2 seeds, 2 Jerusalems

[Elin]

Elin, your missing the big picture of what the firstborn son represents in the scriptures, in Ishmael, in Adam, in Cain, Rueben, in Esau, etc; it repeats over and over in again scripture.
The bondage (in Gal 4:24,25? Elin) is of sin in the firstborn man,
that is the main theme of the Bible, not the law of Moses.

But Adam wasn't born, he was created.

Nor is Paul is talking about the firstborn man (Cain) in Gal 4:21-31.
He is talking about the firstborn sons of Hagar and Sarah.

So if firstborn son represents bondage to sin, is the "church of the firstborn,"
whose names are written in heaven, also in bondage to sin, as you say is
what firstborn son represents in the Scriptures?

Heb 12:23:

"You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire;
to darkness, gloom and storm (old covenant of Mt. Sinai). . .But you have come to
Mt. Zion (new covenant) to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. . .to
the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven." (Heb 12:18, 22-23)

Wrong firstborn Elin. Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
that in all things he might have the preeminence.

However, "firstborn" in Heb 12:23 is plural, and their names (plural) are written in heaven, so it does not refer to Christ, as does Col 1:18 above.

We were all once dead in our sins, Elin.....that's why Jesus came.

Agreed. . .but by "church of the firstborn," Heb 12:23 is referring to those who are born again,
and the born again are not dead in their sins, they are alive in Christ.
The letter to the Hebrews, who had lived the OT, is referring to the firstborn,
who were God's particular possession (Ex 13:2, 12-15 (Lk 2:23) by purchase (redemption). . .

. . .And that is what Hebrews 12:23 is referring to in the church of the firstborn; i.e., those that have been redeemed.

They are not in bondage to sin,
nor is firstborn son a Scriptural figure of bondage to sin,
in fact, it is just the opposite--it is a figure of redemption from bondage to sin
in the redeemed church of the firstborn.

Again wrong firstborn Elin, the first state of man is flesh, not Spirit.

I am not talking about the firstborn from the dead. (hello)

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

If your going to try to twist what I say around, then don't even bother responding back. Have a nice day Elin.

Then I guess I need you to explain what you mean in your second post, above.
because your response seems contradictory.

Can you show me what I am misunderstanding?
I can't make sense of it.

I've tried 3 times to show you what your missing, but yet you still do not understand. Why is that? You are the one who is trying to make my statement contradictory.

My original statement was about the firstborn man of sin who is of the bondwoman (bondage to sin)

Well, the firstborn man of sin is Cain, and the bondwoman of Gal 4:22, 23, 25 is in bondage to slavery.

You then tried to make my statement apply to the born again man (firstborn from the dead);

But firstborn from the dead of Col 1:18 is Jesus Christ, not the born again Christian.

And this is where I get lost, at your second post above.

You introduced Col 1:18 into the conversation, and I guess I misunderstand what you mean by that.
Could you show me what I am misunderstanding, particularly in light of your last post above?

which I tried 3 times (now 4) to say no Elin "wrong firstborn Elin."

How in the world could you not understand that?

The firstborn man of sin is of the earthly Jerusalem.

The born again man (firstborn from the dead) is of the heavenly Jerusalem.

I color coded it so even a child could understand.

Then just call me in the slow group.

The firstborn man of sin is Cain.

The born again man is the Christian, and the (firstborn from the dead) is Jesus Christ.

So are you saying man is first born in sin, and then born again into eternal life,

and so the first born man in sin is of the earthly Jerusalem,
and the born again man is of the heavenly Jerusalem?

Okay. . .but in Gal 4:21-31, earthly Jerusalem is only the Jews, who are in
bondage to the law (Gal 4:21) of the old covenant,

and heavenly Jerusalem is the born again who are free from the law in the new covenant of Jesus Christ.

