What if both sides are wrong in C&A debate?

[GeneZ]

One of us is FM. The other AM?

Its a constant missing of what's there for each one of us.

Why not just trust that what God says is true and apply the law to the unbeliever?

Because of the following. Unbelievers are not ready for what the Christian is able to know.

But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit.
It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who
are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means." 1 Cor 2:14

Until they accept Jesus Christ?" And become spiritually transformed in regeneration? Nothing can connect.

Yes.. The Gospel is to be offered to all men to make them become transformed into being spiritual.
But, not all men find the Gospel is for them to accept.

How many times does one have to offer the Gospel to those who want to reject?
If it were brainwashing? Never let up.

Today the Cross of Christ in known all around us. Its not like we are to go into the world and make it known for the first time.
Because of those who reject? Some of us seem to think those who reject need to be told about the Cross as if they never knew about it.

What we need today is discipleship of those who have accepted the Cross.
Jesus warned..... 'few find it.' Sound doctrine will not appeal to many.
Most (who are saved) will seek socially accepted religious concepts and find like minded people to bond with to form churches or Bible studies.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3

You are still stuck on the Gospel... Yet the Gospel is everywhere today. Its foundational, and not the end all at all.

Its sound doctrine that is in short supply because of its low demand from believers.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3


grace and peace .........

 

[eternomade]

What if both sides of the C&A debate in this thread are wrong? What if both sides err because people are overlooking or ignoring who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and why something is being said?

I invite interested parties to provide examples from either side of passages which are sometimes being misused in their debate. As a first example, here is a passage from John 6.

“And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it up in the last day.” (Joh 6:39, LITV)

Who is speaking? The LORD is speaking. To whom is He speaking? The crowds that came to Capernaum to seek Him. Why did He say that to them? It is a proclamation of deity for He will lose no man and will raise up all men.

It isn't a passage for either side in their debate.

The translation I use does not say all men, but those the Father gave to the Son. I see it as a parallel of the 12 tribes engraved on the High Priest's breastplate(Exodus 39:6-14). The Father did not give all men to the Son...

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 

[BJ Bear]

No. It is not realistic to suggest that anyone could have believed in Christ before his birth. All one can say is that the prophecy existed and that certain people like Abraham looked forward to its fulfilment.

God has left us multiple witnesses of those who believed in the coming incarnate Lord, for example, Eve in a literal translation of Genesis 4:1, Enoch according to Genesis 6 and Hebrews 11, Job, “25. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:” (Job 19:25-26, KJVA)

A weak or erring Christology will cause people to miss the import and meaning of these passages in the Tanakh. They either don't recognize that Christ is one person in or two nature's or of two natures, or they say those words but then internally think of Him as effectively being two persons, a human person and a divine person. An example of how this occurs is when they say things like this or that thing occurred according to the human nature rather than it occurred to the person of Christ.

The one person of Christ has always existed, see the passages above which refer to that one person, or follow the genealogies back through Adam to God or simply read John 17 according to the immediate context, ,for example, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (Joh 17:5, KJVA)

I disagree that you are the arbiter of what is Christian. Adam and Eve is a spiritual story, not a carnal story. That's the impression I have firmly got. It is not a biology lesson. Consider that the earliest Adam could have lived is the 5th or 6th millennium BC. Human remains have been found dating way back, long before his time.

I am categorically not the arbiter of what is Christian. Scripture according to the immediate context in which it was given is the arbiter of what is the Christian revelation and it's intended meaning.

For example, both the incarnate Lord and the Apostle Paul when they spoke of the creation account or a part of it they spoke of it as actual history rather than a parable or figure of speech.

It is taking Scripture out of context to try and gauge the age of the creation or the creation of Adam because that isn't why the genealogies are listed. For example, count ten people listed and you reach Enoch, a person of note because of his witness, count another ten and you reach Noah, another person of note.

Assuming to know the age of remains through "science" is foolishness because it is bad science. It goes without saying that no one has repeated and observed the circumstances of which they claim to have knowledge in this regard.

