William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

General posts on Evangelical Universalism.

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:14 pm

Exactly, well said Chad…
maintenanceman wrote:well, for me the 1 john forth chapter says that 'God is love'.

Then if we move to Paul's 1 Corinthians thirteenth chapter, 'the love chapter' Paul lays out the characteristics of love, .... and if we infuse Johns understanding that God is LOVE, we com up with:

1Co 13:4 God is patient, God is kind and is not jealous; God does not brag and is not arrogant,
1Co 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; he does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1Co 13:8 God never fails;

I would say that this is GOOD NEWS :D

    Long story short… this is pretty much where I’m at.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:04 pm

I usually break that out too. (God *IS* Love) then basically Read 1st Cor 13 and am convinced of is goodness.

That said, the verse that says life or death, etc... "Can not separate us from the love of God" is disputed in two ways and I would be curious if anyone can do sound exegesis on it.

They say that 1) The text does not say "anything" but "any created creature". So they say that Sin can and does separate us from the love of God.

My objection is is this: What a damaging blow... My father doesn't love me when I stumble and sin? No, I am not saying "approved, God can never approve when I sin, that would be terrible, but love? If so, I really don' want that type of Love in my life. Indirectly it means that my love for God is the reason that he loves me. Therefore, I love first. How is that freeing? What a damning a terrible thought.

They say that 2) This only applies to "believers".

My objection is this: So how could anyone become a believer if God doesn't love them?

Are my objections sound? Can anyone add anything or provide insight of those objections from the opposition are sound? Is it really "any creature" or "anything"? How can people turn such a positive life giving encouraging verse upside-down to produce death in me?
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:30 pm

Gabe said:
I usually break that out too. (God *IS* Love) then basically Read 1st Cor 13 and am convinced of is goodness.

That said, the v erse that says life or death, etc... "Can not separate us from the love of God" is disputed in two ways and I would be curious if anyone can do sound exegesis on it.

They say that 1) The text does not say "anything" but "any created creature". So they say that Sin can and does separate us from the love of God.

My objection is is this: What a damaging blow... My father doesn't love me when I stumble and sin? No, I am not saying "approved, God can never approve when I sin, that would be terrible, but love? If so, I really don' want that type of Love in my life. Indirectly it means that my love for God is the reason that he loves me. Therefore, I love first. How is that freeing? What a damning a terrible thought.

They say that 2) This only applies to "believers".

My objection is this: So how could anyone become a believer if God doesn't love them?

Are my objections sound? Can anyone add anything or provide insight of those objections from the opposition are sound? Is it really "any creature" or "anything"? How can people turn such a positive life giving encouraging verse upside-down to produce death in me?




Gabe, I posted hastily.

God does not hold ANYTHING you have done against you. Christ has taken that away. Christ's message of freedom has delivered us from some of these thoughts and anxieties.
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:55 pm

Paidion wrote:
Davo wrote:Let me try again with an explanded answer… What do I thing love is, and what does love mean to me? — Answer — “God is love!” meaning He is faithful, for He… “fills all in all.”


Davo, you know very well what qaz is asking you, but you are unwilling to answer. He is not playing "silly games" at all; he is attempting to find out what you mean by "love." Saying twice that "God is love" will not do!

What… says you, just because you don’t like my answer! At least I’ve answered and haven’t ducked and weaved away from the hard stuff as you keep doing. And here you are Don YET AGAIN coattailing off someone else, instead of answering my two posts that deal directly with your suspect theories HERE and HERE. When will you show some ticker and respond to these — instead of just sniping from the sidelines off others’ posts?

Paidion wrote:—unless, of course, you define "love" as an expression of "anything that God does" whether He is kind, or whether He kills (even someone who steadied the ark so that it wouldn't tip when the oxen stumbled) or commands his people to kill, or to cut off women's' hands without mercy, or to have disrespectful sons stoned to death, etc.

Your problem seems to be Don… you just assume everybody should think like you. You’re being like the proverbial rabid atheist who expends so much energy railing against that which he says does not exist — like how smart is that… if it doesn’t exist what’s there to rail against? And yet here you are openly rejecting whole swathes of OT Scripture as though it’s not real BECAUSE it confuses your LITERALIST’ dogma and THIS is the fallacy that leads to Moses being considered a FALSE prophet who couldn’t determine God’s words from his own dithering thoughts that randomly “popped into his head”.

Paidion wrote:I believe that God is love, too. But I believe that love is expressed in loving acts—sometimes, like a loving human father, in uncomfortable or even painful correction, but never in killing or harming people. A loving human father will discipline his erring son, but will not cut off his hand or kill him.

Let me repeat what I’ve said now a number of times with regards to *hyperbole language* of the prophets…
davo wrote:Israel was God’s chosen nation whereby He would work the reconciling of humanity to Himself. Any threat to God’s redemptive plan, i.e., the destruction of His chosen, which as recorded was a very real threat in those ANE times, and as such was met with God’s injunction for Israel to war against said enemies. This was WAR and not just cavalier killing for random killing’s sake… that would be murder.

Thus the prophets of Israel would give such warring proclamations from God; these were not random ‘head-popping’ self-induced misread thoughts errantly attributed to Yahweh. What does come through is the historical narrative of the day, and those times were rather brutal. As I understand it God’s edict was pretty much to obliterate the opposition and in those times that entailed all and sundry, and as such was described in the *hyperbolic language* of women and children etc. One example is of Samuel to Saul — prophet to king…
1Sam 15:3, 18 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” … Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’

Neither Moses nor Samuel were deficient nor confused by their own random ‘head-popping’ thoughts over and against God’s words given to them… that whole notion is utterly preposterous and fraught with the spurious implications inherent within it. No… HOW the prophets *delivered* said commands of God was *coloured by the license of accommodative language reflecting the culture of the day; hence the hyperbole.* that at least Chad is my understanding of such harsh, brutal and confronting texts, i.e., hyperbole in the context of war.

