Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

2T3:16

Saw This Link By Beameup And I Dont Understand It

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, wretched said:

Have you ever considered that you have followed a rabbit trail that does not exist?

Doesn't it make much more sense to realize that God revealed to Paul the wording and way in which he was to preach the SAME Gospel but to the gentiles who had no exposure or experience with the Law or Ordinances?

Heb 11:6, But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Perhaps the Jews had more "responsibility", as they had "the Law and the Prophets".  Gentiles, unless they had applied for "membership" in Judaism (ie: proselyte) , were mostly ignorant of such things.  A book like "Hebrews", for example, would be meaningless to a pagan Gentile; but to a Jew, it would be full of meaning and relevance.  Could this be why books such as James (written to the 12 Tribes), emphasize "works" so much?  Could this account for the fact that Paul does not mention the earthly Kingdom in his epistles?  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 2 Timothy 4:18

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matt 23:15
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beameup said:

Perhaps the Jews had more "responsibility", as they had "the Law and the Prophets".  Gentiles, unless they had applied for "membership" in Judaism (ie: proselyte) , were mostly ignorant of such things.  A book like "Hebrews", for example, would be meaningless to a pagan Gentile; but to a Jew, it would be full of meaning and relevance.  Could this be why books such as James (written to the 12 Tribes), emphasize "works" so much?  Could this account for the fact that Paul does not mention the earthly Kingdom in his epistles?  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 2 Timothy 4:18

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matt 23:15

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beameup said:

Perhaps the Jews had more "responsibility", as they had "the Law and the Prophets".  Gentiles, unless they had applied for "membership" in Judaism (ie: proselyte) , were mostly ignorant of such things.  A book like "Hebrews", for example, would be meaningless to a pagan Gentile; but to a Jew, it would be full of meaning and relevance.  Could this be why books such as James (written to the 12 Tribes), emphasize "works" so much?  Could this account for the fact that Paul does not mention the earthly Kingdom in his epistles?  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 2 Timothy 4:18

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matt 23:15

Sir, could it be that you are missing the forest for the trees on this one? Jesus summed up the Law and the Prophets by faith and love. It was never works for the sake of works. The works came as a result of heart felt faith and NOT obedience to the letter. Jesus spend His whole ministry here explaining this to the Jews and James, Peter and Paul continued this revelation.

Mar 12:33, And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 

Act 13:39, And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Heb 9:14, How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Since Creation all He has wanted from every man and woman is for them to believe on Him in their hearts. That heart belief will create works whether Jew or Gentile. The Jews had been taught this way since Abraham but never kept this true path for long always turning it into dead ritual for their flesh sake.

According to the Gospels, Hebrews, the Peters and James you are doing the same thing the jews did when they rejected Christ. Putting the cart before the horse, pure works before God are those works resulting from real faith.

Look it is obvious you are highly intelligent but you have set your energy down the wrong path with this. Allow yourself to look at it from a different perspective and you will see that no work can in any way justify a man. Real faith creates works acceptable to God NOT the other way around.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wretched said:

 

Since Creation all He has wanted from every man and woman is for them to believe on Him in their hearts. That heart belief will create works whether Jew or Gentile. The Jews had been taught this way since Abraham but never kept this true path for long always turning it into dead ritual for their flesh sake.

 

 

 

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Eph 2:11-12
An "Inconvenient Truth"?                                                                                                                              δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beameup said:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Eph 2:11-12
An "Inconvenient Truth"?                                                                                                                              δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

Not inconvenient at all but simply truth. Israel has always had a chance to worship God in faith and in truth but refused to. The rest of us were now given the same chance. There is no other interpretation for this passage or chapter. You are looking at every passage with work/faith goggles when it comes to Israel my friend. You have to see the bigger picture where God has made it abundantly clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Any work apart from or before faith is and has always been meaningless to God. True faith in God has always produced works for God even before Abraham.

