Calvary

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

That is NT salvation in a precise and clear form. One must hear the gospel before they can believe. That is where you assume that a son of God in the OT has believed what you beleive. That is not only ludicrous, it is impossible.

Revisiting 1 Peter 1:10-11, OT prophets did not understand any salvation that was by faith alone in the completed sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Revelation 19 gives us the correct Bible with Bible view, and tells us that Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, This does not prove that they knew that this was the Spirit of Christ, but is only a declaration of Peter that it was actually so. It simply declares that they were speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it says nothing more and your skewered reasoning concludes the exact opposite of what the text is teaching! Peter says in verse 8 that his audience (NT Christians) has believed on Jesus and that they rejoice for that. Then he JUXTAPOSES their faith and salvation with that of the ones who verily gave the prophecies. He states in clear terms that we (NT Christians ) have received the END OF OUR FAITH, THE SALVATION OF OUR SOULS! Peter further declares that the OT prophet preached a grace that would come to us, though they possessed it not, and he says the prophet could not distinguish the difference between the 2 comings of Christ, His Advent and His Second Coming. There is nothing to indicate that the prophet had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and your fixating upon a phrase in the text to the exclusion of the context has served only to present yourself with a pretext.

I repeat, again, your free dealing with context has led you into an erroneous conclusion.

Looking at the Ephesians 1 again - then compare to John 1:12, which you are fond of quoting. In order to become a son of God one must receive the Lord Jesus. No OT saint ever received a Savior that had not yet died for his sins. Paul equates receiving the gospel with believing the simple components of the message, 1, that Jesus died for your sins, according to the scriptures, that 2, he was buried and 3, he rose again. Paul says that by believing THAT message one could be saved and stand. Your insistence that in the OT there were sons of God in the sense of John 1, or 1 John is very poor reasoning. 1 Peter is stating that these OT prophets could not distinguish the significance of the sufferings of Christ or the glory to follow. His sufferings were the cross, his glory is not yet been fulfilled. The simple question is if one could not grasp the significance of the sufferings of Christ how does one believe on that for salvation? It is none other than Paul that declares that a belief on that gospel message is essential for salvation. Yet you have people saved that do not meet the requirements of NT salvation having not heard this message, therefore having not believed what is required and yet you commend to them ignorance while being saved. You stated that many folks get saved without understanding the gospel. The Bible says that you are dead wrong on that assertion. No one could be saved in the NT sense without having heard the message of the gospel and believing that message.

God bless,
Calvary

I really did not know we are arguing. I thought this was a discussion.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


And its clear Abraham was saved by faith, not by the law, not by works of righteousness, nor offering animal sacrifices..


Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

¹⁰Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
¹¹Searching 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.
¹²Unto 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.

Just because a OT statement was made, there is no reason to infuse an understanding of NT salvation back into it. This text says as plain as the nose on your face that David, was pretty sure he didn't know what he was talking about. It's called reading the NT back into the NT and affirming a doctrine that is clearly NT in nature to an OT personage that clearly did not see it in the light of what we have revealed to us today in the New Testament scriptures. You do great damage to biblical exegesis by doing so.

Here's a simple example:

³¹Then 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.
³²For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
³³And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
³⁴And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

I can't see how the Holy Spirit of God could get any more redundant than this. Yet, how often do we have folks talking about OT saints who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ!? So, according to such sloppy statements, the disciples believed on the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of the fact that they didn't understand the plain gospel elements, the simple gospel elements were hidden from their understanding and they didn't even know what the definitive statements the Lord Jesus had just moments earlier give were about.

That's why I sort of roll my eyes when sincere folks like you who love the Lord speak about sons of God being believers on the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of clear simple statements like 1 Peter and Luke 18 exist in your Bible.

There were no sons of God who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ at the creation, there were no sons of God who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ when the foundations were set forth, there were no sons of God who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ present when the LORD fastened the earth upon nothing. To declare such as true is to declare an abject ignorance of the word of God that is astounding.
I'm satisfied that your exegesis is superficial at best, and incapable of treating other passages that clearly contradict your position.

