|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 12:07:20 GMT -5
Those are all good questions and I probably don't have adequate answers to but somehow we have to account that his blood had something to do with forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 11:44:00 GMT -5
Now, don't everyone gang up on me now. I am still working this all out. I didn't mean to look as if I was ganging up on you. I thought you were posting scriptures that others have used to support the view. But I guess if you hold that view that puts you in that camp. I may try although I haven't worked out fully my view. It's not set in stone yet. Here is part of a conversation I had with someone who holds to the view. If my memory is correct it went something like this: "So you believe that God the Father offered His Son as payment to Satan?" "Yes." "Then God took back His Son after three days? In other words, God deceived the Deceiver by giving His Son to Him and taking Him back the third day? We know it was a deception because 'had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'" "Hmm.... Yes." Maybe he didn't quite have a grasp on the view, but from what I understand he has held to the ransom view for quite some time. I'll stop there for now. I may answer your objections depending on what you believe about the above dialog. I have a hard time believe God paid the Devil and took his payment back.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 22, 2007 15:13:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 10:30:19 GMT -5
I just seen this thread...
I read both of those books some time ago. He has some good stuff, but there are a few things I think he is off on. He teaches a type of soul-sleep doesn't he?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 11:03:05 GMT -5
That reminds me of something I once heard a brother say. It went something like this, "Make Jesus Lord? He has already been made Lord and Christ! Now what are you going to do about it? That's the question."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 22, 2007 15:30:07 GMT -5
When I hear the word process I think of someone not having it yet. If I am in the process of being a doctor, I'm not a doctor yet.
Is that what you mean by process, meaning that we aren't saved yet in any sense?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 22, 2007 15:26:35 GMT -5
I see what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 22, 2007 15:25:08 GMT -5
I liked Paris Reidhead's tape on "So Great Salvation". He talked about the different tenses of salvation mentioned in the bible. Past, present, and future I think I listened to that quite a while back. It's a topic to take note of. I think a lot of people criticize those who hold to a conditional security because the future salvation is emphasized so much. To be honest, I've always held to a conditional security mindset but I've always felt secure in Him. I've also never felt like it all rests upon my shoulders either. There is a rest and security in Him. Christ isn't just going to get up a leave a person.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 22, 2007 14:53:42 GMT -5
This is a 1/2 truth. The Bible teaches that salvation is an event. Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
How can something that is past tense be still in progress? It's like saying, "I walked my dog yesterday" and someone interpreting that to mean I'm still in the process of walking my dog. It is also future. Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Past events and future events are still events. You shouldn't neglect those truths. I believe in a full salvation of past, present, and future; if one abides in Him.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 28, 2007 21:38:18 GMT -5
That doesn't work when talking about the KJV... You know I'm not KJ only but I'm sure any avid KJO believer will tell you in the KJV "you" never means singular.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 24, 2007 22:54:23 GMT -5
Are you guys sure we are in the right dispensation to argue this? Maybe we should wait for another.... or maybe it has already passed...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 18, 2007 10:34:36 GMT -5
Why do you think they are translated differently?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 23, 2007 11:17:30 GMT -5
Jesse, Watchman Nee believes the ashes of the red heifer were for past ,present, and future sins.Not sure what I believe about this yet.What do you believe? He believes we are covered for all our sins. Numbers 19:8-10 (King James Version) 8And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. 9And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin. 10And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever. From what I understand of the red heifer it didn't already forgive future sins but made a provision, or made it possible, to forgive future sins when/if they happened. The red heifer what offered at one time but the ashes and water were not used until after a sin had happened. In other words you could say that Jesus died at one moment in time and made it possible that future sins could be forgiven when that is needed. If the ashes weren't mixed with 'living water' the ashes didn't do any good.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 17, 2007 21:22:28 GMT -5
Since you agree with Jesse and you think I am antinomian, where do you see that Jesse and I disagree on this topic? Because essentially I agree with what Jesse said. I would explain it differently, but I think both Jesse and I agree on this topic. I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 14, 2007 17:39:57 GMT -5
It's not in your KJV is it? Then how could we ever consider it scripture? Wikipedia will give you a brief overview of the 3 books of enoch. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jul 5, 2007 11:30:38 GMT -5
I thought it might be helpful to list all the verses that the phrase "απο καταβολης κοσμου" appears.
Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 14, 2007 17:56:14 GMT -5
If you are proud that you repented and believed your not even saved. God resists the proud.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 13, 2007 10:45:03 GMT -5
If you run across what he talks about the grammar, let me know. Hopefully he will give an example or reference that can be checked out.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 12, 2007 23:37:34 GMT -5
No it doesn't. The word for salvation that comes to mind at the moment isn't a neuter noun either. So even if salvation was in a noun in that verse it would still make the construction a little odd.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 12, 2007 23:22:10 GMT -5
This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, and who knows maybe the way I expressed it above will be in complete contradiction.... I'm not always the best communicator. I believe that we ourselves are to believe. I can't think of anywhere that it says God believes for us or anything like that. We ourselves have to believe. Where does biblical faith originate or come from? Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We cannot have biblical faith unless the word of God comes to us. This word comes directly from God, a revelation of Him. We could even call this a gift since it surely wasn't deserved. Since this word comes from God, God is the initiator and originator of our faith. It's impossible to have saving faith without God being revealed to you/ his word coming to you. What I meant by " I don't think it proves your point" is that I don't see that verse negating that fact that man himself has to believe. I agree. If you feel I have done this, please show me. I don't want to be a hypocrite. I wrote an thread about this very thing not too long ago. You can see it hereHe may very well be right. I'm far far from a Greek scholar. I can't even read it fluently (yet!). I do know that it is "normal" that "the number and gender of a relative pronoun are the same as its antecedent, just like 'autos'." That's a quote from the text book The Basics of Biblical Greek by William D. Mounce on pg 117. I don't have a solid answer to what "that" is referring to. I've thought that is it speaking of salvation before, but I don't know. Nothing I have the ability to argue or present a solid case for at this point. Does that help you see where I'm coming from? I don't purposely "speak mysteries."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 12, 2007 15:12:52 GMT -5
Not trying to fuel your fire because I don't agree with you on this issue but here is something that is interesting. The word granted in that verse is "charizomai" and the word for gifts (such as 1 cor 12:4) is "charisma." And don't forget that the word grace is "charis." As you can tell, they are all related grammatically. I thought that was interesting. Although I don't think it proves your point. Your right. There are grammatical issues that show that the gift in that verse is probably not referring to faith or even grace for that matter. Faith and grace are both feminine words. In Greek the word "that" would carry the gender of the word it is representing. Oddly enough the word "that" is not feminine, but neuter in vs 8. (The word "it" actually isn't in the Greek but is essentially needed for translation.) I disagree. Faith is the channel that we obtain grace and grace is the foundation of our salvation. Just because all may have access to the channel doesn't mean that salvation isn't a gift. Our salvation is founded in grace, which cannot be of ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 12, 2007 14:32:55 GMT -5
From, in this context does not necessitate "at" or "before" but could possibly mean "since" the foundation of the world. According to Jeff Paton: T he word "from" in both of these passages is the Greek word "apo." It does not carry the idea of "at." We must also ask ourselves as to why the writer did not use a more definite term to indicate "at" the beginning of the world when he had two other common Greek words he could have used that would have contained that idea, leaving no room for ambiguity.
The better interpretation of the Greek word in these verses could be translated "since" the foundation of the world, but not "at" the foundation of the world. If we are to translate the word "apo" as "since" in this passage, we could draw the idea that from the beginning till now, God is adding and taking away names from the book of life. This idea is clearly allowed by the usage of this word, and is nowhere denied in the Word of God.Good posts. We have to account somehow that a name can be blotted out of that same book. If we believe that it is completely written before the foundation of the world, then when are they blotted out? Also, how do you get in the book? Faith? Natural birth? Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 9, 2007 13:49:23 GMT -5
Here is something I've been pondering lately. What is eternity? After all God inhabits it. Does He inhabit part or all of it? Does God inhabit a "moment" of eternity or eternity as a whole?
