Dake Bible Discussion BoardLevel of understanding - mind of Christ

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:01 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:12 pm
I can think of many examples where people disagree, so does that mean one of them doesn't have the mind of Christ, or both of them?
If we are talking about biblical things...then one or the other is not of God.
How can one man say, for instance, that baptism isn't necessary for salvation when Jesus said "he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?
Isn't he determined to be "not of Christ" by what the bible says?
I think this is where your understanding of this presents a challenge for you.
?
I believe that Christ died and rose again from the dead which indicates my salvation.
Elaborate, please.
If you believe that then you are saved as well.
The devil believes that, as it is truth. (James 2:19)
I don't feel that he is saved.
Besides, Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized "shall" be saved. (Mark 16:16)
"Shall be" indicates a future time.
Our salvation won't be assured till the final judgement determines if our names are in the book of life. (Phil 4:3, Rev 3:5, 13:8)
That would mean we are both saved and of Christ, yet we disagree on some things.
Including this...
If I believe the immersion into Christ has nothing to do with water, in your view it does have to do with water because of how you perceive the scriptures. We differ on this, so according to your opinion, I am not of Christ by what the bible says because of your understanding of what the bible says.
What other form of "immersion" replicates burial? (Rom 6:5, Col 2:12)
The gift of the holy Ghost was given after repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38)
Only Cornelius' situation differed from Peter's pronunciation on the day of Pentecost. And even that "special" occasion was immediately followed by baptism in water.
The "occasion" was the acceptance of the Gentiles to salvation, to the astonishment of the Jews that accompanied Peter. (Acts 10:45)
I would think you could see the dilemma and the danger in holding the position that those that disagree with your view of the bible are not of Christ.
Has the doctrine you adhere to allowed you to be a non-sinner?
Isn't freedom from sin the proof of anything that has a bearing on Christ?



User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Hill Top wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:00 pm
I would think you could see the dilemma and the danger in holding the position that those that disagree with your view of the bible are not of Christ.
Has the doctrine you adhere to allowed you to be a non-sinner?
Isn't freedom from sin the proof of anything that has a bearing on Christ?
Read Romans chapter 10 for insight on how to be saved. Jesus saved us from many things, sin being one of them. Saints are not sinners, however because a saint is a not a sinner does not make them 100% correct in all doctrine. If that were the case then Paul would have never had a problem with any of the saints he wrote to and you and I would be in full agreement on all points.

From your position and understanding of scripture the one of us that is wrong is not "of Christ" which is your challenge. That appears to be the camp you place me in for my disagreement with some of your doctrines because to you I don't hold your "biblical view" of baptism. That is why I discontinued the baptism discussion with you.

You don't place yourself in the camp of possibly being wrong about any of your doctrines, but being wrong does not mean you are not of Christ. I accept the fact that we may both be wrong about many things when it comes to doctrines. For me what is paramount is growing in Christ.

BTW, James 2:19 does not state that the devil believes that Jesus died and rose again from the dead. You can make that assumption, yet you may be incorrect. That is something you have added to the text. Here is what the text does state - James 2:19 (KJV) 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


Word up!