You have a nice day, we really don't need to argue any more about it.

God bless,
Calvary

There have always been BELIEVERS. Peter James and John were believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ but even they weren't called "Christians" until Antioch. When David referred to "my Lord", in Psalm 100, he was referring to none other than The Lord Jesus Christ.. Translation? David was a BELIEVER on the Lord Jesus Christ. But who brought up the word "Christian" anyway? You did. My point is that there have always been believers and those "sons of God" in the OT were believers. 'Sons of God' are never defined as being angels. Not even once. Believers = sons of God. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, and even Methuselah were believers.

Nobody in the NT was called "Christian" but I ask you: who was David refering to as "my Lord" in Psalm 110:1?

Who are the sons of God? Could be saved folks, but not always. What does the Bible say?

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. Dan 2:43

The head of gold was interpreted for us as Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian kingdom. The arms of silver are said to stand for the Media-Persia empire. The torso of brass is set forth as a symbol the Grecian kingdom. The legs of iron are understood as the Roman Empire.
Getting down to verse 43 one concludes that the mixture of iron with clay is also representative of a kingdom. God says the iron is "they". So, there iron stands for a people who mingle themselves with the clay. The clay therefore is defined as the seed of men. Therefore iron and clay are separate and distinct.
From this passage as well we learn that whoever is ruling on the earth in the last kingdom, before Jesus comes again, will a mingling of "they" with the seed of men.
Daniel 2:40 gives us a great opening to follow as search for who these minglers are.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
This brings to mind another scripture that talks of bruising.
Genesis 3:14-15, And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
¹⁵And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God told us that the serpent, who is defined as Satan, has a seed, and that the only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, will have a conflict with the seed of the serpent. Also we learn that Jesus, by bruising the head of the serpent, will also be bruising the seed of the serpent.

Daniel 2 says that when the stone was cut out without hands and descended to the earth, and that when it smashed the kingdom that was part iron and part clay, he (Jesus the stone) would be bruising "them". The reference, Bible with Bible, is to the seed or offspring of the serpent.

Now, look at Job 1. There we find a term in our Bible that causes confusion for many, that term is "son of God". This term always refers to a creature that is sinless at the time of it's creation. Therefore, we have different groups or individuals referred to as a son or sons of God.

1. Angles;
2. Adam;
3. The nation of Israel;
4. Jesus Christ;
5. The born again Christian.

Job 1:6, Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Who are the sons of God in this passage. Adam was long gone. Israel was not yet a nation. Jesus Christ has not yet appeared, and thus there were no born again Christians. That leaves us with angels.
Let's see if there is confirmation in other passages.
Job 38:4-7, Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So, when God created the original creation, ALL the sons of God shouted for joy. At the time of the original creation (Genesis 1), all the sons of God were with Him, on His side, shouting for joy at the glory manifest in His creation.

The Bible also speaks of a day that a nation will be born in one day.
Now let's go to Isaiah 43:6-7, 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; 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 created him. Singular. That is the nation of Israel, called sons of God because they are created by God in a sinless condition.
Hosea 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 tribulation, they gain a title that signifies what they have become, that is "Sons of God".

Genesis 5:1-3, This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Adam was a son of God, but the son of Adam was not. Adam's son was Adam's son. Adam fell into sin and his children were conceived in in sin and shaped in iniquity (Psalms 51), thus losing the title "son of God".

Now John 1. I want to show you a real blessing. I was in Adam. I was a son of Adam. Then one day I repented of my sin, came to the Lord Jesus, put my faith and trust in him, and was given a new title.
John 1:12-13, 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: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
When I was born again I was regenerated into a sinless condition. Therefore, I now have the title, son of God.

All this is to establish this fact. angels in your Bible are called sons of God because at the time of their creation they were without sin.