Remember, the issue is the Judaizers (Gal 4:21, "you who want to be under the law"),

and the allegory is about covenants, one in bondage to the law (Hagar)
and one free from the law (Sarah)
(Gal 4:24, "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants.")

It is not about born in sin and reborn into eternal life,
it's about bondage to the law in the old covenant and freedom from the law in the new covenant.

 

[Elin]

Here is where your insincerity first showed itself Elin, and I knew you were not playing stupid but were in fact trying to make my statement sound contradictory.

"So is the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven, also in bondage to sin?"

Of a truth, you knew the answer to that question, and you also
knew that was not what I was talking about. But you were just being sarcastic and
trying to misrepresent what I was saying

Agreed. . .I do know the answer to that question.

But I didn't know what you were talking about,
for you were likening things to other things which are not alike, and I couldn't see the connections.

Adam was not the firstborn, and I was trying to understand what you included in your connections.

Probably the thing to do at that point would have been to give me a clear explanation of the connections.

That is why I got so upset, I don't like evil or playing games with
those who try to misrepresent the truth.

Sorry you misunderstood me to be trying to misrepresent the truth..

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Agreed. . .I do know the answer to that question.

But I didn't know what you were talking about,
for you were likening things to other things which are not alike, and I couldn't see the connections.

Adam was not the firstborn, and I was trying to understand what you included in your connections.

Probably the thing to do at that point would have been to give me a clear explanation of the connections.


Sorry you misunderstood me to be trying to misrepresent the truth..

Was Adam the first man of the earth, Did Adam Sin? Hello! Anyone home?

You knew exactly what I was talking about earlier, and you also tried to misrepresent what I had said earlier, which makes you not only a deceiver, but now also a liar. Shame on you Elin, I say let shame be on you.



Your doctrine is false, it is not of Holy Spirit, but of flesh and of men.

 

[Elin]

Was Adam the first man of the earth, Did Adam Sin? Hello! Anyone home?

Yes, he was the first man, but he was not the firstborn, for he was never born, he was created,
and Scripture never refers to him as firstborn.

You knew exactly what I was talking about earlier, and you also tried to misrepresent what I had said earlier, which makes you not only a deceiver, but now also a liar. Shame on you Elin, I say let shame be on you.

The most that can be said is that I showed firstborn did not mean born in sin.

Sorry you don't believe me and that you feel that way.

Your doctrine is false, it is not of Holy Spirit, but of flesh and of men.

If you are referring to Gal 4:21-31, feel free to show from the text and its context how that is so.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Yes, he was the first man, but he was not the firstborn, for he was never born, he was created,
and Scripture never refers to him as firstborn.

Nothing like straining at a gnat in order to swallow the camel. Matthew 23:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

Take a hike!

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

It is not about born in sin and reborn into eternal life,
it's about bondage to the law in the old covenant and freedom from the law in the new covenant.

And there is the lie, and the camel.

 

[Elin]

Was Adam the first man of the earth, Did Adam Sin? Hello! Anyone home?

Yes, he was the first man, but he was not the firstborn, for he was never born, he was created,
and Scripture never refers to him as firstborn.

Nor was he the firstborn in sin, for Adam was not born in sin.

Nothing like straining at a gnat in order to swallow the camel. Matthew 23:24
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

I guess this may also be a source of our differences.

It is not a "gnat" to me to use the words of Scripture; e.g., firstborn, in a way that is contrary to Scripture,
such as to mean Adam (contrary to Ge 1:27) or to mean in sin (contrary to Heb 12:22-23).

I'm sorry that offends you.

Take a hike!

May I want until warmer weather. . .please?

 

[Elin]

Gal 4:21-31 is not about born in sin and reborn into eternal life,

it's about bondage to the law in the old covenant

and freedom from the law in the new covenant.

And there is the lie, and the camel.

It would be helpful if you showed that from the text of Gal 4:21-31 in its context,
if that is what you are referring to.

 

[Skinski7]

Elin identifies with TULIP theology.