…again such accommodative language reflecting the culture of the day; hence the *hyperbole* was not just restricted to examples of ‘war’ as above. What Moses said in Duet 25:12 would have been understood according to what Jesus said in Mt 5:30… but I’m sure you conveniently don’t hold Jesus to the same LITERALIST measure wherein you berate, dismiss and impugn Moses, do you? Such harsh edicts as occurred under the OC have been considered not as the actual cutting off of one’s hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, compensating for a gross misdemeanour — putting a price on it, i.e., ‘paying a price’ to redeem one’s hand… lest else it must if threat be ignored, be cut off.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:34 pm

davo wrote:No sorry qaz… I’m not buying any further into your silly games.


I'm not playing silly games. I'm asking you to explain what love means, to you. You refuse to do that, and I imagine it's because the implications would be bad for your hermeneutic.
qaz
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:12 pm

qaz wrote:
davo wrote:No sorry qaz… I’m not buying any further into your silly games.


I'm not playing silly games. I'm asking you to explain what love means, to you. You refuse to do that, and I imagine it's because the implications would be bad for your hermeneutic.

I know I shouldn’t but I will… :roll:

We were dealing with your assessment that *Moses was a false prophet* and the implications THAT has on the authenticity of Scripture, which you immediately and conveniently diverted from to your “what does love mean” as a means of NOT dealing with the dire implications raised — which is what you do when you get stuck when the obvious contradictions of your position are pointed out, i.e., HOW then can you have ANY confidence that ANY Scripture is genuine OR inspired. I simply then followed through holding you do your own logical conclusions, as per…
qaz wrote:
davo wrote:And yet you have no qualms at the breadth of God’s love in sentencing every infant after Adam *to death* because Adam ate some fruit?? How far would you like to reduce this meaningless concept?


Does love mean anything to you? If so, what?

So instead of answering and dealing with the obvious conundrum your position raises you once again diverted as above; I’ve noticed you do this often. You say I refuse to answer your question and yet I did this… HERE and HERE and the best you could come up with was… “Your expanded answer is slightly better, but not enough.” Well sorry qaz but I’m not here to jump every time you snap your fingers because you aren’t happy.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:41 pm

@paidion @qaz

Do you consider the following texts genuine and authentic Scripture… or are they errant, misleading and thereby FALSE?

Judg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1Sam 16:14-16 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said to him, “Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. Let our master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon you, and you shall be well.”

1Sam 18:10 And it happened on the next day that the distressing spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied inside the house. So David played music with his hand, as at other times; but there was a spear in Saul’s hand.

1Sam 19:9 Now the distressing spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. And David was playing music with his hand.

1Kgs 22:21-23 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”

Ezek 14:4, 9 “Therefore speak to them, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Everyone of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the Lord will answer him who comes, according to the multitude of his idols, … “And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

    πλανηθῇ <planēthē> = deceived, e.g., Lk 21:8; Rev 20:8, 10, from πλανάω <planaō> meaning: 1) to cause to stray, to lead astray, lead aside from the right way 1a) to go astray, wander, roam about 2) metaph. 2a) to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive 2b) to be led into error 2c) to be led aside from the path of virtue, to go astray, sin 2d) to sever or fall away from the truth 2d1) of heretics 2e) to be led away into error and sin.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:26 am

Do you consider the following texts genuine and authentic Scripture… or are they errant, misleading and thereby FALSE?





It comes down to verses where Jesus affirmed Moses and the Prophets because if he was wrong about them then obviously one must ask, what else is he wrong about?





"For verily i say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" Mat 5.18
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:00 am

Steve 7150 wrote:It comes down to verses where Jesus affirmed Moses and the Prophets because if he was wrong about them then obviously one must ask, what else is he wrong about?


What is your purpose, Steve, in implying the conditional statement, "If Jesus was wrong about some matters, then He may have been wrong about other matters." Is someone affirming the antecedent? If not, why bring up your hypothetical question above? Is your quote that follows it meant to affirm, or at least suggest, that qaz and I claim that Jesus was wrong?

"For verily i say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" Mat 5.18


Steve, you know that the same argument as you make above, was brought out in the other forum, and you know what my answer was. But before I repeat it, tell me what YOU think Jesus meant when he indicated that all the law would be fulfilled? Do you think He was saying that everyone should all keep the Mosaic laws, killing a disobedient son, etc., such as the government of Connecticut imposed upon the people in 1650?
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: 4010
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 Gabe Grinstead » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:14 am

Paidion wrote:
Steve, you know that the same argument as you make above, was brought out in the other forum, and you know what my answer was. But before I repeat it, tell me what YOU think Jesus meant when he indicated that all the law would be fulfilled? Do you think He was saying that everyone should all keep the Mosaic laws, killing a disobedient son, etc., such as the government of Connecticut imposed upon the people in 1650?


I'll take a stab at this. Not taking any sides (I have not even followed the conversion, but I did like this quote of yours).

It is said that Jesus's sermon on the mount was to the Jews only, not the gentiles. If this be true, than for the Jews, the law is still in affect, unless "all has come to pass". Now maybe all has come to pass. I don't know. Just throwing that out there.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:12 pm

Steve 7150 wrote:
It comes down to verses where Jesus affirmed Moses and the Prophets because if he was wrong about them then obviously one must ask, what else is he wrong about?


What is your purpose, Steve, in implying the conditional statement, "If Jesus was wrong about some matters, then He may have been wrong about other matters." Is someone affirming the antecedent? If not, why bring up your hypothetical question above? Is your quote that follows it meant to affirm, or at least suggest, that qaz and I claim that Jesus was wrong?

"For verily i say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" Mat 5.18


Steve, you know that the same argument as you make above, was brought out in the other forum, and you know what my answer was. But before I repeat it, tell me what YOU think Jesus meant when he indicated that all the law would be fulfilled? Do you think He was saying that everyone should all keep the Mosaic laws, killing a disobedient son, etc., such as the government of Connecticut imposed upon the people in 1650?






Paidion, re this verse i really don't know your answer from the other forum, i didn't have time to closely follow it. My purpose to mentioning it is that it weakens Jesus credibility if you accept Moses was quite often incorrect because it seems clear Jesus completely accepted his testimony.To your other question I think Jesus meant that the law of Moses was fulfilled at his death on the cross. Re Gabe's thought that the Sermon on the Mount was for Jews i think Jesus was introducing the beginnings of the Kingdom of God principals and contrasting it with certain laws or beliefs in the law of Moses.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

THE LAW OF CHRIST

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:55 pm

Hi Steve, you wrote:Paidion, re this verse i really don't know your answer from the other forum, i didn't have time to closely follow it. My purpose to mentioning it is that it weakens Jesus credibility if you accept Moses was quite often incorrect because it seems clear Jesus completely accepted his testimony.To your other question I think Jesus meant that the law of Moses was fulfilled at his death on the cross. Re Gabe's thought that the Sermon on the Mount was for Jews i think Jesus was introducing the beginnings of the Kingdom of God principals and contrasting it with certain laws or beliefs in the law of Moses.