I'd love to continue this, but I have to go. Maybe I'll post again later on what this means in relation to the identity of the sons of God in genesis 6 and how we can be fairly certain that they were not Christians.

God bless,
Calvary

Sons of God has 5 designations.

Adam
Angels
Israel
Jesus
Me

Every one of the 5 classifications are begotten.

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1Pe 3:19-20

Covenant gave you the standard interpretation of this passage. Barnes, Clarke, Jameson Faucet and Brown, even the dispensationalist Gaebelin goes this way. So it’s not a Dispensational teaching that has Jesus going and preaching to some one in hell. Alford taught that Jesus preached in hell. His contemporaries sort of mocked him and said it provided a second chance gospel. But the details of the right interpretation doesn’t allow for a second chance as it does not allow that the spirits are men.

Two immediate problems arise by making Christ preach to men through Noah (Noah preaching in the Spirit of Christ)
1. Noah didn’t preach to any spirits, he preached to men. Men aren’t spirits, men are souls.
2. Noah never preached to anyone in prison.

Vs. 19, “by which” The “which” refers back to the Holy Spirit in verse 18.

1 Peter 4:6 is similar to these verses. Christ preached the gospel in 1 Peter 4, but no mention of preaching the gospel is found in 1 Peter 3.

In 1 Peter 4 Christ preached to them that are dead. These dead are to be judged… in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. The dead of 1 Peter 4 are not spirits in prison, which some time were disobedient. So although 1 Peter 4 may help us understand what Christ did during his burial, it does not help us interpret 1 Peter 3.

So, if the spirits are not men, who are they? Or better yet, what are they?

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
In Hebrews 1;14, Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? That is in direct reference to angels.
Recall that when Peter was loosed from prison in Acts 12, Rhoda tried to convince the others that Peter was at the door. They said, It is his angel. They were talking about his spirit. They thought Peter had died and they called his spirit an angel.
Luke says angels have not flesh and bones, but JOB 4:16 say they can take shape.
The Bible teaches that angels can take the form and it’s always a man. (Rev. 21:17; Gen 32:24; Hosea 12:4; Judges 13:3, 6-9 etc)

So the question is When or were there ever any angels placed in prison?
2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 says there are some “angels that sinned” and “kept not their first estate” These angels were “cast… down to hell.” And they had “chains of darkness.”
1 Peter 3:20 says that these angels were “disobedient… in the days of Noah.” So there is little doubt as to who they are. They are the “sons of God” who mixed up with the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6. The OT the “sons of God” refers to a race of supernatural beings that were created before the earth. (Job 38:4-7) Some of these angels fell with Satan in Isaiah 14:12-15 (see Matthew 25:41). They are not in Hell now, as it’s clear that Satan and all kinds of devils are running around from Genesis to Revelation.

Psalms 82 mentions a group of angels that fell and died like men, children of the Most High. Job 4:18 says, behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly.
When they died in the flood, these spirits were sent to hell where they were “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
Hell is a prison and it is called such in Rev 20. It has chains and so says Jude 6 and Revelation 20. It has bars, and so says Jonah 2:2, 6 and gates according to Matthew 16:18 that require keys to open them, Revelation 1:18.

That’s my 2 cents on it. If it helps, great. If you disagree, that’s ok too.

Ray Stedman has some great comments on Chapter 13 and 14. It's too lengthy to cut and paste here, but it demostrates some great typology.

I'll put a little up.

The procedure is the same, you see, for leprosy in a house. Obviously again we are dealing with mildews and molds and fungi, the kinds of things which can appear on the walls of a house. I have been in the tropics and have seen plaster walls just covered with green mold and mildew! In this passage these are regarded as possibly contagious, and they have to be investigated, patiently and carefully....

