Why Reject Truth When It Is Given?

[candlelight]

stick to the topic at hand and stop attacking me

 

show me the church in the context?

 

No church in the whole chapter.

 

Attacking you?  You must be talking about yourself.  That's all you do is attack, then get upset if someone barks back at you.  I have washed my hands of this thread and this ridiculous topic, as well.  It makes zero sense at all.  There is no Biblical backing in what you say.

[AVBibleBeliever]

No I don't I have not attacked anyone.

 

It was show me the bible verse where it says a woman was not to teach in the CHURCH.

 

There is no church in the whole chapter of 1Tim 2.

[candlelight]

No I don't I have not attacked anyone.

 

It was show me the bible verse where it says a woman was not to teach in the CHURCH.

 

There is no church in the whole chapter of 1Tim 2.

 

This is my final post on this topic, AVBB.  You attacked the member GraceSaved on OB, when she first came on, saying that b/c she was a woman she needed to be silent.  You seem to like to belittle women.  Just my observations.  

[Ukulelemike]

i never knew that before the NT that Enoch knew Jesus Christ died for him personally?

 

i didn't know that Noah knew that Jesus Christ died for him personally?

 

i must have over looked the verses where any of them professed Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.

 

could you please give me the OT verses that I must have over looked that show them believing on the cross of Christ.

 

I am totally shocked that I could have been that narrow minded to miss those verses.

 

   i know that they all had faith in God and his promises but they never attained to that which they were promised according to Hebrews 11.

Heb 11:39: "And these all, having OBtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:"

 

This verse is, of course, the culmination of the chapter nicknamed the Faith Hall of Fame, various OT characters who, by faith, pleased the Lord and were OBedient to Him. The difference between what faith did for them, however, and for us, is that, they did not attain Heaven directly, but apparently went to 'Paradise", also sometimes referred to, (wrongly) as Abraham's Bosom. Of course, we only have the one account given by Jesus of this place, specifically, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, but as far as it reads, to my understanding, is that this was the place of the righteous dead, before Jesus died and made salvation available to all. I believe this is the same place referred to as 'prison', where Jesus preached to the spirits there after His death, before His resurrection, where He showed Himself the expected Messiah, and when they knew Him and believed, they received eternal life at that time and were translated to glory.

 

This is, of course, excepting Enoch and Elijah, who are completely different cases, of which I suspect none of us could give a good accoutn of-Yes, Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken, and Elijah was taken bodily, as well-why them? were they more faithful than all others? I suspect not-we can point to very specific events in Elijah's life where he suffered some serious doubt and fear, this sin, where his faith wavered, yet he was bodily removed, for what purpose only the Lord knows, who will do according to His own counsel. But the rest would have followed the other, dying in faith and going to paradise until Christ preached to them and raised them to Heaven.

 

BUt regardless, notice again in Heb 11, these lived, OBeyed and acted in faith-it was their faith that they were accounted for, their works only being impoirtant as they were borne out in faith. So ultimately, it was faith that saved them all. 

[Ukulelemike]

Let's go back to the original theme here, shall we?

 

"Why reject truth when it is given?"  There are a myriad of reasons that can be given, but not to the clear question.  One issue is: Is the 'truth' being given, actually 'truth'? As we see from the previous pages of discussion, truth doesn't always seem to be as clear to some as to others. Some see what they believe to be a truth, and are confused when others reject it as NOT being the truth.

 

Mind you, I am speaking more specifically here, and not directly to where the conversation has gone, nor toward any person or persons.

 

For instance, a 7th Day Adventist would understand truth to be that one must keep the laws, or some of the laws, and that the Sabbath has been changed in its importance, as well as other things. Why do they hold to these as truth? because a massive amount of confusing information and dis-information has been built up; we all remember our conversations recently here with an SDA fellow, and his heroically-long and confusing posts. Yet he would see us as rejecting the truth when presented, while we would accuse him of rejecting the truth we gave in response.

