

It is clear that such a doctrine is a total misunderstanding of the imputed righteousness of which Paul wrote in Romans 4. If Paul had meant that, he would NEVER have written what he did in chapter 2 of the same letter to the Romans:

For He will render to everyone according to his works.

To those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
He will give eternal life, but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth,
but are persuaded by unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good, ... for God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-10)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS

Postby davo » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:57 pm

Don… HOW do you claim and or justify the likes of said… “wrath and fury, affliction and anguishFROM GOD when you will cut out and denigrate, i.e., question to the hilt, whole swathes of OT Scriptures BECAUSE such similar language, as you would designate it, does not (in your opinion) reflect or fit with the truth of “God is love”… as you have claimed time and time again?

Paidion wrote:It is my position that this is the doctrine of demons.

Is this just hyperbolic rhetoric on your part… or do you actually have something more concrete in mind?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

THE CHARACTER OF GOD

Postby Paidion » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:00 pm

Hi Davo, you wrote:Don… HOW do you claim and or justify the likes of said… “wrath and fury, affliction and anguish” FROM GOD when you will cut out and denigrate, i.e., question to the hilt, whole swathes of OT Scriptures BECAUSE such similar language, as you would designate it, does not (in your opinion) reflect or fit with the truth of “God is love”… as you have claimed time and time again?


Davo, there's nothing to "claim or justify"—no contradiction whatever between my quote from Roman 2, and LOVE which is the very essence of God.

How about yourself? Does Romans 2 neatly fit into your paradigm? or do you "cut out and denigrate, i.e., question to the hilt" this passage from Paul's letter?

Romans 2 is about discipline. It is not about killing people, or stoning to death prostitutes and rude sons, or wreaking vengeance upon people, or cutting off without mercy women's hands, or ordering God's people to commit genocide against a whole people, including women, children, and infants. Moses wrote that God did or instructed the Israelites to do these things that are totally contrary to God's character as revealed by the Anointed Son of God. This is the kind of thing that I "cut out and denigrate, i.e., question to the hilt" (though I have no idea what you mean by "cut out").

Jesus revealed the Father as One who is kind to evil and ungrateful people. And since I am Jesus' disciple, I believe Him! That doesn't mean that God has a wishy-washy form of love. He is the master of "tough love"!

As the writer to the Hebrews expressed it:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11 ESV)


Certainly God expresses His wrath. So does a loving human father. He may become angry when he sees his son heading down a road that will lead him to sorrow, or prison, or possibly death. He may discipline that son severely, but not as a penalty or for vengeance, but for training. Such a father acts thus out of love. Not necessarily out of love feelings, but out love in action. Let's re-examine the passage from Romans 2 in that light:

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well‑doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)


God gets angry about wrongdoing—doing that which harms others or oneself. Wrath and fury emerges from God. If God were not LOVE; if He didn't care about evildoers continuing in their hurtful behaviour, He wouldn't get angry; it wouldn't bother Him a bit. Let them destroy each other!

But He who is LOVE does not ignore the actions of people. He will do whatever it takes to reform or correct them. He wants them to receive by faith His enabling grace to overcome their wrongdoing. This enabling grace has been made available to all through the sacrificial death of the Anointed One.

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)


Davo wrote:
Paidion wrote:It is my position that this is the doctrine of demons.


Is this just hyperbolic rhetoric on your part… or do you actually have something more concrete in mind?


It is most certainly NOT "hyperbolic rhetoric"; it is reality. Since this false teaching is totally contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom that was proclaimed by John the Baptizer, Jesus, Peter, and Paul, what could its source be?—other than Satan and/or his fallen angels?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: THE CHARACTER OF GOD

Postby davo » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:41 pm

Paidion wrote:Romans 2 is about discipline. It is not about killing people, or stoning to death prostitutes and rude sons, or wreaking vengeance upon people, or cutting off without mercy women's hands, or ordering God's people to commit genocide against a whole people, including women, children, and infants. Moses wrote that God did or instructed the Israelites to do these things that are totally contrary to God's character as revealed by the Anointed Son of God.