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wretched said:

Not inconvenient at all but simply truth. Israel has always had a chance to worship God in faith and in truth but refused to. The rest of us were now given the same chance. There is no other interpretation for this passage or chapter. You are looking at every passage with work/faith goggles when it comes to Israel my friend. You have to see the bigger picture where God has made it abundantly clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Any work apart from or before faith is and has always been meaningless to God. True faith in God has always produced works for God even before Abraham.

"John's baptism" (repent and be baptized) continued after the resurrection for the Israelites (ie: Jews, Hebrews).  As well, "the twelve" apostles and those Jewish converts, continued to observe Mosaic Law in the Temple.  In the case of "repent and be baptized", the entire nation was to observe this in order to fulfill the O.T. prophecies (see Exo 19:5-6 - a Kingdom of Priests).  After they killed their Messiah, then their national "repentance" included this offence as well (see Acts 2:38).  These are required "works". 

Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beameup said:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:  Eph 2:11-12
An "Inconvenient Truth"?                                                                                                                              δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

 

2 hours ago, wretched said:

Not inconvenient at all but simply truth. Israel has always had a chance to worship God in faith and in truth but refused to. The rest of us were now given the same chance. There is no other interpretation for this passage or chapter. You are looking at every passage with work/faith goggles when it comes to Israel my friend. You have to see the bigger picture where God has made it abundantly clear that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Any work apart from or before faith is and has always been meaningless to God. True faith in God has always produced works for God even before Abraham.

Wretched, Beameup is saying "the ignorant man doesn't understand", that's why its inconvenient truth.

δέ      εἰ        τὶς         ἀγνοέω         ἀγνοέω

but     the    man      ignorant     understand

Edited by MountainChristian
posted too soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, beameup said:

"John's baptism" (repent and be baptized) continued after the resurrection for the Israelites (ie: Jews, Hebrews).  As well, "the twelve" apostles and those Jewish converts, continued to observe Mosaic Law in the Temple.  In the case of "repent and be baptized", the entire nation was to observe this in order to fulfill the O.T. prophecies (see Exo 19:5-6 - a Kingdom of Priests).  After they killed their Messiah, then their national "repentance" included this offence as well (see Acts 2:38).  These are required "works". 

Sir, the verses quoted in your post actually have nothing to do with each other in any way. I am sorry to see that you will not attempt to understand so I will let it go.

12 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

 

Wretched, Beameup is saying

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

but

It is greek to me MC??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Its confusing because Beameup wrote it left to right instead of right to left

No doubt the product of a modern greek guessicon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, beameup said:

"John's baptism" (repent and be baptized) continued after the resurrection for the Israelites (ie: Jews, Hebrews). 

Yet there is not a single record of Scripture which reports that John the Baptist preached "repent and be baptized."

Rather, Scripture reports the following:

Matthew 3:1-2 - "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Mark 1:4 - "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (See also Luke 3:3)  (Herein we learn that the purpose for the baptism which John preached was specifically to testify publicly "of repentance."  Furthermore, we learn that the purpose for the repentance which John preached was "for the remission of sins.")

John 1:15 - "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."

John 1:29 - "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

Acts 19:4 - "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

So then, what John the Baptist actually preached was:

1.  Repentance for the remission of sins.

2.  Belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.  Baptism as a public testimony of repentance.

Now, to me it appears that John the Baptist preached the same gospel as the apostle Paul:

1.  Repentance toward God.

2.  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.  Baptism, not as a work for salvation, but as a public testimony of repentance and faith.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38
John "the baptist" or John "the baptizer" "baptized" with water, hence the name/title. 
Baptism (ritual washing) is a necessary step to the priesthood -- the participants (Jews) knew exactly what they were doing"And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel" Exodus 19:6
 
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beameup said:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38


Concerning Acts 2:38

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

First, let us recognize that according to the context of Acts 2 as a whole, the apostle Peter was filled with the Spirit when he made this statement.  Therefore, we should recognize that this statement presents doctrinal truth that is not in any contradiction to the whole of New Testament doctrine concerning the gospel.

