Scriptural Discussion - 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

RAIDER

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
8,299
Reaction score
109
Points
63
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?
 
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?
At face value, this passage decares us as positionally secure.

We 'are washed', not we 'have washed ourselves'....

I see ths passage as a direct affirmation of the positional nature of our Salvation.

 
Sunshine who uses that passage  as their proof text to show over can lose their salvation ought to just stop. There are several much more convincing passages since a)this one doesn't even address the topic and b)others seem pretty explicit on this point.

Add for what this passage is saying, the first step would be to make sure people are using the same meaning for words and phrases like salvation,  kingdom of heaven,  sanctification  and justification or else you'll just end up talking past each other.
 
prophet said:
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?
At face value, this passage decares us as positionally secure.

We 'are washed', not we 'have washed ourselves'....

I see ths passage as a direct affirmation of the positional nature of our Salvation.

The "lose your salvation" crowd uses the text in this way - If you are saved you have been washed and sanctified from these sins.  If you commit these sins again you are lost.  They would say that a Christian who becomes a drunkard is no longer saved.
 
RAIDER said:
prophet said:
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?
At face value, this passage decares us as positionally secure.

We 'are washed', not we 'have washed ourselves'....

I see ths passage as a direct affirmation of the positional nature of our Salvation.

The "lose your salvation" crowd uses the text in this way - If you are saved you have been washed and sanctified from these sins.  If you commit these sins again you are lost.  They would say that a Christian who becomes a drunkard is no longer saved.

I am one who believes that one can possibly lose his salvation but not for these kinds of specific actions. I believe Jesus taught that our salvation is contingent on if we administer grace to others as we have been administered grace. I believe that also those who once experienced grace can lose it by deliberately denying the faith altogether. The OSAS crowd believes that if one becomes an atheist after decades of Christianity, he was never saved to begin with. I tend to believe that we can choose to "disown" God.

The loss of salvation isn't a balance between good and bad, living right vs. sinning, but rather willful choice to love God and love others, even in the realization we cannot do that perfectly. God remembers our frames that we are but dust. :)
 
Could this post be subtly suggesting that Jack Hyles and/or Jack Schaap were never saved? They clearly were fornicators and adulterers. If Hyles/Schaap were never saved, then they are also deceivers. Interesting post. :-\
 
no value said:
Could this post be subtly suggesting that Jack Hyles and/or Jack Schaap were never saved? They clearly were fornicators and adulterers. If Hyles/Schaap were never saved, then they are also deceivers. Interesting post. :-\

It has nothing to do with either Hyles or Schaap.  What is your input on the OP?
 
RAIDER said:
no value said:
Could this post be subtly suggesting that Jack Hyles and/or Jack Schaap were never saved? They clearly were fornicators and adulterers. If Hyles/Schaap were never saved, then they are also deceivers. Interesting post. :-

It has nothing to do with either Hyles or Schaap.  What is your input on the OP?

But the man crush!
 
rsc2a said:
RAIDER said:
no value said:
Could this post be subtly suggesting that Jack Hyles and/or Jack Schaap were never saved? They clearly were fornicators and adulterers. If Hyles/Schaap were never saved, then they are also deceivers. Interesting post. :-

It has nothing to do with either Hyles or Schaap.  What is your input on the OP?

But the man crush!

Good point.  His FFF name sure fits him.  :)
 
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?

I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. Verse 11 offers the greatest hope. It gives a glimpse of light to those in the darkest of lifestyles! "And such WERE some of you." Have you ever seen anything more beautiful in all your life? I was in that group, but Christ washed me, sanctified me, and justified me!

Also, this passage completely rebukes the likes of Steven L. Anderson and his ilk, who boldly proclaim their hatred for homosexuals and claim that they ought to be executed per Mosaic Law. Paul said, "Some of you in Corinth were abusers of yourselves with mankind (homosexual), but not any more. Christ gave you victory and washed you clean!"

What a wonderful passage of Scripture, jam-packed with mercy, grace, and hope!
 
RAIDER said:
rsc2a said:
RAIDER said:
no value said:
Could this post be subtly suggesting that Jack Hyles and/or Jack Schaap were never saved? They clearly were fornicators and adulterers. If Hyles/Schaap were never saved, then they are also deceivers. Interesting post. :-

It has nothing to do with either Hyles or Schaap.  What is your input on the OP?

But the man crush!

Good point.  His FFF name sure fits him.  :)

Thank you. I wear it with honor.
 
Boomer said:
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?

I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. Verse 11 offers the greatest hope. It gives a glimpse of light to those in the darkest of lifestyles! "And such WERE some of you." Have you ever seen anything more beautiful in all your life? I was in that group, but Christ washed me, sanctified me, and justified me!

