Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Agreement/disagreement With The Pastor


GraceSaved

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm not having trouble with salvation, the security thereof, fellowship, relationship with God or even backsliding. I'm having trouble with apostasy, the unpardonable sin and who commits the unpardonable sin. I know apostasy is not in the scripture but it is used to describe falling away just like the word rapture we use today is to describe the meeting in the air. I don't think backsliding is in there either but is a term we use to describe a believer who is living in sin, which I believe such a person is still saved.

OK...back to the Good Book...:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Here's a tongue twister...I believe a believer is a believer as long as the believer still believes. :-)

That is prOBably true if we are discussing Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, however not true when discussing my ever faithful and true savior Jesus who will never ever let me fall from His hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

One verse that means much to me in this context, Grace, is John 10:27-29 (okay, several verses :wink).

 

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

 

Isn't the believer himself a man (generally speaking)? If 'no man' can pluck a believer out of God's hand (salvation), then that means that I myself cannot pluck myself out of God's hand. Period.

 

I think a lot of people (including Calvinists and even some David Cloud adherents) get confused in this area because they confuse passages referring to sanctification with those of salvation. DaveW has given you some excellent responses in this area. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Scripture tells us that when we accept Christ as Savior, we become God's child, right?

 

John 1:12: "But as many as received him [Christ] to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

 

1 John 3:1: "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God..."

 

As children of our heavenly Father, we can disOBey Him, just as our earthly children disOBey us. Sometimes our children even disOBey to the point of saying things like "I hate you," "I wish you weren't my mother (father)", etc. etc.  And it hurts us greatly if they do so.  But does it change the fact that we are, indeed, their parent?  Absolutely not.  

 

In past years, I've heard of different kids who've "divorced" their parents - actually going to court and getting the divorce.  Did that change the fact that those parents were still their parents? Of course not.  A court might terminate parental rights, they might grant a child a divorce (such stupidity), but once that child is born, parents are parents, even if the child dies.

 

Now, I realize those 2 paragraphs aren't scripture, but they are apropos, because God calls us His children. He calls Himself our Father.  Once we are born into His family, we become His children - not by what we've done, but by what He's done (same as physical parents...the child had nothing to do with his birth). Of course, people need to realize they are sinners and in need of Christ and turn to Him before salvation and thus is a bit different than physical birth.

 

But even Christ gave an earthly example to show the relationship between God the Father and His children.  The prodigal son is often used as a story to talk about a lost person coming to salvation.  But that isn't what it's about at all.  It is a picture of one of God's children going his/her own way.  And suffering the consequences of the foolishness of that.  

 

As the son wasted himself in riotous living, the father waited for him to come home.  How do we know this?  Because Luke 15 tells us that when the son was "yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him"

 

The backslidden son had come home.  With the right attitude - knowing that he had sinned against his father and wasn't worthy to be called a son anymore.  But what did the father do?  He put a ring on his finger, shoes on his feet, and a rOBe on him - all things to show he was, indeed, a son.

 

That son had chosen to walk away from his father.  But he never ceased being a son.  And so it is with a person who is truly saved - they might walk away fro the Father, but they don't cease being a son.  The Holy Spirit will work to draw that child back and when said child comes to himself, as the prodigal did, and head home to the Father, He will meet him with forgiveness.

 

 

Grace, here is a good article on the book of Jude. Jude condemned apostates, and this does a good jOB of explaining what is meant.  Hint: it's not talking about Christians who choose to unbelieve.  :icon_smile:

 

http://bible-truth.org/Jude.html

 

 

Here's just a portion (it's too long to insert totally into a post):

 

        In verses 5-7, Jude warned about past apostasies in the Old Testament and of its consequences. God judged those who turned from God's truth and He "in like manner" [verse 8] will continue to do so with all who reject Him today. Jude calls these false teachers "filthy dreamers." The word "filthy," correctly added by the King James Bible translators explains the state of these apostate teachers. It emphasizes the seriousness and degree of sin they commit. Paul describes them in Romans 1:21-23.

                The apostasy of these evil people was not done ignorantly. They fully knew who God is and yet in their pride elevated themselves over God and deliberately changed the glory of our uncorruptible God into one of corruption made in the likeness of sinful man.

  •                  "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Jude identifies them "dreamers," which means to see dreams or delusions. The word is a verb, meaning “being given over to sensuous dreamings.” 

