Problem? Actually you're wrong about that. In fact it's the solution.Theres your problem right there....
Problem? Actually you're wrong about that. In fact it's the solution.Theres your problem right there....
Problem? Actually you're wrong about that. In fact it's the solution.
destitute of life, without life, inanimate
Christ is life, The Life.
therefore the Bible defines death as not having Him, being without Him, separated from Him.
John 11:25-26I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?
Already have dozens of times. Hundreds probably. Just scan thru the thread. Calvinists got wrecked.Theres your problem right there.... Your choice makes Christs work efficacious.
Your saying its your choice that makes Christs person and work (atonement etc) effective.
You would not be able to substatiate such a claim from scripture, from mans mind yes, from scripture, no!
Abraham and Jesus are friends.
Your assertion that he does not know Him is baseless.
we don't need a while new thread in some far distant future to establish that, and it is 100% germaine to the question of whether the gospel of Christ existed before 33 AD.
the doctrine of human depravity in existant recorded post apostolic Christian theology dates back to at least Augustine and comes from scripture not imagination. Genesis 3, Romans 5.
we have freedom but we are also constrained by sinfulness. only the degree to which that corruption constrains us is up for debate.
if we were capable of goodness Christ died for nothing.
Paul persecuted the church that is very true, he despised christ and his message, that is also true.
But,
On the road to damascus Paul encounteres the risen Lord and believed that one and same gospel he once despised. The one and only gospel.
None of the apostles preached what was handed down to them from men, only that which came from Christ. As with Paul the ither apostle received the gospel by revelation, by the word himself, as they walked with him.
I find it interestingnthat you miss out the ret of acts 21?
21and they have been told about you [Paul] that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or w walk according to our customs.
Not only that, but, Luke tells us :-
When we [Luke, Paul etc] had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly Acts 21:17)
Even better they glorified God for Pauls ministry and we kniw they all taught the one and same gospel from the jerusalem counsel Acts 15.
Anyhiw lets go back to acts 21 for this really just ends your argument, and shows it untenable.
Acts 21:23—24 read caredully!
Do therefore what we (James and the Jewish christians in Jerusalem) tell you(Paul) . We have four men y who are under a vow;
24take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads.
Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you(Paul) yourself also live in observance of the law.
James is saying to Paul to do the nazarite vow, and all will know that Paul himself lives in observance of the law.
Except they are not dead. Not yet anyways. But they will be FUTURE DEAD. In the lake of fire. If they DO NOT REPENT AND BELIEVE. A critical aspect that you utterly fail to comprehend.No, it doesn't mean separation, it means death.
Already have dozens of times. Hundreds probably. Just scan thru the thread. Calvinists got wrecked.
https://christianchat.com/threads/gods-will-vs-mans-free-will.216406/post-5376643
Somehow, Rahab the doomed Canaanite, the doomed Gibeonite Hivites, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Zarephath, the Ninevites, and the Samaritan woman at the well ALL sprang back to life, despite your best efforts and condemning them to utter hopelessness.No, it doesn't mean separation, it means death. Nekros is the word used in the verses I provided.
Separation as death is a different word, although they both either explicitly mean, or imply dead or death.
You don't like to accept that death actually means death? That is why your interpretations are usually so wrong
Henceforth don't bother me with your interpretations because I am not going to respond to them again.
[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And[G2532] you[G5209] [hath he quickened], who were[G5607] dead[G3498] in trespasses[G3900] and[G2532] sins;[G266]
[Col 2:13 KJV] 13 And[G2532] you,[G5209] being[G5607] dead[G3498] in[G1722] your sins[G3900] and[G2532] the uncircumcision[G203] of your[G5216] flesh,[G4561] hath he quickened together[G4806] with[G4862] him,[G846] having forgiven[G5483] you[G5213] all[G3956] trespasses;[G3900]
Dead:
nekros (Key) G3498
[Jas 1:15 KJV] 15 Then[G1534] when lust[G1939] hath conceived,[G4815] it bringeth forth[G5088] sin:[G266] and[G1161] sin,[G266] when it is finished,[G658] bringeth forth[G616] death.[G2288]
- properly
- one that has breathed his last, lifeless
- deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
- destitute of life, without life, inanimate
- metaph.
- spiritually dead
- destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
- inactive as respects doing right
- destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative
thanatos (Key) G2288
- the death of the body
- that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended
- with the implied idea of future misery in hell
- the power of death
- since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin
- metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,
- the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell
- the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
- in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell
"ALL sprang back to life, despite your best efforts AT condemning them to utter hopelessness."Somehow, Rahab the doomed Canaanite, the doomed Gibeonite Hivites, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Zarephath, the Ninevites, and the Samaritan woman at the well ALL sprang back to life, despite your best efforts and condemning them to utter hopelessness.
How?
This is how. Yes, the wretched doomed "necros" gentile Ninevites SOMEHOW possessed the same saving faith of Abraham. NO DIFFERENCE.
Gal 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Jon 3:5
So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
And YES these Ninevites were undoubtedly saved, AND WILL BE A PART OF THE FIRST RESURRECTION.
Mat 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
=====================================================================================
The absurd (and evil) pretentions of the hyper-Calvinist are effortlessly eliminated by HARMONIZING SCRIPTURE.