I fear you are reading Genesis too carnally. It is designd to be read spiritually. "Mother of all the living" means "living in the context of being spiritually alive." When it says "Adam being a living being" it means a spiritual being. God's breath is God's spirit.

I'm sure you are aware of how Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. It was the breath of God which gave life to the form of dust. Eve was then made from the man, Adam.

Together they then bore seed according to their own kind, as did the rest of the creation, making Eve the mother of all living.

To use the words of our Holy Spirit led infallible interpreter, the Apostle Paul, God made all the nations from one blood, the blood of Adam. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” (Act 17:26, KJVA)

It says Enoch pleased God. It does not say he not trusted in this promise.

I think you are being unrealistic if you think that anyone outside of the scribes or patriarchs or very educated men knew anything about the promise for most of history. Do you really suppose God viewed people as righteous depending on whether they had knowledge of a prophecy in an obscure scripture that most people would never had heard of, let alone read?

That appears to be a confusion of law and the promise or gospel. Through the law, in the narrow sense, is the knowledge of sin. It is not and never was the way of salvation.

A freely given promise depends on the one who gives it, in this case it is God. Christ, the Lord God incarnate, crucified, raised from the dead, and exalted is our salvation. He has always been and remains the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Joh 14:6, KJVA)

All men are not equal and neither are they born equal. They are only equal in certain respects: all will face judgement. They are also equal in Christ vis-a-vis the Spirit for there is one Spirit. The Canaanites were never of the same value to God as the Israelites. You are relying too much on modern ideas of egalitarianism.

All men born in the natural way are sinful and sinners. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12, KJVA)

Yes, the earthly categories are one in Christ Jesus.

The gospel of Christ did NOT exist before his birth. Only the prophecy of the gospel did. What existed was God's revelation in his Word, in the law and in the prophets and in the writings, and in creation per Roms 1 & 2.


God saves: 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4. See also Jesus's remarks about the Father giving him his disciples. God saved people long before Jesus came in the flesh.

 

[BJ Bear]

Continuing on because I am a bit of a klutz and accidentally posted before I was finished.

All men are not equal and neither are they born equal. They are only equal in certain respects: all will face judgement. They are also equal in Christ vis-a-vis the Spirit for there is one Spirit. The Canaanites were never of the same value to God as the Israelites. You are relying too much on modern ideas of egalitarianism.

Getting back to your statement on value and the Canaanites:

Although you didn't define value, the statement itself based on your entire post, it looks like you are evaluating the situation by some sort of legal measure rather than the promise or gospel. The promise was and is to all men, but not all men could be or were in the human ancestry of Christ. That doesn't modify or negate that the promise was to and for all men in the garden and throughout Scripture.

The gospel of Christ did NOT exist before his birth. Only the prophecy of the gospel did. What existed was God's revelation in his Word, in the law and in the prophets and in the writings, and in creation per Roms 1 & 2.

Again, Christ is one person in two natures.

If the gospel, the objective true good news of the Messiah or Christ to and for all men, did not exist then Eve, Enoch, and Job, would not have spoken of the birth of the Lord, would not have walked with God and pleased God through faith, would not have spoken of his Redeemer who lives and will place His feet upon the earth and who he will see with his own eyes even after the worms have eaten his body.

And Jesus would not have said, “31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mat 22:31-32, KJVA)

God saves: 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4. See also Jesus's remarks about the Father giving him his disciples. God saved people long before Jesus came in the flesh.

It is God the Word which became flesh. “1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh 1:1-3, KJVA)

Jesus was the name that Mary was instructed to call Him, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luk 1:31, KJVA)

Specifying to Mary and/or Joseph that her son will save His people from their sins doesn't mean He wasn't always the Savior of all from their sins.

One person in two natures.

 

[cjab]

God has left us multiple witnesses of those who believed in the coming incarnate Lord, for example, Eve in a literal translation of Genesis 4:1, Enoch according to Genesis 6 and Hebrews 11, Job, “25. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:” (Job 19:25-26, KJVA)

How are you contradicting me? Wasn't Job a very wealthy man? So what if a few people believed in the prophecy?

