Preterism implies Calvinism

[kangaroojack]

Sept 2, 2010 17:24:04 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Revelation 22.11, NKJV:

He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.

In a brief study, it seems the angel is telling John, "He who is unjust, let him be unjust..." "Let him be." What does that phrase indicate? The phrase is used four times. It seems that the angel was telling John to let the unjust be unjust, let the filthy be filthy, let the righteous be righteous, and let the holy be holy.

It seems that John was not to take any action to make any changes to the everlasting condition of those four groups.

But, how does that apply to our condition since the end of the age?

maybe some Birch Beer

Men continue to defile into the next age and are not permitted to enter into the the city. If they are not permitted to enter into the city they cannot hear the "whosoever will" call.

24 And the nations of those who are saved[shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

The verbs I bolded are participles which express continuous action. After that age was completed men continued to defile and continued to cause a lie and were not permitted to enter into the city. Only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life may enter into the city. Is the number of those written in the Lamb's book of life a fixed number or not?


Question: Are you suggesting that there was such a thing as reprobation before the end of that age and that God does not reprobate men now?
Was Calvinism true before the end of that age but not true now?


Roo

[kangaroojack]

Sept 2, 2010 17:30:09 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Roo said:

But in the sense of possessing some capacity for goodness a man may be "just" without being saved.

That also goes against established Calvinism. "Totally depraved" means just that. Man is totally depraved and has no ability or capacity to do good.

Do I have to give you the Scriptures that Calvinists prove totally depravity, or do you already know them?

this Birch Beer hits the spot

In the original document of the five points of Calvinism it is indicated that "total depravity" means that man is unable to savingly believe the gospel. Nothing in the original statement indicates that man is utterly depraved and is incapable of doing any good whatsoever. Calvinists teach that the image of God in man was marred in the fall but not lost. All men even the worst of sinners must reflect the image of God to some extent.

The Westminster Confession also says that man has lost the ability to do any spiritual good accompanying salvation. Consequently, man is "not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereuno," chapter IX article III. Will you say that the Westminster Confession does not represent "established" Calvinism?

Where else have you learned about Calvinism other than from discussions with Calvinists who may be somewhat misinformed?

The "Calvinism" I am giving you is right from the textbooks.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

The most glaring error of the Calvinist is that he fails to make the right distinction between the OC Israel and the NC Israel. Israel of the flesh was born into her covenant and needed to learn of God. But those in the NC have been taught by God first when they learn of Christ by His gospel and they enter into covenant and life by the faith that comes from that grace, no man needs to teach them - certainly not Calvin!

[kangaroojack]

Sept 3, 2010 9:24:04 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

The most glaring error of the Calvinist is that he fails to make the right distinction between the OC Israel and the NC Israel. Israel of the flesh was born into her covenant and needed to learn of God. But those in the NC have been taught by God first when they learn of Christ by His gospel and they enter into covenant and life by the faith that comes from that grace, no man needs to teach them - certainly not Calvin!

Wow Mograce!

Thank you! The part of your statement I put in bold is exactly what I have been trying to say. They are "just" because the seed of God is in them and they are taught by God first. "Let the just be just still." As the consequence of being taught by God first they wash their robes and are granted entrance into the city. "Let the just be just still." Once in the city God continues teaching them and so they answer the "whosoever will" call and drink the waters of salvation and be saved. "Let the just be just still." Afterwards by "that grace" they continue in the life of faith. "Let the just be just still."

Then you said that the life of faith comes from "that grace." Exactly! This is pure Calvinism! All Christians are at least incipient Calvinists. And so are you because you know that the life of faith comes from "that grace."

The difference between us is that you probably think that God teaches all men. This cannot be true for it also says, "Let the unjust be unjust still." God secures the fulfillment of this decree by keeping the unjust out of the city so they cannot be taught. In the new covenant age God woud not teach men whom He has given over to their permanent unjust condition.

btw, the "glaring error" you mention belongs to the Futurist. The Calvinists who have perpetuated that error do so not because they are Calvinists but because they are Futurists.


