Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Calvary

  1. 2 Corinthians is not talking about giving to your local church. Stop twisting the scriptures. It was a special offering for a special time and a special need. I mean, since you non tithers want to obey the letter and all.... just saying. To condemn those that tithe as coercers and all that clap trap, then to quote a passage that has absolutely nothing to do with regular giving in a local church is beyond the pale. lol
  2. The Calvinist believes a man incapable of responding to the voice of the Lord as he is dead in sins and trespasses. They cite Lazarus as a generic example of the deadened sinners inability to respond until he has been quickened by the Lord to do so, thus bringing salvation, or regeneration to the lost sinner. (Effectively making regeneration a prerequisite to salvation! Talk about heresy!! Born again but not saved?? ) Only problem with all that is that there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate an inability of a man to respond, but strong evidence that he does not wish to respond. Take Adam for example. The very 1st man who according to the Calvinist shares the dead spiritual condition of all men having disobeyed the voice of the Lord Here is your spiritual death - Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Here is the spiritually dead hearing the voice of the Lord: Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: Here is the spiritually dead responding to their condition: ... and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Watch it again: A spiritually dead man, in his sins and trespasses, unregenerate, unsaved and in a fallen state and nature. Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? A spiritually dead man, with a fallen Adamic nature (in fact the Original fallen man) and he is fully capable of understanding his condition, his predicament and his choice of hiding from God instead of getting right with God. Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. Man in a fallen nature is aware of it. He also understands his accountability to God, in a fallen nature. No amount of theological mazes will change that. God bless, calvary
  3. The brider or landmarker would say local, the universalists would say (lol) universal, but the Bible believer would say 1st there is no water in the text, so it´s off topic and 2nd there is no church (local or universal) in the text, it is the Body of Christ, which is The Church, not "a" church. I personally teach according to the scriptures that there is a local church and there is the Body of Christ. They are not always the same thing. How do we know? The Body of Christ is only and exclusively made up of born again believers. Period. Whether or not they congregate is irrelevant. The local church however cannot be the Body of Christ as in any local church there is a strong probability of a member being lost, unregenerate and reprobate, hence not a member of the Body. It really is just that simple. If entrance into the local church is by water baptism under the authority of some approved, apostolic succession silliness, and the local church is the Body of Christ, then you are teaching water baptist puts me into the Body of Christ. The Landmarker can cavil all he desires to and argue that I am misrepresenting his position, but I am not. That is in fact the ramifications of Brider heresy. The local church and the Body of Christ are not identical and are not synonymous terms. The authority to Baptize my converts comes from the scriptures lone, not a church assembly or a denominational authority. Jesus told me to do it. Paul, my apostle said he did so as well, and then he told me to imitate his leadership, his life and his ministry which obviously include baptizing his converts en water. There is no local church authority, there is only the authority vested in us as followers of Christ. God bless, calvary
  4. Several have stated this sentiment. I sat in a church for 11 years and never once heard any message that indicated that God will exact the tithe out of non cooperating Christians. I guess I am fortunate. In that my pastor taught the book, and that I didn´t have to go church hopping all the time. We sat under his ministry and learned the Bible, not traditions. Praise God for that. For the last 15 years in Mexico I have striven to continue that legacy. Teach the book, let the "brethren" cavil where they will, it makes no matter. In the end I simply desire to hear, Well done ..... But I simply wanted to comment on the apparent abuse many of you have suffered from ignorant men teaching little fiefdom theologies. I thank God I never suffered as some of you have. God bless, calvary
  5. Greetings brother Scott, Been out of town for a few weeks, glad to be back to my ministry. I will try to be clear. I understand righteousness to us as NT saints is imputed. I also see quite often in the OT dispensation a righteousness that is personal, or of ones´own by way of action. I do not however teach that OT saints are "saved" by way of their own righteousness, but do see it very plainly that it afforded them a right standing before God, which He recognized. What I hear too many imply is that since the law cannot save, no one ever kept the law, hence, salvation cannot be by the works of the law. The error in that thinking is not so much the conclusion, but the understanding of the purpose of the law. Paul states that the law was a schoolmaster. To bring US to Christ. That WE might be justified by faith. But under the law, and to those under the law, that was not it´s purpose. In fact Paul says that to those under the law, it was binding. Now.... At the judgment, God will use the law to justify HIS passing of judgment. He will use the conscience of men to justify HIS passing of judgment. It is God who is justified in using the law. It is not we who are found guilty by not keeping the law, as the Lord does not need to use the law to judge you or I. So right standing n the OT is not the same as being imputed right before God. That right standing before God in the OT was not salvation in the sense you and I understand it, but it remitted their sins until such time that Jesus paid for them. Hence their inability to enter into heaven. If a man under the OT dispensation could be saved as you and I are saved, then they would have entered into glory upon death, but they did not. Why not? Because the law does not save a man, but it certainly is holy, it certainly is good, it certainly will not acquit, but it will hold a man in right standing before the Lord by REMITTING his sins, IF he is under the law. You and I are not and never were under the law. NO gentile nation EVER was obligated to keep the law. So to bring the effects of the law into a conversation of NT salvation to me is a funny thing, it has no bearing upon my salvation, never did and never will. I am a gentile who is now neither Jew nor Gentile and disputing over the law is a silly thing to me. Both those that try to make salvation by keeping it, and by those that try to annul the law by grace. Both are wrong. Anyways, I have to run, I am really busy having just come back. Thank you for your kind conversation. God bless, calvary
