Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

MountainChristian

Jesus' coming Kingdom on land.

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Eternal salvation and justification has NEVER been through faith AND works in ANY form of combination.

Eternal salvation and justification has ALWAYS been through faith ALONE.

Yes and no. Ultimately everyone is saved by the blood atonement of Christ only but the OT saints had to keep the law sacrifices until that atonement was made. This is what Paul meant in Romans 3:25. God's forbearance was him putting up with the sins of the past that were only temporarily covered by the sacrifices because he knew one day Christ would make the full and final sacrifice for sin . This would also explain why no one went to heaven when they died before the cross. The tabernacle of heaven had not yet been sprinkle with the blood of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 

 Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Deuteronomy, the law was stated again for those who were about to enter the promised land. Then in chapters 27-30 (especially 27and 28), the results for both obedience and disobedience to the law are plainly stated...and it had NOTHING to do with salvation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Invicta said:

1. Paul wrote Hebrews.

2. No one needs to follow a "faith PLUS works"  And nowhere in the bible is that taught.  The bible teaching is that we show we have faith by our works.  If you don't have works, you don't have faith.  

First of all... to say (definitively) that "Paul wrote Hebrews" would be an error on your part. It is a hotly debated topic. Unless you presume to know more about it than such people as Martin Luther (who placed Hebrews along with with James, Jude, and Revelation, at the end of Luther's canon).  So it is conjecture to say Paul definitely wrote Hebrews. There may be reasons why a person could make an educated guess as to the authorship of Hebrews, but the fact is that Paul did not sign the epistle, and so it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You are correct is stating that no-one needs to follow a faith plus works gospel, let me add the qualifier: IN THIS CURRENT AGE OF GRACE.

I believe there are SEVERAL instances in scripture where works is added to faith for salvation. We can clearly see by innumerable cases in the OT where they were required to perform the works of the law. However, in the New Testament, we also find verses which denote the possibility that certain works were required for certain people groups in certain dispensations. I won't bother to dig them all out, first of all because I want to talk about the importance of the Paul-ine gospel to the church age, and second, since you don't even see dispensations... you lump the entire bible together to perceive yourself as "everything good is applicable to you", no matter which dispensation (or people group) it refers to. 

The current dispensation (age of grace/church age) doesn't include the same "rules" as past nor future dispensations. Some believe the church age to be not only God's people today, but the only people God ever had or ever will have.
So they read the Bible passages and see the present-day church as being the total focus of all scripture. 
But they fail to realize that there will be people saved from before the great flood, from Old Testament Israel, from Gentile nations during the Old Testament as well.
Not only the past dispensations but the future dispensations they overlook and consider them to be part of this current age of grace.

There will be other dispensations, and other people saved, out of the future tribulation, and out of the future 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. 
None of those millions and millions of believers were or will be what we would call "the church age" believers. They had/will have different "rules" than we of this current dispensation do. While we (in the present church age) do hold a very special place, we are not the SOLE focus of all scripture. Nor are we the SOLE focus of all of the New Testament.

So what is applicable to the church age? We KNOW we are to follow Christ. Christ'c command to follow Him are numerous. On this I think we can all agree??? 

Matthew 4:19 "And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
Matthew 8:22 "But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead."
Matthew 10:38 "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Mark 8:34 "And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"
John 12:26 "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."

A largely misunderstood fact of the New Testament is Paul’s command to believers to follow or imitate him
He issued this command several times throughout his epistles (letters). 
No other writer of Scripture issued such an command.
We do not find it with Peter, John, James, etc. in the New Testament.
Nor Moses or any of the prophets in the Old Testament.
The only other One to issue such a command was Jesus the Messiah, the Lord God Himself.
 
SO... How could Paul make such a claim?  Why was Paul unique in issuing this imperative? 
And more importantly, what did Paul mean by it?  Why did he command us to imitate him?

1 Corinthians 11:1  "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."
 2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Philippians 3:17 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

2 Thessalonians 3:4 "And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you."
" 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
" 3:9 "Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

1 Cor. 4:16 "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

(I'm sure there are more) but the point is... why did Paul feel he could make such a claim as to follow him?
Was Paul just "full of himself"? I don't think so.

1 Cor. 15:9 "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
And DESPITE THIS, The Lord chose Paul:
10 "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
Paul gives ALL the glory to God (rightly so).

Paul’s epistles/letters indicate he had to constantly defend his apostleship.
He was not one of the 12 disciples, nor did he have the access the disciples had enjoyed of Christ in His earthly ministry.
So where did Paul "get the nerve" to tell others to "follow him"?
And WHY-OH-WHY would Jesus choose Paul... who wasn't one of the 12, who had formerly persecuted and even murdered Christians???
The Lord COULD have chosen the 12 disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, The Lord COULD have chosen someone... anyone...else, right?