A weak or erring Christology will cause people to miss the import and meaning of these passages in the Tanakh. They either don't recognize that Christ is one person in or two nature's or of two natures, or they say those words but then internally think of Him as effectively being two persons, a human person and a divine person. An example of how this occurs is when they say things like this or that thing occurred according to the human nature rather than it occurred to the person of Christ.

Christ wasn't born. He was in heaven. All they had was the prophecy. They were saved by faith in God. The prophecy was incidental, even if important. But the prophecy was reserved for a very few people until after the Babylonian captivity, when it became more widely known.

The one person of Christ has always existed, see the passages above which refer to that one person, or follow the genealogies back through Adam to God or simply read John 17 according to the immediate context, ,for example, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (Joh 17:5, KJVA)

Of course the Word existed, but "Christ" did not, for the Messiah is man not God. The Messiah is a mediator, and God cannot mediate between himself and man, except he first become man.

I am categorically not the arbiter of what is Christian. Scripture according to the immediate context in which it was given is the arbiter of what is the Christian revelation and it's intended meaning.

I think your remark was uncalled for.

For example, both the incarnate Lord and the Apostle Paul when they spoke of the creation account or a part of it they spoke of it as actual history rather than a parable or figure of speech.

Men becoming spiritual is historical fact. Man did transition from animal to human. That transition occured in Eden, a historical place.

It is taking Scripture out of context to try and gauge the age of the creation or the creation of Adam because that isn't why the genealogies are listed. For example, count ten people listed and you reach Enoch, a person of note because of his witness, count another ten and you reach Noah, another person of note.

The genealogies have to be put into historical context, and the first homosapiens lived well before they arose. Moreover the first homosapiens didn't live in Eden.

Assuming to know the age of remains through "science" is foolishness because it is bad science. It goes without saying that no one has repeated and observed the circumstances of which they claim to have knowledge in this regard.

It seems that you are creationist. I am not. I reject creationism as BS.

I'm sure you are aware of how Adam was formed from the dust of the earth. It was the breath of God which gave life to the form of dust. Eve was then made from the man, Adam.

So the children of Adam and Eve committed incest did they? I think not.

Together they then bore seed according to their own kind, as did the rest of the creation, making Eve the mother of all living.

To use the words of our Holy Spirit led infallible interpreter, the Apostle Paul, God made all the nations from one blood, the blood of Adam. “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” (Act 17:26, KJVA)

Quite so. For all men today are spiritual or have the capacity to be so. This is what distinguishes men from animals. Are you saying that the cave men of France are descended from Adam?

That appears to be a confusion of law and the promise or gospel. Through the law, in the narrow sense, is the knowledge of sin. It is not and never was the way of salvation.

A freely given promise depends on the one who gives it, in this case it is God. Christ, the Lord God incarnate, crucified, raised from the dead, and exalted is our salvation. He has always been and remains the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Him. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Joh 14:6, KJVA)

All men born in the natural way are sinful and sinners. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12, KJVA)

Yes, the earthly categories are one in Christ Jesus.

Just because all are sinners, doesn't mean to say that all men sin equally before God. Jesus made it perfectly clear that there are those who first and those who are last in the kingdom of God. Equality there is not.

 

[cjab]

Continuing on because I am a bit of a klutz and accidentally posted before I was finished.

Getting back to your statement on value and the Canaanites:

Although you didn't define value, the statement itself based on your entire post, it looks like you are evaluating the situation by some sort of legal measure rather than the promise or gospel. The promise was and is to all men, but not all men could be or were in the human ancestry of Christ. That doesn't modify or negate that the promise was to and for all men in the garden and throughout Scripture.

I am a bit confused with your logic, because the promise is expressed in Matt 1:21 in these terms "He will save His people from their sins.” The tense is future. Note that Jesus was also sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Only through their rejection was it extended to the whole world. I repeat: how could a prophecy that, as far as we know, is only found in the Jewish scriptures, be pertinent to the rest of the world? Of course it may also be in some lost Sumerian scripture, but if it was, the knowledge of it was largely lost to the rest of humanity.

