Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

Edited to add more information for posters:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Heb 10:25-26 (and surrounding if needed): What does it mean?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Heb 10:25-26 (and surrounding if needed): What does it mean?

    Heb 10:25-26 (and surrounding if needed): What does it mean?

    This is not a debate question. I'm only interested in CoC views. And my interest is to see if there are different views in the more hardline or sectarian CoC's versus the mainline CoC. So please state what position a view is coming from if you respond.

  • #2
    Interested or not, I'm going to tell you that this is not about the weekly assembly, per se'. But, that would be the typical Church of Christ take-away.

    Anyone who knows the central theme of the Book of Hebrews and its importance would not even bring up such minutiae.
    Law makes a demand; Grace makes a provision.

    Grace terrifies legalists.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by notreligus View Post
      Interested or not, I'm going to tell you that this is not about the weekly assembly, per se'. But, that would be the typical Church of Christ take-away.

      Anyone who knows the central theme of the Book of Hebrews and its importance would not even bring up such minutiae.
      I bring it up because I know the central theme.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's about the weekly assembly. I attend a right centered (not far right) COC.
        Avery

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by UncleAbee View Post
          It's about the weekly assembly. I attend a right centered (not far right) COC.
          Not sure talking about right, center, left, makes sense for worship doctrine designations. But I was raised in a very strict sectarian type COC, and what I always heard was "Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together" and that missing one Sunday morning service was "forsaking the assembly."

          However, when I looked closely at the KJV, I noticed they were misquoting, by accident I'm sure: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together"

          And I came to see that as making a difference. I.e. Its not about forsaking an assembly but the assembling, which means it translates into modern English like "not forsaking the assembling" = "not ceasing to assemble" not "not missing an assembly"

          So I'm wondering if perhaps more "mainstream" COC understands it the way I'm suggesting here.

          Then if you look in a more modern translation, you might find something like "not giving up meeting together" (NIV2011) (i.e. same as what I suggested above, "not ceasing to assemble")... I was thinking this traditional COC interpretation of compulsory attendance on pains of eternal torment might die out with larger acceptance of other translations (where the distinction between -ly and -ling is not necessary to be debated), yet I notice contrary to this comment by notreligious,

          Originally posted by notreligus View Post
          Interested or not, I'm going to tell you that this is not about the weekly assembly, per se'. But, that would be the typical Church of Christ take-away.
          most translations paraphrase it in line with the traditional sectarian COC view actually, so maybe many modern "translations" will buttress rather than kill off this view. For instance, HCSB "not staying away from our worship meetings" or TLB "Let us not neglect our church meetings"

          In other words, rather than a particular assembly, I think the author is saying "Don't lapse back into Judaism and stop going to church" not "never miss a Sunday service"....but I see an uphill battle for that interpretation in the COC. And looking at translations other than the NIV, in the way they paraphrase this, I think the traditional over-the-top COC view may be coming to a mainstream Protestant church near you, notreligious.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by davidbrainerd View Post

            Not sure talking about right, center, left, makes sense for worship doctrine designations. But I was raised in a very strict sectarian type COC, and what I always heard was "Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together" and that missing one Sunday morning service was "forsaking the assembly."

            However, when I looked closely at the KJV, I noticed they were misquoting, by accident I'm sure: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together"

            And I came to see that as making a difference. I.e. Its not about forsaking an assembly but the assembling, which means it translates into modern English like "not forsaking the assembling" = "not ceasing to assemble" not "not missing an assembly"

            So I'm wondering if perhaps more "mainstream" COC understands it the way I'm suggesting here.

            Then if you look in a more modern translation, you might find something like "not giving up meeting together" (NIV2011) (i.e. same as what I suggested above, "not ceasing to assemble")... I was thinking this traditional COC interpretation of compulsory attendance on pains of eternal torment might die out with larger acceptance of other translations (where the distinction between -ly and -ling is not necessary to be debated), yet I notice contrary to this comment by notreligious,



            most translations paraphrase it in line with the traditional sectarian COC view actually, so maybe many modern "translations" will buttress rather than kill off this view. For instance, HCSB "not staying away from our worship meetings" or TLB "Let us not neglect our church meetings"

