Sola Scriptura and OSAS...again

[Darrell C]

It is you that brings it from all the texts listed above - around to Hebrews 10

Bob, that was the first shot of the thread.

Still waiting for you to address it, instead of false arguments not relevant to what I said.

Which is a statement about what is accomplished in "Atonement" specifically in the Atoning Sacrifice made at the cross.

As explained, Bob, it is contrasting what the sacrifices of the Law could not do, making the point that Christ's offering can take away sins (the penalty), hence there is no more need for further sacrifice, and He, not it...

...has made them complete in regards to Remission of Sins forever.

After I point out that all the Hebrews 10 language is pointing to that "sacrifice" I also point this out --

1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

So you show how you devolved the focus to a rabbit trail, then created the false argument presented. I told you, I think twice already, the context is specific, not general, yet you refuse to address that specific context.

And we both know why: it makes it clear to your heart that your doctrine is in error. If Christ makes those sanctified by His Blood (death) complete (contrasted with the imperfect and incomplete result of animal sacrifice, i.e., the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins thus could not make the comer thereunto complete) for ever then it shows its a completed action not to be repeated...

...which blows entirely the false notion that the Sacrifice of Christ was insufficient to save completely.

Which totally negates the idea that the atoning sacrifice ended the story "for the whole world" fixing the whole world as "forever saved".

I would agree, but then...its not my argument. Its a false argument created by you.

The text is specific to those sanctified (once I might add, not over and over) by the Blood of Christ:


Hebrews 10:10-14
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Maybe this will help:



Hebrews 10:10 & 14
King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You made an argument via "inference" alone that does not hold up.

Have no idea what you mean. Please be more specific.

In the Bible there is only "ONE Gospel" Gal 1:6-9 and that Gospel "was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8. This is irrefutable.

I agree, but, the error you commit is to impose understanding of the Mystery of the Gospel to Abraham.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was not revealed to men in past Ages, Bob, you need to rethink your understanding of the Bible as a whole. I promise you if you will just give it some thought you will see that you are imposing into Scripture doctrines which are not there.

The New Covenant is in the OLD Testament - Jeremiah 31:31-33

No, Bob, only the Promise of the New Covenant is in the Old Testament. That is just gross error to have it fulfilled before it was:

Christ established the New Covenant through His death:


Hebrews 10:29
King James Version (KJV)

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Lots of inference and speculation there.

But the Bible says the Gospel was "preached to us just as it was to them also" Hebrews 4:2

I agree, why are you imposing into the discussion, lol?

And for Pete's sake, how can you in good conscience attribute it to me?

The "Gospel" is the revealed will of man, despite the Age.

We do see the Gospel in the Wilderness, but in figure, and it was not understood by them in that day. We understand it through the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost.

And one proof of that Heb 4 statement is Elijah and Moses standing in glory with Christ in Luke 9 and Matthew 17 before the cross.

Great, they were standing with Christ in splendor. That's all it means.

And if you would take the time to study Hebrews you will see that no man entered into God's presence prior to the Cross, because the way was not opened to them yet, and would not be until Christ opened it:


Hebrews 9:8-9
King James Version (KJV)

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 9:24
King James Version (KJV)

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:



Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

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;


Entrance to God was accomplished by Christ in His Reconciliatory Work.

Men did not enter previously.



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Your own view demands an explanation of what Moses and Elijah were glorified by

Not even remotely.

It does. This is how glorification is possible:


1 Corinthians 15:20-22
King James Version (KJV)

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


Moses and Elijah were not In Christ when they died. Not even the disciples were in Christ until Pentecost.

It is Christ who makes alive:


1 Corinthians 15:45
King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


Deny the sequential context here:


Colossians 1:18
King James Version (KJV)

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


First...that he might have preeminence.

Of course, I don't think you ever denied it here...


Acts 26:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


Can you? We both know you can't, because it destroys what you want to believe, that Moses and Elijah were glorified before Christ.

And note that Paul states that he witnesses none other things than those which both the Prophets and Moses...said would come.

How about here...


Revelation 1:5
King James Version (KJV)

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


First Begotten referencing preeminence?

Could have that application, but doesn't detract from the fact that He is the First to rise again in glorified form


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Luke 9 and Matthew 17 do not ask the reader "Glorified by what" -- rather the glory of the eternal heavenly realm is always one and the same and always comes from God.

So you do think Christ was saying Solomon was glorified then.

Okay. But its hard to maintain this view when Scripture makes it clear Christ was the first One to rise from the dead, and because we know men were raised prior, we know the context is that of the Resurrection unto Life.

So then no "stories" about saints going to heaven and then dying there

That is something you would need. Not me.

I'll stick with the fact that men did not come into God's presence prior to the Cross.

If they did, then again we are looking for another gospel, because it would have had to been something other than the Blood of Christ that made this possible.

no stories about the saints in glory not being forgiven or saved

Quote me saying that.

No more false arguments, Bob, please.

The Bible has only "one Gospel" and that gospel refutes OSAS.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about OSAS, or, Eternal Security, lol.

I'm sorry you do not trust in the Sacrifice of Christ for Atonement. Truly.

Christ's atoning sacrifice had Gospel power to save from the foundation of the world -

Great, now if only you had Scripture to support that, or could refute the Scriptures which show Eternal Redemption began when Christ came and died in man's stead...

...we might be able to discuss it.

and thus Elijah and Moses stand with Christ in Matt 17 in Luke 9 -- in glory

In splendor, just as Solomon's splendor was out-shined by flowers, lol.

in full communion with the sinless Christ

Yes, they did talk.

About His death.

even before the cross.

This meeting did take place before the Cross.

And so for all the giants of faith in Hebrews 11 -- OT saints held up before the NT reader as examples of living faith - and the Gospel that works.

Yet you miss entirely his statement at the end of speaking of the Old Testament Saints:


Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)

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

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

I will give you the NASB on that, perhaps it might more easily be understood:


Hebrews 11:39-40
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

39 And all these, having [a]gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

40 because God had [c]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Footnotes:

Hebrews 11:39 Lit obtained a testimony
Hebrews 11:39 Lit the promise
Hebrews 11:40 Or foreseen


We are made perfect, complete...only through the Blood (death) of Christ. And the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachings) lose the battle to support their doctrine from Scripture...alone.

Read the passage above again, noting that they had faith, but received not the promises, nor were they made perfect (complete), then look at the same verse I began with again (and I will give this one in the NASB as well):


Hebrews 10:14
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are [a]sanctified.

Footnotes:

Hebrews 10:14 Or being sanctified


If you can bring yourself to give this chapter the attention it deserves, you will see that this is perhaps more than just an indisputable statement of Eternal Security, perhaps the most indisputable statement in all of Scripture. It is in my view, and just as you have done, not one person has ever been able to address this and show that it is not stated in a context of remission of sins for those sanctified by the Blood of Christ.

I really do hope, Bob, that you will give this some thought. Just read the chapter a few times.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 9 "lest after having preached the gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it

How is being disqualified for service losing salvation?

Nothing at all there about "disqualified from service" ---

 

[BobRyan]

And as we see in Matt 17 -- Elijah is still around..


Luke 9:29-31
"29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. "


We see Moses in Matthew 17 and Luke 9 appearing in glory in his resurrected form -

Luke 9:29-31
"29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. "

And Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT admits the Jude 9 text which you also quoted - is a quote from "the Assumption of Moses"

BobRyan said: ↑
In any case - Jude 9 exists and it is a quote from "The Assumption of Moses" --

You have free will and can do as you wish with that Bible detail.

I happen to accept it since it works perfectly into my view that Luke 9 and Matthew 17 are not examples of a seance - and they demonstrate the Hebrews 4:2 and the Gal 1:6-9, Gal 3:8 fact that the Gospel was active in the OT - saving souls then and saving souls still to this very day.

What I don't understand is how this Gospel detail even remotely argues for or against your view of OSAS?

So you do think Christ was saying Solomon was glorified then.