Also, this passage completely rebukes the likes of Steven L. Anderson and his ilk, who boldly proclaim their hatred for homosexuals and claim that they ought to be executed per Mosaic Law. Paul said, "Some of you in Corinth were abusers of yourselves with mankind (homosexual), but not any more. Christ gave you victory and washed you clean!"

What a wonderful passage of Scripture, jam-packed with mercy, grace, and hope!
Abusers of themselves with mankind doesn't mean "homosexual".
It could include some of their practices, but it also incldes the likes of strait:
Bikers-you know the kind of biker, too
Extreme Sports Athletes
The recently popular prank shows where people see how much abuse a human can take, like MTV's Jackass, are a perfect example.
Professional Wrestlers? Exact fit.

So, there is no reference to sexuality in that phrase
like: 'lie with'.
Just because the word "mankind" shows up in this passage, doesn't make it interactive sexuality.

Hence: "abusers of themselves"
Certainly we live in a culture that can grasp this concept:
Emo
Cutters
Druggies
Tatooists
Branders
Piercers

We aren't under OT Law
We aren't Israel
But, at one time, 17 States in our union had the death penalty  for Sodomy. 
Any rational civilization is built on strong family units and sees adultery and Sodomy as threatening to its survival.
And any civilization ,that historically embraced homosexuality, fell into all manner of debauchery and perversion and decayed from within.

God reiterated in Romans 1 His view, and I, for one, am not opposing Him on it.

 
prophet said:
Boomer said:
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?

I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. Verse 11 offers the greatest hope. It gives a glimpse of light to those in the darkest of lifestyles! "And such WERE some of you." Have you ever seen anything more beautiful in all your life? I was in that group, but Christ washed me, sanctified me, and justified me!

Also, this passage completely rebukes the likes of Steven L. Anderson and his ilk, who boldly proclaim their hatred for homosexuals and claim that they ought to be executed per Mosaic Law. Paul said, "Some of you in Corinth were abusers of yourselves with mankind (homosexual), but not any more. Christ gave you victory and washed you clean!"

What a wonderful passage of Scripture, jam-packed with mercy, grace, and hope!
Abusers of themselves with mankind doesn't mean "homosexual".
It could include some of their practices, but it also incldes the likes of strait:
Bikers-you know the kind of biker, too
Extreme Sports Athletes
The recently popular prank shows where people see how much abuse a human can take, like MTV's Jackass, are a perfect example.
Professional Wrestlers? Exact fit.

So, there is no reference to sexuality in that phrase
like: 'lie with'.
Just because the word "mankind" shows up in this passage, doesn't make it interactive sexuality.

Hence: "abusers of themselves"
Certainly we live in a culture that can grasp this concept:
Emo
Cutters
Druggies
Tatooists
Branders
Piercers

We aren't under OT Law
We aren't Israel
But, at one time, 17 States in our union had the death penalty  for Sodomy. 
Any rational civilization is built on strong family units and sees adultery and Sodomy as threatening to its survival.
And any civilization ,that historically embraced homosexuality, fell into all manner of debauchery and perversion and decayed from within.

God reiterated in Romans 1 His view, and I, for one, am not opposing Him on it.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" translates the original ἀρσενοκοῖται. That word means homosexuals. Let's look at some sources.

1.  Strong's Concordance
        --arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
        --Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
        --Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
        --Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.

2.  HELPS Word-studies
        --733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, "a male" and 2845 /koítē, "a mat, bed") – properly, a man in bed with another man; a 
            homosexual.

3.  Thayer's Lexicon
      --ἀρσενοκοίτης, ἀρσενοκοιτου, ὁ (ἄρσην a male; κοίτη a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite:
          1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.

*1Timothy 1:10 translates this same word "them that defile themselves with mankind." There is no possible way that this word can mean anything other than homosexuality.

Let us look at how some other English translations treat 1 Corinthians 6:9.

(ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

(NIV)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

(NASB)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,


**A quick study of the original language reveals that Christ offers hope to homosexuals. I praise God for this, and I have had the opportunity to read a few testimonies written by former homosexuals who described their utter hopelessness without Christ and the victory He gave them.
 
Boomer said:
I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

I appreciate your thoughts.  I actually lean toward your interpretation.  I wonder how long the prodigal son "strayed".  I wonder if his lifestyle was characterized by any of these sins?
 
RAIDER said:
Boomer said:
I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

I appreciate your thoughts.  I actually lean toward your interpretation.  I wonder how long the prodigal son "strayed".  I wonder if his lifestyle was characterized by any of these sins?

