James Thomas wrote: ... BTW, I'm also done with permitting the personal insults John so please cease on them as well, namely Mystic and Silly.
James, it is not a personal insult to describe you in just the way you are. You are a lone ranger theologian who refuses to listen to the thoughts of other men or read their books, relying solely on a mystical experience of arriving at truth, privately interpreting when the Bible says "no". And then, when the new testament is so clear on what Paul is saying, it is right to call you silly when you head off across to the OT and dig out prophets who often did not know what their prophecy was all about, to get some sort of consensus on what Paul meant.
I have no desire to insult you personally, James. But you have to admit that I am right in what I said. That is the real reason you are departing the thread, because you know full well you once again have all your theology upside down and inside out.
It makes me wonder how many people in all the world have got James's theology. One?
Whereas I can point you to about half a million sermons on SA preached by men who hold the same position as myself. Think about it. Are you opposed to the work and ministry of SermonAudio?
Ephesians 2:11-17 KJV (11)Â Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (12)Â That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (13)Â But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (14)Â For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (15)Â Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16)Â And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (17)Â And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
...and stop being so silly.
The immediate context gives you all the answers you need. Why complicate things?
James, one of the reasons we misunderstand each other is because when we use certain words we are thinking different thoughts.
It's like when I helped a Catholic lady across a road once, and I asked her if she had ever received Christ as her Saviour. When she answered in the affirmative, I asked her when it happened. She replied, "Oh, at mass this morning."
The covenants in the OT were all covenants of works. The new covenant in the NT is a covenant of grace.
Can a sinner be saved by his works in the OT? No, he cannot. Can a sinner be saved by his works in the NT? No, he cannot.
Therefore, the covenants of the OT were not covenants of salvation. Whereas the covenant of grace in the NT is most certainly a covenant of salvation.
So how were the OT saints saved? They were saved through the eternal covenant of redemption, which was and is the covenant of grace in Christ's blood. Now please note James, that this covenant was first mentioned in Genesis 3, and further glimpses seen over thousands of years until the reality arrived. _________
June, thank you, our little group keep telling me that also, and I do not deserve that sort of title.
James Thomas wrote: Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. Are these the same Gentiles spoken of in Ephesians? I think so. I don't see why they wouldn't. So wouldn't you agree Hosea is applicable and should be read to understand better? If you disagree. All I ask is show me why you do. Fair enough?
James, I don't disagree.
But if you are going to go through all the OT showing where God expressed his will to save both Gentiles and Jews, which would be the ONE NEW MAN under one head, that is, Christ, I regard it as a pointless exercise, it is merely repeating the same thing over and over.
Once the principle is understood, all the OT will fit into place, and be seen as the picture only, the reality only coming at the incarnation of God.
B. McCausland wrote: ... In the first place 'prophesy' here stands for the things revealed or breathed of God, which we read are not for *private* interpretation, say not of a single individual's fancy, which is what a couple here take Scriptures to, as you point out John, ignoring the ministry of the body of Christ, say the living church gifted with teachers, pastors, apostles, etc ... Actually these sort of fellows often end in contradictory paths failing to see how their proposed theories contradict other parts of the given revelation of God, which were as much inspired by the same Spirit than the ones they disjoin. However, on the other hand some err also by rigidly handling the baton of creeds or confessions as if they were the truth of Scripture itself.
Thank you, Sister B. These are two very evident mistakes made by all sorts of men, and not all of them Christian. I hope never to make those same mistakes.
There are occasions when a direct revelation from heaven comes to an individual and, as June shared in her testimony, it was similar to what Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." The regenerate will agree with this experience.
It seems to me that this morning I have to do some basics and explain what it is to be a Berean. Most certainly it is NOT someone who does not listen to preaching or reads books, preferring to read only the Bible. Note,
Acts 17:10-13 KJV (10) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (12) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (13) But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
A Berean, from the above passage, was a man or woman who attended the synagogue. When Paul preached the word of God there, they received it with all readiness of mind, and during the following week they searched in the scriptures to check out that what they had received with all readiness of mind was in fact, true. Which it was.
James, the great problem you have, and maybe you don't understand it yet, is that you've only got one message for the folks here on SA: "Read and study your Bible."
If you make one little comment on the Bible, you will be introducing your own thoughts on scripture, which thing you keep attacking in others. Both you and Lurker have this fault in common, and yet you cannot see it.
In effect, you want none of us to comment, not at all, because even if we just posted scripture, that itself is a comment because we are relating those scriptures to the subject and can influence the thinking of others, which could be construed as passing on baggage to others.
Well, if I don't want your baggage, I won't listen to you. And if I don't want baggage from Yee Ha preachers, I won't listen to them. And if you don't want to listen to the Baptists speaking about covenants and federalism at...
...then don't watch those videos.
For all I know, after your last post, in which you say God has shown you things entirely from scripture and you want to share that, it makes me wonder if you ever attend anywhere at all, so that you can be a mystic and get messages from God alone and then share them here.
The other thing I'd like to mention, James, is that this SA website is devoted to making available a multitude of sermons on diverse subjects, some audio and some video, some are Sunday services, some are midweek meetings, some are radio broadcasts.
The message I'm getting from you, which I hope you will repent of and rectify, is that you're telling folks not to listen to anything on SA, because all the preachers and pastors have got baggage which will put presuppositions into the minds of their hearers. Rather, instead of that, just sit at home reading your Bible with the TSK at your side, and God will bring you into perfect doctrine without the need for church or Bible teacher or pastor or elder.
