The Faith of Abraham Two

[Darrell C]

Okay, another issue still worthy of discussing the points already raised which in my view have received no sufficient response.

The first question posed that has had no response from my view would be in regards to the teaching set forth that believers have "the Spiritual DNA of Abraham."

The question being...how is Abraham the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

Anyone caring to share their thoughts concerning the teaching that believers have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham" are invited to present their position, and, if possible, a Scriptural basis for taking the model of Abraham and attributing a spiritual link I do not see.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Okay, another issue still worthy of discussing the points already raised which in my view have received no sufficient response.

The first question posed that has had no response from my view would be in regards to the teaching set forth that believers have "the Spiritual DNA of Abraham."

The question being...how is Abraham the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

Anyone caring to share their thoughts concerning the teaching that believers have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham" are invited to present their position, and, if possible, a Scriptural basis for taking the model of Abraham and attributing a spiritual link I do not see.


God bless.

Okay, another issue still worthy of discussing the points already raised which in my view have received no sufficient response.

The first question posed that has had no response from my view would be in regards to the teaching set forth that believers have "the Spiritual DNA of Abraham."

The question being...how is Abraham the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

Anyone caring to share their thoughts concerning the teaching that believers have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham" are invited to present their position, and, if possible, a Scriptural basis for taking the model of Abraham and attributing a spiritual link I do not see.


God bless.

You are not being honest. You are merely creating a straw man argument to burn it. Martin was attempting to convey merely the point that if you don't have Abraham as your "father" you don't have God as your "father".

I addressed him on this and he admitted he had not made his point clear and agreed with how I defined it. If you are serious about addressing the real issue, then set forth the question as it is properly reflected in our debate as stated in my position. That position is that the term "father" conveys either source and/or likeness. In the context of new birth we have but one spiritual father and that is God. In the context of justification by faith we have the likeness of Abrahamic justification and those who do not have that likeness do not have God as their father because "all who are of faith" have "Abraham" as their "father" in this contextual sense.

 

[Darrell C]

This is taken from the previous thread, The Faith of Abraham. The link for this post is HERE.

I will post this so I can get timestamp to properly notify the antagonist in view. Not sure why I didn't think of this before, but it is one way to negotiate the fact that we cannot get timestamps from closed threads.

And just to make sure my antagonist gets the mesage that a post of his is getting a response, I will also insert @Martin Marprelate so that he does not think I am talking about him behind his back. Which has been happening quite a bit, though this has been the norm on all forums forever, lol.

Darrell C said: ↑

For example, I have many times pointed out to you that remission of sins in the Old Testament, starting in the Garden, and all the way through to the Cross...was accomplished by animal sacrifice.

Remission of sins was never accomplished by animal sacrifices, 'for it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and goats could take away sins' (Hebrews 10:4). Just read Isaiah 1:10-15 and Amos 5:21-24.

Its just a Basic Old Testament Principle, Martin:


Leviticus 4:20

And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Leviticus 4:26

And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Leviticus 4:31
And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations


Are you really going to deny that God forgave sins based on animal sacrifice? A simple search of the word forgiven will deny such a position. It is explicit as well as implicit, for we see many Old Testament Saints offering up sacrifice, such as Abel, Noah, and Job...before the Law was established.

We just cannot deny that God forgave men of their sins, on a temporal and temporary basis... through animal sacrifice.

Consider Job:


Job 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.


Job offered up sacrifice for sin.

And the distinction between these offering of the Old Testament Saints and the Offering of Christ is simply a basic principle of my own view.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It was the faith of the O.T. saints, looking forward to the Lamb of God that would take away the sin of the world that saved them.

Again, I ask you to answer a simple question: how can they have been looking forward to the Lamb of God when the Gospel of Christ was not revealed unto men?

We see that the disciples of Christ themselves were not "looking forward to the Cross," and did not even believe He had risen from the grace afterward.

They are unbelieving:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


And you have never responded to this point, Martin. Why not?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The simple truth is that men were in fact justified by God and still under the condemnation of the Law. This is taught repeatedly throughout both Old and New Testaments. But your carnal, pulpit bred [sic] mythology teaches the exact opposite...that men could not be justified by the standard of the Law, which is to say, the Standard of God, though they were yet still condemned. Does "While we were yet sinners" ring any bells, Biblicist?

This is so, so bad. To be justified means to be declared righteous. How can someone justified by God still be under the condemnation of the law?

Were these two people...


Luke 1

King James Version (KJV)


5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


...not in need of the Righteousness of Christ?