What is it that corresponds to the house in our experience? You remember that in the New Testament the church is called "the house of God" (1Ti_3:15, 1Pe_4:17 KJV). Now, it is not the church building; that is not where God lives. It is God's people who are the house of God. So what is in view here is an association, a group, an assembly, a gathering of Christians together. And it, too, can have a leprous infection in it. When this proves to be the case it needs to be dealt with. It must be treated, even drastically at times.
Notice Verses 39-42:...

The priest is to get rid of the stones that are affected....

Title: Sick Garments and Diseased Houses
By: Ray C. Stedman
Scripture: Leviticus 13,14
Date: January 2, 1972
Series: Basic Human Needs
Message No: 14
Catalog No: 514

Barnes says the straked areas are indentations. Living in Mexico, I can attest to the "contaminated walls" due to mold, fungi as the rainy season hits in. This is in the mortar. American houses in Seattle for example have "mold spore" problems and are cleaned with bleach. We just cleaned my daughters room the other day and painted, the streaked mold that had begun to grow is "under the wall" or permeated.

God bless,
Calvary

An outline I have on the text goes along with what has been presented. How to get back your spiritual edge, or recovering your spiritual vitality.


(I am putting this into English, as some may know, I am a pastor in Mexico)
Intro: The work was tedious, daily, habitual and had become routine. (compare with the Christian life and the dangers of it becoming habitual and non-dynamic)
Understand the reaction of the worker. 2 reasons. Metal was very precious, and it wasn't his. It was borrowed. (make such comparisons as to the Christian life you see fit)

There are 4 things the text can teach us about how to get back to that "first love", that freshness of spirit as when we were first saved.

1. Admit you lost it.
A. The man could have just used this event as an excuse to do nothing. Discouragement is primary source of loss of spiritual vitality. People stop serving, stop winning souls, stop reading the Bible, stop many things that could help them maintain their fire. (Dan 9 apart from it's prophetic importance is a great chapter on prayer and shows the steps to spiritual decline in the confession of Daniel a. we stopped listening to the prophets, b. we stopped listening to your word, and c. we stopped seeking your face)
B. The man could have pretended that he never lost his ax. He could have continued chopping at the tree with no edge. Many do just that. They try to act as if everything is ok, but there are no results, no fruit for their labor. It's tragic to watch Christians who have lost their spiritual edge to continue on in the programs with no heart for it. Pastors included, as they can easily burn out and toil in the flesh for many years and no one knows the difference. Notice this man admitted his fault to ANOTHER co laborer.

2. Identify the place where you lost it. The man of God asked this brother Where? Vs. 6 the man showed him. There is a huge list one can make to identify the places where we lose our spiritual edge. I have listed a few. a. Busyness, work, too much activity (Isaiah 58:13,14 - get back to church)) b. Disobedience to God's word. c. Self reliance or self dependence. d. Negligent in one's relation with God - i.e no quiet time, no Bible reading, falling off in church attendance.

3. Trust God to restore you. Vs. 6 is strange. What power did the stick hold? Was it the stick that made the ax head float? No. It was simply a visible demonstration of the faith of the man of God. I suppose the prophet could have tossed anything in the water. I trust the Lord will return that which I have lost. Matt. 19:26, nothing is impossible for the Lord. God made precious promises, one is Jeremiah 15:19. The ax was borrowed. All that we have is borrowed for the Lord. He loans us and our stewardship of the gift of eternal life must be cared for...

4. Lift up your hand and take it. Vs. the prophet says, Take it. It was floating, the miracle had been done, now it's up to the man to take hold of the ax. God does His part, have you done yours? There is a great verse in Rev. 2:5 that could be developed as a separate message, but it contains 3 simple steps to help us return to the Lord and find His favor again.
a. Remember. b. Return. c. Repeat the first things. (Psalms 84:2; 51:12)

That is a basic treatment of the text in a spiritual application.

A purely doctrinal app might be that the ax head represents Israel itself. The waters might represent the nations and where Israel had been lost for centuries, until God (the man of God) miraculously causes them to return, and perhaps we can see in the text the restoration of Israel. Just a thought.