Instead, the glorified Christ specially commissioned PAUL as the apostle to the Gentiles.
Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)"
Galatians 1:15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace"
    16 "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:"
    17 "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus."
(He goes on to tell of the other regions wherein he taught)
But notice here, that in verse 17, Paul was separated from the twelve, after his salvation. 
Why? God had a special plan for Paul. Peter and the other disciples had been preaching the coming Kingdom. But Peter and the other disciples didn't understand, nor was it revealed to them by God, the plan for the Gentiles. The church age! This current age of grace.

The risen, glorified, heavenly Christ revealed secrets/mysteries to Paul that He had kept unrevealed in His earthly ministry to the 12 disciples.
Some of these secrets and mysteries included the revelation of the Church, the body of Christ, the gospel of the grace of God (whereas before we saw the other preaching faith plus works (such as be baptized for the remission of sins) Peter himself said this in 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."

But to Paul it is revealed it is NOW grace WITHOUT works to salvation,  and also Paul was to whom the Rapture was revealed as well.
We see the many mysteries revealed to Paul (later revealed to more apostles and  prophets by the Holy Spirit- as we read in Ephesians chapter 3 - whole chapter)

Colossians 1:24 "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:"
  25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"
  26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:"
  27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory"

In Acts 9 we read of Saul (later renamed Paul) being knocked to the ground and temporarily blinded. 
Although Paul had done some horrible things to the early believer's in Christ, God, in His infinite wisdom, chose Paul. 
God said (of Paul): "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."

Paul paid a heavy price for his ministry. Because he was not "one of the 12" and because Paul taught doctrines completely unknown by them, some believers regarded him with suspicion.
Believing Jews rejected Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles. They declared Gentiles had to be saved like Jews had been doing, adding faith plus works, as they were doing with baptism added to salvation. They were still preaching the gospel of the kingdom. They didn't realize the Kingdom (on earth) would be ushered in at the end of the tribulation, at the end of the time of "Jacob's trouble".
They claimed Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15.1, 15:5)
Who was in the "right"? And who was in the "wrong"?
There were apostles and elders disputing, and then Peter admits that there shouldn't be any difference in how Gentiles and Jews were saved, since God had given the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles as well.
He admits that the yoke (of the law) should not be placed upon the Gentiles, since the yoke itself was too grievous to bear for them and for their forefathers.
Peter, himself admits (in verse 11) "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
(but then Peter later goes back to preaching a faith plus works theme again, as well as the gospel of the Kingdom)

Gentiles being saved was unthinkable before this time
Grace by faith was the doctrine revealed to Paul.

After the agreement and conclusion reached in Acts 15, Where Peter, James, the other apostles and elders AGREED with Paul that salvation had now come unto the Gentiles as well...
Paul then went on to preach the gospel of salvation by grace and faith in Christ. It was no longer to be the Kingdom gospel (because that will apply to a future dispensation).

Paul wrote the Galatians that anyone who preached a gospel different from his gospel was accursed!
Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

So why not Peter? Why wasn't Peter specifically chosen by God to have the mysteries of the church revealed, as well as the gospel of the grace of God (and not a faith PLUS works), and the rapture?
It is clear throughout scripture that Peter had misunderstood many things.
In Acts 10 we read that Peter is given a dream. His dream shows him how Gentiles are no longer to be considered unclean.
Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean"
So then Peter learns that the Gentiles would no longer be considered "unclean".
Paul was given the mystery, not Peter. Peter didn't truly understand that the Gentiles were also clean (made clean by the work of Jesus on the cross). God had to give Peter the dream (in Acts 10).
Yet, Peter still clung to many of the Jewish customs and traditions, and was attempting to burden the Gentiles (who were newly converted Christians) that they also had to obey Jewish customs and laws.

We already read in Acts 15 where Peter admitted (in front of Paul) "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
We thought he understood the "salvation by grace" plan, but then he slips right back into adding works to salvation (which is NO LONGER the plan for salvation).
In Galatians 2:14 we read: "14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
***Paul admonishes Peter for his misunderstanding (yet again). Paul thought he'd settled the matter (in Acts 10) that salvation is by grace, in faith in Christ alone without works.

So the answer to "Why not Peter"? COULD be these reasons above as well as the fact that Peter had told the Lord Jesus that he would NEVER deny Him (yet he did before the rooster crowed 3 times).
Matthew 26:35 ""Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples."
Matthew 26:74 "Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
    75 "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." 
Could it be that God knew that Peter would not be as dependable as Paul? Could it be that God knew that Peter would "waffle" on the very plan of salvation (adding works to faith)?
Could it be that God knew how confusing it would be to the masses since Peter had started out preaching the gospel of the coming Kingdom?
God alone knows all of the reason why He chose Paul (and not Peter) to reveal His mysteries and secrets to. 

