Hebrew 1, then to 6, two gospels

Snicker snicker.

 

Typical response for a guy with no scriptue to back up what he believes. I hope this thread has sparked some interest in you to read the bible more so that you can give an answer.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

See how easy it is.

 

I did give Scripture. Paul argued in Romans 4 that people of all time have been justified the exact same way: faith alone in the God who justifies.

It is you who is adding mud to clear teaching.

You have people being saved multiple ways depending on when they lived. Have you ever read Romans or Galatians? I distinctly remember Paul saying that the works of the law could justify NO MAN. You disagree.

Now, I think most people who read this will understand the difference between your cult theology and the biblical theology.

Ruckman theology books aren't the Bible.

 

It isn't Paul's fault that you two are so reckless with the Scriptures. I have already pointed out the necessary text to dispel this myth that you two are promoting.

 

This is the complete context of Eph. 3, which you boys keep leaving out so as to deceive people.

Eph 3
1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--
2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you;
3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.
4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
__

1. Who was given the mystery?

His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit

2. What is the mystery?

to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel

3. When was it given?

which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles
__

Sorry to bring Scripture into the equation boyz, but your view of multiple gospel is not reconciliable with the Word of God. Sorry about that.

 

The practice of the law can only bring a curse:

Galatians 3
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The law "kept" no one but was/is a revealer of the thoughts and intents of the heart:

Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

David understood this premise:

Psalm 119
4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.

HankD

 

quote;
The law "kept" no one but was/is a revealer of the thoughts and intents of the heart:

Really Hank? Why does this verse say it did?

Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Hank and all others concerned. You cannot explain away the plain teaching of any passage of scripture simply by turning to another one.

All scripture must be addressed for what it says.
I know the trditional baptist teachings inside out. I also know where they are wrong.

Please do not ask me to take your word over scripture.

Some of you continue to bring up David as an example and I have asked you plainly to answer a question concerning David that you have not even attempted to answer.

Why is it David was not killed for the two sins of murder and adultery? Both were punishable by death under the law which David lived.
Please take the time to answer that question for me.

Secondly, what I am trying to get you to see is that there is a difference between the O.T. and the N.T.
God says so in his word and yet you disagree. He says in his word that the testament is not in effect until the death of the testator. When did Jesus die?

Heb.9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

After Jesus died.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The blood of Jesus is the blood of the N.T.

 

Daniel, please read the scripture posted instead of just jumping in and blurting meaningless nothings.

Either discuss or be ignored.

 

psr.2, you have ignored Paul's argument in Romans 4 that people have always been saved by faith alone in the God who justifies.

You have also ignored the correct interpretation of Eph. 3.

What Scripture is it you want me to deal with when you won't even look at the texts that completely dispel your cultic ideas?

 

Strike three you're out Daniel. If someone else would care to discuss with you fine but you simply do not understand the topic. You do not seem capable of dealing with a verse of scripture other than to try to prove it wrong with a different verse of scripture.

Here in your Romans four is the very answer that you cannot see.

Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

What promise?

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Righteousness for believing the promise of his seed as I have said all along.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Right there it is Daniel in black and whit in Romans four. Righteousness will be imputed to us "IF WE BELIEVE ON HIM THAT THAT RAISED UP JESUS OUR LORD FROM THE DEAD."

That is not what Abraham got his righteousness from. Did you see that? Right smack dab in the chapter you keep harping about.
Now Daniel you cannot deny what the verses say. What are you going to do about it? Are you willing to believe God and change what you thought based on scripture or will you cling to the traditions of men?
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 

Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Please note they were kept “under” the law not by it. The law ends in a curse.

Baloney! (or Bologna!, if you speak Italian) No one is explaining away the "plain teaching" of Scripture. Line upon line, precept upon precept, is not explaining away one passage with another but expanding the scope of the given subject, one must seek after the whole council of God.

and balanced by the other related Scriptures, especially later revelation (which ultimately ended with Christ and the Apostles).

What do you mean by the “traditional Baptist teachings”, The Baptist Distinctions?

I wouldn’t dream of doing that.

The mercy of God.

No I don’t.

So what?, What are you trying to prove psr.2?

Again I say (don’t know about anyone else) So what?

The covenant of the Law was ADDED along side a pre-existing Covenant, the Promise to Abraham and his seed Jesus Christ.

NKJV Galatians 3
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.
18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

The Covenant of the Promise of the Seed of Abraham (which harkens back to the Seed of the woman) pre-existed the Covenant of the Law and did not disannul it.

HankD

 

psr.2, I would prefer that you not post with the extreme hostility that you have toward other people.

The Scriptures also say that Abraham received his son back as a TYPE. Now, what was Isaac a TYPE of? Hmmmmmm. I bet you can figure that out.

Further, Abraham did not have the COMPLETE view of Christ that we have today. Some of the details about the Christ were yet to be revealed.

What is the same is that God justifies those who embrace him by faith alone.

I am sorry you still don't get the elementary truths of God's word. I encourage you to continue in your study, that you are not so easily refuted.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says in his word that the testament is not in effect until the death of the testator. When did Jesus die?

Heb.9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what?, What are you trying to prove psr.2?

You haven't forgotten the title of the thread have you? ...the two gospels.

What the scripture I quoted was saying is that the N.T. as we know it was not in affect until after the death of Christ.
Until that time it was necessary for a person to keep the law and sacrifices to have their sine covered. If they failed to do that they would go to hell.
It was not just simply saying I am trusting in the finished work of the Savior.

Hank, is that what you believe? Do you believe that O.T. saints were under a different covenant then we are?
I quoted God's word that said they were and yet it seems you and Daniel still refuse to believe it.
Heb.9 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Now the BIBLE says that the blood of the first testament was the blood of bulls and goats according to GOD.

The same passage says the blood of the new testament is the blood of Christ according to GOD in the BIBLE.

Can both of you see adifference in what GOD said about the O.T. and the N.T.?

 

Daniel once again no scripture to back up what you say. According to your tactics I am forced to believe your words over Gods. No thank you.
Please don't take my suggestion of doing a little more studying as anything more than encouragement. After all the bible does say;
II Tim. 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

Daniel did you read the verse I Typed in your favorite chapter of the bible?
Romans four was placed right there for you to see. The very truth of this topic from the HJoly Spirit to Paul to you. You decided rather than submit yourself to the truth and let the bible teach you something to lash back with something else.
You have constantly thrown Rom. 4 in my face and now that I have examined it and shown you that it proves my point you don't want to talk about it any more.

 

I don't get your irrationality.

What text do I need to "deal with"?
What am I ignoring in God's word?
What text is it you would like me to address?

Stop with the insane posts.

 

What is your point about Romans 4? I can't understand the bizarre thinking that is going on. Please help me to understand you. I am a friend, not an enemy. The nurse and felluz with white coats are your friends also.

 

OK Daniel it's obvious you have lost a discussion so now you have to try to belittle the person who showed you the truth from scripture. Well I am not interested in you game but you help yourself. I will discuss things with adults.