Jump to content


Photo

The Osas Debate.


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#101 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 09 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

[quote] name='ikester7579' timestamp='1331319530' post='81434']
So what you are trying to say is that nothing in the OT applies not even the 10 commandments? Maybe we should rip out or mark through those books and verses you say no longer applies? Why read them or have them in our Bible if they are worthless and mean nothing? In fact using your logic creation does not even apply because it was written by men that were of the covenant of circumcision.

The only things that changed in the old covenant is:
1) How our sins are forgiven.
2) What we do to get them forgiven.
3) How salvation is obtained.
4) That we have to go through the Son in prayer to set a petition before the King of kings.
etc...

Only that which Christ changed by becoming our savior not all that God established as a foundation of right from wrong and the rules and commandments we must follow. The Ten Commandments are not called the Ten suggestions as some people would like to make them appear with beliefs that not one thing in the OT applies because they dont like the rules the OT has so it's easier to just do away with them.

mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
jn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
1cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

etc...

If what is said. claimed or implied does not apply to all then what is being used is to pick and choose from God's word which is making one's own truth.
[/quote]

Ikester, your post here reveals to me that you are not reading what I post. After all the tons of scripture I have referenced to show that Israel was under the law before and after the Cross and that the Body of Christ is not under the law but under grace, you post this. I give up.

You need to do an in-depth study of Paul. He is your apostle. Your gospel is in Paul's letters and not in the circumcision writings. You are not a Jew, and even if you were, the dispensation of circumcision that was given to Israel is not for you. Your confused because you fail to separate Israel from the Body.

TeeJay

TeeJay

#102 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 09 March 2012 - 02:00 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331325241' post='81441']
One more thing Teejey. To whom do you think Peter was writing in his epistles? To the Jews or the gentiles?
[/quote]

Ikester, Peter wrote to the pilgrims of the dispersion or Jews. There is no Biblical record of any circumcision apostle witnessing to any Gentiles EXCEPT when Peter went to see the centurion Cornelius at God's direction. And this was to show Peter that Glod had cut off Israel's program and gone directly to the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED. The Bible states that "Peter was astonished." Why was he astonished? Because prior to this, Gentiles wanting to approach Israel's God had to get circumcised and keep the law. And this prepared Peter to defend Paul's gospel of grace to the circumcision apostles at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In Galatians 2, Paul writes that God told him to go up to Jerusalem and explain to the Twelfe the gospel he was preaching. If he were preaching the same gospel as Peter, why would he have to go up there and explain it?

And get this: In Gal. 2:3, Paul was overjoyed that Titus, who he took with him, did not have to be circumcised. If the Jews were not under circumcision law, why would Paul have to have been concerned about Titus? Because Peter and his crowd were keeping the law for salvation. Israel was to be God's evangelical nation to the world. To do this, God gave them tools. In the Ark of the Covenant or Ark of Testamony, there were the law (stone tablets), miracles (Aaron's rod), and Jesus (jar of manna). As a testamony, Israel was to take to the world, the law, miracles, and Jesus. Jesus promised them they would lay hands on the sick and recover, they would step on snakes and not die, drink poison. Now if anyone thinks they are still under Israel's dispensation, I have some Texas Rattlers here they can test that theory on. Initially God gave Paul miracles and tongues as His stamp of approval to show Peter that He had passed the mantle to Paul, for "Israel requires a sign." Israel did not fulfill their great commission. They never even got started. THEY WERE CUT OFF! Look up this verse in Paul: "The casting away of Israel was the reconcilling of the world.

A grace gospel with no works or law keeping can't be found in any circumcision letter.

TeeJay

#103 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 09 March 2012 - 04:31 PM

That's bad logic. How many ways can I kill myself and it still be suicide? Your logic to discredit this does not work.


You claim it's bad logic. Yet you prove MY point with your question "How many ways can I kill myself and it still be suicide?" That's exactly what I'm saying. Suicide is suicide, no matter which way it is performed. Blasphemy is blasphemy and your "three different sins" from before are not different really, they all fall under the one sin of blasphemy.

When Christ was accused of blasphemy, what did He do to get that accusation?


So you are using lying Jews of Jesus' day to make your argument? Not the best example to be using.


The reason I don;t get it is because you are using a definition of blaspheming I have never heard. Which gives me the impression it's being redefined to make osas work.


Redefined? Or interpreted correctly? That's the big question. I happen to think it's interpreted correctly. And since you've never heard of it, you've never studied under Calvary Chapel apparently. I have and this is where I get this from. And so what if it's used "to make OSAS work"?? Truth is truth. All the pieces fall together nicely here, and one of the key pieces is THIS definition of blaspheming. Yes, it allows OSAS to work.

And my God is all merciful, one who is not an "Indian Giver" and takes back salvation once one accepts it as a FREE GIFT. To believe in your doctrine of losing salvation, LESSONS the work of what Christ did on the cross. Here's why:

- When one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior, the person is saved.
- If the believer commits some kind of sin that breaks this relationship then that sin is greater than the work that Christ performed on the cross. It HAS to be, by definition because salvation is now lost.
- But Christ died for ALL SINS, the ONLY sin He did not die for was the REJECTION of Him. This is, and MUST BE the one unforgivable sin, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirt, the One who testifies about Christ.

Note: Key point in red. I've tried to hammer this home but this point is still not understood.


Making your own rules for this? I have yet to see scripture on this that says any sin can only be forgiven prior to their last breathe,


Wow, I really didn't think it was necessary. I thought for sure you'd be familiar with the thief on the cross. Christ welcomed him into the Kingdom of Heaven TODAY. It was a repentance on the part of the thief, it was placing his trust in Christ, and it was an immediate salvation. As close to anyone's dying breath for the forgiveness of sins that we have in the Bible:

Luke 23: (KJV)
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


I have no problem understanding it. Having been a osas believer myself I have never heard what you are trying to preach.


Correct, you have not heard it ALL, you just admitted that yourself:

The reason I don;t get it is because you are using a definition of blaspheming I have never heard.


Now you refuse to even LOOK at it because you've got your mind made up. This is why it's no longer worth my time to continue. All I can tell you is, to pray about this and ask God to reveal the truth to you. Pray for wisdom on this for God gives wisdom abundantly:

James 1:5 (speaking to Christians, NIV)
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Does it matter what the truth is here or are you more interested in defending your position? I've said enough. Enjoy the rest of your debate I'd rather not continue.