Paul is THE apostle to the Gentiles in Romans 3:13
"13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office"

Romans 15:15 "Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,"
 16 "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

I've already gone over this verse, but I want to bring out something MANY people have MISSED here:
1 Tim 1:15-16 
15 "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
16 "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."

FIRST!!! Paul was given the mystery of the church age, the truth of the gospel in grace for salvation (salvation is NOT contingent upon works), and of the rapture.
Paul was given all of this FIRST, and Why? He was to show the pattern of salvation for all those to come (in the church age) who would believe upon the Lord Jesus for eternal salvation.
And what was the first and most distinguishing difference of the gospel Paul taught in comparison to what the disciples had been teaching? Grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
We (as born again believer's in this current dispensation) are to follow the example of Paul, teaching what Paul taught and the pattern of grace by faith salvation.

Let's go back to why we follow Paul's writing as applicable to the church age, RATHER THAN the gospel of the coming Kingdom (on earth):

When Jesus selected the twelve disciples, He clearly meant for the gospel they (the 12) preached to be given to whom? "To the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:"
    6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
They taught the gospel of the Kingdom. 
Good thing that's NOT the end of the story!

The twelve disciples went throughout, teaching the gospel of the kingdom to come.
As we saw in Matthew 10:5-6, they were teaching ONLY to the Jewish people, (as Jesus Himself told them to do in Matt. 10:5-6)
During that time MANY Jewish people DID accept Christ.
However, we see that the majority did NOT accept Christ as their Messiah.
Instead they rejected Jesus and He willingly went to the cross.

Who did Jesus go to the cross for? Was it only for the Jewish people? We find later that it was for WHOSEVER WILL believe and accept Christ as their savior.
Had we read up to the point where Christ went to the cross and stopped reading at his crucifixion , burial, and resurrection... we might have concluded that Jesus died only for the Jewish people.
After all... He had commanded the disciples NOT to go to the Gentiles, but to only go to the "house If Israel".

God had fore-ordained this entire plan. The numerous OT prophecies didn't foresee the church age, but they DID tell of the Messiah to come.
The OT prophesies also told of the coming Kingdom (on land... which is how this thread topic started). They prophecies are very specific as to the coming Kingdom being on this physical earth (as we've been discussing throughout this thread).
The Jewish people were waiting for their Messiah to come, but they also believed He would usher in the Kingdom at the very time He came (during His first coming).
God fore-knew that they would reject Christ as their Messiah, and God also foreknew that He had a plan of the church age IN BETWEEN Christ's first coming and His second coming. God also knew that after the church age there would be a time of judgment and wrath on this earth. How else could the Kingdom be brought in when the world was/is/will be so full of wicked people? The kingdom cannot be brought in until the evil world is dealt with.

But before the Kingdom is brought in, before the wrath of God and judgment upon earth in which God will destroy the wicked and try the remnant of Israel through the time of Jacob's trouble... before those things happen the church age exists.
The 12 disciples didn't understand the church age, we can see from the questions they asked Jesus, they were looking for Him to bring in the Kingdom with His first appearance on earth.
Peter (and the other early disciples/apostles) were preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. They DID understand (after the fact) that Jesus had willingly died, was buried, and was resurrected. They DID understand that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus bleed was shed for the remission of sins. But they did not (yet) understand that God's plan included those other people in the world whom they thought of as "unclean".
They were stunned to find out that God had a plan for the Gentiles as well. This current "church age/age of grace" is that plan.

As I've shown above, Paul was to whom the church age was revealed. PRIOR to Paul being shown this mystery from the Lord Himself, no-one knew, nor had it been revealed to them.
We can see that Peter (as well as the other disciples) were still awaiting the Kingdom. They didn't understand that the Gentiles would be brought into God's plan UNTIL it started happening, and UNTIL Paul revealed to them the mystery He had been given.
God did reveal to Peter that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean", but Peter couldn't quite grasp the plan, even after God sent Peter the dreams and even after Paul had explained it. 

