Should we read our Bible?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

People who just read their Bible, without being mentored by others:
Joseph Smith
Charles Taze Russell
Mary Baker Eddy
Victor Paul Wierville
Herbert W Armstrong
Satan

A fool goes to war without counsel.

Bible reading for understanding is hardly the hallmark of cult leaders.

Instead, they follow a much different path.

The reject sound doctrine, twist the truth, and follow their own vain imaginations.

They are puffed up in their thinking, and camp out on vague, obscure passages.

They claim to know the truth but are consumed by their own pride and passions.

They manipulate the unstable and unsuspecting to turn them into their own followers.

 

[Van]

Don't read your Bibles, or study and meditate on the Word of God! No Siree Bob, close that book and read the companion, the commentary of fallible people.

Now that does sound like the plan of a cultish advocate!

True Baptists believe ordinary lost people can read, study and meditate upon God's Word, especially if presented using their vocabulary, words they understand. OTOH, those that embrace the mistaken commentary dating from the "dark ages" say "no, no, no, study our pamphlets and creeds that make the word of God to no effect.

 

[percho]

Worked for the RR 40 years and don't know how many times I went through, with JVM, the bible going to or from work.

 

[JasonF]

@JonC

My mom had that concern when I went to seminary (in a way, she was justified as I came out a Calvinist....but I repented )

You are not a Calvinist? as you repented of it? So what does that mean, I feel like I have never heard of anyone considered sound who wasn't a Calvinist? No offense meant, just what my personal history suggests, as far as I can recall. I am not that familiar with formal doctrine, but have so far thought Calvinism seemed correct... though I suppose by that I mean Elected of God not by our will, not sure what all Calvinism really contains or what that word means.

The disagreement I have with Reformed Theology (one of them) is the direction they go. I believe the OT is best understood through the lens of the New Covenant.

I would like to understand your beliefs better, including who you do have agreement with, what you disagree with on Reformed Theology, as I don't understand your comment hear, (I have never thought anyone did anything but look at the OT through the NT), and so on. You do not accept private messages it seems, otherwise I'd just have contacted you there.

The Old Testament is quite confusing to me, I don't know how any Old Testament times saints understood all the things they seemed to understand. Even without the New Testament Scripture, they seem to have understood things far better than me.

Then with the New Testament Saints, I don't know much except for Paul of course, as the others are brief in their letters and the gospels focus on the life of Christ, but Paul seems to have all the answers.

 

[JonC]

@JonC



You are not a Calvinist? as you repented of it? So what does that mean, I feel like I have never heard of anyone considered sound who wasn't a Calvinist? No offense meant, just what my personal history suggests, as far as I can recall. I am not that familiar with formal doctrine, but have so far thought Calvinism seemed correct... though I suppose by that I mean Elected of God not by our will, not sure what all Calvinism really contains or what that word means.



I would like to understand your beliefs better, including who you do have agreement with, what you disagree with on Reformed Theology, as I don't understand your comment hear, (I have never thought anyone did anything but look at the OT through the NT), and so on. You do not accept private messages it seems, otherwise I'd just have contacted you there.

The Old Testament is quite confusing to me, I don't know how any Old Testament times saints understood all the things they seemed to understand. Even without the New Testament Scripture, they seem to have understood things far better than me.

Then with the New Testament Saints, I don't know much except for Paul of course, as the others are brief in their letters and the gospels focus on the life of Christ, but Paul seems to have all the answers.

It was kinda tongue in cheek. Kinda not.

I was a Calvinist. My views (obviously) influenced my preaching.

The reason I became a Calvinist is that I was persuaded that Free-Will Theology was lacking. I'd say God led me to Calvinism. I came to a better understanding than I had previously held regarding some doctrines (mostly concerning predestination and how men could choose to be saved without that being predetermined by God).