I don't think Solomon shows up at all in Matthew 17 or Luke 9 -- standing next to the glorified and sinless Christ and holding discussion with Him about his upcoming departure.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay. But its hard to maintain this view when Scripture makes it clear Christ was the first One to rise from the dead, .

Both Christ and Elisha had raised a great many people from the dead -- prior to Christ being risen from the dead.

Christ is the "first born of all creation" but it can hardly be argued that no being in the universe was created or born -- until Christ was born.

 

[Darrell C]

1 Cor 9 "lest after having preached the gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it

Darrell C said:
How is being disqualified for service losing salvation?

Nothing at all there about "disqualified from service" ---

Sure there is, but you are failing to distinguish between the physical and the eternal/spiritual.

Consider, apart from trying to read loss of salvation into it...


1 Corinthians 9:11-18
King James Version (KJV)

11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Paul is saying, "Is it asking to much, when we have labored to sow unto the spiritual things of God...that you should provide for our carnal needs (i.e., food, shelter, clothing, etc.). But he clarifies that he, and those associated with him obviously, have not sought for provision from those who they ministered to, and we will see, when we get to you proof text, the same thing in view as we see throughout this address...that the ministry continue unhindered by bad feelings from those ministered to, or that they should be slanderous spoken of.


13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

The priests were provided for their carnal needs through the offering of the people. He is asking, "Don't you know this?"


14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

God has declared that those who preach the Gospel should be provided for.

But...


15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

...Paul personally did not receive from those ministered to. Or to be more succinct, he did not make a profit from the Gospel, but provided for himself, for the specific reason that no-one could unjustly accuse him of "milking the herd," or "fleecing the sheep."

He would rather die than to have anyone make his glorifying of the saints void. lol

But seriously, death rather than someone diminishing his praise for God's provision.


16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.


He has a mandate top preach the Gospel, and he is not going to let anyone interfere with that, making him, or his ministry empty because people think he is simply seeking to profit from the ministry.

No-one will ever say that he charged admission to the tent revivals, so to speak.



24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.


While you might see the "crown" here as being salvation itself, it is not, it is simply reward received for service. As he makes clear in 1 Corinthians 3, "


14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.


15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.


No loss of salvation, because the context concerns rewards for the believer, not salvation. Same issue here.


26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.


The context is physical, not eternal, and refers to keeping his ministry free from charge, lest his ministry become void.

Your L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teaching)...

...loses.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

BobRyan said: ↑
In any case - Jude 9 exists and it is a quote from "The Assumption of Moses" --

You have free will and can do as you wish with that Bible detail.

And I freely choose to keep this in its context, a quote from a Biblical Writer that in no way endorses or promotes apocryphal writings, any more than Paul's quote does (which I gave you when I addressed this the first time).

Its not different than this:


Matthew 17:25-27
King James Version (KJV)

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


The Lord is not endorsing or promoting this practice, simply using it as an example.

Jude's point is that even one as powerful as Michael did not subscribe to vehement rebuke. The corollary being, if anyone had the right to, it was him, but he did not do it.

It is no different than saying "Even most atheists rebuke child molestation." No endorsement or promotion of the one quoted, simply an example of extremes.

I happen to accept it since it works perfectly into my view

And that is why most embrace apocryphyl books, because that is the only place they can go to support their doctrines.

That is why Sola Scriptura leads to men with sounder doctrines than those who embrace other "holy writings."




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

that Luke 9 and Matthew 17 are not examples of a seance

I agree. You simply use that term to create a negative view of what took place.

and they demonstrate the Hebrews 4:2 and the Gal 1:6-9, Gal 3:8

Already addressed. Just cannot keep hammering at the same tired, and vague, I might add, points you are stuck with because you can't address the other poits.

fact that the Gospel was active in the OT

Not a fact.

But you are free to address the numerous posts and passages which show that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed to the sons of men in past Ages.

But we both know you won't do that, because the Scripture is pretty clear. So you are left with the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation) and being the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teacher) with no authority but your own.

That can't be very satisfying, can it?

