What @HigherGospel said could be read more than one way. One of those ways would be an argument from silence.
Did you check your response for fallacies?
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What @HigherGospel said could be read more than one way. One of those ways would be an argument from silence.
Did you check your response for fallacies?
As I had stated before...when I point to silence, my usage of that is generally to highlight eisegetical interpretations, not to develop a doctrine.
MM
Yeah, us Higher Gospel people accept the whole counsel of God rather than bits and pieces like you low caliber people who teach the wisdom of man in error as though it were the wisdom of God. That ends badly as you will see.
My mistake is posting what God says in His Word among tares who are reprobate.
I don't accept the darkened wisdom of mankind, so I'll stick with what the Lord says in His Word.
I didn't. I acknowledged that man makes mistakes as in falling short of God's absolute perfection which are sins NOT unto death the Word of God speaks of. You obviously did not read all that I said.
The issue is the eternal security crowd claims sins that ARE unto death (separation from God) are automatically forgiven without repentance and confessing them before the Lord so they can be cleansed from their sin.
This leads many to believe they can keep smoking crack, getting drunk, watching porn, be a "gay christian", partake in the ecumenical movement, etc, etc and it's all good they are still in right standing with the Lord as you all make the Lord Jesus out to be a minister of sin.
You folks should be moving to reform your community as it is off the rails now and is causing many to stumble by teaching it's not possible to lose salvation even if one lives as a sinner. You people go around proudly proclaiming you are sinners and see no problem with that.
That's written to believers. Deal with it.
It's very possible for a person to get born again legitimately and then call away
That's written to believers. Deal with it.
It's very possible for a person to get born again legitimately and then call away
And you left out the part where one must confess and forsake their sin in order to receive mercy and be cleansed from all unrighteousness.
All future sins are not automatically forgiven as man reaps what he sows. Saying otherwise is mocking God which I've already posted about
Proverbs 28:13
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Hebrews 10:28-31
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 10:28-31 is written to believers who turn away from the Lord to go back to living in sin and they were legitimately born again prior to going back to their sin
That's what the so called "gay christians" claim in their attempt to legitimize their sin claiming being gay is OK with Jesus because Jesus never specifically taught against being guy
What the tares don't understand is that Jesus specifically taught that marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore any union outside of the definition He gave it not acceptable to the Lord.
Those that teach eternal security must accept the so called "gay christians" because if they do not then they must acknowledge that were born again and then later decided to turn gay have in fact lost their salvation
The tares will go to any length to try and protect their precious false doctrine which is why more and more of these folks are accepting the so called "gay christians" along with "christians" engaging in other works of the flesh because they would rather support sin than admit it's possible for one to lose their salvation if they turn away from the Lord which is what God's Word teaches.
Reading in to scripture things is does not say is what the tares do!
All the point I've made are backed up by scripture.
The tares though have been taught to only accept the handful of verses that seeming appear to support their position and from they explain away the rest of scripture with the eisegesis they got from the false teachers they follow who have been heavily influenced by the false doctrines of the reformers who murdered people for not accepting their doctrine.
In a different post you may have said that, but I was addressing post #3,623 in which you only cited the first half of 1 John 2:1.
Are you talking about the sin unto death in 1 John 5:16? Sounds like you took it out of context. Believers committing certain sins that lead them to spiritual death does not fit the context. 1 John 5:16 - If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. 18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. ALL sins apart from the blood of Christ lead to spiritual death, yet that is not what John is talking about here.
There seems to be no cure for your anti-OSAS derangement syndrome. I can't name one Christian in the OSAS camp (including myself) who believes that way.
Who are you folks? More slander. So typical from you. Keep in mind that slander is sin.
All the NT letters are addressed to believers but that does not mean that everyone in these groups of professing believers are all genuine believers. Hence, the warning. Deal with that.
Call away? lol
There are genuine Christians and there are "nominal" or pseudo-Christians. There are genuine believers and there are make believers and it's not hard to find them mixed together in scripture, in various churches today and on various Christian forum sites. Hence, the warning. Again, deal with it.
Again, call away?
You should start with the sin of slander.