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints


In a nutshell that theology teaches that sin is the result of a birth state (born in sin) and not a result of moral free agency.

Basically "sin you will and sin you must" and "you cannot obey God."

It is upon that premise that an entire theology is developed by proof texting very select portions of the Bible out of their context, a theology which has to have an "offset for inability" and a cloak for "ongoing iniquity."

The New Covenant that Elin believes in is premised on a legal transaction that she thinks took place at the cross. She believes that Jesus was punished as a substitute for the sinner thereby satisfying the wrath of God (thus punishment not due anymore) and that the literal obedient track record of Jesus is credited to the believers account (a cloak for ongoing wickedness).

Thus any conversation with Elin that challenges that premise is going to bring conflict. Any sentiment that alludes to salvation actually being a present manifest state of walking by a faith that works by love, blameless before God, with a sincere faith by which we wholeheartedly love God and our neighbour is going to be rejected.

Why?

Because salvation is "not of works" to these people. They think that Jesus effected a provision by substitution, a provision that one merely trusts in by "faith alone" and that adding ANY thing to that provision is to fall from grace.

The truth though though is that "not of works" is merely an allusion to the rites and rituals of the Mosaic Law as being the means to attain the righteousness of Christ. These people associate "not of works" as meaning "do nothing except trust." Oh how we can be so easily deceived.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Skinski7]

I find it best not to get caught up in the fluff that these deceivers will meet out. Instead go for the root and expose them.

Jesus preached this...

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

and thus...

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The criticism of Jesus with the Pharisees was that they only had a form of outward righteousness yet remained inwardly wicked. It is not enough to merely not murder or commit adultery, our hearts cannot do those things either, hence heart purity.

Peter wrote this...

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


You will never ever get these people to discuss heart purity in salvation. They simply cannot because they believe in this "born in sin" doctrine and thus associate the flesh itself with a sin nature (thus they believe the sin can never stop). Thus ongoing iniquity in some form is necessitated in salvation in their doctrine. That is why they have developed a cloak for it in the way they teach the cross.

They defend their doctrines by jumping from proof text to proof text and keep heaping rhetoric around it. This keeps people running in circles, yet it avoids the central issue of the condition of the heart. Expose the root flaw of their theology and everything else collapses.

 

[Skinski7]

[video=youtube;9eL57nAm9Lo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eL57nAm9Lo[/video]

 

[Elin]

Elin identifies with TULIP theology.

Elin identifies with Pauline theology.

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

In a nutshell that theology teaches that sin is the result of a birth state (born in sin) and not a result of moral free agency.

Ro 5:19 - "through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), the many were made sinners."

Basically "sin you will and sin you must" and "you cannot obey God."

It is upon that premise that an entire theology is developed by proof texting very select portions of the Bible out of their context, a theology which has to have an "offset for inability" and a cloak for "ongoing iniquity."

The New Covenant that Elin believes in is premised on a legal transaction that she thinks took place at the cross. She believes that Jesus was punished as a substitute for the sinner thereby
satisfying the wrath of God (thus punishment not due anymore)

Ro 3:25 - "God presented him as a sacrifice of propitiation (look up its meaning), through faith
in his blood."

Faith in his blood saves without works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

and that the literal obedient track record of Jesus is credited to the believers account (a cloak for ongoing wickedness).

Not my belief. My belief is

Ro 5:16-17 - "the gift (of God, salvation--v. 16)) followed many trespasses and
brought justification. . .how much more will those who receive God's. . .gift of righteousness
reign in life through Jesus Christ."

Righteousness here means justification--right standing, guiltless, before God through faith.

Thus any conversation with Elin that challenges that premise is going to bring conflict. Any sentiment that alludes to salvation actually being a present manifest state of walking by a faith that works by love, blameless before God, with a sincere faith by which we wholeheartedly love God and our neighbour is going to be rejected.

