|
| |
Who has Eternal Insecurity? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Who has Eternal Insecurity? I think the question should be: "Who does not have, does not want and does not believe in Eternal Security?" Wouldn't that person be the most likely one to have Eternal Insecurity.
. . . For the record, my previous answer said nothing about anyone "having" Eternal Insecurity. I thought my point was rather simple: If you believe you have an insecure salvation, then how could you ever have security in it? Put another way, you could have salvation, but never enjoy the security of it because you chose not to believe your salvation was secure. In other words, even if you had security of salvation, what good does it do you in your everyday life,if you don't know or don't believe it exists. You would not enjoy the blessings of your security in this life.
. . . Why would a person even WANT something he doesn't believe in? And how could that person believe in something of which he has no knowledge. Or if he had the knowledge and rejected it, then even if he had the security of the believer, he wouldn't know he had it.
Of course, it's always a matter of faith. But how can one have faith in that of which he has no knowledge? Is not faith built on fact -- the fact of Christ's atonement? |
| |
Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
On Saturday I wrote a reply to your main question already, but it is somehow gone now so I can only assume you never got it either.
To recap, I explained that I didn't intend to use the Eph 2 passage as the best example of specific or particular atonement as a stand alone verse. I was instead citing it as a great source of revelation regarding the issue faith and choice. Sure, you're right to say that faith when first excersized (appears to be) a choice made by people when looked at by man. We make real choices that are have real consequences.
But there is a larger picture and our experience is not reliable to use alone to see the whole picture. So we need to study what is even possible for man to exersize choice over and what things are not possible.
Man can not just believe a specific set of propositional truths and seal some kind of transaction thereby, granting him salvation as a reward. It is too big for man, whose depravity is too all encompassing. The text says it is "through" faith not by works, this rules out a first ordered choice made by man or even. It is not "by" faith. The finest texts use "through" and that is significant. Sinful, unregenerate man did not choose ultimately, God did, nothing else is good news.
When the Bible gives the universal appeals to believe and be saved it gives us the idea that we can make the same offer, and I think that is right. But that is only for evangelism. There could be no other way we could participate in evangelism, unless we are to believe that there is real hope that the person we are talking to is elect, but we most certianly don't know if they are or not.
The Bible makes too many other clear statements regarding God's election of believers for us to be able to to only grab onto the evangelistic appeals and therefore conclude that God did not choose us unto salvation. You are right to say that God must make the first move, but does your silence regarding the second and third moves, etc. mean that you think God's part is exclusively at the cross. Look back at Eph. 1 and see His part was settled in time and space long before that event and it also has nothing to do with us. So when stated to unbelievers we do say it is for them. God willing. I hope I have answered your question.
Eph 2:5 ..even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), |
| |
True...but what about 1 John 1:9? |
|
|
|
1 John 1:9
|
| |
Lifer,
Yes, our salvation is complete because of the complete work of Christ. He has given us complete and utter redemption, justification, sanctification and reconciliation (forgiveness). If it is complete, then what further acts of Christ do we need to be or have what we already are and have?
Hebrews address this same problem. Many 1st century Jews were still going to the Tabernacle to offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. The writer clearly explains how Christ's atonement was complete and brought an end to any future sacrifice (offering) for the forgiveness of sin. That is why Romans 8:1 can say what it says.
I think the problem you are having might be that you are forcing the two verses to fit into perhaps a preconceived idea. I don't believe the two contradict each other because they are part of the same gospel message John is preaching. John is addressing an audience of people who are both unredeemed and redeemed. Perhaps as in our own congregations today there are those who are under the impression they are saved because they walked an aisle, repeated certain words and were baptized. Our Baptist churches are filled with unregenerate church members. John is merely doing the same any preacher would do. When presenting the gospel, there should always be a warning to repent of sin and the consequences for not doing so. There should also be the message of security for knowing that, as Christians, our sins (all) are forgiven (2:12). 1 John 1:9 and 2:12 merely compliment the complete gospel message and warns those who falsely believe they can be saved and have no problems with sin versus those who have problems when they sin and therefore, confess to God to restore the fellowship (not membership) of their relationship.
Sam Hughey |
| |
How old is the earth scripturally? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
My New Friend, Daninjapan,
I appreciate your spirit of reasoning from the scriptures and I hope through this discussion that we both discover God's gracious truth about His creation through His Word. You have succeeded in relating your thoughts very well and I hope that I may do the same. May God's Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.
May I begin by addressing the term evolution as I believe it pertains to our discussion. I would venture to say that those who follow an "old earth creation" as you describe were nonexistent before the evolutionary theories began to emerge in past centuries. Evolutionary thought has had a devastating affect upon believers up to the present day. You may not believe in evolution in it's full implications but the old earth creation view is a stepchild of it's theory of large units of time needed for change and development.
You use the terminology "the bulk of the evidence" for which am I wrong to believe is scientific evidence (which changes continually, unlike God) which has been gathered from an evolutionary biased view? I assert that the bulk of the biblical evidence denies the claim of millions of years for creation. I appreciate your support of Dr Hugh Ross and I do not doubt his or your sincerity, but I fear that you may be trying to make scripture fit your belief rather than letting your belief be molded by scripture. May I suggest that you visit the web site of Dr Carl Baugh, a former evolutionist, who discovers the scientific truth of creation without violating the integrity of the Hebrew or Greek text. This allows science to be a servant of the Word of God instead of it's master. www.creationevidence.org
You have brought up several thought provoking thoughts pertaining to the Genesis account and I would like to comment on them as well as add a few of my own. Before sin, God called His creation good (1:4,10,12,18,21,25) and in Gen 1:31 it was very good. I do not believe that God would call creation good if it was marred by death of any kind (spiritual,physical, human,animal or plant). Although God gave the plant life for food, (1:30) they did not die. Plants that die from consumption were not yet created (2:5, ...plant of the field). After sin, God cursed the creation (3:14-19) which resulted in physical death (1:19). If physical death was introduced by the curse, then there was no physical death previously.
As you stated, Adam and Eve died spiritually when they disobeyed God (ate the fruit) and their physical death was a secondary result. However, God was not literally speaking of spiritual death in 2:17, (for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die) but rather physical death. The word translated die is the Hebrew word taamuwt, which means "to die, to kill, to have one executed, to die (as a penalty), to be put to death, to die prematurely by the neglect of wise moral conduct (from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993). The verse is denoting the penalty of disobedience, not in an immediate sense of that very day but as an inevitable result or consequence of sin. The spiritual death is made known by God's rejection of Adam and Eve by driving them out (3:24) from the Garden of Eden, thereby separating man from God until Christ reunites us by His atonement if we believe. Therefore they died spiritually first and physically later as the natural result of spiritual death is physical death. It may be noted that the first instance of death and sacrifice was after the fall when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins (3:21). I must continue this in another note. I will label it "creation continued". Phillip
|
| |
How old is the earth scripturally? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
There is an old quote that says, "When the common sense of Scripture makes perfect sense, seek no other sense."
That is the sense in which we should take the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The Bible presents these chapters in narrative form. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...And there was evening and there was morning one day." The Bible says that God created the world in six days. In Hebrew, the word day is yom. Except when accompanied with a qualifying word, yom always refers to one literal 24-hour day. For instance, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, not the Age of Atonement.
Two verses are often used to suggest that a day equals an age of approximately one thousand years: Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8. However, these verses do not suggest the Day Age theory. They are only used to support. The proper context does not refer to lenght of creation. In Psalms it illustrates the fact that God has never abandoned Israel, and has always been faithful to them. In 2 Peter it illustrates the fact that God works on a different time-table than us. He fulfills his promised at the best possible time,even thought we may not recognize this.