In regard to 1 John 1:9, notice that - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) is in contrast to - If we say that we have no sin, (present tense) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8) and - If we say that we have not sinned, (past tense) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:10)
Certain people seem to misunderstand verse 9 to mean that we "must confess each and every sin that we commit as we commit them" (keep a specific inventory of every sin we have ever committed) as an "additional requirement" to "remain cleansed" and "if we forget a sin we are toast!" Who could actually write an exhaustive list of every sin they have ever committed or ever will commit? Sin is not only missing the mark by what we do but also what we fail to do. (James 4:17)
Believers "confess" (Greek - homologeó) speak the same/acknowledge/agree with God's perspective about their sins and have a settled recognition and ongoing acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of cleansing and forgiveness in contrast with saying that we have no sin or that we have not sinned. (1 John 1:8-10)
Context. In Hebrews 10:26, to sin willfully carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows willful, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9)
In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the contrast that makes it clear to me that he was referring to make believers/nominal Christians, not saved people: But WE are not OF THOSE who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.
So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as a professing believer in the Hebrew Christian community of believers but later renounces his identification with other believers by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling underfoot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification as a Christian with the community of Hebrew Christians was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.
you say the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, never went to the world, and did not obey Jesus’ command. But this is not true. The Bible itself shows the opposite, and early history also confirms it.
1. Jesus commanded them to go to the whole world
After He rose from the dead, Jesus told them:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”
(Matthew 28:19, NKJV)
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”
(Mark 16:15, NKJV)
So yes, they were told to preach to the world.
The idea that they stayed in Jerusalem is false. The Bible itself says the opposite.
A. Philip left Jerusalem and preached in Samaria
Acts tells us:“Those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.”
(Acts 8:4, NKJV)
Philip went to Samaria and then even preached to the Ethiopian.
Peter left Jerusalem and stayed for long periods outside Israel
• Peter travelled to Lydda (Acts 9:32)
• Peter travelled to Joppa (Acts 9:36)
• Peter stayed with Simon the tanner for many days (Acts 9:43)
These are outside Jerusalem.
Peter preached to a Gentile household
The biggest proof is that Peter was the first to preach to Gentiles:He preached to Cornelius, a Roman, in Caesarea.(Acts 10)
Jesus had already told Peter:
“Feed My sheep.”
(John 21:17)
And Jesus also said:
“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.”
(John 10:16)
Peter obeyed this before anyone else.
he apostles spread out from Jerusalem after persecution, Jesus had said they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
And this is exactly what happened. Most of the apostles did NOT die in Israel
The statement “most of them died on Israeli soil” is historically false. Early Christian writers, long before later church traditions, recorded their travels and deaths.
These are the earliest known testimonies:
Peter
Clement of Rome (AD 96) and Ignatius (AD 110) say Peter died in Rome.
Andrew
Origen and Eusebius say he preached in Scythia (around the Black Sea) and died in Achaia (Greece).
Thomas
The Acts of Thomas (very early) and later writers say he preached in Persia and India and died in India.
Matthew
Various early sources say he preached in Ethiopia.
Simon the Zealot
Said to have preached in Persia.
Bartholomew
Recorded by Eusebius to have preached as far as India.
Philip
Said to have died in Hierapolis in Asia Minor (Turkey).
So the claim “they stayed in Israel and died there” is simply false!!!!!!!
Scripture itself says the kingdom gospel was preached outside Israel, Jesus said the gospel of the kingdom would go to the whole world
“This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations.”
(Matthew 24:14, NKJV)
This was already happening in the lives of the apostles.
The disciples DID preach the kingdom gospel When Jesus sent the twelve, He told them:
“As you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”
(Matthew 10:7)
Later, in Acts:
• Peter preached the kingdom (Acts 1–4)
• Philip preached the kingdom (Acts 8:12)
• The apostles continued in the same message
So the claim that they did not preach the kingdom gospel outside Israel is not true at all.
Why did many early Christians gather in Jerusalem for some years?
This was because:
• Jesus told them to wait for the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49)
• The first church was born there
• The believers were persecuted, scattered, and then carried the message everywhere (Acts 8:1,4)
It was not disobedience. It was Jesus’ plan.
The claim is false because:
• The Bible shows the apostles leaving Jerusalem.
• The Bible shows them preaching to Gentiles.
• The Bible shows the kingdom gospel being preached outside Israel.
• Early historical sources show almost all apostles died outside Israel.
• Nothing in Scripture says they refused the mission.