Not my belief. My belief is

Heb 12:14 - "Without holiness (process of sanctification through obedience) no one will see the Lord."

Why?

Because salvation is "not of works" to these people. They think that Jesus effected a provision by substitution,

Not my belief. My belief is

Ro 3:25 - "God presented him as a sacrifice of propitiation, through faith in his blood."

a provision that one merely trusts in by "faith alone" and that adding ANY thing to that provision is to fall from grace.

The truth though is that
"not of works" is merely an allusion to
the rites and rituals of the Mosaic Law as
being the means to attain the righteousness of Christ.

The truth is

righteousness of Christ is justification, a gift (Ro 5:16-17)

These people associate "not of works" as meaning "do nothing except trust."

Eph 2:8-9 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this (salvation) not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."

The salvation is not by works.
The holiness (sanctification) is by obedience of faith.

Oh how we can be so easily deceived.

Even regarding what "people" believe. . .

 

[Elin]

Jesus preached this...

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

and thus...

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The criticism of Jesus with the Pharisees was that they only had a form of outward righteousness yet remained inwardly wicked. It is not enough to merely not murder or commit adultery, our hearts cannot do those things either, hence heart purity.

Peter wrote this...

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Agreed. . .and they do not disagree with anything else in the word of God.

 

[Skinski7]

Here is Elin's error clearly revealed...

The salvation is not by works.
The holiness (sanctification) is by obedience of faith.

What these folks do is disconnect sanctification from justification.

There is a lot of theology behind the above quote.

When they salvation is not by works they mean it is not by doing anything at all. Zero, zip, nada. They perceive salvation as being purely PROVISIONAL and therefore it is a POSITION one holds. The following diagram illustrates this belief quite well...



The "salvation not by works" they teach is basically accepting a POSITION which they TRUST they have because of what they think Jesus did on the cross. Upon receiving this PACKAGE (which is the justification) they then teach that sanctification takes place afterwards and that the "obedience" of sanctification is a fruit of genuine justification. So it is within that context that they will say things like...

The truth is

righteousness of Christ is justification, a gift (Ro 5:16-17)

and

Ro 3:25 - "God presented him as a sacrifice of propitiation (look up its meaning), through faith
in his blood."

Faith in his blood saves without works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

They are "trusting" in this legal exchange they think occurred.

It is all a lie. It is all a massive deception. There is no transfer taught in the Bible. Here is what the Bible teaches...

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Paul is teaching that God reckons FAITH ITSELF as righteousness. There is no credit of the righteousness of Christ to the believer, rather God is reckoning the faith OF Christ which is a "faith that works by love" as righteousness and at the same time not counting past transgression. The free gift is the forgiveness of sins and the means of transformation. Here is the scripture Paul is quoting from...

Psa 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

These deceivers will never quote the last part of verse 2 which says "and in whose spirit there is no guile." They cannot quote that because they believe in Original Sin and thus associate the flesh itself with guile and that guile actually exists in salvation to be gradually purged out in sanctification.

If we look at Eph 2:10-12...

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

... we see that Paul is speaking of a "working dynamic" which produces the salvation of the soul. We are not saved by the works of the law (adherence to rules and regulations or rites and rituals), rather we are saved by yielding wholeheartedly to the working of God within us. This is why the Bible says things like this...

Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

It is in DOING the word that transformation of the soul is wrought. In order to be DOERS we have to forsake our rebellion to God first which is why the very first thing Jesus preached when He began His ministry was REPENTANCE.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The deception is very subtle. The deception is very effective. The deception is very dangerous.

We are saved by grace THROUGH faith because...

Grace = Divine Influence of God Upon the Heart
Faith = Wholehearted Trust and Yielding to the Divine Influence of God.

That is the transformative dynamic taught in the Bible. We see it taught here...

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

We are "made the righteousness of God IN Him" through "working together with Him." If there is no "working together" (ie. wholehearted yielding or faith) then God's grace is received to no effect. The false teachers will NEVER teach this. People like Elin will NEVER teach this. This teaching utterly contradicts their "not of works receive the package by trust" false gospel.

