meaning of Lord?

Show me where I have taken any Scripture out of context.

Semantics! They have lost fellowship with the Lord. If you quarrel with a friend, and no longer feel at ease with him, you are not "in fellowship" with him. And you won't be until your problem is resolved. The same is true with the Lord.

You are just playing a game of semantics. Just try it. You will be chastised by the Lord. He will never leave you, that is true. But you won't be in fellowship with him either. You won't have the freedom to go right before his throne of grace until that sin is cleared up.

If you study the Book of Hebrews, that is the sin that the author was dealing with--backsliding Jewish Christians who were thinking of returning to the OT Covenant. Think about it? Who would leave our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ with all the daily blessings he provides us with, and want to return to an old system with frail human priests that must stand and offer daily sacrifices. Which system has the greater benefit? And yet these Christians were at the point of going back. Why? Persecution had gotten them so discouraged they were backslidden and on the verge of going back to Jerusalem where the OT system of worship was still being practiced.

That is a nice story, but where do you get it from. Not the Bible. Where do you get this "programed into thinking they are saved," business? Who taught you that? Either a person is saved or he is not. And a saved person can sin; and if he does sin he can lose fellowship, but not salvation.
"If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me."
That is a loss of fellowship.
Sin breaks our fellowship with God everytime.
We need to restore it by confession of sin. It is the only way.

There is no verse in the Bible that teaches that.

 

So me the verse that says a Christian can lose fellowship. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I did. I expounded an entire passage of Scripture for you. Then I got a terse one-liner, which was kind of rude.

It was here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1766382&postcount=48

 

Like I said you took scripture out of context and twisted it. No Christian can lose their fellowship wihtthe Lord.

 

And I challenged you: what Scripture did I take out of context? Show me one? Refute what I posted. Otherwise it is true that a believer can lose their fellowship as I demonstrated in my post, for you cannot refute it.

 

No a believer cannot lose fellowship with the Lord. I point you back to my previous posts.

 

Please answer the question on # 54 concerning this discussion!

 

hamartia
a) to be without a share in
b) to miss the mark
c) to err, be mistaken
d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

 

You did give one answer. I can summarize it in a few words. It is "No a believer cannot lose fellowship with the Lord." (Repeated a half dozen times in different ways). You accused me of taking Scripture out of context but when challenged you can't show me what Scripture I have taken out of context. So you really haven't answered my post have you?

 

A few posts ago in this thread I challeneged the posters to go back to 1 John and see what John saw as the context for the word "sin" in his first epistle.

No one bothered... Too bad, for the context of "sin" in John's letter makes a huge difference as to how one interprets what else is said.

John intended that we see his context for "sin" to be indeed a "broken relationship." When his epistle is read in this fashion it begins to make sense. He sees the broken relationships, both horizontal and vertical as our sin against man and God and the man who says he has no "sin" is a liar...

 

.
Show me where it says a believer can lose fellowship.

 

No John is not deailing with a broken relationship. He is dealing with the saved in contrast to the lost.

 

I highly recommend you go back and re-read the epistle.

Not that you are completely wrong, you are not, but there is a deeper component that John has in mind than mere salvation. He sees salvation AS relationship with God.

 

You never seen anything I have written suggest salvation is not a relationship. That is my whole point to fellowship..

 

Then why come at me and suggest that what I am saying about 1 John is wrong?

 

Because your statement about the intent or what the book is about is incorrect. The book was written to combat the false teachings of the Gnostics while encouraging the saints of their salvation and uses a lost saved comparison using examples to make its point. Second it was written in hopes of convincing anyone who held those gnostic views to come to Christ as confessing sinners.

 

Again, I think that you have held to the surface meaning of the epistle, but like I asked above, have failed to define John's use of the word "sin" which "in context" he uses to denote a broken relationship, not the more typical (read into) uses of the term.

While John may indeed be responding to Gnostic influences in the congregation (which is assumed by commentators, he never says so), he is doing so from a particular mindset, and that is what I am getting at.

 

Good!
Now to the next question...

was John addrressing the saved believers in local Church, or to the unsaved there in church that he was writting to?

He started out addressing this letter to the Christians, just curious to when in the text he changed to talking about the unsaved there?

 

I was responding to what I thought you were saying, but perhaps I did not understand you. Perhaps you are saying something different then what I thought. If you are saying in the letter of 1 John the writer is indeed dealing with the Gnostic problem and while dealing with it he is showing that the Gnostics have a broken relationship to God compared to a saved person who has a relationship that is not broken I agree. However I think calling the lack of relationship with God a broken one is not the best way to explain it.
On the other hand if you are suggesting that the book deals with Christians who can end up in a broken relationship then I will say that is absolutely incorrect. No place does 1 john deal any such thing.

 

Okay, so you cannot see that John defines "sin" as broken relationship.