  6. My apologies for not responding brother, I have been in the states @ Missions Conferences, still have one more to go starting Sunday. Lord willing I will be back @ my desk to continue our talk soon. God bless, calvary
  7. Those verses are wonderful truths. Of course faith is a requirement tom please God, no one is suggesting it isn't. The main issue so many in this thread are defending is not even the issue. In fact, I honestly believe that most just post knee jerk reactions to what they perceive has been said, but in reality has not been said. I have not said any one has been saved by works. I have however said very plainly that OT persons had righteous standing before God apart from a belief in Jesus Christ. And I quoted scripture, not my opinion about it, that men had a righteousness before God because the WALKED IN HIS COMMANDMENTS, so what do men here do? They quote a verse as if that portion of the scripture undoes what another portion. !!?? In fact I posted Luke 1:6 that said as much in plain 6th grade english. But of course, instead of commenting on Luke 1 or Philippians 3 or Duet 32, people simply post other verses as if they can disavow what the BIble says. The Bible does not contradict it self. Only men make contradictions about it. The failure to rightly divide and recognize that God's dealings with men have in fact changed from time to time is crucial to understanding the BIble. Without recognizing the divisions, or dispensations or administrations or stewardship of God, one falls into silly doctrines like, sons of God always means a born again believer. Or men looked forward to the cross and were saved by that. Or men called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, when no such verse exists that says what they called upon him for or what the result was of that calling. OT persons got saved. They did so because of their righteousness before God through obedience to His word. Your argument is not with me, it's with the author of that book, God bless, calvary
  8. Luke 1:6, And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1 is still OT. But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one! Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. Duet. 6:25, and it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. That's not why you are righteous. Under NT grace, not by works of righteousness which we have done... But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James) Ever notice Job was called perfect and upright? That's the Holy Spirit commenting on the righteousness of Job. Paul would tell you that he was counting on his own righteous standing to be right with God, as a Jew. Philippians 3 he says that he has more confidence than other men, and that as touching righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Just like Zacharias and Elizabeth. That's not NT salvation. NT salvation is the righteousness of God without the law, .... but to him that worketh not, but beleiveth.... his faith is counted for righteousness... So you have 2 groups of folks. Some teach that you have to do something right now to get saved, and there are those that say, NO!! but fail to rightly divide when it comes to OT, tribulation, the millennium. Ever wonder why the word faith only appears 2 times in the OT?? The rich young ruler comes up to Jesus, says Good master, WHAT GOOD THING shall I do, that I MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? And Jesus says, believe on the me and you;ll be saved! Help yourself, it's a free gift! Uhmmm.... no, he didn't say that did he? He didn't quote Ephesians 2:8-9. Jesus said, IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS (Matthew 19) The young man says he has and is, and Jesus never contradicts him. In fact Jesus says, be perfect, and have treasure in heaven. No plan of NT salvation. The practical applications are not lost on me, so don't sermonize the passage, just read it and believe it. The practical application does not annul the doctrine of what Jesus said. What is it that changes everything between Luke 1, Matthew 19, Romans 4, Philippians 3 is this. The vicarious atonement of Jesus for our sin and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the New Birth. The OT has no sacrifices to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4), and no one was ever regenerated by the Holy Ghost. God accepted the good works of a man who believed Him UNTIL the man's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. ROMANS 3:25 Did that avoid the question? Or are you going to answer with as much scripture? God bless, calvary
  9. One grave error that most of the people that operate under the idea of "everyone is saved the same" or the ever delightful and ridiculous "looked forward to the cross" silliness is a lack of definition of righteousness. OT saints and their righteousness is not the same as our imputed righteousness. I could post dozens of verses that state emphatically that there were in fact righteous people in the OT, regardless of what Romans 3:10-23 says. The disconnect is is making everything the same when it is not. Things that are different are not the same. They never were and they never will be. God bless, calvary
  10. So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is? I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper. But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical. Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground. Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body backunder the law?? Makes no sense to me. The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism. Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile. God bless, calvary I made that bigger for you in case you missed it ....