Thank you Steve, for this explanation. I regret that I had presumed that you were aware of my answer on the other forum.

First, the words of Jesus in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 was something new to the Jews—a new set of laws. In some cases, Jesus' commands were even stricter than those stated in the Mosaic law. In others they were different from the Mosaic law. Interestingly enough, Jesus didn't say, "God commanded you this, but I tell you that," or even "Moses commanded you this, but I tell you that," but rather, "It was said to you in the old days this, but I tell you that." I think Jesus Himself was well aware that some of the commands that were given to the Hebrew people in former times were not God's words to them at all.

The apostle Paul called these commandments that Jesus gave, "The law of Christ" or "Christ's law." Paul considered that obeying Christ's law was obligatory for Christians, and affirmed that he himself was under this law.

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. (1 Corinthians 9:21 ESV)
Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2 ESV)


Jesus Himself emphasized the importance of obeying His law. After He finished giving His law, He concluded with the following words:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:24-27 ESV)


He wasn't saying this only for the Jews, but for EVERYONE. Paul was an evangelist to the Gentiles to those "outside the law" but after they submitted to the authority of Christ, they were expected to be under the law of Christ, too.

Now let's examine those words of Jesus in context, words which were a prefix to Christ's law which He was about to give:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 ESV)


"The Law" was a term given to the writings of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy." I have a copy of the "Jewish Study Bible" translated from the Hebrew by scholarly Jewish rabbis.They call these five books "The Torah" (which means "The Law") and "The Prophets" is the name given to, well... the Hebrew prophets, both major and minor.

Since the law Jesus was about to give differed substantially from "the Law and the Prophets," in case His hearers thought He was doing away with those writings entirely, He wished to make clear that He had not come to abolish those writings, but to fulfill in His life the prophecies made about Him in those writings such as those by the Prophets (e.g. Isaiah). He even said that Moses wrote about Him, as well as other writers of the Hebrew scriptures. Note especially the following:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44 ESV)


So this is what He meant when He said that He came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. It was the things He accomplished in His life as well as His death that were the fulfillment of the prophecies of those Hebrew scriptures.

Then He went on to state the importance of the NEW LAWS He was about to proclaim!

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


He was not talking about Jewish people fulfilling or obeying the laws of Moses, but about His disciples obeying His laws. If they obeyed the laws He was about to give, their righteousness would EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees and would then become part of the Kingdom of Heaven that John the Baptizer, Jesus, Peter, and Paul preached.

Christ's disciples would be the first to perform and teach the laws of Christ, and eventually they would be the laws carried out by all people. Christ's laws are for universal use, for all people, for all times, and not just for the people whom He was directly addressing and not just for the time in which He was living.

From the fact that Jesus recognized prophecies about Himself in the Hebrew scriptures, we cannot extrapolate the notion that He believed that all the laws of Moses were God's laws. Never did Jesus quote from those vicious and ugly laws that required stoning of rebellious sons, cutting off of women's hands without mercy, condemning prostitutes and adulteresses to death (males only if they did it with another man's wife), etc., etc., etc. Jesus Himself never gave that kind of command to His disciples, and never personally carried out such commands—and He was the exact image of the Father's essence (Hebrews 1:3)

Jesus revealed the Father as He TRULY IS, and not as Moses and the prophets sometimes depicted Him.

Please see Dr. Bob Wilson's article, "Reading the Bible Like Jesus Did":

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=6424
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: 4010
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 qaz » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:53 pm

davo wrote:@paidion @qaz

Do you consider the following texts genuine and authentic Scripture… or are they errant, misleading and thereby FALSE?

Judg 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

1Sam 16:14-16 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said to him, “Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. Let our master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon you, and you shall be well.”

1Sam 18:10 And it happened on the next day that the distressing spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied inside the house. So David played music with his hand, as at other times; but there was a spear in Saul’s hand.

1Sam 19:9 Now the distressing spirit from the Lord came upon Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand. And David was playing music with his hand.

1Kgs 22:21-23 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”

Ezek 14:4, 9 “Therefore speak to them, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Everyone of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the Lord will answer him who comes, according to the multitude of his idols, … “And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

    πλανηθῇ <planēthē> = deceived, e.g., Lk 21:8; Rev 20:8, 10, from πλανάω <planaō> meaning: 1) to cause to stray, to lead astray, lead aside from the right way 1a) to go astray, wander, roam about 2) metaph. 2a) to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive 2b) to be led into error 2c) to be led aside from the path of virtue, to go astray, sin 2d) to sever or fall away from the truth 2d1) of heretics 2e) to be led away into error and sin.


Davo, I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant.
qaz
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:57 pm

"The Torah" (which means "The Law")









Close but not exact. Torah means "instructions,directions,teaching" regarding the truth about God.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:02 pm

The apostle Paul called these commandments that Jesus gave, "The law of Christ" or "Christ's law." Paul considered that obeying Christ's law was obligatory for Christians, and affirmed that he himself was under this law.










Yes Paidion, also called "the Royal law"."the Law of Liberty", "the Law of God" and including the Apostles writings it totals to over 150.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:04 pm

qaz wrote:Davo, I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant.

Don’t ask me a question qaz… ANSWER mine. :!: :!: :!:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:12 pm

qaz wrote:Davo, I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant.


Any writer, whether inspired or not, can make a mistake. One clear example:

The apostle Matthew wrote:Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matthew 27: 9,10 ESV)


These words quoted by Matthew are not found in Jeremiah. Similar words ARE found in Zechariah 11:12,13.

Some will declare that this is not a mistake, since Matthew wrote that Jeremiah SPOKE these words; he didn't say that he WROTE them. So it may have been revealed by inspiration to Matthew that Jeremiah SPOKE these words.