One Sunday evening I was preaching at a church in Tennessee. It wasn't my church, but I had been asked to preach (it was a Baptist church). I preached on the Cross and drive home a few points (a few Calvinistic points about the Atonement). The sermon was well received and I went to bed feeling good about the sermon.

I awoke the next morning with a conviction that I had preached a philosophy and not Scripture.

I bought two dry erase boards and hung in my office. I wrote down the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (the theory upon which Calvinism is based) and each verse proving the theory. That took awhile.

Then I erased every verse that did not actually support Penal Substitution directly. In the end there were no passages left.

I realized that I had read penal substitution into those passages. When I read that Christ died for us I say "Christ died instead of us". I realized that I had read Scripture as if it were written in my own worldview rather than simply trusting God's Word for "what is written".

The next few years were difficult. But I was finally able to read the Bible without reading into it.

I had studied the writings of early Christians and always wondered how they missed Penal Substitution. I thought (like many had supposed) that they were busy living through persecutions so their theology was simply less developed. But I have since found a richer meaning in Scripture. I believe the early Church had a more correct view of Scripture.

So God led me to Calvinism for a season. But He led me away from Calvinism when the time was right. We should constantly grow and learn, leave behind error but take with us truth.

 

[JonC]

Oh....among sound non-Calvinists are men like A W. Tozer, D.L. Moody, Adrian Rogers, C.S. Lewis, and Gordon Fee (to name a few).

You could add Norman Geisler as his soteriology is not Calvinistic (Baptists usually use this as a criteria) and most Calvinists reject Jonathan Edwards's soteriology as Calvinism.

If you enjoy the writings of the earlier Christians you can consider Clement (30-100), Ignatius (30-107), Polycarp (69-155), Irenaeus (120-200), Athenagoras (133-190), Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Tertullian (155 – 225), Hippolytus (170-235), Origen (184- 254), Lucian (240-312), Alexander of Alexandia (died 326), Eusebius (260-340), Athanasius (298-374), Cyril (313-386).

You also can include Martin Luther, Jan Hus, Zwingli, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.



Many of my favorites are Calvinists. But some that I like to read who are not include T.F. Torrance, N.T. Wright, Menno Simons, Charles Stanley, ....D.L. Moody may be my top pick.

 

[JasonF]

Hmm...

mostly concerning predestination and how men could choose to be saved without that being predetermined by God

What are you referring to with men choosing to be saved without being predetermined? This doesn't make sense to me since it states that we are predestined?

What then do you believe, I don't understand. I have heard of Tozer, Moody, and Lewis, but not sure about Rogers or Fee.
Am supposed to go to a 1 man theater production on C.S. Lewis Saturday, but read a Puritan tract against theater recently that as my anxiety going a bit about things like tv and theater and such.

I just want truth, but I guess it isn't supposed to be super easy to figure this all out.

I only just read things that made the predestination/election part of Calvinism really make sense and how a person can't will it, and it was these readings that made me think reading more about formal doctrine works and so on would be really helpful to me.

Which Early Church people are you referring to, who can be read in English today? What do you recommend for someone like me who is rather confused, has anxiety issues, but really wants to grow in God and the Bible and the truth and all that. I am most familiar with just reading the Bible like I would any book, but the recent reading of other things seemed to connect dots and make the Election part stand out more and thought it was a good thing.

Are you a pastor then? based on some of your comments it seems so but I don't to just guess at it.

 

[JonC]

Hmm...



What are you referring to with men choosing to be saved without being predetermined? This doesn't make sense to me since it states that we are predestined?

What then do you believe, I don't understand. I have heard of Tozer, Moody, and Lewis, but not sure about Rogers or Fee.
Am supposed to go to a 1 man theater production on C.S. Lewis Saturday, but read a Puritan tract against theater recently that as my anxiety going a bit about things like tv and theater and such.

I just want truth, but I guess it isn't supposed to be super easy to figure this all out.