The simple truth is that they obeyed Jesus, and the message went out to the world even before Paul began his work.
REFERENCES USED (Biblical and Early Historical)
Biblical
Matthew 28:19
Mark 16:15
John 10:16
John 21:17
Acts 1:8
Acts 8:4
Acts 9:32
Acts 9:36
Acts 9:43
Acts 10
Matthew 10:7
Matthew 24:14
Early Historical Writers
• Clement of Rome, 1 Clement (AD 96)
• Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110)
• Origen (AD 185–253)
• Eusebius, Church History (AD 260–339)
• Acts of Thomas (early Christian text)
YOU NEED TO READ MORE your story is untrue and diminishes the 11 and jesus! that should not be!
you forgot to answer the questions I asked in a previous post;
Now serious questions: Do you have to keep the Ten Commandments? and Why? you should know this but people who follow Paul exclusively do not.
Just checking to make certain you know I was saying that what you meant should be clarified before accusations or conclusions made.
Yeah I addressed that in numerous other posts
This is addressed to the brethren and demonstrates yet again that it's possible for someone to be born again and then fall away from the Lord and not be in right standing with Him any more - at which point if they do not forsake their sin and confess it to the Lord they will not be cleansed of their sin and will not go to Heaven if they die in that condition.
If Christians sow to the flesh, they reap corruption according to Gal 6:7,8
Saying they don't is mocking God according to Gal 6:7,8
You wouldn't want to mock God would you and claim we do not reap what we sow when He clearly says we do???
2 Timothy 2:12
If we deny Him, He also will deny us
James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
They are all over. They have been influenced by those who falsely claim it's not possible to lose salvation and because they have been taught this false doctrine they keep living in sin thinking they are OK with the Lord and still in right standing with him. Only those living in a bubble aren't seeing these people all over the internet and in their local area
This is why anytime someone dies, everyone always claims they went to Heaven because they "believed" in God.
The devil believes in God and in Jesus and is meaningless because just believing without living for the Lord ends badly.
Scripture teaches we are to put off the old man and put on the new man and the OSAS crowd denies this claiming that would be works based salvation as they claim being led by the Holy Spirit to be obedient to the Lord is in fact trying to earn our salvation
If you'll listen to Charles Stanley you'll see him teaching things like this and he is considered to have been one of the foremost authorities on eternal security doctrine.
He even claimed one could be gay and still be a Christian that goes to Heaven.
If you do not believe these false doctrines maybe your calling is to reform the so called eternal security movement and teach people that eternal security is only applicable to those that abide In Christ.
There is no eternal security for those that turn away from the Lord and walk after the flesh as the eternal security teachers keep claiming and teaching. Saying their is would be mocking God.
Not being in agreement with false doctrine is certainly not sin.
I'm speaking of a particular doctrine that is not biblical and you have attached yourself to that which is on you.
OK, so you think Paul and other NT writers wrote letters to groups of people who were not even Christians.
Got it.
Not being in agreement with false doctrine is certainly not sin.
I'm speaking of a particular doctrine that is not biblical and you have attached yourself to that which is on you.
OK so you believe if a person sows to the flesh (commits sin) they do not reap corruption as the Lord says in His Word in Gal 6:7,8
And nobody is going to literally remember each and every sin they commit so they would go to the Lord with sincerity and ask for forgiveness of all their sins recently committed as they forsake and turn away from their sin.
This little game of claiming a person must keep a detailed list of each and every sin ever committed is foolishness as you are already aware. This comes from the false teachers who are smart alecks in addition to teaching false doctrine.
Again, 1 John 1:9 clearly says the Lord will cleanse us of ALL unrighteousness so verse 8 is referring to sin we have on our record that the Lord is opting to not count against us after having been cleansed when we got born again.
Otherwise 1 John 1:9 becomes a lie and when we confess out sins the Lord does NOT cleanse us from all unrighteousness
You can't have it both ways as that is contradicting yourself as you play scripture against scripture resulting in claiming something the Lord said in His Word is a lie.
Have you removed these verses from your Bible yet?
Jude 24-25 (present you faultless) and Ephesians 5:27 (holy and without blemish)
The passage below is very clearly is speaking of Christians who were once cleansed of their sin, then returned back to living in sin and are not WORSE off than they were before they got born again
2 Peter 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
OK so as long as a person only watches porn (or whatever sin they are in to) every once in a while, it's all good?