 

And of course, the same thing would go with any false religion, or even as we see here, among fellows of the same stripe, so to speak. To use myself as a fr'instance, I hold to a post-trib/pre-wrath rapture. I wasn't raised that way, but after much prayer and searching, I was persuaded to change my position. Yet I am at odds with most here in this area-who is right? Who is rejecting truth when given? Me? You? I even disagree with those who believe the entire tribulation is the wrath of God. But I am not wanting to argue it, just make a point: we have all arrived at our places in such a subject through study and prayer and have found ourselves yet at odds. I suppose it is human nature. We are none of us perfect in our understanding, nor can we be.  

 

Perhaps we should just use such things as a reason to spend even more time in the study of the word, seeking to first please the Lord, rather than anyone else. Not saysing we don't do that already, but seriously, anything that causes us to flee to scripture for more study, for more prayer, is not a bad thing, as it were. But when we think we HAVE all truth, when we think we understand all the aspects of a certain subjects and are qualified to speak total truth, we'd best get on our knees and in the word, because we're due for a fall.

 

We won't know all truth until we reach Heaven.

 

As for the subject at hand, the gospel through the ages, does it matter? perhaps the Lord is allowing us a bit of confusion and contention, because simply, it doesn't matter-the gospel we know and are saved by today is what is ultimately important today. If one was saved another way in another time, it doesn't matter because we are living today-that was for them, not us. Give us THIS DAY, our DAILY bread-Lord, give me today what I need today.

[EKSmith]

There is one Gospel " The good News "  that 's a fact ! anyone that claims there's more that One Gospel I must question which one they use sharing the Gospel with the lost ? It kinda sounds confusing trying to lead a lost soul to Jesus using three or more Gospels doesn't it ?

 

 The most important message of scripture is the word Gospel meaning " Good News " the Gospel is both a proposition and a person as a proposition it embraces the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ  1 Corth 15:3-4  For I delivered unto you first of all which I also received how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

The Gospel as a person is the person the Lord Jesus Christ -Mark 1:1  The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God. the Gospel here refers not to the whole book but to the content of the early Christian proclamation ,which in turn centers on a person "Jesus" is his given name.

To be saved, we must believe the Gospel, this requires that we both receive the person of Christ as savior and trust in his death, burial, and resurrection to save us from sin. every Christian is responsible for sharing the Gospel ( Good News) with the lost. 

 

To alter the Gospel in any way is to subject ourselves to a curse from God , Gal 1:8-9 " There Is no Other Gospel '' v8 But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let them be accursed, v9 As we said before ,so I say now again if any man preach any other unto you than that ye have received let him be accursed.

verse 8  shows the message, not the messenger is of utmost importance. the Galatian controversy is not over teachers or personalities but over truth and error even a heavenly angel if he preaches error is accursed, that is eternally condemned.

Knowing this one should be careful and not alter the Gospel. " the Good News "  Jesus Christ Our lord.

[ASongOfDegrees]

[John81]

Scofield is woefully unreliable and held to many unbiblical theories; some of which have been purged from the notes in newer prints of his study Bible.

 

I know some IFB still use the Scofield Bible, but I don't personally know any who do anymore. Myself, I wouldn't own one nor give a nickel for a crate of them.

[Ukulelemike]

[ASongOfDegrees]

These are great, but three of them are essentially the same gospel: the grace of Jesus Christ unto salvation. The gospel of the kingdom is good news about the coming kingdom of God, but not having anything specifically about how to arrive there. Unless you look at Jesus' words to Nicodemas, when He said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The good news is one can be born again and enter the kingdom of God-the gospel of grace shows the way there: by faith, by being born of water/flesh and spirit, salvation by grace through faith.

 

So, three gospels are the same gospel:" Paul's gospel, the 'everlasting gospel' and the gospel of grace, and the fourth is merely good news that Jesus will reign on earth.

 

So really, ONE gospel unto salvation, and one, the result of the first gospel.