Roo

[Morris]

Sept 2, 2010 16:24:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Morris,

You say that Jesus said "all" and not just His sheep only. Where do you get this idea?

The problem is that some scripture appears to agree with what you say but not all scripture. When this happens we have two choices; change our understanding to comply with all scripture, or interpret those verses according to how we understand the other ones.

John 1:6-13
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Notice something in here that is contrary to what you are saying. This says that His own did not receive Him. Who were His own? If this is His sheep only, it is quite opposed to "His sheep hears His voice and listen" because it goes on to say that they did not all receive Him.

However, as many as did receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God. Before they believed, they didn't even have the right to become children. You said they already were but this says that, not only were they not children, but they didn't even have the right to become children!

John 3:15,16
"that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Whoever" excludes any limitation. The Greek word translated here means 'apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole'. There cannot be any restriction placed on 'all' here, unless a doctrine redefines the words.

Acts 13:38,39
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses"

That "everyone" is that same Greek word as above.

Matthew 7:7,8
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened"

Again, all-inclusive. There is no restriction to "sheep only". So where does that leave us with the sheep analogies?

Jesus explicitly said that He came to seek and to save "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Again He said, "I am sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Now here is the clincher: Jesus said, "The good shepherd gives his life for the SHEEP." He gave his life for His sheep only! Again He said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow Me. And I give unto THEM eternal life and THEY shall never perish." Then He added, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. THEM also I must bring and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." The "other" sheep would be the gentiles which were to be brought in later on. But He came to give eternal life only to His SHEEP and there is no denying it.

Who are these lost sheep of Israel? Are they only Jews that will receive Jesus? Not according to John 1:10, as we saw above, for it says that His own did not receive Him. Can the lost sheep refer to "all" Jews prior to their choice to receive Him? This seems to work especially considering the 'other sheep not of this fold' of Israel portion.

So, can a 'lost' sheep be any person before believing / receiving Jesus? I think so; a lost sheep of the House of Israel would be an unbelieving Jew while a Gentile would simply be a lost sheep. A 'found' sheep, whether from the House of Israel or from the other fold, is one of His sheep, member of the single fold of Christ's sheep.

Furthermore, you really misquoted the passage by saying "He gave his life for His sheep only". It actually says "The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep". It does not specify any group of sheep.

Only the 'found' sheep know their Shepherd and are given eternal life, and that makes perfect sense once you realize that this eternal life is knowing God and His Christ.
John 17:3
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.",
and again in John 10:27,28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
Eternal life can only be given to the found sheep by its very definition.

Jesus even clearly shows that "sheep" does not denote believers only. There are sheep that are not His.
John 10:26
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."
They are the lost sheep, the ones not in the fold of Christ's sheep, because His sheep are defined by their belief in Him. There are lost sheep and found sheep.

And what do you do with Matthew 25 where Jesus said that He would separate the sheep from the goats? He said that the sheep would go into everlasting life and the goats would go into everlasting punishment. It is obvious from this that Jesus did not come to save the goats of Israel. He came to save His sheep and then to separate them from the goats.

That's a different analogy. The previous one was using lost and found sheep, where belief in Jesus places one into His fold of found sheep. This one uses the analogy of comparing believers as sheep to unbelievers as goats.

This is no different than in John 10 were Jesus uses two illustrations; one where He is the gate in which the sheep enter to be saved, and another where He is the Shepherd. We can't go confusing separate illustrations with each other. Acts 8:32 shows Jesus as a "sheep to the slaughter", yet this doesn't negate the picture of Him being the Shepherd that gave His life as well.

Men do not become His sheep when He saves them. They become His found sheep.

This is confusing separate illustrations. Remember, we already saw that only the found sheep are His in the Shepherd analogy; the rest remaining lost.

In the sheep and goats illustration, we see that the shepherd 'has' both the sheep and the goats. The Greek simply says the Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. It does not say "His sheep" from the goats. This is to illustrate the judgment, not salvation as does the other picture.

I will continue with the rest shortly...