#104 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 March 2012 - 12:21 AM

Peter wrote to the pilgrims of the dispersion or Jews.


Is that supposed to be an answer to the question I posed?

What does "pilgrims" or "dispersion" have to do with it? Were they Jews or gentiles? It's a straightforward question.

The Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED.


Yes? And why the capitalized letters? Was I in any of my posts trying to claim that the gentiles were BEING CIRCUMCISED or SHOULD BE CIRCUMCISED? Teejey, are you trying to confuse this discussion by trying to distort my position? Nowhere have I stated that the circumstances for Jews were the same as those for gentiles. It is the gospel we were discussing, not the differences between these two groups.

The Bible states that "Peter was astonished." Why was he astonished? Because prior to this, Gentiles wanting to approach Israel's God had to get circumcised and keep the law. And this prepared Peter to defend Paul's gospel of grace to the circumcision apostles at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In Galatians 2, Paul writes that God told him to go up to Jerusalem and explain to the Twelfe the gospel he was preaching. If he were preaching the same gospel as Peter, why would he have to go up there and explain it?


As I said, God had separate purposes for Israel as a nation and the gentiles. However, the core of the gospel was the same. It had to be! Otherwise nothing that Paul wrote would make sense.

Now I don't want to be the one to rub things in, but I noticed that you had no comment on several of the points I posted. You implied that Ikester wasn't reading your posts, but I wonder if you were reading mine. For example, I quoted several verses written by Paul that you seemed to think I had conjured up myself. For example:

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value."

So let me ask you. If you heard the apostle Paul say this, then would would be your response? A long string of question marks followed by "Yikes"?

Let me leave you with yet another verse, which contains yet another question you might want to answer:

"My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided?"

So Teejay, is Christ divided? If some were to follow Cephas whereas other were to follow Paul then I guess he is!!!!

#105 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 March 2012 - 12:54 AM

Ikester, your post here reveals to me that you are not reading what I post. After all the tons of scripture I have referenced to show that Israel was under the law before and after the Cross and that the Body of Christ is not under the law but under grace, you post this. I give up.

You need to do an in-depth study of Paul. He is your apostle. Your gospel is in Paul's letters and not in the circumcision writings. You are not a Jew, and even if you were, the dispensation of circumcision that was given to Israel is not for you. Your confused because you fail to separate Israel from the Body.

TeeJay


Then you are preaching that there are 2 way to Heaven and 2 standards for salvation. We were grafted into the same tree for a reason. What applies to them applies to us and what applies to us applies to them. If even one person can go around Christ, then Christ died for no reason. For how can we both be part of the "same tree" yet have different salvations? What you try to preach here does not go along with the Bible.

If there were two different salvations for two different peoples then the disciples should have been gentile because the new covenant does not apply to them. But instead they were commanded to seek out the gentiles and preach what? The same gospel that saved them. We all to often step on egg shells concerning God's chosen people because we think they have a special way to Heaven. The thing is they can end up in Hell just like anyone else can. And some are already there.

Questions to clarify:

1) How many ways are there to heaven?
2) How many salvations exist between God chosen and the gentiles?
3) Does the Jew have to accept Christ to enter into Heaven?

#106 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:35 AM

You claim it's bad logic. Yet you prove MY point with your question "How many ways can I kill myself and it still be suicide?" That's exactly what I'm saying. Suicide is suicide, no matter which way it is performed. Blasphemy is blasphemy and your "three different sins" from before are not different really, they all fall under the one sin of blasphemy.


You can deny a trinity I prefer not to.

So you are using lying Jews of Jesus' day to make your argument? Not the best example to be using.


Yet no one corrected it or even tried. Have you ever lied? Why should I listen to you then either?

Redefined? Or interpreted correctly? That's the big question. I happen to think it's interpreted correctly. And since you've never heard of it, you've never studied under Calvary Chapel apparently. I have and this is where I get this from. And so what if it's used "to make OSAS work"?? Truth is truth. All the pieces fall together nicely here, and one of the key pieces is THIS definition of blaspheming. Yes, it allows OSAS to work.


Is this :worship: what I am supposed to do when I here Calvary Chapel? I study under the guidance of the Holy spirit. And I feel no need to throw that into people's faces to pump myself up or place myself above them.

And my God is all merciful, one who is not an "Indian Giver" and takes back salvation once one accepts it as a FREE GIFT. To believe in your doctrine of losing salvation, LESSONS the work of what Christ did on the cross. Here's why:


I guess while we are into insults here, just to stay in par I will say: My Jesus did not die on the cross for a doctrine that condones sin by letting it's people commit any sin. Nor does it take away my freewill to choose if I wanted to leave. Therefore I am not in bondage as osas people are. And I feel no need to judge others whether they are saved or not by the sin they may have committed in order to save face for osas. Might as well be saying: Ikester is not truly saved because he does not believe osas.

- When one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior, the person is saved.
- If the believer commits some kind of sin that breaks this relationship then that sin is greater than the work that Christ performed on the cross. It HAS to be, by definition because salvation is now lost.


It's a covenant. And if there is a sin that can totally block salvation to the unsaved sinner before the free gift is offered. Then Satan is stronger then what Christ did on the cross and has a tool to stop souls from entering Heaven. I find it ironic that you tried to copy something I have said several times already.

- But Christ died for ALL SINS, the ONLY sin He did not die for was the REJECTION of Him. This is, and MUST BE the one unforgivable sin, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirt, the One who testifies about Christ.


It's the Holy ghost. You cannot even get that right.

Note: Key point in red. I've tried to hammer this home but this point is still not understood.


And I understand the osas hammer because I have been one. Don;t wish to go back.

Wow, I really didn't think it was necessary. I thought for sure you'd be familiar with the thief on the cross. Christ welcomed him into the Kingdom of Heaven TODAY. It was a repentance on the part of the thief, it was placing his trust in Christ, and it was an immediate salvation. As close to anyone's dying breath for the forgiveness of sins that we have in the Bible:

Luke 23: (KJV)
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


That's your example? It was never said that he "had" to do this before he died in order to be saved. It was the situation. Christ did not say: Wait until yoru last breathe then ask and I will forgive you. I don;t want to make you mad here but I laughed and am still laughing at this interpretation of those verses.

