Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Calvary

  1. Not only that he (Paul) called the OT people sons of men, not sons of God. There is no new birth in the OT. There are no sons of God in the OT in the John 1:12-13 sense. That is a false doctrine. Take it up with Paul not me. He said, not I. I never said OT folks weren´t saved, so build a straw man somewhere else my friend. I said they are not sons of God in the sense of John 1:12-13. John 1 says that those that received Jesus were given power to BECOME sons of God, even to them THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME. David called Jesus Lord? Really? That´s silly and Psalms 110 didn´t say anything that David said, David attributed the saying to God. So God called Jesus Lord, not David. You have some serious reading problems. To say Job and David were born again believers in the name of Jesus is the just plain ignorance. Having confidence and hope in God is not being born again. David was not regenerated. Job was never regenerated by the Spirit of God. No one looked forward to the cross outside of the Father and Jesus.
  2. The only person looking forward to the cross was God the Father and Jesus. To call upon the Lord doesn´t mean salvation or the new birth. That is just plain ignorance on Bible doctrine. No one was regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the OT. No one was saved by trusting in the finished work of Jesus on Calvary. That is simple nonsense. That is wherein lies you inability to understand deductive Bible study. Can you show us one verse where an OT saint believed on the Lord Jesus for salvation? I´ll take just one. How can you reconcile your false teaching with Paul in 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; Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Hmmm... Paul speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost said that no one was made a member of the body, no one partook of the promise of Christ by the gospel. Not only that he called the OT people sons of men, not sons of God. There is no new birth in the OT. There are no sons of God in the OT in the John 1:12-13 sense. That is a false doctrine. Take it up with Paul not me. He said, not I. But, lest this thread become a rabbit trail on right division, I am signing off. Been fun. But I feel no need to convince anyone of a teaching I hold to yet matters not the in the least bit as far as being right with God. You are blinded to the truth that New testament doctrine of Christ in us, the body of Christ are just not OT doctrines, they could not be until Christ was raised from the dead. God bless, calvary
  3. Hebrews 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with identifying angels or their aliases. If that is what you guys call serious Bible study, I´ll just go back over to the nursery. Of course God did not call any angel His Son, but what does that have to do with Genesis 6? But he did call them watchers, angels, ministering spirits, holy ones, sons, stars... and some are called demons, principalities, powers, unclean spirits.... Did you know the word cat is not in the Bible? Guess they really don´t exist since the Bible doesn´t say it specifically in a verse. Again you have failed to respond to the 5 distinct classes of sons of God. (Yawn)
  4. Where does the Bible specifically say God is a Trinity? Where does the Bible specifically say that Jesus rose form the dead on Friday, or Sunday, or any other day. It comes from deductive Bible study. If you conclude that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are men, then show then to be so. They can only be Adam, Jesus or Israel or born again New Testament believers. The onus in upon you to show then to be such. The Bible defines son of God as sinless upon it´s creation. 2 times i have given the proper Biblical designations for sons of God and only Pastor Scott has responded. You, heartstrings have been silent on those posts. It´s obvious that you nor heartstrings can answer. If you could, you would have. To say, Where does the Bible say that? Is not an answer. I have given you 5 distinct definitions for the sons of God. Pastor Scott has posited 7.
  5. Pastor Scott, I appreciate the talk we have had. I have already given on 2 occasions the reasoning behind the conclusion that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are angelic beings. There are and can only be 5 classes of sons of God in the Bible. There are not 7 as you posited and there are not 4 by way of elimination of the careful cross references to Genesis 6 through Job and Revelation 1. There is Adam Israel Jesus Christ New Testament Born Again Believers. Letting that stand as it is, makes us to ponder then, who are the sons of God in Genesis? Who are they in Job 1 and 38? I ask anyone following this thread. You may not like to say they are angels, but are they Adam? Yes or no. Are they Israel? Yes or no? Are they Jesus Christ? Yes or no. Are they New Testament Born Again Believers? Yes or no. After facing those questions squarely, Who are they? So we look for another place the Bible might mention sons of God. There in Job is a verse or 2. It says that sons of God were present and that it was at the very least contemporary with the life of Job, as he is the subject under consideration in the part of the conversation the Lord had with Satan. So, were there any Born Again believers in Job´s time? Was it Adam that was present with the Lord? How about Israel? Was it Jesus, ? Do you think that that biblical conclusions always com from a verse that just says Thou shalt not lie? Paul said we have to compare spiritual things with spiritual things, Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we must study to show ourselves approved unto God. It requires deductions. It requires considering every possibility we can find. After having deduced that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are not