Sola Scriptura and OSAS...again

[BobRyan]

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

Aside from slander and quoting yourself - how about stating an actual fact for the sake of discussion?

 

[BobRyan]

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.




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)...

.

1. The wording in "promise" form for the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 is UNCHANGED in Hebrews 8:6-12. This is irrefutable. you have "quoted you" in arguing the contrary point to that Bible detail but you are not as good a source text -- as the Bible in this case.

2. You offer a Christ-less, Spirit-less, unforgiven... no-new-birth alternate Gospel for the OT period.

3. There is no such thing according to the Bible The Gospel is not TWO - but ONE and it was preached in the OT to Abraham Gal 3:8 and also it included the New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 and it included the New Birth of John 3 as even Christ insists before the cross... and forgiveness of sins real enough to have both Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory before the cross.

the bible does not support your two-gospel idea.

 

[Darrell C]

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



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.




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.






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.

Bob, instead of addressing the same arguments again, lets focus on one verse that denies Moses and Elijah were glorified without controversy:


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.


Tell me why this does not mean Christ was the first One to rise from the dead, and why if Christ is the first (as we see in numerous statements in Scripture)...

...how say you that Moses and Elijah were before Christ in the resurrection from the dead?

And by what were they raised from the dead through?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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.

Again you completely ignore the point: Moses spoke of it as a future event, and that event was that Christ would be the first to rise from the dead.

C'mon Bob, address that point.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

1. The wording in "promise" form for the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 is UNCHANGED in Hebrews 8:6-12. This is irrefutable. you have "quoted you" in arguing the contrary point to that Bible detail but you are not as good a source text -- as the Bible in this case.

What also doesn't change is that in the Old Testament, when the promise of the New Covenant is given, it is clear it is future event:


Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Hebrews 8:7-12
King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


Hebrews 10:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

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


The New Covenant, and its provision (and I emphasized remission of sins, as that is a primary theme in the context of 9-10, as already discussed) was not given in the Old Testament Eras, only the Promise.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

2. You offer a Christ-less, Spirit-less, unforgiven... no-new-birth alternate Gospel for the OT period.

On the contrary, I am always clear that the Holy Ghost ministered in the lives of men, filling them with His Spirit that they might minister themselves, and I am always clear that men were saved from an eternal perspective by grace through faith. They were justified, but did not enter into the presence of God, but awaited Eternal Redemption through Christ in Sheol/Hades.

That is why the just and unjust are contrasted often, and we see that being made complete was accomplished by the Blood of Christ.

We even see the Church distinguished from Old Testament Saints here:


Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


This is another false argument, and you know it Bob. Unless you are not reading the posts I have presented to you. More than enough Scripture for you to relinquish that desperate hold on doctrines that cannot be supported by Scripture.

Again, only Christ could make complete the believer, through His Offering of Himself, and He did so, that is, made the comer thereunto perfect (complete) in regards to remission of sins...

...forever.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

3. There is no such thing according to the Bible The Gospel is not TWO - but ONE and it was preached in the OT to Abraham Gal 3:8 and also it included the New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 and it included the New Birth of John 3 as even Christ insists before the cross... and forgiveness of sins real enough to have both Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory before the cross.

Just because Christ mentioned that men must be born again in John 3 doesn't mean men could.

He also told men to believe in Him...

...and they didn't.

So trying to impose Regeneration prior to when that was possible is like trying to say that there were men that believed in Christ as the Risen Savior prior to the Cross and Resurrection.

Christ denies this view:


Mark 16:9-14
King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

the bible does not support your two-gospel idea.

Because you reject Scripture's teaching that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery, it is you, my friend, that actually creates another Gospel. You have yet to present what it is men were saved by in the Old Testament, but, because you say they were Eternally Redeemed (contrary to Scripture), glorified (contrary to Scripture), going to Heaven (contrary to Scripture),in relationship with God through the New Covenant (contrary to Scripture)...

...it is you that create the need for them to be saved by something other than the Sacrifice of Christ.

You might try to present the popular mythology of "salvation on credit," or that the Cross waqs saving men in advance of the event, but, that is not the case.