I only just read things that made the predestination/election part of Calvinism really make sense and how a person can't will it, and it was these readings that made me think reading more about formal doctrine works and so on would be really helpful to me.

Which Early Church people are you referring to, who can be read in English today? What do you recommend for someone like me who is rather confused, has anxiety issues, but really wants to grow in God and the Bible and the truth and all that. I am most familiar with just reading the Bible like I would any book, but the recent reading of other things seemed to connect dots and make the Election part stand out more and thought it was a good thing.

Are you a pastor then? based on some of your comments it seems so but I don't to just guess at it.

Yes, that was my primary concern. I believe that everything is predestined. My position is closer to Jonathan Edwards than Theodore Beza (Calvinism).

All of the Early Church writings I mentioned have been translated into English and most are available online at no cost.

I graduated with a BA and Masters in theology. A few years later I was a preacher and teacher. I am not a pastor (you are new here, but @tyndale1946 can testify about my lack of people skills )....I was not called to pastor a church.

I moved from the Nashville area about 5 years ago. I taught for awhile at my church but stopped due to work (I can fill in but can't be there for a class and thought that unfair to them).


My belief is more inline with the early church than Calvinism. I do believe that everything is predestined, to include reprobation. And in the eternal security of the believer.

But I am a "Biblicist". That means that I believe any doctrine worthy of standing upon must be in the text of Scripture.

Election is a tricky one because Scripture never calls a list person "elect" (they are "added among the elect"). So that does not rule out election being corporate. My view of predestination covers that one, though, so I don't need to get dogmatic about it.

 

[JonC]

Hmm...
What then do you believe, I don't understand.

Within Baptistic thought there are two basic views of the Atonement (this is the crux of the difference....other differences grow out of this).

There is the "Classic view" (which has several theories under it, but they are comparable) and the "Latin View" (three basic theories which are independent and contradict one another).

The main two here are the "Classic View" and the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (one of the three theories under the "Latin View").

Here are summaries. Read then and see which makes more sense:

Traditional Christianity:

Adam sinned and through His sin death entered the world and spread to all men for all have sinned. This is physical death. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He became a curse for us. He took upon Himself the curse we deserve, suffered and died under the powers of this World. But He is sinless. God vindicated Christ and He was raised to life on the third day. He is a Life giving Spirit. We will suffer the wages of sin but we will not be condemned among the wicked at Judgment because we are made new creations in Christ. In Him we escape the wrath to come, which is a Christ-centered judgment (the lost are already condemned for rejecting Christ, the Father judges no one but all judgment has been given to the Son).

Penal Substitution Theory:

Adam sinned and through His sin death entered the world. Adam died a spiritual death. This death spread to all for all have sinned. God wanted to save man so He sent His Son and transfered man's sins onto Christ, punished our sins on Christ in such a way that Christ experienced a type of spiritual death, satisfying the demands of divine justice so that men are forgiven.


I believe the former. Most Christians believe the former.
Most here believe the latter. No Christian prior to the 16th Century believed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and most Christians today reject it. But most Baptists hold to it, however lightly.

 

[JasonF]

Alright so you've got me confused. I was recommended this book, can you take a glance and see if you can form any opinion on it.

https://n.b5z.net/i/u/10086795/f/What_is_Salvation.pdf

To be honest i am not sure i can see your descriptions as you can, i have learned more lately how we can have different meanings for words.

I think both descriptions you gave sound overall to be Biblical. I will point out what i question the validity of.

Before i forget, are there any concerns related to translation with the early Christian writers you speak of? As it seems likely they would be less officially and less multi person translation projects so it seems easier for ones interpretations who is translating the work to be able to possibly affect that translation.


Ok first description.

I am not sure that death would be physical... Perhaps this is the main issue at hand. We know Christ died a physical death, what else happened i don't know, except that he seems to have gone to preach to those in hell who died during the flood. He does quote the psalm that begins by mentioning the Father forsaking him. I am not sure what this means. It is true because of the Psalms sake and because he quotes it. In what way did the Father forsake the Son?