So I conclude by saying that the gospel of the Kingdom on earth is not the gospel for the current church age. Our gospel is grace. Faith in the work Jesus performed at the cross, and in Jesus alone. And we find the doctrine most relevant for this current church age in the writings of Paul. Can we learn from Hebrews, James, and Peter? Yes! YES and YES! Just like we can learn from the old testament many things which are applicable to our lives today. However, when we read Paul's writing we have the understanding that he was given the mysteries of the church age as well as the mystery of the rapture, and as the many verses above stated: Paul was chosen to be the bearer of the gospel to the Gentiles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I believe in dispensations, the old and the new, known as the OT and the NT.  There are no other dispensations. There will be no Gt Tribulation in a future dispensation.    The great tribulation in Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luke 21 is local and was upon Jews in the land of Judea and Jerusalem during the Roman war.  
Tribulations in Revelation are on a Church, on believers and on evil people.

Share this post


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

Of course I believe in dispensations, the old and the new, known as the OT and the NT.  There are no other dispensations. There will be no Gt Tribulation in a future dispensation.    The great tribulation in Matt 24, Mar 13, and Luke 21 is local and was upon Jews in the land of Judea and Jerusalem during the Roman war.  
Tribulations in Revelation are on a Church, on believers and on evil people.

 So you admit to 2 dispensations... however you claim the blessings of the first dispensation for yourself. 

What did Paul mean in these verses?:

Ephesians 3:1 "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,"
2 "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:"

Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"
26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints"
 

And are YOU part of the church (or even part of the same people group) who goes through the tribulation of the book of Revelation? Or is that somehow allegorical or somehow historical to you?

I'll wait for your exegesis and scriptural back-up to your theory.  

Forgot to add... Are you also a partaker of the millennial kingdom? Or is that also not an actual millennial kingdom to you, or is it not an actual thousand year period (even though Revelation 20 specifically states it is)?

Edited by Ronda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2015 at 9:44 PM, beameup said:

I'll give an example of not "rightly dividing".  I attended a MAJOR Philippine church, led by an internationally known businessman & pastor.  His sermon was based upon Exodus 19:5-6, and he preached that this is "our destiny" as Christians that WE are a "Holy Nation" and we are a "Kingdom of Priests".

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 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 19:5-6

Augustine of Hippo pushed "Replacement Theology" in the 4th Century, a theology which prevailed at the Council of Nicea, where the Catholic Church was formed under the leadership of Emperor Constantine.  Under this "Theology", ALL scripture is FOR the "Church" since Israel totally failed and has been Replaced by the Church.  All the "promises of scripture" (Old Testament) now belong to the Church.  In this 1,500+ year old "theology", everywhere in the OT where "Israel" appears, we are to substitute "Church" (of course, any curses are somehow NOT applied to the Church).

I've heard more than a few Baptist pastors preach along these lines. Some preach Baptists hold this special position, some preach America is the holy nation, especially because there are such good Baptists in America.

It seems some pastors get carried away and go to far in their sermons on this topic while some others actually believe this with a passion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2015 at 6:17 PM, Invicta said:

1. Paul wrote Hebrews.

2. No one needs to follow a "faith PLUS works"  And nowhere in the bible is that taught.  The bible teaching is that we show we have faith by our works.  If you don't have works, you don't have faith.  

I find it interesting that for centuries it was accepted that Paul was the author of Hebrews but once some modernists "scholars" began questioning that many jumped on that bandwagon. It's especially interesting that many who reject the modernist methods, motives and declarations on virtually every point nevertheless accept their meandering views on the authorship of Hebrews.

One thing that is fun, at least to me, is to listen or read old sermons (even a few new ones) from Baptist pastors preaching boldly that Paul is the author of Hebrews and why that's so clear.

As to point #2: Amen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John81 said:

I find it interesting that for centuries it was accepted that Paul was the author of Hebrews but once some modernists "scholars" began questioning that many jumped on that bandwagon. It's especially interesting that many who reject the modernist methods, motives and declarations on virtually every point nevertheless accept their meandering views on the authorship of Hebrews.

One thing that is fun, at least to me, is to listen or read old sermons (even a few new ones) from Baptist pastors preaching boldly that Paul is the author of Hebrews and why that's so clear.

As to point #2: Amen!

Which centuries are you talking about? The dark ages? Martin Luther (1483-1586) was a key figure in the protestant movement, and had that not happened, much of the world would likely be under the false religion of the Catholic "faith".  Luther was of the firm belief that Paul did not write Hebrews, and his lifespan is not within recent years. Of course the centuries prior to that the Catholic church was in control, and who would dare speak out in disagreement?  Also I wonder why Paul signed his epistles, but for this particular letter... he somehow "forgot"? I find that strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking especially of the centuries between the time of the Apostles and the actual establishment of the RCC with power. Even after that, it wasn't until latter when a real push came underway to reject Paul as the author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed about "Hebrews" is that it is a very excellently written work (even with no knowledge of Greek, this is apparent).  My conclusion is that the first 12 chapters form a "sermon" - the last chapter being "added on", and not nearly as eloquent.  It is clear to me that this work was recopied and distributed to the target audiences: synagogues; and that it was to be read aloud in the assembly (ekklesia).  With this in mind, it is my personal conjecture that this Epistle (sermon) will be of great value to those born-again Jews during the Tribulation. 