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place], with him also [that is] of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe I shouldn't even comment, but I thought I would throw it out.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 26, 2007 14:08:45 GMT -5
To be honest, it may change something but that doesn't mean it's right. It would also change the direction of the church if we taught that to be involved in politics is to be worldly minded (just an example... doesn't mean I believe that) .
Wanting to keep a marriage together is something Christians do- regardless of what they think of the doctrine you referenced. How can the Spirit of Christ be dwelling in two people and those two have such a disdain for each other they split up their family? I think it's near impossible. One or both of them have to be in utter rebellion to God.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 27, 2007 15:12:52 GMT -5
Wow, how many words do you type a minute Jesse? I barely re-read my post and you had two posts under mine!
EDIT: I realize the first one under mine you were typing while I was mine... but still..
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 27, 2007 15:02:41 GMT -5
The scriptures do not say that condemnation has come upon all men for Adams sin, but that judgment has come upon all men to condemnation: Ro 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. No man is condemned for Adams sin, but all men are now judged because of Adams sin. That is, we are not judged or condemned for Adams sin, but we are not subjected to judgment and condemnation because of Adams sin. Honestly, I have no idea what this means. I think maybe on the last sentence you meant "now subjected" instead of "not subjected?" One sentence you tell us judgment came upon all men, then the next you tell us it doesn't. It's like saying "I see a red sign that says STOP. Now it's not really a red sign, that's just a possibility. Also, stopping is only an option. The sign is red and it says STOP." In Romans 5:18 the phrase "judgment came" isn't in the Greek text. It's added for clarity. If you have a KJV that has italics it will show it. I wouldn't base any theology on that phrase. I'm not saying the phrase is wrong because it makes it more clear. The judgment come to condemnation. Plainly that means the judgment ended at, or went to, condemnation. That still says that all men were condemned because of one man. If you believe that men physically die because of Adam, then you believe men are condemned for Adam's rebellion. I'll explain... Let's look at Romans 5:16-18 and the use of judgment and condemnation. Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment(2917- krima) was by one to condemnation(2631- katakrima), but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment (added for clarity- no Greek word in text) came upon all men to condemnation(2631- katakrima); even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The word translated judgment in these verses is krima, which is the declared sentence in the courtroom. From what I understand krima is the declaration of "innocent or guilty." After the 'judgment" (krima) is the katakrima or condemnation. In court the krima would come before the katakrima. You can see this progression in v16. Katakrima means to "throughly judge". kata=throughly krima= judgment. At least this is my limited understanding of judicial jargon they used. I would like to study them out more. The condemnation was what was declared after the pronouncement. We know that the end (or condemnation) of Adam's rebellion was death. Death passed upon all men hence all were condemned because of Adam. I believe it would be something like this. 1) Adam sinned. God would "judge" him- krima. 2) God then pronounced what the outcome (his katakrima) of his being judged (krima) would be . 1) krima Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [ 1)krima Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, 2) katakrima thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 2)katakrima Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Most believe that it was spiritual death along with physical, since the moment Adam sinned he died spiritually. If what I said above is true, then anyone who believes there was any effect to us from Adam's sin would have to believe the all were condemned because of Adam, right? Pro 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 26, 2007 13:55:46 GMT -5
This is almost a side conversation, so you don't have to answer this post. I was just going to drop it for now but since you did respond...
Do you believe they are born guilty? What verse do you see saying that Adam's guilt passed upon all men? Saying that Adam's condemnation spread upon all men isn't the same as saying Adam's guilt passed upon all men.
You really don't have to respond to this. It doesn't directly involve the discussion at hand seeing we are focusing on those that are old enough to have committed sins themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 25, 2007 12:33:53 GMT -5
I would quickly say that Romans 5:18 is one of them. Also the fact that scripture says all have sinned. How could Paul say all have sinned if when he was writing some hadn't yet sinned? I'll ask you again do you believe there is a difference between condemnation and guilt?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 25, 2007 9:22:21 GMT -5
What verse are you referring to when you say we are born guilty?
Do you distinguish between guilt and condemnation?
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 19:37:31 GMT -5
To be provocative... Act 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. Act 10:3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. Act 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) Act 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. This wasn't the first time he had heard of Jesus (see the bold). When was he regenerated? When did Peter say he was accepted of God? How does this fit into our theology?
|
|