Calvin tried to force a "christian govt." and wound up burning people at the state. You cannot legislate morality. The only truly Godly Govt will be when Jesus reigns from the throne of David in Jerusalem and rules with a rod of iron.

I think that though good responses, they do not deal with what Paul is saying in Romans 5:13,

In order to have death, Paul says, there had to be a command to break. But people were dying long before the Law was ever given. People died from the time of Adam to Moses, even people who never had a command to break. How could that be, if death is the result of breaking a command? Paul's conclusion is: The whole race actually sinned when Adam sinned. We broke the command in Adam.

That is the thrust of the verse.

Whether you understand it or not, this passage reveals the fact that when Adam sinned, he plunged the whole race into disaster. We are all born with sin at work in us and, as a result, death is taking its toll. So we sinned in Adam.

The issue isn't so much salvation under the OT economy before Moses, but the condition of man that he inherited from Adam. The law comes and confirms this to be so, though it comes later, it [the law] is not the reason that man dies, it is for transgression of the law, which fell on us through Adam's rebellion in the garden. Death was passed upon all men, How? By inheritance. By what strength? By man who continues to sin.

God bless,
Calvary

When somebody says "Well, everybody interprets the Bible differently, so there's really no way to know for sure what is right and wrong." What is the best answer to that? Usually I just say that you have to study in a certain way, contextually and study when and how it was written, etc....but still, there are many good men who do that and still come up with different ideas.

Some major conflicts (just for example, not for discussion here, please) would be tithing, church attendance, dress, divorce and remarriage, pastoral qualifications (i.e. husband of one wife), etc......

How do YOU answer someone who tells you that, basically, they can live as they do because the Bible is subject to many interpretations?

***Edited to apologize for starting a new thread, I see there is a similar one...but I'd like this one to be more along the lines of, what is your answer to the statement of somebody that the Bible is open to many interpretations, all of which are fine?*****

Dr Barbour (Ft Worth, Tx) was recognized last night for years of faithfulness. Then he spoke for about 12 or 13 minutes. He recited several poems about the Bible, then quoted several passages in sequence about the grandeur of our Bible, then he challenged the students to stand on the book.

It was actaully pretty good. The Evangelist Oulette preached a stirring message about dreaming big for the Lord.

Tonight Dr Gipps will from the CLA will be the key note speaker.

I never read where Paul Chappell prayed a woman would win the lottery, perhaps you could quote the passage and tell us what book and page number? I have several of his books and every one is excellent.

God bless,

Calvary

Things that Preceded the Law

Some things that became a part of the law, but preceded the law, and are still accepted today in the church. (in different forms perhaps, but still recognized).

1. The Sacrifice:
When Cain slew Able, a lamb was slain to clothe them, covering their shame (Gen. 3);
When Abraham offered Isaac on the altar, a ram was provided in his place (Gen. 22, especially v. 13), a sacrifice was made on his behalf.

The sacrifice incorporated itself into the law--it was here first!
The sacrifice is older than law itself though it came to be a part of it.
Therefore, the blood preceded the law, as did the sacrifice.

Though we see no New testament sacrifice of lambs, we have Christ the one sacrifice for all. (Many sacrifices are made, although they differ from “the sacrifice” of the Old testament.)


2. The Tithe: (Gen. 14)
Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek! The greater was blessed of the lesser.
The tithe preceded the law, and never was changed in the New Testament.
The tithe is the Lord’s, it is holy unto Him. (Lev. 27)
That which was holy is still holy today.


3. Communion also Preceded the Law:
In the chapter mentioned above, Abraham brought bread and wine as a victory celebration, is this not communion?
(One might note too, that communion in the church is a victory celebration of sorts--a victory in Christ over death and hell)


4. Altars:
Noah, immediately after leaving the ark, built an altar to the lord. (Gen. 8:20)
Abraham built many altars unto the Lord; the most well known being Gen, 22:9 where he began to offer Isaac an offering to the Lord.
Many churches today recognize the altar in the church.