Peter did not possess these high literary skills, that is clear (perhaps Apollos or Priscilla were eloquent in Koine Greek).  The contents of "Hebrews" would not be "confusing" or difficult to understand for any Jew... the sermon titled  "Hebrews" would be crystal-clear to "Hebrews".

Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the apostle Paul is the author of the epistle to the Hebrews based on 2 Peter 3:15:

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

____________________

Excerpts from “The Interpretation of the English Bible” by B. H. Carroll – (15-17) The Book of Hebrews –Author’s Introduction, Part 2

The case of Paul may be briefly stated thus:

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

The external evidence is cumulative and threefold: scriptural, documentary, and traditional.

Scriptural. The first scriptural evidence is derived from 2 Peter 3:15: “And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according unto the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you.” If this testimony be relevant it is decisive. The argument for its application to the case is substantially this:

1,  Peter wrote his first letter to elect Jews of the dispersion in five provinces of Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1).

2.  His second letter was to the same people (2 Peter 3:1).

3.  In this second letter he says, “Our beloved brother Paul hath written to you.”

4.  The particular topic discussed by Peter,  concerning which he alleges agreement with Paul, is the emphatic topic in our letter to the Hebrews, namely, the long suffering of our Lord in delaying his advent, which delay was tempting them to apostatize.

5.  Peter distinguishes this letter of Paul to the Hebrews from all his other letters.

6.  The most probable date of Peter’s second letter allows ample time for his knowledge of the letter to the Hebrews. Indeed, Peter’s letter shows evident acquaintance with the group of Paul’s letters written during his first Roman imprisonment, and designedly supplements Paul’s great argument against the Gnostics.

7.  If our letter to the Hebrews be not the one which Peter attributed to Paul, then Paul’s letter is lost. The only escape from this argument would be proof that Peter himself never wrote the second letter attributed to him, but this would be only a nominal escape, since somebody wrote that letter and the direct testimony as to Paul writing to the Hebrews remains. Whatever may be the merits of this argument as to Peter’s testimony, it is certain that Peter never said, “Our beloved brother Barnabas, or Apollos, or Clement, or Luke, hath written unto you.”

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, John81 said:

I find it interesting that for centuries it was accepted that Paul was the author of Hebrews but once some modernists "scholars" began questioning that many jumped on that bandwagon. It's especially interesting that many who reject the modernist methods, motives and declarations on virtually every point nevertheless accept their meandering views on the authorship of Hebrews.

One thing that is fun, at least to me, is to listen or read old sermons (even a few new ones) from Baptist pastors preaching boldly that Paul is the author of Hebrews and why that's so clear.

As to point #2: Amen!

The comment on the title page to Hebrews in my Geneva Bible originally printed in 1560 -

Forasmuch as divers, both of the Greek writers and Latins witness, that the writer of this Epistle for just causes would not have his name known, it were curiosity of our part to labour much therein. For seeing the Spirit of God is the author thereof, it diminisheth nothing the authority, although we know not with what pen he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as it is not like) or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his chief purpose is to persuade unto the Hebrews (whereby he principally meaneth them that abode at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of the Jews) that Christ Jesus was not only the redeemer, but also that at his coming all ceremonies must have an end: forasmuch as his doctrine was the conclusion of all the prophecies, and therefore not only Moses was inferior to him, but also the Angels: for they all were servants, and he the Lord, but so Lord, that he hath also taken our flesh, and is made our brother to assure us of our salvation through himself: for he is that eternal Priest, whereof all the Levitical Priests were but shadows, and therefore at his coming they ought to cease, and all sacrifices for sin to be abolished, as he proveth from the seventh chapter verse 11, unto the 12 chapter verse 18. Also he was that Prophet of whom all the Prophets in time past witnessed, as is declared from the 12 chapter, verse 18, to the twenty fifth verse of the same chapter: yea, and is the King to whom all things are subject, as appeareth from that verse 25, to the beginning of the last chapter. Wherefore according to the examples of the old fathers we must constantly believe in him, that being sanctified by his justice, taught by his wisdom, and governed by his power, we may steadfastly, and courageously persevere even to the end in hope of that joy that is set before our eyes, occupying ourselves in Christian exercises that we may both be thankful to God, and dutiful to our neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my own conclusions why I believe Paul did not write Hebrews.  I will give my reasons, but after I do, I want to share a personal testimony specifically about the book of Hebrews which has changed my life, and changed my walk with the Lord in dramatic fashion, and brought me closer into a personal relationship with the Lord, as well as gave me a more fervent desire to study, grow, and fellowship with others. I apologize (ahead of time) for the length.