Correct, you have not heard it ALL, you just admitted that yourself:


Do you mean that there are now new things osas has added since I was one? Was there a time in my absence that the Word changed so the osas doctrine had to change also? Or maybe these changes were an attempt to get the word to conform to the doctrine?


Now you refuse to even LOOK at it because you've got your mind made up. This is why it's no longer worth my time to continue. All I can tell you is, to pray about this and ask God to reveal the truth to you. Pray for wisdom on this for God gives wisdom abundantly:


I already have several years ago and was shown that osas was wrong.


James 1:5 (speaking to Christians, NIV)
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.


Maybe you don;t know this but the NIV is tainted because 2 of the people on the board that helped with interpretation of it were g*y. Just google NIV lesbian and you can read about it.

Does it matter what the truth is here or are you more interested in defending your position? I've said enough. Enjoy the rest of your debate I'd rather not continue.


And that's how osas act. Their truth is absolute truth and no body is going to convince them otherwise. Osas believers are the truth holders of God's word and everyone else believes in lies. Also because they disagreed with the osas people they were not truly saved so they also go to Hell.

Hey ME, does not the attitude of having absolute truth and the ability to judge other using their interpretation of absolute truth remind you of anyone? :drums:

#107 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 10 March 2012 - 08:56 AM

You can deny a trinity I prefer not to.


Don't put words in my mouth! Where did I deny the trinity? I did not. This is a bad habit I see you have, and you've not done this just with me.


Yet no one corrected it or even tried. Have you ever lied? Why should I listen to you then either?


This is ridiculous reasoning. Why should you listen to ANYONE on this Forum then? DON'T then. You've got your mind made up. And your tone with me and others on this thread is unbecoming to a Moderator.

Is this :worship: what I am supposed to do when I here Calvary Chapel? I study under the guidance of the Holy spirit. And I feel no need to throw that into people's faces to pump myself up or place myself above them.


Excellent. I see MOCKING is not beneath you as well. Why do you mock where I've done the vast majority of my Bible study? Because it's different that where you've done yours? I merely pointed out where I've done my study as a point of reference in reply to your questioning about you never hearing about the definition I hold on the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. So I point out where I've studied it, then you turn around and mock it. I did not mention that to "throw it in people's faces" but you see it that way because of the huge chip you have on your shoulder.

You have a spirit of contentiousness about you.


I guess while we are into insults here, just to stay in par I will say:


The only one doing the insulting here is you. But that's OK, I can take it, and I've learned from my experience with you and I won't be making the same mistake again.

My Jesus did not die on the cross for a doctrine that condones sin by letting it's people commit any sin. Nor does it take away my freewill to choose if I wanted to leave. Therefore I am not in bondage as osas people are. And I feel no need to judge others whether they are saved or not by the sin they may have committed in order to save face for osas.


Fine. And this has NOTHING to do with the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which was my ONLY reason to start a conversation with you.

Might as well be saying: Ikester is not truly saved because he does not believe osas.


Like I said before, there's the chip on YOUR shoulder. Is this what you've discerned from my conversation with you? Please point it out where I've said ANYTHING that has called into question your salvation!

Dude, you need to get some control over yourself. The way you've conducted yourself on this thread is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you. As I mentioned, I've discerned that you have a spirit of contentiousness about you. I suggest you pray about this.



I find it ironic that you tried to copy something I have said several times already.



More contentiousness. It appears when one AGREES with you, it's "ironic"?


It's the Holy ghost. You cannot even get that right.


Thank you, brother. I don't see the distinction as you do. Sorry if that bothers you.


And I understand the osas hammer because I have been one. Don;t wish to go back.


I don't consider it a hammer. I consider it TRUTH. I consider it an example of God's supreme love. But that's just me.



That's your example? It was never said that he "had" to do this before he died in order to be saved. It was the situation. Christ did not say: Wait until yoru last breathe then ask and I will forgive you. I don;t want to make you mad here but I laughed and am still laughing at this interpretation of those verses.


Laugh at an interpretation of a Biblical account? I see we have nothing in common, really.


Do you mean that there are now new things osas has added since I was one? Was there a time in my absence that the Word changed so the osas doctrine had to change also? Or maybe these changes were an attempt to get the word to conform to the doctrine?

I already have several years ago and was shown that osas was wrong.

Maybe you don;t know this but the NIV is tainted because 2 of the people on the board that helped with interpretation of it were g*y. Just google NIV lesbian and you can read about it.


No comment on any of this. Just because.


And that's how osas act. Their truth is absolute truth and no body is going to convince them otherwise. Osas believers are the truth holders of God's word and everyone else believes in lies. Also because they disagreed with the osas people they were not truly saved so they also go to Hell.


There's that CHIP again! You really should drop this baggage you carry around with you. You like to SLAM people with it, people who have NOT done a THING to personally insult you. You take a mere conversation about something you don't agree with as an insult. This is why you have a spirit of contentiousness about you.

I will not carry on this conversation longer. You may hurl more insults at me, go ahead, but before you do take a careful look at my words here. I've found this a most unpleasant experience communicating with you, and I don't respect you for the behavior you've displayed here. Do not expect any more conversation from me to you, and if you decide to ban me I'd appreciate it you left my posts in tact because they are, what I believe, to be the truth about a key element of OSAS.

Good day, sir.

#108 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:34 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331364063' post='81451']
Is that supposed to be an answer to the question I posed?

What does "pilgrims" or "dispersion" have to do with it? Were they Jews or gentiles? It's a straightforward question.[/quote]

UD, I was not answering you. Ikester ask me the addressee of Peter's letter. I answered it.

It's not so much what you don't know but what you think you know that is false. I'lm will be glad to teach you this concept and answer any question you have (until the cows come home), but I will not present you with any more scripture that you will summarily reject ouf of hand. The problem is that your worldview will not allow you to accept anything I post. Your worldview is somewhat circular: TeeJay has got to be wrong because I'm right. But what you are really thinking is I'm right because I'm right.

Instead of doing a little research on your own to see if Peter's letter is addressed to the Jews and that Israel was cut off and did not fulfill their great commission, you deny this simple truth.