Again, Eternal Redemption was retroactive for the Old Testament Saints (those justified by God's grace through faith in the revealed will (revelation) they had available in their times) and retroactively redeemed the transgressions which were under the Law (Which was the Covenant in place when Christ died and established the New Covenant in fulfillment of His Promise in the Old Testament):


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


You simply cannot deny this, Bob. All you can do is to reiterate the same accusation of a two gospel theory, when in fact it is you doing that.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

I have NEVER said that BOB or any Catholic posting here was a heretic, but that their primary/core teachings of their Churches, SDA and Rome qualified as being heretical, as both deny the true Gospel and Pauline justification.
You do not see as being heresy when the Sda states that one MUST be Sabbath keepers in order to keep salvation, MUST see Ellen White teachings as being from the Lord, and on par with the scriptures? That they are the true remnant church of God, and that we have no assurance of salvation, due to their Investigative Judgement theology?

 

[Darrell C]

I have NEVER said that BOB or any Catholic posting here was a heretic,

You are saying those that hold to certain doctrines are heretics, so, when you identify them as holding to those doctrines you are saying they are heretics.

I have NEVER said that BOB or any Catholic posting here was a heretic, but that their primary/core teachings of their Churches, SDA and Rome qualified as being heretical, as both deny the true Gospel and Pauline justification.

Same thing, Yeshua1.

You do not see as being heresy when the Sda states that one MUST be Sabbath keepers in order to keep salvation, MUST see Ellen White teachings as being from the Lord, and on par with the scriptures?

Of course, but, that does not mean that everyone in those groups are in fact heretics. Don't you read my posts, Yeshua1? I have already told you that many are ignorant of what their groups teach, and it is not surprising that people in groups adopt the doctrines taught.

But they, like most people...can't really be said to have their own beliefs. They have simply adopted the beliefs of another. We do not have our own beliefs until we actually read Scripture for ourselves and learn what Scripture teaches. Many people say "I believe this or that," but the truth is, they are simply parroting what they were told they should believe.

That they are the true remnant church of God, and that we have no assurance of salvation, due to their Investigative Judgement theology?

Again, Bob ha mentioned none of that, and nothing that I remember as specific to Doctrinal Distinctives of SDA.

Now, do you have something to contribute to what is being discussed? Would love for you to join the conversation.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Aside from slander and quoting yourself - how about stating an actual fact for the sake of discussion?

I have given MANY doctrines of the Sda that are against scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are saying those that hold to certain doctrines are heretics, so, when you identify them as holding to those doctrines you are saying they are heretics.



Same thing, Yeshua1.



Of course, but, that does not mean that everyone in those groups are in fact heretics. Don't you read my posts, Yeshua1? I have already told you that many are ignorant of what their groups teach, and it is not surprising that people in groups adopt the doctrines taught.

But they, like most people...can't really be said to have their own beliefs. They have simply adopted the beliefs of another. We do not have our own beliefs until we actually read Scripture for ourselves and learn what Scripture teaches. Many people say "I believe this or that," but the truth is, they are simply parroting what they were told they should believe.



Again, Bob ha mentioned none of that, and nothing that I remember as specific to Doctrinal Distinctives of SDA.

Now, do you have something to contribute to what is being discussed? Would love for you to join the conversation.


God bless.

There are saved persons in both the Sda and the Church of Rome, due to the Grace of God , but their churches still hold with and teach damnable heresies, as Paul and peter would both amen!

 

[BobRyan]

There are saved persons in both the Sda and the Church of Rome, due to the Grace of God

That is true - but when you make false accusations you need some sort of "proof" other than simply "quoting yourself"

 

[BobRyan]

I have given MANY doctrines of the Sda that are against scriptures!

you have a long list of false accusations combined with "quoting yourself" --

switch to having an actual discussion about the Bible and doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

posted to Y1

You are saying those that hold to certain doctrines are heretics, so, when you identify them as holding to those doctrines you are saying they are heretics.

And the funny thing about that is that the "name-calling while quoting yourself" method that Y1 employs has been tried already in the dark ages...and failed spectacularly then as well.

 

[BobRyan]

I have NEVER said that BOB or any Catholic posting here was a heretic, but that their primary/core teachings of their Churches, SDA and Rome qualified as being heretical, as both deny the true Gospel and Pauline justification.
You do not see as being heresy when the Sda states that one MUST be Sabbath keepers in order to keep salvation,

Question - do you ever "tire" of continually quoting yourself to prop up your false accusations???

 

[BobRyan]

Just because Christ mentioned that men must be born again in John 3 doesn't mean men could.
.

A perfect illustration where we will "differ" -- every single time.

you are making nonsense of Christ's outright slam of Nicodemus in John 3 for not admitting to the truth Christ was highlighting.

 

[BobRyan]

Darrell C said: ↑
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.

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)...