According to your stated position… can you explain how it was that Yahweh allowed, and thereby in silence, sanctioned Moses’ many (according to you) false and misleading proclamations/instructions whereby Moses led the people of Israel to commit such gross and heinous sins? How was it that Moses as Yahweh’s chosen leader was able to besmirch “God’s character” by promulgating such as you describe above? How does your position account for this? How does this not fit into the category you allow elsewhere of “tough love!”?

Especially given the likes of these texts below…
Ezek 22:25, 27, 31 The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured people; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in her midst. — Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, to shed blood, to destroy people, and to get dishonest gain. — Her prophets plastered them with untempered mortar, seeing false visions, and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God,’ when the Lord had not spoken. — Therefore I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; and I have recompensed their deeds on their own heads,” says the Lord God.
Jer 23:32, 36 Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the Lord, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the Lord. — And the oracle of the Lord you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God.

So Don, according to any reasonable reading of your oft-stated rationale… Moses’ words (clearly then as a FALSE prophet) led to Israel’s actions whereby *widows were made* *blood was shed* *people were destroyed* because Moses was *saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God,’ when the Lord had not spoken* and particularly so this last one — HOW/WHY did God not intervene to ‘in love’ not correct Moses and thus protect His people and said victims beyond — what is your explanation?

Paidion wrote:How about yourself? Does Romans 2 neatly fit into your paradigm? or do you "cut out and denigrate, i.e., question to the hilt" this passage from Paul's letter?

It fits completely within the historical narrative of the coming Judgment at the end of the age i.e., the end of the old covenant age as per the DoJ at Christ’s parousia.

Paidion wrote:
Davo wrote:
Paidion wrote:It is my position that this is the doctrine of demons.


Is this just hyperbolic rhetoric on your part… or do you actually have something more concrete in mind?


It is most certainly NOT "hyperbolic rhetoric"; it is reality. Since this false teaching is totally contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom that was proclaimed by John the Baptizer, Jesus, Peter, and Paul, what could its source be?—other than Satan and/or his fallen angels?

Ok… so this is just your conclusion; I thought perhaps you had some specific scriptural evidence in mind.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:50 am

Davo, the difference (as I see it) between Moses and the false prophets of whom Ezekiel and Jeremiah wrote, is that the latter prophesied falsehoods deliberately to achieve their own ends, whereas sometimes Moses, when solutions to problems that he encountered popped into his head, actually believed these thoughts to be God speaking to him.

Even in our day, we hear people doing the same thing: "God told me to _______." (you fill in the blank).
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:06 pm

Jer 23:32, 36 Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the Lord, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the Lord. — And the oracle of the Lord you shall mention no more. For every man’s word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God.








Paidion, Moses would still be a false prophet , would have still perverted the Word of God, would still have been reckless, even if he actually believed?
steve7150
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Origen; » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:35 pm

From the first 2 chapters of Hebrews:

Heb.1:2a in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all

Heb.1:3b When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Heb.2:2b every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty

Heb.2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by
the grace of God should taste death for every man.

14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render
powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15 And might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Origen; » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:36 pm

Hebrews speaks of those who reject Christ as deserving a "sorer" punishment than death by Moses' law, i.e. stoning:

10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would suffer endless torments in fire, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is a sadist for all eternity.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:03 pm

Paidion wrote:…whereas sometimes Moses, when solutions to problems that he encountered popped into his head, actually believed these thoughts to be God speaking to him.

Hmmm… it might just be me, BUT that doesn’t sound too convincingly realistic. However, even IF we run with your proposition… what’s your explanation for the ‘God of loveALLOWING such wanton carnage to be perpetrated en masse in His Name, and all such ensuring from random thoughts/beliefs that just… “popped into his head?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:16 pm

davo wrote:
Paidion wrote:…whereas sometimes Moses, when solutions to problems that he encountered popped into his head, actually believed these thoughts to be God speaking to him.

Hmmm… it might just be me, BUT that doesn’t sound too convincingly realistic. However, even IF we run with your proposition… what’s your explanation for the ‘God of loveALLOWING such wanton carnage to be perpetrated en masse in His Name, and all such ensuring from random thoughts/beliefs that just… “popped into his head?


Neither you nor I are Catholic, davo -- we think Popes have been wrong -- yet God did not stop indulgences or the inquisition.
Last edited by qaz on Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:20 pm

qaz wrote:Neither you nor I are Catholic, davo -- we think Popes have been wrong -- yet God did stop indulgences or the inquisition.