Reasons  (I believe) Paul did not write Hebrews:

1. 2 Thes 3:17 "17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."
    Paul himself tells us he signs every epistle he writes. Hebrews is not signed by Paul.
2. The style of writing in Hebrews is distinctly different with it's use of well-refined classical Greek.
3. It does not include the personal identification commonly found in Paul's epistles.
4. You put forth 2 Pet 3:15 as a "proof text" for Hebrews, but Peter could very well have been alluding to what Paul said in Galatians, specifically to his Jewish listeners, that they should rely fully on the sufficiency of Christ and the dangers of their desire to return (in part) to Judaism. 
    Paul had "called out" Peter on this very theme in Galatians 2:14
    "14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
    So my opinion is that it's quite possible that Peter was referring to the book of Galatians when Peter (in 2 Pet 3) speaks of the wisdom pertaining to salvation that Paul had written unto them in Galatians.
    In 1 Peter 1, the areas noted are places in proximity to Galatia, so we can see how easily the book of Galatians could well be the letter Peter was referring to in 2 Pet. 3:15
5. Paul always refers to his firsthand revelation received from Christ (eg. Gal. 1:11-12)
    and the writer of Hebrews places himself among the second-generation Christians to whom the message of Christ was confirmed by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry. 
    Hebrews 2:3 "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;"
6. In Paul's signed epistles, he quotes the the original Hebrew text (masoretic) or paraphrases it. 
    But all of the quotes in Hebrews are taken out of the Greek Old Testament(septuagint), which is inconsistent with Paul's usage in all of his signed letters/epistles. 
7. In all 13 epistles (Romans through Philemon) the first word is "Paul". Yet that's not the case in Hebrews.

8. Eternal Security and Grace by faith, (without works being a contingency for salvation) are taught by Paul in his epistles. I will show examples (below) of where this is not always the case in Hebrews.
9.  Great assurance of salvation comes to us by Paul stating in several places:
     (Col.1:12; Rom.8:15-17; 1Cor.3:22,23; Gal.3:26; and others),
    that we have already been made partakers of Christ by the Father and the Spirit. 
    But there is a HUGE "IF" in Heb. 3:14 concerning how these people become partakers of Christ.
    Could the same messenger from God have written these things? It seems somewhat contradictory in nature.
Hebrews 3:14 "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"
    So here (as in other places in Hebrews) we see an "enduring to the end" theme.
    *also in Hebrews 4:1; 6:4-6; and 10:26,27

                                                            PERSONAL TESTIMONY in regard to HEBREWS:

I have to confess here, the first time I read... I mean REALLY read and considered the words in Hebrews 6:4-6, it was one of those "OH NO" moments... I had quite a time of it. 
I dived right back in trying to figure out if I had read it right! I kept going through Hebrews and got to Hebrews 10:26 and had another "OH NO" moment!

I accepted Christ as my Lord and savior when I was young. Later, during my mid-teen years into early adulthood, I cannot say I led an exemplary life. 
Thankfully, the Holy Spirit led me back to the right ways. 
I'm not going to get specific, but I would consider it backsliding, and why I consider it thus, is that I returned repenting to the Lord, truly sorrowful for grieiving Him and grieving the Holy Spirit.

And before I get a finger poked into my face with "we know them by their fruits" or some other such verse, let me say that anyone who says they HAVE lived their entire (since salvation) life with Jesus as the main focus, and not a thought of vanity or pride for themselves is a liar.
And if any of you HAVE lived exemplary lives throughout (from the moment you accepted Christ until the present day) I saw "WONDERFUL!" 
I'm sure you will hear "well done, my good and faithful servant" when you meet the Lord. (Then again many lead outwardly appearing lives which are inwardly contrary to the outward appearance... I know MANY professing Christians who have this characteristic lifestyle: putting TV, sports, hobbies, and worldly things above the Lord and above reading/studying His word and/or serving Him).

But back to Hebrews... I admit the first time I really grasped what it said... word for word... I shut the bible that day and didn't pick it back up for at least a week!
I prayed and worried and prayed and worried some more. I was probably 19 or 20 when this happened.

Hebrews 6:4 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,"
    5 "And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,"
    6 "If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

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

I had NEVER heard a sermon on these verses prior to that time (like I said I was a young adult then), and I was thinking how completely backwards it was to all the scripture I had read and memorized before that time.
I was wondering how could it be in the same book? How could it apply to the age of grace? WHY hadn't I heard a sermon on it? Why hadn't my parents warned me?
I was sweating shocked and confused, thinking... these verses say that since I've willfully sinned (after accepting salvation) that I can LOSE my salvation! 
That flew directly in the face of all I'd heard (both in sermons and at home), all I'd read in the bible myself (up until then), and it flew directly in the face of "saved by grace" and "eternal security" taught throughout ALL the previous NT books!