Peter, John and James made a deal with with Paul that they would go to the Jews and Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). "Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word TO NO ONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY" (11:19)

Jesus Himself forbid the Twelve from going to any Gentiles, but told them to go only to Israel and Samaria (half Jews) first (Acts 1:8). Israel's kingdom, and their being an evangelical nation to the world was CONTINGENT on their accepting Jesus as their risen Messiah. This is why the Twelve were preaching their hearts out to Israel: Peter speaking to the Jews: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and He MAY SEND JESUS CHRIST who was preached to you before" (Acts 3:19:20). Did Israel accept Jesus? No. Stoning Stephen was their answer to Jesus' offer. God cut off Israel. Also see 1 Pet. 2:12 and 4:3 for further proof that Peter is talking to the dispersed Jews.

UD, I will be glad to dialogue and teach this, but if you've already made up your mind that I'm wrong, then I'm wasting time and ink.

TeeJay

#109 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:45 PM

Don't put words in my mouth! Where did I deny the trinity? I did not. This is a bad habit I see you have, and you've not done this just with me.


You did not get it. I listed "3" unforgiven sins....

This is ridiculous reasoning. Why should you listen to ANYONE on this Forum then? DON'T then. You've got your mind made up. And your tone with me and others on this thread is unbecoming to a Moderator.


Right. As to the reasoning you also used as to the reason I said it. As far tone goes being frank seems to be the only thing that seems to get you to listen.

Excellent. I see MOCKING is not beneath you as well. Why do you mock where I've done the vast majority of my Bible study? Because it's different that where you've done yours? I merely pointed out where I've done my study as a point of reference in reply to your questioning about you never hearing about the definition I hold on the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. So I point out where I've studied it, then you turn around and mock it. I did not mention that to "throw it in people's faces" but you see it that way because of the huge chip you have on your shoulder.


The reason it seems like a chip to you is because I stand up to your belief that you think is an absolute truth. Do you actually think you debate differently from any other osas believer I have debated or watched debate someone else?

TeeJay is the one who insisted on this debate, I did not. I just started the thread to get this over with. Because I knew that because I know how to counter the osas tactics it would end up this way and I really did not want to but TeeJay insisted. Another thread was going to be derailed because the debate on this actually started there. So if you feel a need to blame someone......

You have a spirit of contentiousness about you.


I often find it ironic in these debates that people refuse to see in themselves what they see in others. And all the problems in this debate are who's fault? Anyone whom disagrees with osas. Because it's only the non-osas counter tactics that are always wrong, right?

The only one doing the insulting here is you. But that's OK, I can take it, and I've learned from my experience with you and I won't be making the same mistake again.


Yeah that's right. You live in this fantasy world where only those who believe in osas do everything right and those who dare to disagree do it all wrong. Your insults are not actually insults but mine will always be insults because I'm absolutely wrong, right?

Fine. And this has NOTHING to do with the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which was my ONLY reason to start a conversation with you.


You could have started another thread and tou would not have gotten into this one.

Like I said before, there's the chip on YOUR shoulder. Is this what you've discerned from my conversation with you? Please point it out where I've said ANYTHING that has called into question your salvation!


Do you not believe you are absolutely right? Then what does that make me? So in your mind whether you will come out and directly say it or not it's implied. Me? I don;t think I am absolutely right because that is unobtainable by man to gain the knowledge and understanding of absolute truth. But the constant implication of one side of this having this absolute truth to judge other people makes it to where I could not even have a debate on this subject with any objective pondering without being constantly offended by a superior attitude, So I counter with giving one back. And I find it ironic that when the tone is given back it's all blamed on one side. The other side wears blinders to what they imply and even if I went to the trouble of pointing it all it would be denied.

Dude, you need to get some control over yourself. The way you've conducted yourself on this thread is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you. As I mentioned, I've discerned that you have a spirit of contentiousness about you. I suggest you pray about this.


As usual I am the only problem in this thread. No body insulted anybody except me, right? Nobody had a bad tone in this thread except me right? All the problems are always caused by the person whom dares to disagree with osas, right?

#110 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:10 PM

I re-opened the thread as I thought there was a good debate going on. Also, quiet a few here are taking much of their personal time to make their point, so please give each other the respect to carefully read and consider each other's arguments. Too many of you are reading right past each other. Finally, try to have a thicker skin on this folks, by its very nature its a hot topic!

Fred

#111 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 March 2012 - 07:02 PM

UD, I was not answering you. Ikester ask me the addressee of Peter's letter. I answered it.


No Teejay, I was the one who asked you the question and your answer was simply evasive. I'll make it easy for you. Since there are only 3 possible answers to the question you just need to pick one of them:

Peter's letter was written to:

1) The Jews
2) The gentiles
3) A mixture of the two groups

So what is your answer?

The problem is that your worldview will not allow you to accept anything I post. Your worldview is somewhat circular: TeeJay has got to be wrong because I'm right.


And that doesn't apply to you because?

Teejay, you have used this kind of debating tactic before. Just because someone disagrees with you does not indicate that they are defending a "worldview". All I have done in this thread is challenge the idea that there are two gospels. How do you get a "worldview" out of that?

In a question like this, only one of us is right and one is wrong. We have forums like this so that we can discuss things and evaluate support for different stances. So just as you pointed out, you have to be wrong if I am right, and I have to be wrong if you are right. So why throw "worldviews" into the mix?

Instead of doing a little research on your own to see if Peter's letter is addressed to the Jews


I don't have to do any research at all, because no matter which answer you choose (and I think you realize this because there is no other reason for your evasiveness) it is clear scriptural evidence that the two groups were not being separated in the way you assume.

...and that Israel was cut off and did not fulfill their great commission, you deny this simple truth.


What "simple truth" am I supposedly denying? Have I ever said that Israel was not cut off? Please take a few steps back and read carefully what I have written here. You are throwing in verses and arguments that have nothing to do with what I have been discussing, and it seems you are confusing my posts with Ikesters. There is no need to rush through this.

Peter, John and James made a deal with with Paul that they would go to the Jews and Paul would go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). "Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word TO NO ONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY" (11:19)


So? Can you find anything in scripture that supports the idea that this agreement was due to the establisment of different gospels?

What Paul wrote in Galatians indicates the separation was probably due to disagreement, rather than agreement:

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong." (Gal 2:11)

And why was Peter "in the wrong"? Well, it seems he had some issues:

"Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Reading this far one could easily get the impression that you are right Teejay, but what does Paul go on to say?

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

Rather than seeing any encouragement from Paul to go to the Jews and preach any legalistic gospel, he
tell us clearly that

1) legalism is wrong in any gospel! Period!

and

2) "we who are Jews" know that it is wrong.

