Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | BradK | 53949 | ||
Dear Grace and Truth, I must respectfully, take issue with the "principle" you state from Ezek.18:4-32. I would not go to the OT to find doctrine regarding salvation as a NT Body of Christ member! To do so is to not "rightly divide the word of truth". Ezekiel is NOT written to the Body of Christ, but to the Jews under the Law. Further, they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and Christ had not paid the penalty for their(Israels) sins. You are confusing a very basic issue between Law and Grace. Failure to heed the differences of scripture results in confusion and inconsistency in interpretation. Galatians 3:10-14 my friend! Still speaking the Truth in Love, Bradk |
||||||
2 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | bubbatate | 54232 | ||
Dear Brad……. I have to jump in here….I hope you don’t mind. You said, “I would not go to the OT to find doctrine regarding salvation as a NT Body of Christ member! To do so is to not "rightly divide the word of truth". What version of the NT did the Bereans check out when looking for confirmation concerning Y’shua the King (Acts 17:7, 11)? I guarantee you that if the Bereans had been told that this Messiah/King did away with the Law and Prophets in that He “fulfilled” them and because of His teachings and resurrection the Sabbath command had become a thing of the past they would have rejected Him in a heart beat…..which is why so few Jews today will even consider the possibility that “Jesus” is the Messiah. If it doesn’t fit with the word of the LORD they’re not buying it. They, the Bereans as well as Torah loving contemporary Jews, know the mandate for the King of Israel…… DT 17:18 “When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this TORAH, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. [19] It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and FOLLOW CAREFULLY ALL THE WORDS OF THIS TORAH and these decrees [20] and NOT consider himself better than his brothers and TURN FROM TORAH TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT. Then he and HIS DESCENDENTS (that would include Y’shua) will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.” This is not part of the picture that Christian doctrine presents. You said, “Ezekiel is NOT written to the Body of Christ, but to the Jews under the Law….. they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit” Right…..Ezekiel was delivering a message to Israel……notice that the promise of a new heart and THE INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT was promised to ISRAEL (Eze 36:22, 26-27)…….it says nothing about gentiles who have not become naturalized citizens of the nation of Israel. You can’t claim promises specifically given to Israel (e.g. the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) if you are not Israel………that would make the LORD out to be a practitioner of bait and switch tactics. You called yourself a “NT Body of Christ member”………….Fill in the blanks: “I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of ________and with the house of __________.” You cannot put the word “Christians” or "Torahless gentiles" in either blank and keep the integrity of Jer 31:31. It was and is for “Jews”…..period! You proudly announce that you don’t go to the OT for doctrine…..fine…..don’t go there for promises either. That’s not rightly dividing the “word of truth” of which you made mention. Ps 119:43 Do not snatch THE WORD OF TRUTH from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your LAWS. [44] I will ALWAYS OBEY YOUR LAW (TORAH), for ever and ever. [45] I will walk about in FREEDOM, for I have sought out your precepts. Imagine that concept, “Freedom IN the Torah”……that’s the OT concept……..the NT is interpreted as saying, “Freedom FROM the Torah”. What’s wrong with this picture? But then, what about James, he must have gone back to Ps 119 and erroneously imposed it upon the NT, for he says, Ja 1:25 But the man who looks intently into THE PERFECT LAW THAT GIVES FREEDOM, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but DOING IT--he will be blessed in what he does. This is NT and I’ll bet this doesn’t fit your doctrine either…..perfect, law, freedom and works….all in one NT passage! You made the accusation, albeit not to me personally, “You are confusing a very basic issue between Law and Grace.” Ps 119:29 “Keep me from deceitful ways; be GRACIOUS to me through your LAW (TORAH). [30] I have chosen the WAY OF TRUTH; I have set my heart on your laws.” (He is obviously also confused.) Here in Ps 119:29 we have the concept of grace and law appearing in the same sentence……freedom and law and now this! How can this be? Grace and freedom are strictly NT words aren’t they…..used to explain away the Torah? If the author of Ps 119 would come to your church and begin to say his piece, would he be told to clam up because, as you said, “Failure to heed the differences of scripture,” (between the OT and NT) “results in confusion and inconsistency in interpretation.” ? Your analysis of what causes “confusion and inconsistency” is off course by 180 degrees. Singing the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb…..Bub |
||||||
3 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | BradK | 54268 | ||
Dear bubbatate, I don't mind you jumping in in the least. I do concur with the majority of what you said in the spirit in which it was intended. But please don't hear what I'm not saying. Let me clarify. I can't and won't address every point you brought up, for time sake. If you have some specific issues, I'd welcome them as a follow-up though. First off, I may be guilty of not laying a proper foundation to establish a framework in my response you eluded to. It's difficult trying to be succinct and to the point in responding to a Forum member. We risk the possibilty of being misunderstood. We can't always address every possible aspect related to our response so as to prevent any potential for miscommunication. We can all do a better job in communication, for sure. Secondly, there was no attempt to be "proud" about anything in my response. May I suggest leaving out adjectives like this , as they can be viewed as condescending? In no way am I attempting to "fit" anything into my doctrine!( please check out my personal bio if it would be of help) My focus is NOT to promote a particular doctinal bias, be arguementative, or debate matters. On the contary, my purpose for participating in this Forum is to interact in a positive manner, to encourage, edify, and build-up fellow believers. Regarding your accusation about Ps. 119 and my church...? Not true! That's pure conjecture, my friend! You've taken my response TOTALLY out of its' intended context. Can I ask you to kindly refrain from speaking for me or my church?! Remarks like these are exactly what this Forum does not need! Lastly, as far as your final contention that (My) "analysis of what causes confusion and inconsistency is off course by 180 degrees". You are entitled to your opinion, brother. Respectfully Yours In Christ, BradK |
||||||
4 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | bubbatate | 54313 | ||
Dear Brad, Thank you for your response, I apologize for my insolence......I admittedly have a problem with controlling my sarcasm. Bub |
||||||