In other words we can still be in right standing with the Lord as long as we don't do sinful stuff all the time and are careful to do sinful behavior on an occasional basis
Does this apply to rapists and child molesters??? It's all good as long as they keep the paring and child molestation down to just doing it every once in a while?
The fact of the matter is, if one does not forsake their sin (admit it and quit it) and confess it to the Lord as sin so they can be cleansed, they are still on the hook for that sin.
Galatians 6:7-8 (see Gen 8:22)
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
I already explained 1 John 5:16 to you in context in post #3,646 and I also explained 1 John 1:9 in contrast with 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10 as well and but you seem to prefer your eisegesis instead.
More eisegesis. In regard to Galatians 6:7-8, the one who is continuously (Greek present tense) sowing to his own corrupt flesh, which is opposed to God and unrenewed by the Holy Spirit shall of the flesh reap corruption. Our life here is sowing of one kind or another. But he who sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap everlasting life. See the contrast?
In Romans 8, Paul also sets up a contrast between those who live according to the flesh (unbelievers/false brethren) and those who live according to the Spirit (believers). In verses 8-9, Paul clearly states - So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. Again, see the contrast?
In regard to 2 Timothy 2:13, I see a contrast with, "if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him -- AND -- If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.
"By contrast, the latter "deny Him and faithless" points to the opposite of died with Him, endure and reign with Him. Jesus Himself warned of the danger of denying Him in Matthew 10:33 - "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.." To "deny him" here does not point merely to a temporary weakness of faith, as in the case of Peter who denied Jesus three times during a moment of weakness (Luke 22:54-62), but is referring to life in it's entirety. The inevitable result is that "He will also deny us."
The warning is repeated in the final sentence, "if we are faithless, he abides faithful." To be "faithless" is in the present tense and denotes this as the habitual attitude, not a temporary lapse of faith. But in contrast to human faithlessness, "He remains faithful," faithful to His word and righteous character and His warning that unbelievers will be rejected.
CONTINUED..
Hearing the word only without being a doer of the word is self-deception. The implanted word needs to take root.
I don't see folks who promote a license to sin/license for immortality all over the internet, in my local area or at my church. What I do see on the internet a lot are works-salvationists who are busy deceiving and being deceived. I also see a lot of folks who seem to view themselves as "holier than thou" and are consumed with self-promotion, self-righteousness and self-preservation.
People can claim a lot of things and simply believing in the existence of God doesn't get you a ticket to heaven. (James 2:19) It takes believing in/on the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 16:31)
The devils believe "mental assent" that there is one God (James 2:19) but they do not believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ and are not saved. (Acts 16:31) In regard to living for the Lord, moral self-reformation/behavior modification is not a substitute for regeneration. Even "nominal" Christians can go through the motions as if they are living for the Lord, but apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit, it's all just a facade.
Putting off the old man and putting on the new man is not works salvation. (Ephesians 4:22-24) If one's motivation for obedience is to obtain salvation by works, then one is trying to merit salvation (at least in part) Obedience is not forced or legalistic for those who are born of God. Faith works through love (Galatians 5:6) and not legalism.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication/sexual immorality, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
I must not have listened to Charles Stanley enough to hear that. The Bible is clear though. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21) Only those who have received the Spirit abide in Christ and truly belong to Christ. (Romans 8:9-11; 1 John 4:13).
Only genuine believers are eternally secure. (John 6:37-40; 5:24; Romans 8:30; Ephesians 1:13-14 etc..) and only those who have received the Holy Spirit abide in Christ. (1 John 4:17) Those who permanently turn away from a former profession of faith demonstrate they had a spurious faith. (1 John 2:19)
A license to sin/license for immortality is false doctrine. Not everyone in the OSAS camp promotes that and falsely accusing everyone in the OSAS camp of promoting that is slander, which is sin.
More slander, which seems to be your pet sin. I have not attached myself to a license to sin/license for immorality. Stop unfairly judging me.
I already said the letters are addressed to Christians but not everyone mixed in with the group are genuine Christians. Hence, the warnings.
CONTINUED..
Yet falsely accusing others of believing something that they don't believe is slander and is sin, regardless of how much you try to justify yourself.
