neal4christ
New Member
You say not everyone has a chance to here of the story of Christ, but what of those who don't know truth? How can they know truth? They don't have the Holy Scriptures. Why is the gospel of Christ not good enough now?
Neal
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity
- Thread starter AITB
- Start date
Neal
neal4christ
New Member
Never said nor do I imply such a thing.
Neal
neal4christ
New Member
Please stop putting your interpretations into the Scripture. Now, I know that it is another topic and we can talk about that another time, but there is no where in here that says they "are saved." I am merely arguing your terminology and showing that this passage does not explicitly say they "are saved." You may interpret it that way, but it does not say it.
Neal
neal4christ
New Member
You forgot the last word in that phrase, "through faith in the Messiah JESUS."
Neal
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
So then you really do think that all the saved Jews at the time of Christ "became lost at the cross" until they found out "more" about the "Messiah" that they had faith in?
Even though the Romans 2:13-16 scenario and Heb 11 and the 2Tim 3:13-17 text argues for salvation without "perfect knowledge"?
That is where we differ.
The ONE Messiah "is Jesus" whether the Hebrew Saints got all those details down or not.
In fact the infinite God probably has one or two more things to "tell us". Our own story is far from infinite in detail. Not having "enough detail" was never the basis for being lost.
Which again - was what we found in Romans 2:13-16. Salvation for those who didn't even have scripture to know that there is such a thing as a Messiah. Yet recipients of the New Covenant promises via the work of God "Who Convicts the World of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment" and through the blood of Christ provides forgiveness of sins to all who yield to that work of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth). John 16, Roman 8:13-16.
In Christ,
Bob
Even though the Romans 2:13-16 scenario and Heb 11 and the 2Tim 3:13-17 text argues for salvation without "perfect knowledge"?
That is where we differ.
The ONE Messiah "is Jesus" whether the Hebrew Saints got all those details down or not.
In fact the infinite God probably has one or two more things to "tell us". Our own story is far from infinite in detail. Not having "enough detail" was never the basis for being lost.
Which again - was what we found in Romans 2:13-16. Salvation for those who didn't even have scripture to know that there is such a thing as a Messiah. Yet recipients of the New Covenant promises via the work of God "Who Convicts the World of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment" and through the blood of Christ provides forgiveness of sins to all who yield to that work of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth). John 16, Roman 8:13-16.
In Christ,
Bob
3AngelsMom
<img src =/3mom.jpg>
This page says otherwise:
Earliest Christians taught the Trinity
Helen/AITB </font>[/QUOTE]That site just proves further for me that the trinity is false. That Ignatious guy is also the same guy who CLAIMS that the first century church had COMPLETELY abandoned the Sabbath in exchange for Sunday (a PAGAN day of worship).
YEAH RIGHT.
AS IF those who were discipled by Paul, John and James would have fallen for that bogus line.
"Oh, you don't have to obey God anymore."
According to Ignatius, the first century church was the first order of Antinomian Apostates.
I ignore him.
Anyone wanting to prove something from history would be wise to look elsewhere.
God Bless
Oh, I get it. Ignore Ignatius, who was living in the early Christain Church, reading and passing on the faith delivered once for all to the saints among martyers in a time when to be Christian could mean death any day. A man who learned his version not from 30,000 versions of some gospel, but from the Apostles.
And now, 2000 years later, 3am, I am to listen to you, who not only cannot agree with Catholic or Evangelicals, but not even with your own denomination (AOG) regarding who God is, ie, the Trinity? Incredible logic. I think I will stick with the former and take my chances...
You get me?
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
3AngelsMom:
According to Ignatius, the first century church was the first order of Antinomian Apostates? What? Can you explain that a bit? Are you saying that Ignatius was antinomian, pronomian, what?
[Also explain how an anti-Trinitarian thinks a person can be his own father and his own son all at once.]
Also, cite where you found this junk: "That Ignatious guy is also the same guy who CLAIMS that the first century church had COMPLETELY abandoned the Sabbath in exchange for Sunday..." -- I've NEVER heard such foolishness!!!! Ignatius did not claim that the church "abandoned" the sabbath - how could he, seeing as how the church never worshipped on the sabbath to begin with and therefore could not abandon it? He said
PS: It appears that you ignore me much more than you do Ignatius. You haven't read a one of my posts on this topic and I doubt that will change with this one.
hrhema:
(1) Please cite where Polycarp said that Jesus was created - I don't think he said that. The burden of proof is yours.
Misrepresenting early writers will not lend either of you credibility.
[ March 22, 2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
According to Ignatius, the first century church was the first order of Antinomian Apostates? What? Can you explain that a bit? Are you saying that Ignatius was antinomian, pronomian, what?
[Also explain how an anti-Trinitarian thinks a person can be his own father and his own son all at once.]