Again, Christ is one person in two natures.

That's an issue of philosophy not theology., because it may equally well be said that all men have or are capable of having two natures (divine and human): 2 Peter 1:4. I don't accept that Christ was different from any other man, except in his origination (from heaven) and consequent sinlessness (Heb 2 etc).

If the gospel, the objective true good news of the Messiah or Christ to and for all men, did not exist then Eve, Enoch, and Job, would not have spoken of the birth of the Lord, would not have walked with God and pleased God through faith, would not have spoken of his Redeemer who lives and will place His feet upon the earth and who he will see with his own eyes even after the worms have eaten his body.

As I see it this is hair splitting. Whether you classify prophecy as "good news" is open to debate. The type is not the same as the antitype. A prophecy is not the same as its fulfilment. There was no command to evangelize this prophecy to the world prior to the birth and resurrection of Christ, so I don't see it as being the gospel proper. Moreover God appointed the law to instruct and rule over the Jews until the gospel, not the prophecy of the Messiah.

Even if we accept the Word of God as the savior of the world prior to the birth of Christ, and that salvation was always by faith (Hab 2:4), we cannot accept that mediatorship of Christ, and the salvation (i.e. perfection) of sinners that comes with it was put in place prior to his resurrection.

Rom 8:3
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[fn] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[fn] And so he condemned sin in the flesh.

So the gospel is associated with the physical sending of Christ.

And Jesus would not have said, “31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mat 22:31-32, KJVA)

Yes

It is God the Word which became flesh. “1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh 1:1-3, KJVA)

No, there is no such entity in the bible as "God the Word." There is the Word who is God (or divine), solely by reason of being united with the Father in heaven on the throne of God; as the Father is axiomatically God.

In the mouth of Christ the man, the Father is alone God because the man Christ the mediator was not then on the throne.

Jesus was the name that Mary was instructed to call Him, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luk 1:31, KJVA)

Jesus means "Yhwh is salvation". YHWH is the Father of Jesus (Ps 110:1).

Specifying to Mary and/or Joseph that her son will save His people from their sins doesn't mean He wasn't always the Savior of all from their sins.

I'm not disputing the saving nature of the Word (as God) in heaven united with his Father. I'm disputing confusion of the prophecy of the mediatorship of Christ with its fulfilment and reality.

One person in two natures.

That is Trinitarian philosophical dogmatism, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[BJ Bear]

The translation I use does not say all men, but those the Father gave to the Son. I see it as a parallel of the 12 tribes engraved on the High Priest's breastplate(Exodus 39:6-14). The Father did not give all men to the Son...

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Yes, the words all men are not literalistically in the passage. That is why in another post (I think in this thread, but if not then it is in the current James.thread on the Lutheran board.) I pointed out the context from John 5. For example, “And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (Joh 5:27-29, KJVA)

 

[eternomade]

Yes, the words all men are not literalistically in the passage. That is why in another post (I think in this thread, but if not then it is in the current James.thread on the Lutheran board.) I pointed out the context from John 5. For example, “And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (Joh 5:27-29, KJVA)

The context in chapter 6 is those given to Christ. I agree with you on the context of chapter 5.

Why is it that many of his disciples left in verse 66? I believe they were offended that not all were given to Him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

 

[BJ Bear]

One of us is FM. The other AM?

lol. Well, Mr. Modulation who is Al and who is Fred?

Signed,
the other Mr. Modulation

Btw, does it help you to understand the perspective if is pointed out that we were called Evangelicals (with just cause) as a pejorative by Roman Catholics? We have been known as the Evangelical Church for about five hundred years.

Its a constant missing of what's there for each one of us.

We'll get there. We aren't the first people to be separated by a common language.

Because of the following. Unbelievers are not ready for what the Christian is able to know.

But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit.
It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who
are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means." 1 Cor 2:14

Until they accept Jesus Christ?" And become spiritually transformed in regeneration? Nothing can connect.

