Is there any significant difference in meaning

Originally posted by KellyJay
You take things out of context, and twist words to get them to push a
meaning only you want them to say. Sort of reminds me of how the
devil tempted Christ with God's words.
Kelly

Rajk999 does not mention you in the OP - he is merely asking opinion on
a very clearly worded OP.

Your problem is that you do not like answering questions - too much
thinking involved.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Between saying

1. "all sin has been covered by Christ", "sinners" do not get punished for their "sins" as long as they "belong to Him".

and

2. It is ok for those who belong to Christ to sin.

To me both statements sound like a 'get-away-from-sin free card'.

It would be nice if any responses are brief and to the point rather than the normal rambling and confused cut and pastes that are now common.

Um, yeah, clearly, someone doesn't quite get this "salvation" thing.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You answerd correctly as I would have.

The point about all of this is:

1. Pastors and preachers are very wrong to tell Christians are saved, simply because this is something they do not know for sure.

2. Change in heart is only known to God [and the man himself], and the proof that there is a change of heart is the good works from the Christian.

...[text shortened]... en the man has crossed some line [known only to God], beyond which there is no more forgiveness.

There is also...

Mark 3:29
New International Version (NIV)

29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
(Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV)

OK, here's my 'take' on this. The book of Hebrews is one of the Epistles of Paul, the man whose mission it was to evangelize the gentiles. So what's he up to in preaching to the Hebrews? They had had numerous prophets down through the ages; why should he have felt that they needed another one so close on after the appearance of Jesus to them?

Look at Heb. 3: 1-3: Paul is addressing people to whom he now feels bound, as if in brotherhood, and he says to them, "Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" ... God just sent you a prophet more worthy even than Moses whom you all reverence etc etc. Paul goes on in chapter 4 to unbraid the Jews for not having taken Jesus' message to heart: "the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Heb. 4:2). Chapter 6:1-3 adds some new things to be done by the Hebrews, who already had a very long list of things to be done (not to wear clothing made of two fibres, not to eat the flesh of various animals, to make sin offerings and burnt offerings and so on and so on); these new things to be done would have seemed strange to them: baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead...

And NOW Paul says to them in Heb.6:4-6 (I freely paraphrase here): 'listen, you've had umpteen prophets before this, you KNOW what you are to do, you're God's CHOSEN people, you've had warnings and signs and wonders (none of these blessings did the gentiles have)--now for Christ's sake, get on with it! This is your last warning, and if you screw it up this time, there's nothing left for you.'

I think it is about apostasy, for the whole of the Hebrew nation. Make any sense?

Originally posted by moonbus
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open sha ...[text shortened]... t for you.'

I think it is about apostasy, for the whole of the Hebrew nation. Make any sense?

I will have a look at this analysis. In the meantime there are a few other similar passages I quoted earlier which you should look at. I think you have to take all together to see what they mean. Christ, Paul and Peter all said similar things about sinning and expecting forgiveness over and over and over. There is an end to this rope. It does not last forever.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't agree with either of them.

Hopefully one isn't scripture!

neither are from scripture, but one for certain is a quote I read from another person on a different thread.

Originally posted by moonbus
A knotty theological problem. There were two schools of thought, historically:

1) Christ's sacrifice cleansed mankind of sin, collectively, once and for all time.

2) Christ's sacrifice reset the counter to zero at that time, but mankind continue to need redemption in each and every generation. Hence, the continuing need for the Body of Christ in the Wo ...[text shortened]... ankind (part of his corrupt nature, as a result of the fall of Adam). Both sides agreed on that.

There are more than those two schools of thought. One being Christ's gift is for the taking, but we still have to receive it.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

1. "all sin has been covered by Christ", "sinners" do not get punished for their "sins" as long as they "belong to Him".

Well your statement has a couple of problems, IMO.

1. I agree that all sin is covered by Christ, and his blood. This happens when somebody accepts the sacrifice that Jesus made for them on the cross as an atonement ...[text shortened]... now get a license to continue in sin, we need to turn.


Not short, but not rambling either.

Excellent, you have a beautiful faith!

In your statement, "as far as punishment..." , separation from God is punishment in itself.

Something to ponder for you, the Father's separation from His Son, Jesus. While He hung on the cross.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You take things out of context, and twist words to get them to push a
meaning only you want them to say. Sort of reminds me of how the
devil tempted Christ with God's words.
Kelly

no he doesn't.

but if you want to think of that, meaning using phases for your own purpose without reguarding the rest of the scripture, what of the snake handlers, what of 144,000, what of the claim of tithing, or divorce.