  11. Now you´re asking the right questions!! Good for you heart. God bless, calvary
  12. So is it long winded AND intelligent or ...? lol For the record, Ephesians 2 says it isn´t by works, so why would I say it is? I already asked folks to re read and think before they write. Try not to assume anything I believe if I haven´t put into paper. But no Jew or Gentile before the cross of Jesus was ever "looking forward" to it. That doctrine is unBiblical. Making types a doctrinal foundation for OT saints is dangerous ground. Why would anyone drag a perfectly good NT doctrine back under the law? You wouldn´t drag the law up into the NT??!! Would you!!?? Why then do well meaning folks do the exact same thing by dragging the doctrines of the Body back under the law?? Makes no sense to me. The real questions you ought to be asking is How did God save them by grace? Not How did God save them? Therein lies true dispensationalism. Take Romans 14 and really read what the Lord required of a man under the law, be he a Jew or a gentile. God bless, calvary
  13. @ covenant and irish - your both do exactly what most do, take your understanding of a doctrine or a truth that you found in the writings of Paul or in typology and lay it back into the understanding of the saints (yes I said saints, so obviously there were saved folks back then) and make them to be on equal ground of your own understanding. It is erroneous and the scriptures themselves decry such fanciful conclusions. I see the Lord Jesus every where in the Bible, of course, it is all about Him, but that doesn´t mean any one who lived under the Mosaic dispensation had the slightest inkling of what the cross signified. If they saw it at all. I mean you just quoted Jesus reprimanding a pair of men for NOT SEEING IT. First off, Peter says that even the men who gave you the anti types did not understand them or their meaning or role in salvation. 1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. That´s pretty self explanatory. Can you imagine how excited Isaiah would have been to read the gospel of John? They knew a little of something, but had no understanding of the implications, the significance of what they themselves prophesied. Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; Again, it´s just 6th grade English there my friend. Nothing too complicated to grasp. Men in other ages DID NOT KNOW what Paul revealed throughout his epistles. As much of the cross you see in Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, Numbers, Genesis 3,; 18 and the hundreds of other places. Paul speaking under the INSPIRATION of the HOLY GHOST stated emphatically that THEY ("the sons of men") DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. Now if you disagree with Ephesians 3, that´s your right to do so, as for me and my house, we will accept Paul´s word on it. Col 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; Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Col 1:27 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: Paul repeats the fact that what you and I know about Christ, the church, the types, the cross - as HID... BUT NOW... Again, your debate is not with me, it is with a holy man of old who spake as the Spirit moved him. I´ll give you brothers an example of what happens when you only see what you have received and never put yourself in the shoes of an OT saint who did not have any understanding of what you and I understand. So Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that the gospel is the message that Christ died for our sins ( a propitiation) he was buried and then rose form the dead on the 3rd day. Paul says all of those components are in fact found in the scriptures. I have no problem conceding that those scriptures mentioned in 1 Corinthians are the OT writings. Anyone can see that. But that is not what we are talking about. Paul said that those components of the gospel message are in fact essential to salvation, that unless someone believed those things and received them, there could be no salvation. 1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. To simply run to verses 3-4 to preach what the gospel is and pass over the implications of verses 1-2 is to eradicate context. BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED.... So, if the message that Christ died for sinners is non negotiable, if the fact that a belief in His resurrection is a requirement for salvation... What exactly were the 12 preaching while with Christ? Luk 18:31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. Luk 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: Luk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. There´s 1 Corinthians 15:1-4!! Jesus looked forward to the cross. I grant that. The Father looked forward to the cross. I see that as well. But there is no evidence that any saint "looked forward" to the cross in the sense that he was trusting it would get him right with God. Luk 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. What do we have here!!?? These 12 men who have walked with Jesus for over 3 years, who have watched him do things that we could only imagine, that heard him teach every day, I mean EVERY SINGLE DAY, - and you would have me believe that they looked