We both affirm the passage, but disagree on context in which you are applying it.. Looking at the command of the risen Lord to disciple all peoples by baptizing and teaching them it is clear that those activities, baptizing and teaching are spiritual activities. This includes the law when teaching is broken down into its components.

Paul is necessarily speaking in another context. The explicitly stated context is that of speaking among those who are Christian. When dong so they don't use the logic or wisdom of the world. Instead they speak according to the Christian revelation.

When Paul writes that the natural man thinks of the Christian revelation as foolishness and can't receive it he is saying they don't have that ability by nature. He is not saying that God can't give the natural man understanding through His appointed means of baptizing and teaching. Salvation is monergistic, the Savior saves.

Yes.. The Gospel is to be offered to all men to make them become transformed into being spiritual.
But, not all men find the Gospel is for them to accept.

Accepted or not the faith is given to all men through God's appointed means of baptizing and teaching.

How many times does one have to offer the Gospel to those who want to reject?
If it were brainwashing? Never let up.

Today the Cross of Christ in known all around us. Its not like we are to go into the world and make it known for the first time.
Because of those who reject? Some of us seem to think those who reject need to be told about the Cross as if they never knew about it.

Preaching the gospel according to the Christian revelation doesn't always occur, but even if it does and the person does not receive the faith at that time doesn't mean that they won't accept it later. If you want some real life examples of this look no further than the Apostle Paul and the priests who later received the faith.

What we need today is discipleship of those who have accepted the Cross.

If you are going to disciple according Matthew 28 or speak according to 1 Corinthians 2 then you will be teaching according to the Christian revelation, the law and the gospel, rather than the wisdom of men.

Jesus warned..... 'few find it.'

Have you changed categories? It appears that you've gone from those who have received Christ to those of which only a few find the gate, that is, find Him.

Sound doctrine will not appeal to many.
Most (who are saved) will seek socially accepted religious concepts and find like minded people to bond with to form churches or Bible studies.

The question of whether sound doctrine appeals to a man or not is a different question from does God give the faith and sustain the faith through His appointed means of baptizing and teaching?

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3

You are still stuck on the Gospel... Yet the Gospel is everywhere today. Its foundational, and not the end all at all.

So you say the gospel is everywhere today but that is again demonstrably false. However, even if your premise is accepted for the sake of argument then why aren't people on this board able to recognize it, the gospel, when they read it in the Tanakh, John 17, and elsewhere in Scripture?

Jesus said He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, a proclamation of His deity, yet you say the objective true good news of His person and work to all and for sll is, "not the end all at all?" That is incredibly unsound doctrine or teaching.

Its sound doctrine that is in short supply because of its low demand from believers.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Tim 4:3


grace and peace .........

One of the benefits of using the lectionary and liturgical worship is that the law and the gospel is regularly proclaimed regardless of the content and quality of the sermon.

Peace.

 

[GeneZ]

lol. Well, Mr. Modulation who is Al and who is Fred?

Signed,
the other Mr. Modulation

Btw, does it help you to understand the perspective if is pointed out that we were called Evangelicals (with just cause) as a pejorative by Roman Catholics? We have been known as the Evangelical Church for about five hundred years.

We'll get there. We aren't the first people to be separated by a common language.

We both affirm the passage, but disagree on context in which you are applying it.. Looking at the command of the risen Lord to disciple all peoples by baptizing and teaching them it is clear that those activities, baptizing and teaching are spiritual activities. This includes the law when teaching is broken down into its components.

Paul is necessarily speaking in another context. The explicitly stated context is that of speaking among those who are Christian. When dong so they don't use the logic or wisdom of the world. Instead they speak according to the Christian revelation.

When Paul writes that the natural man thinks of the Christian revelation as foolishness and can't receive it he is saying they don't have that ability by nature. He is not saying that God can't give the natural man understanding through His appointed means of baptizing and teaching. Salvation is monergistic, the Savior saves.

Accepted or not the faith is given to all men through God's appointed means of baptizing and teaching.