Adam, they are not New Testament born again believers, they are not Israel and they are not Jesus Christ, I find in Job the same wording. Comparing Job 1 with Job 38 I see that they are also referred to as morning stars, joyfully and exuberantly praising God for His work of Creation. I see that the sons of God were p´resent at the Creation, that rules out me and you. I see that the sons of God were praising the Lord for His creative work at the time He was working, that rules out Israel, that rules out you, that rules out Adam, but could it be Jesus? He is The Son of God, but sons? (i.e plural?) This stuff isn´t really all that complicated. The church has believed these sons of God to be angels for centuries. This isn´t some new dispensation theory. Clement, Josephus, Tertullian - that is going waaaayyyyy back to the founding fathers of the early church. It was Augustine that placed Sethites on the table, a rank heretic and a father of Catholicism. If they aren´t angels, then who are they? To say they are believers as in John 1:12-13 is to deny New Testament doctrine. In fact, that is just plain ridiculous. I have laid out a case for who are they are. I have refrained from mentioning the giants, the fallen angel aspect, the cohabitation, because to me, if you can´t see they are angels, then it doesn´t matter what the ramifications are. Pastor Scott, you have been very christian in your posts. Thank you and God bless, In fact this thread has been very even keeled over all. Thanks! calvary bro mithcell
  6. 1 Angels - Job 1:6 And there was a day when the sons of the gods came together before the Lord, and the Satan came with them. For confirmation these are not born again Christians: Job 38:4 Where were you when I put the earth on its base? Say, if you have knowledge. Job 38:5 By whom were its measures fixed? Say, if you have wisdom; or by whom was the line stretched out over it? Job 38:6 On what were its pillars based, or who put down its angle-stone, Job 38:7 When the morning stars made songs together, and all the sons of the gods gave cries of joy? When God originally created the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy. At that time all the sons of God were with Him, on His side, shouting for joy at the glory manifest in His creation. 2. Israel - In the future Israel will be born again in one day. 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. 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. 3. Adam - Adam was a son of God, but Adam´s son was not. 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 likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Seth was not a son of God, he had lost the likeness of God and was born in the likeness of Adam. (So much for the "godly" line of Seth - it would be better to say the "Adamic" line, cursed, fallen and in sin) 4. The Born Again New Testament believer - I was a son of Adam, I was in Adam, made in his likeness and image. One day I repented of my sion and came to the Lord Jesus Christ, I put my faith in His finished work on Calvary and I received a brand new title. 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 now bare the title of son of God. 5. Jesus Christ - I think we can agree to let that one stand as it is. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, the Son of Man, the Son of God. Going back to Genesis 6, which of the 5 fits? To make them born again believers, one has to throw out all reason and invent the new birth where it does not exist. No one was ever born again until after the resurrection of Christ. If the identity of the sons of God in Genesis 6 is not clearly established, this thread is just going around and around in circles. They are angels. They could not be anything else. God bless, calvary
  7. Irishman, perhaps you should check that concordance again :-) There are 5 distinct applications of the term "sons of God". 1. Angels 2. Adam 3. The nation of Israel 4. Jesus Christ 5. The born again believer. God bless, calvary
  8. By using the pronouns "he" and "his" in every instance a pronoun is used. Not one verse in the Bible suggests femininity or asexual beings. God bless, calvary
  9. Brother Scott, I have to disagree. Both verses clearly state that the context of a being after having been resurrected. There is no contextual comparison to Genesis 6 at all. One passage deals with resurrected beings, the other with beings that had not been resurrected. Follow your own logic, if it is comparative, then I stand correct. Matthew and Mark speak to beings that have been resurrected and to angels. The only way to get to Genesis 6 is to state a false understanding from Matthew and Mark. Neither verse speaks to whether or not angels can reproduce, both verses merely state that in the resurrection you will be like an angel, unable to marry, due to the fact that a union between an angel and an angel is either a.) prohibited or b.) illogical considering the fact that all angels are male, hence eliminating any further discussion about unions amongst the angels. There can be none. Your questions about the biological nature of angels, and whether or not they have the equipment, is also a dead end. The scripture shows they are male, to suggest they have no equipment is to oppose the word of God. Male clearly defines the biology of angels. Without the equipment, how can we thus call them "males"? God bless, calvary
  10. Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Neither verse states what angels on earth can do or did. The verse also state that these conditions exist in the resurrection, not in Genesis 6. To make the leap that not given in marriage means all of us will be eunuchs in the resurrection is a strange conclusion. I will bear the image of Jesus Christ, his likeness and his spiritual body. I do not presume to understand that Jesus could not pro create. (With all due deference and respect to my Savior). I have never understood the poor un-biblical conclusions forced upon the word of God by dragging marriage, reproductive organs and other smoke screens into this polarizing issue. I also notice that in Genesis the sons of God "took" wives, no one gave them in marriage. Matthew 22 and Mark 12 only indicate that there are no unions of couples in heaven, due to the fact that that angels are male. Always. That is the inference in the 2 verses, all other conclusions are the surmising of people who want the Bible to say what they already believe. God bless, calvary
