Comments on: The Repentance Requirement

By: Dell Kimberly

Dell Kimberly — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:06:09 +0000

Doesn’t a debate have to have two sides participating for it to qualify as a debate?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:54:11 +0000

It’s implicit in 2 Pet 1 that we can know. We’re told to add love, and urged to have the virtue in increasing measure. We can obey that, and we can know that we have obeyed it.

We are also urged to grow in knowledge. But that’s only one aspect of growth, out of many. One person may grow faster in knowledge, while another may grow faster in love. Which one is “more saved?” Neither. It’s not our growth that saves us.

By: Dusty Chris

Dusty Chris — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:24:07 +0000

But doesn’t growth mean replacing ideas or construsts that no longer work or taking risks not previously taken (spiritually) to explore new avenues and expand your current repetiore? How does one know he or she is growing in spiritual graces? How do you know you are loving ‘more?’

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:20:23 +0000

I imagine I would name the same indicators that you would. For example, putting to death the works of the flesh, growing in the spiritual graces (2 Pet 1 etc), loving God more and loving people more, and showing both by your actions more. I can’t really quantify it. The wind blows where it wills and you can’t see it but you can see its effects.

By: Dusty Chris

Dusty Chris — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:14:56 +0000

I would like to get opinions from conservative and progressive brothers who frequent here. From your perspective, what does it mean to grow spiritually? Understand more? Experience more? Sin less? Something entirely different? What are the benchmarks of spiritual growth to you?

What do you think?

By: Bob Brandon

Bob Brandon — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:01:16 +0000

From reading the bulletins on the Fishinger and Kenny congregational website, Greg’s been getting over a serious medical situation and is resting at home.

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:58:47 +0000

Randy,

Phil and Greg have had other responsibilties to tend to, but the discussion will be continuing. As schedules firm up, we’ll announce the timing.

By: Randy Lucas

Randy Lucas — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:27:41 +0000

I hope we get a response to Todd’s post within the next couple of days because Monday will be two weeks since any of the principals participated.

By: Rich Wells

Rich Wells — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:56:28 +0000

Alan,

I appreciate you keeping me honest. The NIV actually uses the word ‘wrong’. The TNIV, a generally more progressive version of the NIV, changed the word back to ‘condemned’.

I accept that this is not a perfect ‘proof’ text by itself because of the translation issue. However, it should not be ruled out. There is a strong lesson here. We need to understand we can be wrong on a doctrinal issue and need correcting just like Peter.

The same word is used in 1 John 3:19-20 where it is clearly talking about heaven/hell issues. Here, we are comforted knowing that we shouldn’t feel overly guilty (condemn ourselves) for if we keep God’s commandments His mercy and grace will cover us.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:31:31 +0000

Rich wrote:

Paul, who received his words directly from the Holy Spirit (1. Cor. 2:13), intentionally chose the word ‘condemned’ to describe Peter’s situation at the time. I assume that is what Paul meant.

Careful now, Rich. Paul didn’t write in NIV English. he chose this word:

G2607
καταγινώσκω
kataginōskō
Thayer Definition:
1) to find fault with, blame
2) to accuse, condemn

So was he merely at fault, merely to blame, merely accused, or condemned in an eternal sense? The Greek certainly doesn’t conclusively demonstrate the latter. If anything, the better interpretation is the sense of the other three words. The primary meaning is 1), and that should be the interpretation unless context demands otherwise.