Romans 4:10

[swaimj]

Ok, so you don't believe people under the Law were saved by the works of the Law while the Mosaic Covenant was in effect.

That wasn't too hard now was it? lol

And you were able to figure that out without my simple "yes or no". Maybe you can help Kyredneck grasp it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[kyredneck]

One more time; the question to you swaimji was:

Swaimji, are you implying that, after the law was given, it was by the keeping of the law that folks were saved? It sounds that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

 

[Aaron]

How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

What is the significance of this statement? What is the point that Paul is making?

.......and please, don't be bashful. I'm not setting up a 'staw man', but I do have a point to make.

It shows that there is no advantage to being a Jew.

 

[kyredneck]

Without reading other comments, that God has justified both Jew and Gentile apart from the works of the Law in Christ Jesus on the basis of faith alone.

It shows that there is no advantage to being a Jew.

Thank you both very much. You both get a star next to your name. I've got to go now, but I have another question to pose.

and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Gen 12:3
How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

 

[Amy.G]

One more time; the question to you swaimji was:



A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

It was a dumb question. I have never met a person who believed the Law saved, especially a Baptist.

 

[Bob Alkire]

It was a dumb question. I have never met a person who believed the Law saved, especially a Baptist.

I agree. All have been saved the same way, by the grace of God.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thank you both very much. You both get a star next to your name. I've got to go now, but I have another question to pose.

and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Gen 12:3
How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

I missed the question...

 

[Robert Snow]

It was a dumb question. I have never met a person who believed the Law saved, especially a Baptist.

I don't believe kyredneck wanted a yes or no answer, he was just picking a fight with swaimj. I guess the fact that swaimj is a sensationalist is disturbing to kyredneck.

 

[canadyjd]

I don't believe kyredneck wanted a yes or no answer, he was just picking a fight with swaimj. I guess the fact that swaimj is a sensationalist is disturbing to kyredneck.

I've never heard of this belief system before.

What exactly is a "sensationalist"? Are they a new form of charismatic?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

oh, "dispensationalist".



peace to youraying:

 

[OldRegular]

Swaimji, are you implying that, after the law was given, it was by the keeping of the law that folks were saved? It sounds that way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think that Swamji agree on too much but I had no problem understanding his response:

Response by Swaimj
The point is that Abraham is the prototype of all who are saved. He was saved, not by keeping the law, for the law had not been given. He was saved, not by circumcision, for circumcision had not yet been commanded. He was saved by faith in the promise that God made him.

Notice in particular the first and last sentences: [My Bold]

The point is that Abraham is the prototype of all who are saved.

He was saved by faith in the promise that God made him.

He correctly states that the law had not yet been given!

Did I miss it or was there any hint that Swaimj thought one could be saved by circumcision since he made the identical statement about circumcision that he did about the law.

 

[swaimj]

I guess the fact that swaimj is a sensationalist is disturbing to kyredneck.

I like this new term for my theological position! Yes, I am a sensationalist! :laugh:

 

[Aaron]

It was a dumb question. I have never met a person who believed the Law saved, especially a Baptist.

I've met many of them, even Baptist.

 

[kyredneck]

Swaimji, I give you my sincere apology if I have offended or insulted you. This was an unexpected, and unintended, direction that this thread has veered off on. Your response(s) seemed ambiguous to me on the subject of 'being saved through the keeping of the law', and I felt at the time that I was being neither impolite or disrespectful in my requests for clarification on your stance. I was not aware that your stance was, “If you hung me upside-down by my ears and pulled my toe-nails out one by one, I would not give you the pleasure of hearing a yes or no answer to this question.” (to which I find humor in trying to imagine such a feat. Right side up maybe, but upside down? Get real. .) I promise, I would never do such a thing to you.

I was raised in a 'Scofield brand' (EVERYBODY packed a Scofield Bible) dispensational Southern Baptist church that actually taught the errors that are brought out in the excerpts below. Perhaps this may shed some light on my be suspicious nature toward dispensationalism:

Excerpts from an essay by Gordon H. Clark, The unity of God’s saving work. [1983 ?]
http://www.reformationonline.com/dispensationalism.htm

“Recently the…extreme of multiplying covenants or dispensations has given rise to Dispensationalism......

....The really serious error, the actually fatal error, of dispensationalism is the construing of these dispensations so as to provide, since the fall, two (or more) separate and distinct plans of salvation....

...Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “There are two widely different, standardized, divine provisions, whereby man, who is utterly fallen may come into the favor of God” (Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 93, 1936, 410). ...

On 1 John 3:7, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous,” the Scofield Bible’s note is in part, “The righteous man under law became righteous by doing righteously; under grace he does righteously because he has been made righteous.”....

..... Thus instead of a covenant of grace—extending from Adam, through Abraham, into Galatians, and on to the culmination—dispensationalism has two methods of salvation.

