They were not watching their behavior daily. They began to mistreat other people, and they partied and became drunk. The Messiah was speaking directly to His disciples when he said this (answering Peter's question). He also listed two other less severe punishments, being beaten with many stripes, or beaten with a few stripes. This teaching does not quite fit the narrative of denying the faith. It is behavior based. af_vet_1981, that is simply a false dichotomy, trying to say it is not a denial of faith because of behavior, for faith is manifest by what is does, and thus Paul does indeed say such have denied the faith in the light of their behavior. Just what do you think is behind every thing you voluntarily do? It is what you really believe, at the very least at the moment of choice.
As said, to believe is to obey, and thus a believer is known by whom he obeys, but that is not what renders him accepted in the Beloved, which is that of being accepted on Christ's account, which is imputed to the believer who is of effectual saving faith.. And is obedience by the Spirit that evidences that one is a believer.
This the believe is not many perfect in character before he is accepted in Christ, and spiritually seated with Him in Heaven, having immediate access into the holy of holies to meet with God, but instead he is counted as righteous by faith, being washed, born again, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God. And who this is called to practically become what he is positionally.
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4. KJV)
Do you mean like the sons and daughters of Catholic parents who do not do practice works of charity and respect for them in their old age because they hate Catholicism ?
Indeed, as well as parents who rather disown their kids who become born again. But is is your desperate ad hominem that is more the strawman. Just how much evangelical preaching do you listen to, versus RC propaganda?
af_vet_1981, that is simply a false dichotomy, trying to say it is not a denial of faith because of behavior, for faith is manifest by what is does, and thus Paul does indeed say such have denied the faith in the light of their behavior. Just what do you think is behind every thing you voluntarily do? It is what you really believe, at the very least at the moment of choice.
We were discussing "denial of
the faith, not
denial of faith. Of course, if we switch to the latter, anything not of faith is sin, and in all cases disciples who do not watch and have their house broken into have sinned. They disobeyed the command to watch (their behavior).
Read the passage again. There are three degrees of punishment for bad behavior in disciples, from the worst to least: - to be cut him in two, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers (weeping and gnashing of teeth), for the disciple who harmed other disciples (fellow servants).
- to be beaten with many stripes (this was for the disciple who knew the LORD's will and did not obey)
- to be beaten with few stripes (this was for the disciple who did not know the LORD's will and did not obey)
This was the Messiah's teaching to the little flock to whom their Father desires to give the kingdom. The Messiah did not label any of these as a denial of the faith (one could switch to another passage and bring up Peter's denial, which would still make the same point that it was behavior based). The disciple who did not watch and had his house broken into generalizes the three. When Peter asked if this teaching was just for them (leadership) or for all, The Messiah spoke of the disciple He would make ruler over His household.
In the Apostle Paul's case of one who does not provide for his own having denied "the faith", the punishment is excommunication (with an implied thread of much worse to come). Thus, there is a strong correlation with this example and the severe example in the Messiah's teaching. It makes sense to link those cases, but not the other two. In this severe case, the commandment being broken is the Second Greatest Commandment (from Leviticus and the Gospels), and perhaps others.
" Do you mean like the sons and daughters of Catholic parents who do not do practice works of charity and respect for them in their old age because they hate Catholicism ?"
Indeed, as well as parents who rather disown their kids who become born again. But is is your desperate ad hominem that is more the strawman. Just how much evangelical preaching do you listen to, versus RC propaganda?
"Indeed" sounds right. How is this desperate or an ad hominem? Evangelical or Catholic, if one preaches one thing and does another how is it desperate or an ad hominem to shine the light of truth on the behavior?
Abuse happens in both cases, and woe unto them who abuse the LORD's servants or do not provide for their own.