The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

[The Biblicist]

Again, the same false argument you have been repeating over and over, and that you have been corrected on over and over.

Once again, I have never said the Old Testament Saints were not saved.

Yes you have or else you don't know the meaning of "saved" in relationship to the problem in Eden????? Salvation is the solution that must be capable of resolving the problem. The problem is sin and spiritual separaton and you do not believe Old Testament saints are "saved" at all but continued in the problem of spiritual separation. Where there is remission of sins there is no spiritual separation from God, but your Old Testament gospel has no solution to the problem.

They were as eternally secure as you and I.

No one who exists in spiritual separation from God is secure or saved. That is a pure fantasy of imagination. If one is spiritually separated from God they are WITHOUT LIFE, WITHOUT LIGHT and WITHOUT HOLINESS and no man without those things is saved or safe.

That doesn't mean we have to eisegete the Comforter and New Birth into the Old Testament in order to make sure people understand we believe they were saved.

You could not be more wrong. Where there is no new birth there is no subjective salvation at all. Job said it well, and in the context of the product of the natural birth, can anyone bring a clean thing from an unclean thing? NOT ONE - including God. "the flesh" cannot be saved but must be destroyed. The sin cursed earth cannot be saved but destroyed by fire and creation of a new heaven and earth. The new birth is a necessity for every fallen man (Jn. 3:3-6) without which there can be no subjective salvation at all for any fallen man at anytime. You simply don't understand what the new birth is or you would not say such things.

And there it is: you are giving a "force" to the Covenant of Law that Scripture denies.

This is why you can overlook what this...


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

You are shooting yourself in the foot by quoting these texts. Of course the substance is better than the "shadow" because the shadow could NEVER take away sin nor was ever provided as a means to remove or deal with literal sin. What LITERALLY removed sin between Eden and Acts 2:1 is the very same thing that LITERALLY removed sin for us - JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. The ONLY difference is they looked forward by faith and received remission of sins (Acts 10:43) not by sacrifices but by faith in Christ and we look back to its fulfillment. Romans 3:25-26 declares that the provision justified God for actually justifying them by faith before the provision occurred.

Of course after the type was fulfilled, the type ceased, but the type NEVER literally removed sin or dealt with sin.

...and this...


Hebrews 9:16-18

King James Version (KJV)


16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


...are actually saying.

I'm telling you, brother, when you do come to understand this you will rejoice. When you come to understand the magnitude of what it is Christ accomplished you will understand the difference between awaiting promise and receiving it.


Continued...

Oh but I do understand it, I wish you only did too! You don't understand they received full salvation by faith IN THE PROMISE as God's promise was as good as fulfilled (Rom. 4:16-17). We receive it because the promise has been fulfilled. YOu don't understand that it is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" and therefor is not limited to time, but God who is outside of time treats it as already accomplished and applies it as such to all the elect regardless when they live before or after the cross.

 

[Aaron]

Hmm, Aaron, I usually don't put a lot of assertiveness behind my thoughts in a debate here at the BB.

But it's not just thoughts about the mode of water baptism, the mistranslation is carried on within the sentence to the Baptism In the Holy Ghost. The preposition en (in) is present in that structure as well.

We are talking about the word of God in the original language.
The Holy Spirit (not HankD) chose en (in).

To be forthright, en (in) can be thought of as instrumentive and is translated as such in most English bibles but it is not correct (because IMO of protestant baptismal tradition) and yes it is IMO but a very strong opinion. This mistranslation has led to a great deal of error in Christendom.

Surprisingly the Catholic Douay-Rheims translates it correctly probably because the ancient Latin Vulgate does as well.

I understand your choice but strongly disagree.
The use of "with" over "in" does indeed change the meaning of the passage and that in a very significant way.

American Standard Version:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

Please think about my proposition.

Thanks
HankD

The meaning of baptism doesn't hinge on the preposition. It hinges on the word baptism. Whether I'm washed with the Holy Spirit or in the Holy Spirit makes no difference in the meaning to me.

 

[HankD]

The meaning of baptism doesn't hinge on the preposition. It hinges on the word baptism. Whether I'm washed with the Holy Spirit or in the Holy Spirit makes no difference in the meaning to me.