However, this will not do. For Matthew almost always said that prophets SPOKE words which in fact, were written in the Hebrew scriptures. Other examples of Matthew doing this are as follows:

Matthew 1:22—2:15,17,23—3:3—4:14—8:17—12:17—13:35—21:4—24:15

I could find only one place in which Matthew wrote "written by the prophet." That one place is Matthew 2:5
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: 4010
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 16, 2017 5:29 pm

The apostle Matthew wrote:
Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matthew 27: 9,10 ESV)


These words quoted by Matthew are not found in Jeremiah. Similar words ARE found in Zechariah 11:12,13.

Some will declare that this is not a mistake, since Matthew wrote that Jeremiah SPOKE these words; he didn't say that he WROTE them. So it may have been revealed by inspiration to Matthew that Jeremiah SPOKE these words.

However, this will not do. For Matthew almost always said that prophets SPOKE words which in fact, were written in the Hebrew scriptures. Other examples of Matthew doing this are as follows:







I don't think the scriptures are inerrant but i believe they are true. However sometimes since there weren't books back in the day but scrolls often containing major and minor prophets in the same scrolls, the scroll may have been called Jeremiah but contained Zechariah within it.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Spoken by the prophet

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:45 pm

That may be so, Steve. Nevertheless, Matthew wrote "spoken by the prophet Jeremiah." Wouldn't Matthew have been able to distinguish between the parts of the scroll written by Jeremiah from those parts written by Zechariah? But whether he could or not, Matthew still made an error didn't he? It's in the Bible, and apparently God didn't prevent the error from being recorded there.
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: 4010
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 16, 2017 6:21 pm

Nevertheless, Matthew wrote "spoken by the prophet Jeremiah." Wouldn't Matthew have been able to distinguish between the parts of the scroll written by Jeremiah from those parts written by Zechariah? But whether he could or not, Matthew still made an error didn't he? It's in the Bible, and apparently God didn't prevent the error from being recorded there.









It sounds like an error but we are reading this 2,000 years later in a very different culture so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Matthew knew but still simply called everything in the Jeremiah scroll as spoken by Jeremiah.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:36 pm

steve7150 wrote:Do you consider the following texts genuine and authentic Scripture… or are they errant, misleading and thereby FALSE?


It comes down to verses where Jesus affirmed Moses and the Prophets because if he was wrong about them then obviously one must ask, what else is he wrong about?

It is only reasonable, logical and common sense to conclude this Steve.

I should also note… the OT examples I gave are NOT Moses but other OT characters… Samuel, Ezekiel etc, all of whom according to Paidion’s assessment like Moses were self-deceived.

Given as Paidion notes, that Matthew himself was prone to error, WHY can’t one arbitrarily, as Paidion does so well with certain OT scripts not to his liking, likewise summarily question for example the likes of Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ ‘sermon on mount’? Like given these things are just arbitrary choices why not hold everything as suspect and carve away accordingly… like let’s not be inconsistent!

Which brings me to this… given that both Paidion and qaz take issue with certain texts and thereby expunge them from the greater text because their literalistic understanding of such is deficient enough to not grasp what might be being said, HOW do they likewise NOT then question and expunge, for example, Paul’s words here…

2Cor 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

In kind with the OT texts I’ve already provided here we have God giving Paul a demon, i.e., “a messenger of Satan” — how nice of God. Is this next on the chopping block, can we now even trust Paul that God would do such a thing?

1Cor 5:5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

And how brutal of Paul that he would give an diktat to the elders of the church to have a wayward brother be put to death, i.e., “for the destruction of the flesh” — fortunately like all OT victims under similar bans they would ultimately be saved. But given Paul’s harsh and vicious edict can we be certain that he like certain OT characters was not himself running with whatever just *popped into his head*? Can Paul be trusted?

2Thess 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

Hmmm… here again and not dissimilar to what we see with Ezekiel, God sends yet another “strong delusion” — surely Paul is self-deluded and mischaracterising/misrepresenting God! This must be evidence enough to show, at least according to Paidion’s program of scriptural eisegesis, that like Moses, Samuel, Ezekiel et al, that Paul himself is likewise… suspect!!
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby JamesAH81072 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:26 pm

An explanation of the Matthew 27:9 problem - https://answersingenesis.org/contradict ... -prophets/
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Errors in the Bible

Postby Paidion » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:52 am

An explanation of the Matthew 27:9 problem...


Yes James, if one's basic premise re the Bible is that it contains no errors, it seems that any error can be explained away.

Anyway, I will bring up another error, one that is found the book of Jude:

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14,15)


I happen to possess a copy of the book of Enoch from which this quote was taken. Clearly the book wasn't written by the historic Enoch "the seventh from Adam" even though it was believed by the early Christians to have been written by him. For example, Tertullian speaks of the author as "the most ancient prophet, Enoch."

In Enoch 54:9 we read, "The chiefs of the East, among the Parthians and Medes, shall remove kings, in whom a spirit of perturbation shall enter."
But the Parthians were unknown in history until 250 B.C. They certainly did not exist in the days of Enoch, "the seventh from Adam."

In Chapter 71, the author describes the rising and setting of the sun, as the sun passing through 6 different gates.

Conclusion: Jude was in error that the author of the words taken from the book of Enoch, was the ancient Enoch, the seventh from Adam.

However, I am sure that those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (whichever Bible they mean—Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant) have explanations that will satisfy themselves. I can guess one of them:

The present book of Enoch is not the one to which Jude referred. For Jude wrote that Enoch prophesied:

“Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”


The words in the book of Enoch are somewhat different. They read (chapter 2):

Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all of flesh for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.
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: 4010
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 qaz » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:25 pm

Davo, there's no question you know the Bible very well. And I think a lot of the time you do a great job expounding texts. But what's the point of scripture if we have no love?