Why are they declared righteous, Martin?

And why is it that the people of Israel knew they were in need of Redemption through Messiah but you say they were not, because they were already declared righteous? Why were they declared righteous, Martin?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us..........

I agree...Christ did that.

Now...how did He do it, Martin?

When?

And by the way, trying to make these as short as possible for you, so you can address whichever one your time allows.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus,

"In" Christ Jesus, but, you say that those whose sins were not remitted through the Cross of Christ were in Christ. Right?

Do I have that correct?

And perhaps you could clarify, seeing you feel you have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham," whether you see Abraham blessing us, or God.

And I would especially like for you to clarify that the blessings were received by Abraham's offspring (whether spiritual or or heritage) in the Old Testament.

Which leaves one last question to be asked again: how did Abel, Enoch, and Noah receive these blessing?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith' (Galatians 3:13-14).

So will you acknowledge that they had not received the Spirit? Or are you going to say they also received the Spirit of Promise, clearly stated not to have been sent, and Who would not come unless Christ returned to Heaven?


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

So the blessings of Abraham include redemption from the curse of the law, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. The law cannot condemn believers (OT or NT) because they have died to it (Romans 7:1-6 etc.).

Actually they died in it, and under it:


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)


39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.



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.



Romans 3:20-26

King James Version (KJV)


20 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.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Continued...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Okay, another issue still worthy of discussing the points already raised which in my view have received no sufficient response.

The first question posed that has had no response from my view would be in regards to the teaching set forth that believers have "the Spiritual DNA of Abraham."

The question being...how is Abraham the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

Anyone caring to share their thoughts concerning the teaching that believers have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham" are invited to present their position, and, if possible, a Scriptural basis for taking the model of Abraham and attributing a spiritual link I do not see.


God bless.

You are arguing as if I had said that Abraham is the father of believers. But it isn't I, it's God who says it, more than once. Your argument is with Him, not me.

Now I hate to beak it to you, but there isn't actually any such thing (to the best of my knowledge) as spiritual DNA. I was speaking figuratively. But the more I think about it, the happier I am with the term. Everyone who believes has Abraham for his or her father. He has from God something that God first gave to Abraham.

Now the Holy Spirit could have said that Abel, Enoch or Noah was the father of believers, but He didn't. Why didn't He? Well it's not our business to question God but to believe and obey His word. When you've done that I'll be happy to discuss Abel & Co's faith as compared with Abraham's. I do have some thoughts on the subject. But until you become obedient to the clear and basic word of God that Abraham is the father of believers, I don't think I'm going to share them with you.

 

[Darrell C]

And that is a foundational element of my teaching, that though the Old Testament Saint could be justified according to the righteous standard of God Himself (because God is righteous in all He does), we don't equate that to Eternal Redemption.

Who is 'we'? Is it the royal 'we'?

No, Martin, it is just an expression, If it bothers you I can try to remember to say "I" in the future, lol.

The "We" refers to Christians, because we do not equate the declaration of righteousness that is not the declaration of Christ's righteousness to the Righteousness of Christ revealed to men in this Age.

Again...why was Abraham declared righteous, Martin?

Romans 8:33-34. 'Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies, who is he that condemns?' It's Darrell, that's who;

Irrelevant tot he discussion.

You are not going to change the fact that all were guilty, and that all were in need of the Redemption that is in Christ alone.


Galatians 3:22-23

King James Version (KJV)


22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


Consider this statement, Martin:


Colossians 2:13-14

King James Version (KJV)


13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;


Now as brought up before in several threads, we have to ask if Gentiles are the only ones in need of the blotting out of ordinances against them. What we would have to conclude is that Jews were not also found guilty under the Law, and we know that is not the case. We would, if we supposed only Jews were born again through the Law...bring so much conflict to the Word of God that we would very soon be forced to admit that our position was in error.

This is a simple truth of Scripture. Just as the fact that there was remission of sins under the previous provision, vicarious animal sacrifice. That was the means for God to remit sins, and until Christ died on the Cross that is the method of remission of sins ordained of God.

possibly with his invisible friend.

Yes, I am fully confident that the Holy Ghost has not only revealed these basic truths to me, but that these truths were not revealed to Ages and Generations past.

He has revealed them to you too, and when you can address these points raised I think that the "we" shall be a little bit bigger group.