forward to the cross?? After the Holy Spirit just said that THEY (the 12) understood NONE of THESE things (the death, burial and resurrection), that this saying was HID from them (exactly as Paul told you they were, yet still you argue) and that THEY (the 12) NEITHER KNEW the things SPOKEN. Which according to Paul are a requirement for salvation!! (Review 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 if you need to) I do not how how much more redundant the Holy Spirit can be to make you see that what you good men try to explain, cannot be supported by the scriptures you claim to believe. Things different are not the same. It´s not rocket science my friends, it´s just Bible study. Now, before you demand of me that I don´t believe the Bible and quote a bunch more scriptures that have no real bearing on what I am talking about., do not forget to re-read my post. I have not said any one was saved by keeping the law (I haven´t said either way really). I haven´t said that Jesus is not the way to peace with God. I haven´t said half the stuff you are about to accuse me off, so think before you speak (or write). If Paul is correct, and I have no doubt he is, then according to 1 Corinthians we need to preach death, burial and resurrection so that folks will get saved. Are you suggesting that the 12 preached the central issues of the gospel, although they understood none of it, when those central issues were hid from them (??!!) and that they neither KNEW any of it???!!!! OK..... If you say so.... God bless, calvary
  14. "Esteeming the reproach of Christ..." vs. 26 One should notice that this is a case like Abraham, "seeing Christ´s day" (John 8:56). The writer is not saying Moses was suffering because he was telling people about Christ, or personally believing on Christ, he is simply saying that the same kind of reproaches that fell on Christ (John 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.; Psalms 69:9, For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.), fell on Moses for doing right. "The recompense of the reward" was a reward for doing right and not enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season. Moses esteemed that any reproach that he would take for doing right was better than any payment, which is exactly how the Apostles figured the matter after they "suffered shame for His name" (Acts 5:41) Moses could enjoy sin or he could suffer, he chose "rather to suffer affliction with the people of God" (Hmmm, no "sons of God " there, only people of God - lol) For he endured as seeing HIM WHO IS INVISIBLE.... That is the key to it all. That is his real motivation. Reading New Testament doctrine back into the Old Testament will always lead one to a wrong conclusion. It will have born again believers where there are none, it will have men looking forward to the cross who didn´t see any cross anywhere. It will have the Holy Spirit indwelling men when He did not. Always be very careful of taking New Testament facts and placing them over Old Testament saints. Most of the time it will lead one to error. God bless, calvary
  15. Hhahaha. That´s rich. At least you have s sense of humor Standing. You´re ok with your own argument from silence, but any of this angel nonsense is an argument from silence and can´t be tolerated!! Hahahaha. That is funny. Too much man, too much.
  16. So if do prove it, it doesn´t matter? OK. I have posted this at least 3 times, once more the folks that are not reading everything in order. 1. Adam - Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own (Adam´s) likeness, after his (Adam´s) image; and called his name Seth: Adam was a son of God. directly created by God. But Adam´s son was not. He is a son of a man. He was not created by God but begotten by Adam. A begotten son but no son of God. Since Adam fell into sin his children were conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity (Psalms 51), thus losing the title son of God. 2. Israel - Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. It is sons plural. It is daughters plural. But I have made HIM, singular. That is the nation of Israel, called sons of God because they are created by God in a condition of sinlessness. Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. When the nation of Israel is born again at the close of the Trib period, they gain the title of what they have become, sons of God. 3. Born Again Believers - John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I was a son of Adam, son of a man. One day I repented of my sin, came to the Lord Jesus, put my faith and trust in HIm and I was given a new title. I was born again, I was RE-generated into a sinless condition. Therefore I have the title son of God. 4. Jesus Christ - Do we really need to quote any scripture? Sons of God cannot be sons of God without a new birth. I know that makes you upset. I can see that since that doesn´t fit into your definition of sons of God in Job 1 or 2 or 38 or Genesis 6, you have decided instead to attack the one who stands firm on the Bible definition. I wish I could say it wasn´t so to make you like me. But I really am not trying to win any fans. The Bible is clear. To be a son of God, you must have been created by God into a sinless