Yeah, but we’re talking BIBLICAL history… not that which is beyond.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:18 pm

Origen wrote:Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.


True. But I don't hear anyone claiming that God commanded it.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:23 pm

Davo wrote:
qaz wrote:Neither you nor I are Catholic, davo -- we think Popes have been wrong -- yet God did stop indulgences or the inquisition.


Yeah, but we’re talking BIBLICAL history… not that which is beyond.


So what? Did God's character change after the events of Biblical history?

Qaz has made a revealing observation.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:51 pm

Paidion wrote:
Davo wrote:
qaz wrote:Neither you nor I are Catholic, davo -- we think Popes have been wrong -- yet God did stop indulgences or the inquisition.


Yeah, but we’re talking BIBLICAL history… not that which is beyond.


So what? Did God's character change after the events of Biblical history?

Again hmmm… according to your various scenarios, apparently not, i.e., He ALLOWED Moses to fully dupe the children of Israel into all manner of wretched and abhorrent behaviour against their neighbours WITHOUT lifting a finger of cautionary rebuke — THAT at least is the unfortunate outcome your proposition promulgates.

Paidion wrote:Qaz has made a revealing observation.

Another revealing observation might be… what’s your explanation for the ‘God of loveALLOWING such wanton carnage to be perpetrated en masse in His Name, and all such ensuring from random thoughts/beliefs that just… “popped into his head?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby DaveB » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:10 pm

We could try to lose our fascination with literal readings of the OT - the cause of most of the contention around here - and feel fortunate that we have a much clearer demonstration on what the Father is REALLY LIKE, through His son - and then look back on the OT stories with a bit of a different take.
The P.O.E. will not be solved either way, dang it.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3889
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:20 pm

DaveB wrote:We could try to lose our fascination with literal readings of the OT…

Dave… would this your way of explaining away what you might see as difficult passages? Follow any of Don’s posts and you’ll know he’s very much a *literal* guy and somewhat spurns anything remotely in his opinion as *spiritualised* — so I for one am interested in Don’s answer to my rather obvious and fair question above.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby DaveB » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:35 pm

You might be right, but I think the interpretive principle of understanding the old in terms of the new is spot-on.
I'll get outta the way of you and Don.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3889
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:53 pm

DaveB wrote:We could try to lose our fascination with literal readings of the OT - the cause of most of the contention around here - and feel fortunate that we have a much clearer demonstration on what the Father is REALLY LIKE, through His son - and then look back on the OT stories with a bit of a different take.
The P.O.E. will not be solved either way, dang it.


Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited


The Terrible Texts: The Attitude of the Bible Toward Women – Part V


The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as even the Law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (I Cor. 14:34-36)


The head of the woman is her husband. (I Cor. 11:3)


Much of my professional life as a priest and a bishop has been spent watching my church respond to the evil that has been done to women by quoting such terrible texts as these above. Somehow the fact that these words were found in the Bible gave them legitimacy, so to work for the full emancipation of women meant that you were opposing "the Word of God!" The result of this has been that both the Church and the Bible have been a force in encouraging a subhuman status for half of the human race. The time has surely come to oppose this vigorously and to refuse to listen to those who continue to defend the sins of sexism and patriarchy with appeals to Holy Scripture. "The sacred tradition of the Church" must no longer be identified with practices that issue in the abuse or diminution of women.


Because of definitions imposed on women in antiquity, the pursuit of education, entry into the professions and the inability both to divorce and to prosecute abusive husbands has been denied to them. In the darkest moments of Christian history women have even had to endure periodic witch-hunts. These texts can no longer be spared because embarrassed Church leaders claim that the Bible has been misunderstood. If a tree produces evil fruit, we must stop pretending that the tree is not itself actually evil.



I remember hearing Dr. Phyllis Trible, former Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at Union Seminary in New York, argue that Adam was not actually a man until God took the woman out of him, so that the man and the woman were created together and, of course, equal. She defended this exegesis as "not a literal but a close reading of the text."