I was young and immature in my walk with the Lord at the time, but I have to say it threw me for a loop for a good while.
I've (later since that time period) heard countless sermons and read commentaries about these very verses from inumerable Baptist preachers (some IFB, some southern Baptist).
I heard many many different viewpoints. But he biggest "excuse" made I heard was this:
"Well, those people, the author was referring to, were never saved to begin with"

I can't count how many times I heard that.
But what does the text actually SAY???

They were:
1. enlightened
2. tasted of the heavenly gift
3. MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST
4. tasted of the good word of God
5. (tasted also) of the powers of the world to come

Does THAT sound like someone who was "never saved to start with"???
I might have been able to swallow that theory if they had only been "enlightened" and "tasted"
BUT....................
MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST???

So I went on to Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins"

In all of those verses, it showed (to me) that it clearly wasn't talking about "eternal security" that ALL of the previous books of the NT HAD.
I went into a depression the depths of which I can't fully describe. 
I was pretty sure I was then damned. I didn't turn my back on God then, though, even though I actually thought it was useless now that I had  backslidden, I was pretty sure (according to those verses) that I was damned.
I did put down the bible for a week or so... I was despondent!
After wallowing for a week or so in utter despair, I decided what I'd read just HAD to be explained elsewhere in the bible, so I picked the bible back up and kept reading and poring over the NEXT books of the bible. Well that made things even more confusing!
As you know, next, after Hebrews, is James and Peter. That only confused me worse!
It seemed to me that Hebrews, James, and Peter completely contradicted Romans through Philemon.
And if you don't see the complete conflict and seeming contradictions in those sets of epistles (Romans through Philemon v/s Hewbrew, James, and Peter) then you're not really comprehending and studying, but merely reading.

Had I been going to a GOOD IFB church which taught more than "watered down milk", I would have been taught the difference between the writers, the books, and most importantly, the AUDIENCE the "books" were written to.
Thankfully in my younger years (birth through pre-teen years) we had lived nearby an IFB church which DID teach spiritual "meat" sermons. I had been blessed to get a good solid foundation (but never got to Hebrews that young). That pastor also happened to be my uncle.  
However, when we moved (my Dad got a job in a different area), we started attending what I now consider to be a horrible IFB church, of the weakest watered down milk variety. One of their "sermons" was never longer than 5-7 minutes, EVER, and even that was riddled with anecdotal "stories", and the rest of the "service" was music, taking up an offering, reading a lengthy prayer list, and more music. NEVER even heard an altar call for salvation at that church!!!
So I wasn't going to ask that "pastor" for his take on Hebrews (I doubt he could have even FOUND Hebrews).

What I did was call my uncle, the IFB pastor whom I'd heard during my childhood.
It wasn't just Hebrews I had concerns about, there were other, seemingly contradictory verses.
He explained to me "rightly dividing", and how (as I've stated before) in each dispensation God deals with the respective people groups in a different ways than previous (or future) dispensations.
Up until that point (I was likely 19 or 20 years old at the time) I hadn't even realized that Paul had written Romans through Philemon (even though each of those books starts out with the word "Paul").
I had read and studied the bible as though it was ALL written TO me.
THAT is where the BIG FAT ERROR comes in.
ALL of the bible is written FOR me to learn from and to gather a better understanding, but it isn't ALL written TO me.
Once I started figuring out WHO each book and/or epistle was written TO, it made perfect sense!
Like a jigsaw puzzle that I had erroneously tried to make the pieces "fit" (by not recognizing who each epistle was written to), the jigsaw puzzle now started clicking together perfectly, once I divided that simple way, noting whom each epistle was written TO.
There were no longer any contradictions... there was now perfect harmony.
I truly can't tell you how big a difference this has made in my walk and desire to ever delve deeper into God's word. It was a HUGE turning point.

Ever since that time, I have understood so much more than I ever could have before. It's been a few decades of time now, I'm in my late 40's, but I can say I have an even stronger desire to be close to the Lord, to continually live pleasing to Him and bible study is now, and has been, a joy (whereas in my late teen years it seemed to be a "chore", or even boring!)
I'm not patting myself on the back, God gave me this desire, God gave me every nugget of truth in His word. He gave me the Holy Spirit who leads and guides and gives me the strong desire to stay in the word of God and to live by the word of God... the word applicable to THIS current dispensation, the age of grace.