condition. Period. Abraham was righteous and for that the BIble calls him righteous. But we are not discussing Abraham´s righteousness nor his standing with God. If you type Abraham son of God into your Bible program´s search window, you will get 0 results. After searching the Bible, I see Adam, I see Israel, I see me, I see Jesus and like it or not I see angels as well are a direct creation of God, having been created in a sinless condition. That´s enough scripture for any reasonable man. Your problem lies in not liking the conclusions, but unless you can present another, I am out of options. Are the sons of God in Job 1, 2, 38 Adam? Are they Israel? Are they Jesus? Are they you and me? Who are they? Not yourself, not Standing, not Uke MIke, not Old Fashion, no one in this thread has presented a viable option based upon scripture. Some of you, although you don´t see it, have suggested a son of God that is not really a son of God. Imagine that! A son of God who is not born again, only righteous. Whatever that is. Others have taken to mocking like children, asking silly questions tauntingly and insincerely. I don´t mind. I don´t think my deduction is the only one viable, but as of yet, no one has offered any relief. God bless, calvary
  17. That is were your doctrinal deficiency occurs, trying to interject New testament doctrine in an Old Testament situation., It won´t fit. It is an errant teaching as it cannot be supported by any scriptures. You are placing born again believers in Genesis 4 and that is simply unBiblical and unscriptural. NO ONE WAS EVER BORN AGAIN UNTIL CHRIST RESURRECTED. You show us how to get around that last fact, and I might listen. Until then, your grasping at straws. It is not evil to demonstrate that a false teaching is false my friend. I guess if you can´t handle that then you shouldn´t debate doctrine. You and others on this thread have decried the phrase sons of God cannot be an angel, OK, fine. If it is not angles, then is it Adam? No you all say. Is it Israel? No you all say. Is it Jesus? No you all say. Is it a believer? Yes, say some of you. And I say, that is a false teaching. So if it is evil to call a false teaching a false teaching then call me evil. Sorry you feel that way. You have not been able to support your assumption with any scripture. The sons of God, if not angels, how did they become sons of God? No one has ever been just by proxy a son of God. All sons of God are a direct creation of God. Without exception. You show me how to get around the fact of regeneration by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Until then your sons of God in Genesis 6 cannot fit the Biblical definitions of son of God, unless you accept that there are a 5th class. My argument is not from silence, it is from deduction. I conclude that since these sons of God cannot be 1. Adam. 2. Israel. 3. Jesus Christ. 4. New creatures in Christ, they must be a direct creation of God to hold the title sons of God. WHO IS LEFT?? Like it or not, those are the choices. You have indicated that you believe them to be # 4 on my list. I am merely pointing out to all reading this thread that that will not hold water as far as the Bible is concerned. It is you that make them regenerated. it is you that makes them born again, it is you that is putting them in Christ, not me. All of those affirmations and much more are only true of sons of God. Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I am truly sorry that you are offended that your presentation of the definition of sons of God has not held to be scriptural. John 1 is in the Bible to help us, not hinder us. If your classification of sons of God includes a being that has not been born of God, then your definition is wrong. For that reason, I add # 5 to my list. 5. Angels. Genesis 6 cannot and will not ever be any of the other 4. Unless you toss out the New Testament definition of a son of God. I am glad that this conversation has gone where it has. I am glad that I could present, steadfastly and consistently what sons of God are according to the Bible, no matter how hard it has been for some. Your choice is obvious. Concede that they are angels, or invent a new doctrine of sons of God not born again. God bless, calvary
  18. Adam, like Israel, like Jesus, like born again believers all are created by God. That´s why angels as well can be considered sons of God. The are a direct creation of God. Adam was a son of God. Was Seth a son of God? No, he was a son of Adam. IN fact Enos was a son of Seth, not of God. There are 3 theories over Genesis 4:26, the simplest being that men began to pray, for this is how the expression is used in scripture. Others postulate that the phrase signifies That men began to be called by the name of the Lord God. (The alexandiran LXX puts that forward "epikaleisthai to onoma kuriou tou Theou") Then there is the Jewish scholars, (The Targum, KImchi, Rashi) They state that men quit praying to God and used his name for their idols attached his name to their gods. One thing I might add is that Enoch is prophesying against an ungodly generation of sensual apostates (Jude 14). Where do these "wandering stars", "spots", "withered fruit", "rootless tress" "brute beasts" and "filthy dreamers" come from? (Jude 