Theories which attempt to say that a "day" is equivalent to an "age" are attempting to reconcile so-called scientific evidence with Scriptures. This is a dangerous practice. Scripture must always be held in the highest esteem, far above the esteem we grant to science or history. What it comes down to is, will you believe main-stream science or the Word of God.
A sidenote, there is no real evidence for macroevolution (change from one species to another). All the evidence we have interpreted properly and without bias indicates a young earth that was created not evolved.
In Christ,
Koinekid
"Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
| |
Babies in heaven when they die? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"A child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord."
Nolan:
Do babies and others incapable of professing faith in Christ automatically go to heaven?
People often wonder about the eternal destiny of the unborn, babies, and those unable to intellectually understand the gospel. That question is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the Bible offers us no explicit answer. However, based on several passages, as well as an understanding of God's character and His dealings with men, we can develop a good idea of how He works in such situations.
Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven. Though the verse doesn't explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child. Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young.
If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart. However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion. First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children. Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 affirm the Lord's love for them. Jesus not only used children as an example of the qualities of kingdom citizens, but also taught that they each have guardian angels (Matt. 18:10). Those verses don't state that children go to heaven, but they do show God's heart toward children. He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance.
The psalmist reminds us that God is "full of compassion and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth" (Ps. 86:15). He is the God who became flesh that He might carry our sins away by His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the God who will comfort Christians in heaven, for "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death; nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain" (Rev. 21:4). We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love. These considerations alone seem to be evidence enough of God's particular, electing love shown to the unborn and those who die young.
However, another point may be helpful in answering this question. While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation-whether general or specific-not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8). Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.
(http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven7.htm)
© 2000 Grace to You
|
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Joe,
I am certain that Paul and Christ Jesus were warranted in their correction. However, my friend, you are neither Paul nor Christ Jesus. Also, this is an internet forum dedicated to Bible Study, not propunding dogma or rebuking brethren.
Your separate points may or may not have merit, but in toto they are pure Calvinism, falling exactly into the category of dogma.
Some fairly reasonable alternatives have been proposed. Perhaps you cannot hear them for lack of effort.
Judging by your previous statements, my views are not worthy of serious review. I have great respect for Calvin, but have trouble with the Biblical representation of limited atonement. There is abundant evidence that atonement is for all, though strict Calvinists simply say that all doesn't mean all. Supralapsarianism seems indeed to make God into the Author of sin, and man into an automaton, neither of which I believe. Some Arminians deny original sin, which I think is unscriptural. Again, the strict Calvinist doctrine popularly know as 'once-saved, always-saved' is difficult to reconcile with blaspheming the Holy Spirit and other scripture describing 'fallen' brethren. All told, both Calvinist and Arminian dogma have Biblical shortcomings. I cannot adhere to either one. Instead, I claim a more elegant, simpler faith. I am not devoted to a single creed.
Joe, this is as far as I go into arguing the merit of one dogma over another. Especially in this environment. Discussing points of faith with grace and temperance are more in keeping with this particular venue and audience.
Honestly, I do not judge your conclusions. I have a few of my own, arrived at through some study and careful consideration of the Bible. Perhaps some day we will discuss them together.
Praise the Lord! |
| |
Arminianism: Another Gospel? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Greetings Orthodoxy!
Like Nolan, I approach the question of the extent of the atonement from an Arminian perspective. As such, I feel that your characterization of Nolan's view is inaccurate.
Arminian's hold to the doctrine of unlimited Atonement. As such, the atonement is not just potential. It is actual. Christ atoned for the sins of the world. 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse, and many others, make it clear that everyone's sins have been atoned for. Calvanists and Arminians agree that not everyone will be saved. One point we disagree on is how the distintion is made between the saved and the lost.
We may never agree on this point. However, I don't feel that it is fair to make Arminianism 'another Gospel' as you did in one of your earlier posts. Galatians is comparing the Gospel of Grace with the Gospel of Works. Calvanism and Arminianism, while differing at several points, both fall well into the boundarys of orthodoxy. I love to debate with Calvanists, but I don't consider them heretics!
p.s. - I checked out your profile. How is your schooling going? What year are you in? Enjoy your schooling while it lasts. It will be over before you know it. I'm hoping to get back to school one of these days, but it is difficult when you have four kids.
God Bless,
Tim Moran |
| |
Election to Salvation or of Purpose? |
|
|
|
1 John 2:2
|
| |
Greetings,
I wasn't expecting such a quick reply! My counter reply is: You cannot understand the whole unless you understand the parts. An appeal to the whole, to me, means I can't explain the verse! :-)
1) I don't believe I said there was only one way to read it. What I recall saying was that the natural reading is that the whole world refers to the whole world, not just part. For instance, if I said that I ate a whole apple pie today, the natural reading would be that 'whole' refered to the entire pie and not just a part of it. 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)" So, did He or did He not atone for the sins of the whole world? This is the natural reading. If you are going to read it otherwise, you must provide reason for understanding "whole world" in some other way than "whole world."
2) I'll deal briefly with the individual verses that you list later in your post.
a) Romans 9:12-15: Is the election refered to here one of salvation or purpose? No where in this passage does it say that Isaac was saved and Esau was lost. In fact, Romans 9:11-12 states that God's purpose in election, which was not based upon works, was that the older would serve the younger. How does this contradict 1 John 2:2?
b) Jude 4: You lost me on this one! God long ago, wrote about certain godless men who would deny Christ. How does this relate to 1 John 2:2?
c) Eph. 1:11-12: This one deserves much more discussion (maybe a new thread!) My short response is this: The purpose of election in Eph. 1 is to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. The Jews (the we of vs. 11) were the first to respond to the Gospel, but the Gentiles, (the you also of vs. 13) were also included among the elect when they responded to and believed the Gospel. My understanding of election is corporate in nature, not individual (per Robert Shank). Note however, that these verses no where state that Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world. Where is the contradiction to 1 John 2:2?
d) Rev. 20:15: Whose names are written in the book of life? How do they get there? Does this verse say that He did not die for those who are not in the book of life?
3 and 4) From my perspective, you are confusing he offer of the gift with the acceptance of the gift. Atonement has been made once and for all for all sin by Christ on the cross. However, the gift must be received or it does not save. In essence, Christ paid for our sins and now says, "Are you with me or against me?" If we reject His offer, we are lost.
5) Election history: Did God choose to save the indiduals you listed first and choose to condemn the ones listed second? Or did He choose to work through the first and not the second? This is one reason why Calvanist's (in my opinion) prefer to look at the whole and not individual verses, because there is not a single verse that says Christ died only for the elect or only for some. The fact that God choose to make David king over Saul does not mean that some are elected to salvation and others are not.
6) Plus: I can't come up with something to make the atonement conditional upon something other than God. It isn't conditional, it is an accomplished fact that we can choose to accept or reject.
Thanks for you reply! Might I suggest that we narrow the focus in the future. These posts are getting long. You might pick one passage or one area that we could focus on for discussion. I'll go with the flow. Suggestion: Things like T.U.L.I.P. are helpful in distguishing between Calvanism and Arminianism.
God Bless,
Tim Moran |
| |
Pelagianism or Arminianism? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Greetings Orthodoxy!
I actually responded to this post a couple of days ago, but for some reason it was lost (or non-elect :-) ). Allow me to respond to each of your paragraphs.
1) I partially agree with you about TULIP. If you have P, you must have TULI. However, you can have T, without having ULIP. Suppose for instance, that God elected everyone. Arimians believe in T. They just don't go along with ULIP.