No, I have not attached myself to a license to sin/license for immorality that you paint all believers in the OSAS camp with a broad brush of believing and teaching. I actually prefer "eternal security of the believer" or "preservation of the saints" over the term OSAS, because of all the negative connotations that typically get attached to it by folks like you.
Commits sin, including slander? Believers are not in the flesh but in the Spirit. According to you, anything short of sinless perfection means sowing to the flesh and reaping corruption, which is not what Paul is teaching.
That was my point. Who could remember absolutely every sin? Again, I already thoroughly covered this in post #3,646.
You wrote the book on being a smart aleck as you are already aware and seem to be proud of it. There are folks who teach inventory confession salvation and basically ignore the surrounding verses - 1 John 8 and 1 John 1:10.
You need to read 1 John 1:9 in contrast with 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10, as I already explained in post #3,646.
The lie is saying we have no sin (1 John 1:8) and/or we have not sinned. (1 John 1:10)
More slander which is so telling. It's you who cannot have it both ways. Read 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10 along with 1 John 1:9 aside from your preconceived beliefs.
No, I have not removed any verses from my Bible. Not even the one's that works-salvationists and eternal IN-securists misinterpret.
More eisegesis on your part. I find it interesting that all the verses you have cited are the same verses that works-salvationists continuously cite, including Roman Catholics.
Those who are truly born of God through previous promises may become partakers of the divine nature. They have been transformed from pigs and dogs into sheep. The change is more than just cosmetic, as in 2 Peter 2:20.
*These cleaned up on the outside dogs and pigs were never sheep.
Compare 2 Peter 1:4 - "partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption - Strongs #5356 that is in the world through lust with 2 Peter 2:20 - with they escaped the pollutions - Strongs #3356 (different Greek word) of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, yet they are again entangled therein, and overcome.
*Notice that 2 Peter 2:20 did not mention them being "partakers of the divine nature." Corruption is deeper than pollutions/defilements on the outside: it is decay on the inside.
Having the knowledge of Jesus Christ does not save a person if there is no heart submission to that knowledge. The latter end is worse than the beginning for these men because rejecting this knowledge will make them more accountable at the judgment. Judas Iscariot is a good example of someone who rejected the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ yet was never saved. (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11)
What is it with you and porn? Is that your vice?
The goal is to strive for holiness in our character and walk all the time, yet we are not absolute perfect people and will occasionally stumble. The goal of an NFL football team is to win every game and commit no penalties, yet how many times throughout NFL history have we seen that happen? The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Ecclesiastes 7:20 - Indeed, there is not a righteous person on earth who always does good and does not ever sin. Romans 3:23 - All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
How many Christians do you know who occasionally stumble in the area of these types of heinous sins? You are just being ridiculous now.
So, only those who live a sinless perfect life 24/7 will be saved? Got it. Good luck with that! (1 John 1:8)
True, but it would not matter one way or the other. Where it's true that water baptism was required of those under the Kingdom Gospel back then for the remission of sins, it's still the same Lord who looks at the faith within. That thief was not able to come down from that cross, obviously, to be water baptized, but the Lord saw his faith in an man under an extreme situation in a life soon coming to an end under great suffering.
Getting ceremonially wet isn't what cleansed their sin, as you likely know, but for the benefit of others, it was the faith expressed in obedience to that command from the twelve to Israel for those who were able to obey.
MM
Good point. Additionally, water baptism was practiced upwards of 300 years among SOME of the Jews before John the Baptist was ever born. Most people don't know that.
True
It's also interesting how long it took for the realization to hit the twelve that Israel no longer was the portal through which Gentiles had to enter in for salvation and partaking of the promises and blessing of Abraham. Paul's Gospel of Grace, which was not taught to him by any man was and is so different from the Kingdom Gospel Paul had learned from men and by which he persecuted the early believing Jews. The Kingdom program died out (temporarily) with those who were under it while the Gospel of Grace continued to spread like a shockwave.
Matthew 16:27-28 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Contrary to the nay-sayers out there who allegorize scripture into saying what they want it to say in support of their false doctrines, constraining the "kingdom" into some ethereal, inner concept, allegedly only within each professing believer in denial of what Jesus was saying in those passages, no. Had Israel not fallen through the stoning of Stephen, the second coming would have happened within about the next 47 years from the day Jesus spoke those things. It's amazing how easily Evangelicalism completely overlooks these tell tale realities they don't like; given that it doesn't fit into their little nifty box of socially engineered theologies so many historic and modern Gentiles love.