OK Aaron, many believe as you do, I am a stickler for the original languages and perhaps overreach at times.
But yes, we can both rejoice in the cleansing of the Holy Spirit even as we see Him in different metaphorical backgrounds.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

The meaning of baptism doesn't hinge on the preposition. It hinges on the word baptism. Whether I'm washed with the Holy Spirit or in the Holy Spirit makes no difference in the meaning to me.

That's kind of the point I was getting at, Aaron, the process of salvation in Christ involves what can be suitably described as "in" as well as "with." Regeneration is, in my view, a result of that immersion. We are new Creatures because we become the opposite of what we were born into, which is a condition of spiritual death, that spiritual death a result of not being in relationship with God. When we are baptized with the Holy Ghost, we see all the elements we associate with a baptism: cleansing, immersion, and identification. We are identified on a literal basis with God, because we are in Him and He in us, even as Christ taught we would be. We are cleansed in this process also, which is a literal cleansing. And we are immersed into God, and all of this is a process effected by God alone.

As far as this...

Whether I'm washed with the Holy Spirit or in the Holy Spirit makes no difference in the meaning to me.

...I think we can present an argument of distinction, because there is a difference between being saved and immersed in God, and the cleansing that continues to go on after we saved, which does not impact whether we are saved or not, but impacts how we conduct ourselves.

The Word of God is a cleansing agent according to Christ and Scripture. We are cleansed when the Spirit of God enlightens our minds to understanding of the Word as we grow in Christ. God said "I will sprinkle clean water on you and wash/cleanse you from all your filthiness and your idols (Ezekiel 36:24-27) and that He would give us a new spirit, and a new heart, and place His Spirit within us that we might walk in His statutes and keep His judgments.

But it doesn't happen overnight, as most of us know. Our walk with Christ is an experience of growth not unlike physical development. We learn to stand, walk, run, and fly...as we grow.

So I would be in agreement with both of you on that basis.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You are a maze of self-contradictions. Of course we are talking about salvation because you make the baptism in the Spirit inseparable from the new birth and that is salvation. You seriously don't thing to be "in Christ" is not a matter of salvation???? You talk about false and misleading arguments. Your view of the baptism in the Spirit is inseparable from your view of salvation "in Christ." That is the problem have no concept of the new birth, the law or the baptism in the Spirit.

Maybe this will help you to see your false argument: if your reasoning is consistently applied, we are not saved even now because we have not received our glorified bodies yet.

You are simply unable to grasp the concept of salvation in the Old Testament as opposed to salvation in the New. We will be "saved" differently when we have received our glorified bodies, but that doesn't mean we are not saved now. Just as we have received the Promised Spirit and they did not, but that doesn't mean they were not saved either.

Again, you still equate salvation under the Law with salvation in Christ through the New Covenant. You ignore the fact that the Law was established and in effect until the New was established by Christ. When you can distinguish the two, it will help you understand salvation in Christ better.

You do not understand the True Vine as opposed to the Vine which was not the True Vine, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes you have or else you don't know the meaning of "saved" in relationship to the problem in Eden?????

So Adam and Eve were saved by being clothed in the skins of dead animals and tossed out of the Garden?

I think I do know what you mean about being "saved" in the Old Testament.

Oh, that's right, I actually posted A BUNCH OF POSTS EXPLAINING YOUR ERROR.

Silly me.

Oh, and the capitalization is just for emphasis, not yelling at you.




God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Maybe this will help you to see your false argument: if your reasoning is consistently applied, we are not saved even now because we have not received our glorified bodies yet.

You can't be serious??? In my view of salvation neither Old or New Testament saints are yet glorified (Heb. 11:39-40).

You are simply unable to grasp the concept of salvation in the Old Testament as opposed to salvation in the New. We will be "saved" differently when we have received our glorified bodies, but that doesn't mean we are not saved now. Just as we have received the Promised Spirit and they did not, but that doesn't mean they were not saved either.

Again, you still equate salvation under the Law with salvation in Christ through the New Covenant. You ignore the fact that the Law was established and in effect until the New was established by Christ. When you can distinguish the two, it will help you understand salvation in Christ better.

Again, you have shot yourself in the foot! There never was, never can be, never will be any kind of salvation "under the law" because the law can only condemn fallen man NEVER justify, NEVER a means to obtain life, NEVER save. That is the crux of your problem you believe in "salvation under the law" which Christ and the apostles repudiated. You reject the omni-dispensational role model for justification by grace through faith WITHOUT WORKS and WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE LAW or BY THE LAW - Abraham. You are teaching Roman Catholic sacramentalism before the cross as you keep claiming that literal animal sacrifices were literal means to deal with literal sins which every New Testament writer repudiates. You can't discern between "shadow" (figure) and reality.

