Featured The Resurrection Repudiates justification by works

They didn't believe in Christ until He preached to them in Hades.

 

So I take it you're not dispensational

 

That doesn't mean that God can't give promises or instructions to some of His creatures and then promises or instructions to other creatures of His though.

 

If I were building a lego man and said that you can do this this and that and gave him promises, and then built another lego man and said that he couldn't do the things that the other lego man could, but he can do different things and I also gave this lego man promises, and then called myself immutable (meaning that I'm not a liar, and that I'll fulfill these promises I made to these lego men), I'm still the same legoman builder.

I just gave different instructions and promises to different creatures of mine, that's all.

 

I agree that God considered (imputed) one righteous when desiring His will, which He did with Israel's first king (David) during his reign, but He knew it would be temporary and that Israel would always become disobedient after that.

His imputation of righteousness was always to those who had a heart after Him, but not for temporal obedience, which all men are a part of and which God knew of and expected because of the "old man." This is why works, then and now, were never a cause of righteousness, due to the fact that good works at best can only be imperfect and temporary.

True, many weren't aware of the implications of the sacrificial ordinances even though Prophets revealed it (i.e Isaiah), but desiring to perform them still involved them in the will of God who did know, thus through the sin offering they were imputed (not attained) righteousness. Same as now that Christ is, "made unto us . . . righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30). Imputed, not attained, along with holiness, justification, sanctification, etc.

"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness" (Rom 9:31). "Hath not attained to the law of righteousness: some of them fancied they had, supposing an external conformity to it, to be all that it insisted upon; not knowing the spirituality of it, that it required truth and holiness in the inward parts; and that he that offended in one point of it, was guilty of all, and therefore could not be justified by it." JG

My point is that righteousness never has, and still does not (I believe you agree) come by the imperfect works of man but by imputation from God.

 

The question is whether you can get by with doing things outside of a theocracy that at one time were only allowed inside the theocracy of Israel.

If we say that pagan or semi-Christian nations can apply civil penalties for Sabbath breaking - because Israel as a theocracy could do it - then we have the problem of the RCC in the dark ages. Even the Pilgrims in America struggled with that one until Roger Williams came along.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed that is the "Two Gospel" model we hear so much about.

Interesting how In Acts 21 Paul flatly denies that they were doing any such thing!

And in Acts 16 the first thing Paul does after the Jerusalem council is insist that Timothy be circumcised.

What is more - Paul condems the "Two gospel" idea in Gal 1:6-11.

And of course the Acts 15 council insists on the Acts 13 context of both Jews and Gentiles hearing the Gospel "every Sabbath" just as Moses is "preached every Sabbath in the synagogues" as James points out.

Now it is "obvious" that even non-Christian Jews were hearing "Moses preached in the synagogues every Sabbath" so James' statement in Acts 15 is not out of some concern for non-Christian Jews and that they might not be hearing Moses often enough.

His statement is in regard to actual Christians and the hearing of the Word of God. The Word of God that pagan Gentiles did not have access to prior to becoming Christians.

Imagine the level of sheer ignorance and bible illiteracy today of a Christian that knew nothing about God creating the Word in 6 days and giving mankind the Sabbath on the 7th day. Who knew nothing about the fall of Adam and Eve or the flood or Abraham or the Exodus or the giving of the Ten Commandments "in stone" - spoken by God from Sinai or the annual Sabbaths based in Sacrifice - such as Passover (from which we get the Lord's Supper).

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Jope - I appreciate our correspondence, as others also, because it's a blessing to learn from one another what the Spirit has to teach.

I'm thinking you might find this at least interesting (which I believe) concerning 1 Peter 4:6 by Gill. The first time I heard the concept of Christ preaching in Hell, I realized it conflicted with the fact that He went to "paradise" upon His death.
http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/1peter/gill/1peter4.htm

God's blessings to your Family!

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
(Paul really wasn't much of a Calvinist as it turns out).

Phil 3

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

On the contrary - as we saw in John 6:44 I pay attention to the "inconvenient details" in the text itself so necessary to avoid for the Calvinist. Impossible to ignore.

True but your idea that this can be used to negate the Calvinist-debunking statements found later in the chapter is a false hope.

It does not work.

We call it "perseverance of the saints" not "perseverance of the wicked until they BECOME saints" as you seem to have imagined your straw man.

Paul does not preach "forever enslaved to sinning" as you seem to imagine. Not in Phil 3. Not in Romans 6:10-20 and certainly not in 1Cor 10:13 where Paul says that there is NO temptation to which the Christian must fall but rather "God is FAITHFUL who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU are able" 1Cor 10:13 - through the power of the Holy Spirit "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Rom 8:

Your bend-and wrench of Phil 3 is not working - at least for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
1 Cor 9
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;

27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Your statement is only true in a narrow context - but Paul speaks to the larger context where no Calvinist bend-and-wrench of the context will survive.

Paul says in that larger context -

23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

But the narrow blinders-on context of Calvinism is forced to respond in almost exact contradiction by saying "He is not attempting to become a partaker of the gospel ".

In flat out contraction to that statement Paul says

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Paul IS partaking of the Gospel each day AS "he does ALL things for the sake of the Gospel" - but more to the point - in the future Gospel benefit of going to heaven vs hell - HE strives for THAT benefit of the Gospel - the salvation aspect "that I MAY BECOME a fellow partaker of it".