5. Types
Though we have no “chapter and verse” for biblical “types” they are generally accepted as bona fide.

To put it plainly, I didn't say conditions of being saved. I said a salvation that is conditional. In other words, it isn't secure unless certain conditions are maintained. So, your rant was in the wrong direction.

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
The author isn't even talking about how to be saved. In fact he is moving on past this as it is a given. To surmise that this passage is talking about or to unsaved people is to deny plain 6th grade English.

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Moving on from the basic fundamental doctrines, eternal judgment only applies to an unsaved man. he is no longer talking about that.

3And this will we do, if God permit.


4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Impossible who were ONCE. This is no hypothetical case. This is the case. This person was enlightened. To make this passage a maybe, could be scenario, makes you the ones contradicting the word of God. In every place of the Bible you would claim this to be a saved man, yet here, because it goes against your blanket baptist doctrine you invent an unsaved man in a verse where salvation of the man is a given! Talk about crooked!
TASTED - so when Christ tasted death for every man it really doesn't mean he experienced it really?
PARTAKERS - so I can lose the Holy Spirit? Dan, it doesn't say a guy can taste the Holy Spirit as you stated, it says he PARTOOK of the Holy Spirit. Only a man who desires to force his preconceived denominational ideas on the Bible would force this into an eternal security doctrine. There is no hypothetical person in this passage.


5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
That's a millennial hope.

6If 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.
The only hypothesis in the passage is the word IF. If they don't? Then what? They were saved? But I thought you said the person never was saved? How does an unsaved man fall away from something he never had? You guys are talking out of both sides of your face on this. How does an unsaved man get renewed AGAIN? Wow, I can't even keep up with it. He' saved, but not really, yet if he does abide then he was really saved, but if he wasn't then he can''t get saved...??? Talk about confusion. All because you think the book teaches everything Baptist.

You say that the Hebrew writer preached a conditional salvation and that Paul did not. Did not Paul write the letter to Eph? We know that he did (eph 1:1). Did he not preach conditional salvation when he stated that faith is required? Some might say that faith is not a condition but show me anyone who is saved who lacks faith in Christ. Did Paul not preach conditions when he stated that we must not fall from grace by trying to be under the OT (Gal 5:4)? Paul preached as many conditions as did the Hebrew writer.
There are no conditions to being saved other than being a sinner. Jesus came to save that which was lost. You completely missed the point.
I am shocked that anyone who professes to be a christian would claim that the Bible contradicts itself. I am surprised that the moderators would allow such a view to be claimed. Of course, if I have misunderstood anyone's view, I hope they will correct me on my view.
The Bible never contradicts itself. It's you who contradict yourself. It's Baptists' that assume the doctrine of eternal security is a blanket doctrine on the whole Bible. I am eternally secure because I am in the Body of Christ.

John, if you can tell me that loss of salvation, a prohibition of preaching the gospel, and a conquest of the land of Canaan is the same as Paul's gospel,
Scriptures????


Hebrews 6, and a strong suggestion of conditional salvation in chpt 3. Hebrews 4 tells us of a gospel that was preached, and no my friend, it was not the gospel of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, it was a conquest of the land. And are you still spiritualizing the New Covenant and it's components? I will assume so as you seem to hold to the false teachings of covenant theology. You should read Jeremiah 31 in context. That covenant prohibits preaching. (Hebrews 8)

then I'll wait, but not with baited breath.

You are wise not to eat worms. People normally wait with bated breath.

Sure, whatever...

So, it's all borrowed from some other unbeliever. It couldn't be a Bible Institute (God forbid.)

I am not advocating that Paul wrote Hebrews. The truth is I don't know who, other than God, wrote this book, but I am curious as to why you would claim that Paul would be under the curse of Gal 1:8 if he had written this book. By that argument, anyone who wrote this book would be under said curse. It also supposes that Hebrews is a different Gospel than are the other books; it is not.