One final question Teejay. Since Paul was a Jew, which "gospel" applied to him?

#112 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 10 March 2012 - 09:13 PM

I re-opened the thread as I thought there was a good debate going on.


Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another.

:)

#113 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 March 2012 - 09:32 PM

Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another.

:)


True, but only when they agree. Fred is neutral on the subject.

#114 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 11 March 2012 - 08:31 AM

True, but only when they agree.


Actually, I see it just the opposite. I see the sharpening occurring when there are differences and even though both parties may have not come to a complete agreement, they have learned by the exchange, thus a "sharpening".

When two parties are in total agreement from the start I really don't see any "sharpening" I just see them both patting each other on the back congratulating themselves and no real learning has occured.

I also believe that the verse goes hand in hand with this:

Hebrews 10:24,25
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

We are exhorted to go to church, and I believe this is to get us "sharp" and to keep us "sharp".

But I see what you're saying as well. I think you're saying that when a person is in agreement, when they've just learned something new, they are sharpened as well.

So both sides of this are correct; I just view the verse as the flip side of how you see it.

#115 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 11 March 2012 - 11:07 AM

Once Saved, Always Saved: This is similar to the Preservation of Saints doctrine held by Calvinists. For years I leaned toward assured salvation upon a genuine acceptance of the gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit (see especially Ephesians 1:13-14). However, recently I have wavered on this issue due to the verses that indicate we have the free will to reject God after being saved (i.e. Galatians 5:4). I believe verses from the book of James (ie James 5:19-20) which was written to the believing Jews (James 1:1), applied to the kingdom gospel dispensation (Gal 2:7, Hebrews 8:13). I believe it is possible that while we do receive a guarantee as indicated in Ephesians 1, we are still free to reject the guarantee by God later - not by sinning, since we all continue to sin even after salvation, but by outright denouncing Christ. It is clear though that whatever your belief is regarding OSAS, works plays no part in earning or keeping salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9), we are no longer under the law (Gal 3:24-25; 5:18, Romans 3:19, etc).


Fred, this is your position on OSAS as I copied from your "beliefs". I am in agreement with it. I see where it hinges on the word "possible"; that it may be possible that OSAS is not actually true. While I do not dispute this, as I am not 100% certain (although very close), I believe this "possibility" stems from the interpretation of 'blaspheming the Holy Spirit'; IF one could blaspheme the Spirit with words, then OSAS cannot stand. But if one could blaspheme the Spirit from the HEART only, then OSAS stands in my opinion.

I believe that blaspheming the Holy Spirit comes from within a person's heart, not from the words uttered from the mouth. This blaspheming is the renouncing of Christ as Lord and savior. I believe it is also a prerequisite for the unbeliever, as only the unbeliever can renounce Christ with their heart (bear with me on this last point). I'm not sure if you agree with this definition that I use, but I'm sure we both can agree that only God can judge the heart.

This is the definition for the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit that I have embraced:

What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?


Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, also known as the unpardonable sin, is the complete rejection of Jesus Christ. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to continually reject the Holy Spirit’s prompting to trust in Jesus Christ and live in a state of intentional unbelief.

John 3:36 says that, “whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” There is no pardon for those who die in unbelief.

But this death sentence can be overturned. Everyone who turns from their unbelief and asks Jesus to come into their hearts will be saved, even if they have previously blasphemed the Holy Spirit. All their sins will be forgiven, and they will live eternally in God’s presence.


I got this from the Calvary Chapel website here: http://www.cccary.or...oly-spirit.html

Notable is that the above definition does NOT address a BELIEVER committing this blasphemy. But I will address it in a moment...

Let's start with some examples about salvation:

Example 1:

A person spends their whole life rejecting Christ. On their deathbed, they repent of their sins and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and accept Him into their heart. I believe that person is saved. An example of this type of conversion is the thief on the cross.

I've given this example for background only, to show the definition of what I believe it is to be saved.

Example 2:

A person accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Later in life, they denounce Christ with their lips.

Big Question: Have they denounced Christ in their hearts, the definition for blasphemy that I use above?

General answer: This is a question that only God Himself can answer because only God can judge the heart. I'm sure we can agree on this.

My answer. Here's what *I* believe. If this person were TRULY saved they would not be denying God with their mouth in the first place. If they were TRULY saved they would be overwhelmed by the love of God and His presence and they would NEVER turn away. Plus I believe that this turning away, this losing of salvation of a BELIEVER is not possible because Christ, God, keeps His promises and no person is greater than God nor God's promises (example directly follows).

Please pardon the liberty I am taking while adding commentary (in blue) to make this point that no person is greater than God and therefore the believer cannot lose his salvation (I'm sure we can both agree that God keeps His promises):

John 10:27-30

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. except for the person who has 'temporary salvation', for he/she is more powerful than I, Jesus Christ Son of God, and I don't keep my promises because this 'temporarily saved' person, who is more powerful than I, can SLIP AWAY from me. But hey, at least I tried. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”


Summary: I believe that only an unbeliever can blaspheme the Holy Spirit. I believe that a follower of Christ cannot turn away from Christ once they have decided to live IN Christ, experiencing God's love, and remembering that they have the Holy Spirit, God, dwelling within him/her and "because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world" 1John 4:4 and "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" Romans 8:35

This leads to a very, very interesting topic regarding free will, doesn't it? :)

#116 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:32 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331431337' post='81466']
No Teejay, I was the one who asked you the question and your answer was simply evasive. I'll make it easy for you. Since there are only 3 possible answers to the question you just need to pick one of them:

Peter's letter was written to:

1) The Jews
2) The gentiles
3) A mixture of the two groups

So what is your answer?[/quote]

UD, I just went back and looked at Post 100. This old man is wrong. I have no idea how I mistakenly thought Ikester had asked me that. I stand corrected. Somehow, I got confused.

Peter wrote his two letters to the Jews. It was the Jews who were scattered because of persecution. Paul’s Roman converts were in Rome. Paul’s Corinthian converts were in Corrinth. His Galatia converts were in Galatia.