            In other words, rather than a particular assembly, I think the author is saying "Don't lapse back into Judaism and stop going to church" not "never miss a Sunday service"....but I see an uphill battle for that interpretation in the COC. And looking at translations other than the NIV, in the way they paraphrase this, I think the traditional over-the-top COC view may be coming to a mainstream Protestant church near you, notreligious.
            In my COC Heb 11:25 means not missing the Sunday assembly. I would consider us to be closer to mainline. That was what the "right centered" was about. I agree with your take on it though. Heb 10:23 starts off discussing provoking one another to love and good works. The next vs (24) then goes on and asks us to not to neglect meeting. Why not neglect meeting? If you don't meet you can't encourage one another in good works. How can we encourage someone one if we never meet and talk with them? I don't see it talking about any particular assembly. I see it saying we should often meet together to encourage one another in good works. It's really a love statement. Unfortunately, we turn this statement on its head and promote fear. We take this verse and preach that "the Sunday assembly is commanded and if you miss you are hell bound."
            Last edited by UncleAbee; 08-19-17, 08:49 PM.
            Avery

            Comment


            • #7
              Not necessarily sure which description to give other than I have grown up my entire life in what I call "traditional" coC. It has always been taught to me to mean "you cannot miss Sunday service". However, I believe that it has always been taught wrong. Someone posted it meant "not ceasing to meet" rather than "not missing service" and I agree 100% with that, and that it also the way I teach it when I preach a sermon on it or do a bible class about it. This is not the only piece of scripture that is misunderstood "traditionally" in the coC, and it all boils down to that word "tradition". It has been taught for years out of regurgitation rather than actual study and belief. Just teaching what they have always heard. Fortunately, I think we are seeing that type of thinking coming to an end.

              Comment


              • #8
                What's interesting here is the word for assembling, episynogoge. Used here in Hebrews 10:25 and in 2 Thessalonians 2:1. In both instances associated with the second coming of Christ:

                2 Thess 2:1 - Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

                Hebrews 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching
                One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by davidbrainerd View Post
                  Heb 10:25-26 (and surrounding if needed): What does it mean?

                  This is not a debate question. I'm only interested in CoC views. And my interest is to see if there are different views in the more hardline or sectarian CoC's versus the mainline CoC. So please state what position a view is coming from if you respond.
                  1) I do not agree with the concepts of there being "hard-line" or "sectarian" church of Christ. Either one has the truth or he does not. Christ equated God's word to truth, (Jn 17:17) there is 'one faith" Eph 4:4,5 and Paul preached "the" faith, Gal 1:23 not 'a' faith. Truth or the faith is the body of information found within the NT that presents one coherent, consistent thought and not a comedy of contradictions and errors. Either one has the truth the faith or one does not. In mathematics, there is a truth that 1+1=2. I accept that truth yet accepting that truth does not make me 'hard-line' 'sectarian' or 'liberal'. 1+1=2 is not open up to varying degrees of truth or interpretation. One either accepts this mathematical truth or they do not. Likewise the truth, the bible is not open to various degrees of interpretation, one either accepts 'the truth' as is or they reject it. If mathematics were open to each man's interpretation then math would be useless having no standard of truth. There are religious people who want to open bible truth up to various degrees of interpretation and in doing so make it worthless as the paper it is printed upon. There are many, many people who want nothing more than to undermine the bible's authority.


                  2) Heb 10:25 is reference to the Christian's coming together as God brought them together on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7.

                  3) Heb 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

                  "For" being an explanatory preposition giving meaning to what was just said in verse 25, that being forsaking the assembly being a willful sin. "The truth" here again referring to God's word that is not open to varied interpretation no more than 1+1=2 is opened to varying degrees of interpretation. One either accepts the truth as it is or one rejects it. This means if 2 people are in disagreement then one of them is wrong, possibly both are wrong, but impossible both can be right. "Agreeing to disagree" only leaves one wrong. "That's just your interpretation" still logically leaves one wrong. God has set up a judgment day where the ones that accepted and did the truth as it is (Matt 25:21) will be separated from those that thought they were doing as the bible says (Matt 7:22-23). No varying slants or degrees with the truth.
                  1 Jn 3:10......... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.........

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Seabass View Post

                    1) I do not agree with the concepts of there being "hard-line" or "sectarian" church of Christ. Either one has the truth or he does not. Christ equated God's word to truth, (Jn 17:17) there is 'one faith" Eph 4:4,5 and Paul preached "the" faith, Gal 1:23 not 'a' faith. Truth or the faith is the body of information found within the NT that presents one coherent, consistent thought and not a comedy of contradictions and errors. Either one has the truth the faith or one does not. In mathematics, there is a truth that 1+1=2. I accept that truth yet accepting that truth does not make me 'hard-line' 'sectarian' or 'liberal'. 1+1=2 is not open up to varying degrees of truth or interpretation. One either accepts this mathematical truth or they do not. Likewise the truth, the bible is not open to various degrees of interpretation, one either accepts 'the truth' as is or they reject it. If mathematics were open to each man's interpretation then math would be useless having no standard of truth. There are religious people who want to open bible truth up to various degrees of interpretation and in doing so make it worthless as the paper it is printed upon. There are many, many people who want nothing more than to undermine the bible's authority.