I am guessing you would say by allowing him, who is sinless, to die a physical death since a sinless person should not be able to die or suffer the wages of sin. I would like comment on this as it does seem that Jesus would not normally have been allowed to die any type of death being sinless but he was specifically provided for that as the sacrifice of God so I guess that is why and how it was allowed?

I am unsure of the meaning of death in the verse the wages of sin is death. You have demonstrated you believe this to be physical death. I would rather state it seems to mean, and i don't say spiritual death because I don't know what that phrase means, but it would seem to me to actually refer to the eternal state of destruction that those who enter the lake of fire find themselves in.

I'm guessing others would say that by being forsaken by the Father that he died a spiritual death. But I recall nothing to mind that would substantiate or tell me what a spiritual death is The only thing I can refer to is the eternal state of destruction. The world thinks of the word death as meaning ceasing to exist whereas it instead seems to refer to a state of destruction those who die a physical death face a physical state of destruction where the spirit or soul or both leaves the body whereas there is also the second death which is the eternal state of destruction that those find themselves in who enter the lake of fire where I believe that they are tormented forever and ever.

This whole thing has me confused as to how this all works, Christ paid our price by dying on the cross therefore he faced whatever the wages of death is in our place, but how this all works I don't know. That does seem to lean in favor of the wages of sin is death meaning a physical death and that by Christ dying a physical death that a sinless person should be incapable of experiencing, that he paid for our sins in that way but for some reason your first description does not seem to have him paying our debt but rather just dying.

I am unsure of the use of the word vindicated for your first description. I am not sure why that word was used by you or what Scripture you base that usage on.

Again as I look at your first description I see that I question again your definition of the wages of sin for I do not believe that those who find themselves in Christ do face or experience the wages of sin for Christ took that upon himself and we are forgiven and not all who are alive will face physical death as some will be changed at his returning.

The rest of the first description seems correct as I think each piece of it is taken specifically from Scripture.


For the second description I now have to ask what does it mean to die a spiritual death I know not wear in Scripture it states this. You then mention again Christ dying a spiritual death and I don't know what that means. I would have to say that both seem to be saying the same thing and I believe that Christ paid our debt because the wages of sin is death and we are owed our wages therefore it is due to us and maybe a debt and thus Christ paid it?

 

[JonC]

Alright so you've got me confused. I was recommended this book, can you take a glance and see if you can form any opinion on it.

https://n.b5z.net/i/u/10086795/f/What_is_Salvation.pdf

To be honest i am not sure i can see your descriptions as you can, i have learned more lately how we can have different meanings for words.

I think both descriptions you gave sound overall to be Biblical. I will point out what i question the validity of.

Before i forget, are there any concerns related to translation with the early Christian writers you speak of? As it seems likely they would be less officially and less multi person translation projects so it seems easier for ones interpretations who is translating the work to be able to possibly affect that translation.

Where do you speak of them as for right now i can only speculate it would be the on CCEL under early church.

Ok first description.

I am not sure that death would be physical... Perhaps this is the main issue at hand. We know Christ died a physical death, what else happened i don't know, except that he seems to have gone to preach to those in hell who died during the flood. He does quote the psalm that begins by mentioning the Father forsaking him. I am not sure what this means. It is true because of the Psalms sake and because he quotes it. In what way did the Father forsake the Son?

I am guessing you would say by allowing him, who is sinless, to die a physical death since a sinless person should not be able to die or suffer the wages of sin. I would like comment on this as it does seem that Jesus would not normally have been allowed to die any type of death being sinless but he was specifically provided for that as the sacrifice of God so I guess that is why and how it was allowed?

I am unsure of the meaning of death in the verse the wages of sin is death. You have demonstrated you believe this to be physical death. I would rather state it seems to mean, and i don't say spiritual death because I don't know what that phrase means, but it would seem to me to actually refer to the eternal state of destruction that those who enter the lake of fire find themselves in.

