Featured The Baptism With the Holy Ghost

But Biblicist...I never even brought up vv.6-11.

And Biblicist, Paul does not deny the validity of obedience to the Law, any more than Christ did.

C'mon, Biblicist...address the points that are actually raised, lol. It is only in your imagination that I am teaching works-based salvation. This is not about works, it is a discussion about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

It is not another Gospel to recognize the differing benefits of the Covenants, particularly the heavy amount of teaching we have in which the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant are contrasted.

The Old Testament Saint awaited the establishment of the New Covenant, that is just basic. Are you really so unaware of the difference between being under the Two?

No, Biblicist, the Law provides the standard, not the works. lol

There is no distinction between the works of the Law being written on their hearts and the Law being written upon their hearts.

The point Paul makes is that the doers of the Law, wait, maybe this will register better...THE DOERS OF THE LAW...shall be, what is it?

Correct...JUSTIFIED.

Your distinction is grasping at straws, and a straw-man.

And the difference? If they are doing the works of the Law? This is separate from the Law?

It is the Law that is in view, it is justification in view, and it has nothing to do with them receiving the Spirit that does not come until Christ is glorified and returned to Heaven.

You need to understand that one point in my arguments.


Continued...

 

And the fact that the Law required the deaths of animals?

You want to say that the Law did not require those deaths? And if you do cede that point can you admit that it is not until Christ came, died, was buried, and arose again...

...that the provision for the Old Testament Saint was abrogated?

Honestly, just Basic Bible here, brother. Basic.

You are accusing me of another gospel yet teaching that there is no difference in being obedient to the Law, which was required (Christ Himself offered up sacrifice according to the Law), offering up sacrifice, and Christ offering up Himself?

That is denied here:


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.


Will you ignore this again? Its okay, not one person has bothered to address this Scripture in the context it is always presented.

Eternal Redemption was through the offering up of Christ Himself. The blood of bulls and goats could not make the comer thereunto perfect. He has perfected forever them that are sanctified.

When you can understand these things you will stop trying to impose something into Scripture that isn't there. You will stop tryiong to impose the Spirit of God as already infilling men before He is even sent.

You will see that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the immersion of believers into God, into Christ, into the Spirit, into the Father.

God is One, Biblicist.

Did not Adam exist in a state of spiritual death? And did not Adam have to offer up sacrifice for sin? We know Abel did.

So why don't you, Biblicist...offer up sacrifice for sin, as did all of the Old Testament Saints. Wait a minute, I want you to grasp this so let me put it like this: WHY DON"T YOU OFFER UP SACRIFICE AS DID ALL OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS?

Did that come through better?

Let me tell you why, since you seem to miss this Bible Basic: we are under the New Testament and enjoy the promises that the Old Testament Saint did not receive.

I know what you're thinking right now, you want to find an unrelated an irrelevant passage and ignore this point, but fight that desire, brother fight it hard, and...

...answer the question.




Continued...

 

Abraham did not have the Life of Christ, Biblicist.

Christ makes it clear the only means of eternal life is through faith in His death.

That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to men at Pentecost, including the disciples themselves.

That is why the Church is distinguished from the Old Testament Saints.

But, note carefully that this applies to Israel as well:


Ephesians 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


Now exegete the passage, and don't exegete 5-11, lol.

You are likely going to focus on the fact that implied is that Israel had Christ, and that is true, because they received the Oracles of God, and had the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ.

But, what you will likely ignore in this passage is that Paul makes it clear that...God reconciled both. Creating one new man.

And unless you, like so many "Baptists" here, try to impose the Church, which Christ said He would build upon confession of Himself, into the Old Testament, then you have to see that both Jew and Gentile had to be reconciled to God. The implication...they were not before.

And that is evident in that they were...

...under Law.

And that reconciliation is accomplished through bringing those spiritually dead into union with Himself through immersion in Himself which is accomplished through the Baptism with the Spirit, which is Christ the Baptizer immersing men into God.

Both, Biblicist, both. And that is precisely what the Writer of Hebrews is speaking about in Hebrews 9:12-15.


Continued...

 

You're still confusing yourself by imposing a concept that men were not "saved" prior to the Cross and Pentecost.

I don't teach that. Never have, never will.

For the last time, men were saved in the Old Testament like we are today in this Age: by grace...through faith. The result of their faith was justification before God, which ensures their eternal destination just as much as ours is secure. However, men did not go into Heaven at death, and if you also believe that, then you can tell me why. If you do believe they did, then I guess sin is not as big a deal as we make of it, because you would have men still in need of redemption of their transgressions under Law going to Heaven. Not impossible, God can do as He likes, this is true. But if that is true, then the Writer of Hebrews wastes quite a bit of his time, as well as mine, in contrasting the shadow and figure in the Law with the True:


Hebrews 9:6-9

King James Version (KJV)


6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;



Hebrews 9:22-24

King James Version (KJV)


22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


See the difference of Provision between the Law and the New Covenant?

See the Writer do it again here:


Hebrews 10:15-20

King James Version (KJV)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Do you really not see the difference of Provision between the Two?

Now I ask you again...why did all Old Testament Saints, beginning with Abel, offer up sacrifice, yet...

...you do not?

When you come to understand my position, rather than the position you keep trying to ascribe for me, then perhap what you have to say might be relevant.


God bless.

 

I highly encourage this.

This will be all for me on this thread for the time, and I will check back in when I return to this forum to see if any of the points raised have ever been answered.


God bless.

 

So let me get this straight: it's ok for you to accuse me of teaching worksbased salvation, call my views catholic, but...

...your bothered by my humor?

lol

When you see an "lol," brother, it really means I have found it funny. I really am laughing, or at least...smiling.

I don't like to have to yank chains, but if you back up you will see you have gotten very rude.

I have to take my leave of the forum for a while, so just taking some potshots this morning, using time I don't really have. You are free to address the points raised, and I will likely address your responses when I return.

On these two points, denying the validity of the Law, and ridicule, I will say that...

1. You have ignored the point of the quotation provided, which was supplied to address your question. Not sure how you can separate the Law from the works of the Law, and not see Paul does indeed speak of final judgment, because he has them standing before Christ:



Romans 2:13-16

King James Version (KJV)


13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


You deny this. Paul is wrong in saying that the doers of the Law shall be justified? And when is the day their performing of these works will be justified? Who will judge?

The point is not to say that men can be saved, Biblicist, it is precisely what Christ states...they are justified. James makes this same point, and the context is temporal, not eternal. And that is the point I have been trying to make, that in the Old Testament we have a physical/temporal quality that is contrasted to the revelation of that which is spiritual/eternal.


2. If you want to have an adult conversation, then you need to examine how you talk to people.

I can meet you on your level, if that is how you want to conduct this conversation, but if we keep it doctrinal (which means you need to address the points raised), we can make some progress.

So don't hate me because I have a sense of humor.

Now think about that, Biblicist: they had the Law, and we both agree that it showed them their sin, and the result was to drive them to Christ, right?

Had they knowledge that Christ would ultimately die on the Cross to address their spiritual problem? If you say yes, then you are still denying that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery...not yet revealed.

Did men know the Mystery of the Rapture? Because if they knew the Mystery of Christ, despite the fact it is said numerous times it was not revealed to men in past Ages, then they knew the Mystery of the Rapture as well. They knew the mystery of godliness.

I have to take my leave of this forum, but I did just want to encourage you to take a look at the arguments that were first presented, and track the course of the conversation. If you can do that, and still conclude you have addressed the issues raised, and have been civil, okay.

We see three primary means of revelation given men, that is the testimony of Creation itself, the internal witness of God given to all men, and direct revelation. Romans 2:11-16 speaks of the internal witness. The works of the Law cannot be performed apart from the Law itself. The point is...the Gentiles who had not received direct revelation will not be without excuse, because of the internal witness, to which, depending on their obedience to the will of God, they will be judged by Christ.