I appreciate what this great lady was trying to do but find it to be an unhelpful attempt to defend the indefensible. One cannot escape the fact that the creation story has God seek to create a proper friend for Adam by making all of the animals. Only when the animals do not satisfy the male does God resort to plan B and create a human-like, but not fully human, creature out of the man. Nor can one expunge from this Bible the definition "helpmeet," imposed by this text on that woman.


Second class status has plagued the woman from that moment to this. In the sacred Torah women are regarded as property even in that quintessential part of the law that we call the Ten Commandments. The last commandment enjoins the males of Israel, to whom the Torah is addressed, "Not to covet your neighbor's house nor his wife, nor his slave, nor his ox nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor's." It even lists the male neighbor's possessions in order of value: the house first and only then the wife, followed by the slave, ox, ass and other 'things.'


The seventh commandment, designed to govern sexual behavior in a polygamous society, enjoined the males not to violate the woman who is the property, i.e., the wife of another male. To violate sexually an unmarried woman in this time was not adultery but the crime of diminishing her father's net worth. The unmarried woman was her father's property until some man paid the bride price and became her husband and new owner. If the woman was no longer a virgin, the bride price was lowered. Terrible texts need to be exposed and defeated and, when that is done, the claim that the book, in which these terrible texts are included, is somehow the "Word of God" needs to be countermanded in the name of truth, dignity and humanity.


One has only to listen to the irrational claims that ecclesiastical males have made over the centuries in the attempt to keep their sexist prejudices intact, to know that anything less than a revolutionary approach to defeat this biblical claim will never work.


I recall well the words of a former Episcopal Presiding Bishop, the Right Reverend John Maury Allin, speaking out of his emotional opposition to women becoming priests in the Episcopal Church in the mid seventies. "Women," he said, "can no more be priests than they can be fathers." It was a fascinating claim, a version of which is still offered by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox branches of the Christian Church to support an all-male priesthood. Perhaps that claim should be examined outside ecclesiastical circles for its irrationality.


Women are certainly not equipped physiologically to be fathers. Women's bodies do not produce sperm nor possess the equipment necessary to inject that sperm into the fertile womb of a potential mother. But does it follow that this means that women cannot be priests? That leap in the argument makes the mind blink with astonishment. What does the male organ have to do with ordination to the priesthood? The traditional answer, given time after time through the centuries, has been that the ordained person must reflect the image of God, the assumption being that a woman's body is somehow deficient and cannot do that. People, from the Pope on down, have repeated that argument so frequently that we have become immune to its irrationality. What part of a male body is so essential that without it the image of God is not present? To expose this strange argument, I propose a simple test to illumine this hypothesis.


To determine where the woman's is deficient, one needs only to stand a man and a woman in front of you. Then strip away from that man's body everything he has in common with the woman physiologically. Remove his hair, eyes, nose, ears, mouth, esophagus, vocal chords, heart, lungs, intestines, kidneys, pancreas, liver, stomach, hips, thighs, kneecaps, legs, ankles, heels and finally his toes. When everything the man has in common with the woman is removed, am I supposed to conclude that the image of God lies in the male organs that remain? That is what this strange argument implies. The claim being made by the Church's hierarchy is that one cannot be ordained if one does not possess the "godlike" organs of scrotum, testicles and penis! It surely becomes obvious that something strange is at work here, something beneath the level of consciousness, since this argument enters the world of the absurd. An all male priesthood is not a sacred tradition of the Church; it is an expression of the Church's sexist oppression. Ending it is not to counter the expressed will of God, ending it is to counter 2000 years of sexist violence against women. There is no more time for debate. Irrationality is never ended by rational debate.


When John Paul II, defending sexism in the Catholic Church's all male priesthood said, "Jesus did not choose any women to be his disciples," the irrationality was once again present. It is an absurd argument. I want to reply, with all the respect that prejudiced rhetoric deserves, " I notice, Holy Father, that Jesus did not choose any Poles to be disciples either! Somehow that did not close the door to your distinguished career in the life of the Church's ordained! Jesus did not choose any Irish or Italians either. I have not noticed that the Roman Catholic priesthood has been limited to Jewish fishermen with an occasional tax collector thrown in!"