7-13) I surmise that the "gods" are already present by Enoch´s time. I suggest that this calling upon the Lord could be an irreverent calling, that is to profane the name of the Lord. One thing is for certain, there were no sons of God being made in Genesis 4, as every class of son of God is a direct creation of God, without exception. That is were your doctrinal deficiency occurs, trying to interject New testament doctrine in an Old Testament situation., It won´t fit. It is an errant teaching as it cannot be supported by any scriptures. You are placing born again believers in Genesis 4 and that is simply unBiblical and unscriptural. NO ONE WAS EVER BORN AGAIN UNTIL CHRIST RESURRECTED. You show us how to get around that last fact, and I might listen. Until then, your grasping at straws. God bless, calvary
  19. If you are suggesting that men received the power to become sons of God, as in -Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. , then you would have some serious doctrinal deficiency to overcome. That is why we were having this conversation in he first place. To finally get someone to publicly say, these sons of God in Genesis 6 are regenerated souls. No one ever called son of God got that way unless they were created that way by God. I am not saying men were not saved in the OT. But there is no new birth in the Genesis to Malachi. If these men became sons of God, as you are suggesting, then you have come out with a false and heretical teaching. No one was ever born again until Christ was resurrected. Period. So....? That has been the the thrust of all my posting. You men cannot have it both ways. You cannot say one minute that they are not angels and then say the next that they are sons of God because they "called upon the name of the Lord". The Bible simply will not support your idea of born again sons of God without a new covenant. It has been tedious to get you there. But now that you are there, are you going to defend such a blatantly false premise as born again sons of God in Genesis 6? But, I do not wish to take this thread in another 15 pages of posts arguing about OT salvation and New Testament salvation. I am satisfied that you are unable to admit your error on this subject. But 2 wrongs do not make a right. :-)
  20. I will confess to my brethren that Standing does rankle me. I shouldn´t let it, but (not as any justification) I have been untoward to him. It is not because of this thread. It was in my heart before hand. I apologize to him if I have been caustic to him, or if I have been un Christian in my demeanor to him. Let it be done with. Yet, to date, Standing has not told us who the sons of God are in Job 38. There are only 4 (5 to me) biblical choices. I would love to hear from his own mouth who they are. God bless, calvary
  21. Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Earths foundation... when..... the question is rhetorical. The obvious answer is NO MAN was there, including Job. When the sons of God shouted for joy, is at the time when the foundations of the earth were laid. That is the context. You nor I have any understanding, but since the Bible is not silent on the term sons of God for us, I ask again, who were they. Were they 1. Adam? 2. Israel? 3. Jesus? 4. Born again believer? I understand your inability and unwillingness to answer with anything conclusive on your part, it would lead you to face the "false doctrine", the "nonsense", the "inability to understand deductive bible study", the impossible task of "reconciling false doctrine" with New Testament stated facts of the new birth. No one has been caustic to you, but some one has decided to hold your feet to the fire and exact an answer on this simple question. To date, I have not had one. To say it is one of the 4, you will be found to have more questions then any answer. You both know that, that is why you have as yet refused to chose one of the only choices available. Though Pastor Scott does not agree with my findings, he did graciously concede that they could not have been of the other 4 classes. I can respect that. What I lack respect for is a man who will refuse to answer simple questions. God bless, calvcary
  22. I have repeatedly asked for a identification of the sons of God in Job 38 and only have been responded to by snide and demeaning innuendos by Standing. To date, neither yourself, neither Uke Mike and neither heartstrings have proffered any clear biblical response. Job 38, states that the sons of God shouted for joy WHEN (not because, or not due to the.. but WHEN [vs.4] God created. My question, again is, How could men be at the creation of the earth when Adam was not yet created? What sons of God exactly were there? Since there is only 5 classes of sons of God, no... wait.... I´ll concede for the moment only the 4 you have found, of the 4, which class of sons of God were present in Job 38? Was it Adam? If it was, prove it. Was it Israel? If it was, prove it. Was it Jesus? If it was prove it. Was it born again believers? If it was, prove it. All sons of God are a direct creation of God. There is no other way to become one. God bless, calvary
  23. Answering questions with a question is a sign of an inability to respond. Thank you.
  • Create New...