I'm guessing others would say that by being forsaken by the Father that he died a spiritual death. But I recall nothing to mind that would substantiate or tell me what a spiritual death is The only thing I can refer to is the eternal state of destruction. The world thinks of the word death as meaning ceasing to exist whereas it instead seems to refer to a state of destruction those who die a physical death face a physical state of destruction where the spirit or soul or both leaves the body whereas there is also the second death which is the eternal state of destruction that those find themselves in who enter the lake of fire where I believe that they are tormented forever and ever.

This whole thing has me confused as to how this all works, Christ paid our price by dying on the cross therefore he faced whatever the wages of death is in our place, but how this all works I don't know. That does seem to lean in favor of the wages of sin is death meaning a physical death and that by Christ dying a physical death that a sinless person should be incapable of experiencing, that he paid for our sins in that way but for some reason your first description does not seem to have him paying our debt but rather just dying.

I am unsure of the use of the word vindicated for your first description. I am not sure why that word was used by you or what Scripture you base that usage on.

Again as I look at your first description I see that I question again your definition of the wages of sin for I do not believe that those who find themselves in Christ do face or experience the wages of sin for Christ took that upon himself and we are forgiven and not all who are alive will face physical death as some will be changed at his returning.

The rest of the first description seems correct as I think each piece of it is taken specifically from Scripture.


For the second description I now have to ask what does it mean to die a spiritual death I know not wear in Scripture it states this. You then mention again Christ dying a spiritual death and I don't know what that means. I would have to say that both seem to be saying the same thing and I believe that Christ paid our debt because the wages of sin is death and we are owed our wages therefore it is due to us and maybe a debt and thus Christ paid it?

It will take me a bit to read the book. My mom is having surgery (brain tumor) Saturday morning. But I'll read it and offer my opinion.

Christ didn't die a spiritual death. Calvinism holds that He did (that God punished our sins laid in Him with a punish at least equivalent to the judgment the lost will experience at Judgment).

It is an interesting theory to study, but I'd recommend caution as vain philosophies can lead even well meaning Christians away from God's Word.

Forgiveness does not address the wages of sin but Judgment (the exercise of the wicked's condemnation.... rejecting the Light). We are forgiven sins based on Christ as our mediator (they were not forgiven two thousand years ago, but they are forgiven upon repentance).

 

[JasonF]

I'm sorry, and you don't have read the book, I thought maybe you could look at the table of contents or some headings and see if you thought it was correct. Don't worry about that.

What is a spiritual death? I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Didn't Christ take the punishment we deserve? I confess I have been confused about how his death equaled eternity in the lake of fire, so this is something I do not understand, can you help? I may not be understanding what you are saying. What do you recommend I study, where do I start? Is there anyone everyone agrees with? I think you listed Origen above, I think it was him I had read about before that did not sound like he was one to read and follow?

I don't know what you mean, Forgiveness does not address the wages of sin but Judgment, which you are saying is the exercise of the wicked's condemnation, I don't know what that means, but you say that the action of it is rejecting the Light.

Then what you say about We are forgiven sins based on Christ as our mediator, that they were not forgiven two thousand years go, but they were forgiven because Christ paid the price right? if it was just that he was our mediator there would be no reason for him to die? Are not our names written from the foundation? We were predestinated to be saved? Why does it matter at what point we were forgiven, from the beginning weren't those who end up saved going to be saved and predestinated for it chosen by God as he chose Jacob and not Esau?

Thank you for your time trying to help.