 

[Darrell C]

You can't be serious??? In my view of salvation neither Old or New Testament saints are yet glorified (Heb. 11:39-40).

Apparently you still don't grasp what I am saying.

The point is that we are saved though we have not received glorified bodies. The Old Testament Saints were saved but they had not received the Atonement and Reconciliation.

To say (1) that they did is error, (2) that they could not be saved apart from receiving promises they clearly did not (and you have been shown this multiple times) is also error, and (3) to equate their salvation, clearly described as incomplete...is error.

Again, you have shot yourself in the foot! There never was, never can be, never will be any kind of salvation "under the law"

And you are the only one arguing that. You argue with yourself in your false arguments you create.

Quote me saying that anyone was saved under the Law. If you actually read what I wrote, you would see I have consistently shown you that they were not saved under the Law or through the provision provided under the Law.

That's the point, Biblicist.

They were saved, and that by grace through faith, but they were still under the Law. They were still under the Covenant of Law. Christ Himself was made under the Law and observed it perfectly. If men could have done that...they would have been saved, but not one could. Nor were they expected to, because God gave His promise of the Seed long before the Law was established, and the Law was never meant to nullify the promises...they hadn't received prior to the Law, nor while they were under the Law.

If you would just stop the false arguments and debating with yourself, maybe we could have a two sided conversation, lol.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

So Adam and Eve were saved by being clothed in the skins of dead animals and tossed out of the Garden?

Again, you are incapable of discerning between TYPE and Antitype. What do you think John meant when he said "the lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD"? What do you think Paul meant when he said "the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT." What do you think John the Baptist meant when he said "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD which taketh away the sin of the world." The animal sacrifice by God (from which the skins were procurred" were DECLARATIVE types of the gospel while Genesis 3:15 was the gospel preached by God to Adam and Eve in "seed" form.

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speake.th. - Heb. 11:4

Notice Paul did NOT say "by which he obtained remission of sins" but "by which he obtained WITNESS that he WAS righteous." He offered it "by faith", what kind of faith, faith in the promised seed at what point he was imputed the righteousness of Christ, was justified, his sins remitted literally, and then as an expression of that faith he offered up the appropriate TYPE which merely provided a SYMBOLIC declarative witness that he had already been saved. Just as we do in baptism.

However, your Roman Catholic sacramentalism leads you to believe that he offered up the sacrifice IN ORDER TBTAIN remission of sins, in order to be justified.The sacrifice instituted by God in the garden of Eden has NEVER been sacramental - a means to deal with literal sins IN ANY DISPENSATION. Apostate Judaism is what made the TYPE into a SACRAMENT.

You have no clue about the Law, about justification, about regeneration or the baptism in the Spirit because your view perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ into a works salvation "under the law."

 

[Darrell C]

because the law can only condemn fallen man NEVER justify, NEVER a means to obtain life, NEVER save.

Not according to your teaching.

That is the irony, you charge me with your own teaching, when I have consistently been denying your view that salvation in the Old Testament is identical to that which we enjoy under the New Covenant.

The Saints of the Old still had to offer up sacrifice because the Atonement was not made available to them.

The Law never made anyone alive.

You simply do not understand that the Law was the only provision they had. They did not receive the Atonement, and they did not receive the Comforter...He simply did not begin this distinctly New Ministry until He came at Pentecost.

That is the crux of your problem you believe in "salvation under the law"

On the contrary, if you bothered to read what I have said you would see that is my point: no man was saved through the Law as we are in this Age.

That's why the transgressions that were under the Law still needed to be redeemed.

You can find nothing, NOTHING, in my posts that suggests that any man can be saved through the Law. NOTHING.

But because your understanding is so weak, you rely on false arguments, rather than simply addressing that which has been presented to you.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

which Christ and the apostles repudiated.

So do I. But because you are blind to what I say, and deal only with false arguments, you can't see that is precisely what I am saying, and precisely what you are teaching, that animal sacrifice is credited as identical to the Sacrifice of Christ.

You are teaching a salvation in Christ that is bereft of Atonement.

That's a little Oprahish if you ask me. Not even Catholics make that mistake, to my knowledge.