And I am referring to the "we" that does not equate a declaration of righteousness seen bestowed to the Just with the Declaration of the Righteousness of Christ in this Age, no implication or comment towards your salvation, just want to make that clear.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Leviticus 4:20

And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Leviticus 4:26

And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations



Leviticus 4:31
And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Is this willful ignornance? I ask that because the same direct language is used of the Lord's Supper and baptism with regard to remission of sins and so do you also believe that remission of sins is obtained through those ordinances too?

Are you ignorant of metaphorical language? The writer of Hebrews tells you in plain literal language that sacrifices did not LITERALLY obtain remission of sin (heb. 11:1-4; 10:4). The New Testament writers tell you in plain literal language how remission of sins was obtained in the Old Testament - Acts 10:43 - through faith not through sacrifices. Hebrews 11:4 tells you in plain literal language that the first sacrifice noted that God approved was not to literally "obtain" righteousness or a state of without sin, but was the testimony, witness, that such righteousness had already been obtained "by faith."

Paul tells you in plain literal language that circumcision as a divine ordinance did not obtain remission of sin (Rom. 4:9-11). No external ordinance by God ever LITERALLY remitted sins and never will.

Make up your mind either you believe Paul that David received LITERAL remission of sins by faith as Romans 4:6-8 states explicitly or he received through through sacrifices? The truth is that he literally received by faith and then figuratively expressed it by sacrifice. The truth is God is using metaphorical language when he speaks of remission of sins through any of his ordinances.

If you want to remain willfully ignorant that is your choice.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑

Okay, another issue still worthy of discussing the points already raised which in my view have received no sufficient response.

The first question posed that has had no response from my view would be in regards to the teaching set forth that believers have "the Spiritual DNA of Abraham."

The question being...how is Abraham the father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

Anyone caring to share their thoughts concerning the teaching that believers have the "spiritual DNA of Abraham" are invited to present their position, and, if possible, a Scriptural basis for taking the model of Abraham and attributing a spiritual link I do not see.


God bless.

You are arguing as if I had said that Abraham is the father of believers.

(emphasis mine)

Is that not what you implied when you called my faith, and by extension my salvation...into question?

You back-peddle in your statement, that is evident in what you say here:


That is because you are not believing the Bible. Paul is never described as the father of all who believe; Abraham is. I could really stop there. Your error is already made manifest.

First of all may I raise my hand and say that I have Abraham's spiritual DNA. No doubt about it. Abraham is my spiritual father. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so.

I don't believe it is right to debate someone who denies the word of God so clearly and egregiously as you have. We might discuss exactly how Abraham is father of believers, but when you simply deny it in the face of multiple texts baldly stating the fact, to debate with you gives the suggestion that denial of Scripture is a reasonable position.

Do you not understand that your argument is not with me or with Biblicist, but with God?
It is not we who are saying that believers are the sons of Abraham, it is Almighty God, and you are shaking your puny fist in His face, denying His words and trying to mock Him.

Sooner you than me.



@Biblicist also calls my faith and salvation into question:

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/the-faith-of-abraham.100518/page-2#post-2242591
So any person on this forum that denies "Abraham" is their "father" image in this sense is admitting they are not a child of God or they are not "of faith."


The Biblicist said: ↑

Here is the thing, if Darrell is not a "child of Abraham" in this contextual sense - those who are in HIS IMAGE of justification by faith he is not a child of promise.


Anyone who does not have Abraham as his "father" in the contextual sense defined by Paul in Romans 4 does not have God as his "father" because Abraham is the father, as contextually defined for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH. And the term "father" has nothing to do with "spiritual DNA" but with LIKENESS or the specific PATTERN of Abrahamic justification by faith without works, full remission of sin (vv. 6-8) and full imputed Christ rightouesness (vv. 5-6; 23-25).


What is sad is that you are now seeing the futility of such a teaching...yet you go right back to it to justify yourself. We will see that in the end statements of this post.

But it isn't I, it's God who says it, more than once. Your argument is with Him, not me.

Says what, Martin? That Abraham is the spiritual father of all who believe?

Now I hate to beak it to you, but there isn't actually any such thing (to the best of my knowledge) as spiritual DNA. I was speaking figuratively.

Oh, so going to adopt my own position now.

Wise choice, my friend.

Look at your statements above and try, with a straight face, to say you did not say you had the Spiritual DNA of Abraham and that he is your spiritual father:

First of all may I raise my hand and say that I have Abraham's spiritual DNA. No doubt about it. Abraham is my spiritual father. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so.

You did say that, right? I give the link, you can look for yourself.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

But the more I think about it, the happier I am with the term.

And that is sad. Its always sad to see theology evolving and going in the wrong direction.

Everyone who believes has Abraham for his or her father.