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Heck, what's the point of existing if there's no love? One of the most powerful statements in Talbott's TILOG (and I'm paraphrasing here) is that love is the only thing that would make living forever worthwhile. I agree. Love for our fellow man (and woman) must be a core part of our identity.
qaz
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:08 pm

Well yeah of course qaz, who’s gonna disagree with that, and who here doesn’t have love? But that doesn’t answer to the conundrums yours and Don’s position raises in terms of warping the integrity of Scripture when said arguments are taken consistently to their logical ends, i.e., such creates more problems than solves, IMO; that’s all I’m point out. As to *inerrancy* — I’m inclined to go with Steve’s take given earlier where he said… “I don't think the scriptures are inerrant but i believe they are true.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:37 pm

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14,15)


I happen to possess a copy of the book of Enoch from which this quote was taken. Clearly the book wasn't written by the historic Enoch "the seventh from Adam" even though it was believed by the early Christians to have been written by him. For example, Tertullian speaks of the author as "the most ancient prophet, Enoch."

In Enoch 54:9 we read, "The chiefs of the East, among the Parthians and Medes, shall remove kings, in whom a spirit of perturbation shall enter."
But the Parthians were unknown in history until 250 B.C. They certainly did not exist in the days of Enoch, "the seventh from Adam."

In Chapter 71, the author describes the rising and setting of the sun, as the sun passing through 6 different gates.

Conclusion: Jude was in error that the author of the words taken from the book of Enoch, was the ancient Enoch, the seventh from Adam.







How do we know Jude is quoting the book of Enoch? He could be referencing an event that by chance is found in the book of Enoch. Jude simply mentioned that Enoch said this incident happened. Maybe Jude got this info from his brother Jesus or some other oral tradition? But even if Jude took this statement from the Book of Enoch it could still be true even if the book as a whole is unreliable, all he referenced was the statement not the entire book. Paul did this several times, taking true statements from pagan poets. If Jude is guilty why would you let Paul off the hook?
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:35 pm

steve7150 wrote:Paul did this several times, taking true statements from pagan poets. If Jude is guilty why would you let Paul off the hook?

Exactly… and this is the problem slicing and dicing scripture according to presuppositions brought TO the text. Should we likewise question and impugn Jesus because through prophetic recapitulation he applies a prophecy about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes to himself in bringing the warning of future destruction? But to do so would be to not understand the covenants in light of Israel’s HISTORY.

Take for example the prophetic drama of the overthrow of the four beasts Daniel… this was about the transfer of sovereignty to “one like a Son of man” which in its original setting has reference to the circumstances leading to the Maccabean crisis in the 2nd century BC. Jesus, following Jewish apocalyptic tradition has taken this scenario and transposed it to the circumstances of first century Judaism.

The Greek or Western mindset of “prophecy” is that of prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy however is that of pattern and recapitulation of patterns i.e., manifold fulfilments leading to the consummate fulfillment or desired goal. Each of these multiple fulfilments becomes a “type” — teaching something further about the ultimate end.

OT prophecy was more than mere predictive foretelling, but more so prescriptive forth-telling, or telling forth the Word of God… often in times of crisis. Certain “events” were foretold, while on other occasions the prophets’ utterance told forth or was instructive of God’s will to be followed, and or their called response to such.

In relation to “events” — prophecies were fulfilled in that OT setting — however, it was not unusual for Jesus to use such past fulfillment as a “type” of whatever it was Jesus was speaking to, and thus it became the “antitype” — take for example Lk 13:3-5. Or for instance, take Matthew’s references of Hosea’s words “Out of Egypt I called my son” as a prophecy concerning Jesus, where in fact Hosea speaks of Israel (Jesus of course being TRUE Israel aka the TRUE vine… hence the link etc of Jn 15:1 and Isa 5:7; Jer 2:21; Psa 80:8-9). Hosea’s words in Matthew’s mind had *more than one meaning* i.e., application. They meant historically that God had called Israel out of Egypt, and yet also now meant, contemporarily, that the young Jesus was being likewise delivered, being God’s chosen Son, Deliver and Messiah. More than one dimension is present, as is plain to see.

So this isn’t so much a case of “multiple fulfilments” as it was the *reapplying of the meaning* of such a fulfillment. One way to understand this is Jesus’ words in relation to the Scriptures or old covenant tradition when he said — “you have heard it said… but I say to you…” — Jesus’ *reinterpretation or reapplication is the recapitulation* of what has gone before — but with a renewed and somewhat “fulfilled” or completed meaning i.e., its ultimate end — and that always in light of the new covenant of which all of old covenant history and story ultimately pointed. And we know that all redemptive history, of which much was expressed through the prophetic, came to fruition and fulfillment in Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe AD30-70; culminating with ‘the Day of the Lord’ circa AD70 with the destruction of the Temple itself.

However, if “prophecy” is just seen in terms of “multiply fulfilments” beyond the biblical narrative then it is only natural to ask… how many times does prophecy get fulfilled before it is actually fulfilled or realised? Such becomes an endless loop according to the next theory or timetable espoused.
Last edited by davo on Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:22 am

The apostle Matthew wrote:
Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matthew 27: 9,10 ESV)


These words quoted by Matthew are not found in Jeremiah. Similar words ARE found in Zechariah 11:12,13.






Actually this is a paraphrase by Matthew and the reference to the potters field could have come from Jeremiah 19. The 30 pieces of silver did come from Zechariah 11 in a somewhat different situation but it is possible Matthew combined the two and just credited the major prophet Jeremiah. This was done in Mark 1 and combining prophecies was done in Mat 21.5.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

If Jude is guilty, why let Paul off the hook?

Postby Paidion » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:15 am

Steve 7150 wrote:If Jude is guilty why would you let Paul off the hook?


No one is accusing Jude to be "guilty" of anything. Jude made a mistake. Jude had no idea that some day his letter would be placed in a book that would be regarded as infallible Scripture. And there's no "hook" off of which to let Paul.

It doesn't make sense to take the position that a particular collection of writings form "Scripture" which is infallible and without error. If it were true, then those who collected the writings into one infallible book, had to have been infallibly inspired and infallibly guided themselves in order to choose the "right" writings to comprise the Book. And who is to say that the Protestant Bible is the "correct" collection of inspired writings and not the Orthodox Bible or the Roman Catholic Bible?

What is there about the book of Esther in the Protestant Bible (which does not even contain the word "God" or "Yahweh" or "The LORD") that qualifies it to be one of the infallible writings that are without error? And what is there about the book of Judith, that is also about a heroine who saved the Hebrew people, that renders it fallible and that renders it subject to error? (By the way, the word "God" DOES occur in Esther, in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bibles, as does the book of Judith).