  11. Balaam repented of his sins, died and went to hell. He said, I have sinned. (Numbers 22:34). Saul said, I have sinned, was rejected and went to hell. (1 Samuel 15:24). Judas Iscariot said I have sinned and went straight to a bottomless pit. (Acts 1:20) Pharaoh said, I have sinned, he repented and died and went to hell. (Exodus 9:27). So repentance... is it a changed attitude or a change of heart and if it is, will it get me to heaven? Didn´t seem to work for these characters listed above. @ SoD, brother, I cannot usurp the role of the Holy Spirit. :-) So, many teach that repentance is a turning from sin unto... Jesus. But Biblical speaking, we can turn from all kinds of stuff a never get saved. Repentance alone not mixed with faith is of no value. I am not so sure we ought to teach repentance as a stand alone doctrine. It is actually one of the doctrines of Soteriology. It is a part of a group of teachings that together stand upon one another, not alone or independent of one another. God bless, calvary
  12. Most of you don´t know what repentance is. God bless, calvary
  13. So when did any of you stop repenting?? Just saying is all.... God bless, calvary
  14. "Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?" As I said, you will not find any citation from anywhere. You asked for documentation, I merely stated that it most likely does not exist, and if it does, it would be not be vetted. Perhaps you´ve forgotten what you asked for. Seems to me you are in fact looking for outside sourcing to the effect of a statement supporting the 6th day Crucifixion folks. Again, it most likely does not exist. Try Nexus Index. Or can you google? Not rocket science. God bless, calvary
  15. Sorry OP, you still haven´t had your question answered. I would think that there probably is no literature available that would give you what you ask. All citations to the effect that a partial day is still as good as a whole day will come from the very sources that cite it as definitive. In other words, it´s a circle of citation. One writer states the claim as factual, and the next quotes the first author. There is no vetting. And then you have a construct of a fact based upon the writing of someone whose statement was never verified. Try the Nexus Index. God bless, calvary
  16. You cavil again betrays your anger and pride. Quote a post of mine where I advocated that anyone tithe. Your prattling on and on about the tithe to me is a non issue. I have simply stated what I have personally determined in my heart to do. That stands between myself and the Lord. You sir are no counselor of mine. Your advice to me on my giving will be promptly ignored. It is obvious you have no heart for it. You would send the laborer into the field without his hire. You have stated as plainly in other threads. You have bragged about not taking an offering, as if it is some stamp of superior spirituality with the Lord. Yet the church you pastored obviously had collections of some sort or else how did they pay the bills? To state otherwise is incredulous. You stated that all tithes were abolished with the ordinances, that the law has been done away with. So again I ask you, based upon your own conclusion that no Christian is to obey the law, is lying a part of the law? Is adultery an edict of the law? Is thievery a decree from God´s law? Your own bumbling and poor exegesis has led you into an obvious foolish predicament. My question is not foolish, your position is. Perhaps the thread will be locked as threatened. My only desire is that in future readings the honest soul will see that this charlatan is exposed for what he is. Give the Lord his due, and the issue of tithing seems pale in comparison, unless like Judas of old, your desire to keep the bag for yourself.
  17. You obviously have severe reading comprehension problems. I have not advocated anyone tithe nor was I ever proving that a Christian should, could or ought to tithe. You are adept at straw men arguments, your pride blinds you and failure to listen to what people are really saying is what leads to your obvious confusion and caviling. You stated that a man should do what he believes he should as far as monetary giving is concerned. You stated that it is an issue of the heart. I merely stated that my heart leads me to tithe and give offerings on a regular basis. You however claim to know the Lord´s will for me in this area. How haughty!! How high minded of you!! You however mock my hearts purpose and resort to bragging about what you do or don´t. You a smug and prideful man. You act as if your knowledge somehow leads you ¿to a superior spirituality, or a higher moral ground. Tithing or not tithing is nothing as far as the Lord is concerned. You suggest that the Lord is displeased with my giving. You suggest that somehow my giving is disobedience. You are a sad example of someone who has led a flock of God´s people. I almost pity the people who sat under your prideful ministry. I thank my God that I was not subjected to your twisted principles that will stand on letter before spirit. I couldn´t refrain myself any longer reading this hypocrites posts. What was really amazing is that some of you actually looked at his posts as reasonable. Are your discerners broken?? I would run a contentious man such as standingforflesh out of my flock and say good riddance. Mark those that cause division.
  • Create New...