Preaching the gospel according to the Christian revelation doesn't always occur, but even if it does and the person does not receive the faith at that time doesn't mean that they won't accept it later. If you want some real life examples of this look no further than the Apostle Paul and the priests who later received the faith.

If you are going to disciple according Matthew 28 or speak according to 1 Corinthians 2 then you will be teaching according to the Christian revelation, the law and the gospel, rather than the wisdom of men.

Have you changed categories? It appears that you've gone from those who have received Christ to those of which only a few find the gate, that is, find Him.

The question of whether sound doctrine appeals to a man or not is a different question from does God give the faith and sustain the faith through His appointed means of baptizing and teaching?

So you say the gospel is everywhere today but that is again demonstrably false. However, even if your premise is accepted for the sake of argument then why aren't people on this board able to recognize it, the gospel, when they read it in the Tanakh, John 17, and elsewhere in Scripture?

Jesus said He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, a proclamation of His deity, yet you say the objective true good news of His person and work to all and for sll is, "not the end all at all?" That is incredibly unsound doctrine or teaching.


One of the benefits of using the lectionary and liturgical worship is that the law and the gospel is regularly proclaimed regardless of the content and quality of the sermon.

Peace.

You are coming from another school of thinking.

Evangelicals can cover various means for its function.

Speaking of Paul? Did you know why he needed to tell the Corinthians this?

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." 1 Cor 2:2​

Only Christ crucified?

Well, the Corinthians had a very serious problem with the concept of resurrection. Plato's influence in their Greek cultural thinking had them believing that having a body is evil.. And, that our souls are prisoners of the body. That when they died they would become freed of the body, and become a spirit type being. At first they found the concept of having a resurrection body as repulsive. Because of that all Paul could freely cover with them was the Cross and crucifixion of Christ.

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." 1 Cor 2:2​

It took a while for the Corinthians to warm up to other aspects accompanying salvation. Which reveals an essential point. Like the Corinthians, all one needs to be saved is to believe that Jesus was crucified and died for our sins.

Understanding of the deity of Christ and such doctrines are to be learned after one is saved.

Thought that might help reveal why we might be thinking along different lines of "conditioning."

grace and peace ........

 

[BJ Bear]

How are you contradicting me? Wasn't Job a very wealthy man? So what if a few people believed in the prophecy?

It was primarily a contrast of the one person of Christ with what you previously posted.

With respect to Job and the others through whom God has proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, they and their circumstances are not important. The point is that they didn't live in a vacuum and that they were sharing the one faith of the one Lord God to those within their sphere of contact.

Christ wasn't born. He was in heaven. All they had was the prophecy. They were saved by faith in God. The prophecy was incidental, even if important. But the prophecy was reserved for a very few people until after the Babylonian captivity, when it became more widely known.

The word Christ primarily refers to an office. The person, God the Word, has always been active in the life of men. It was so much so that the Targumim sometimes replaces God as the one acting with the Word of God doing this or that. A consequence of this knowledge and the witness of the Hebrew Scriptures is that there is no discussion or debate among the believers in the NT regarding the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

Of course the Word existed, but "Christ" did not, for the Messiah is man not God. The Messiah is a mediator, and God cannot mediate between himself and man, except he first become man.

The Son, God the Word made flesh, the Messiah or Christ, is God and man. And so the Messiah, the Son of man, speaks of receiving the glory He had with the Father before the world was, etc.

Just as great in consequence is that if Jesus, the Messiah or Christ, was only a man then there is no salvation. A plain man can't merit eternal life for himself or anyone else. Why not? Because through the law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 3:20, rather than a way to merit eternal life.

I think your remark was uncalled for.

I was agreeing with you that I do not recognize myself as the arbiter of what is Christian, and then stating the categorical reason why I agree with you in that regard.

Men becoming spiritual is historical fact. Man did transition from animal to human. That transition occured in Eden, a historical place.

The creation of man, unlike the rest of creation, was not an event and outcome spoken into existence. The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. That is the Scriptural witness.