Peter, John and James made a deal with Paul that they would go to the Jews and Paul would go to the Gentiles (
Gal. 2:9). "Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word TO NO ONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY" (11:19)

Jesus Himself forbid the Twelve from going to any Gentiles, but told them to go only to Israel and Samaria (half Jews) first (
Acts 1:8). Israel's kingdom, and their being an evangelical nation to the world was CONTINGENT on their accepting Jesus as their risen Messiah. This is why the Twelve were preaching their hearts out to Israel: Peter speaking to the Jews: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and He MAY SEND JESUS CHRIST who was preached to you before" (Acts 3:19:20). Did Israel accept Jesus? No. Stoning Stephen was their answer to Jesus' offer. God cut off Israel. Also see 1 Pet. 2:12 and 4:3 for further proof that Peter is talking to the dispersed Jews.

"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable AMONG THE GENTILES that when they [Gentiles] may by your good works which they [Gentiles] may observe, glorify God in the day of visitation" (1 Pet. 2:12).

I have a problem with my grandsons in that they no longer are able to comprehend what they read. And I blame this on them not reading and instead texting, quittering, watching TV, and I-pods and whatever else. Perhaps that's our problem? When you read the above verse, can't you see that Peter is talking to Jews who AMONG the Gentiles and that the GENTILES WILL OBSERVE THE JEWS' good works?

"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the GENTILES--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries" (1 Pet. 4: 3). Surely you don't think that Peter here is talking to Gentiles about Gentiles?

“To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia..” (1 Pet. 1:1). Who in the world do you think Peter is talking about here? I t was not Paul’s believers who were scattered because of persecution; it was the Jews.

When I am debating on this site, I expect reasoned arguments. And I am eager to respond to good arguments. But I can’t argue with someone who will continually argue against self-evident truths. For example, Romans 3:14 states, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Using this passage, I can present a logical argument:

A. Romans 3:14 declares that all men are sinners.
B. Fred Williams is a man.
C. Therefore Fred is a sinner.

Now this is an irrefragable, logical argument that no logical thinking man should ever try to refute. But this is what you are doing. I show you with scripture that Peter wrote to Jews—Scripture that can’t be denied, yet you refuse to admit to any truth.

Now if you want to continue to believe that the circumcision apostles wrote to Gentiles when they did not, then I must let you stay confused.

TeeJay


#117 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 March 2012 - 01:45 PM

Then you are preaching that there are 2 way to Heaven and 2 standards for salvation. We were grafted into the same tree for a reason. What applies to them applies to us and what applies to us applies to them. If even one person can go around Christ, then Christ died for no reason. For how can we both be part of the "same tree" yet have different salvations? What you try to preach here does not go along with the Bible.


Ikester, I will be as patient as you want me to be on this, but I have already explained all this in previous posts. I will explain all this again. Will you at least read it and consider what I post is true or false? Thank you.

Ikester, it is not I who is preaching that. It is God who is preaching that. I did not make it up out of whole cloth. I posted previously what God says, but you seem not to have read it?

Galatians 2:7-9 is proof positive that there were two covenants in effect in the last half of the Book of Acts:


“But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is the Gospel for the Body and the Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].

If there were two different salvations for two different peoples then the disciples should have been gentile because the new covenant does not apply to them. But instead they were commanded to seek out the gentiles and preach what? The same gospel that saved them. We all to often step on egg shells concerning God's chosen people because we think they have a special way to Heaven. The thing is they can end up in Hell just like anyone else can. And some are already there.



Other than Peter being dragged by his feet by God to witness to the centurion Cornelius, there is no Biblical record of any Jew under the gospel of circumcision witnessing to any Gentile. Jesus did not command the Jews to go to the Gentiles. He told them to go to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (half Jews) and then, if Israel accepted their risen Messiah, they were “to the end of the earth.”

A careful reading of the first half of Acts reveals that the Twelve were trying their best to convince Israel to accept their risen Messiah so that God the Father would send Jesus back and they would have their kingdom (Acts 3:19:20 for example). Israel answer to God was the stoning of Stephen.

Ikester, why can’t you comprehend that Israel was cut off for unbelief? There is only one Salvation who is Jesus Christ. But can’t Jesus give one set of marching orders to one unit of His troops and give different marching order to another unit of His troops? Your problem is that you fail to fathom that when God cut off Israel for unbelief, Peter, James, John, and all who accepted Jesus Christ under the Gospel of Circumcision were also cut off. Now please understand that this has nothing to do with Peter’s salvation or any individual salvation. He and James and John are with the Lord. But Israel, AS A NATION, was cut off and their program of circumcision, law, and their promised kingdom etc. is included.

Have you ever read paragraph 1 of Galatians? Paul makes it so clear that he did not get his gospel from men, but he got it from God directly. Paul did not get his gospel from Peter.

Both Groups Saved by Grace


We must understand that both the circumcision and the uncircumcision are saved by grace. Peter verified this at the Jerusalem Council when he was defending Paul’s Gospel of Grace or uncircumcision: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (Acts 15:11). In today’s vernacular it would read: “Let’s face it, guys. Ain’t none of us goin’ make it unless God cuts us a little slack.”

God can add grace to works, but He will not permit adding works to grace. Under the Gospel of Grace, God offers a free gift of love—His sacrifice on the Cross. You can only repay a gift of love with love. If you give your wife a diamond because you love her, and she attempts to repay you with money, you are hurt deeply. She can only repay you for this with her love. So too, under the Gospel of Grace, God does not want you repaying Him because some law requires it. Flowers for your wife every Friday would mean little if your motivation was a State law. On the second Friday, the flowers would go in the trash instead of a vase.

But the Twelve were not given a Gospel of Grace. They were given the Gospel of Circumcision and keeping the Law. They had to be profitable servants, forgive to be forgiven, take the plow and not look back, visit the sick, visit prisoners, have faith, tithe, get circumcised, be baptized, preach the gospel, love Jesus more than their mom, heal the sick, be merciful, give to the poor, give to those who ask, keep the law (the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone), observe various feasts and Sabbaths, if asked to go one mile, go two,(add to the list). And any tree that did not produce fruit was cast into the fire. And, if God forgave you your sins, and then you failed to forgive your brother who sinned against you, then all your sins would be put back on you. Yikes! Such is life under the Gospel of Circumcision (law). If a Jew gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant….” Understand, also, that under the law, one did not ever know if he was saved. His salvation was not assured as it is under the Gospel of Uncircumcision or grace.



Questions to clarification
1) How many ways are there to heaven?
2) How many salvations exist between God chosen and the gentiles?
3) Does the Jew have to accept Christ to enter into Heaven?