Not I.

In the contextual sense you fellas back-peddle to, after such adamant argument for your view...Paul is more a father to me than Abraham.

And Abel believed. Enoch believed. Noah believed. Melchisedec believed.

How is he their father, and would you question their salvation?

He has from God something that God first gave to Abraham.

And what exactly is that, Martin?

Abraham did not receive the Promised Spirit Christ sent, and he did not receive remission of sins. He did not receive the revealed Gospel Mystery.

What spiritual thing did Abraham receive that we all do?

I will help you out here...he received revelation from God and he was obedient to it.

Thus was Abraham declared righteous.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Now the Holy Spirit could have said that Abel, Enoch or Noah was the father of believers, but He didn't. Why didn't He? Well it's not our business to question God but to believe and obey His word.

But we don't have to question God as you falsely charge me, Martin.

We should know that Abraham was not the spiritual father of...

...Abel, Enoch, or Noah.

Do you really not see how foolish making a concrete principle out of Paul's teaching is? Abraham is a model. That is the only context we can Biblically put into the teaching.

When you apply a mystical spiritual application you overstep your bounds.

Abraham is not your father...God is your Father. You do not have "the spiritual DNA of Abraham," you have the Holy Spirit.

When you've done that I'll be happy to discuss Abel & Co's faith as compared with Abraham's.

How am I in disobedience by simply stating a very basic principle...no Christian denies? Not even you fellas, lol.

I do have some thoughts on the subject. But until you become obedient to the clear and basic word of God that Abraham is the father of believers, I don't think I'm going to share them with you.

I am quite content to deal with the "facts" you have already presented.

And I would appreciate some answers to some very simple questions.

If you do not want to deal with the Doctrine I have supported from the Word of God, okay, I am not going to harass you. But, as long as you are making comments and failing to recognize the sheer absurdity of attributing Abraham with a spiritual quality that is integral to be a child of God through faith...

...I will continue to deal with it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Is this willful ignornance? I ask that because the same direct language is used of the Lord's Supper and baptism with regard to remission of sins and so do you also believe that remission of sins is obtained through those ordinances too?

Are you ignorant of metaphorical language? The writer of Hebrews tells you in plain literal language that sacrifices did not LITERALLY obtain remission of sin (heb. 11:1-4; 10:4). The New Testament writers tell you in plain literal language how remission of sins was obtained in the Old Testament - Acts 10:43 - through faith not through sacrifices. Hebrews 11:4 tells you in plain literal language that the first sacrifice noted that God approved was not to literally "obtain" righteousness or a state of without sin, but was the testimony, witness, that such righteousness had already been obtained "by faith."

Paul tells you in plain literal language that circumcision as a divine ordinance did not obtain remission of sin (Rom. 4:9-11). No external ordinance by God ever LITERALLY remitted sins and never will.

Make up your mind either you believe Paul that David received LITERAL remission of sins by faith as Romans 4:6-8 states explicitly or he received through through sacrifices? The truth is that he literally received by faith and then figuratively expressed it by sacrifice. The truth is God is using metaphorical language when he speaks of remission of sins through any of his ordinances.

If you want to remain willfully ignorant that is your choice.

Again, nothing but insult.

I have made it clear many times that the remission of sins was temporal and temporary, and that there is a distinction we have to draw between that remission and Remission of Sins through Christ.

Your posts are not dealing with the context the quotes are given Biblicist.

It is not I that is ignorant of the fact that you, and @Martin...are forced to equate remission of sins altogether, and it is amusing to see those two distinctive provisions both affirmed (when convenient) and denied (when convenient).

Once again you are trying to debate with yourself. Don't you get tired of destroying discussion and debate with your lectures?

Go back and read the context of my post to Martin, and leave your false arguments...in your head.

However, if you want to deny that sins were remitted through animal sacrifice, as Martin did, just state that publicly.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You are not being honest. You are merely creating a straw man argument to burn it. Martin was attempting to convey merely the point that if you don't have Abraham as your "father" you don't have God as your "father".

I hvae already quoted what Martin tried to convey, as well as you:

@Martin Marprelate said...

That is because you are not believing the Bible. Paul is never described as the father of all who believe; Abraham is. I could really stop there. Your error is already made manifest.

First of all may I raise my hand and say that I have Abraham's spiritual DNA. No doubt about it. Abraham is my spiritual father. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so.

I don't believe it is right to debate someone who denies the word of God so clearly and egregiously as you have. We might discuss exactly how Abraham is father of believers, but when you simply deny it in the face of multiple texts baldly stating the fact, to debate with you gives the suggestion that denial of Scripture is a reasonable position.