MM
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
So, the question remains: Did Jesus send them to preach to all men, including Gentiles, at the exclusion to this verse above? Was He in the habit of reversing His instruction to them so radically? I've heard many justifications for interpreting the latter for going to every creature as allegedly breaking the former instruction concerning the Jews only.
Dare we think about it, the twelve would have spread the Kingdom Gospel much more effectively preaching it only to fellow Jews, thus duplicating themselves many fold, getting that gospel out to the Gentiles, and yet MOST of the apostles remained in Jerusalem. The book of Acts makes that VERY clear. Why do you supposed that was, that the majority of the apostles failed to do as Jesus commanded in the last of His instructions to them? Never mind the theories rooted in what was commanded, look ALSO at their actions, which defied the instructions. Their actions show to us the massive shift that took place at the murder to Stephen.
Once that middle wall of partition came down, salvation came unto the Gentiles what had never been available to them before apart from joining with Israel. Jew-hating Evangelicals and religionists alike hate this reality with a passion and so try to drown it out with their false doctrines and slight of hand antics to change how their blind followers see the text in what it's saying.
MM
Yes, Peter occasionally ventured out, but then he would return to Jerusalem post haste. That's easy to overlook in all this noise of assumptions about the rest of the apostles, who clearly are shown to be ONLY in Jerusalem. Luke also traveled extensively, never being mentioned as being among the apostles who were perpetually in Jerusalem. Show to us where James is shown to have been anywhere BUT in Jersualem, of Matthias or any others.
They fully understood the decline of Israel as the nation of priests the Lord intended for them to be, only to be put on hold and taken up at a later time through a duration of time they were never appraised. They could not have known that more than 2000 years would pass before the nation would see what Jesus said would take place within the very lives of SOME of the people standing in His presence during His earthly ministry. Many have tried to argue against this reality within the context, but only to the detriment to their own integrity, for scripture says what it says at the exclusion of wishful thinking.
MM
No, those ten commandments were the precursor to the Mosaic Law. Please don't construe my answer as my saying that we therefore have license to perpetrate moral sins. The morality originating from the Lord is now WITHIN us by way of Holy Spirit, not the letter upon stone. We don't have to keep the Sabbath, for that was directed only at Israel. If you choose to try and keep the Sabbath, that's fine for you, but I, as an Israeli saved by Grace through faith and filled with Holy Spirit, no. I once kept the Sabbath along with my fellow Messianic Jews, but no longer, for I have no desire to again kiss some massive scroll of Torah ceremonially carried about the crowd for each to kiss. No. My allegiance is no longer to that code of death.
Realistically, it's not only those who believe in Paul's gospel who don't keep the ten commandments. You don't, so why ask me if I do when you know that the vast majority of Evangelicals don't? I'm just trying to understand what this has to do with our previous discussion.
So, when you say that people who follow Paul "exclusively," as some sorted, slight of hand magic trick of casting a demonic spell of shadow and negativity upon those who believe in Paul's Gospel above that of the Kingdom Gospel, please. That's a false characterization of others and an admission and desire for failing to rightly divide the word of truth. I don't study ONLY Paul's epistles, but I can show to you how little you know about the rest.
I do appreciate conversing with you, but this kind of crap can be left on the doorstep outside so that we can dispense with the periphery jabs and deal only with what scripture teaches to us. Granted, changes and shifts that have progressively taken place throughout the scriptures, that reality does throw many people off-balance, including the many false teaching, institutional pastors out there behind so many of churchianity's pulpits, preaching their love for replacement theology in its many, many manifestations, usually couched within small bits and pieces of leaven that cause the entire loaf to rise up in fleshly pride among Gentiles out there.
Luke 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years [HINT, HINT] I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
There is so much subtlety in those verses and many others that are so easily overlooked when zipping and zinging through the scriptures like a novel. Consider: The owner instructed the "dresser" to cut it down, and the "dresser" then placed the onus upon the owner to cut down that tree IF it did not produce fruit within the ensuing year. Do you see that?
Who do you suppose the owner was, and who was the dresser? Of whom was that tree a representation? What happened on year after the ascension of Christ? All this stuff is amazing and telling for the astute student of the Bible.
MM