Grammatically, Peter’s statement presented a compound sentence of three independent clauses, with each independent clause being joined by the conjunction “and.”  The first two of these three independent clauses presented a two-fold instruction, and the third of these two independent clauses presented a result.  Indeed, the first of clause of instruction is completely bound up in the single word of instruction, “Repent.”  Then the second clause of instruction encompasses the statement, “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  Finally, the clause of result encompasses the statement, “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

1.  The First Clause of Instruction – “Repent.”

This single verb of instruction provides the first requirement of the gospel that the apostle Peter proclaimed unto his hearers.  Indeed, the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming actually began with the preaching of His forerunner, John the Baptizer; and the message that John preached was a call to repentance. (See Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3)  Then when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself began His preaching and teaching ministry, He also preached a call to repentance. (See Matthew 4:17; 9:13; 11:20-21; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; Luke 5:32; 13:2-5)  In addition, during His ministry of preaching and teaching, our Lord Jesus Christ also sent forth His disciples to preach a call to repentance. (See Mark 6:12) 

Furthermore, after the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, but before His ascension into heaven, when He gave His commission unto His disciple to preach the gospel unto the lost world, He instructed them to preach a message of “repentance” and of “remission of sins” as a result of that repentance. (See Luke 24:46-47)  Indeed, He commissioned them to preach that message of “repentance and remission of sins” “in His name,” and to do so “among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”  Even so, when the apostle Peter preached the message of the gospel, he obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 2:38; 3:19)  Even so also, when the apostle Paul preached the message of the gospel, he also obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20)

Thus we recognize from this that repentance is a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  Furthermore, we recognize from the whole doctrine of the New Testament that faith in Christ is also a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  So then, we are brought to the question – What is the relationship to each other between this requirement of repentance and this requirement of faith?  Now, the only passages from which we may discern this relationship are those wherein both the requirement of repentance and the requirement of faith are presented.  Two of these are presented in Scripture (see Acts 19:4; 20:21); and in both of these passages, the requirement of repentance is presented as that which precedes the requirement of faith.  Even so, I would contend that this requirement of repentance means a change of heart attitude concerning an individual’s sinfulness before the Lord God which moves that individual to a heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation from that personal sinfulness.

2.  The Second Clause of Instruction – “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” 

Now, it is with this clause of instruction that controversy is developed, primary over the relationship between the instruction to “be baptized” and the prepositional phrasing of result, “for the remission of sins.”  First, this second clause of instruction begins with the instruction of the verb itself, “Be baptized.”  Certainly, in this context this is an instruction to submit unto baptism with water.  Second, this clause grammatically continues with the direct object of the verb, along with its modifying prepositional phrase, “Every one of you.”  This would indicate that every single individual was required to obey the instruction to “be baptized.”  Third, this second clause of instruction then provides the prepositional phrasing, “In the name of Jesus Christ.”  Grammatically, this prepositional phrasing would modify verb the instructional verb, “Be baptized,” and thereby would reveal the specific name in which they were required to be baptized and the specific Person with whom they were to associate themselves through that baptism.  This was not just any baptism.  Rather, it was a baptism specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” in order to reveal their association unto Jesus Christ. 

Finally, this clause of instruction concludes with the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins.”  Clearly, this prepositional phrasing reveals a result.  Yet the question may be asked – For what does this phrasing reveal the result?  The answer to this question would be grammatically determined by that in the statement which this prepositional phrasing modifies, and in this statement there are two grammatical possibilities.  On the one hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the direct result of being baptized.  On the other hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the immediately previous prepositional phrasing, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the result of being associated unto “the name of Jesus Christ.” 