                    Except the Bible is a very long book so to equate the whole thing to 1+1=2 is asinine.

                    Originally posted by Seabass View Post
                    2) Heb 10:25 is reference to the Christian's coming together as God brought them together on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7.
                    ok

                    Originally posted by Seabass View Post
                    3) Heb 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"

                    "For" being an explanatory preposition giving meaning to what was just said in verse 25, that being forsaking the assembly being a willful sin. "The truth" here again referring to God's word that is not open to varied interpretation no more than 1+1=2 is opened to varying degrees of interpretation. One either accepts the truth as it is or one rejects it. This means if 2 people are in disagreement then one of them is wrong, possibly both are wrong, but impossible both can be right. "Agreeing to disagree" only leaves one wrong. "That's just your interpretation" still logically leaves one wrong. God has set up a judgment day where the ones that accepted and did the truth as it is (Matt 25:21) will be separated from those that thought they were doing as the bible says (Matt 7:22-23). No varying slants or degrees with the truth.
                    I can agree that it means only one thing. Yet you did not say what it means.

                    Or did you try to tell us what it means? You said "that being forsaking the assembly being a willful sin." Sorry, but no translation says that. You are applying the traditional misreading of the KJV which does NOT say "the assembLY" but "the assembLlNG." (which I discussed above already) I know already, therefore, that your interpretation will not be right because it has to change the wording.
                    Last edited by davidbrainerd; 09-18-17, 02:34 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by davidbrainerd View Post

                      Except the Bible is a very long book so to equate the whole thing to 1+1=2 is asinine.



                      ok



                      I can agree that it means only one thing. Yet you did not say what it means.

                      Or did you try to tell us what it means? You said "that being forsaking the assembly being a willful sin." Sorry, but no translation says that. You are applying the traditional misreading of the KJV which does NOT say "the assembLY" but "the assembLlNG." (which I discussed above already) I know already, therefore, that your interpretation will not be right because it has to change the wording.
                      The length of the bible makes it no less than truth and the fact still remains two people cannot disagree over the math truth of 1+1=2 and both be right no more than there can be disagreement over a bible truth yet both be right.

                      From the limited resources I have, "assembling" is an adverbial noun. The word itself has no frequency attached to it, but refers simply to carrying out the act of coming together. As I stated in my last post Hebrews 10:25 is reference to the Christians coming together as God brought them together on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7.

                      1 Jn 3:10......... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.........

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Seabass View Post

                        The length of the bible makes it no less than truth and the fact still remains two people cannot disagree over the math truth of 1+1=2 and both be right no more than there can be disagreement over a bible truth yet both be right.

                        From the limited resources I have, "assembling" is an adverbial noun. The word itself has no frequency attached to it, but refers simply to carrying out the act of coming together. As I stated in my last post Hebrews 10:25 is reference to the Christians coming together as God brought them together on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7.
                        The point still remains that this doctrine really can only survive among KJV Onlyists who have that phrase "the assembling" to twist into "the assembly." This is why even a CoC preaher that uses a more modern translation switches back to the KJV when preaching on this (if they hold the traditional false doctrine of slavation by perfect church attendence). So much for simple math.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by davidbrainerd View Post

                          The point still remains that this doctrine really can only survive among KJV Onlyists who have that phrase "the assembling" to twist into "the assembly." This is why even a CoC preaher that uses a more modern translation switches back to the KJV when preaching on this (if they hold the traditional false doctrine of slavation by perfect church attendence). So much for simple math.
                          I am not a KJV onlyist.

                          No perfect attendance is required, for people can and do have legitimate reason for not attending. The problem occurs when a person CAN be in attendance yet chooses not to.

                          Look at the word "forsaking". I cannot find where the idea of permanency is necessarily attached to the word itself. Jesus prayed to God (MT 27) why has thou forsaken Me. Yet God did not permanently forsake Christ. So here is the problem: some people get the idea that as long as they do not permanently forsake services but attend once in a blue moon, then they are following Heb 10:25.
                          To that I say HOG WASH.