As I see it, the "Old Testament" (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) is mostly a history of the Hebrew people, and a record of the words of Hebrew prophets. The events recorded therein are substantially true, though the Mosaic interpretation of those events was in some cases false.

The "New Testament" is mostly a collection of the letters of the apostle Paul, as well as other apostles, and of course, it contains the four memoirs of Christ which are true histories of the acts and sayings of Jesus the Son of God, as remembered by Matthew and John, and from the information that Mark received from Peter, and as Luke received from Paul (I'm not sure of Paul's source).Then, of course, there is the history of the Church that Luke wrote, called "The Acts of the Apostles." Some of that Luke knew first hand; other parts were obtained from Paul.

When we went to elementary school, we were exposed to history. We learned about Christopher Columbus, Marco Polo, etc. and we believed that the events of which we learned actually took place. But the history books were not infallible. Some of what was written were interpretations of events.
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: 4010
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 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:10 pm

Steve 7150 wrote:
If Jude is guilty why would you let Paul off the hook?


No one is accusing Jude to be "guilty" of anything. Jude made a mistake. Jude had no idea that some day his letter would be placed in a book that would be regarded as infallible Scripture. And there's no "hook" off of which to let Paul.

It doesn't make sense to take the position that a particular collection of writings form "Scripture" which is infallible and without error.








You were accusing Jude of being guilty of making a mistake and i tried to make a comparison to Paul also quoting pagan sources but still making a true statement. My point was that although Jude may have quoted Enoch , it still could have been a true statement.
Additionally i had explicitly said that i don't consider scripture infallible but i do consider it true. However although i don't consider it infallible i will try to defend it if possible against criticism.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:00 pm

Paidion said:
As I see it, the "Old Testament" (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) is mostly a history of the Hebrew people, and a record of the words of Hebrew prophets. The events recorded therein are substantially true, though the Mosaic interpretation of those events was in some cases false.

The "New Testament" is mostly a collection of the letters of the apostle Paul, as well as other apostles, and of course, it contains the four memoirs of Christ which are true histories of the acts and sayings of Jesus the Son of God, as remembered by Matthew and John, and from the information that Mark received from Peter, and as Luke received from Paul (I'm not sure of Paul's source).Then, of course, there is the history of the Church that Luke wrote, called "The Acts of the Apostles." Some of that Luke knew first hand; other parts were obtained from Paul.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you take these writings with a grain of sand... I guess I might ask where you stand on the authority of the bible as we have in now, and if you think that anything contained in them is worth studying and following in this present time? AND CAN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN IT CHANGE OUR LIFE HERE IN 2017? :?
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:20 pm

Where do YOU stand on the authority of the Bible? And which Bible? Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant? And why do you choose the one you do as authoritative rather than the other two?

I have already explained that I accept the historicity of the events described in the Bible, but I do not subscribe to Bibliolatry. My authority is Jesus, the Anointed One—the Son of God. I accept everything He taught, and receive His law as the authority in my life. I believe the four memoirs of Christ accurately describe His life here on earth and are reliable records of His teaching.
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: 4010
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 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:08 pm

Jesus…
Lk 24:27, 44-45 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. … Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Paidion…
Paidion wrote:I don't care what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Paidion wrote:My authority is Jesus, the Anointed One—the Son of God. I accept everything He taught, and receive His law as the authority in my life.

Did Jesus slice and dice the Scriptures? Bah humbug Paidion!
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:17 pm

Paidion wrote:Where do YOU stand on the authority of the Bible? And which Bible? Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant? And why do you choose the one you do as authoritative rather than the other two?

I have already explained that I accept the historicity of the events described in the Bible, but I do not subscribe to Bibliolatry. My authority is Jesus, the Anointed One—the Son of God. I accept everything He taught, and receive His law as the authority in my life. I believe the four memoirs of Christ accurately describe His life here on earth and are reliable records of His teaching.


Well I would use this opportunity to say that many folks that say they believe the scriptures usually :
1) believe the scriptures as someone else has told them what they mean...
2) believe the scriptures as they read them (in their own language)
3) read the scriptures and for whatever reason say that there may be more to the story... And thus they start a life long search. :?
I would say that you are going the extra mile and searching for truth... You have learned Greek :D and thus you have an advantage :x
But the advantage is only as good or appropriate as the Spirit that guides you. ;)
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:31 am

Thank you for replying, Chad. It's difficult or maybe impossible to determine who is led by the Spirit and who is not. We know only ourselves and our relationship with God.

As for the concept of the infallibility and flawlessness of the Bible—in particular the Old Testament—it is clear that Jesus Himself read it selectively. He knew that Moses and some of the prophets unintentionally wrote about HIM. But we need to notice also, that He never quoted the parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that depicted the Father as a killer of people or of One who commanded the extermination of nations including children, or who required the stoning of disrespectful sons, etc. Rather He depicted His Father as one who is kind even to evil people (Luke 6:35). So who you gonna believe concerning the Father's character? Moses or Jesus? Were the Canaanites whom the Israelites wiped out even evil? Or did the Canaanites simple wish to go on living in their own land? Were they wiped out simply so that the Israelites could possess their land?

In introducing His New Law in Matthew 5, Jesus contrasted His commands with those of the Mosaic Law. He didn't say that the Old commands were given by God, or even by Moses. Rather He said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old... but I tell you..." Then He gave commands, some of which contrasted to the old, and others which were even more exacting.

Again, I suggest that you read Dr. Bob Wilson's article: "Reading the Bible Like Jesus did:

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=6424

Here a couple of other articles on the same topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html

http://www.therebelgod.com/2017/05/how-to-read-bible-like-jesus-and-paul.html

And on Amazon you can read part of Derek Flood's book, "Disarming Scripture":

https://www.amazon.com/Disarming-Scripture-Cherry-Picking-Violence-Loving-Conservatives/dp/0692307265
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: 4010
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 DaveB » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:38 pm

Thanks, Don. That Derek Flood book looks promising - I read the forward by Brian MacLaren and then hit the 'surprise me' button for a random page from the book (on Amazon) and this came up, which I resonate with:
Attachments
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (98.21 KiB) Viewed 1455 times
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Disarming Scripture

Postby Paidion » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:36 pm

An enlightening passage, Dave! Thank YOU!
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: 4010
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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:33 pm

An enlightening passage, Dave! Thank YOU!