This claim is incompetent on another level. Scholars today are not certain who Jesus' disciples actually were. Perhaps the Pope's advisors are not aware of this. The earliest list of the Twelve comes from Mark's Gospel, which was not written until the early years of the 8th decade or some forty years after the earthly life of Jesus had come to an end. Almost half of those on Mark's list, even in the text of this Gospel, carry no biographical detail other than their names.

Matthew copies Mark's list with no changes. Luke's list of 12 disciples, however, differs. To complicate the picture even more, John never lists the names of the twelve disciples at any point. Key figures like Nathaniel, who appear to be at the center of the Jesus movement in John's Gospel, are never mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament as part of the Twelve. To destabilize this data even more, both John and Luke refer to a disciple of Jesus who is named Judas, but who is not Iscariot. This person is apparently unknown or at least he is not mentioned in either Matthew or Mark. So to argue about who Jesus picked to be his disciples is a shaky argument at best since even the Gospels do not appear to agree on who Jesus' disciples were. The number twelve might indeed be a literary rather than a literal number read back into the Jesus story by those who were intent on seeing the Christian Church as the new Israel thus making it necessary to have twelve disciples to be reminiscent of the twelve tribes of Israel.

There is also evidence suggesting that female disciples were indeed part of the Jesus story. These women disciples are all but invisible until we come to the final episodes of crucifixion and resurrection. Why is that? One reason might be that, according to Mark, when Jesus was arrested all of his male disciples forsook him and fled. The women were the only ones left. But when we read the texts of each of the Synoptic Gospels closely, we discover that every writer records that these female disciples were with Jesus all the way from Galilee (see Mk. 15:41, Mt. 27:58 and Lk. 23:55). They were always part of the Jesus movement.

The image of Jesus wandering around Galilee with twelve male disciples is an erroneous assumption based on a patriarchal prejudice. The accurate biblical picture is that Jesus roamed through Galilee supported by both a band of men and a band of women. Peter seems to be the leader of the male band because his name is normally written first. But the women also seem to have had a leader; whose name is Magdalene, for her name is also normally written first. She is a flesh and blood person at Jesus' side, during his life, a far more significant figure in the Jesus movement than the Virgin Mary ever was, as a brief look at a Bible Concordance will quickly reveal. She is also portrayed as the chief mourner at his tomb in his death. According to John's Gospel, she meets the test of apostleship in that she is said to be a witness of the Resurrection.

The Church cannot continue to claim to be the body of Christ, while still denigrating fifty percent of the human race. Debilitating prejudices can no be sustained on the basis that change will destroy the "Unity of the Church." Unity built in the service of prejudice is a vice not a virtue. It is no longer acceptable to argue that the preservation of sexist prejudices is necessary to further ecumenical cooperation. Ecumenical cooperation in continued oppression cannot be squared with the definition of discipleship that proclaims, "By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another." Let no one suggest that love can ever be present where the Church's prevailing definitions of any human being cast him or her by nature into the role of a second-class citizen or an inferior Christian. The time for patience is over!


~ John Shelby Spong

Originally posted January 28, 2004
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:22 pm

That’s a good read by Spong. I think it pays to acknowledge that the OT is indeed an ANE document *reflecting* the life and times of a particularly harsh and brutal existence AND most definitely patriarchal and thereby by modern considerations, completely sexist, and as such THIS is reflected in its texts; you can’t hide from it nor gloss over it, at least IMO not honestly.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:31 pm

You are right but the question is where is Christianity going from here? :o And how do we in 2017 respond to fundamental Christians and to those who are searching for a brighter future outside of fundamentalism. :?
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:33 pm

Davo wrote:Again hmmm… according to your various scenarios, apparently not, i.e., He ALLOWED Moses to fully dupe the children of Israel into all manner of wretched and abhorrent behaviour against their neighbours WITHOUT lifting a finger of cautionary rebuke...


And again, Davo, you are twisting my words by your misuse of the word "dupe". Nearly every one of your posts uses this technique but it does nothing to advance your argument.

I had clearly stated that Moses wasn't deceiving the people but truly believed that the thoughts that came to him as a solution to problematic situations were the words of God. To suggest that I claim that he duped the Israelites is clearly an attempt to discredit me without putting forth any argument against my position.