This is why we can go into secluded tribes who never heard the Gospel of Christ yet we see a pattern of obedience to the Law of God. Men know "by nature" that it is wrong to murder, for example. They will be judged according to their response to that revelation from God. But that is not to be confused with direct revelation, which the Jews are said to be held more culpable than the Gentiles. It has nothing to do with them being "saved," or with them receiving the Spirit Who was not sent until Pentecost. THey were saved by grace through faith, but that salvation cannot be equated to salvation in Christ, any more than we can claim to have glorified bodies. That we do not does not mean, as some teach...we aren't saved yet. So too we do not say the Old Testament Saint justified by faith wasn't saved.

Continued...

 

Consider:


Romans 2:25-29

King James Version (KJV)

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Paul is not talking about one being born again through the circumcision of the heart, he is speaking of the physical. It is the external performance of the Law by Jews as opposed to the internal response of the Gentile to the revelation given to him by God.

And there is no denying he is speaking about keeping the Law.

And there is no correlation to this to the New Birth and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

This has an Old Testament Context, and sets the stage for what he is going to do next: reveal the eternal and spiritual. It is contrasting physical Israel under Law with physical Gentiles who do not have the Law.

The point is simple: you Jews boast about having the Law...but you do not keep it. The Gentiles do not have the Law, but are obedient to the revelation of the will of God to their hearts, and that is what they will be judged by. Their response to God's revealed will.

And it is the Law, my friend, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is in view.

The Law.

So there are three types seen in the Old Testament:

1. The Jew who is dead in sins (bereft of life);

2. The Gentiles who is dead in sins (bereft of life);

3. The Old Testament Saint who is obedient to the revealed will of God, who, though he has not been made alive, has been justified by his faith, which is evidenced by obedience. This includes both Jew and Gentile.


We see that here as well (the internal witness of Himself to men):


Romans 1:18-20

King James Version (KJV)


18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Why are they held accountable? Because they have had revealed to them the will of God. They are without excuse. "That which may be known of God is manifest in them...God has shown them."

So when we bring this back to the context of our discussion, the popular pulpit preaching that everyone who has not heard the Gospel will go to Hell by default does not correlate either to redemptive History as seen in Scripture, nor does it take into account the fact that revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is progressive, and not make understood to mankind until the Promised Spirit is sent.

Those who were obedient to His will as revealed to them were justified, but the justification was due to their faith in God, which is why they were obedient to begin with.

Abraham...believed God. He responded to what was revealed to him, thus was he justified.

And if we look at one who is disobedient to God's will, we see no faith, which is precisely the Writer of Hebrews' point in Chapter Four. They received the Gospel, but it was not mixed with faith. They did not believe God, thus erected their own gods, that they might have something they could place their faith in:


Romans 1:21-25

King James Version (KJV)


21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


While you and I can perceive the Gospel of Christ in the Law, they could not. We understand because this has been revealed to us by the Comforter. They were given the truth, Biblicist, and they rejected it.

That doesn't mean we nullify the simple truth of the Mystery of the Gospel and impose an understanding of the Gospel of Christ into the understanding of the Old Testament Saints and Aints.

And I would love to talk about this all day, but duty calls. I have gotten behind in my business with this visit, so if I do not walk away altogether, lol, I will continue to fall behind.

You have imposed several false arguments that have been pointed out, probably the easiest being your assertion that I do not understand the significance of Christ being the Baptizer. I would challenge you to look at that and other false arguments you are asserting and discern if you made an error in those assertions. And also to discern if the fact that not only am I not ignorant of those issues, but how they relate to our conversation. If Christ is the Baptizer, Biblicist, and John predicts a future day for Christ Baptizing with the Holy Ghost, and Christ predicts a future day this will take place in the lives of the disciples, perhaps you can see that Christ being the Baptizer points to a ministry not carried out before.