Do you not understand that your argument is not with me or with Biblicist, but with God?
It is not we who are saying that believers are the sons of Abraham, it is Almighty God, and you are shaking your puny fist in His face, denying His words and trying to mock Him.

Sooner you than me.


You are not forgotten:

@Biblicist also calls my faith and salvation into question:


So any person on this forum that denies "Abraham" is their "father" image in this sense is admitting they are not a child of God or they are not "of faith."


The Biblicist said: ↑

Here is the thing, if Darrell is not a "child of Abraham" in this contextual sense - those who are in HIS IMAGE of justification by faith he is not a child of promise.


Anyone who does not have Abraham as his "father" in the contextual sense defined by Paul in Romans 4 does not have God as his "father" because Abraham is the father, as contextually defined for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH. And the term "father" has nothing to do with "spiritual DNA" but with LIKENESS or the specific PATTERN of Abrahamic justification by faith without works, full remission of sin (vv. 6-8) and full imputed Christ rightouesness (vv. 5-6; 23-25).

So maybe you should actually address the OP.

I addressed him on this and he admitted he had not made his point clear and agreed with how I defined it. If you are serious about addressing the real issue, then set forth the question as it is properly reflected in our debate as stated in my position. That position is that the term "father" conveys either source and/or likeness. In the context of new birth we have but one spiritual father and that is God. In the context of justification by faith we have the likeness of Abrahamic justification and those who do not have that likeness do not have God as their father because "all who are of faith" have "Abraham" as their "father" in this contextual sense.

The truth is, Biblicist, that anything you can find to disagree with me about will suffice, and you made the mistake of jumping on the Spiritual DNA of Abraham bandwagon before giving it sufficient thought.

Now, speaking of honesty, how about sharing how it is that Abraham is the Spiritual Father of Abel, Enoch, and Noah.

And I will just leave that as the one question you can answer, and show that you are interested in discussion or debate.

You are forgiven your many insults and questioning of my salvation, I am only interested in discussing the doctrine with you. But, that means you must also answer my questions. And in this thread, I call you to properly quote me and give links for anything you say I have said.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You back-peddle in your statement, that is evident in what you say here:

I do not back-pedal at all. I repeat, you are not arguing with me but with God. You are denying that which God declares straight-forwardly several times in His holy and inerrant word.

I am not a great fan of syllogisms, but there is one here that is simply crying out to be made:

1. God declares in His word that believers are sons of Abraham*
2. Darrell says that he is not a son of Abraham.
THEREFORE
3. ......................................................

You can fill in Number Three for yourself. I can see only two possibilities. One is that God has made a mistake.

Darrell, you need to repent. Until you do, I have no intention of debating with you (Biblicist is doing a fine job of that), So you can carry on snowing me with posts if it makes you feel happy, but any post I make will simply be calling you to repentance.

*Romans 4:11; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:29; cf. also Galatians 4:28 and James 2:21.

 

[Darrell C]

I do not back-peddle at all. I repeat, you are not arguing with me but with God. You are denying that which God declares straight-forwardly several times in His holy and inerrant word.

I am not a great fan of syllogisms, but there is one here that is simply crying out to be made:

1. God declares in His word that believers are sons of Abraham*
2. Darrell says that he is not a son of Abraham.
THEREFORE
3. ......................................................

You can fill in Number Three for yourself. I can see only two possibilities. One is that God has made a mistake.

Darrell, you need to repent. Until you do, I have no intention of debating with you (Biblicist is doing a fine job of that), So you can carry on snowing me with posts if it makes you feel happy, but any post I make will simply be calling you to repentance.

*Romans 4:11; Romans 4:16; Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:29; cf. also Galatians 4:28 and James 2:21.

Martin, you have no ability to debate with me. If you did...you would address the posts.

You have back-peddled, then back-peddled again.

And that you would continue to call my salvation into question is remarkable, never really expected that from you.

You are attributing Abraham with supernatural qualities Paul never intended us to impose into his teachings. I see nothing different in this and the error of the Catholic calling Mary the Co-redemptrix.

I view Paul's teaching, as I said early on...as a model. That's it. It does not bleed over into the spiritual realm, and Abraham was just a man...like everyone else.

But the record is clear, those who wish to claim to have the spiritual DNA of Abraham can step up and clarify, as you have.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have back-peddled, then back-peddled again.

If there is one thing that has come out of your posts very clearly, it is this:








You don't know how to spell 'back-pedal.'