Even if Sola Scriptura was incorrect, even if it was right before God to include apocryphal books in our theology, you are still held to the same standard everyone else is, which means you cannot present doctrines which create conflict with other doctrines in the Bible itself. And your teaching that Moses and Elijah were glorified before the One Who is several times indicated as the First One to rise from the dead never to die again...creates a major conflict.

So does teaching that "the Gospel was active in the OT." And I see you will not address those clear Scriptural refutations either.

You can't even address the single verse I began with. Instead, you are creating distractions so that your inability to present a Biblical Basis might be overlooked.

That can't be very satisfying, can it?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

saving souls then and saving souls still to this very day.

I agree with that statement, as long as "souls" is kept in a Biblical (and Old Testament, particularly) context, meaning "soull" refers to the person. For example, when the Old Testament states that "souls were in the grave," it is a reference to the person/s being dead physically, not that an immaterial aspect of man was in a physically hole in the ground.

Yes, God did save people in the Old Testament, but He did not regenerate them or eternally indwell them. What He did was justify those people by His grace, and this through faith. That secured their eternal destinies, the Just (ified) and unjust both going to Sheol/Hades, though they were separated, and their existence was different. As in the teaching of Christ in Luke 16, where the Rich Man was in torment, and Lazarus conforted.

It would not be until Christ died that their sins were redeemed, as I have shown you numerous times. Here is one passage that is irrefutable, though, one must understand this in its context. And unfortunately, most will proof text their beliefs and never read Chapters 9-10. Especially the L.O.S.T. (loss of salvation teachers), because it conflicts with what they want to teach, which is that salvation must be worked for, maintained, and can be lost.

What I don't understand is how this Gospel detail even remotely argues for or against your view of OSAS?

If you understood the difference between the dispensations of the Old Testament and the New, and understand exactly what it is that Christ accomplished when He died, resurrected, returned to Heaven, and sent the Comforter, establishing the New Covenant...

...then you would. It would be clear as day, my friend.

Imposing the provision of the New Covenant, which remained promise until Christ established the New Covenant with His Blood (Death)...


Hebrews 9:16-18
King James Version (KJV)

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


...is probably the primary error most commit. And most do this. I know, because I have talked about this on this forum for years.

God promised to forgive sin entirely (completely), give His Spirit to His people (and cause them to walk in His statutes and to keep His judgments), that they might eternally be in relationship with Him. That didn't happen until Pentecost, when the New Covenant was fully established with the coming of the Comforter. You said "...the New Covenant is in the Old Testament," which is error. And that, my friend, is an error you yourself could correct if you only approached it without trying to support the doctrines you want to believe.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I don't think Solomon shows up at all in Matthew 17 or Luke 9

Bob, I have always considered you to be a very intelligent man, so here I must conclude you are being facetious.

The point, if you truly did not understand it, or simply didn't read the response, is that the same word for glory is used in reference to Solomon, but I don't see you trying to use that as a proof text for men being glorified before Christ.

Read these again:


Matthew 6:28-30
King James Version (KJV)

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?


Acts 26:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


This last verse alone destroys your doctrine, whether you want to admit it or not. The very one you say was glorified before Christ...

...prophesied of "he should be the first that should rise from the dead."

You can't deny the sequential context here, my friend.

standing next to the glorified and sinless Christ and holding discussion with Him about his upcoming departure.

Here again your statement is shown to be error from Scripture:


John 7:38-39
King James Version (KJV)

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

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


Bob, I implore you, admit that Christ is the First to be glorified.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying you do not, or never had heretical beliefs?

Pat yourself on the back, lol, because you are on a very small list.

One of the primary reasons we should gather to discuss words is to help each other understand better. We can't let bias against false doctrines keep us from seeking to help others understand better, or seek to understand better ourselves.

Sometimes beliefs we do not embrace seem ludicrous, but if we keep in mind most people are indoctrinated into their particular faiths, and usually seek to make Scripture fit their beliefs, perhaps we might show a little more compassion towards them. An example would be Annihilation. When I first heard of it I thought this was the stupidest doctrine ever, lol, and couldn't understand why people would embrace it. Now I do understand. Its because many think the word soul always refers to an immaterial aspect of men, and when they read the many verses in the Old Testament speaking of "souls being destroyed," they make a syllogistic conclusion, which is based on error.