                          If you have a spouse and you up and leave them to fend for their self for 6 months but then you show up for a day, then leave again for six months, then show up for a day and you continually habitually practice this, then technically you did not permanently forsake your spouse but your spouse will still feel forsaken abandoned and you did mistreat your spouse. You failed on your commitments to your spouse. Yet that same type of mistreatment, abandonment happens to the body of Christ when one just shows up once in a blue moon. They fail on their commitments to the church to "provoke unto love and to good works" among other things.

                          I do not see that the situation with these Hebrew Christians was one where they completely, permanently abandoned attending services, but were being warned that their habitual practice of missing would lead to apostasy. Therefore the need for the regular,consistent attendance in having fellowship and study of the word to help prevent that from happening.

                          So if a person misses one service, do I think they will be lost? No.
                          If they habitually miss services, not permanently forsake, but show up once in a blue moon, do I think they will be lost? Yes.

                          Setting aside Heb 10:25 for a moment, what reason is there for me to think that person will not be saved?

                          A person habitually missing services shows that person has a 'heart' problem. David's attitude to worshipping God was " I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD." Yet people complain and parse bible verses in attempt to find justification in not wanting to attend services? Why would this type person want to be in heaven anyway? Heaven will be an eternity in worshipping God yet they fuss about going to services for less than a handful of hours a week? They would be miserable if they were in heaven.

                          They are failing to examine themselves....are they a Christian out of totally commitment to God, His word and His cause or a Christian based on convenience? Their actions prove there is no commitment and it would sad but laughable if they claim they are seeking the kingdom of God first when they are overtly disobeying that command. Yet Heb 10:25 is there to help prevent such a 'heart' condition from ever occurring.

                          If you drive you car down the road and it regularly, habitually shuts off and you have to coast to the side of the road to stop and restart it, would you think there must be a problem and that problem must be addressed? Of course. The same with those that habitually miss services, something is wrong and must be dealt with before it leads to total apostasy.
                          1 Jn 3:10......... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.........

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Seabass View Post

                            I am not a KJV onlyist.

                            No perfect attendance is required, for people can and do have legitimate reason for not attending. The problem occurs when a person CAN be in attendance yet chooses not to.

                            Look at the word "forsaking". I cannot find where the idea of permanency is necessarily attached to the word itself. Jesus prayed to God (MT 27) why has thou forsaken Me. Yet God did not permanently forsake Christ. So here is the problem: some people get the idea that as long as they do not permanently forsake services but attend once in a blue moon, then they are following Heb 10:25.
                            To that I say HOG WASH.
                            He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Prov 28:13 Temporary or permanent?

                            I would say in English forsaking is indeed permanent in its progressive froms, forsaking/forsakes/forsaketh, but not necessarily in past forms, forsook. Heb 10 is progressive, forsaking.

                            Originally posted by Seabass View Post
                            If you have a spouse and you up and leave them to fend for their self for 6 months but then you show up for a day, then leave again for six months, then show up for a day and you continually habitually practice this, then technically you did not permanently forsake your spouse but your spouse will still feel forsaken abandoned and you did mistreat your spouse.
                            A better example with a spouse is the marital vow "forsaking all others" which is clearly permanent, for as I said, in its progreasive form, forsaking, it does imply permanence.
                            Last edited by davidbrainerd; 09-18-17, 06:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by davidbrainerd View Post

                              He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Prov 28:13 Temporary or permanent?

                              I would say in English forsaking is indeed permanent in its progressive froms, forsaking/forsakes/forsaketh, but not necessarily in past forms, forsook. Heb 10 is progressive, forsaking.



                              A better example with a spouse is the marital vow "forsaking all others" which is clearly permanent, for as I said, in its progreasive form, forsaking, it does imply permanence.
                              --as long as one CONDITIONALLY confesses and forsakes, he shall have mercy. If one quits conditionally confessing and forsaking one will not have mercy. So having mercy is not something the in UNconditionally permanent.

                              --you assume the word forsaken carries the idea of permanency. Even if I concede that it did, it does not resolve your problem. Again, if a husband left his wife and kids to fend for themselves for six months then shows up for one day, leaves them again for 6 months and shows up for one day and he does this habitually. Even though he did not permanently forsake them, he is still unfit to be a husband and father for he still forsook, deserted abandoned his family, no commitment to his family, no putting family first (1 Tim 5:8) even though he showed up 2 days out of a year.

                              --people break their marital vows all the time, more often than not with the divorce rate in some places reaching 60+%.
                              1 Jn 3:10......... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.........

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X