Guess I'm not welcomed

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Amen and amen @Man_in_the_Middle. It’s scripture and I don’t disagree with any of it.

But, the aspect of discipline and order in an organized body to preserve its integrity and spiritual health is not the same as me judging their soul. That’s the judge and jury I’m talking about.

If I encounter someone, even a close family member who professes to know our Savior, yet is lax in his obedience, or even perhaps falls into a life or lifestyle that is not pleasing, I’m not equipped to make the judgment on his attachment to eternal salvation. All of the above still applies. I will approach him, counsel him and pray for him to repent and continue in the ways of the faith, but I don’t get to make the death certificate. That’s not in my job description.

None of us are and praise Yah for it or all of us would have someone, somewhere that would condemn us quickly.
I know that we are not the judge for salvation but we are to judge within the assembly for the sake of the sheep.

 

[Mark C]

If I encounter someone, even a close family member who professes to know our Savior, yet is lax in his obedience, or even perhaps falls into a life or lifestyle that is not pleasing, I’m not equipped to make the judgment on his attachment to eternal salvation.

Honestly, so what? My opinion does not, and cannot, effect his "eternal salvation."

But that is NOT, even remotely, why some of us "talk about His instruction." He says it's about blessing, about a better life, a better society. That's the point Shaul was making, and @Man_in_the_Middle echoed. If I stand by quietly while my neighbor is robbed, invaded, and mobs take his life - we are all diminished. I will stick up for his Right to take another wife, should they choose. And, yeah, that even goes for things we aren't permitted to talk about here.

 

[Mojo]

Honestly, so what? My opinion does not, and cannot, effect his "eternal salvation."

But that is NOT, even remotely, why some of us "talk about His instruction." He says it's about blessing, about a better life, a better society. That's the point Shaul was making, and @Man_in_the_Middle echoed. If I stand by quietly while my neighbor is robbed, invaded, and mobs take his life - we are all diminished. I will stick up for his Right to take another wife, should they choose. And, yeah, that even goes for things we aren't permitted to talk about here.

But it was implied earlier in the thread that a persons actions, or inactions meant they were not truly of the faith.

I could be wrong, but that’s the overall impression I was getting. I’m not going back in the thread. I’m about to leave in my vehicle soon.

If I misinterpreted, then I guess we’re all in agreement.

 

[Mark C]

But it was implied earlier in the thread that a persons actions, or inactions meant they were not truly of the faith.

That seems to be precisely what Yakov/James is 'implying' in 'show me your faith by your works.'

The essence of Hebraic thought patterns, according to my own reading of Scripture (and "let this mind be in you, which was also in [Him]") is that 'thought precedes action,' and the essence of the word "shema" [as in "Shema Israel..."] is "hear AND OBEY."

Yahushua tells the parable of the two sons, one who said he'd obey, and didn't - the other who later changed his mind and did.*

We can NOT know, or judge, the heart. I don't sweat it.

But we can -- and are TOLD -- to judge the fruit.

My opinion of someone's salvation status doesn't matter so far as their ultimate state. But it matters a great deal to me, to my house, and whether or not I trust, make contract with, or deal with such a person. It even matters to whether or not a community, or a society, is stable and survives.

======================
* Edit: Matthew 21:28 on... The lesson He teaches is quite relevant. [I'm going to put that note in my message this morning on Pharaoh, 'free will' - or not - Romans 9 - and parsha "Vayeira" - Exodus 6 through 9 and the first of the Plagues.]

 

[steve]

1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

But it was implied earlier in the thread that a persons actions, or inactions meant they were not truly of the faith.

If I believe that a man’s fault is that his understanding of theology is wrong and he may come up short at the final judgment, I take my responsibility to restore him very seriously. I’m not judging his salvation, just the possibility that his salvation could be affected.
Restoring him would mean doing my dead level best to convince him of the error of his understanding.

Edit: this was written before I saw Mark’s post.

 

[Heavens Declare]

I did. The case was made.

You keep going as if you didn't.

 

[Mojo]

1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

If I believe that a man’s fault is that his understanding of theology is wrong and he may come up short at the final judgment, I take my responsibility to restore him very seriously. I’m not judging his salvation, just the possibility that his salvation could be affected.
Restoring him would mean doing my dead level best to convince him of the error of his understanding.

Edit: this was written before I saw Mark’s post.

Then we all agree.
So let it be written
So let it be done.

 

[Otto]

Proverbs 3:6
In all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

Isaiah 55:9
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Acts 13:10
and Paul said (being full of the Holy Spirit), “O child of the devil and enemy of all righteousness, you are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery! Will you never stop perverting the straight ways of the Lord?

Isaiah 51:7
“Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, You people in whose heart is My law: Do not fear the reproach of men, Nor be afraid of their insults.