Answer to question 1. Today there is only one way, through the gospel of grace preached by Paul. When Peter and Paul were alive, two covenants were in effect. But Peter’s covenant of circumcision was cut off along with the nation of Israel. Peter was saved but Paul and his ministry was in a growth mode while Peter and James were in a maintenance mode. Eventually, all saved under the gospel of circumcision would die out. There is no one alive today who is saved under the gospel of circumcision because that covenant is no longer in effect and has not been in effect for 2,000 years.

Answer to question 2: Today, since only the covenant of uncircumcision is in effect, there is only one salvation for Jew or Gentile and that is Paul’s gospel of grace, despite what Hagee teaches on the Jews having one way to God and us Gentiles another.

Answer to question 3: Yes. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” But please understand that if a Jew today accepts Jesus as His Lord and Savior and then tries to do good works to EARN his salvation, he will not lose his salvation. He is simply confused. If God sent people to Hell for being confused, then all of us would go to Hell. If we attempt to do good works and keep the law to attain salvation without Jesus, then we are doomed. If we attempted to earn our salvation with Jesus, then we are saved, but our walk with the Lord will be unfruitful. “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.”


TeeJay





#118 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 March 2012 - 03:35 PM

UD, I just went back and looked at Post 100. This old man is wrong. I have no idea how I mistakenly thought Ikester had asked me that. I stand corrected. Somehow, I got confused.
Peter wrote his two letters to the Jews. It was the Jews who were scattered because of persecution. Paul’s Roman converts were in Rome. Paul’s Corinthian converts were in Corrinth. His Galatia converts were in Galatia.

Peter, John and James made a deal with Paul that they would go to the Jews and Paul would go to the Gentiles (
Gal. 2:9). "Now those [Jews] who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word TO NO ONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY" (11:19)

Jesus Himself forbid the Twelve from going to any Gentiles, but told them to go only to Israel and Samaria (half Jews) first (
Acts 1:8). Israel's kingdom, and their being an evangelical nation to the world was CONTINGENT on their accepting Jesus as their risen Messiah. This is why the Twelve were preaching their hearts out to Israel: Peter speaking to the Jews: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and He MAY SEND JESUS CHRIST who was preached to you before" (Acts 3:19:20). Did Israel accept Jesus? No. Stoning Stephen was their answer to Jesus' offer. God cut off Israel. Also see 1 Pet. 2:12 and 4:3 for further proof that Peter is talking to the dispersed Jews.

"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable AMONG THE GENTILES that when they [Gentiles] may by your good works which they [Gentiles] may observe, glorify God in the day of visitation" (1 Pet. 2:12).

I have a problem with my grandsons in that they no longer are able to comprehend what they read. And I blame this on them not reading and instead texting, quittering, watching TV, and I-pods and whatever else. Perhaps that's our problem? When you read the above verse, can't you see that Peter is talking to Jews who AMONG the Gentiles and that the GENTILES WILL OBSERVE THE JEWS' good works?

"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the GENTILES--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries" (1 Pet. 4: 3). Surely you don't think that Peter here is talking to Gentiles about Gentiles?

“To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia..” (1 Pet. 1:1). Who in the world do you think Peter is talking about here? I t was not Paul’s believers who were scattered because of persecution; it was the Jews.

When I am debating on this site, I expect reasoned arguments. And I am eager to respond to good arguments. But I can’t argue with someone who will continually argue against self-evident truths. For example, Romans 3:14 states, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Using this passage, I can present a logical argument:

A. Romans 3:14 declares that all men are sinners.
B. Fred Williams is a man.
C. Therefore Fred is a sinner.

Now this is an irrefragable, logical argument that no logical thinking man should ever try to refute. But this is what you are doing. I show you with scripture that Peter wrote to Jews—Scripture that can’t be denied, yet you refuse to admit to any truth.

Now if you want to continue to believe that the circumcision apostles wrote to Gentiles when they did not, then I must let you stay confused.

TeeJay


Teejay, your entire post is a gigantic strawman.

I told you quite clearly that what we were discussing here is the existance of multiple gospels.

What we weren't discussing, and consequently what I have never denied, is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, whereas the other apostles focused their attention on the Jews.

Now since you maintain that there were two separate gospels, don't you think it strange that Paul's letters were being sent to the Jews?

I also noticed that you completely ignored the last part of my previous post, which I think demands a response, since it completely destroys the idea that there was a separate "gospel of circumcision" for the Jews. So let me repeat what I said, in case you missed it.

Here again is what Paul wrote in Galatians 2:15,16:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

This tells us clearly that:

1) legalism is wrong.

and

2) Even Jews know that it is wrong.

And my even my final question was left unanswered:

Which "gospel" applied to Paul?

#119 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 March 2012 - 04:32 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331505315' post='81484']
Teejay, your entire post is a gigantic strawman.

I told you quite clearly that what we were discussing here is the existance of multiple gospels.

What we weren't discussing, and consequently what I have never denied, is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, whereas the other apostles focused their attention on the Jews.

Now since you maintain that there were two separate gospels, don't you think it strange that Paul's letters were being sent to the Jews?

I also noticed that you completely ignored the last part of my previous post, which I think demands a response, since it completely destroys the idea that there was a separate "gospel of circumcision" for the Jews. So let me repeat what I said, in case you missed it.

Here again is what Paul wrote in Galatians 2:15,16:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

This tells us clearly that:

1) legalism is wrong.

and

2) Even Jews know that it is wrong.

And my even my final question was left unanswered:

Which "gospel" applied to Paul?
[/quote]

UD, if you had read my posts in this thread, I alread addressed all these questions you raise.. I will not address them again. As Fred admonished u:. Take time to read what your opponent is saying.

When you admit that Peter wrote his letters to Jews we will continue. I will not play games.

TeeJay

#120 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

Ikester, I will be as patient as you want me to be on this, but I have already explained all this in previous posts. I will explain all this again. Will you at least read it and consider what I post is true or false? Thank you.

Ikester, it is not I who is preaching that. It is God who is preaching that. I did not make it up out of whole cloth. I posted previously what God says, but you seem not to have read it?

Galatians 2:7-9 is proof positive that there were two covenants in effect in the last half of the Book of Acts:


“But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is the Gospel for the Body and the Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].