You reject the omni-dispensational role model for justification by grace through faith WITHOUT WORKS and WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE LAW or BY THE LAW - Abraham.

False argument. I consistently advocate salvation by grace through faith in the Old Testament. What I do not do is equate the provision they had (such as animal sacrifice for temporary and temporal remission of sins) with the Provision we have in Christ and the New Covenant.

And don't call me Abraham.

You are teaching Roman Catholic sacramentalism before the cross as you keep claiming that literal animal sacrifices were literal means to deal with literal sins which every New Testament writer repudiates.

You would like to think that. Is that how you deal with what you don't want to confront...call people names?

I've met Catholics with a much better understanding of the weakness and incomplete nature of the Covenant of Law and a better ability to communicate than you are displaying in this thread.

You can't discern between "shadow" (figure) and reality.

And that is the extreme irony of this: you are the one making the type and antitype...identical, and with the same result:

The same gospel, same Savior and same way of salvation has been the same from Genesis to Revelation (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; etc.)

Sorry, but Adam did not have a relationship with the Risen Christ. He was thrust out of relationship with God, and thrust out of the Garden where he once fellowshipped with God, and began producing offspring that were in the same boat as he...spiritually dead.

And what they did, Biblicist, from that time until the Cross...was offer up the deaths of animals in their place.

Now I ask you once more...why is it that they did this...

...but you don't?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Again, you are incapable of discerning between TYPE and Antitype.

On the contrary, it is you making them identical in result.

You equate the deaths of animals to the death of Christ.

You contradict Christ Himself Who said "I am the True Bread which comes down from Heaven, that if any man eat...he shall never perish.

That True Bread is the reality, Biblicist, and He makes it clear it His flesh, which speaks of His death on the Cross.

Animal sacrifice did not accomplish what Christ did, and men did not receive of the Atonement in the popular pulpit teaching "they were saved on credit."

It's bad enough to have to deal with so many false arguments, but...to charge me with your error too? lol


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

What do you think John meant when he said "the lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD"?

I think he meant exactly what he said, because he was being used of God to Prophesy, and this was a function of the Holy Spirit.

It means that from the Foundation of the World God's Redemptive Plan has always been the same. He has always intended that He would manifest in human form and die in the stead of sinners.

It does not mean, as you would like to believe, that John understood or had the Mystery of the Gospel revealed to Him.

If that were the case, explain this...


Matthew 11

King James Version (KJV)


1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


Going to be kind of hard to present John a anything other than a Prophet of God, or that he was privy to a Mystery not yet revealed to men.

Christ distinguishes between the Dispensations here:



Matthew 11:11

King James Version (KJV)


11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


John was not a New Covenant Christian, he was an Old Testament Prophet.

Big difference.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

Apparently you still don't grasp what I am saying.

The point is that we are saved though we have not received glorified bodies. The Old Testament Saints were saved but they had not received the Atonement and Reconciliation.

Justification is reconciliation and Abraham was justified by grace not by law, not by works of the law, not by his own works before the Law. Justification reconciles the sinner to God by remitting sins, and imputing righteousness, a righteousness not of the law (as the Law of Moses did not even exist). Abraham is the role model for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" with regard to justification. Regeneration reconciles those SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED from God. Spiritual separation from God means fallen man is WITHOUT LIFE and that is why regeneration is called "quickening" or being made alive. Spiritual separation means fallen man is WITHOUT LIGHT and that is why regeneration is described as REVELATION of Jesus Christ in the darkened soul of man (2 Cor. 4:6) just as God spoke light into existence. Spiritual separation means fallen man is without HOLINESS and that is why regeneration is described first as an internal cleansing of the spirit of man from sin (Tit. 3:5) and positively as the creative act of God that restores righteousnesss and true holiness within man restoring the image of God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).

You have no concept of the Biblical problem and that is why you have no concept of the Biblical solution. The problem is ONE and universal for all mankind and that is why the solution can only be ONE and UNIVERSAL for all the elect of God from Adam to Revelation and that is why Abraham is OMNI-dispensation with regard to how man is reconciled to God WITHOUT WORKS, and WITHOUT THE LAW.