2) This is a tough one to answer quickly. Let me state it this way. I believe in an unconditional atonement, but a conditional election. The atonement is an accomplished fact at Calvary. Nothing I do or say will ever change the fact (from my perspective) that He atoned for the sins of the world on the cross. However, I can choose whether or not I want to be a part of the elect body.
3) Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not the same, so I don't know where this paragraph came from or why!
4) I share your concerns about Dr. Hasker's theology. He and I seldom agreed on anything when I was in class under him. However, He was an excellent professor. He was always fair and honest. I definitely would regard him as a brother in Christ, while whole heartedly disagree with his view's on the knowledge and nature of God.
God Bless,
Tim Moran |
| |
How do you respond to these passages? |
|
|
|
1 John 2:2
|
| |
Tim:
You said, "You ask whose sins are people suffering in hell for? Their own, because they refused to accept the sacrifice of Christ, which was sufficient to pay for all our sins."
This is precisely my problem with the view of unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for any ACTUAL sins? Take a person (let's call him "George" for simplicity's sake).
The view of unlimited atonement says that Christ died for George's sin on the cross. If George "refuses the payment," according to Arminianism, then George pays for his own sins for all eternity.
Therefore, we have a case where Jesus AND George pay the penalty for George's sin. The only other alternative I see is viewing Jesus' death on the Cross as only a POTENTIAL atonement for everyone, rather than an ACTUAL atonement for the elect as Calvinists view it. Christ's death really saves no one unless we act in accordance with it. It is terribly troublesome to think that Christ and I both have to do something for Christ's sacrifice to not be a futile one.
If there is another alternative that I am missing in which God ends up being just (no "double jeopardy") and Christ's sacrifice was an actual payment for the actual sins of actual people on the first Good Friday, please point that out to me.
Thanks!
--Joe! |
| |
Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? |
|
|
|
Ex 20:8
|
| |
You're right, Sam. There is THE Sabbath of Ex. 20 and there are other sabbaths of the Jewish calendar given by God, such as the Day of Atonement of Lev. 16. |
| |
Year of Jubilee possible in capitalism? |
|
|
|
Lev 25:33
|
| |
In Leviticus 25:1-55, a provision is made for a seventh-year fallow; but there is no mention of the poor. The reason assigned is that the land, being God's land, must keep Sabbath- the Sabbath principle is extended to cover nature as well as man. We also find here the jubilee ordinances. After 49 years had elapsed, every 50th year was to be inaugurated as a jubilee by the blowing of the trumpet on the Day of Atonement. All slaves were to be emancipated (this may be a modified substitute for the earlier provisions with regard to emancipation after 7 years); no mention is made of the possibility of perpetual slavery, but it is ordained that the Hebrew slave of a foreigner may be redeemed by a relative, all Jews being essentially God's servants. The land was to lie fallow, and providential aid is promised to ensure sufficiency of produce during the period of three years when no harvest could be gathered- the 49th year- which would be a sabbatical fallow, the Year of Jubilee, and the following year, when tillage would be resumed.
Here we also find elaborate directions for the redemption of land in the Jubilee Year. Summarized, they are: 1) No landed property may be sold, but only the usufruct of its produce up to the next Jubilee, and the price must be calculated by the distance from that period. 2) A kinsman may redeem land thus mortgaged, or (the meaning may be) exercise a right of pre-emption upon it. 3) The mortgager may redeem at the selling price, less the yearly proportion for the time elapsed since the sale. 4) House property in walled towns (not in villages) may be sold outright, and is redeemable only during one year. Such property was presumably regarded as human and artificial, while all land was essentially the property of God. 5) The Levitical possessions were redeemable at any time, and did not come under the Jubilee provisions. 6) Nothing is said in Leviticus as to the remission of debts, but there is a general prohibition of usury. 7) In Leviticus 27:16-25 a field devoted to God must be valued at once at a fixed rate, and might be redeemed at this price, plus a fine of 20 percent, up to the year of Jubilee. If not redeemed by then it became sacred property; no redemption of it was thereafter possible.
Sources: "What Everyone Should Know about Economics and Prosperity", "Economics and God", Hasting's Bible Dictionary, The Ryrie Study Bible |
| |
AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Teria:
Do babies and others incapable of professing faith in Christ automatically go to heaven?
People often wonder about the eternal destiny of the unborn, babies, and those unable to intellectually understand the gospel. That question is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the Bible offers us no explicit answer. However, based on several passages, as well as an understanding of God's character and His dealings with men, we can develop a good idea of how He works in such situations.
Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven. Though the verse doesn't explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child. Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young.
If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart. However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion. First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children. Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 affirm the Lord's love for them. Jesus not only used children as an example of the qualities of kingdom citizens, but also taught that they each have guardian angels (Matt. 18:10). Those verses don't state that children go to heaven, but they do show God's heart toward children. He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance.
The psalmist reminds us that God is "full of compassion and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth" (Ps. 86:15). He is the God who became flesh that He might carry our sins away by His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the God who will comfort Christians in heaven, for "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death; nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain" (Rev. 21:4). We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love. These considerations alone seem to be evidence enough of God's particular, electing love shown to the unborn and those who die young.
However, another point may be helpful in answering this question. While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation-whether general or specific-not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8). Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.
(http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven7.htm)
© 2000 Grace to You
|
| |
Original language of Revelation |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
"Several scholars believe Revelation to have been originally written in Aramaic. Here's a few references on that issue.
A SEMITIC APROACH TO THE TEXT OF REVELATION by James Scott Trimm containing TWO books published as one together... The Original Language of the Apocalypse by Robert B. Y. Scott, The Language and Date of the Apocalypse by Charles Cutler Torrey, The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version by John Gwynn
The Greek version of Revelation is hard to defend as the inspired original text, in that it has an enourmous number of errors that don't appear in the Aramaic versions.
ERRORS ONLY IN THE GREEK VERSION OF REVELATION (and other translational evidence)
Charles Cutler Torrey gives ten examples of improper Greek grammar in the Greek version of Revelations as listed below...
Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come" (all nom. case)
Rev. 1:15 "His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gender dative case) as in a furnace purified" (Fem. gender sing. no., gen. case)
Rev. 11:3 "My witness (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth."
Rev. 14:14 "I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a Son of Man (accus.) having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown."
Rev. 14:19 "He harvested the vintage of the earth,
and cast it into the winepress (fem), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God."
Rev. 17:4 "A golden cup filled with abominations
(gen.) and with unclean things" (accus.)
Rev. 19:20 "The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neut.).
Rev. 20:2 "And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.) who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him."
Rev. 21:9 "Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues."
Rev. 22:5 "They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.)."
Now did God inspire John to write in Greek with all those errors, or did John write in the language he knew best (Aramaic) followed by a less than perfect translation into Greek? The Aramaic version of Revelation does not have these "bad grammar" problems. The errors in the Greek text are at least one reason many scholars believe in an Aramaic origin to the book. There are other reasons involving style and how the Greek text tends to use phrasing that is closer to typical Aramaic phrasing than typical Greek phrasing, but this is a difficult thing to demonstrate in a short post like this.
One thing that always struck me as odd about the Greek version of Revelations is why it calls him the ""Alpha" and the "O"". That is the word "Alpha" is spelled out but "Omega" is not - it just has the letter Omega there. I always thought it was strange until I read the Aramaic version for the first time, and then the answer became crystal clear.
In the Aramaic version, it says "I am the Aleph and the Tau", spelling out both the first and last letter of the alphabet. Thus, there is no inconsistancy about how these two letters are referenced. However, In Aramaic, the "Tau" is written with a Tau and a Waw. The shape of a Waw follows the outline of the near side of a Tau so closely in the square Aramaic lettering, that if they were handwritten close enough, one could easily mistake a Tau and a Waw for a fat Tau, and thus translate the Aramaic "Tau" into Greek with a single letter (O - Omega) to try to render the same "sense".