Sure, he does enlighten our minds, individually, whenever we read the living word. And sure, we ought - if we have the capacity and time available - to study the word and get whatever gems we can from it, but to deny God-ordained ministry, especially in the more problematic areas of theology, is downright ridiculous.
For example, let me give you the opportunity to show me what you've learned by your own study: How does the old (obsolete) covenant differ from the new? Simple enough? I'll check in tomorrow morning.
James Thomas wrote: But also it is one I think that is most rewarding to anyone who digs into the matter walking humbly with an open mind and an open bible following the cross references from the prophets cited by the writers of the NT apart from any presuppositions any website may present.
Which, being interpreted, means: "John, you need to dig into this matter more humbly and with an open mind (because your's is closed at this moment, and you have a lot of pride). Use your TSK to get all the cross references from NT writers to the OT writings, and POOF, just like magic, you will have the answer and be unique like me, cause no-one else has got it like I got it - got it?"
And to cap it all, you say, "Oh, and don't bother with THAT website, which features THOSE pastors of churches (whose job it is to safeguard their flock from false teaching, rather to teach them truth by exposition of scripture); sure you don't need them, even if they are God's provision for his people - pastors, teachers, evangelists - sure, you don't need any of them. Learn at home and be the most learned of all the saints, without any baggage, just pure perfection."
And do what exactly? "Oh, go on SA and teach others."
June A. Nadolny wrote: Amen & Amen! John . . I know I had no part or lot in the solemn matter of the saving of my soul. I was "dead in trespasses and sins" until he "quickened" me. (Eph. 2) "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10) â€śNot by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.â€ť (Titus 3: 3-7) â€śFor by grace ye are saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.â€ť (Eph. 2:8) ] "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."(Rom. 9:16) "But â€śGod forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.â€ť (Gal. 6:14)
Amen June, it is so clear really. I don't know why there are some who just can't see it. Maybe they are frightened the Yee Ha preachers will laugh at them and call them calvinist pigs. Me, I'm not bothered what people call me. Truth shall stand unto eternity.
James Thomas wrote: Hey John, I see my post is quite confusing concerning the topic that was being spoken on.
James, I believe that the whole subject is very confusing, and that the 1689 Baptists saw something which is being revived today among scholars and pastors which shines a lot of light on it.
A group of American Baptist pastors have been so thrilled by their discoveries that they have determined to help others see the doctrinal truths of scripture, particularly the way the covenants work.
I have watched these videos many times now, and it all makes sense to me, as it puts a lot of meat on my bare bones. It is very deeply theological, which is why it is so hard to grasp. I'm speaking of mine own experience here.
Anyway, they make comparisons with all the other alternatives, and this itself is very helpful, because at the end of the day, you have to accept one and one only understanding of the covenants of the Bible. I myself am convinced they have it right, and it is a joy to me, a real joy, as it fits in with scripture from both old and new testaments. If you have a problematic question, do email them and ask their help.
John UK wrote: Isaac was that child of promise, which GOD chose to give him miraculously.
The word "choose" is indeed important. Here we have Isaac, who is a child of promise, being given by God to Abram. He was conceived by union of Abram and Sarah, but far more than that; it was a miracle of God because Sarah was barren. See that, barren? Note,
John 1:12-13 KJV (12)Â But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (13)Â Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Born of God, this is key.
Can any man say, "I know, I think I'll be born again today, now just what do I have to do to be born again?"
That would be the will of man.
Does the Bible anywhere give instruction as to how a sinner may be born again by doing something?
John 3:8 KJV (8)Â The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
This is the most wonderful thing in all the world, yet the arminist downplays it to the ordinary, the casual.
Amishchristian wrote: Sorry for the confusion. We donâ€™t believe the church is a building, it is always the body of Christ and we here are just a small part of that. And of course they are welcome in our services. We donâ€™t have a nursery where children spend their time playing and waiting for their parents. Children learn to sit quietly with their parents.
That's great to hear, AC. That's the way to do it. Too often the assembly of believers is more like a secret society than a group of likeminded disciples.
I believe that children of promise are selected by God himself to receive his mercy, leaving others in their sin and deserved condemnation.
Dr. Tim wrote: Of course you believe that, John, in spite of all the scripture you must shred and burn in order to maintain your belief. Furthermore, when you are shown from scripture that your position is untenable, you cling to it anyway and mistake your intransigence for steadfastness. It only takes one word of scripture to destroy your whole house of cards, and that is the word â€śchoose.â€ť
Doc, the best way for you to get the truth of what I said, is to first consider Galatians 4:28, and agree with me that all Christian believers are "children of promise".
Then, looking at the same text, we need to arrive at the conclusion that Paul is saying that all children of promise are just that in the same way that Isaac was a child of promise. If we are agreed on that....
Then, we must see that Abram and Sarah, despite trying to have children, were unable to do so. Abram was 99 when God promised him that HE WOULD GIVE HIM AN HEIR, even though it was impossible for Abram and Sarah to have children.
Isaac was that child of promise, which GOD chose to give him miraculously.
Lurker wrote: Sorry about the lack of clarity in my post and questions but rather than try to clarify, I think it better to let it lie. However, I fully agree with the texts you quoted and your comments. They make it abundantly clear that the children of promise are so not because of genetics but because of God's mercy.
But even Arminists believe in God's mercy. I believe that children of promise are selected by God himself to receive his mercy, leaving others in their sin and deserved condemnation.