Yes, I guess you could say there's one gospel but different forums or aspects of it because it all comes back to Jesus Christ in the end. No man can enter the physical kingdom of heaven without first being born again and enter the spiritual kingdom of God. A spiritual new birth comes first and this is what the Jews couldn't grasp (except for the remnant). But that being said, we don't preach "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" or "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". We preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace through faith in his name. That is our focus now. The calling out of the bride of Christ.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Scofield is woefully unreliable and held to many unbiblical theories; some of which have been purged from the notes in newer prints of his study Bible.

 

I know some IFB still use the Scofield Bible, but I don't personally know any who do anymore. Myself, I wouldn't own one nor give a nickel for a crate of them.

So Is John Strong's Greek Dictionary but many people quote the Greek from his dictionary.  His dictionary has classical Greek meanings placed on Koine Greek words. 

 

There is no Koine Greek Dictionary Even Zoiates (SP?) Greek Dictionary does not have any Koine Greek meanings.  In order for you or I to make a Koine Greek dictionary we would have to know the long dead Koine Greek language and how it was spoken of which we don't, al the pronunciations are classical pronunciations.  Not even the KJV translators knew how to do that.  They knew only what they were taught, but none of them like no person today can even speak it and if you did you have no way to know if you were speaking it properly.

 

And if you did then you would have to find a whole and complete Koine Greek Bible (none exist) so that you could look at every Koine Greek word in its context and determine the meaning.

 

So at least Scolfield has more going for it that John Strong's or Zoiates supposed Koine Greek dictionary.  that is why they don't call their Dictionaries Koine Greek Dictionaries.

 

Now concerning Scolfields woefully unreliable theories can you please quote i detail those theories and your sources for claiming such? 

 

Just making statements does not make them true.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I found a teaching from a Baptist Pastor by the name of R A McKay he wrote a book in 1932 complete with dispensational charts called "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". 

 

He also classifies the Gospels dispensations as different also.  Basically once again if you apply the Gospel not for a certain period of time you  will be in error.

 

His book is far different that Scofield's or Larkin's it was given me recently when some folks were cleaning out an old warehouse that had books that went back to before the Civil war.

 

It goes to show that more people hold to dispensations even if they don't teach it the same. 

 

here are some of his points:

 

The Kingdom gospel of which Jesus gave to the 12 and 70 was not to be preached to the Smaratan's and the Gentiles

 

 and a few don't he gives

 

1) don't take truth which is true about part of a past dispensation and read it into another part of the same dispensation.

 

2) don't take a truth belonging to a past dispensation and interpret it into a present one.

 

3) don't read the present day dispensation into the past.

 

4) don't read the future dispensation into the present dispensation

 

5) don't read one part of the future dispensation into another part of the same dispensation.  (this would apply to any dispensation.)

 

People taught dispensations long before today even if they don't all agree.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I like how John criticizes Scofield's "theories" but never addresses anything in the post. Typical.

 

Scofield has it's faults but it's still prOBably the best study bible out.

 

Anyway, my purpose for the post was to show candlelight that this teaching has been around for a while and not something AVBibleBeliever pulled out of his hat.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I found a teaching from a Baptist Pastor by the name of R A McKay he wrote a book in 1932 complete with dispensational charts called "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". 

 

He also classifies the Gospels dispensations as different also.  Basically once again if you apply the Gospel not for a certain period of time you  will be in error.

 

His book is far different that Scofield's or Larkin's it was given me recently when some folks were cleaning out an old warehouse that had books that went back to before the Civil war.

 

It goes to show that more people hold to dispensations even if they don't teach it the same. 

Never heard of the man. 

 

I like David E. Walker's book on dispensationalism though he doesn't have charts in his book.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I have David Walkers book too and it is a good one. 

 

That work is more recent though.

 

I was looking into past works of men who taught dispensations. 

 

Does anyone know where scolfield went to school?