So then, which of these two grammatically possibilities is the correct one?  For the answer it would be best to discern which possibility is in unity with the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament.  Are there any other passages that clearly connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to baptism?  I myself am not aware of any.  (Note: Some might present Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3; however, I would contend that “the remission of sins” is connected to the “repentance” in both of the verses, not to the baptism, which contention would be in doctrinal unity with Luke 24:47 & Acts 5:31.)  On the other hand, are there any passages that connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to the name (or, Person) of Jesus Christ?  Indeed!!!  Acts 10:43 – “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  Acts 13:38-39 – “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”

Even so, I would contend that the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38 is intended as a grammatical modifier for the phrase, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” not for the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  Furthermore, I would contend that is the association through heart-faith in the name and Person of Jesus Christ that results in “the remission of sins.”  Finally, I would contend that the baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” which the apostle Peter instructed of them, was intended as the outward act whereby an individual revealed his or her heart-faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  Indeed, by this grammatical understanding for Acts 2:38, there is no contradiction whatsoever to the gospel of eternal forgiveness, justification, and salvation by God’s grace alone through repentance and heart-faith alone.

3.  The Clause of Result – “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

This statement presents the result for each individual who would obey the two-fold instruction of the previous two statements.  Such obedient individuals would receive (apparently from the Lord God) “the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  Yet they did have to meet the requirements, which in review were as follows:

          A.    To “repent” (of their sinfulness before God).

          B.    To “be baptized” specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” as a public revelation of their association through faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
 

3 hours ago, beameup said:
John "the baptist" or John "the baptizer" "baptized" with water, hence the name/title. 
Baptism (ritual washing) is a necessary step to the priesthood -- the participants (Jews) knew exactly what they were doing


False.  For there is NOT a single record in Scripture that John the Baptist preached a message of priesthood, or that he preached a baptism unto priesthood.  Rather, the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures reveals that John the Baptist preached "the baptism of repentance," that is -- a baptism which would publicly testify of an individual's repentance.

Furthermore, the participants did indeed know what they were doing, which was not engaging in a baptism unto priesthood, but which was engaging in a baptism "of repentance," wherewith they engaged in "confessing their sins."  Matthew 3:5-6 -- "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: The High Priest at this time was a Roman appointee (Annas or Caiaphas). John was a descendent of Aaron from both his mother and his father’s side. The Gospel of Luke makes a special point of this fact. “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5) This odd little fact nestled in Luke’s gospel is trying to tell us something.  John the Baptist was qualified to be the rightful heir to the High Priesthood.  So, even though it is not specifically mentioned, John meets all of the qualifications to be the rightful High Priest.  John was descended from Aaron but was instituting the new priesthood, the order of Melchizadek.  In the Millennial Kingdom, the Levitical Priests will have their "portion" with the Prince, but the entire nation will be priests of the order of Melchizadek.

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.  Malachi 2:7-8
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. Malachi 3:1  God had a "High Priest", but it wasn't the Roman's pick.
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beameup said:

PS: The High Priest at this time was a Roman appointee (Annas or Caiaphas). John was a descendent of Aaron from both his mother and his father’s side. The Gospel of Luke makes a special point of this fact. “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5)

Indeed, these are Biblical facts.

Just now, beameup said:

This odd little fact nestled in Luke’s gospel is trying to tell us something.  John the Baptist was qualified to be the rightful heir to the High Priesthood.  So, even though it is not specifically mentioned, John meets all of the qualifications to be the rightful High Priest.  John was descended from Aaron but was instituting the new priesthood, the order of Melchizadek.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Except that Scripture does not report any such thing whatsoever at all.  What the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures actually report as to the calling of John the Baptist is as follows:

Luke 1:15-17 -- "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.  And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.  And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Luke 1:76 -- "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways."

John 1:6-8 -- "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.  He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light."