To say (1) that they did is error, (2) that they could not be saved apart from receiving promises they clearly did not (and you have been shown this multiple times) is also error, and (3) to equate their salvation, clearly described as incomplete...iserror.-

The problem is you can't discern between the "promise" of the gospel which involves present tense personal salvation as demonstrated in the omni-dispensational case of Abraham for "all who are of faith" in all dispensations, AND the "promise" of the gospel that refers to the culminative END of salvation or new bodies and the new heaven and earth. Hebrews 11:12-17 plainly and clearly tells you that the "promise" for which Abraham and all the Old Testament saints WHO WERE ALREADY JUSTIFIED still "by faith" looked for a new heaven and a new earth. That "promise" will not be fulfilled "without us" as the resurrection will be inclusive of all the dead saints and the new heaven and earth will be inclusive of all the saints in all age (Heb. 11:39-40).

So you simply need to read more carefully and discern between the immediate promise of the gospel which Abraham is the example that all Old Testament saints beginning with Adam and Eve received and were reconciled unto God, and the future culiminative promise of the Gospel which NONE of them or of US have yet to receive nor will receive until we all recieve it together.

And you are the only one arguing that. You argue with yourself in your false arguments you create.-

1. Christ argued it::

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? - Jn. 7:19

He didn't say "some of you" but "none of you" the whole Jewish nation.


2. Paul Argued it

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. - Rom. 3:19

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

They were saved, and that by grace through faith, but they were still under the Law. They were still under the Covenant of Law. Christ Himself was made under the Law and observed it perfectly. If men could have done that...they would have been saved, but not one could. Nor were they expected to, because God gave His promise of the Seed long before the Law was established, and the Law was never meant to nullify the promises...they hadn't received prior to the Law, nor while they were under the Law.

Why don't you beleive and apply what you just said above??? Hence, the law was not given to justify, save, redeem, atone, reconcile man to God!!!!!! It was given to define sin. For the saved obedience under the law was DECLARATIVE of their salvation, reconciliation, justification, new birth, etc. not a means to procure it. The law is still useful for the same purpose it was given - to define sin.The "work" of the law written upon man's conscience before Moses served the very same end to define sin. The law has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION just as the baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. Wake up and smell the roses!

You say on one hand it cannot save but then say on the other hand the sacrifices served as a LITERAL MEANS to procure remission of sins. Don't you realize the contradiction in your position. Abraham's example contradicts your position and he is the example for ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH from Adam to all living today. Divine ordinances were not LITERAL MEANS to secure remission of sins for Abraham (Rom. 4:9-11) and neither were they for Adam and Eve or Abel or anyone living "under the Law" of Moses. Living "under" the Law does not change the ONE WAY illustrated in Abaham. Living "under the Law" was designed for an UNREGENERATE NATION to reveal their unregenerate condition as a nation. All flesh is under the PRINCIPLES of that same law or else THEY COULD NOT BE CONDEMNED AS SINNERS.

 

[Darrell C]

What do you think Paul meant when he said "the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."

I don't think what he meant, I know what he meant: he is speaking of the One Covenant that from before the foundations of the world was the intended relationship between God and man.

Not a "fourth covenant" you try to impose into Hebrews. lol

The New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant. Don't you understand the terminology employed in the Promise of it?

Do you not understand that the Gospel of Christ preached throughout the entirety of the Old Testament refers to that Covenant?

What do you think John the Baptist meant when he said "Behold THE LAMB OF GOD which taketh away the sin of the world."

Exactly what he states, which you reject: that Christ was going to, future tense...take away the sins of the world.

He is not saying "Behold the Lamb of God Who has taken away the Sins of the world."

It is prophecy.

And as shown, the provision men had, animal sacrifice...didn't, and couldn't do that.

You equate His work with the provision of the Law and prior. You make His Death a mere formality.

And it is not a mere formality, it had to happen, and that is precisely why He manifested in human form.

The animal sacrifice by God (from which the skins were procurred" were DECLARATIVE types of the gospel while Genesis 3:15 was the gospel preached by God to Adam and Eve in "seed" form.

But they didn't save Adam and Eve, Biblicist. Adam and Eve, and all of their offspring, had to await Eternal Redemption obtained by Christ Alone.

Your doctrine is another gospel to be sure, because it equates salvation in Christ with the foundational teachings the Old Testament Saint had available to them. It equates Old Testament provision with the New. It equates manna, and the life sustained with the True Bread. It equates the True Vine with the Vine which is not the True Vine. It makes the Tree Salvation, rather than provision.

The Jew of the First Century was told not to lay again those foundational principles, and that warning is applicable to us as well.

General faith in God is not winked at now. It is excluded. Specific faith in the revealed Risen Christ is the only acceptable means of relationship with God. It is not through Israel, it is not through heritage, it is not through man's will.

It is through faith in the Risen Savior alone.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Justification is reconciliation and Abraham was justified by grace not by law

So God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself in Abraham's day?


Okay, Biblicist, okay, whatever you say.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

1. Christ argued it::

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? - Jn. 7:19

He didn't say "some of you" but "none of you" the whole Jewish nation.


2. Paul Argued it

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. - Rom. 3:19

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

As I said, you argue with yourself in your false argument.

Quote me, right now...teaching men were saved by the Law.

RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Perhaps that request will register...


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Why don't you beleive and apply what you just said above???

I do consistently. When you actually join the conversation and stop debating with yourself, you will see that.

Kind of like this cherry-picking. Lot of fun.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

On the contrary, it is you making them identical in result.

You equate the deaths of animals to the death of Christ.

You are the one that says remission of sins were obtained through sacrifices "under the Law" not I. I consistently view them as Baptists do baptism and the Lord's Supper - GOSPEL TYPES. You are the one repudiating Peter who said the gospel was preached to them and remission of sins was literally obtained by faith in the gospel (Acts 10:43) and repudiate Paul who said the SAME gospel was preached unto them (Heb. 4:2) and repudiate Paul who sets forth Abraham as one justified by faith as were all the Old Testament and New Testament saints or "all who are of faith". You are the one that has TWO SYSTEMS of salvation not I, or the apostles.

You contradict Christ Himself Who said "I am the True Bread which comes down from Heaven, that if any man eat...he shall never perish

Apparently you either didn't read my response or can't understand it. The LITERAL manna can only sustaint LITERAL PHYSICAL LIFE and can't prevent PHYSICAL DEATH. Christ was preached and received as SPIRITUAL LIFE from Genesis 3:15 forward and believed upon whereby remission of sins and imputed righteousness were OBTAINED thus reconciling them to God:

"To HIM give ALL the prophets witness, that whosoever believeth upon his name shall receive remission of sins"- Acts 10:43

The future tense "shall" refers to the point of faith as proclaimed by the prophets and that is proven in the case of Abraham as he was "justified" rather than some future time after his life (Rom. 4:6-9) and thus he was "the blessed" man having obtained remission of sins as was David.

That True Bread is the reality, Biblicist, and He makes it clear it His flesh, which speaks of His death on the Cross

Another false argument. No on disputes the necessity of the provision. But Abraham proves that God APPLIED the benefits of the provision and no one can dispute that Justification which consists of remission of sins, and imputed righteousness (not by the law) are the benefits of the cross. God applied them based upon his own promise to make that provision and therefore dealt with them as thought the provision had already occurred (Rom. 4:24-26) he called things that had not yet occurred as though they had (Rom.4:16-17).

Animal sacrifice did not accomplish what Christ did, and men did not receive of the Atonement in the popular pulpit teaching "they were saved on credit."

Why not be honest and admit animals sacrifices did not accomplish ANYTHING LITERALLY! But you can't do that can you because you believe they did literally accomplish TEMPORARY remission of sins don't you? Campbellites and Catholics believe the very same thing with regard to baptism don't they? The fact is these sacrifces ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING LITERALLY but were only FIGURES of what true believers already possessed BEFORE offering up the type just as in the case with baptism they were already JUSTIFIED BY FAITH as Abel BEFORE offering the sacrifice. If you don't undersand justification it IS the remission of sins and it IS imputed righeousness to the "ungodly" without works,and without the works of the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

As I said, you argue with yourself in your false argument.

Quote me, right now...teaching men were saved by the Law.

RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Perhaps that request will register...


God bless.

I have already quoted you several times claiming that literal sacrifices were the means "under the Law" to deal with their literal sins. Are you now going to deny that? Abraham is set forth as the omni-dispensational example that your position is false, that external ordinances NEVER dealt with literal sins but such was LITERALLY remitted by faith or JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH which includes actual literal remission of sins and actual literal imputed righteousness at the POINT of faith BEFORE obedience to any SYMBOLIC ordinances that only provide a FIGURATIVE remission of sins just as in the case of baptism and that "under the Law."