  •  

  • The word used by Jude for “dreamers” is not the word that normally refers to a dream. Rather this word refers to a confused state of the soul, an abnormal imagination that holds the dreamer captive by ungodly sensuality. In other words, their teachings are the rooted in their delusional and sinful minds warped by sin. It is the mark of an apostate, as well as a cult, that their teaching is unrealistic and unnatural. [see 1 Cor. 2:14] How frustrating it is to try and explain God's truth to these blind and unhearing people. In their own feelings of pride in their intellect and knowledge reject God's truth off hand. The do not see themselves as sinners and will not repent and be saved. Thinking themselves to be wise, they make themselves to be fools and "blind guides." [see Matthew 23:16, 24]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Question 1: If a believer understands apostasy to mean a person who once believed but then chose to walk away from that belief (Believer #1), and another person understands apostasy to mean that the apostate never came to saving faith in the first place (Believer #2), is this reason to break fellowship? Can there still be unity by respectfully agreeing to disagree?

Question 2: If "Believer #1 maintains that belief, does that possibly mean they may have not come to saving faith themselves? Or, could it mean they have simply misinterpreted scripture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Question 1: If a believer understands apostasy to mean a person who once believed but then chose to walk away from that belief (Believer #1), and another person understands apostasy to mean that the apostate never came to saving faith in the first place (Believer #2), is this reason to break fellowship? Can there still be unity by respectfully agreeing to disagree?Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?



 

It means they do not fully understand Scripture and are not allowing the Spirit to guide them into that truth

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Question 1: If a believer understands apostasy to mean a person who once believed but then chose to walk away from that belief (Believer #1), and another person understands apostasy to mean that the apostate never came to saving faith in the first place (Believer #2), is this reason to break fellowship? Can there still be unity by respectfully agreeing to disagree?

Question 2: If "Believer #1 maintains that belief, does that possibly mean they may have not come to saving faith themselves? Or, could it mean they have simply misinterpreted scripture?

Question 1: There can be a little bit of unity, but not actually a lot because there is false doctrine on the one side,truth on the other.  We can agree to disagree, but there is not very much a basis for fellowship because salvation is the cornerstone of fellowship for the believer. It is what sets us apart and if we continually fellowship with someone who believes that a believer can become unsaved we will be influenced in that way (especially if we sit under preaching that teaches that...even subtly, which is how Jude describes the apostate's influence...).  

 

Question 2: Yes and yes.  If it is the first part of your question, they are apostate, teaching heresy that will deceive.  If it is b, they are basically going on how they have been taught to look at certain scriptures which underline their beliefs instead of looking at scripture as a whole and understanding the character of the God Who crafted salvation and promised eternal life to any who turns to Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe Amos 3:3 is saying two people cannot walk together unless they agree to. This is not saying to separate from someone who does not agree with us on issues. I don't know anyone who agrees on everything all the time. If that were the case, we would most likely, at most times, be walking alone. This is a call to unity, not separation. Mutually agreeing to walk together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 NT principle teaches that we have to be careful about those with whom we walk. There is no true unity if one party adheres to heresy.  We need to remember 2 Cor. 6:

 

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hat righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord..."

 

That doesn't mean we don't ever talk to those who believe heresy.  But we do not walk with them...because if we do, we are disOBeying scripture.  

 

Commentary on Amos 3:3

 

 

The design of these words is to show, that without friendship there is no fellowship, and without concord no communion; 

The verses I quoted above and other verses throughout the NT show that there can be no real friendship/fellowship/concord/communion with those who walk contrary to scripture.

 

 

And so it must be between men and men, that walk in a religious way; regenerate and unregenerate persons cannot walk together, there being no concord, ( 2 Corinthians 6:14 2 Corinthians 6:15 ) ; nor can all sorts of professors; they must agree in the way Christ, and in the fundamental principles of religion; and in worship, and the manner of it; and in all the ordinances of the Gospel, and the manner of administering them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes it does. "except they be agreed." Agreed to what? Walk together.

We do not have to agree in order to walk together even though as Christians we will agree on much and certainly we must agree on the authority of Scripture to take us further in our understanding of God’s truth. None of us have arrived yet in understanding of all things where we can demand agreement from others with us on all points. We must understand that a disagreeing believer should not automatically be equated with a disOBedient believer. A believer’s disagreement may be real but it may be with you or me and not with God and His Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The verse does not say "except they agree to walk together."

How can there be unity when one believes one thing and another believes something entirely different? 

Answer, there cannot be.  Amos 3:3 is speaking of likeminded people walking together.

I agree.

 

What fellowship does light have with darkness?

You cannot serve 2 masters.

etc. etc.

 

Websters defines Apostasy as:

1. renunciation or (abstention from, refraining from, going without, giving up) of a religious faith
2. abandonment of a previous loyalty
 
However, in this case you're taking a Biblical principle and trying to make a word out of it. If you're off with the definition any at all then the word you use is wrong. In either case, by it's own definition, apostasy still does not define a loss of salvation's security. When you do this you're trying to overrun God's way of doing things with man's way of thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...