As for the book, I'd be more interested in if this book is beneficial maybe, both from same author I think.

https://n.b5z.net/i/u/10086795/f/Rightly_Dividing_the_Word_PDF.pdf

 

[JasonF]

I started reading your thread on Puritans but took too long to stop, got through maybe 5 pages but it seemed to just be you and one other person arguing so I decided it wasn't much value especially since you two arguing couldn't agree about what each other was even saying. I had thought the Puritans would be great since Spurgeon recommended them. Now I am just kind of at a loss and I mean if I stopped coming to the forum and went to only the Bible and read it I don't think that would neccesarily be the best move either, but I believe God will help me figure things out and with the help of others too. But would like to figure out okay who are the people that I can trust to give me God's truth, and then I can read their works, or something. What doctrines are God's truth so I can believe those, etc. Which yes I get that most people with differing beliefs all think its God's, but I believe there is only one God's truth when it comes to two things that cannot be believed together. But also not sure if we need to figure some things out or debate some things. I am not sure why debate, I mean I need to learn, I am not sure I should try to teach anyone anything, but also not sure if debate ever really helps the people debating or just the audience as the audience will tend to decide to agree with one person or certain points, though not always for the right reasons and may not end up with the right answers maybe, I don't know.

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry, and you don't have read the book, I thought maybe you could look at the table of contents or some headings and see if you thought it was correct. Don't worry about that.

What is a spiritual death? I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Didn't Christ take the punishment we deserve? I confess I have been confused about how his death equaled eternity in the lake of fire, so this is something I do not understand, can you help? I may not be understanding what you are saying. What do you recommend I study, where do I start? Is there anyone everyone agrees with? I think you listed Origen above, I think it was him I had read about before that did not sound like he was one to read and follow?

I don't know what you mean, Forgiveness does not address the wages of sin but Judgment, which you are saying is the exercise of the wicked's condemnation, I don't know what that means, but you say that the action of it is rejecting the Light.

Then what you say about We are forgiven sins based on Christ as our mediator, that they were not forgiven two thousand years go, but they were forgiven because Christ paid the price right? if it was just that he was our mediator there would be no reason for him to die? Are not our names written from the foundation? We were predestinated to be saved? Why does it matter at what point we were forgiven, from the beginning weren't those who end up saved going to be saved and predestinated for it chosen by God as he chose Jacob and not Esau?

Thank you for your time trying to help.

As for the book, I'd be more interested in if this book is beneficial maybe, both from same author I think.

https://n.b5z.net/i/u/10086795/f/Rightly_Dividing_the_Word_PDF.pdf

I look forward to reading the book. At a glance I like how it presents different tenses of salvation.

I am not sure what you mean by forgiveness being based on Christ paying the price. The only way I know of for obtaining forgiveness is repentance. This is turning from ourselves to Christ (walking in the Spirit, not the flesh).

Christ's death under the curse (becoming a curse for us, being made sin for us) was Christ sharing in our infirmity (it was our curse, the curse we earned but He didn't).

I anticipate a very long wait Saturday. I plan on having the book read soon. I very much look forward to discussing it with you. We don't have to agree on doctrine to learn from one another.

 

[KenH]

Yes, read the Bible. And, yes, supplement it with Biblically reliable commentaries, such as John Gill's and Robert Hawker's, which are available online for free:

Index of ./John Gill/ (grace-ebooks.com)

Index of ./Robert Hawker/ (grace-ebooks.com)

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You also can include Martin Luther, Jan Hus, Zwingli, John Wycliffe and William Tyndale.

Did you mean the above were not Calvinistic in their theology? All except Hus were what can be called Reformed...that is Calvinistic.

 

[JasonF]

I look forward to reading the book. At a glance I like how it presents different tenses of salvation.

I am not sure what you mean by forgiveness being based on Christ paying the price. The only way I know of for obtaining forgiveness is repentance. This is turning from ourselves to Christ (walking in the Spirit, not the flesh).

Christ's death under the curse (becoming a curse for us, being made sin for us) was Christ sharing in our infirmity (it was our curse, the curse we earned but He didn't).

I anticipate a very long wait Saturday. I plan on having the book read soon. I very much look forward to discussing it with you. We don't have to agree on doctrine to learn from one another.