Let us go the other way, the things scripture does ask of us, that most don't do. "do this in remembrance of me" (breaking bread and the wine) , give unto Ceasor what is Ceasor's, (obeying the law of the land)

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Since you were saved, have you sinned?

this is why we must continue to repent, daily

Originally posted by moonbus
"There is no man or manmade organisation who can decide who gets into God's Kingdom."

The doctrine is clear on this point: getting into heaven depends solely upon God's grace.

"If sinfulness is a general tendency of mankind ... and if you also tell sinful man that Christ covers all his sins and his sins would not count against him, is that not in your ...[text shortened]... eing "covered." It surely cannot mean that they are erased or undone, as if they never happened.

(good works) being insignificant. Absolutly wrong. Everything is significant to God.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Some Christians sins are indeed covered by Christ and there is no doubt about that.

Now your turn. ARE ALL CHRISTIANS SINS COVERED?

What I asked you was, "Are you saying no man or woman's sins are covered by Jesus Christ? "

So you accept Jesus covers sins to those that belong to him. I agree with
you Jesus covers sins of those that belong to Him.

You seem to want to turn this into who is saved or not, feel free to have
that conversation with someone else. We can at least agree that Jesus
takes care of the sins of those that belong to him. If you want to suggest
Jesus does not take care of the sins that belong to Him, well I guess we
can have that conversation too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What I asked you was, "Are you saying no man or woman's sins are covered by Jesus Christ? "

So you accept Jesus covers sins to those that belong to him. I agree with
you Jesus covers sins of those that belong to Him.

You seem to want to turn this into who is saved or not, feel free to have
that conversation with someone else. We can at least agree t ...[text shortened]... ake care of the sins that belong to Him, well I guess we
can have that conversation too.
Kelly

I would like some clarification what it means to say that a sin is "covered". To cover something is to hide it from view, to make it invisible. A blanket covers something, but the something is still there.

Certainly Christ's sacrifice did not stop men from sinning. So what does it mean to say that he "covered" men's sins?

Originally posted by moonbus
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open sha ...[text shortened]... t for you.'

I think it is about apostasy, for the whole of the Hebrew nation. Make any sense?

Granted that in this passage in Hebrews, the writer was addressing the Jews and dealing with specific aspects of Jewish behaviour.

However, I dont think there is any significant special treatment between Jews and Gentiles since Christ died. The death of Christ brought an end to all differentiation between all people. All people are one under God and all are treated and judged with the same yardstick of righteousness. There are many passages that I can quote to show this and I can give a long dissertation on this, but Im not one for long-winded explanations. So keeping it simple :

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

I think the fact remains that there is a point of falling away which a Christian can reach which will cause him to lose his eternal life. There are Christians who turn away and become atheists, murderers, child abusers, thieves etc etc, and they do not repent or ask for forgiveness.

Also dont forget that the Hebrews passage is not isolated. There are several like it. Here are a few others"

1. ... if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. (Hebrews 10:38 KJV)

2. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. (2 Pet 2:20-21)

3. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23 KJV)

4. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (Hebrews 10:26 KJV)

"I dont think there is any significant special treatment between Jews and Gentiles since Christ died. The death of Christ brought an end to all differentiation between all people. All people are one under God and all are treated and judged with the same yardstick of righteousness."

Yes and no. Gentiles were not expected to keep the thousands of rules and regulations which pertained to Jewish life (not to eat certain kinds of flesh, not to wear clothes woven of two kinds of material, etc etc). In this sense, a different yardstick was applied, and a more stringent one (in terms of daily practice), to the Jews.

Remember also that belief in an afterlife was not universal among Jews at that time; the Jews were ancestor worshippers (hence the long lists of who begat whom in the OT). The existence of a soul which survived bodily death was a matter of dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. So belief in the resurrection would have been hard for many Jews to accept.

I think the warning about there being a point of no return (where the promise of eternal life is withdrawn) applies to those who have heard the Word and later recanted or fallen away from it. This was certainly the point of much OT prophecy: because so many previous Jewish prophets had not been heeded in their own times, there came more and more prophets afterwards to strengthen the Jews' resolve in the original Covenant. One gets the feeling that Yahweh was losing patience with his chosen people.

Would there be a point of no return for an individual Christian who fell away from the Word? As many commentators and historians have noted, Christianity individualizes the message originally revealed to the Jewish nation as a whole. I.e., the message ceased to be specific to one ethnic group. So it might be assumed, by analogy with the OT passages which clearly refer to the Jewish nation as a whole, that, in a Christian context, some point of no return might apply to an individual too.

"it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." This is about apostasy: better to die a pagan (never having heard the word) than to die a reverted pagan. That's how I read it.