.....Scofield’s footnote to Romans 7:56 speaks of “two methods of divine dealing, one through the law, the other through the Holy Spirit.”......

,,,,Similarly the footnote [Scofield] to John 1:17, “Grace … is constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man.”........ Therefore Scofield is quite wrong in the following footnote, which says, “As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation.” ........

......Though it may not be spelled out so explicitly, the [Scofield] footnote to Matthew 5:2 in effect says that sinners during the millennium will be saved, not by the blood, merits, and grace of Christ, but by their obedience to the beatitudes, which are “pure law.”.....

...It is on the Abrahamic covenant that Dispensationalism most obviously founders. A supposed antithesis between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic dispensation, plus the antithesis and mutual incompatibility between both and he New Testament covenant of grace, is a contradiction of both Testaments.....

.... another subsidiary though important instance in Scofield’s footnote to Matthew 16:18: “Israel was a true church, but not in any sense the New Testament church—the only point of similarity being that both were ‘called out’ [ek-klesia], and by the same God. All else is contrast.”....

(heheh, upside down by the ears? I can't imagine.. )

I'll be back, gotta leave again. I'd like to get this thread back on my original thoughts

 

[swaimj]

Swaimji, I give you my sincere apology if I have offended or insulted you.

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

If those notes were taught uncorrected, I can certainly understand your hostility to dispensationalism. The notes are wrong, but this has been acknowledged by dispensationalists.

As for hanging upside-down by the ears, I figure as long as one is trying to figure out how to do that successfully, my toe-nails are safe!

God bless!

 

[Marcia]

I was raised in a 'Scofield brand' (EVERYBODY packed a Scofield Bible) dispensational Southern Baptist church that actually taught the errors that are brought out in the excerpts below. Perhaps this may shed some light on my be suspicious nature toward dispensationalism:

Excerpts from an essay by Gordon H. Clark, The unity of God’s saving work. [1983 ?]
http://www.reformationonline.com/dispensationalism.htm

This is part of what you quoted from Clark:

Scofield’s footnote to Romans 7:56 speaks of “two methods of divine dealing, one through the law, the other through the Holy Spirit.”......

,,,,Similarly the footnote [Scofield] to John 1:17, “Grace … is constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man.”........ Therefore Scofield is quite wrong in the following footnote, which says, “As a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation.” ........

There is no Rom. 7:56.

I have a Scofield and am looking at the Notes for John 1:17. There is nothing there that states anyone was saved by the law. Yes, God demanded righteousness. This is true. But it also was the way God showed people they could not be righteous under the law. He states that "In its fullness, grace began with the ministry of Christ involving his death and resurrection...<....>" and "Under the former dispensation, law was shown powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Ga. 3:21-22). Prior to the cross salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3), being grounded on Christ's atoning sacrifice, anticipated by God (Rom. 3:25; see Gen. 1:28 note, etc.)"

The note also states: "There was grace before Christ came, as witnessed by the provision of sacrifice for sinners <ref. here to some OT passages>. The difference between the former age and the present age, therefore, is not a matter of no grace and some grace, but rather that today grace reigns (Rom. 5:21) in the sense that the only Being who has a right to judge sinners (John 5:22) is now seated on a throne of grace (Heb. 4:14-16), not blaming the world for their trespasses (2 Cor. 5:19)." (Italics in original)

There is nothing here to support a view that anyone was saved under the law, or could be. The note merely points out that the fullness of grace was revealed with Christ, not that people were not saved by faith earlier.

 

[Marcia]

As for this:

......Though it may not be spelled out so explicitly, the [Scofield] footnote to Matthew 5:2 in effect says that sinners during the millennium will be saved, not by the blood, merits, and grace of Christ, but by their obedience to the beatitudes, which are “pure law.”....

I have read this note. It does not state nor imply this in any way. In fact, the note states that the law shows that men fall below the standard and "salvation by works of the law is an impossibility."

The Note states that the Sermon on the Mount shows the behavior demanded by the Law and how this law will be "the governing code" in the coming Kingdom, but the entirety of the note (which is rather lengthy) does not imply in any way that men will be saved by the law in the future, or ever could be saved this way. In fact, he says the opposite.

I was raised in a home with an agnostic father and nominal So. Baptist mother whom I never heard pray nor did I ever see her use the Bible. My sister and I were taken to various churches (we moved around, including overseas) but I was not exposed to any dispensational teachings that I recall. Nor was I saved. I was saved late in life, after spending most of my adult life in the New Age, and did not not even know what Dispensationalism, Reformed beliefs, or the Rapture were as a new believer. I had never heard of these things (and I was not very young at this point). So I was not conditioned by Scofield or anyone else along these lines. I am very sensitive to the teaching of scripture on grace and salvation by faith alone and would have noticed anything contrary to this in the notes in the Scofield Bible (which is not the only Bible I use btw).

