Mike wrote: Hi Lurker, when we check this out, we need remember blameless is not sinless. Only Christ was without sin, yet (as one example) Zacharias and Elizabeth were held to be blameless. Blameless I believe means no one can make an accusation against them. It doesn't mean they never sin, cause they do. All have sinned....
Absolutely right, Mike. Thanks for making the point so there is no misunderstanding.
In the context of Paul's blameless statement, I believe "blameless" means guiltless of sin before God because there is no imputation where there is no law (Rom 5:13). It is by the law that all "become guilty before God" (Rom 3:19). At the time he was speaking of, he was "alive without the law" (Rom 7:9) but when the commandment came, "sin revived" and by that statement Paul admitted he had dormant sin (chief of sinners) even though it was committed in ignorant unbelief.
As I recall, the commentary I read concluded that Paul may have been blameless of the ceremonial law in the sight of his Pharisee peers but could not have been blameless in the sight of God. I can only conclude that the commentator could not deal with the fact that Saul was in the state of grace at Stephen's martyr but was kicked out into condemnation on Damascus Road.
John UK wrote: Maybe bro it is the same sort of thing as redemption. After all, we are currently redeemed by Jesus Christ, by his precious blood, and yet we are going to be redeemed, in its entirety, at the last trumpet. And again, we are saved (justified), we are being saved (sanctified), and we are going to be saved (glorified). Just a few thought to kick around, brother.
You know me well and you know I'll dig on this matter till God reveals the answer.
I recall a few years ago I read a commentary on Phl 3:6 where Paul said of himself: "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Whoever it was who wrote the commentary said it wasn't possible because he was a Pharisee, trained in the law at the feet of Gamaliel. When I read that I couldn't believe it. I thought to myself; we can't believe Paul when he said he was blameless? What else can't we believe?
At the time I didn't understand how Paul could have said that but since I've learned that he was right..... because he was not under the law till the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Where there is no law, there is no sin. He was indeed blameless.
Anyway, the answer to Paul and eternal life may not be as easy but I'll keep searching.
didactually wrote: John this article demonstrates how the Baptists are confused about Biblical Calvinism. Perhaps the misapprehension of the Baptist theory on the correct mode and definition of baptism highlights this problem. The best advice is to go to a good Calvinist Presbyterian church where the Biblical facts are taught and revealed.
From whence is your authority to baptize infant girls?
And what say you of Paul. Did he claim eternal life as a present possession? Was his concern of becoming a castaway real or a feigned show of humility?
Is it possible for you to adlib or must you stick to your prepared script like John Y.?
John UK wrote: I think I see your point bro. He seemed to hold it as an inheritance, hope, something to look forward to. Except.... Romans 6:22-23 KJV 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. v22 may be seen as "an end", but v23 as a "received gift"?
Thanks for your thoughts, John. At this time I don't claim to have an answer for every instance where Paul may seem to lay claim to eternal life as a present possession. But one thing I am sure of.... Paul can't contradict himself in his writings because he was not the Author of his writings; just the writer. Perhaps the following will answer this instance:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
What is the reward received at the judgment aka the resurrection of the just and unjust?
. . .
Frank, Thanks for your kind words. Love you, brother.
. . .
Thanks to you too.
Interesting view. Would you be willing to elaborate how you reconcile your view to 1 John 5:13?
John UK wrote: Mike NY, I too believe you are correct about a present possession of eternal life. Brother Lurker may have to rethink his position on this.
John, My position is the same as yours, Mike's and Frank's. Eternal life is the better NC promise (1 John 2:25) and a present possession of all born again Christians.
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
However, I can't find anywhere that Paul laid claim to the better promise in any of his writings (nor the Acts) and I'm trying to reconcile (my understanding of) his writings with John's first letter without assuming anything.
Th apostle John's claim to eternal life for himself and those he wrote to is clear. But, I can't find even an implicit claim from Paul..... only that he anticipated the promise in hope.
. . .
Mike, I don't believe Paul and John disagreed on theology. They wrote by HS inspiration. There's got to be another answer to reconcile the apparent contradiction.
As I've written before regarding hermeneutics:
1) The bible is inerrent and free of contradiction.
2) If a contradiction is encountered, see rule one.
Mike wrote: John 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Saints cannot perish because: 1) No man can pluck them out of the Lord's hand. He said so. 2) Eternal life cannot be lost by definition. If it could be lost, it wasn't eternal to begin with.
Great post, brother. And John, in his first letter, comfirms it.
While reading the bible a few months ago, something caught my eye and I took up an in depth study of the subject of eternal life. I was surprised to find that in all of Paul's letters he never once laid claim to eternal life as a present possession for either himself or the subjects of his letters. He, in fact, looked forward in the hope of eternal life....
Tts 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began....
I recall when Original Cheryl, a full throttle Arminian, posted as a regular; she always made her appeal to Paul's writings as proof that eternal security was a lie.
Wondered if you (John or anyone) have ever looked into this.
1517 wrote: Unprofitable Servant, Are you saying the RCC version of infant baptism is unbiblical as well as the Reformed view of Covenant baptism for infants? I struggled with the latter for awhile because of my false belief of some age of accountability nonsense, which certainly cannot be justified by scripture. I believe the precedence was set by the covenant sign of circumcision and the fact that a person must be quickened unto life for the sign of the covenant to be a seal, both circumcision and baptism, no matter the age. What are your thoughts?