I know it is unintentional, as it is with all who make this error, but, you are equating the benefits of the Provision in the Old Testament and under the Law with the benefits of Provision supplied by Christ through the establishment of the New Covenant. I don't say that to offend, just to awaken your mind to that simple truth. When you understand there is truly a difference between faith seen in the Old Testament Saints and faith specifically placed in the Risen Savior, you will truly appreciate the magnitude of Christ's Work.

God bless.

 

The floor is yours, Biblicist. It will be a while before I return, so you can cater to the audience you perceive is following you.

The "flooding" is simply a result of addressing what you have said. If you don't want long responses, don't make long replies.

As far as a "two-sided conversation," who is it that you are talking to? My responses have been directed to you, and have addressed what you have said. How much more two-sided can it possibly get?

As far as the ridiculing tone, review the thread, and see if you did not get very rude. I don't have a problem meeting people at their level, and do so in order to get their attention. Now that you have decided this is ridicule, perhaps that will impact how you address others in the future. We can only hope, right?

But don't take it too seriously, brother, I know this is a tough issue to discuss, and I expect emotions to arise. On the surface it seems very radical, but if you would but examine the elements of the discussion, you might be surprised at how it is actually built on a number of simple truths. The one that stands out so far for me is you insisting that John 7:37-39 shows men have eternal life, and that the Spirit being sent simply refers to an outflowing of the Spirit. The text is clear, the living waters themselves, which will flow out of the bellies (hearts)...is referring to the Spirit Who will be sent after Christ is glorified. The tense, as I said, is prophetic.

Okay, the thread is yours.

I will keep you and your family in my prayers, brother. Just because I have been yanking your chain doesn't mean I don't care about you.


God bless.

 

How about your MO?

Is it fitting for an administrator to slander a member?

And it is slander, as well as gossip. You set a fine example for Christian Authority.

You are invited to view the response JamesL refers to, and show how what is said is irrelevant to the focal point.

But you won't, we both know that.

Well, I prefer to see it this way:


1 Peter 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:


And it does not go unnoticed that you say "None of the above," yet you have no definitive statement about what the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is.

This is why Charismatics have been able to corrupt the Biblical teaching of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost...because those in authority do not have the correlating understanding of Scripture to actually instruct those under them as to the meaning of Immersion into God.

Not sure how you can moderate between members when you show respect of persons.


God bless.

 

Pick one point, if covering multiple points is too much. As I said, I need to step away, but this is far too important an issue to leave it as "Here is the truth, Darrell C is a catholic teaching works-based salvation, and teaching another gospel."

I have shown you several errors in the premises of you conclusions, will you publicly acknowledge those? Will you allow your own heart to acknowledge them?

We can start with the first one I can recall off-hand: that I don't understand that Christ is the Baptizer? Even though in the first page alone I made that point four times.

So let's start from the beginning, since you think it unfair for me to "flood the thread" with my responses (though it is perfectly acceptable for you).

Pick a point. Any point. We'll take it from there.

But don't think I am going to sit by and let you teach the carnal understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. As I said, it is by far too important an issue to let the pulpit bred conclusion that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a subsequent event to our salvation in Christ.

And though I don't have time, I think I will address another of your "short" responses this morning.


God bless.

 

Again we see the double standard. Here we have a long response to a very short statement, yet where is the first person saying anything about the length?

But, just so I am clear, I don't have a problem with the length of this response, because...

...that's how it is done.

Now, if you could actually address all statements I have made, as I do with yours, then you too will join that club which will gain you derision from the facebook crowd.

First, the confirmation is in Christ, and His fulfilling of the Promise, lol.

Second, you are welcome to show the Scripture that states Abraham was In Christ. You can show the Scripture where any of His disciples were In Christ prior to Pentecost. You can address the Scripture I have presented from John 14 and 16 that shows the Eternal Indwelling was future, and that Christ makes it clear the Spirit of God is with them, but would be in them, and that the AFather, Son, and Holy Ghost would come to abide in them. I'll forget your division of the Trinity for the time being, seeing multiple issues have compounded the struggle to keep the points in view.