 

[swaimj]

Marcia,

I'm not sure how well I recall the history of the Scofield notes and the Scofield Bible, but I am pretty sure that the notes Kyredneck referred to were in early editions of the notes, but were later removed by a revision committee. Not sure of the dates that this took place or the exact sequence.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

I'm not sure how well I recall the history of the Scofield notes and the Scofield Bible, but I am pretty sure that the notes Kyredneck referred to were in early editions of the notes, but were later removed by a revision committee. Not sure of the dates that this took place or the exact sequence.

I was wondering about that as I only have a later edition. However, some of what was partially quoted above did match the notes I have.

I meant to say that I don't agree with all of the Scofield notes! However, in the edition I have, at least, there is nothing iin the notes I've read ndicating different types of salvation at different times.

 

[kyredneck]

I missed the question...

RB, and to everyone else for that matter, I apologize for the delays on my part for not staying on top of my threads (perhaps I shouldn't start threads). Between tending to our aged parents and raising an adolescent granddaughter, duty is apt to call on my wife and/or I at anytime; and me being the weak minded unlearned hillbilly that I am, it DOES break my concentration.

...... I can certainly understand your hostility to dispensationalism......

Swaimji, in all honesty, it is not hostility but fear. A sense of a danger that lies within the bowels of dispensationalism. When I make blunt, off the cuff posts such as the one below, I can't fault anyone for considering me to be hostile (or rude) towards dispensationalism:

What a crock..........

Note the trips.........

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

[ http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62942 ]

But the fact is Paul is giving a blunt, non-PC, threefold warning concerning this entity that modern day dispensationalists considers as 'God's chosen people'.

From the OP:

How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: Ro 4:10

What is the significance of this statement? What is the point that Paul is making?

Paul answers here:

13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect:

What is the promise? That Abraham and his seed should be heir of the world. Who is his seed?:

16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
29 And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3

Why does dispensational Christendom today apply the promise below, which was given BEFORE circimcision, solely to the physical seed of Abraham?:

and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Gen 12:2,3

How many of the dispensationalists on the BB believe such things as these?:

CURSE THOSE THAT CURSE ISRAEL:
“...It was because the Roman Cornelius of Caesarea was good to the Jews that Cornelius was the first Gentile to receive the gospel......I do not think it is possible to be a good Christian and not stand with Israel and the Chosen People.”
http://bibleprobe.com/curses.htm

“God’s blessing upon a people and nation will depend on how they treat Israel. God promised this to Abraham, the Father of the Jews.....”
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2009/07/antiobama_rally_in_jerusalem_g.html

Blessed Be Israel
“The descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the Jewish people) are the people mentioned in Genesis 12:3 by which God brings blessings and/or cursings upon individuals, as well as nations, yes, even today.”
http://www.shalom-peace.com/blessed.html

Christians in support of the nation of Israel
“The Bible calls for us Christians to pray for and support the nation of Israel. Genesis 12:3 gives us this commandment from the Almighty God:...“
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3542366695

“Criticism of Israel and of the United States for supporting it leaves evangelicals unmoved. If anything, it only strengthens their conviction that the world hates Israel because "fallen man" naturally hates God and his "chosen people." In standing by Israel, evangelicals feel that they are standing by God -- something they are ready to do against the whole world. Thus John Hagee....." "God's policy toward the Jewish people," Hagee writes, "is found in Genesis 12:3," and he goes on to quote the passage about blessings and curses. "America is at the crossroads!" Hagee warns. "Will we believe and obey the Word of God concerning Israel, or will we continue to equivocate and sympathize with Israel's enemies?"
http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/29596.html

Those who curse Israel.. The USA?
“..... We also need to be praying that God will show Obama and Clinton along with other government leaders that they will finish off the USA if they continue down their path to force Israel to obey them.”
http://www.thesaintsinlight.com/post/2009/03/Those-who-curse-Israel--The-USA.aspx

America is now experiencing the consequences (curses) of Middle East policies which have been opposed to God's Word and to the preservation of His covenant land....this country's participation in Israel's destiny has been flawed when put in context of Holy Scripture.... if this nation continues to support the Mitchell Plan, affirming a land for peace approach, America can expect to experience the lifting of the Lord's protective hand in an even greater measure.
http://www.watch.org/showart.php3?idx=20174&rtn=/index.html&showsubj=1&mcat=1

“By seeking sanction against Iran, Christians are attempting to be “salt” in preserving Israel and the entire region from bloody conflict......Where is all the support for Israel, God's chosen Land, and for the Jewish people, His chosen people? Genisis 12 says...”
http://www.christianpost.com/articl...rs-call-for-sanctions-against-iran/index.html