If you are asking why God didn't intervene in the case of Moses, you must ask why He doesn't intervene now. It's the same question; it's the same God. It is the age-old philosophical question of "the problem of evil." How can a loving, omnipotent God allow the continuing atrocities that have been taking place all through recorded history?—the tortures, the rapes, burning people at stake, etc. etc. There is not a day goes by without millions of atrocities occurring throughout the world. If you have an answer, Davo, please express it. Whatever the answer truly is, it will suffice for the atrocities among the ancient Hebrews equally well with the atrocities of our day.

Also is "allowing" atrocities tantamount to CAUSING them? Do you believe God is the author of all evil in our modern world? Not only moral evil, but natural evil such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. that kill many people. Disgusting as it sounds, many do think God is sending floods, earthquakes, etc. to punish people—as if those people are more evil than the ones who don't have such natural disasters in their area. Jesus spoke against this kind of thinking when he asked , "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you ..."

So Davo, you tell us why you think God "allows" man's inhumanity to man and all these natural disasters. If you genuinely want to know what I think, I will tell you—after I have heard your explanation.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3917
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:45 pm

Paidion wrote:And again, Davo, you are twisting my words by your misuse of the word "dupe". Nearly every one of your posts uses this technique but it does nothing to advance your argument.

Fair dinkum Don, you find the one word, in this case ‘dupe’, to run away from answering the question… YET AGAIN. I used the word ‘dupe’ because it was FULLY Moses’ actions in terms of FALSE DECLARATIONS (as per your logic) that led the whole nation to commit the acts they did. And as such you have STILL not dealt with this suspect logic that has Moses tantamount to being a false prophet by Moses putting FALSE words in the mouth of God AND God doing nothing about it. Why are you avoiding this key issue that you have created Don?

Paidion wrote:If you are asking why God didn't intervene in the case of Moses, you must ask why He doesn't intervene now. It's the same question; it's the same God.

In a nutshell THIS is your excuse for avoiding dealing with Moses being the false prophet your logic besmirches him as being when you wrote… “Moses wrote that God did or instructed the Israelites to do these things that are totally contrary to God's character… THIS clearly makes Moses a FALSE testifier of God and as such, IF what you maintain were true, which it is not, would have required some corrective action of God; NO OTHER conclusion can be drawn from your words, as others have also rightly noted.

But that’s not your main deficiency in your argument. God’s called, appointed and anointed Moses was a key part and player in His REDEMPTIVE story OR history of Israel; and ultimately that of man’s reconciliation. God’s direct intervention in and via Israel CANNOT be compared to the malevolent machinations of the wider world, and to put all such in the same boat as you do just portrays a lack of understanding on your part Don.

Paidion wrote:So Davo, you tell us why you think God "allows" man's inhumanity to man and all these natural disasters. If you genuinely want to know what I think, I will tell you—after I have heard your explanation.

Don… it appears you will do anything to avoid having the odd logic of your propositions scrutinised when these are pointed out — from obfuscating to going off on tangents to distract from just giving a clear response. This *you answer me first then I’ll answer you* is juvenile, and does NOT deal with the dire conclusions your logic fosters… that has Moses as a false prophet AND God NOT remediating the situation.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:42 am

Davo, do you believe slaying children and infants reflects God's character? Once we start saying it's okay to perform such acts as long as God commands them we embrace divine command theory, which has serious flaws.
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:04 am

qaz… do you believe Moses to be a false prophet? When the OT says the likes of… “Then the Lord said to Moses,…” as per Num 25:4 for example, did Yahweh REALLY say what follows OR is this to be considered a fake and false scripture?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby DaveB » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:02 am

<this is not qaz. Moses could have been wrong, and the recording of it doesn't necessarily mean that the scripture is false or fake. Yes, I do think that there are many OT recordings of 'thus saith the Lord' -followed by atrocities- that we can legitimately question. Over and out>
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 3889
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:49 am

davo wrote:qaz… do you believe Moses to be a false prophet? When the OT says the likes of… “Then the Lord said to Moses,…” as per Num 25:4 for example, did Yahweh REALLY say what follows OR is this to be considered a fake and false scripture?


I think the most likely explanation for these texts is that they were written years after the people they talked about died, and contain legendary elements inserted into the historical narratives.
qaz
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Next

Return to General Discussion on Evangelical Universalism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests