Conclusion to my post on other thread

[wretched]

9 hours ago, John81 said:

I was saved several years before I was baptized. It wasn't until I had grown in the Lord and learned the meaning and importance of baptism that I was baptized.

But when you were shown it, you were willing....Correct?

When a Jew is saved, they demand a sign and will ask for it. They must sign their faith. Doesn't mean it is not real heart felt faith but the Jews must show their faith as a sign once they believe. IMO the OT and the Gospels confirm it and the Epistles demonstrate the difference.

Doesn't mean their salvation needs any work on their part but it does mean that they must demonstrate their faith with works. God doesn't require it, THEY require it.

Edited January 6, 2016 by wretched

[LindaR]

11 hours ago, John81 said:

I was saved several years before I was baptized. It wasn't until I had grown in the Lord and learned the meaning and importance of baptism that I was baptized.

I am a born again Jew.  I was saved 9 months before I was baptized.  I never "demanded" a sign.  Believer's baptism was explained to me before my pastor would baptize me.  The Scripture teaches (and I was taught) that baptism does not save and that baptism is one of the two ordinances of the church....the Lord's Supper being the other ordinance.  Believer's baptism is an outward profession of faith that has already taken place in the believer's heart.  It is a picture of our "identification" with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement (above):
I do believe I was led by the Holy Spirit in noting the differences (some of which I've brought forth). And so, with that said, I do truly respect your position but I also respectfully disagree.
You are as firmly convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct and led of the Holy Spirit as I am in my own confidence that I am led in the Holy Spirit of my own understanding.
I realize it would likely be futile for either position to attempt to convince the other on these opposing methods of study.

Sister Ronda,

I thank you for your response, and from it I conclude that I was correct in my comment, as follows:

19 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Fourth, it appears to me that THE foundational premise of your position is that of the "division" that you have come to "see" between the teachings of the apostle Paul and the teachings of the other New Testament epistles.  Indeed, it even appears that this may be the one point of your position about which you will not even consider the possibility that it could be incorrect. 

________________________________________________

Now, please understand that I do not say anything that follows to be mean, but simply to bring forth some clarity.

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement (above):
I do believe I was led by the Holy Spirit in noting the differences (some of which I've brought forth). And so, with that said, I do truly respect your position but I also respectfully disagree.

Yet I have not even presented my position on any of the given points, other than to express that I have some disagreement with some of your points.  So then, are you expressing your respectful disagreement with my position (having not even yet "heard" it) simply on the grounds that it is in disagreement with your own?
 

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement (above):

You are as firmly convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct and led of the Holy Spirit as I am in my own confidence that I am led in the Holy Spirit of my own understanding.

Actually, having not yet "heard" my position, I am not certain that you can know how "firmly convinced" of it I am (other than your observation of my character in other discussions on other matters).
 

2 hours ago, Ronda said:

***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement (above):

So I will now attempt to digress on the matter of audiences and differences (***unless another post comes up hereafter on this thread or another where I feel compelled to answer).

Thanks again for the amiable discourse between us! 
 

Due to your expressed "attempt to digress" from this matter, I will not pursue the individual points of disagreement in this thread.  I may also not do so at all on the "other" thread.  However, I do wish to warn you that I MAY engage some of these points individually on threads that I may generate specifically for that purpose.  If I do so, I will not engage these points initially as being directly against you, but simply as presenting a position on the matter.  If in those cases, you desire to engage the discussion; then the issue can proceed from that point.  However, I do not know that I will do this at all; and I also do not know how soon I would do this if I choose to do so.  At the moment, I wish to concentrate the majority of my energy in the forum toward the Bible study on 2 & 3 John.

[Invicta]

Peter was the first to preach to the gentile Cornelius and his family;

Paul regularly preached in the synagogue 

Acts ¶  Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2  And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3  Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4  And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
 

[Jim_Alaska]

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

**James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
**James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

22 "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"
23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

 

 

I think that we would all agree that someone's faith is not something that can be seen by others. The way that men see anyone's faith is by their works. But the order is important first faith, then works.

I would respectfully submit that James 2:14-24 is speaking from the position of man's view of faith and justification, which can only been seen by others through that man's works. Notice the words in James 2:24 where it says "Ye see" and again in Ver.22 where it says "Seest thou".  Men see our faith by our works.

I am submitting that these verses speak of faith and justification from man's point of view and what can be observed.

I would also submit that God;s view of the same subject can be found in Rom. 4:1-14  1  What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 
 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 
 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 
 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 
 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 
 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 
 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 
 9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 
 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 
 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 
 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 
 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 
 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 

I see no contradiction here, but rather clarification of the same issue from two different views. 1. How man views faith and justification in another and  2. how God views man's faith and justification.

[wretched]

6 hours ago, LindaR said:

I am a born again Jew.  I was saved 9 months before I was baptized.  I never "demanded" a sign.  Believer's baptism was explained to me before my pastor would baptize me.  The Scripture teaches (and I was taught) that baptism does not save and that baptism is one of the two ordinances of the church....the Lord's Supper being the other ordinance.  Believer's baptism is an outward profession of faith that has already taken place in the believer's heart.  It is a picture of our "identification" with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. 

I missed this initially and realize you did not quote me but are referencing my post so I have questions. I wonder were you orthodox and bound by the ordinances or simply a jew by heritage? You know, told to go to synagogue so you went. Or perhaps some kind of jew not mentioned in the the NT like Mel Brooks or Barbara Streisand? Not being facetious, just asking? I wonder had you been bound by ordinances as the NT context is always speaking in regards to the Jews, would your reaction have been different since it is God (not wretched) who said the Jews require a sign? Written pretty clearly and in context but should it be disregarded simply because it did not happen to you? I don't think so.

I wonder if anyone can show me where in the NT Scripture your pastors explanation of baptism is found?  Or maybe just the ordinances for a NT Church?. In the NT ordinances are described as worldly associated with human government or carnal deeds of the law and nailed to the Cross with Jesus and not something the church would have. Yes, yes, I know men always call them that, God doesn't.

Just food for thought

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 minutes ago, wretched said:

I wonder if anyone can show me where in the NT Scripture your pastors explanation of baptism is found?  Or maybe just the ordinances for a NT Church?. In the NT ordinances are described as worldly associated with human government or carnal deeds of the law and nailed to the Cross with Jesus and not something the church would have. Yes, yes, I know men always call them that, God doesn't.

Just food for thought

Brother "Wretched," (Note: I really would prefer to call you by your given name, rather that "brother wretched.)

Your  statements above are not strictly accurate.  Consider 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 -- "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

[wretched]

2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Wretched," (Note: I really would prefer to call you by your given name, rather that "brother wretched.)

Your  statements above are not strictly accurate.  Consider 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 -- "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.  Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Good point sir, thanks. And wretched is a better description of me anyway  

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Just now, wretched said:

Good point sir, thanks. And wretched is a better description of me anyway  

If you truly are acceptable that I call you by the name "wretched," . . .; however, I do intend to continue also using the title "brother."

Edited January 7, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[swathdiver]

The OP is promoting evangelical hyper-dispensationalism.  Paul said to follow Christ as well; such doctrines of devils is championed by Ruckman in Baptist circles.  It has no place in New Testament Churches.  Salvation has always been by grace for there is none righteous, no not one.  Seek wisdom.

[wretched]

8 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

The OP is promoting evangelical hyper-dispensationalism.  Paul said to follow Christ as well; such doctrines of devils is championed by Ruckman in Baptist circles.  It has no place in New Testament Churches.  Salvation has always been by grace for there is none righteous, no not one.  Seek wisdom.

Who said anything about that dude? Did I miss something. I am looking and don't see any reference

[LindaR]

3 hours ago, wretched said:

I missed this initially and realize you did not quote me but are referencing my post so I have questions. I wonder were you orthodox and bound by the ordinances or simply a jew by heritage? You know, told to go to synagogue so you went. Or perhaps some kind of jew not mentioned in the the NT like Mel Brooks or Barbara Streisand? Not being facetious, just asking? I wonder had you been bound by ordinances as the NT context is always speaking in regards to the Jews, would your reaction have been different since it is God (not wretched) who said the Jews require a sign? Written pretty clearly and in context but should it be disregarded simply because it did not happen to you? I don't think so.

I wonder if anyone can show me where in the NT Scripture your pastors explanation of baptism is found?  Or maybe just the ordinances for a NT Church?. In the NT ordinances are described as worldly associated with human government or carnal deeds of the law and nailed to the Cross with Jesus and not something the church would have. Yes, yes, I know men always call them that, God doesn't.

Just food for thought

 

I was raised in Reform (Liberal) Judaism.  My grandparents were Orthodox Jewish immigrants from Russia.  They immigrated to the USA during the late 1890s or early 1900s.  We (my brother, sister and I) were brought up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio and were called Christ killers during our growing up years.  We lived about 2 blocks from a Jesuit RC seminary (John Carroll University).   

As far as my "education" on water baptism, the pastor used Romans 6 as an explanation of the meaning of this church ordinance. 

If you are using 1 Cor. 1:22 as a proof text for the Jews requiring a "sign", what does that have to do with believer's baptism?

[wretched]

8 hours ago, LindaR said:

I was raised in Reform (Liberal) Judaism.  My grandparents were Orthodox Jewish immigrants from Russia.  They immigrated to the USA during the late 1890s or early 1900s.  We (my brother, sister and I) were brought up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio and were called Christ killers during our growing up years.  We lived about 2 blocks from a Jesuit RC seminary (John Carroll University).   

As far as my "education" on water baptism, the pastor used Romans 6 as an explanation of the meaning of this church ordinance. 

If you are using 1 Cor. 1:22 as a proof text for the Jews requiring a "sign", what does that have to do with believer's baptism?

That does sound colorful Linda, thanks

In reality it has to do with all matters of faith and practice among Jews bound by ordinance. Baptism being their first work. Explaining quite logically the difference in Gospel presentation between Jews and gentiles. The same Gospel presented differently

Edited January 7, 2016 by wretched

[Ronda]

Linda, I know you are answering "wretched", and this isn't exactly the same topic... but I wanted to say that I think a LOT of the antisemitism and persecution of the Jewish people has come from many denominations and even false religions (such as Catholicism, etc) who have not divided the Bible into dispensations, thereby claiming all of Israel's blessings (and strangely, none of the curses) for themselves. They cannot see that the Bible clearly states that God has future plans for Israel (as a collective, and in specific the remnant described in Zech 13:9). The millennial Kingdom on earth will be a promise fulfilled to Israel as well, as was foretold in the OT. 

Those denominations/false religions refuse to note that Romans 10-11 deal with this in specific (as well as other places) and can't read the words and comprehend the very meaning of Romans 11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob".  

I am thankful for friends like you, who come from a Jewish background, and have found the saving grace in Jesus! So many people skip right over the "in part" of Romans 11:25 as well... it doesn't say "in full" it says "in part". Paul said in Romans 10:1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." And I have that same desire, even though I know MANY people (both Jews and Gentiles alike) will not come to the saving grace in Christ. 

Why did I include this statement here? Because I think rightly dividing (by dispensations and by audience) makes a huge difference in knowing which parts apply to which people groups. If they lump all of the Bible together (as it all be written to themselves), they will twist what it meant for Israel and apply it to themselves. 

[Ronda]

13 minutes ago, wretched said:

The same Gospel presented differently

Amen, "Wretched". Which is what I've been attempting to show all throughout... which audience was which respective apostle writing to...