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:58 am
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:00 pm
I would think you could see the dilemma and the danger in holding the position that those that disagree with your view of the bible are not of Christ.
Has the doctrine you adhere to allowed you to be a non-sinner?
Isn't freedom from sin the proof of anything that has a bearing on Christ?
Read Romans chapter 10 for insight on how to be saved.
I can only assume you are referring to verses 9 & 10...but do you know when and where this is applied?
When we are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" for the remission of sins.
Like Paul in Acts 22:16..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Just saying "I believe in Jesus and that he was raised from the dead" accomplishes nothing unless done in the correct circumstances.
Jesus saved us from many things, sin being one of them.
Saints are not sinners, however because a saint is a not a sinner does not make them 100% correct in all doctrine. If that were the case then Paul would have never had a problem with any of the saints he wrote to and you and I would be in full agreement on all points.
If they truly were "saints" they wouldn't be committing sins.
Growth in grace and knowledge is expected, but re-repenting should never need be mentioned about "saints".
From your position and understanding of scripture the one of us that is wrong is not "of Christ" which is your challenge. That appears to be the camp you place me in for my disagreement with some of your doctrines because to you I don't hold your "biblical view" of baptism. That is why I discontinued the baptism discussion with you.
If you say that your flesh was crucified with Christ, with the affections and lusts, without baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, I can't believe you.
You don't place yourself in the camp of possibly being wrong about any of your doctrines, but being wrong does not mean you are not of Christ. I accept the fact that we may both be wrong about many things when it comes to doctrines. For me what is paramount is growing in Christ.
Doubting what you "think" is from God is the opposite of having faith.
The doctrine is either worthy of defending unto death or it is wrong.
If it is from God, how can you doubt it?
BTW, James 2:19 does not state that the devil believes that Jesus died and rose again from the dead. You can make that assumption, yet you may be incorrect. That is something you have added to the text. Here is what the text does state - James 2:19 (KJV) 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
The devil wasn't sleeping when our Lord was crucified and rose from the dead.
He knows what happened.



User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Luchnia wrote: Jesus saved us from many things, sin being one of them.
Saints are not sinners, however because a saint is a not a sinner does not make them 100% correct in all doctrine. If that were the case then Paul would have never had a problem with any of the saints he wrote to and you and I would be in full agreement on all points.
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:26 pm
If they truly were "saints" they wouldn't be committing sins.
Growth in grace and knowledge is expected, but re-repenting should never need be mentioned about "saints".
Disagreeing with you does not indicate one is committing sin.
Luchnia wrote:You don't place yourself in the camp of possibly being wrong about any of your doctrines, but being wrong does not mean you are not of Christ. I accept the fact that we may both be wrong about many things when it comes to doctrines. For me what is paramount is growing in Christ.
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:26 pm
Doubting what you "think" is from God is the opposite of having faith.
The doctrine is either worthy of defending unto death or it is wrong.
If it is from God, how can you doubt it?
I disagree with your premise. Your doctrine is from your perception of what you have read and you have determined it is from God just like anyone else determines their doctrine is from God. Remember Peter's issue with eating the clean and unclean? Perfect example. Thinking that your doctrine is correct and from God does not make it so.


Word up!

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:45 pm
Luchnia wrote: Jesus saved us from many things, sin being one of them.
Saints are not sinners, however because a saint is a not a sinner does not make them 100% correct in all doctrine. If that were the case then Paul would have never had a problem with any of the saints he wrote to and you and I would be in full agreement on all points.
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:26 pm
If they truly were "saints" they wouldn't be committing sins.
Growth in grace and knowledge is expected, but re-repenting should never need be mentioned about "saints".
Disagreeing with you does not indicate one is committing sin.
Kinda depends on what the disagreement is about.
Luchnia wrote:You don't place yourself in the camp of possibly being wrong about any of your doctrines, but being wrong does not mean you are not of Christ. I accept the fact that we may both be wrong about many things when it comes to doctrines. For me what is paramount is growing in Christ.
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:26 pm
Doubting what you "think" is from God is the opposite of having faith.
The doctrine is either worthy of defending unto death or it is wrong.
If it is from God, how can you doubt it?
I disagree with your premise. Your doctrine is from your perception of what you have read and you have determined it is from God just like anyone else determines their doctrine is from God.
It is also from the results of adhering to it.
Remember Peter's issue with eating the clean and unclean? Perfect example. Thinking that your doctrine is correct and from God does not make it so.
It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.



User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Luchnia wrote:Remember Peter's issue with eating the clean and unclean? Perfect example. Thinking that your doctrine is correct and from God does not make it so.
Hill Top wrote:It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.
Ok, so the original doctrine of clean and unlcean was from God. Was Peter's error in understanding from God and was Peter a sinner because he misunderstood that it wasn't in effect anymore? After all, scripture indicats that Peter was in the wrong.


Word up!

Grandfather
Pray for Them which Despitefully Persecute You
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Grandfather »

Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:57 pm
It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.
At the time God showed Peter it wasn’t in effect anymore it, the eating of “unclean” foods had already been revealed to Peter. Remember Acts 10?