There are two Aramaic versions of Revelation.
1. Peshitta - There's the one that appears in the Peshitta / Peshitto and canonized by the portions of the Eastern Church of Syria (though it had been in circulation before that time). They cannonized the first 22 books of the Bible early, but did not cannonize Revelation and the other of the last 5 books of the New Testament until 508 AD.
2. The Crawford Manuscript of Revelation is published in the last book mentioned above.
Does it matter? Well, each language tells the gospel story of Jesus's death, resurrection, atonement, etc., more or less the same way. It's
really the more minor issues that differences could be drawn. Because the grammar is different, one might get different hint or clues as to the timing of the rapture in reading different manuscripts. So for end times hints, maybe
correctly understanding the right source text might matter to some degree. But most importantly IT MATTERS IN ORDER TO DEFEND THE INTEGRITY OF THE
SCRIPTURES, since the Greek version is filled with bad grammar but the Aramaic version is rather clean."
Part 1 of 2
|
| |
details of curtain in temple splitting |
|
|
|
Matt 27:51
|
| |
"curtain. The inner curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. The tearing of the curtain signified Christ's making it possible for believers to go directly into God's presence (see Heb. 9:1-14; 10:14-22).
"27:51 the veil of the temple. I.e., the curtain that blocked the entrance to the Most Holy Place (Ex. 26:33; Heb. 9:3). The tearing of the veil signified that the way into God's presence was now open to all through a new and living way (Heb. 10:19-22). The fact that it tore "from top to bottom" showed that no man had split the veil. God did it." (MacArthur NKJV Study Bible)
"27:51 veil. I.e., the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple (Ex. 26:33; 38:18; Heb. 9:3). from top to bottom. Showing that God did it, not man. It signified that the new and living way was now open into the presence of God (Heb. 10:20; Eph. 2:11-22). One probable result of this supernatural tearing of the veil is recorded in Acts 6:7b." (Ryrie Expanded Edition NASB Study Bible)
"27:51 the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom: The temple had two veils or curtains—one in front of the holy place and the other separating the holy place from the Most Holy Place. It was the second of these that was torn, demonstrating that God had opened up access to Himself through His Son (see Heb. 6:19; 10:19–22). Only God could have torn the veil from the top." (Nelson NKJV Study Bible)
"Veil The curtain that was torn divided the holy place from the holy of holies, into which only the high priest might enter on the Day of Atonement (see Exo 26:31, note; Lev 16:1-30). The tearing of that curtain, which was a type of the human body of Christ (Heb 10:20), signified that a “new and living way” was opened for all believers into the very presence of God, with no other sacrifice or priesthood except Christ’s (cp. Heb 9:1-8; 10:19-22)." (New Scofield Study Bible)
"Miracle, Redemption—The miracles of that Friday, redemptive in nature, disturbed all creation. Jesus’ death has cosmic significance (Ro 8:18-25). From top to bottom the veil was torn, suggesting God’s action, not human action. The veil had separated worshipers from the Holy of Holies. Jesus’ death made God’s presence accessible to the ordinary worshiper, not only to the High Priest (Heb 10:19-23). The death of the Redeemer had profound meaning for all the dead. Those who rose after Jesus’ resurrection symbolized the hope all people have because of Christ’s resurrection." (Disciple's Study Bible)
"That the curtain of the temple (before the Holy of Holies, which could be entered only by the high priest) is torn from the top at the moment of Jesus’ death implies that it was an act of God, opening access to his presence. The divine affirmation of Jesus and the hope of life beyond the grave are given in the earthquake and the resurrection of the saints (true people of God), reported only in Matthew." (Cambridge Annotated Study Bible)
"27:51 The tearing of the veil refers to the heavy curtain which separated the holy place from the Most Holy Place. The curtain barred the way to the presence of God, and the Law allowed only the high priest to enter and then only on one day each year. The tearing of the veil from top to bottom (indicating that God did the tearing) was symbolic of the open access that all men have to God through the death of Christ. No longer is the priesthood or an annual sacrifice necessary. Christ is both the eternal Sacrifice and the eternal High Priest (cf. Heb. 7-10)." (Believer's Study Bible)
|
| |
input on denomination? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:42
|
| |
I am part of a Calvary Chapel fellowship. CC is not a denominational church, as such, but rather a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Chuck Smith). I came from a Baptist background and was used to solid Bible based teaching. However, I could not deny the gifts of the Spirit as in 1Cor 12. I think CC offers the best balance between Bible based doctrine and exercise of spiritual gifts according to the Word.
Below is CC's STATEMENT OF FAITH by Chuck Smith
Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and be conformed to His image by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only to their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.
We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's Agape love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
We believe worship of God should be spiritual. Therefore, we remain flexible and yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to direct our worship.
We believe worship of God should be inspirational. Therefore, we give great place to music in our worship.
We believe worship of God should be intelligent. Therefore, our services are designed with great emphasis upon the teaching of the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshiped.
We believe worship of God should be fruitful. Therefore, we look for His love in our lives as the supreme manifestation that we have truly been worshiping Him.
We believe in all the basic doctrines of historic Christianity. We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, that the Bible, Old and New Testaments are the inspired, infallible Word of God.
We believe that God is eternally existent in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe that God is the personal, transcendent, and sovereign Creator of all things.
We believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, provided for the atonement of our sins by His substitutionary death on the cross, was bodily raised from the dead, ascended back to the right hand of the Father, and ever lives to make intercession for us.
We believe in the personal, visible, and pre-millennial second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. He will return with His saints and set up a kingdom of which there will be no end. After Jesus ascended to Heaven, He poured out His Holy Spirit on the believers in Jerusalem, enabling them to fulfill His command to preach the Gospel to the entire world, an obligation shared by all believers today.
We believe that all people are, by nature, separated from God and responsible for their own sin, but that salvation, redemption, and forgiveness are freely offered to all by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. When a person repents of sin and accepts Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord, trusting Him to save, that person is immediately born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit, all his/her sins are forgiven, and that person becomes a child of God, destined to spend eternity with the Lord.
We believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Scriptures, and that they are valid for today if they are exercised within the scriptural guidelines. We as believers are to covet the best gifts, seeking to exercise them in love that the whole Body of Christ might be edified.
We believe that love is more important than the most spectacular gifts, and without this love all exercise of spiritual gifts is worthless.
This is not a Calvary Chapel advertisement but you can go to calvarychapel.com for more info.
Hope this helps, retxar
|
| |
"seal of God" |
|
|
|
Ex 1:1
|
| |
Or is it that one must have faith in Jesus AND only worship Him on Saturdays or one's destiny is Hell. Wasn't the atonement of His blood sufficient? |
| |
"Decree" can mean "allow?" |
|
|
|
Gal 2:17
|
| |
Bob:
I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth by virtue of His creation of Lucifer and a human couple he knew would succumb to Satan's treachery.
Another very good example is the crucifixion. Was that a part of God's plan? In other words, did he intentionally send His Son to the earth for the express purpose of being murdered unjustly? I think that most Bible believers will admit that He did just that. What Reformers would argue is that He also orchestrated events so that there would be a party of Jewish leaders called Pharisees would emerge and eventually become hypocritical "whitewashed tombs" that would be His instrument in the death of Jesus Christ.
Now the sticky point comes from this question: did God cause the unjust death of His Son? I hold that the answer is "yes," and I think Scripture supports that as well:
"But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand."