What I wonder is what would have happened if the prodigal died in the world and never returned. He never would have reaped the rewards or received the grace of his father because of his initial rebellion and refusal to return.
 
RAIDER said:
Boomer said:
I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

I appreciate your thoughts.  I actually lean toward your interpretation.  I wonder how long the prodigal son "strayed".  I wonder if his lifestyle was characterized by any of these sins?

I do not believe that the prodigal son parable is meant as a definitive teaching on soteriology. Instead, the prodigal son is but the third illustration of one point. What was the point? To understand the point, we must see why Jesus gave the parable. Jesus spoke this parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son because the Pharisees and scribes said this:
    (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

The purpose of the parable was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their attitude toward sinners was opposed to God's attitude. Jesus used this parable to vindicate His practice of not shunning people who were known sinners. So the point is that God loves these sinners that the Pharisees shun, and that God is seeking to redeem them (find the lost).
    --So God is the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.
    --God is the woman seeking the one lost coin.
    --God is the father who receives back the lost son.

In the final illustration of the point (That God seeks the lost and the Pharisees attitude is opposed to Him), Jesus drops the hammer on the Pharisees and reveals the true application of the whole parable. What is that application?
    --The main application is that the Pharisees are like the eldest son. The parable of the "Prodigal Son" is not even about the prodigal son.
        It is about God . . . and the Pharisees. The Lost son is no more important to the point than the lost coin.
    --Jesus said all of those things to say one big thing. He said, "I'll eat with publicans and sinners if I want to, because I'm doing my Father's
        will . . . seeking the lost. You Pharisees hate to see God seek the lost because you think you are righteous and you look down on them."

Now all parables are illustrations, and even Jesus' illustrations have limits. They show the main point, but do not always match every detail of real life perfectly.
      --Example: In the second illustration, the person seeking the lost is a woman.
      --If we try to understand biblical doctrines from the minute details of illustrations Jesus employed, we will be led astray. For instance,
        we could take one minute detail of this parable and say that Jesus taught that God is a woman.
      --Because of this danger, I do not believe that we should seek to understand salvation on the basis of one minute detail of Jesus'
        parable (that detail being the lost son).

You make a fair point, RAIDER. You lean toward the "lifestyle" interpretation, but then this prodigal son nags the back of your mind. I'm simply saying that a minute detail of one of Jesus' illustrations should not overrule the clearer doctrinal teaching of another passage of Scripture.
 
Boomer said:
prophet said:
Boomer said:
RAIDER said:
1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Those that believe you can lose your salvation use these as some of their "proof verses".  What say ye?

I believe that all these sins listed refer to a lifestyle rather than a single incident. For instance, a true believer may sin in one of these ways and still be a Christian. A true believer may be overcome by temptation and steal something. That does not forfeit his salvation. I do believe, however, that if a professed believer's lifestyle is characterized by any of these things, then we may know that he is not a Christian.

This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. Verse 11 offers the greatest hope. It gives a glimpse of light to those in the darkest of lifestyles! "And such WERE some of you." Have you ever seen anything more beautiful in all your life? I was in that group, but Christ washed me, sanctified me, and justified me!

Also, this passage completely rebukes the likes of Steven L. Anderson and his ilk, who boldly proclaim their hatred for homosexuals and claim that they ought to be executed per Mosaic Law. Paul said, "Some of you in Corinth were abusers of yourselves with mankind (homosexual), but not any more. Christ gave you victory and washed you clean!"

What a wonderful passage of Scripture, jam-packed with mercy, grace, and hope!
Abusers of themselves with mankind doesn't mean "homosexual".
It could include some of their practices, but it also incldes the likes of strait:
Bikers-you know the kind of biker, too
Extreme Sports Athletes
The recently popular prank shows where people see how much abuse a human can take, like MTV's Jackass, are a perfect example.
Professional Wrestlers? Exact fit.

So, there is no reference to sexuality in that phrase
like: 'lie with'.
Just because the word "mankind" shows up in this passage, doesn't make it interactive sexuality.

Hence: "abusers of themselves"
Certainly we live in a culture that can grasp this concept:
Emo
Cutters
Druggies
Tatooists
Branders
Piercers

We aren't under OT Law
We aren't Israel
But, at one time, 17 States in our union had the death penalty  for Sodomy. 
Any rational civilization is built on strong family units and sees adultery and Sodomy as threatening to its survival.
And any civilization ,that historically embraced homosexuality, fell into all manner of debauchery and perversion and decayed from within.