Religious teachers have been perverting the straight paths of YHVH, and doing violence to his Word long before the Catholic Church; and the many daughters that came out of her. The fruit of this is his people are eventually lead astray, and the land is then given over to its enemies that wish to loot, destroy, and kill. Kind of like what’s beginning to happen in the western world.

We know there is grace. We know grace can be taken away. Just read the parable of the unforgiving debtor. He was full of grace, but then lost it. Grace can be removed, and what’s left is you paying the price for your own sins. You don’t want to be removed by the covering of the Messiah - who washes away all sin.

One thing - especially if someone is a teacher - because it’s obvious throughout the scripture - and James repeats it himself (teachers are under heavier scrutiny) - don’t do violence to his Word - then fall back on false interpretations of Paul’s letters. Peter himself warns that Paul’s letters can be easily twisted - to one’s own destruction.

All of his Word is profitable for correction, righteousness, and rebuke (2 Tim 3:16). We can’t just take the parts that we like, and re-write the parts we don’t like. That’s doing violence to the Word. The new covenant is the Torah written in your heart. The Torah says do not add or take away from the written word.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Isa 59:18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

There is only one that will be able to judge in the end. That said, we are instructed to judge within the body. If we see wanton sin, we are to go to them and sort it out. This cannot be permitted to go unaddressed. If wanton sin is ignored, the body begins to believe that God will also ignore it.

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


This to show that indeed we are called to judge in a righteous way...

Bad theology is not sin.

 

[Mark C]

Bad theology is not sin.

How bad? Fake gods? Is one enough? How about idols to claim to REPRESENT YHVH? (It didn't seem to work when Aaron tried it, but a WHOLE lotta folks died for THAT 'bad theology.')

 

[steve]

Bad theology is not sin.

You must have your private interpretation for either the word theology, or the word sin.
Because that statement is more than ridiculous.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You must have your private interpretation for either the word theology, or the word sin.
Because that statement is more than ridiculous.

Who defines sin? The answer is God of course. So find me the sin of bad theology. It shouldn’t be hard.

@Mark C has claimed that idolatry is the sin of bad theology but I would contend that idolatry is the sin of idolatry. I tend towards a hyper-literalism though.

So chapter and verse, where is the sin of bad theology?

And just to save us some time; remember that the vast majority of scripture is designed for the individual to apply in their own life. When we’re talking about the sin of heresy (or bad theology) you’re talking about scripture you can apply in someone else’s life.

This is what has constantly been missed in this conversation; people want to claim the authority to apply scripture on other people’s lives instead of taking on the obligation of applying in in their own lives.

 

[Mark C]

@Mark C has claimed that idolatry is the sin of bad theology but I would contend that idolatry is the sin of idolatry. I tend towards a hyper-literalism though.

Idiocy. Idolatry is the worship of fake gods. "Theos" = gods. There's One Real, the others are fakes. If you don't understand the meaning of simple words, your "hyper-literalism" is nothing but self-delusion.

There, I saved everybody a lot of wasted time responding to nonsense.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Idiocy. Idolatry is the worship of fake gods. "Theos" = gods. There's One Real, the others are fakes. If you don't understand the meaning of simple words, your "hyper-literalism" is nothing but self-delusion.

There, I saved everybody a lot of wasted time responding to nonsense.

So you agree with me that idolatry is its own, clearly defined sin and not the sin of bad theology? So do you still claim that there is a sin of bad theology? And if so, where is it laid out him scripture with it’s definition and punishment?

 

[steve]

I’ll start with sin.
Sin being defined as disobedience to Yah.

 

[Mark C]

I don't 'agree' that Zec even knows the meaning of 'sin' - much less 'idolatry.' Or "theology". Or, evidently, even "logic."

 

[The Revolting Man]

I don't 'agree' that Zec even knows the meaning of 'sin' - much less 'idolatry.' Or "theology". Or, evidently, even "logic."

I’m not sure what your criticism is. I agreed that idolatry was a sin, its own sin, a clearly defined sin. If bad theology is also a sin then it should also be a clearly defined sin like idolatry is. That seems logical enough.

 

[Mark C]

"Idolatry" is about as good an example of "bad 'theology'" as you can find.

Isn't that clear enough?

 

[Mojo]

If bad theology is also a sin then it should also be a clearly defined sin like idolatry is. That seems logical enough.

I’ve got no real dog in this fight.

Am I understanding your overall point to be:

Consistency in our proposition that no man can bring of charge of “sin” to polygyny, we must be careful in how we use “logical” conclusions about sin? If it’s not explicitly written, we can’t give it an explicit designation?

 

[Mojo]

I’ll start with sin.
Sin being defined as disobedience to Yah.

I don’t see that definition in scripture.

I don’t like to build a doctrine on one verse, but it is the concept that most of us use to deflect from accusations that polygyny is sin. Sin is a transgression of established law.

“Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.”