I thought it sounded a little pompous myself as if the writer has some ethical insight that others that don't share his view are missing. From what i see Paul talked about God's wrath and judgment without specifically revealing what it may be so we can't say if he disagreed with the OT. If so he never acknowledged that he disagreed. Jesus referenced the flood and Sodom and Gemorrah without taking the opportunity to reveal that God did not cause it. Unless Jesus explicitly contradicted the cause of these events which the OT claimed was God then a dispassionate reader must assume that Jesus had no dispute with this conclusion.
But the biggest question remains which is that God doesn't stop evil although he could therefore evil must serve a greater purpose then the pain it causes. This conclusion won't win a popularity contest but in reality it is a better explanation that mans free will prevents God's intervention. God intervenes whenever and wherever it suits his purposes plus mans free will gets violated on a regular basis.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby maintenanceman » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:00 pm

DaveB wrote:Thanks, Don. That Derek Flood book looks promising - I read the forward by Brian MacLaren and then hit the 'surprise me' button for a random page from the book (on Amazon) and this came up, which I resonate with:


Thanks Dave, from my standpoint, and reading the part of the 'looks like the book forward' and can't necessarily get a hold on the books direction, but that may be because I am dyslexic. The idea that Jesus somehow contradicted God is foreign to me. The historical context as the quote mentions is important in that we realize our context and relationship to these 2000 year old texts. Just my humble observation.

Paidion said:
In introducing His New Law in Matthew 5, Jesus contrasted His commands with those of the Mosaic Law.
That is all well and good. But Jesus was totally the fulfillment of said law, not a contrast. A new covenant was established through Christ, and though we here and now tend to pooh pooh the OT actions of YHWY GOD, there is both reason and love involved there. ;)

As I am posting this Steve says :
But the biggest question remains which is that God doesn't stop evil although he could therefore evil must serve a greater purpose then the pain it causes. This conclusion won't win a popularity contest but in reality it is a better explanation that mans free will prevents God's intervention.
I tend to agree. :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby DaveB » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:55 pm

Chad, for me it would be unthinkable that Jesus would contradict God. But His re-interpreting a scripture to give it the correct meaning is not questioning God. It's showing how the Bible is to be understood.
The way I see it. Don't want to get into a never-ending dispute about it, though. :D
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Why God Seldom Intervenes in Atrocites and Natural Disasters

Postby Paidion » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:05 pm

Hi Steve, you wrote:But the biggest question remains which is that God doesn't stop evil although he could therefore evil must serve a greater purpose then the pain it causes.


Yes, that's a common view. But it doesn't make sense to me. Every day since Jesus died and was raised (as well as before that), there have been thousands of atrocities committed horrible tortures, rapes of little girls, senseless murders... I don't have to enumerate them; you see them reported daily in the news. God could stop them all. But He seldom stops any of them. People say He has a deeper purpose in "allowing" them. Surely, He doesn't "allow" them in the sense of giving his permission. Yet, it is obvious that He usually does nothing to prevent them.

There are also natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. that destroy many people. Again He seldom intervenes.

What "greater purpose" could God possible bring about by means of "allowing" all of these disasters and atrocities? And why does He never reveal what those "greater purposes" are? I do believe that God often brings good OUT OF such disasters, but I disbelieve that He causes or allows these disasters for the purpose of bringing about a greater good. Surely He has the power to bring about a good thing without those disasters and atrocities occurring.

We are getting into the age-old "problem of pain" here. This problem has been debated by philosophers for centuries. The "problem of pain" is the following.

1. God is all-loving so that He WISHES to prevent all the pain and death that results from human atrocities and natural disasters.
2. God is all-powerful so that He COULD prevent all the pain and death that results from human atrocities and natural disasters.
3. God usually does nothing to prevent all the pain and death that results from human atrocities and natural disasters.
4. So God must have a deeper purpose in allowing all the pain and death that results from human atrocities and natural disasters.
5. God does not reveal that deeper purpose.
6. There is no evidence of a deeper purpose.

This problem has led some people to conclude one of the following:

1. God is not all-loving.
2. God is not all-powerful.
3. God does not exist.

I do not conclude any of these three.

Here is my thinking:

In the case of human atrocities, I think the free-will explanation suffices. If God prevented people from doing some things, they would not have free will. But God wants people to submit to Him and become righteous of their own free wills. God does not force people to submit or become righteous. If He did, then we would not be human, created in the image of God (with a free will); we would be a race of robots.

In the case of natural disasters, I think that God has created a good earth that functioned beautifully and that He pronounced "good."
However, after Adam and Eve sinned, nature fell along with humanity. If God intervened very often, natural events would not be consistent, so that we wouldn't be able to trust natural laws. For example, suppose a person slipped and began to fall over a cliff. If God caused him to settle slowly to the bottom like a feather in order to save his life, then gravity would be inconsistent, and we would never know how, or when, or if, it was going to operate.
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: 4010
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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:08 pm

DaveB wrote:Chad, for me it would be unthinkable that Jesus would contradict God. But His re-interpreting a scripture to give it the correct meaning is not questioning God. It's showing how the Bible is to be understood.
The way I see it. Don't want to get into a never-ending dispute about it, though. :D


At the bottom line we need to say:

The God of the OT and His laws are what we need to adhere to:
OR
The God of the OT loves his creation and sent His son so that we can continue our way of living. Which I think He knew was going to happen from the start.

But it is a life of continual progress and God's Spirit is involved.

Just my humble opinion. :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby steve7150 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:31 pm

What "greater purpose" could God possible bring about by means of "allowing" all of these disasters and atrocities? And why does He never reveal what those "greater purposes" are? I do believe that God often brings good OUT OF such disasters, but I disbelieve that He causes or allows these disasters for the purpose of bringing about a greater good. Surely He has the power to bring about a good thing without those disasters and atrocities occurring.