Third...by Election? So we are saved, born again, and indwelt of God...by birth. You might not realize it, but that is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by saying Abraham was in Spiritual Union with God by Election. That utterly corrupts a proper view of Election. It denies that we are born spiritually dead, which you have argued is the case (as well as falsely accused me of not understanding, but again, I'll let that go for now, you're welcome). What you are denying is that Abraham was at a point in time justified by a faith that he was not born with.

And I will break these up, as I have done from the beginning, to make it easier for you to pick what it is you are going to answer.


Continued...

 

Sin was resolved by the Doctrine of Justification?

My friend, as I have repeatedly stressed...sin is only resolved in the Shed Blood of Christ.

Read it again:


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.


Abraham's sin was not resolved through his faith and the justification that arose from his faith. Abraham continued to offer up sacrifice for sin. He was justified by faith in offering up Isaac, but it was neither Isaac nor Christ that was offered up that day. You need to understand that, brother.

This is why the Writer of Hebrews states...


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)


10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


You are denying a Bible Basic in saying...

It was not resolved at all.

It was not until Christ died that it...was finished (complete).

I make this same point over and over, not just in this thread but every thread pertaining to the difference between the promise and the provision.

And when you address this point you will see the error of your premises.

And I invite @TCassidy to, since he agrees with you, also to address this point. If he is going to affirm what you are teaching, then he can do that by also correcting my error.


Continued...

 

And here we see where your doctrine has to acknowledge that Christ actually dying...is a benchmark in Redemptive History.

You use the word model, so the question is...is the model the reality?

I have addressed this and shown...it is not.

Abraham did not place specific faith in the Risen Savior, but had a foundational faith which the Writer of Hebrews says...don't lay again:


Hebrews 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


Acts 4:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


The Church is built upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not that there is a Messiah coming. I have made this point several times and it has never received a response.

If faith in the future works of God are identical, then the Jew need not come into union with God through the indwelling of the Spirit, he is already "saved" because he, like many Old Testament Saints, awaits in hope of the fulfillment of the Promises of God.

Those Promises are fulfilled in Christ...alone.


Continued...

 

So they are not justified by performing the works of the Law which are written on their hearts?

Here it is again:


Romans 2:11-15

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


You try to dismiss what is easily read, and try to distinguish between the works of the Law and the Law. There is no such distinction in Paul's statement, for it is clear...the doers of the works of the Law will be justified by doing, and it is by this whether they will stand or fall in judgment.

But because you impose so many false arguments into the discussion, you are missing that no-one, not Paul, nor me, are saying they are saved by the works of the Law. Now correlate that to the discussion at hand and you will understand what Paul is saying concerning justification, and that it is error to impose a salvific context into this. It is error to assume justification resulted in New Birth or the Eternal Indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

And that is not jsut your error, it is the error of most. You can disagree with that, but you will have to "exegete" this passage and show how Paul is not saying that the doers of the Law (which is being done by performing the works of the Law) are not said to be justified. Shall we create two linds of Justification to maintain the error of spiritual union imposed into the Old Testament?

It's right there, brother. Right there.


Continued...

 

And when you can determine the context of both statements, you will understand that in view are two Ages. In Romans Two in view are Israel who has the Law and Gentiles who do not have the Law. Among those two...

...is the subject of justification.

It is a simple point, only those who do, not those who hear...were justified.

Now, correlate that to our Second Age in view, which is the Age in which men are not under Law, but under the New Covenant.

Are there still two peoples in view, Biblicist? Or is there only one man In Christ in this Age?

And I'll clue you in to why so many reject this position, because they are hostile towards any view that suggests there are diffing Discpensations taught in Scripture. THey believe the Church has always been in existence and that one was a member of the Church in the Old Testament through faith.

The Church began at Pentecost. Do you agree, or not?


Continued...