--Isaiah 53:10
Here we read that God "was pleased" to actively participate in the crucifixion. However, we also see that the guilt of actually killing Jesus rests on the Pharisees, not on God:
"Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become."
--Acts 7:52
We have a seeming paradox here. God orchestrated events so that Christ would die; it was no accident, and it was far more than a case of "a necessary contingency to insure optimal design." As I stated before, this is "Plan A." On the other hand, it is the Pharisees who bear the blame for the actual murder of Jesus, through which people who are guilty of rebelling against our Holy creator are saved.
Now the question you seem to be interested in is, "Did God MAKE the Pharisees sin?" The Pharisees were born sinners, so the answer to that is "no." On the other hand, God directed their innate sinfulness through circumstance and withholding repentance so that the very act he decreed (the atonement) would take place.
We see the same thing in the case of the Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already a sinner, but God hardened his heart so that he would not be "saved," so to speak, so that God would be glorified through the Exodus. Could God have changed Pharaoh's heart so that he would "let His people go"? Absolutely, but he chose rather to utilize the Egyptian's innate sinfulness for His purposes. Does that mean that Pharaoh was not responsible for his actions? No; he was not willingly cooperating with God, although in God's sovereign decree he did just that.
Same holds true for Satan. Satan chooses to be evil, but we see in Job 1 where God most actively directs that evil in a particular direction (Job-ward).
So we see from Scripture that God brings into existence evil people (after all, isn't that exactly how you and I started out?) for His purposes. Some He doesn't save. Some He does. Both are responsible for their own sins. God shows mercy to the latter, but both groups of people God decreed would exist and both serve his purposes.
Romans 9 gives a much more lucid argument than I have here regarding "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath" (imagine that: the Holy Spirit explaining it better than me!). It is undoubtedly a hard issue to wrestle with from a finite, human perspective, but the bottom line is that on a certain level God intends that sin exist for now and that it work for His purposes. Just as he brings Moses and Paul into existence for His purposes, so he brings Pharaohs and Pharisees into existence for His purposes as well. Our roles are decreed, and yet we are guilty of our own sin, not God.
Complicated? Yes, but also very biblical!
Feel free to respond, Bob. I don't mind wrestling throught his issue with you at all!
--Joe! |
| |
What is "the Law" and grace about? |
|
|
|
Rom 7:12
|
| |
Define "the Law."
… a rule that was parceled by God (authority) to give me direction, having positive or negative consequences. For the Jews, it is the Law of Moses. There are 613 laws. While some people want to categorize them, the Bible does not. For us gentiles, God still gives us laws, including those He gave Noah in Genesis 9 and the New Testament.
Define "grace."
… His willingness to provide us with His enablement to find favor in God's eyes (Gen 6:8). Grace does not overlook sin. Rather, it is grace that is needed to bring righteousness into action in our lives (Rom 5:20-21). Mercy forgives us of sin, but it is grace that enables us not to sin.
What is the relationship between the two?
... For Christianity, the concept of grace has to do with God's willingness to overlook our breaking His law under the condition that we have accepted the atonement of Christ's death in our place. Without any law, there would be no need for grace. With law, there is need for grace.
Can they co-exist or be separated? Explain.
... They must co-exist, see above.
What is the purpose of the Law?
... To restrain sinfulness (Gal 3:19)
... To rebuke sin (Gal 3:22)
... To reveal our need for Christ (Gal 3:24)
How does "the Law" or any law effect our lives, today?
... The bottom line is this: the end of the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments as a legal code, does not cancel or detract from our obligation to obey the eternal moral law of God. God's moral law is as eternal and as unchangeable as the character of God. Therefore, the abolition of the Mosaic Law code in no way leaves us in a state of lawlessness (Rom 6:1,14; 7:6).
Are we told we don't have to follow "the Law"?
... Nowhere tells us gentiles that they are not to keep the covenant of God. Paul says that we should not expect atonement for sin based solely on obedience to some of the commandments. The law itself says blood sacrifice brings atonement. James wrote further, "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet offends (beaks) only one point (commandment), he is guilty of (breaking) the whole law." (Jam 2:10) He is saying, keeping the commandments cannot produce atonement even if it were permitted. At the same time he said "Faith without works is dead." (Jam 2:17). Our faith in God's laws cause us to receive the atonement of Christ's blood sacrifice atones for sin.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome," (1 John 5:3)
Steve |
| |
Where does your righteousness come from? |
|
|
|
Rom 7:4
|
| |
Bill, you avoided the question on the Law, grace and mercy. Read what I have. Do you disagree?
Answer the questions I posed.
Define "the Law."
… a rule that was parceled by God (authority) to give me direction, having positive or negative consequences. For the Jews, it is the Law of Moses. There are 613 laws. While some people want to categorize them, the Bible does not. For us gentiles, God still gives us laws, including those He gave Noah in Genesis 9 and the New Testament.
Define "grace."
… His willingness to provide us with His enablement to find favor in God's eyes (Gen 6:8). Grace does not overlook sin. Rather, it is grace that is needed to bring righteousness into action in our lives (Rom 5:20-21). Mercy forgives us of sin, but it is grace that enables us not to sin.
What is the relationship between the two?
... For Christianity, the concept of grace has to do with God's willingness to overlook our breaking His law under the condition that we have accepted the atonement of Christ's death in our place. Without any law, there would be no need for grace. With law, there is need for grace.
What is the purpose of the Law?
... To restrain sinfulness (Gal 3:19)
... To rebuke sin (Gal 3:22)
... To reveal our need for Christ (Gal 3:24)
How does "the Law" or any law effect our lives, today?
... The bottom line is this: the end of the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments as a legal code, does not cancel or detract from our obligation to obey the eternal moral law of God. God's moral law is as eternal and as unchangeable as the character of God. Therefore, the abolition of the Mosaic Law code in no way leaves us in a state of lawlessness (Rom 6:1,14; 7:6).
Are we told we don't have to follow "the Law"?
... Nowhere tells us gentiles that they are not to keep the covenant of God. Paul says that we should not expect atonement for sin based solely on obedience to some of the commandments. The law itself says blood sacrifice brings atonement. James wrote further, "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet offends (beaks) only one point (commandment), he is guilty of (breaking) the whole law." (Jam 2:10) He is saying, keeping the commandments cannot produce atonement even if it were permitted. At the same time he said "Faith without works is dead." (Jam 2:17). Our faith in God's laws cause us to receive the atonement of Christ's blood sacrifice atones for sin.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome," (1 John 5:3)
People that mix law and grace do not understand them.
Have you noticed that your Bible is divided into 2 sections?
… Yes. It is there are two Testaments, not covenant.
The Old Covenant and the New?
… Did you know there are more than two?
Do you understand the difference between them?
… Yes, I understand the difference between them all. If you do, explain.
Look at Galatians 3:2,3 - Paul says, "This is the only thing I want to find our from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" How would you answer this question, Steve?
… By hearing with faith.
Then, "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected (Mat 5:48) by the flesh (trying to establish your own righteousness apart from God's)?" How would you answer this question?
… You mixed Scripture and changed what Matthew 5:48. I suggest you repent. It does not say "you now being perfected," but it is what I am to be - perfect. Read Eph 2:10 to see how works fits in.
Answer my questions, since I answered yours.
Steve |
| |
How are you being perfected? Law? |
|
|
|
Rom 7:4
|
| |
Steve,
Let's use yours (some of them contradict quite nicely). See my comments in ::
Define "the Law."
… a rule that was parceled by God (authority) to give me direction, having positive or negative consequences.