The transformative dynamic produces HEART PURITY. This is why the Bible says things like...

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

These folks cannot teach this because they teach a purely "positional justification" which it totally disconnected from "heart purity." Heart purity to them is something that gradually develops later on if at all. If you carefully read all of Elin's posts you will clearly see that what I have said is true.

 

[Skinski7]

Here is a further example of this deceptive theology taken from the Wesminster Confession of Faith chapter 11 on Justification...

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

Westminster Confession of Faith

The gift of God to these people is this "legal credit" of the "righteousness of Christ." In other words the literal obedience of Jesus is credited to their account. Thus God is PRETENDING they are righteous like Jesus. This is why they believe...

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

Westminster Confession of Faith

They believe they can sin and not surely die because they are credited with the obedient track record of Jesus, not their own. Furthermore in chapter 17 on Perseverance it teaches...

II. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

Westminster Confession of Faith

They teach a salvation message where inward corruption remains and thus ongoing sin can and does occur. They teach this because of the Original Sin doctrine they have been deceived by. So while Elin may superficially agree with what I wrote on heart purity she does not really, she is only agreeing in the context of the disconnect between justification and sanctification and that is why I bet she doesn't elaborate on the subject. I have NEVER EVER seen any of these people discuss heart purity as it relates to justification, they will blow it off and enter into tangents in order to avoid the root issue.

 

[Karraster]

evidently there are many tulip believers here on cc. i thought it was just grace perversion. thanks skinski7

 

[Elin]

Here is Elin's error clearly revealed...

I note that you deny without actually addressing, giving the meaning of the texts of the Scriptures I presented, remaining true to all their words.

 

[Skinski7]

evidently there are many tulip believers here on cc. i thought it was just grace perversion. thanks skinski7

I used to believe in much of the TULIP and I did not even know what the TULIP was at the time. I had simply and uncritically bought into the theology which rests upon it. Many people believe in things blindly, never having truly examined them. It is tragic.

That is why it is important to expose those root of these errors which allows us to destroy the strongholds at the foundation.

The root error is the "born in sin" doctrine. That one error lies at the root of an entire system of error, a system which exists like an onion with layer upon layer of error.

The teaching that sin is a "birth issue" is a denial of personal responsibility as it pertains to free moral agency. The people under this delusion necessarily believe that the root cause of sinning is a "birth state" as opposed to their own choices. That belief completely redefines repentance from being a change of mind which necessitates a forsaking of rebellion to God into a mere "confession of sinfulness" where the burden is on God to change the sinner against their own which which is "unwilling" due to the inability doctrine.

Under this deception people are not escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust via the crucifixion of the old man in repentance because they are mentally inoculated in such a way as to believe that such a thing is impossible. Thus they think they get saved while they are still sinning. This false "assurance of salvation" in POSITION basically closes the door to the real thing because they think they already have the real thing.

Is it any wonder that Jesus made statements like the following to the religious leaders of His day?

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

 

[Skinski7]

I note that you deny without actually addressing, giving the meaning of the texts of the Scriptures I presented, remaining true to all their words.

You can note whatever you like Elin. I know how you operate. Your doctrine denies heart purity in salvation and that is why you will not elaborate or get involved in such a discussion. All you can do is isolate proof texts and heap rhetoric upon them, then when one addresses one proof text you simply move on to another. It is a technique that the false teachers are very good at.

I will expose the root error which is the denial of heart purity in salvation. Your doctrine offers a cloak for ongoing iniquity with godly sounding rhetoric. It is a form of godliness with no power. That is why your doctrine argues in favour of the Romans wretch being the present Christian walk. Your doctrine has a salvation that leaves people wretched and carnal, sold under sin. What kind of salvation is that? It is a monstrous perversion is what it is.