Comments

First of all the part on 2 Thess doesn't even make sense. So I write is the phrase "grace be with you" which is the token in every epistle including Hebrews. See my first post.
The salutation of Paul with mine own hand; - See Romans 15:22; Galatians 6:11; Philemon 19; 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18
“Which is the token in every epistle.” Greek: “sign.” That is, this signature is a sign or proof of the genuineness of the epistle;


Second was not Paul stopped on the road to damascus and heard Jesus Christ. You make the arguement it was someone that heard him in his early ministry. If you read closely it doesn't necessarily mean the person writing it was there as you state in Hebrews 2:3
It says them that heard it. Not I that heard it.
So either it was or wasn't? Which is it? You contradict yourself unknowingly.

Thirdly and about Paul not being an apostle to the hebrews or jews is inaccurate. You should read Acts chapter 9 and pay close attention to verse 15 which states. 15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Notice the children of Israel in that verse, that is talking of the jews or hebrews. Your reason in 8 doesn't make sense either, was not Paul from the tribe of Benjamin? How about Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul for sure can Identify with them in their relationship to Christ. Whether or not it was uncircumcised or of the circumcision Paul as Jesus stated He will bear name to the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
Paul plainly stated that his ministry was to the gentiles. That his ministry was not to the Jews. Identifying himself as a Jew and being a sent Apostle to the Jews are two different things.

@ Covenanteer, perhaps you could be so kind as to actually demonstrate what part was vicious and ignorant and where in any of my post I attacked the word of God?

@ John, And perhaps you could illuminate on exactly what strange ideas you mean?

Do you mean it strange that Paul himself said that EVERY EPISTLE of his has his "john Hancock"? Is that ignorance my friend? Or are you able to demonstrate that Paul was in error when he said that? Some folks think they know better than God himself. Paul's statement is not my opinion, it's the Holy Spirit inspired words of God... well... at least to me they are.

....

I wrote this many years ago, got it from somewhere else, (can't remember if it was Bible Institute) but feel free to disagree.

Many folks believe Paul is the author of the book of Hebrews.
They reason:
1. The author has a working knowledge of the Old Test, Israel and Jesus.
(So did Apollos if that is conclusive evidence)

2. Timothy is mentioned in Heb. 13:23.
(Could be another Tim. It was a common name. Compare how many are named James, Mary in the NT)

3. The title in my Bible says he did!
Some editions of our Bible only say “Hebrews”, some say St. Paul, others Paul the Apostle. A footnote in the Oxford KJB says Timothy wrote the book from Italy. See Heb 13:24. If Paul did write it, he wrote after Acts 28 and he ignored all the revelation regarding the body of Christ he wrote in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians (rapture, one body, no more Jew and Gentile, indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit, eternal security)

Peter says that the OT prophets wrote about what they didn’t fully understand, but we know that no OT prophet ever regressed in doctrine.

There is nothing in Hebrews that is advanced revelation over or beyond Paul’s epistles that he wrote during the Acts period. In fact, there is no doctrine in the book of Hebrews beyond that already given during the Acts period. The book of Hebrews is not a book of new revelation, it is primarily a warning to not let slip that which they already knew.

To make Paul the author one must strip him of his graduate work and enroll him in theological kindergarten. Hebrews is not a difficult doctrinal book. We make it more difficult by reading it with church age glasses.

The child of God who is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (Eph 5) and seated with him in heavenly places (Eph 2) complete in hem (Col 2) and with the Lord Jesus Christ as head of the body (Col 1) sure looks strange going back searching for an Apostle to the Hebrews (Heb 3:1) or Shepherd (Heb 13:20) or High Priest (Heb 8:1) and hoping to join a house (Heb 3:6)
It is also out of place for the Christian in this age who knows Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Ph. 2:9) to go back to considering whether Jesus is Better than the angels (Heb 4:1). It is a huge step backward in revelation to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ as a minister of the sanctuary (Heb 8:2) when he has been revealed as the image of the Invisible God (Col 1:15) to us in this present age.