While UpS will answer himself, I've asked this question many times and never get an answer.... If Gen 17 is the biblical authority to baptize males; from whence is the biblical authority to baptize infant females?
Baker wrote: Why should we have show a direct command in the new...., better,.... more inclusive.... Covenant. The burden of proof is on the believers only baptism advocates to show - Where are the children of believers excluded from recieving the sign. Baptist arguments are from silence and family solidarity remains explicit 1 Cor 7:14.
Define, biblically, "children of believers".
If by "children" you mean male and female; give one biblical example of female circumcision.
If you can't produce one (you can't, btw); by what authority do you baptize infant girls?
John Yurich USA wrote: The Bible states that salvation is by Justification By Faith In Jesus Alone. That means the same thing as trusting in Jesus alone for salvation which is what I am doing.
What you are doing?
Why no mention of what God has done for you to enable you to believe to the saving of your soul? And you wonder why the sincerity of your confession is always called into question.
What is the New Covenant promise? Do you own it?
What are the NC laws God promised to write on the hearts of all His people? Can you recite them? You should be able to if, in fact, they actually are written on your heart, don't you think?
Do you own eternal life? If so, how do you know?
Why does it matter to you what other posters think about your eternal state? If you know God accepts you, why bother defending your spiritual state to fallible men/women?
I get the sense that your assurance of salvation is dependent on your ability to convince men that you are saved.... or at least quote a verse that they can't argue against such as Eph 2:8-10. Once again, it's about what you do and not about what God has done for you.
Pretty lame, John Y. The assurance you seem to hold onto is no assurance at all. It will fail on the last day.
John for JESUS wrote: 1517... As in replacement theology. The idea that God doesn't keep His promises and replaced Israel with the church when it comes to any good promises and did not when it comes to the bad promises.
Replacement Theology is a gross caricature, a strawman and insult, of what Reformed Theology actually believes and teaches regarding the church and ethnic Jews, created by those opposed to Reformed Theology.
I wouldn't waste a moments time discussing such with someone who clearly is opposed to an honest and fruitful discussion.
Lurker wrote: 11/24/13 2:22 PM: For anyone interested; Isaiah 28-35 give an account of the conditions which existed at the time leading up to Paul's ministry. Paul's quotation of Isaiah 28:11-12 in 1 Cor 14:21 makes it not only relevant but necessary to properly interpret 1 Cor 14.
As a continuation of this post....
Isa 32:1-4 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
In the days leading up to Paul's calling, there was a language barrier inposed by the rulers of God's people in Jerusalem (Isaiah 28:14). They did not teach God's people the truth and to make matters worse, what they did teach they taught in a language the people didn't understand (Isaiah 33:19). Paul's calling and ministry put an end to this.
This is the biblical history which existed in Paul's day and is necessary to understand and properly interpret 1 Cor 14.
Dolores L wrote: I know you mean well and all that and appreciate the fact that we each have our own beliefs and even scripture to back them up. I hesitate to add my two cents because I really don't want to debate it if someone has a different opinion than me that's fine, you maybe right and we'll never really know until Judgement Day for sure.
If the only information we had was 1 Cor 14, I would agree we'll never really know till the last day. But we have much more by way of an interpretive principal ordained by Jesus (source prophecy/fulfillment, see Luke 4:16-21); the only hermeneutic with biblical warrant which sadly goes mostly ignored in favor of traditional hermeneutics (literal, historical, grammatical) which have no biblical warrant.
For anyone interested; Isaiah 28-35 give an account of the conditions which existed at the time leading up to Paul's ministry. Paul's quotation of Isaiah 28:11-12 in 1 Cor 14:21 makes it not only relevant but necessary to properly interpret 1 Cor 14.
The Isaiah text sounds similar to the conditions which existed in the CofE 15 centuries later. The Great Bible was commissioned in 1539 but near the end of Henry VIII's life, preaching from the pulpit reverted back to Latin which the plowboy understood not....IMHO.
Dolores L wrote: There are wheat and tares in every church, no exception.Paul said it was an UNKNOWN TONGUE that was a gift of the spirit and someone else had the gift of interpertation.
Hello sister Dolores,
Paul cited a prophecy from Isaiah which sheds much light on the subject of "tongues".....
1Cr 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
Source prophecy: Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Paul, born a Roman citizen, was the one sent of God to preach to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. He preached in his own language which was the same language of the "scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 28:14). I doubt these rulers of Jerusalem who had "made a covenant with death, and with hell are at agreement" (Isaiah 28:15) were speaking with a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Not trying to be contentious, Dolores, but your view will not be reconciled with relevant (by quotation) prophetic texts. See also Is 32:4.
SteveR wrote: Why dont you and the unholy trinity get together a find John an old car? He said he would attend the other church if he had transportation. At your current pace, we will need another 50 railcars of brimstone
Yup. Brimstone R Us.
Now, back to ignore SteveR mode from which I was so rudely interrupted.
You can ignore me if you choose.... you owe me nothing. But the day will come when God will demand answers and you will not be able to ignore Him. Maybe you should get in a little practice of eating crow.