1. The wording in "promise" form for the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 is UNCHANGED in Hebrews 8:6-12. This is irrefutable. you have "quoted you" in arguing the contrary point to that Bible detail but you are not as good a source text -- as the Bible in this case.

2. You offer a Christ-less, Spirit-less, unforgiven... no-new-birth alternate Gospel for the OT period.

3. There is no such thing according to the Bible The Gospel is not TWO - but ONE and it was preached in the OT to Abraham Gal 3:8 and also it included the New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 and it included the New Birth of John 3 as even Christ insists before the cross... and forgiveness of sins real enough to have both Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory before the cross.

the bible does not support your two-gospel idea.

Because you reject Scripture's teaching that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery, it is you, my friend, that actually creates another Gospel.

On the contrary - the text is clear ONE Gospel in BOTH OT and NT "the GOSPEL was preached to ABRAHAM" Gal 3:8 -- and you flatly deny it.

"The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM ALSO" Heb 4:2 -- and you flatly deny it.

Moses and Elijah stand WITH the sinless Christ in glory all of them in glory according to Luke 9 and Matthew 17 -- and you flatly deny it.

New birth preaching to Nicodemus in John 3 - pre-cross and you flatly deny it.

Because you place all your weight on "extreme inference" from things like "the mystery" where some detail is unfolded over time... as if that "deletes scripture" in the cases above where you need to deny the Gospel the ONE Gospel.

Clearly the ONE Gospel includes
1. forgiveness of sins
2. the new birth - new creation, new heart
3. Adoption into the family of God
4 Spirit filled walk.

All of which are in the Jer 31:31-36
All of which are in the Ezek 36

You have yet to present what it is men were saved by in the Old Testament,

1. Saved by grace through faith
2. Saved by the cross that has power in both OT and NT to save.
3. God is not limited by time.
4. Righteousness by faith - a fact for Noah -- according to Hebrews 11.

"All drank from the same spiritual Rock and that Rock was CHRIST" 1 Cor 10
The were taught about "the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow" 1 Peter 1:10-11

10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

but, because you say they were Eternally Redeemed (contrary to Scripture), glorified (contrary to Scripture), going to Heaven (contrary to Scripture),i

Elijah "taken to heaven" according to scripture - just when you say "not according to scripture"...

You can't flat out contradict scripture then call scripture "contrary to scripture"... you know that right?


And it came about when the Lord was about to take up Elijah by a whirlwind to heaven, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal....
9 When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.” 10 He said, “You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.” 11 As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 12 Elisha saw it and cried out, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!”

 

[pastorcwb]

I wish somebody would convince the devil that OSAS is biblical, if you could then maybe he would leave me alone. LOL

Few questions I have concerning the OSAS doctrine:

• if you are a Christian, does the devil fight or tempt you?
• if so, WHY? if the devil believed OSAS would he waste his time?

John 10 clearly says the he has come to "steal, kill, and destroy"

if you believe OSAS, what is the purpose of the devil?

 

[Darrell C]

posted to Y1


And the funny thing about that is that the "name-calling while quoting yourself" method that Y1 employs has been tried already in the dark ages...and failed spectacularly then as well.

Based on the number of people who died, from their perspective...it was not a "failure."


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

A perfect illustration where we will "differ" -- every single time.

you are making nonsense of Christ's outright slam of Nicodemus in John 3 for not admitting to the truth Christ was highlighting.

The slam was because Nicodemus interjected a physical understanding to what Christ was saying, when He should have, even though he would have been expectant of a physical Kingdom (which was promised by God and will be fulfilled in its proper time and season (Acts 1:6-7)...

...should have immediately thought of Ezekiel 36...


Ezekiel 36:24-27
King James Version (KJV)

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


...and Ezekiel 37...


Ezekiel 37
King James Version (KJV)


4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:


...both of which refer to the Lord regenerating, resurrecting, and placing His Spirit within men (see Acts 1:4-5).

Not something specific to the physical (a physical rebirth by re-entering the physical womb).

Again, Christ demanded men believe on Him and specifically in His Resurrection, and the simple fact is...no-one could at that time, and no-one did. The disciples did not abide in Christ, though they were "commanded" to. The reason is because Christ is looking towards that day when these things would be fulfilled and men could believe, be born again, and abide in Christ (though this is specific primarily to those of Israel in the first century, particularly the Disciples, who would choose between faith in Christ and faith in what Israel knew to be the God ordained religion through which they had relationship to God through.

That was a tough choice in the first century for numerous reasons.


God bless.