What you are proposing is a very dangerous position. It appears that you are holding that is a person is in ignorance he is acceptable to God, even the ignorance of not applying what God had shown him earlier.

You are also proving the point that one needs more than just the word of God. Peter was told these things were okay in Acts 10, but he need Paul to remind him of what the Lord had said.

Additionally, this passages shows that the Apostle Peter bent to the pressures of his audience.

So, was Peter saved or not at this point?



User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Grandfather wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:57 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:57 pm
It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.
At the time God showed Peter it wasn’t in effect anymore it, the eating of “unclean” foods had already been revealed to Peter. Remember Acts 10?

What you are proposing is a very dangerous position. It appears that you are holding that is a person is in ignorance he is acceptable to God, even the ignorance of not applying what God had shown him earlier.

You are also proving the point that one needs more than just the word of God. Peter was told these things were okay in Acts 10, but he need Paul to remind him of what the Lord had said.

Additionally, this passages shows that the Apostle Peter bent to the pressures of his audience.

So, was Peter saved or not at this point?
Well put and great question. Would Peter's mis-alignment confine him to hell? I await HT's answer.

I agree that HT's proposition is a dangerous one, because it makes requirements of salvation of others based upon his understanding of scripture which cannot allow another view. An example being his understanding of water baptism. In other words if you are not baptized in water you are not saved and never was saved which ultimately you will find out in the end.

God was faithful to show Peter what was needed, yet can you imagine had Peter not heeded the detailed information he was given? I think back to Paul indicating that Peter was "clearly" in the wrong. I cannot help but think that Peter would simply not have heeded this had it been given by just anyone, thus the need for getting a vision and even getting it twice so he would get it.

Peter's need for tough learning kind of makes you think of how a "thick" or "hard" head can prevent understanding. We will never understand what we are not willing to be open our minds to seek after.


Word up!

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:48 am
Luchnia wrote:Remember Peter's issue with eating the clean and unclean? Perfect example. Thinking that your doctrine is correct and from God does not make it so.
Hill Top wrote:It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.
Ok, so the original doctrine of clean and unlcean was from God.
Was Peter's error in understanding from God and was Peter a sinner because he misunderstood that it wasn't in effect anymore? After all, scripture indicates that Peter was in the wrong.
What "error"?
That previously unclean meats could now be eaten by Jews?
How can something be an error when the whole Jewish group of believers still adhered to it? (Acts 21:20)
For something to be a sin it has to be the result of temptation, lust, and enticement. (James 1:13-15)
Can abstaining from eating bacon, or bugs, fit all of those categories?

You will have to post where it is written that Peter was in the wrong, regarding eating clean and unclean creatures.
I'm not ready to accuse thousands of Jews of sin because they didn't yet know that their old Law was no longer to be enforced.
Do you think the Messianic Christians of today are sinners? (Though I have no idea of how much of the Mosaic Law they still cling to.)
I get the idea that they still follow the dietary laws, but I don't know about circumcision.

Another episode of lack of "knowledge" is Peter's refraining from eating with the Gentiles when visiting Jews showed up in Galatia.
Many do accuse Peter of sin for that "dissimulation".
I don't.



Grandfather
Pray for Them which Despitefully Persecute You
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:51 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Grandfather »

I am surprised by the lack of understanding of this passage found in Gal 2.

Peter was enjoying himself eating with the Gentiles. He, Peter, stopped eating with them when Paul arrived. Peter hypocrisy (of himself living life a gentile, eating unclean foods) caused even Barnabas to be led astray. As Paul wrote: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14)

So, Hiltop, you asked what error? The lie of hypocrisy that caused others to do the same.
You stated: For something to be a sin it has to be the result of a temptation, lust, and enticement. Well, Peter drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Gal 2:12)
You wrote: "Many do accuse Peter of sin for that "dissimulation". I don't" - I do not believe anyone here accused him of dissimulation but of hypocrisy. He stopped eating because of fear, not respect.



Post Reply