Vs 22 provides a Calvinist debunking context that Calvinism can only survive by ignoring it.

Paul says the "PRIZE" is eternal life - the Calvinist narrow blinders-on alternative is just "more or less toys in heaven" - something Paul does not mention at all.

They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable --

It is "Eternal life" that Paul is talking about not "imperishable toys" - this is yet another example of Calvinism downsizing the themes of the Bible.

There is NO Place in all of scripture where Paul says "we are glorified in body via the resurrection BEFORE coming to the judgment seat of Christ".

For that statement - you can only quote "yourself" as the divine author.

in Christ,

Bob

 

So far you haven't convinced me.

...and on what basis? What's the 'criteria?:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

You're speaking from the perspective of a creature of time unable to fathom the concept of 'the whole thing at once' (don't worry, I can't either). Have no doubt, works, deeds, doing, are the basis for God justifying us (actually it makes Him just by doing so) to determine eternal destiny:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek Ro 2

 

Hey NetChaplain,

I will say this: I don't believe in Universalism, but I do believe that BC saints went to Sheol (Eccles. 9:10) and they had to wait there until Christ went there too (Acts 2:25, 27) and preached to them (John 5:24-29) and brought the captives into the third heaven (Eph. 4:8-10).

"the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice" (John 5:28, KJV). This can't mean those who would die after Christ's ministry, so that they would have had the gospel preached to them when Peter wrote 1Peter 4:6, as Gill states.

Hades is a place that the BC saints went to. Abraham confessed he would go there (Gen. 37:35). Solomon confessed that it was a common destiny to all mankind (Eccles. 9:10).

In Hades, there was a compartment for the wicked to be tortured, and a compartment for the elect to be comforted (Luke 16).

Hades is a separate place than the grave, for the body of the Jeremiah 26:23 man wasn't said to go to Sheol (if that was the belief of the author of Jeremiah, then this was the place to say it), but he states that his body went to a separate place than Sheol.

 

Hi Jope - Universalism presents even more scriptural-contradictions, primarily because it is "the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God."

In my opinion the concept concerning the issue we're discussing presents too many obvious contradictions and there is no significance or reason for it, since death is the timeline for what type of judgment the departed will encounter (Heb 9:27), in which the person's eternity is settled, but not initiated until the resurrection of the individual ("resurrection of life" and "the resurrection of damnation," as you have indicated--John 5:28).

The meaning of coming forth from the grave (John 5:28, 29) is that all (saved and unsaved) of the old bodies will be changed into an eternal body (Phil 3:21), which is what resurrection means; the rejoining of a spirit to a physical body (not like incarnation or angels taking on human form), otherwise they remain only in their spirit without a physical body, as they are at death.

This is the meaning of "lived" in Revelation 20:4; "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years"; in their resurrected bodies because, "This is the first resurrection" and "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished (v 5).

They were still only in their spirit, until they resurrect in verse 13, which are not, "Blessed and holy" like those "that hath part in the first resurrection." (v 6). One resurrection for the saved and the unsaved, just at different times and the last resurrection will include all of which will not have "power" against "the second death," which is "the lake of fire" (v 14).

The preaching of Christ to the dead is a concept, among many others, some believer's grew up with (myself also) and as it is with any doctrine of long-acceptance, it's difficult to question even if it's false. Also realize that, as it has been well stated, "any doctrine can seem to be established on partial Scripture, but truth is always established on the whole" (not accusing you of the former).

Scripture is clear that all Old Testament saints went to heaven (also called paradise--Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7) as testified by the true story of the rich man, Lazarus and Abraham (Luke 16:19-31).

The story discloses that the rich man was not in or near the location of where Abraham and Lazarus was, but rather had to "lift up his eyes . . . and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (v 23), and there's also a vast separation by "a great gulf fixed" (v 26) between the two locations. Another difficulty, among numerous remaining others, is that Lazarus had to be "carried by the angels" (v 22).

I share this not to attempt to prove or disprove either of our belief's but as a matter attempting to represent Scriptural support for the beliefs.

 

Hey NetChaplain,

Paradise is a separate place than heaven. The septuagint reads:

"And God planted paradise in Eden according to the east, and he put there the man whom he shaped" (Gen. 2:8).

"And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest at any time he might stretch out the hand, and should take from the tree of life, and should eat, and will live into the eon -- that [the lord God ejected him] from the paradise of the delicacy, to work the earth from which he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).

Apostolic Bible Polyglot
Copyright 1996 Charles Van der Pool.
www.apostolicbible.com.​

According to Gen. 1:8, heaven was made before God "planted paradise in Eden".

And the second point that I want to make is that BC saints didn't go to heaven until Christ brought them out of Sheol/Hades (Eph. 4:8-10). Before this event, Sheol/Hades was the common destiny to all men (Eccles. 9:10).

 

Philippians 3:21 teaches that the saints (of the Church) receive the glorious body that Christ has.

 

Hi Jope - The "garden" or paradise you indicate is of this present world and was a limited and confined area; and the "paradise" I've indicted is not of this world but an entire realm.

Not to challenge your claim but I would require Scripture disclosing the concept that "Christ brought them out" and all the ones we've already mentioned do not support this in my opinion.