Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

What is the meaning here?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Ac 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.;


Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch

It was a mistake....
I meant OLD Testament. Let's start over OK?

Nobody in the OLD Testament was called "Christian" but I ask you: who was David refering to as "my Lord" in Psalm 110:1?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree, there were no Christians until the New Testament days.

And yes, angels are refereed to as sons of God.


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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


It was a mistake....
I meant OLD Testament. Let's start over OK?

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


He was speaking of Jesus.

Luke 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, (Jesus) I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



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.


I just showed you unequivocal evidence that angels have the title sons of God. Along with Adam. Israel. Jesus and NT believers. David was no "believer on the Lord Jesus Christ" in any stretch of the word. You do great damage to plain English friend by reading your NT definitions back into the OT where they do not belong. The term sons of God in the OT never, not once not ever refers to any who has received the Lord Jesus as Savior. Not ever.

God bless,
Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I just showed you unequivocal evidence that angels have the title sons of God. Along with Adam. Israel. Jesus and NT believers. David was no "believer on the Lord Jesus Christ" in any stretch of the word. You do great damage to plain English friend by reading your NT definitions back into the OT where they do not belong. The term sons of God in the OT never, not once not ever refers to any who has received the Lord Jesus as Savior. Not ever.

God bless,
Calvary



Matthew 22:41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Either you do not understand or you are a falsely accusing me. Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heartstrings, I was waiting for Calvary to get back to you.

I suppose that he does not think that David was a believer on Jesus Christ. That in the Old Testament they were saved in a different manner. Not saying he believes that, but I feel sure he will tell us how he feels about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

People in the OT were not saved by the law, works, or anything else. None of that ever saved anyone. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.
Way back in Genesis 4, the Bible says men 'began to call upon the name of the Lord". Even Abel had the right faith when he offered a blood sacrifice instead of Cain's vegetables.. . The Blood sacrifice has always been a picture of the coming sacrifice of Christ but it wasn't the sacrifice that justified Abel; it was the grace through faith The Bible even says that Christ is "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" So I believe that His sacrifice has always been suffient through all of time. Just like those in the OT, NONE of us have ever seen God or even Christ, but we believe it all by faith. Like I said, Genesis 4 says "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" and John chapter 1 says that as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. I called on His name like that once, and I know from my experience that you have to BELIEVE before you can CALL. Just like John chapter one attests, those men back in Genesis 4 were believers, therefore they were "sons of God". The angels marrying women story is the result of someone misinterpreting the Word of God or borrowing from some pagan myth. I just have to believe what the Bible says.. The closest verse I have found which could corroberate the story is Job 38:7 and the verse DOES NOT define sons of God as being angels. it just does not do it. You can make an assumption from it if you want to. But a verse such as "brethren now are we the sons of God"absolutely does define what a" son of God" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is right, Jerry.



Quoting your verse again Calvary.......



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 Christwhich 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.


They were prophesying the :grace to come and were diligently searching for the TIME it would appear,,,, AND they had the Spirit of Christ IN THEM. Unbelievers do NOT have Christ "IN " them.

You mention that the disciples didn't even understand. That is true but they were still believers, with the exception of Judas Iscario. Not every person who calls on the Lord Jesus Christ understands all the details at that moment in time. But even a child can come to Christ in faith.....and can grow and learn all the rest of the doctrines and details later. Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The sons of God in Job 38 that sang praises at the creation of the Earth were clearly some kind of angelic beings. Why is it so hard then to reason that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were not the same thing?

I read a book by Carl Lackey on angels and he sarcastically asked (you all know I would never be sarcastic :icon_smile: ), "Are we to concluded from Genesis 6 that when Christians marry lost girls they have giants for babies?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.


I have never intimated that anyone was saved other than by faith, so I don't know what you're talking about that for. Perhpas you're on the wrong thread.

God bless,
Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Edited by Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...