Actually the view that God uses evil for a noble purpose is quite uncommon, in fact it's the fastest way to lose support. It's much more pleasant and palatable to say "God is Love" and has nothing to do with evil. But reality suggests evil is prevalent and that God chooses not to stop it is at the heart of life and scripture and reality. Man's free will is violated often because evil itself violates the free will of victims, or one man's free will often violates another man's rights. With 7 billion people on earth the hard fact is that not everyone can have freewill. There are just to many people with competing interests.
I can think of one reason God allows evil, which is evil creates contrast and we learn by contrast. We contrast love with hate, good with evil, light with darkness,knowledge with ignorance, mercy with cruelty,compassion with indifference etc. God could just tell us about this but he made us to learn through experience and experience is how we learn best.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:02 pm

steve7150 wrote:Unless Jesus explicitly contradicted the cause of these events which the OT claimed was God then a dispassionate reader must assume that Jesus had no dispute with this conclusion.

The operative words here steve being your… “a dispassionate reader” — without the underscore of a driving agenda there can be no other rational reached. The reality of textual variance in no way affects the veracity of Scripture in terms of doctrine; however, the excision of Scripture does produce dodgy doctrine.

The claim of the ‘Paidion theory’ (PT) that the likes of… Moses, Samuel and Ezekiel were able to give FALSE and misleading nation-guiding directives in the name of Yahweh is highly improbable on a number of fronts…

    1) If Moses’ words/actions in misrepresenting Yahweh (Num 20:10-12) wrought upon himself the ban of entrance into ‘the land of Promise’ you would have expected long before that event for Moses to have likewise ALREADY been severely dealt with for giving FALSE prophecy in the name of Yahweh… but no, nothing.
There is NO WAY such can fall prey to the convenient excuse and be summarily swept aside as per… God does not want to contravene man’s free will. Sorry, but no!

    2) Why would Jesus appeal to… “Moses and the prophets” as a means of warning and guidance to Israel (Lk 16:31) IF he, Jesus, did not have FULL confidence and trust in the veracity of Moses and the prophet’s directives for Israel?
Even IF any of the harsh and brutal OT directives were of Moses’ or Samuel’s or Ezekiel’s own resources such can STILL be sanctioned by Moses and thus God (as He remained silent) in terms of Jesus’ own assessment of Israel’s own conduct where *divorce was permitted* even though that was not God’s original intent AND YET such is sanctioned due to their own hard-heartedness (Mk 10:4-6). THAT in itself says something about how Israel’s actions affected others.

    3) The likes of these texts et al Deut 13:1, 5; Jer 23:25-26, 32 make the PT highly suspect in terms of what a false prophet in Israel could expect from Yahweh and certainly the likes of Moses, Samuel nor Ezekiel knew anything of it.
The mounting evidence continues to mitigate against this theory and thus far answers to legitimate examination seem hesitant-to-zip.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Eaglesway » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:54 pm

Why would Jesus appeal to… “Moses and the prophets” as a means of warning and guidance to Israel (Lk 16:31) IF he, Jesus, did not have FULL confidence and trust in the veracity of Moses and the prophet’s directives for Israel?


Absolutely. In a process of elimination geared towards explaining paradoxes between the OT and the new, eliminating the veracity of the testimonies of Moses(law), Samuel(judges) and the Ezekiel(prophets) creates huge problems in regarding the testimonies of Jesus and the apostles as reliable, so such an argument cannot stand in the face of simple logic. Whatever the resolution of that controversy is in the manifold wisdom of God- it cannot be found down that path.

Jesus is quoting from the OT(Psalm 82:6) when He said, "...and the scriptures cannot be broken".
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby Paidion » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:11 am

Why would Jesus appeal to… “Moses and the prophets” as a means of warning and guidance to Israel (Lk 16:31) IF he, Jesus, did not have FULL confidence and trust in the veracity of Moses and the prophet’s directives for Israel?


Jesus appealed to Moses and the prophets very selectively. He NEVER quoted those parts that depicted God as one who destroyed nations, killed individuals for minor offences such as the case of Uzzah steading the ark so that it wouldn't fall over. He NEVER quoted the parts that depicted God as the one who instructed the Hebrews to stone to death disrespectful sons, or to cut off women's hands without mercy, under particular circumstances.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”


This was Jesus' MAIN appeal—that Moses and the Prophets, and the Psalm writers wrote about HIM, and that their prophecies about HIM must be fulfilled!
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: 4010
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 DaveB » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:35 am

Someone here called that approach the "Jesus Hermeneutic" i.e., recognizing that the chief worth of the OT to us in the Church age is the testimony of Christ therein.

As Channing puts it:

"We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives."
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby qaz » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:33 am

DaveB, IIRC Brad Jersak describes his treatment of the OT as a Jesus hermeneutic. You should read his book "A More Christlike God" if you want to learn more. It was a light, easy read for me.
qaz
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby DaveB » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:11 pm

Thanks for the tip qaz. :D
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
DaveB
 
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: William Barclay on Hebrews 6:4-6

Postby davo » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:07 pm

Paidion wrote:He NEVER quoted those parts that depicted God as one who destroyed nations, killed individuals for minor offences such as the case of Uzzah steading the ark so that it wouldn't fall over. He NEVER quoted the parts that depicted God as the one who instructed the Hebrews to stone to death disrespectful sons, or to cut off women's hands without mercy, under particular circumstances.

That Jesus didn’t refer to the whole gamut of OT scriptural incidents ONLY indicates that such was not germane to the point being made at hand, e.g., Jesus stops midpoint in his reading of Isaiah 61 in Lk 4:18-19 not mentioning “the day of vengeance of our God” BECAUSE Jesus was announcing the BEGINNINGS of *the gospel* to Israel, i.e., “your God reigns” aka ‘Israel your exile is over!’ He does however pick up the prophetic dirge against Israel later in his ministry when he sees the continual hard-heartedness of his people and weeps accordingly at the despair of their coming end, as per Lk 19:41-44 where Israel was blind to their *day of visitation* that was made for peace, BUT in rebellion would end in calamity with Rome — Jesus was a prophet and he saw these things.

All that said… that Jesus didn’t refer to the whole gamut of OT scriptural incidents in no way cheapened, lessened nor abrogated “The Scriptures” (OT) in his eyes or level of regard and respect for such. The reality was however, Moses’ way (OC) was death whereas Jesus’ way (NC) was life… hence it was BETTER (2Cor 3:7-11; Heb 7:22; 8:6) and enduring (Heb 8:13).
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion on Evangelical Universalism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests

cron