Matthew 19:16-17

AMEN.

Well, KEVO, let's start with "improper assumptions."

Like: What do you know about me? Am I a liberal? Moderate? Conservative?

Am I a KJV Only guy? Or a KJV along with the Majority Text person? Or maybe "any version will do, because they ALL have problems, but they ALL have a grain of truth in them"?

Am I an independent fundamental Baptist? Landmark Baptist? Progressive? Primitive? Southern Baptist? GARBC?

Am I even a guy?

What dispensation do I adhere to? Seven dispensations? Perhaps an Acts 2 dispensationalist as opposed to an Acts 9 dispensationalist? Or, as someone stated here, an O.T. and N.T. dispensationalist?

You've made some assumptions, my friend. Perhaps--just perhaps--there's room for error in them....

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVTIM:
This is name calling on Pastor Larrys part.This should call for discipline.

Click to expand...

Where is the name calling? " (BTW, Thomas, I was not aware Larkin taught that. The only person I have heard it from was Ruckman and a follower of his. My apologies for that.)

I am myself am a Grace dispensationalist for the most part (i.e., the dispensationalism held by Grace Theological Seminary in previous days as taught by McClain, Kent, Whitcomb, etc.)

You guys need to relax a bit. I was simply making a comment about where your views come from.</font>[/QUOTE]Then your position Larry is a modern day bible changer.Position or stand?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that Bro. Coley, KEVO, KJVTim, and Japheth already know each other from somewhere?

Don,you are correct.KJVTIM is my brother,Bro.Coley is my pastor and friend,Japheth is my friend also.

Is there any way you could continue this "off topic" discussion via the e-mail. It is frustrating to follow the topic when you have to wade through all this junk.

I thought the original question was a good one and I am interested in hearing how others answer.

Thank you,
Pastor Bob

To sum up Matt. 19:16-22. The summation of the incident is explicit and concise:
1.You need to come to Jesusto have eternal life.

2.Jews needed to keep the law in the OT to have eternal life.

3.If you can not keep this law, you will have to look for a Messiah.

4.When He shows up you must come to Him. John 6:37

5.You do not keep all the law, even if you kid yourself into thinking you do.

6.The sabbath is a ceremony, not a moral command.

7.All of hidden sin is the real reason men try to keep the law, instead of coming to Christ.

8.You can be "near the kingdom" and know every fact necessart to be saved and still be lost.

Originally posted by KJVTIM:
2.Jews needed to keep the law in the OT to have eternal life.

3.If you can not keep this law, you will have to look for a Messiah.

Click to expand...

Thank you for getting back on the subject KJVTIM. I would ahve to take exception with points 2 and 3.

In the Old Testament, people were saved just the same as you and I are today. The difference being, they looked forward to the sacrificial atonement that Christ offered on the croos; you and I look backward to that event.

James 2:23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

Another biblical example would be the rich man in hell found in Luke 16. When this rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers, Abraham replied:
Luke 16:29 "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The point was they needed to believe as there was no mention of keeping the law .

Heb 10:1 "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 ."

That's interesting, because that's what I thought I said with my initial response to Bro. Coley.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVTIM:
2.Jews needed to keep the law in the OT to have eternal life.

3.If you can not keep this law, you will have to look for a Messiah.

Click to expand...

Thank you for getting back on the subject KJVTIM. I would ahve to take exception with points 2 and 3.

In the Old Testament, people were saved just the same as you and I are today. The difference being, they looked forward to the sacrificial atonement that Christ offered on the croos; you and I look backward to that event.

James 2:23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

Another biblical example would be the rich man in hell found in Luke 16. When this rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers, Abraham replied:
Luke 16:29 "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The point was they needed to believe as there was no mention of keeping the law .

Heb 10:1 "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 ."</font>[/QUOTE]hello pastor i beleive that much doctrinal error takes place today because many good folk try to apply all scripture to the age were in now. it just want work .this is what paul ment by rightly deviding the word of truth.

Originally posted by KEVO:
Would someone please explain what Paul meant in 2Tim 2:15

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 2:15(KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

From John Gill's commentary on this verse:

rightly dividing, or "cutting"

the word of truth; that is, the Scriptures of truth, Daniel 10:21 which come from the God of truth, are concerning Christ, who is the truth, and are dictated and led into by the spirit of truth, and contain in them nothing but truth: to divide the word, is not merely to divide the text into its proper parts, though care should be taken that this be done aright; and some think that the allusion is to the verses of the Hebrew Bible, which are called Myqwop, "divisions," sections, or cuttings, from the word qop, "to cut" or "divide," being cut or divided one from another; hence those that were employed in the law, and were conversant with the sacred writings, and exercised therein, were called trwtb Myqowp, "cutters," or "dividers of the law"; and so qwop leb is one that is well versed in the Bible, and knows every part of it, and readily uses it, in speaking or writing; and such an one was Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15 though I rather think the apostle refers to a wrong way of dividing the Scriptures by the Jews, to which he opposes the right dividing of them. They had used not only to take away a letter out of one word, and add it to another, and so expound the text, but to remove words in it, and make that which went before to go behind, and that which was behind to go before; and this they call a sharp knife, which bwtkh qyopmw Ktwx, "cuts and divides the Scriptures": but this way, which his countrymen used, the apostle would not have Timothy, and other Gospel ministers, make use of; for this is not rightly to divide, but to mangle and tear in pieces the word of truth. Moreover, to divide the word of truth, or to cut it, is to cut it open, and dissect its several parts, and search and look into the inside and bottom of it, for to find out every truth contained in it, and lay them open to others; and may be, as some have thought, an allusion to the cutting open the sacrifices, and laying the parts of them aright, and in a decent manner:

to which may be added, that since ministers of the Gospel are stewards, and who, when wise and faithful, give to everyone of the household their portion of meat in due season; the metaphor may be taken from such, and from masters and governors of families, who cut up the food, and distribute it to each, according to their age and appetite; and so the ministers of the Gospel are to distribute the spiritual food of the word to babes in Christ, and to grown Christians, according to their capacities, and suitable to their cases and circumstances, dividing to everyone what is proper for him: in short, one that divides the word of truth rightly, is, as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, one that "rightly handles"; or, as the Syriac version, that "rightly preaches the word of truth"; who gives the true sense of Scripture, does not pervert and wrest it, and take from it, or add to it; who points out the truth in it, and shows unto men the way of salvation, and plainly and faithfully preaches the Gospel contained in it, without keeping back anything that is profitable, but declares the whole counsel of God. This same Greek word is used by the Septuagint in Proverbs 3:6 where it answers to the Hebrew word rvy, which signifies to direct the way, and make it plain; and may here design a plain and open interpretation of the word of God: and to answer these several characters in the text should be the studious concern of every Gospel minister; and study is necessary thereunto; it requires great care that a man take heed to himself, and to his doctrine; and great industry, diligence, and application, and much reading, meditation, and prayer.

Ken

Ken,if you try to apply the whole bible d
doctrinally to the church age it just won't work.If people in the old testament were saved like us that means they could not lose their salvation. Why did they make sacrifices then

KEVO,

Your incorrect dividing up of the Word of God won't work. I urge to read some good sermons to help with your theological understanding of the Bible. I recommend you go to www.spurgeon.org and read some of the sermons of arguably the greatest Baptist preacher of all time, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Ken

I agree with KEVO,if everybody was saved as people are now days, then why did Christ have to die??

Originally posted by Japheth:
I agree with KEVO,if everybody was saved as people are now days, then why did Christ have to die??

Click to expand...

Christ bore the sins of His people, He suffered their eternal punishment for them. His was a substitutionary atonement. His people's sins were imputed to Him, His righteousness was imputed to His people.

Surely no one who is a Baptist believes anyone can perfectly work his way into God's presence. Frankly, that would be extremely false teaching and very, very dangerous to one's eternal well-being.

Ken

2TIM2:15 from commentary by DR.COLEY, TO rightly devide the truth you must ask who is speaking? who are they speaking to? and what are they saying? all scripture is for us but it is not all to us. for ex.you can go to my mailbox and get my power bill,it would benefit you , you could learn from it, but it would be foolish for you to pay it ,why? because its not to you.in the so called lords prayer the decsiples said lord teach us to pray. one thing he said to pray was thy kingdom come. we are not looking for a kingdom but listening for a shout.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVTIM:
2.Jews needed to keep the law in the OT to have eternal life.

3.If you can not keep this law, you will have to look for a Messiah.

Click to expand...

Thank you for getting back on the subject KJVTIM. I would ahve to take exception with points 2 and 3.

In the Old Testament, people were saved just the same as you and I are today. The difference being, they looked forward to the sacrificial atonement that Christ offered on the croos; you and I look backward to that event.

James 2:23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."</font>[/QUOTE]A careful student of the Bible will know that the book of James is not doctrinally for you and I. Read James1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve scattered abroad, greeting.

Another biblical example would be the rich man in hell found in Luke 16. When this rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers, Abraham replied:

Luke 16:29 "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

The point was they needed to believe as there was no mention of keeping the law.

Heb 10:1 "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."

[ July 30, 2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

Ken,it is not dangerous to my eternal well being because I am not in the tribulation.

If the Old Testament saints were justified by keeping the law, why did Paul go to such great lengths in Romans 4 to show that the two people in the Old Testament in whom the Jews most gloried were actually justified by faith? If they were justified by keeping the law, Paul's example would not make sense.

In addition to the sermons by Spurgeon, let me recommend one entitled "Great Guilt No Obstacle to the Pardon of the Returning Sinner" by Jonathan Edwards. The text of the sermon is Psalm 25:11 (a Psalm of David) "For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great." Notice that his plea is based upon "For thy name's sake, O LORD,". He was depending solely upon the mercy of God and not "For my righteousness sake." Had David been depending on keeping the law for righteousness maybe he should have said, "pardon my iniquity; for it is not too bad."