::You said in your prior post that you don't have to experience the consequences of not keeping the Law - no judgement::
For the Jews, it is the Law of Moses. There are 613 laws. While some people want to categorize them, the Bible does not
::true - so look up all the references that says that we, Christians, are no longer under law. Please let me know how many you find.::
For us gentiles, God still gives us laws,
::true, the law of Christ, not the laws of Moses::
including those He gave Noah in Genesis 9
::Nope::
and the New Testament
::look up the greek for 'testament' - it is the same as covenant::
Define "grace."
… His willingness to provide us with His enablement to find favor in God's eyes (Gen 6:8). Grace does not overlook sin
::Hold this thought - GRACE DOES NOT OVERLOOK SIN - your statement. Hebrews 10:17 says that God does::
Rather, it is grace that is needed to bring righteousness into action in our lives (Rom 5:20-21)
::These verse are describing what Christ has done-His actions, our actions, righteousness is imparted, then lived out::.
Mercy forgives us of sin, but it is grace that enables us not to sin.
::true::
What is the relationship between the two?
... For Christianity, the concept of grace has to do with God's willingness to overlook our breaking His law under the condition that we have accepted the atonement of Christ's death in our place.
::OK, the thought I asked you to hold onto - GRACE DOES NOT OVERLOOK SIN - is contradicted right here. Now does it or doesn't it? You can't have it both ways.::
Without any law, there would be no need for grace. With law, there is need for grace.
::The question is, with grace, is there need for law? No. Why? Because we have something better. We have the indwelling Spirit of God to lead us. We are to be lead by the Spirit not the law.::
What is the purpose of the Law?
... To restrain sinfulness (Gal 3:19)
... To rebuke sin (Gal 3:22)
... To reveal our need for Christ (Gal 3:24)
::true, and, in my life, it has done that. It did reveal my need for Christ. I am now joined to Him, not the law (Romans 7 - first part)::
How does "the Law" or any law effect our lives, today?
...Therefore, the abolition of the Mosaic Law code in no way leaves us in a state of lawlessness (Rom 6:1,14; 7:6).
::true, we are not left in a state of lawlessness. We are left with the Spirit of God - the law of Christ, a higher law - love, ruling in our hearts.::
Are we told we don't have to follow "the Law"?
... Nowhere tells us gentiles that they are not to keep the covenant of God.
::That is because the Gentiles were NEVER given the Law (Mosaic). Instead, Paul has to try to show the Jews, who were given the Law, that they are no longer under it.::
Paul says that we should not expect atonement for sin based solely on obedience to some of the commandments. The law itself says blood sacrifice brings atonement...Our faith in God's laws cause us to receive the atonement of Christ's blood sacrifice atones for sin.
::FALSE - our faith in the SACRIFICIAL DEATH OF CHRIST causes us to receive the forgiveness of sins. His death alone reconciled us to God. His death took sins away, NEVER atoned (covered) them. Try to find the word atonement used of Christ's sacrifice in the NT::
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome," (1 John 5:3)
::true, the law of Christ - love is never burdensome::
People that mix law and grace do not understand them.
Have you noticed that your Bible is divided into 2 sections?
… Yes. It is there are two Testaments, not covenant.
::Again, check the word::
The Old Covenant and the New?
… Did you know there are more than two?
Do you understand the difference between them?
… Yes, I understand the difference between them all.
::Your position shows that, indeed, you do not. You mingled them together::
If you do, explain.
::I have been trying to::
Look at Galatians 3:2,3
… By hearing with faith.
::right, so...::
Then, "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected (Mat 5:48) by the flesh (trying to establish your own righteousness apart from God's)?" How would you answer this question?
… You mixed Scripture and changed what Matthew 5:48. I suggest you repent.
::Already have::
Answer my questions, since I answered yours.
::Not my last one, are you being perfected (made complete, righteous in God's sight) by the flesh? Yes or No. Easy question.::
In Christ,
Bill Mc
|
| |
How can Christ return be imminent? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I also think the Lord told us to "watch" because it will stengthen our faith... as we see His prophecies fulfilled.
A while back I was involved in a study of the Feast Days of the Lord (given to the Israelites BY GOD). It was very interesting, especially since 4 of those Days have literally been fulfilled during Christ's first coming; each on the exact corresponding Jewish Feast Day.
The first time they occurred to protect and save Israel, and were then to be celebrated by the Israelites as a remembrance and also a forshadow of how "God-saves" (complete plan of redemption).
Now I don't know what year, and since even the Hebrew calendar has been changed I don't think we can KNOW the actual DAY of those Feasts to come either. But it is interesting that they will/should occur on the actual fall Feast Day in the future.
1. PASSOVER
OT. In remembrance of the first Passover, the Israelites were to use two sacrificial goats, one as a blood sacrifice for sin and the other one as the scapegoat.
NT. Jesus' death on the cross was a literal fulfillment of Passover, when His blood was shed on the cross for our sins, and He was our scapegoat in taking on the penalty for our sins.
2. FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.
OT. It was celebrated by eating ONLY unleavened bread. (In scripture unleavened bread represents corruption. It is the agent that causes fermentation.)
NT. Christ fulfilled this feast day when His body did not decay (corrupt) in the grave.
3. FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS.
OT. The firstfruits (first sheaf of the harvest is cut) and presented to the Lord. The Lord's acceptance of this gift is an "earnest", or a pledge on His part of a full harvest.
NT. This was fulfilled in Christ's resurrection from the dead (firstfruit from the dead), when He went to the Father (John 20:17). The Father's acceptance of Christ as the firstfruit, means that there would be a full harvest in season.
4. FEAST OF WEEKS.
OT. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments written on stone. It was celebrated by having the people bring 1) firstfruits of the fall harvest, and 2) two loaves of LEAVENED bread.
NT. The Holy Spirit was given on the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and God began writing His Commandments on men's hearts (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 10:16). The "firstfruits of the fall harvest" represented the apostles in that upper room, and the "two loaves of leavened bread" represented the JEWS and the GENTILES, both still having sin in their midst (not having been perfected yet).
5. FEAST OF TRUMPETS.
OT. This feast was celebrated using a "shofar" [special trumpet), which had two separate functions. One was to call a solemn assembly, when Israel was to be summoned to God's presence (Ex. 19:13,17,19; Num. 10:2), and also when under divine direction, Israel was to go to war (Num. 10:9; Jud.7; Jer. 4:19-21).
NT. The Feast of Trumpets represents the second coming of the Lord to rapture His church and judge those left on the earth. (The church will be raptured and the Lord's wrath will commence on the earth.)
6. DAY OF ATONEMENT.
OT. This is celebrated with the high priest offering sacrifices for himself and the people's sins that were committed in ignorance (Heb. 9:7,8).
NT. Jesus mentioned this event in the Olivette discourse, where He speaks of separating (judging) the sheep (those who committed unintentional sin) and the goats (those who committed intentional sin)[Matt. 15:31-34]. Christ's atoning sacrifice will then be made available to the survivors of the great tribulation (Isaiah 24:6) who will physically enter the thousand year reign of Christ on earth.
7. FEAST OF TABERNACLES.
OT. This was celebrated by each family erecting a little hut or booth, hanging samples of the fall crop on the structure to acknowledge God's faithfulness in providing for His people. It is an 8 day feast, the 8th being primary. On that day there was a large procession from the Temple Mount to the Pool of Siloam where a pitcher was filled with water. They then proceeded back to the Temple Mount. Since the rains usually stop in March in Israel, there is no rain for almost 7 months. If God does not provide the "early" rains in October and November, there will be no spring crop and famine would be at the doorstep. This ceremony was to invoke God's blessing on the nation by providing life-giving water.