Major premise: soul means the inner man, like the spirit;

Minor premise: Scripture teaches souls will be destroyed;

Conclusion: unbelievers will perish totally in judgment.


There are numerous doctrines like that, even some held by us Baptists, lol. Many Baptists teach man as a tri-part being, body, soul, and spirit. My view is Scripture teaches man as a two part being, body and spirit. If you look at Ezekiel 18, and keep in mind that "soul" is simply a reference to persons, not an immaterial aspect of man, you will see that in view is physical death for those who do not keep the Law, and those who do (or try to, anyway) will not be put to death. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone teach out of that chapter eternal judgment, I could probably retire (or at least have a nice steak dinner).

But, let me say this, and it is only a little friendly advice: concentrate on addressing the post, not the poster. In other words, do not make interaction personal, nor direct insults at your antagonist (and antagonist doesn't have to have a negative connotation, it just refers to two who offer differ viewpoints). This will likely ensure that you will never have a meaningful discussion, and neither of you will benefit from having had the discussion. Address what is said only. Keep it doctrinal.

Easy to say, not so easy to do, lol. But something to shoot for.


God bless.

The Sda and the RCC both teach the falseGospel, as they mix Law and Grace , as neither church teaches the truth of jesus/Cross/Salvation!
I have NEVER held to heretical beliefs once saved, but have held to wrong ones!

 

[Darrell C]

The Sda and the RCC both teach the falseGospel, as they mix Law and Grace , as neither church teaches the truth of jesus/Cross/Salvation!
I have NEVER held to heretical beliefs once saved, but have held to wrong ones!

So why, Yeshua1, are your errors considered wrong, but those of other denominations considered heretical? You are establishing a double standard.

Understand that many people you come into contact with are going to suffer from something most suffer from...indoctrination. It is understandable that people who grow up being taught certain doctrines have embraced those doctrines, but, most will never have challenged their beliefs in light of Scripture. So it is your job to help them do so. You won't do that if you look at them as SDA or Catholics, but only by looking at them as God has demanded of you...as your neighbor.

Just because someone is part of a group, doesn't mean that they embrace all the teachings of that group (or even know what their group teaches, lol). And it doesn't preclude salvation, because they might just be ignorant enough of their groups' doctrine, and actually have enough faith in Jesus Christ...

...to be your brother or sister.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

So why, Yeshua1, are your errors considered wrong, but those of other denominations considered heretical? You are establishing a double standard.

Understand that many people you come into contact with are going to suffer from something most suffer from...indoctrination. It is understandable that people who grow up being taught certain doctrines have embraced those doctrines, but, most will never have challenged their beliefs in light of Scripture. So it is your job to help them do so. You won't do that if you look at them as SDA or Catholics, but only by looking at them as God has demanded of you...as your neighbor.

Just because someone is part of a group, doesn't mean that they embrace all the teachings of that group (or even know what their group teaches, lol). And it doesn't preclude salvation, because they might just be ignorant enough of their groups' doctrine, and actually have enough faith in Jesus Christ...

...to be your brother or sister.


God bless.

Difference is the the teachings/doctrines of both Sda and Rome concerning the Gospel undercuts the Cross, and would be teaching damning heresy!

 

[Darrell C]

Difference is the the teachings/doctrines of both Sda and Rome concerning the Gospel undercuts the Cross, and would be teaching damning heresy!

God does not save or condemn based on the greatness of one's Theology. Salvation is the gift of God, and is wholly the work of Holy God. That is from the beginning, when He enlightens our natural minds to the truth of our condition (which is why He is the Author of our faith, not the Contributor), until, well, eternity. That is why He is called the Finisher (Completer) of our faith.