If a person thinks that he understands Scripture better than the incarnate Lord, the Apostle Paul, and the rest of the prophets and apostles then he is not a follower of the Way but a self proclaimed teacher of a way.

The genealogies have to be put into historical context, and the first homosapiens lived well before they arose. Moreover the first homosapiens didn't live in Eden.

That is not the Scriptural witness.

It seems that you are creationist. I am not. I reject creationism as BS.

I am a follower of the Way, the incarnate Lord God, and do not presume to know better than He who affirmed the account of Moses as historical.

If a person looks at science logically, as he should since it is something beneath us, it is only a slice of the philosophical pie. An amusing man recently let that cat out of the bag when he claimed that he is the science.

So the children of Adam and Eve committed incest did they? I think not.

There is no Scriptural or logical reason for you to think not because mankind can procreate without being unchaste, a man can cleave unto a woman, or one woman.

Quite so. For all men today are spiritual or have the capacity to be so. This is what distinguishes men from animals. Are you saying that the cave men of France are descended from Adam?

If, "the cave men of France," are indeed men then they are indeed descendants of Adam.

Is it intentional or coincidence that some of the claims in your posts are consistent with those of some early heretics addressed by Irenäus?

Just because all are sinners, doesn't mean to say that all men sin equally before God. Jesus made it perfectly clear that there are those who first and those who are last in the kingdom of God. Equality there is not.

Apparently you only understand the passage you alluded to through the law.

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23, KJVA) Who is the greatest in heaven and the servant of all, and who are the served which are clothed in the righteousness of the Messiah or Christ?

 

[cjab]

It was primarily a contrast of the one person of Christ with what you previously posted.

With respect to Job and the others through whom God has proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, they and their circumstances are not important. The point is that they didn't live in a vacuum and that they were sharing the one faith of the one Lord God to those within their sphere of contact.

We don't know what they were doing. The redeemer of all mankind in those days was God.

The word Christ primarily refers to an office. The person, God the Word, has always been active in the life of men.

It is clear that the hebrew concept of the (or a) messiah was never God himself but always a man.

It was so much so that the Targumim sometimes replaces God as the one acting with the Word of God doing this or that. A consequence of this knowledge and the witness of the Hebrew Scriptures is that there is no discussion or debate among the believers in the NT regarding the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us.

The Son, God the Word made flesh, the Messiah or Christ, is God and man. And so the Messiah, the Son of man, speaks of receiving the glory He had with the Father before the world was, etc.

To be "God" in any sense is to be possessed of the plenary glory of God, which the son of man didn't have on earth, even if he reflected / showed the image of it on earth.

Just as great in consequence is that if Jesus, the Messiah or Christ, was only a man then there is no salvation. A plain man can't merit eternal life for himself or anyone else. Why not? Because through the law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 3:20, rather than a way to merit eternal life.

What was distinct about Jesus was his origination from heaven and his reflection of the glory of God on earth.

I was agreeing with you that I do not recognize myself as the arbiter of what is Christian, and then stating the categorical reason why I agree with you in that regard.

The creation of man, unlike the rest of creation, was not an event and outcome spoken into existence. The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. That is the Scriptural witness.

But here a process is being described that is distinct from animal creation. Thus I take this to infer the creation of spiritual life.

If a person thinks that he understands Scripture better than the incarnate Lord, the Apostle Paul, and the rest of the prophets and apostles then he is not a follower of the Way but a self proclaimed teacher of a way.

That is not the Scriptural witness.

The scriptural witness is, as you say, a scriptural witness, not a biology handbook. Why Would Paul be concerned with biological homosapiens not accounted as "men"? Were the Neanderthals men also?

I am a follower of the Way, the incarnate Lord God, and do not presume to know better than He who affirmed the account of Moses as historical.

The account of Moses was not intended to lay the foundations of scientific knowledge, but spiritual / self knowledge.

If a person looks at science logically, as he should since it is something beneath us, it is only a slice of the philosophical pie. An amusing man recently let that cat out of the bag when he claimed that he is the science.