What we are told that He definitely believed on that road is that Yahshuah was/is indeed the risen Messiah. All that Paul knew up to that point paled in the revelation of that fact that Jesus was/is indeed LORD. That along was more than sufficient for him to realize that the saints he was persecuting had a handle on a truth of which he was unaware up to the moment, in that Christ Jesus is LORD rather than some vagabond on the loose who had been dispatched from this life.
The weakness in your argument, while using those verses, that causes your house of cards to collapse is this:
1 Corinthians 9:22 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.
Most here completely side-step the fact that Paul's Gospel was indeed radical, even to the eleven. It was shock enough that Gentiles were brought into the fold of salvation without having to become Jews, but that Gentiles were being saved without becoming zealous for the Mosaic Law, and that Paul was actively teaching acceptance for turning away from zealotry for the Mosaic Law, and that he did not teach the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins, which was big in the Gospel Peter preached in Acts 2 after Pentecost. Filled with Holy Spirit, Peter preached water baptism as a central tenet for remission of sins. Paul, on the other hand, preached only Christ, His crucifixion, burial and resurrection.
So, if people want to believe it's all one Gospel on the basis of Christ being the center of it all, that's cool. However, when they teach that water baptism is a part of what provides remission for their sins, that's another Gospel...
MM
There were untold thousands of Gentiles saved before Christ. And obviously before Abraham, as there were only gentiles to be had. And there were tons of gentiles saved during Jesus' ministry. Why is it such a big deal that gentiles are being saved in the Church age? Cuz I cannot think of why.What we are told that He definitely believed on that road is that Yahshuah was/is indeed the risen Messiah. All that Paul knew up to that point paled in the revelation of that fact that Jesus was/is indeed LORD. That along was more than sufficient for him to realize that the saints he was persecuting had a handle on a truth of which he was unaware up to the moment, in that Christ Jesus is LORD rather than some vagabond on the loose who had been dispatched from this life.
The weakness in your argument, while using those verses, that causes your house of cards to collapse is this:
1 Corinthians 9:22 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.
Most here completely side-step the fact that Paul's Gospel was indeed radical, even to the eleven. It was shock enough that Gentiles were brought into the fold of salvation without having to become Jews, but that Gentiles were being saved without becoming zealous for the Mosaic Law, and that Paul was actively teaching acceptance for turning away from zealotry for the Mosaic Law, and that he did not teach the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins, which was big in the Gospel Peter preached in Acts 2 after Pentecost. Filled with Holy Spirit, Peter preached water baptism as a central tenet for remission of sins. Paul, on the other hand, preached only Christ, His crucifixion, burial and resurrection.
So, if people want to believe it's all one Gospel on the basis of Christ being the center of it all, that's cool. However, when they teach that water baptism is a part of what provides remission for their sins, that's another Gospel...
MM
Abraham gave not one indication that he understood the totality of what scripture reveals to us today about Jesus. Your fantasies about what you THINK Abraham knew is nothing more than an injection into the text what clearly is not there.
You are, of course entitled to believe whatever you want. Some of my other acquaintances also dabble in the practice of injecting their own fantasies into scripture as to what was in the minds of men in the Bible they have never met.
Enjoy.
MM
No matter what which way you frame your position it still falls flat at the first hurdle. There is only one way to salvation, one gospel for all people. There is only one salvation offered for both Jew and gentile, and just as impirtant, only one way to appropiate that salvation offered.
As Jesus stated:-
I am,
The way (he himself is the way and as the Word made flesh, teaches us his word).
The truth - not inly does the Word speak the truhful word, he is the word.
The life - The Word made flesh, not only shows the one true way, proclaiming the truth, but is life itself.
Not only that, no one can come to the Father except through Jesus. As Paul says 'in Christ'. Paul labours on this one point.. Table felliwship for the Jew and the gentile.. They are one now, united by faith in Christ. And again the there is no other gospel than that which the entire NT teaches.
Hyper dispensationalism/ Paul onlyism is a radical distortion of Jesus himself, for he is the good news for all mankind.
The warning for you and anyone entertaining hyoer disoensationalism is as above, don't distort the person and work of Christ. These a new ( modern) novel distortions of the truth itself.
There were untold thousands of Gentiles saved before Christ. And obviously before Abraham, as there were only gentiles to be had. And there were tons of gentiles saved during Jesus' ministry. Why is it such a big deal that gentiles are being saved in the Church age? Cuz I cannot think of why.
BTW......a deep dive study of the supposedly doomed Gibeonites is really quite thrilling. Let me know and I will provide links.
you said Abraham did not know Jesus.
you were not correct.
Until the Church age ends. Which is soon. And THEN Israel is RECOMMISSIONED to service after the New Covenant is fulfilled in them.Good points. There were indeed many Gentile coverts into Judaism before Christ, which was the only way to salvation. After the cross, for a time, Israel was still meant to be the salt and light to the world with the Blood fulfillment of the prophecies about Christ, coupled with zealotry for the Law, Gentiles still had a path to salvation since salvation was of the Jews. However, as you know, they failed by way of continuing their rejection of Christ, as the parable revealed to us from the very Lips of Christ Himself.
So, the Lord had in Himself another plan to mitigate Israel's failure so that Jews and Gentiles alike could attain unto salvation without Israel as the conduit (so to speak).
Good stuff.
MM
will have to in the future, "endure unto the end."