That's my testimony on how I went from being a luke-warm believer into being on fire, with a passion for the Lord.
It started with my misunderstanding Hebrews. So I will conclude this by saying the importance of knowing that Hebrews was written TO Hebrews has been paramount in my understanding the rest of scripture. It all started with that.
Laugh, mock, sneer, tell me some condescending one-liner after I poured out my testimony.
It's all good... I can take it. Because that doesn't move me. I know what the power of the word of God can do in my own life. 

Might I make one humble suggestion? Try it! (for even one week) studying in this manner... paying attention to WHOM each epistle is written, and see for yourself where once you saw contradictions, now you'll see perfect harmony.
God is not the author of confusion. So if you are reading conflict and contradiction... could be your reading something meant for another dispensation. Because I am now 100% sure in eternal security and being saved by grace, by faith in what Jesus did on the cross... no works added! 

One last thing here...Before I bow out of this conversation... I've taken up a LOT of space on this topic thread which was originally "Jesus' coming Kingdom on Land", and this entire post may seem to have nothing to do with the topic. However, I believe that if you divide by dispensations, you will clearly see the proof of the factual evidence that the millennial kingdom is, in fact, going to be on this earth. If you don't divide by dispensations, you will never, ever "see it". Now that I've poured my heart out, and taken up gobs of space, I am going to bow out of this conversation. (Cheers, applause, and tomato throwing--by some) as I exit. lol.   I hope the topic now returns to the original "Jesus' coming Kingdom on land", and I apologize to "Mountain Christian" for having taken up such space. God bless!

Edited by Ronda
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2015‎年‎12‎月‎18‎日 at 9:38 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, do you actually want me to respond?  Or, do you just want me to agree with you, regardless of my response?

Brethren,

The purpose of this thread was originally to discuss, 'Jesus coming on Land.' Now, it is a discussion of who is the author of Hebrews, eternal security, and dispensations. :15huh:

Pastor Markle,

I do hope that once you conclude your discussion on, 'Jesus coming on Land' you will put your study (minus the side issues and  impertinent comments from the detractors), on this thread or in another location. If the moderators allow you to put the study in a PDF format I would (and I am sure some of the other brethren), appreciate it.

Alan

 

Edited by Alan
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By Brian Smedley
      Hi, my name is Brian Smedley and I want to say without Christ I am nothing . Through the Lord Jesus Christ do I have righteousness, not my righteousness, but his. I am presented to God through Jesus blood that flowed at Calvary for my sins and all of mankind's. John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth  on him would not perish, but have everlasting life. 
    • By Brian Smedley
      Hi, my name is Brian Smedley and I want to say without Christ I am nothing . Through the Lord Jesus Christ do I have righteousness, not my righteousness, but his. I am presented to God through Jesus blood that flowed at Calvary for my sins and all of mankind's. John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth  on him would not perish, but have everlasting life. 

    • By MountainChristian
      “Commandments of God”
      This phrase only appears three times in the Authorized King James Version.
      The first time this phrase is used it was Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”- 1Corinthians 7:19. How can Paul say keeping the commandments of God and not include circumcision?
      Let's do a little background work. Jehovah told Abraham to start the tradition of circumcision in Genesis 17, “And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” Later in the Law Jehovah told Moses it was one of the commandments, in Leviticus 12:3, “And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”
      So we see it was part of God's commandments in the Law, but was those commandments replaced by God?
      In the book of John 14:15 we see Jesus telling us to keep his commandments. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” In John 14:21 Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” Again in John 15:10 Jesus said, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”
      How do we know what commandments Jesus gave us to follow? Acts 1:1-4 “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.” 1 Corinthians 14:37 “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:2 “For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.”
      We see the phrase repeated the last two times by John in Revelation 12:17 “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
      The 1st time the phase appears Paul is telling us it's not the Law or Torah. The Apostles was Jewish and they taught and kept the commandments of Jesus as God. Jesus even told us he fulfilled the Father's and we should keep his commandments. In the Revelation verses John tells us the men are Christians but over and over men say those are Law commandments. So why do some writers of Christian/Jewish Eschatology say the verses in Revelation mean the Law or Torah? My Sunday school teacher has given me some books on eschatology but none of them explain their reasoning. He is on vacation so I thought I would ask you guys and gals.
    • By MountainChristian
      John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
      I have 2 questions. 1) Why was Jesus saying he was in heaven while standing on earth? 2) Where did Enoch and Elijah go if they didn't go to heaven?
    • By MountainChristian
      At the start of his ministry.
      Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
      Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
      Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
      Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 
      At the end of his ministry. 
      Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 
      The devil never gave up, and now he is fighting against us.
      Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...