I better read the book then, I haven't finished the first chapter yet, I kind of stopped as I got confused with what you are saying and am not sure what resources to use.

I don't understand your message here... I believe that the Bible teaches that our forgiveness wa spurchased by the blood of Christ. I do not believe that he became a curse for us and died on the cross just to experience what life was like for a human, or to be able to relate to us, I believe he did it because it was the punishment due to us for our sins, and he took it on himself.

You are saying Jesus didn't have to die for us to have forgiveness? I do not udnerstand.

 

[JonC]

I better read the book then, I haven't finished the first chapter yet, I kind of stopped as I got confused with what you are saying and am not sure what resources to use.

I don't understand your message here... I believe that the Bible teaches that our forgiveness wa spurchased by the blood of Christ. I do not believe that he became a curse for us and died on the cross just to experience what life was like for a human, or to be able to relate to us, I believe he did it because it was the punishment due to us for our sins, and he took it on himself.

You are saying Jesus didn't have to die for us to have forgiveness? I do not udnerstand.

I am not saying Christ became a curse, died on the cross to experience what it says s to be us or to relate to us.

I am saying that the cross was God reconciling man (mankind) to Himself. It wasn't learning what it is to be man but a reconciliation. His flesh for our flesh. A solidarity.

 

[JonC]

@JasonF

Just starting the book (making notes here as I go).

I agree about salvation being from eternity past, but only in the sense this was always God's design.

At the start there is this comment (under Salvation):

"Th e “seed of Abraham” are God’s elect out of every nation. Th ey are all whom the Father gave to Christ before the foundation of the world (cf. John 6:37-40; 17:1-4). They are the spiritual “seed of Abraham” known by their submission to and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for all salvation (cf. Galatians 3:26-29)."

I disagree somewhat in application here. Paul emphasizes that the Seed of Abraham is singular and refers to Christ (Gal 4). But we are also Abraham's seed (Gal 3) by virtue of being in Christ.

I'm not saying the pastor is wrong. My emphasis would have been on Christ rather than Abraham.

When reading the Old Testament I believe we should do so through the New Covenant. Christ IS God's Israel. Christ IS Abraham's Seed. He IS the Promise.

We are as well, but by virtue of Christ and being "in Him" rather than in eternity past.


AGAIN - I am not criticizing the pastor. I would just approach Salvation past, present, and future through Christ and a New Covenant lens.

And I'm not even saying the pastor is wrong. I would just approach it differently. People are different and understand things differently.

 

[JasonF]

I am not saying Christ became a curse, died on the cross to experience what it says s to be us or to relate to us.

I am saying that the cross was God reconciling man (mankind) to Himself. It wasn't learning what it is to be man but a reconciliation. His flesh for our flesh. A solidarity.

I don't know what you mean so I will explain how I see it as it relates to what you are saying, Jesus gave his flesh for our flesh, or in place of our flesh. Death had to happen as a result of sin, for the wages of sin is death. Death was going to happen to us. Instead he chose to take it on himself. So he gave himself for us. When you say solidarity that is not why he did it, he did it to save us, not to relate to us or to have a sense of shared interests or unity, it was to pay the price that the law deamands for sin. If you get a speeding ticket, and I pay the fine, the law is still satisfied. To say he reconciled us, would depend on the meaning of reconcile since it seems it has several, he didn't die to bond with us, he died to save us and to pay the price for sin that was due to us. Are you saying God who can do all things could have done it another way so it was to bond with us? God can do all things, but he deemed true justice demanded that price be paid, did he not?

I agree about salvation being from eternity past, but only in the sense this was always God's design.

I don't understand what you mean "only in the sense this was always God's design", how would it not have been his design? What are you saying here, you have to mean something I am missing. I am learning you guys who know more can have a lot of reasons why you choose specific words that aren't apparent to me until I learn them.

I'm still in the first chapter and think I need to reread to be able to better connect to your comments.