God reiterated in Romans 1 His view, and I, for one, am not opposing Him on it.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" translates the original ἀρσενοκοῖται. That word means homosexuals. Let's look at some sources.

1.  Strong's Concordance
        --arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
        --Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
        --Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
        --Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.

2.  HELPS Word-studies
        --733 arsenokoítēs (from 730 /árrhēn, "a male" and 2845 /koítē, "a mat, bed") – properly, a man in bed with another man; a 
            homosexual.

3.  Thayer's Lexicon
      --ἀρσενοκοίτης, ἀρσενοκοιτου, ὁ (ἄρσην a male; κοίτη a bed), one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite:
          1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10.

*1Timothy 1:10 translates this same word "them that defile themselves with mankind." There is no possible way that this word can mean anything other than homosexuality.

Let us look at how some other English translations treat 1 Corinthians 6:9.

(ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

(NIV)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

(NASB)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,


**A quick study of the original language reveals that Christ offers hope to homosexuals. I praise God for this, and I have had the opportunity to read a few testimonies written by former homosexuals who described their utter hopelessness without Christ and the victory He gave them.
I'm sorry.

I'm guilty of sidetracking this into what I knew would become a Versions debate.

Since we debate those issues ad nauseam here, I will refrain from dragging this out.
Now back to the O.P.'s intent.
 
prophet said:
God reiterated in Romans 1 His view, and I, for one, am not opposing Him on it.

The main point of Romans 1 is not homosexuality. The main point there is idolatry. The gross immorality mentioned in that passage is but a side-effect of what the idolaters did in verses 21-23. They didn't like the true, holy, and righteous God, so they invented gods of their own . . . gods who would accommodate their sinful lifestyles. When they did this, "God gave them up . . ." (v. 24).

For the rest of the chapter, Paul places emphasis on the sin of immorality (especially homosexuality, etc.), but he also mentions several other sins. The point is that when men persist in idolatry, God gives them up to that lifestyle and all the consequences of it. As long as they persist in idolatry, they will be lost in those consequences.

What are the consequences of idolatry?
  --Immorality and homosexuality (vv. 24-27)
  --Unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whispering, backbiting,
      hating God, spite, pride, boasting, inventing evil things, disobedience to parents, lack of understanding, promise breaking, lack of
      natural affection, implacability, unmerciful (vv. 29-31).

Many people like to point to verse 28 and say that a homosexual cannot be saved because God gives homosexuals over to a "reprobate mind." Such an interpretation is foreign to this passage (and verse 28). The verse states the reason that God gave them over to a reprobate mind, and that reason is not homosexuality. What was the reason?
  --"They did not like to retain God in their knowledge"
  --In other words, they persisted in their idolatry, trying to rid their minds of their accountability to the true, righteous God.

I have often heard people point to Romans 1 as their proof-text that homosexuals cannot be saved, but why do they believe homosexuality is the only sin on this long list that is unpardonable? Look at the list! I never hear anybody point to Romans 1:28 and say . . .
  --PROUD people cannot be saved and are "worthy of death" (v. 32)
  --Disobedient children cannot be saved
  --Those guilty of envy cannot be saved
  --etc. (You get the point?)

In Romans 1, idolatry is the problem. God says, "All those who persist in their idolatry will be given over to a reprobate mind. Here's what they are going to do in that state. They are worthy of death."

Some Christians try to change what God says here. They WANT God to say, "All homosexuals will be given over to a reprobate mind. I'm going to mention a host of other sins, but only the homosexuals are worthy of death and cannot be saved."

      Why do they change the interpretation of God's Word this way?
            --Because homosexuality is the sin that truly turns the stomach. We can live with a little pride, disobedience, envy, etc. We can
                understand how God could pardon those sins. But homosexuality? God could never forgive THAT sin. It's disgusting!

      What should be our attitude about this?
              --We should understand that all the sins on this list are 1,000,000x more disgusting to our Holy Father than homosexuality is to us.
              --We should acknowledge that God forgives any sin when a man repents of his idolatry and turns to Christ in faith.
              --We should pray for and seek to share the gospel with any sinner . . . without regard to what kind of sins he is guilty of!
              --We should strongly rebuke anyone who calls himself a Christian and shows un-Christlike hatred toward sinners.
 
Boomer said:
I do not believe that the prodigal son parable is meant as a definitive teaching on soteriology. Instead, the prodigal son is but the third illustration of one point. What was the point? To understand the point, we must see why Jesus gave the parable. Jesus spoke this parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son because the Pharisees and scribes said this:
    (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

The purpose of the parable was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their attitude toward sinners was opposed to God's attitude. Jesus used this parable to vindicate His practice of not shunning people who were known sinners. So the point is that God loves these sinners that the Pharisees shun, and that God is seeking to redeem them (find the lost).
    --So God is the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.
    --God is the woman seeking the one lost coin.
    --God is the father who receives back the lost son.