4. According to some scholars, Pantaenus refers to Hebrews as an epistle of Paul (AD 150). But Pantaenus was a teacher in Alexandria, a North African theologian so we’re not too impressed as followers of the Antiochan text. Origen as well offered other ideas as to the authorship of Hebrews, but he also castrated himself to be a follower of the kingdom…

I would offer the following reasons why I don’t believe Paul was the author of Hebrews.

1. Paul signed every book and his name is the 1st word of every epistle. Hebrews has no such evidence. The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, WHICH IS THE TOKEN IN EVERY EPISTLE: so I write (2 Tes 3:17) We do claim to beleive every word of the Bible right? That verse alone should be enough for us to say, Paul DID NOT write the book of Hebrews.

2. There is no mention of the distinctive doctrines revealed by Paul. Body of Christ, rapture of the Church, local church, eternal security…)

3. Someone who had heard Jesus in his early ministry wrote it. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… (Heb 1:2) Someone who had witnessed the early Acts ministry (signs and wonders) 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 (Heb 2:3)
Thinking about that last verse, Paul distinctly called attention to his authority as not being associated with the 12, that his apostleship was unique. (Gal 1:15-19)

4. It was written by someone concerned with the last days (Heb 1:2) as given by Peter, not the last days of Paul as described in 2 Tim 3.

5. Paul was never an apostle to the Hebrews. An apostle to the Hebrews would most likely have a distinct message to them and for them. When Paul went to Israel during the Acts period, Israel was not approached as having national or racial privileges. A Jew saved under Paul’s ministry during the Acts period was saved under the gospel of the uncircumcision preached by the Apostle to the gentiles (Gal 2:7-9)

6. If Paul was the author of Hebrews, he is under his own curse of Galatians 1:8
Hebrews 3:6 is not consistent with Romans 5:10-12 written while going to the Jew first.

7. The distinct character of Paul’s ministry is negated if he wrote Hebrews. Look at Galatians 1:16-24 and 2:1-21. He said that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him, while the gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter. Another cross reference which would seem to negate Paul’s authorship is Romans 15:15-16. He clearly states that he was the minister of Jesus to the Gentiles, while it was Jesus who was the ministerto the Jews (circumcision).

8. The author of Hebrews identifies himself with the Hebrews in their relationship to Christ.
Hebrews 3:1; 3:6; 3:14; 4:1; 4:11; 8:1; 12:24-25.

These are only observations, feel free to disagree.

God bless,
Calvary

Hmm? Marriage isn't even mentioned, though that's one application. Here's the whole chapter.

2 Corinthians 6.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14; Romans 5:8.

God is dead
All religions are equal....
Except Christianity which has such an evil history
Homosexuality is normal, good and something everyone should try
Abortion isn't murder, it's a choice and point of freedom for women
All history is about man, God has no place in history
All positive aspects of Christianity are not taught
The evils of the RCC are used to discredit Christianity
Islam is lifted up as superior to Christianity
Muslims are provided with special considerations while Christians are rejected
There is no truth, all "truth" is subjective
Morality is up to each person and anyone who says otherwise is mean-spirited and against freedom

Ya know John that is all true. The public school system is all that and worse. I don't think there is anyone disagreeing with your summation of the evils of public education.
Yet that list above is true of society at large. Not just the public school. I could apply every item on the list to the news paper, the internet, my neighbors, the Barber shop, and on it goes. Sweeping generalizations work that way, by nature they condemn wholesale any behavior that is not following the norms of a group.
So, it's true, public school is wicked as the devil. But where does the Bible tell me that I am sinning against the Lord for having gone through the public school system myself, and for a few years, my kids?
That's the point some have taken issue with, your wholesale condemnation of us for not living as right with God as you are... I guess. No one is defending public school.

God bless,
Calvary