Matthew 3:3 -- "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Mark 1:2-3 -- "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.  The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Luke 3:4-6 -- "As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.  Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

PS:  Nothing in any of that concerning a priesthood, is there?  You see, Brother "Beameup" likes to tell us apart from Scripture what the Lord God intended to communicate.  I myself would much rather discern directly from the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture what the Lord God intended to communicate.
 

12 minutes ago, beameup said:

John was descended from Aaron but was instituting the new priesthood, the order of Melchizadek.  In the Millennial Kingdom, the Levitical Priests will have their "portion" with the Prince, but the entire nation will be priests of the order of Melchizadek.

False!  Scripture DOES tell us that John was sent to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord," but Scripture does NOT make even a single statement concerning the his instituting of any kind of priesthood.  As such, Scripture does NOT say anything about John's instituting a "new priesthood, the order of Melchizadek."  Indeed, Scripture nowhere says anything about "the entire nation" of Israel being "priests of the order of Melchizadek."  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures DO teach us that there is ONE, and only ONE, who has been made a Priest after the order of Melchizadek.  That ONE is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  To apply that position unto any other, but HIM, would seem somewhat blasphemous to me.

So then, we have a choice -- We can either follow that which the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures actually and precisely teach; or we can follow Brother "Beameup," who seems more than willing to teach doctrine "even though it is not specifically mentioned" in Scripture.  As for me, I find the choice quite easy to make -- I shall follow  that which the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures actually and precisely teach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 10:27 PM, MountainChristian said:

Wretched, Beameup is saying "the ignorant man doesn't understand", that's why its inconvenient truth.

δέ      εἰ        τὶς         ἀγνοέω         ἀγνοέω

but     the    man      ignorant     understand

Actually, it appears that Brother "Beameup" is attempting to quote 1 Corinthians 14:38 in Greek; yet with his Greek grammar amiss.

In Greek 1 Corinthians 14:38 would be as follows:  εἰ  δέ  τὶς  ἀγνοέὶ  ἀγνοεἰτω

In English 1 Corinthians 14:38 would read as follows:  "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎年‎2‎月‎21‎日 at 9:34 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In English 1 Corinthians 14:38 would read as follows:  "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Paul attitude towards those brethren who refuse to hear the truth after repeated warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I haven't missed much. You all are still arguing about the same ol' stuff. And nobody who were banned are even involved in it.

Maybe the wrong people were made to leave?

Tis a thought.

By the way - one Gospel for all people, no matter the race or lineage. Israelites and Gentiles were only given one way to become God's children.

I think Wretched hit the nail on the head - with a 3lb sledge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Israelites and Gentiles were only given one way to become God's children

May I respectfully ask a question here? Where in the old testament does it tell of the gospel of grace in faith/belief in Jesus Christ? Before anyone becomes hostile, I would like to add that I am not mocking, but merely asking a question. Thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ronda said:

May I respectfully ask a question here? Where in the old testament does it tell of the gospel of grace in faith/belief in Jesus Christ? Before anyone becomes hostile, I would like to add that I am not mocking, but merely asking a question. Thank you for your time.

Let me put it this way...Is not Jesus Christ God in the flesh? Yes.

Was not Jesus Christ with God the Father in the OT? Yes.

So when we see verses like " And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." in Deut.6:5, might we assume that includes the Lord Jesus? Yes.

So when we see 'believing in the Lord with all your heart' as salvation, then can we not apply this to ALL of God, whether NT or OT?

Yes.

The same God of the OT IS the Lord Jesus in the NT.

Nothing changed except 'the payment for sin once for all'.

After all, Abraham was a gentile before God called him. Hence the calling of God is for all gentiles.

Many here have answered questions without answering with scriptures, but explaining with their view. This is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ronda said:

May I respectfully ask a question here? Where in the old testament does it tell of the gospel of grace in faith/belief in Jesus Christ? Before anyone becomes hostile, I would like to add that I am not mocking, but merely asking a question. Thank you for your time.