NT. This feast represents the gathering of God's children and the rivers of living water that would be available to them continually (John 7:37,38). This feast day represents Christ's millenial kingdom, when Christ will tabernacle with men.
The Bible says that Christ was foreordained before the creation of the earth to save those who believe (1Pet. 1:20,21), and I think the Feast Days that God commanded Israel show that His entire plan of salvation was clearly laid out from the very beginning.
There |
| |
Where are the scriptures, believers? |
|
|
|
Matt 6:15
|
| |
Dear Nolan,
"Are you, Bill, completely sinless and without sin?"
In my spirit, my true identity, I have been joined to Christ's Spirit. I am in spiritual union with Him. Because of that union, my identity has been changed from 'sinner' to 'saint.' So, my spirit, joined to Christ can NEVER sin.
My soul (my mind, emotions, and will) can still sin. It is in the process of being sanctified and is not perfect or sinless.
My body still has what Paul calls 'indwelling sin.' As Paul says, it is in me but it is NOT me. Left to it's own, it will sin. My body (unfortunately) has not yet been redeemed. But it only houses my soul and spirit.
"What happens if you do sin?"
If I commit a sin, the Holy Spirit convicts me of that sin and says, "Bill, you just...fill in the blank. Don't you know that you are acting contrary to your new identity in Christ? You don't have to sin anymore. Christ has set you free." So I confess (agree with God) that sin is sin and ask Him to show me where my mind needs to be renewed (exposed to the truth of God's Word). As He renews my mind (a process), my actions follow.
"Do you, although you are a believer, not ask for Christ to forgive you of your sins, which were done after you accepted Christ?"
No, I don't. If you look at all the verses I posted about forgiveness, you'll see that they are all past tense or present tense. I.e. forgiveness is something we received when we received Christ and we NOW currently possess it. Just as I don't, when I sin, ask God to save me, reconcile me to God, redeem me, justify me, etc. In Him, I have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. So, Nolan, if I don't ask God for it, then what do I do? I thank Him for what I already have. I thank Him that He died to forgive that sin and ask Him to conform He in my soul and body to the spiritual image of Christ that is ever present in my spirit.
Do you, Nolan, ask God to save you when you sin? Why not? Because He has already done it. Do you ask Him to redeem you when you sin? No, He has already done it. Forgiveness is the same. Asking God for what you already have is not faith. It is unbelief. Asking God to forgive you when you commit a sin is saying that you don't believe He did at the cross.
And yet, we will turn right around and tell a sinner, come forward and get ALL your sins forgiven. What we mean is, come forward and get only your past sins forgiven. I have news for you, my friend. Every sin that you ever committed, currently commit, or will ever commit has been paid for at the cross. If Christ blood didn't take away your future sins, then it did nothing with your past sins either. God is outside of time and not bound by our feeble view of it. Christ dealt with sins ONCE and FOR ALL. I'm sorry if you don't believe that.
Maybe we should change our hymns and sing:
He Took Some of My Sins Away
Jesus Paid It Some
What Can Wash Away My Sin, Nothing But My Confession
Calvary Covers Only What's Confessed
Turn Your Eyes Upon Your Sin
It Is Almost Finished
Praise God, My Sins Are Nearly Gone
Talk to the writer of "It Is Well With My Soul" when you get to heaven and tell him he was wrong when he wrote, 'My sin, not in part, but the whole, is nailed to the cross. I bear it no more. It is well with my soul.' Maybe he never read 1 John 1:9.
I don't mean to be sarcastic but we have so little understanding of what Christ has done for us. We are so concerned with our sins that His grace eludes us. We are no different that the Jews who had to keep going back to the Day of Atonement, year after year, and asking for more forgiveness. We have them beat. We ask it day after day, sometimes hour by hour. Do you think God is pleased with our lack of faith when Christ said, "IT IS FINISHED! PAID IN FULL!"?
In Him, Bill Mc |
| |
legal and illegal legalism |
|
|
|
Matt 5:20
|
| |
Well after reading through the varied replys both pre and post my two bit comment. I thought the best place to launch my further comments would be from this post on semantics.
If it is true to say that the whole bible is about semantics and we are talking about special inspired revelation, then what can we say about the whole of Creation? For preceeding Creation was the Word and the Word was with G d and G d was the very selfsame Word. We are told that no thing has come into being which is in being except by or through or by the express agency of the self same Word. Can we then conclude that the notion of Semantics is even broader a concept than its common usage? For if the Bible is the study of meanings then how much more so the entirety of Creation? We could even conclude that the various philosophic expressions found amongst men even their laws and governance
have been one exercise not in futility but in contrast to the superiority of G d's Law?
However, could we rightly access the integrity and authority of the Word of G d without compliance to its precepts? Can we so quickly brand and dismiss what was and continues to be at issue in the formation of the Creation and in the redemptive plan employed by G d? For it has always been the Word of G d which was and is challenged and usurped by the agents of the Satan. And it has always been the integrity and aauthority of that Word which has been contradicted by those which resent its authority. The Word does not exist in a legal less vacuum. Compliance with it is a must, even as it must it be respected, and practiced, in order to do justice to it and give homage to Him who is the author of that Word.
So if Creation was formed by the express will of Hashem, who calling things into being which are not, maintains all including the Satan, by the incontestable authority of His Word, how much legalism is there in that process?
Is G d legalistic? Yeap! Does He tell you the way tthat you should walk? Lets consider that the every yodh iota and pintele dot of the Law is sacred and so much so that we are told that the infraction of the least of the Commandments is tantemount to the infraction of the whole of the Commaandments How legalistic is that in terms of righteousness? So if our Mashiach had in the most miniscular point of the Torah LAW, been found in violation to the laws binding on a Jew of his station and lifestyle situations, he would have been no better off than the first Adom who sinned... and we would have no sanctioned atonement to satisfy G d's righteousness ands no second Adom progenitor of the redeemed in his name.
The Mashiach's Torah defined righteousness, sealed by his death, permitted us to appropriate that sinless death or better said Torah righteousness, unto ourselves. This is pure legalism of the theocratic kind!
In other words no one gets in or is righteous enough,.. who does not comply with the program!
Well you might say we are now under a different standard and we've gained a new mobility and freedom from the Law of sin and death. What does that mean? Compliance or comformity to the Spirit of G d remains the bottom line... For we are told that He will write the Law on the hearts of the community of Israel in that day to come... The same righteousness of the Torah which was upheld and satisfied by the Mashiach continues to remain the means by which THE MASHIACH satisfied G d righteousness and our need for righteousness.
This is the legality of the legalism woven by Hashem into the Creation before the formation I come to do thy Will.
It was and remains the contention between Mashiach and the builder of Rabbinic tradition, It is the essence of what shall be made manifested as the illegality of the Rabbinic legalism and the illegality of all gentile systems which have stood counterpoint to and have usurped the ancient Authority of the Word, of
G d, His Torah and our Mashiach.
Final point... What was accomplishe on the tree..cross? The Vindication of the Word the rightful authority of G d, and the legality of His rule. This is what was challenged in ancient times by the Satan, and this is what has been usurped and then opposed by him and his agents till that time to come. brchk Hshm!
bshm Hshm,
EbnZhr lefayt |
| |
Who received the blood ? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hi Ricardo,
I'm not sure what you mean by who received the blood from the animal sacrifices, but the Law demanded that they be made to cover 'atone' for the sins of the people. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (forgiveness) of sins. Why? Because Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin, what we deserve when we sin, is death. And Leviticus tells us that the life is in the blood.