True: science is inferior to spirit, but spirit should not seek to impose on the laws of science, but rather to harmonize with them.

There is no Scriptural or logical reason for you to think not because mankind can procreate without being unchaste, a man can cleave unto a woman, or one woman.

I think you are confounding animal and spiritual. You need to start seeing the bible as exclusively spiritual. The bible is not a scientfic or biology text book. Science tells us that homosapiens lived on earth long before Adam.

If, "the cave men of France," are indeed men then they are indeed descendants of Adam.

They cannot be, because Eden is thousands of miles away and the painting are dated by Carbon 14 dating to 14000-40000 years ago.

Is it intentional or coincidence that some of the claims in your posts are consistent with those of some early heretics addressed by Irenäus?

You'll need to be more specific.

Apparently you only understand the passage you alluded to through the law.

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23, KJVA) Who is the greatest in heaven and the servant of all, and who are the served which are clothed in the righteousness of the Messiah or Christ?

It was Jesus himself who taught about the first and last in the kingdom, although I'll grant that by last he sometimes also refers to the unsaved.

Mar 9:35 "Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”"

 

[Oldsaint24]

What if both sides of the C&A debate in this thread are wrong? What if both sides err because people are overlooking or ignoring who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and why something is being said?

I invite interested parties to provide examples from either side of passages which are sometimes being misused in their debate. As a first example, here is a passage from John 6.

“And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it up in the last day.” (Joh 6:39, LITV)

Who is speaking? The LORD is speaking. To whom is He speaking? The crowds that came to Capernaum to seek Him. Why did He say that to them? It is a proclamation of deity for He will lose no man and will raise up all men.

It isn't a passage for either side in their debate.

Both sides are wrong and have been deceived. Jesus teaches us the Holy Spirit will come and teach us. Now the Cals and Arms have been feuding for 400+ year over basic Biblical truths. So the question is.......Is the Holy Spirit a bad teacher or the Cals and Arms bad students? Who's at fault here?

 

[Theo1689]

What if both sides of the C&A debate in this thread are wrong? What if both sides err because people are overlooking or ignoring who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and why something is being said?

I invite interested parties to provide examples from either side of passages which are sometimes being misused in their debate. As a first example, here is a passage from John 6.

“And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it up in the last day.” (Joh 6:39, LITV)

And he trips over his own feet in his OP...
He shall lose none of "all that He has given me".

It isn't a passage for either side in their debate.

It fits perfectly with Calvinism, since the sheep/elect are those given to Him, and no one can snatch them out of His hand.

 

[BJ Bear]

And he trips over his own feet in his OP...
He shall lose none of "all that He has given me".



It fits perfectly with Calvinism, since the sheep/elect are those given to Him, and no one can snatch them out of His hand.

Per the OP, this latest reply doesn't acknowledge who is speaking, to whom He is speaking, and what He is saying. Ignoring the context makes it easy for Calvinists or some other group to take Scripture out of context and then read their preferred stories into it..

 

[Grace_Accepted]

What if both sides of the C&A debate in this thread are wrong? What if both sides err because people are overlooking or ignoring who is speaking, who is being spoken to, and why something is being said?

I invite interested parties to provide examples from either side of passages which are sometimes being misused in their debate. As a first example, here is a passage from John 6.

“And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it up in the last day.” (Joh 6:39, LITV)

Who is speaking? The LORD is speaking. To whom is He speaking? The crowds that came to Capernaum to seek Him. Why did He say that to them? It is a proclamation of deity for He will lose no man and will raise up all men.

It isn't a passage for either side in their debate.

Let God be butand every man a liar...

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What if both sides of the C&A debate in this thread are wrong?

Since they're only "Man's THEOLOGY", it's a fair bet that "details" on BOTH SIDES are partially inaccurate, and both sides are partially true.

And, of course, there are internal variations in both systematics. Of course, it's only "Theology" so those things are normal. No problem.

"Theology" never saved anybody. Being Born Again is a personal spiritual transaction between you and God by the Holy Spirit. "Theology" is what a person gets involved in AFTER they're Born Again.