It doesn't Rhonda but IMO that is not the issue in this thread. The issue of a works based justification is the problem.

I do believe that those who were justified in God's eyes in the OT were done so only by believing God and this faith was counted as righteousness.

What I don't believe is that anyone justified in the OT was justified by faith in Jesus Christ dying on the Cross by name and specifically. That is quite impossible since there is zero mention of any of that in the OT.

However those justified in the OT were so because they did believe God and part of what God made known was the coming redeemer and redemption from sin hidden in generalities.

Justification by faith in the OT - absolutely and the only form of justification.

Justification by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross as we know it - absolutely not because there is no evidence that supports it and it had not happened yet.

Lately on this forum has been the war between reformed and hyperdispensational. I say hyper because I finally learned from these threads what the hyper means - works based or assisted justification for the Jews which is just plain heresy.

Had this argument been dispensational without that craziness I would be all for the dispensational arguments but this works justification is a Biblical impossibility.

I request that the hyper folks would put down the works-cleaver and see this, it permeates God's Word cover to cover.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Abraham had not actually committed to slitting his son's throat when Isaac was on the woodpile?  What if Abraham had just acknowledged that that is what God wanted him to do, and thus "understood" the "sacrifice of an ONLY son" but not acted on it?  Would Abraham have been "justified" by simply "believing"?

Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, beameup said:

What if Abraham had not actually committed to slitting his son's throat when Isaac was on the woodpile?  What if Abraham had just acknowledged that that is what God wanted him to do, and thus "understood" the "sacrifice of an ONLY son" but not acted on it?  Would Abraham have been "justified" by simply "believing"?

What if?

Speculate if you wish, but the fact remains that he was committed. In fact, he was so committed in his "belief" that if had he sacrificed his son, he "believed" God would raise him from the dead. God made him a promise, and he "believed" God would fulfill that promise by bringing his son back from the dead. So to speculate on "what ifs" is fruitless. It's much more fruitful to deal with the facts presented rather than "what ifs".

His belief led to works...same as today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beameup said:

What if Abraham had not actually committed to slitting his son's throat when Isaac was on the woodpile?  What if Abraham had just acknowledged that that is what God wanted him to do, and thus "understood" the "sacrifice of an ONLY son" but not acted on it?  Would Abraham have been "justified" by simply "believing"?

Romans 4:2-3
2   For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3   For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Here's the scripture that PAUL is referring to...

Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Would you have us believe that it should have said this instead...

Genesis 15:6 (the AV version...AV = additions to verses)
And he believed in the LORD [and performed works]; and he counted it to him for righteousness [thereby, he was also justified].

By the way, you probably already know this, but that portion of scripture is talking about Abraham's belief that God would give him a son, and his seed through that son would be like the stars of heaven. So you tell us what would have happened if Abraham hadn't offered up his son...

Here's what I can tell you...

God made a promise back in Genesis 3...

Genesis 3:15
 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

What if Abraham hadn't offered Isaac?

I don't know; the Bible doesn't say. However, Genesis 3:15 hadn't happened yet, so God would have found a way.

What if Noah hadn't built the ark?

I don't know; the Bible doesn't say. However, Genesis 3:15 hadn't happened yet, so God would have found a way.

What if Moses hadn't accepted his call?

I don't know; the Bible doesn't say. However, Genesis 3:15 hadn't happened yet, so God would have found a way.

What if, what if, what if?

Genesis 3:15. That's what if.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.  Genesis 17:19  
Abraham "believed God" that Isaac would "have seed" (ie: children, descendants).  So, Abraham also believed in the resurrection, had Isaac died.  In obedience he "offered up" his ONLY son (btw: technically he had "another son" - Ishmael).
 
Bits and pieces, but no mention of "Jesus" or that he would die for the sins of the whole world, be buried and be raised again the third day.  If you can find this in Genesis 3:15, then by-all-means elaborate on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...