But God, being merciful, allowed the substitution of animal's deaths (the shedding of their blood) to represent what the sinful Israelites deserved. As your verse here says, He didn't take pleasure in them or desire them because of what He says in verse 4 and 11 - the blood of bulls and goats could NEVER take away sin - only cover it. And then, only for one year until the next Day of Atonement when the whole process would be repeated. Christ's blood, on the other hand, being perfect, takes away the whole sin issue between God and man. His sacrifice was one sacrifice for all men for all sins for all time - seen verse 10,14. See also Hebrews 9:25-28. Plus, He did something that the Old Testament sacrifices couldn't do - He made us perfect in God's sight - completely! See Hebrews 10:1,10,14.
What a wonderful Savior! Now, because of the sacrifice Christ made we can draw near to God, and as Hebrews 10:16-18 says, He remembers are sins no more! And we are righteous in God's sight. Old Testament worshippers new was forgiveness was. But they didn't have God dwelling inside them. What amazing grace! I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Bill Mc |
| |
Shouldn't we obey ALL God's Word? |
|
|
|
Matt 6:14
|
| |
Steve,
Lev 5:5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these (sins), that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
Lev 5:6 'He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin.
Do you do this everytime you sin? Why not? According to your interpretation, THUS SAITH THE LORD, right? Isn't this in God's Holy Word? Do you have the right to cut this verse out of God's Word? Or are you going to twist it? Wasn't this a command to God's people? Aren't you one of God's people? Isn't God the same, yesterday, today, and forever? Doesn't His Word stand forever? THOU SHALT DO IT!
To quote a forum authority on the proper interpretation of God's Word, "You may choose to ignore this passage, or think it does not fit with the rest of the Bible. But, I think you need to accept it and obey it." Wouldn't you agree with him?
|
| |
Why is "laying on of hands" so important |
|
|
|
Heb 6:2
|
| |
Greetings Listener!
Here are a few resources that may help us in our understanding of "laying on of hands"..
"The author urges the readers of his letter to leave the basics and go on to perfection, meaning “maturity.” He lists six items in three couplets that he calls the elementary principles of Christ (see “the first principles” in 5:12). (1) Repentance from dead works refers to a change of mind about the demands of the Law of Moses (9:14). Even though the Law was good (see 1 Tim. 1:8), it was weak because of the weakness of our sinful nature (see Rom. 8:3). (2) What is needed for salvation is not lifeless works that cannot save, but faith directed toward God. (3) Baptisms refers either to the various baptisms in the New Testament (the baptism of Christ, of John, of believers, and the spiritual baptism of believers), or to the various ritual washings practiced by the Jewish people. (4) In the Book of Acts, the laying on of hands was used to impart the Holy Spirit (see Acts 8:17, 18; 19:6). It was also used for ordination for ministry (see Acts 6:6; 13:3). This practice is also found in the Old Testament in commissioning someone to a public office (see Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9) or in the context of presenting an sacrificial offering to the Lord (see Lev. 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 8:14; 16:21). (5) Resurrection from the dead refers to the resurrection of all people at the end times (Rev. 20:11–15). The resurrection is an Old Testament teaching (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2) which was widely taught in first-century Judaism, especially by the Pharisees. To Christians, belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was essential, for without His resurrection there is no forgiveness of sin (see 1 Cor. 15:12–17). (6) Eternal judgment refers to the belief that everyone will be judged by the great Judge. The Scriptures indicate that there are two judgments: one for believers, in which Jesus determines every believer’s reward (1 Cor. 3:12–15), and the other a judgment of condemnation on unbelievers (Rev. 20:11–15)." (The Nelson NKJV Study Bible)
"6:1-8 The call is for them to move toward maturity (see footnote at 6:1), in contrast to the basic initial instruction they received about repentance, resurrection and baptism. Laying on of hands probably refers to the formal act of the leader when a convert has been baptized and is accepted into the community. At the same time, those who have shared in the benefits of the community—enlightenment, the gifts from heaven, the Holy Spirit’s presence and power—but who have abandoned it are beyond hope of restoration. They have now identified themselves with the enemies of Jesus who put him to death, and are doomed to an eternal curse." (Cambridge Annotated Study Bible)
"Laying on of hands—Was also frequent, especially in sacrifices: the person bringing the victim laid his hands on its head, confessed his sins over it, and then gave it to the priest to be offered to God, that it might make atonement for his transgressions. This also had respect to Jesus Christ, that Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the NT)
The "Laying on of hands" was used to impart the Holy Spirit, for healing, for sacrifices and for ordination. But I am at a loss as to apply this principle for today other than during ordination or if you have the supernatural gift of healing. Otherwise, this "essential" practice or foundational principle has lost its importance or relevance among Christians today.
Nolan |
| |
Tim, here is my explanation - 3 parts |
|
|
|
Matt 6:14
|
| |
Dear Tim,
I'll post this as a question so that you'll be able to see it (and hopefully Steve also). Sorry it's taken so long to answer but it took me a while to get all my thoughts organized, type it out, and try to keep it as concise as possible. Please, please look up the scripture references. Don't believe it just because I say it (I'm probably not risking that danger here on the forum anyway). It's in 3 parts. Here goes:
Let’s start by laying down a couple of foundational principles concerning the forgiveness of sins:
1) The wages of sin is death – Rom 6:23; Eze 18:4. Why? Because, in God’s economy, He has stipulated that disobeying Him results in forfeiture of life. This ‘life’ is primarily spiritual life (union with God), with physical death being a picture of spiritual death (separation from God). When Adam and Eve sinned, they spiritually died that very day although they physically died much later – Gen 2:17. This forfeiture of life is physically represented by the shedding of blood, where Lev 17:11 says that physical life dwells. Therefore, whenever anyone sins, they deserve to be spiritually separated from God (spiritually dead) with physical death as an illustration of that principle. But God, not wanting His creation to be or remain separate from Him, provided forgiveness for sins by the shedding of blood – Heb 9:22. This, I believe is the only means of providing forgiveness for sins.
2) Only God can forgive sins – Mark 2:7. Why? Because, being holy and righteous, sins are a personal offense against Him and His character.
3) God devised two ways of administering forgiveness of sins to mankind. In the Old Testament (Covenant), God, in His mercy, allowed animal blood to be shed in substitution for human blood. This mainly had to be done once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This animal blood covered ‘atoned for’ sins but did not take them away – Heb 10:11; Heb 10:4. Why? Because the animals had not sinned, man had. And although God personally took no pleasure in the sacrifices Heb 10:6,8, under law, He allowed them to be made. While the animal sacrifices covered sins, those sins were actually not paid for by human blood until Christ died at the cross. Heb 9:15 makes this clear. So…
4) Under the New Testament (Covenant), God, in amazing grace and mercy, accepted the sinless blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, as full payment for the sins of all mankind. This propitiation on Christ’s behalf ‘takes away’ the sins of all mankind (those born before the cross and those born after) permanently – Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; Heb 9:26; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10.
5) So, Christ death and shedding of blood on the cross becomes the focal point of the whole forgiveness issue. His precious blood took away all sins for all people for all time. It was an eternal act of God, being executed in time but not bound by it – Heb 4:3. His death is what ushered in the New Covenant of which He is the mediator. Heb 9:16,17 makes it clear that the New Covenant, Testament, Will (all the same word in Greek) did not go into effect until the death of the One who made it. Even in our society, your will, if you have one, does not go into effect until the day you die. Once you die, your will cannot be changed or revised and all wills prior to your last one are null and void. And, I believe, that the Old Will (Covenant) is no longer binding – Heb 8:13; Heb 10:9,10. It was only a shadow of the reality of Christ in us, the hope of glory – Heb 10:1.
End of part 1 - See part 2
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