In the final illustration of the point (That God seeks the lost and the Pharisees attitude is opposed to Him), Jesus drops the hammer on the Pharisees and reveals the true application of the whole parable. What is that application?
    --The main application is that the Pharisees are like the eldest son. The parable of the "Prodigal Son" is not even about the prodigal son.
        It is about God . . . and the Pharisees. The Lost son is no more important to the point than the lost coin.
    --Jesus said all of those things to say one big thing. He said, "I'll eat with publicans and sinners if I want to, because I'm doing my Father's
        will . . . seeking the lost. You Pharisees hate to see God seek the lost because you think you are righteous and you look down on them."

Now all parables are illustrations, and even Jesus' illustrations have limits. They show the main point, but do not always match every detail of real life perfectly.
      --Example: In the second illustration, the person seeking the lost is a woman.
      --If we try to understand biblical doctrines from the minute details of illustrations Jesus employed, we will be led astray. For instance,
        we could take one minute detail of this parable and say that Jesus taught that God is a woman.
      --Because of this danger, I do not believe that we should seek to understand salvation on the basis of one minute detail of Jesus'
        parable (that detail being the lost son).

You make a fair point, RAIDER. You lean toward the "lifestyle" interpretation, but then this prodigal son nags the back of your mind. I'm simply saying that a minute detail of one of Jesus' illustrations should not overrule the clearer doctrinal teaching of another passage of Scripture.

It is interesting to note that we have a lost sheep and a lost coin.  Jesus immediately goes into the third parable and the popular interpretation is that the prodigal was not lost but rather :"backslidden".  Could it be possible that all three were lost? 
 
RAIDER said:
Boomer said:
I do not believe that the prodigal son parable is meant as a definitive teaching on soteriology. Instead, the prodigal son is but the third illustration of one point. What was the point? To understand the point, we must see why Jesus gave the parable. Jesus spoke this parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son because the Pharisees and scribes said this:
    (Luke 15:2) And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

The purpose of the parable was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their attitude toward sinners was opposed to God's attitude. Jesus used this parable to vindicate His practice of not shunning people who were known sinners. So the point is that God loves these sinners that the Pharisees shun, and that God is seeking to redeem them (find the lost).
    --So God is the Shepherd seeking the one lost sheep.
    --God is the woman seeking the one lost coin.
    --God is the father who receives back the lost son.

In the final illustration of the point (That God seeks the lost and the Pharisees attitude is opposed to Him), Jesus drops the hammer on the Pharisees and reveals the true application of the whole parable. What is that application?
    --The main application is that the Pharisees are like the eldest son. The parable of the "Prodigal Son" is not even about the prodigal son.
        It is about God . . . and the Pharisees. The Lost son is no more important to the point than the lost coin.
    --Jesus said all of those things to say one big thing. He said, "I'll eat with publicans and sinners if I want to, because I'm doing my Father's
        will . . . seeking the lost. You Pharisees hate to see God seek the lost because you think you are righteous and you look down on them."

Now all parables are illustrations, and even Jesus' illustrations have limits. They show the main point, but do not always match every detail of real life perfectly.
      --Example: In the second illustration, the person seeking the lost is a woman.
      --If we try to understand biblical doctrines from the minute details of illustrations Jesus employed, we will be led astray. For instance,
        we could take one minute detail of this parable and say that Jesus taught that God is a woman.
      --Because of this danger, I do not believe that we should seek to understand salvation on the basis of one minute detail of Jesus'
        parable (that detail being the lost son).

You make a fair point, RAIDER. You lean toward the "lifestyle" interpretation, but then this prodigal son nags the back of your mind. I'm simply saying that a minute detail of one of Jesus' illustrations should not overrule the clearer doctrinal teaching of another passage of Scripture.

It is interesting to note that we have a lost sheep and a lost coin.  Jesus immediately goes into the third parable and the popular interpretation is that the prodigal was not lost but rather :"backslidden".  Could it be possible that all three were lost?

I believe all three were indeed lost. The Pharisees were indignant that Jesus would receive publicans and sinners (lost people). In Jesus' corresponding parable, the "lost" sheep, coin, and son represent the lost people that Jesus seeks to find.

RAIDER, have you ever read "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller? It is a short book (150ish pages), and an easy read. The book is an exposition of the prodigal son parable. I encourage you to buy it and read it. You won't be sorry!
 
Back
Top