Also, cite where you found this junk: "That Ignatious guy is also the same guy who CLAIMS that the first century church had COMPLETELY abandoned the Sabbath in exchange for Sunday..." -- I've NEVER heard such foolishness!!!! Ignatius did not claim that the church "abandoned" the sabbath - how could he, seeing as how the church never worshipped on the sabbath to begin with and therefore could not abandon it? He said
He also said that a Christian should NOT rest on it for (says Ignatius) "he that does not work, let him not eat." Not only that, but he sees worship on Sunday as a thing prophesied of in the Old Testament saying: "Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, 'To the end, for the eighth day,'..." What prophecy he could be refering to I have no idea! -- Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 9
PS: It appears that you ignore me much more than you do Ignatius. You haven't read a one of my posts on this topic and I doubt that will change with this one.
hrhema:
(1) Please cite where Polycarp said that Jesus was created - I don't think he said that. The burden of proof is yours.
Misrepresenting early writers will not lend either of you credibility.
[ March 22, 2003, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
neal4christ
New Member
Alright, let's turn it right back around on you. So then, you really think that all Jews can be saved without believing that Jesus is the Messiah as long as they believe in a Messiah?
I don't know all the intricate workings of God, do you? I can't tell you what went on with those who already had faith at the time of Christ. I personally don't feel that their situation changed and that they would readily accept Jesus if they truly believed the OT Scriptures. However, getting back to Timothy, he would have probably been very young, if not born, at the time of the cross, so I don't think he would fit the category that you are talking of and the big issue you are trying to make. I will say it clear for you since you keep trying to make me say otherwise: I believe in salvation for the OT folks! However, you still dodge the issue and fail to acknowledge that those Scriptures you keep appealing to do not explicitly say what you interpret them as saying. Rom. 2:13-16 does not say anything about salvation, but rather responsibilty. You are in no position to say who is saved and not, only God is. I just object to your imposing your interpretation on Scripture and claiming that as Scripture. If that is how you interpret things, then fine. But say "Bob says...." rather than "Paul states..."
Neal
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well I do not think they got lost on Friday and stayed lost until the year came that someone came to their country (diaspora and all) and informed them about what happened on Friday.
Instead of the cross causing all of God's chosen people (children of Abraham by faith etc) to "Be lost" where they were formally saved by grace through faith - I view the cross as CONFIRMING that salvation.
Since you can't know how old he was - and since you have no way to show that the saints became "lost at the cross" - and since we have no indication that Timothy was a friend of Paul as a child being raised by his mother and grandmother - it is obvious that the 2Tim3 statement is targeting Timothy's childhood, the ONE Gospel that was in full effect during his childhood no matter which side of the cross that was -- and the fact that the scriptures (OT) was sufficient to lead him to salvation.
As Christ said of the OT text "These are the writings that speak of Me".
As Paul showed in Acts 17:1-4 - the OT text was sufficient to establish the gospel of Christ.
As the Bereans found in Acts 17:11 the OT text was sufficient to verify the NT teachings of Paul as "correct" for they studied them to "See IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".
In Christ,
Bob
Of course it's up to you whose words you ignore and whether you think the beliefs shared on that site are true or false.
But your choice to disagree with that web page or ignore the words of some people who are quoted there doesn't stop it demonstrating that hrhema was wrong to say "The post apostolic fathers did not teach [the Trinity] or believe it. It came into existence 325 a.d.".
That was why I posted it.
Helen/AITB
Hey DHK, that was not my post.
God bless </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry abut that. But I would still like to know, either from you or MEE, what definition you give to the word "person" when discussiong the trinity.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I will give you the same difinition that every trinitarian has given me.
Person: Just like you and I are a person.
MEE, here is hrhema's site:
The Introduction of the Development of the Trinity
(I'm sure it's the same site - I just fixed a tiny typo in the URL, that's all)
Helen/AITB
The Introduction of the Development of the Trinity
(I'm sure it's the same site - I just fixed a tiny typo in the URL, that's all)
Helen/AITB
neal4christ
New Member
Neither do I, so please stop implying it.
Okay. So back to the question. Do Jews now need to believe in Jesus as the Christ or just believe in a Christ?
Exactly. The Scriptures led him to salvation, they were not his salvation. His salvation came through faith in Christ Jesus. That is straight from Scripture, my friend.
Did you not read my previous post? I DO NOT THINK THAT THE OT SAINTS BECAME LOST AT THE CROSS! Clear enough? So please stop misrepresenting me. However, do you now know all of the intricate workings of God? I don't. Do you know Timothy's age? Do you know Timothy? Neither do I. So why is your interpretation more valid?
Also, back to my WHOLE point. Please just state "Bob thinks...." rather than "Paul states...." That is what I have a problem with, I don't really care about your interpretation. If that is what you believe, fine. I have a problem with your representation of Paul and Scripture.
Neal
neal4christ
New Member
Oh, I agree. I am taking 2nd semester OT right now and I see Christ all throughout. My point is that now that Christ is revealed there is more responsibility. I don't think it is enough to just believe in a Messiah, but rather we need to believe in Jesus the Messiah.
Neal