And the fact is that no man or woman is saved having a flawless doctrinal position. Most are very ignorant of most things. And I don't think anyone ever achieves flawless doctrine, not in this life, which means everyone is wrong about something. And as I said, you create a double standard: if its wrong to be wrong, then that's it. How one might view that error, meaning how severe they view it to be, is subjective. All denominations have teachings that could end in works-based effort for those associated with them. One of the things I dislike about every single Baptist Church I have ever been a part of is they all placed atheists and people of other groups in a category of moron, lol. Tey all sought to breed a contempt for those involved in false doctrines.

And that is simply the best way to ensure you will never have the opportunity to minister to those people.

As I said, I can understand why some people embrace certain doctrines. The question is, can I help them to understand why they embraced them, and show them that the basis for embracing them is error?



God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

God does not save or condemn based on the greatness of one's Theology. Salvation is the gift of God, and is wholly the work of Holy God. That is from the beginning, when He enlightens our natural minds to the truth of our condition (which is why He is the Author of our faith, not the Contributor), until, well, eternity. That is why He is called the Finisher (Completer) of our faith.

And the fact is that no man or woman is saved having a flawless doctrinal position. Most are very ignorant of most things. And I don't think anyone ever achieves flawless doctrine, not in this life, which means everyone is wrong about something. And as I said, you create a double standard: if its wrong to be wrong, then that's it. How one might view that error, meaning how severe they view it to be, is subjective. All denominations have teachings that could end in works-based effort for those associated with them. One of the things I dislike about every single Baptist Church I have ever been a part of is they all placed atheists and people of other groups in a category of moron, lol. Tey all sought to breed a contempt for those involved in false doctrines.

And that is simply the best way to ensure you will never have the opportunity to minister to those people.

As I said, I can understand why some people embrace certain doctrines. The question is, can I help them to understand why they embraced them, and show them that the basis for embracing them is error?



God bless.

Paul would call the doctrines of Rome and the Sda as being heretical in regards to how a lost sinner gets saved, so why don't you?

 

[Darrell C]

Paul would call the doctrines of Rome and the Sda as being heretical in regards to how a lost sinner gets saved, so why don't you?

Because first, I am not Paul, and therefore try to be careful about condemning others.

Secondly, I have already explained my position, and how I view SDA and Catholic churches is irrelevant.

Third, again, as I told you before, Bob has not mentioned anything that I view as heretical (simply erroneous), so again there is no relevancy to your insults.

Fourth, I have seen enough of your posts to know you can say some outlandish things, and if you insist on me pointing out what I see as heretical, and subsequently branding that person as an heretic, I can start with you, if you like. I am sure you would like me be consistent (and not be charged with respect of persons).



There is nothing gained by entering into this, or any other thread, just to cast aspersions on people. Address what is talked about in the thread, and we can all benefit.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I don't think Solomon shows up at all in Matthew 17 or Luke 9

Bob, I have always considered you to be a very intelligent man, so here I must conclude you are being facetious.

Actually I am pretty sure that not only do Solomon not show up on the mount of Transfiguration - but in fact he never shows up anywhere after his time period in the OT.

And that cannot be said for Moses and Elijah in Matt 17 and Luke 9... the point remains.

The point, if you truly did not understand it, or simply didn't read the response, is that the same word for glory is used

I never oppose the idea that Words like "sky, glory, head, eye, hand" get used all over the place with different contexts. I don't even debate that.

in reference to Solomon, but I don't see you trying to use that as a proof text for men being glorified before Christ.

You would if Solomon were said to be standing in glory talking to Christ in Matthew 17 long after his time period in the OT --- and I think we both already know this is true.

Again - this is not the hard part.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 26:22-23
King James Version (KJV)

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


This last verse alone destroys your doctrine, whether you want to admit it or not. .

My doctrine is to freely accept what Luke 9 and Matthew 17 clearly teach.

As for Acts 26

22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

Nothing that I have said could be bent to argue that Moses was the first to proclaim the Gospel to both gentiles and Jews by reason of the fact that he had already been resurrected before Christ.

Rather the simple fact is that even Jude quotes the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 9... which you yourself quoted Jude 9 on this very thread and Robertson freely admits the source for that.

Nothing at all in those Bible facts that refutes anything I have said about this so far.