Gal 6:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Here's the problem. A person cannot undo a covenant that they bare on their bodies already. To break the covenant would put that person in danger of eternal damnation. And like you pointed out so many times here, rejection of Holy Spirit is what? And that's what you do when you break the covenant.And what does God list covenant breakers with?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Other than Peter being dragged by his feet by God to witness to the centurion Cornelius, there is no Biblical record of any Jew under the gospel of circumcision witnessing to any Gentile. Jesus did not command the Jews to go to the Gentiles. He told them to go to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (half Jews) and then, if Israel accepted their risen Messiah, they were “to the end of the earth.”

A careful reading of the first half of Acts reveals that the Twelve were trying their best to convince Israel to accept their risen Messiah so that God the Father would send Jesus back and they would have their kingdom (Acts 3:19:20 for example). Israel answer to God was the stoning of Stephen.



1cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

One Spirit, One body, Two baptisms (one water, one spirit) = One way. What seems like another way unto you is what cannot be broken that is already been committed to. Is God a covenant breaker? Nope Does God want His creation to be covenant breakers? Nope. Can Paul preach the new covanant even though he is in the old one? Of course.

acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.
Holy ghost represents who and what covenant?

acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.


Ikester, why can’t you comprehend that Israel was cut off for unbelief? There is only one Salvation who is Jesus Christ. But can’t Jesus give one set of marching orders to one unit of His troops and give different marching order to another unit of His troops? Your problem is that you fail to fathom that when God cut off Israel for unbelief, Peter, James, John, and all who accepted Jesus Christ under the Gospel of Circumcision were also cut off. Now please understand that this has nothing to do with Peter’s salvation or any individual salvation. He and James and John are with the Lord. But Israel, AS A NATION, was cut off and their program of circumcision, law, and their promised kingdom etc. is included.


What you preach here does not work. There is no middle ground to getting to Heaven. You are either in our out. You cannot be cut off and be cut in at the same time.
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Cut off = losing salvation.
Graff them in "again" = salvation restored.

You cannot do something "again" unless you did it before.


Have you ever read paragraph 1 of Galatians? Paul makes it so clear that he did not get his gospel from men, but he got it from God directly. Paul did not get his gospel from Peter.

Both Groups Saved by Grace

We must understand that both the circumcision and the uncircumcision are saved by grace. Peter verified this at the Jerusalem Council when he was defending Paul’s Gospel of Grace or uncircumcision: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (Acts 15:11). In today’s vernacular it would read: “Let’s face it, guys. Ain’t none of us goin’ make it unless God cuts us a little slack.”

God can add grace to works, but He will not permit adding works to grace. Under the Gospel of Grace, God offers a free gift of love—His sacrifice on the Cross. You can only repay a gift of love with love. If you give your wife a diamond because you love her, and she attempts to repay you with money, you are hurt deeply. She can only repay you for this with her love. So too, under the Gospel of Grace, God does not want you repaying Him because some law requires it. Flowers for your wife every Friday would mean little if your motivation was a State law. On the second Friday, the flowers would go in the trash instead of a vase.

But the Twelve were not given a Gospel of Grace. They were given the Gospel of Circumcision and keeping the Law. They had to be profitable servants, forgive to be forgiven, take the plow and not look back, visit the sick, visit prisoners, have faith, tithe, get circumcised, be baptized, preach the gospel, love Jesus more than their mom, heal the sick, be merciful, give to the poor, give to those who ask, keep the law (the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone), observe various feasts and Sabbaths, if asked to go one mile, go two,(add to the list). And any tree that did not produce fruit was cast into the fire. And, if God forgave you your sins, and then you failed to forgive your brother who sinned against you, then all your sins would be put back on you. Yikes! Such is life under the Gospel of Circumcision (law). If a Jew gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant….” Understand, also, that under the law, one did not ever know if he was saved. His salvation was not assured as it is under the Gospel of Uncircumcision or grace.


I have already addressed this.


Answer to question 1. Today there is only one way, through the gospel of grace preached by Paul. When Peter and Paul were alive, two covenants were in effect. But Peter’s covenant of circumcision was cut off along with the nation of Israel. Peter was saved but Paul and his ministry was in a growth mode while Peter and James were in a maintenance mode. Eventually, all saved under the gospel of circumcision would die out. There is no one alive today who is saved under the gospel of circumcision because that covenant is no longer in effect and has not been in effect for 2,000 years.


Mostly agree.

Answer to question 2: Today, since only the covenant of uncircumcision is in effect, there is only one salvation for Jew or Gentile and that is Paul’s gospel of grace, despite what Hagee teaches on the Jews having one way to God and us Gentiles another.


Is your denominational gospel absolute truth? If so then you need to remove the log out of your own eye.


Answer to question 3: Yes. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” But please understand that if a Jew today accepts Jesus as His Lord and Savior and then tries to do good works to EARN his salvation, he will not lose his salvation. He is simply confused. If God sent people to Hell for being confused, then all of us would go to Hell. If we attempt to do good works and keep the law to attain salvation without Jesus, then we are doomed. If we attempted to earn our salvation with Jesus, then we are saved, but our walk with the Lord will be unfruitful. “Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.”

TeeJay


Why would he be earning salvation if he already has it? The logic you use to make those whom disagree with you does not even make sense. The denominational belief that you preach is actually preaching against kingdom works. Basically always implying that work for God in any form is a sin. And that isf work is required to "maintain" salvation that's a sin also. Basically making the Christian who wants to be lazy for the Lord feel good about doing nothing because nothing is required. Basically osas is the forefront of what's called the spectator church. The Bible foretold this where it is said that we will become like dead dogs forgetting to bark in the time of trouble. Forgetting to sound the alarm, basically doing nothing because being secure in their salvation does not require them to.

If what your denominational belief claims is true, then why have a works judgment that makes it very clear that when your works burn up that same fire that burns them will burn you as so as to be saved by fire.

1cor 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Then we have the judgment before Christ Himself.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
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:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Show me the verse where "salvation" was the issue of either the goats or the sheep? Those judgment verses never say: You are saved, covered by grace, your faith saved you, or anything else implying that. Instead what you see is a "criteria" that is presented to both sides. Only one side met it. Now since salvation is not mentioned here as the main issue, your belief would have to make it works that judged them. My belief says that both groups were saved and the criteria of maintaning that salvation was not met. So salvation was lost and the goats got thrown into Hell.

Does not the Bible have the ability to say salvation or being saved if either were the issue here? That's the part you cannot fantom.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users