[Allyn]

Sept 3, 2010 9:24:04 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

The most glaring error of the Calvinist is that he fails to make the right distinction between the OC Israel and the NC Israel. Israel of the flesh was born into her covenant and needed to learn of God. But those in the NC have been taught by God first when they learn of Christ by His gospel and they enter into covenant and life by the faith that comes from that grace, no man needs to teach them - certainly not Calvin!

There is an Old Testament teaching that says something like that no longer will the people be taught by the shepherds but by the word of God.

[didymus]

Roo said:

Men continue to defile into the next age and are not permitted to enter into the the city. If they are not permitted to enter into the city they cannot hear the "whosoever will" call.

If this is true, how can anyone be saved? How can you or I be saved? None of us were born into the city, were we? So, not being in the city, how can we hear the "whoever will" call? I asked this question before. Perhaps you can answer it this time.

- tea time

[MoGrace2U]

Allyn,

Isa 54:13 - And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

John 6:45 - It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Hosea 11:4 - I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

1 Th 4:9 - But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

This is why love has the preeminence!

Calvin's love for right doctrine did not lead him in the right direction when it concerned his brothers in Christ who disagreed with him. And that is the only test of one's doctrine that counts. How is it the men who follow after him are much the same in their behavior?

Because men love their idols more than they love God.

[kangaroojack]

I said:

You say that Jesus said "all" and not just His sheep only. Where do you get this idea?

Morris replied:

The problem is that some scripture appears to agree with what you say but not all scripture. When this happens we have two choices; change our understanding to comply with all scripture, or interpret those verses according to how we understand the other ones.

John 1:6-13
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Notice something in here that is contrary to what you are saying. This says that His own did not receive Him. Who were His own? If this is His sheep only, it is quite opposed to "His sheep hears His voice and listen" because it goes on to say that they did not all receive Him.

It simply means that some of His own flesh and blood did not receive Him. It does not mean that all who were His flesh and blood people were also His covenantal people. Jesus told the Jews that they did not believe in Him BECAUSE they were not of His sheep:

26 But you do not believe, BECAUSE you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; John 10:26-27

Therefore, not all His flesh and blood people were His covenantal people.

Morris:

John 3:15,16
"that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Whoever" excludes any limitation. The Greek word translated here means 'apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole'. There cannot be any restriction placed on 'all' here, unless a doctrine redefines the words.

Actually it is limited. It literally means "The one who believes...."

God has no intention of saving anyone who does not believe and we know that those who do not believe do not believe BECAUSE they are not of Christ's sheep (10:26).

Morris:

Acts 13:38,39
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses"

It means, "only those who believe." These are the sheep. Those who do not believe do not believe because they are not of Christ's sheep.

Morris:

Matthew 7:7,8
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened"

Again, all-inclusive. There is no restriction to "sheep only". So where does that leave us with the sheep analogies?

You should have taken it back to the beginning in chapter 5. Jesus was speaking to His disciples who were going to suffer persecution for His sake at the hands of those who were not Christ's sheep. Note that the promises were made to "YOU" and not to those who revile you ( 5:11, called "goats" in Matthew 25). In the Olivet discourse He said that the goats who persecuted them would be punished. No promise or blessing was ever made to the persecutors of God's people.

Morris:

Who are these lost sheep of Israel? Are they only Jews that will receive Jesus? Not according to John 1:10, as we saw above, for it says that His own did not receive Him. Can the lost sheep refer to "all" Jews prior to their choice to receive Him? This seems to work especially considering the 'other sheep not of this fold' of Israel portion.

So you deny that that there were "goats" in Israel? I have already shown that the expression "His own" in John 1:10 is simply a reference to His own flesh and blood people. This by no means infers that all His flesh and blood people were also His covenantal people. Only His sheep were His covenantal people. Your conclusions are quite problematic for Jesus said that the shepherd leaves the 99 sheep to recover the one sheep which is lost. This means that ALL His sheep will be recovered. This in turn implies that not all men can be His sheep or else Christ is a failure.

Morris:

So, can a 'lost' sheep be any person before believing / receiving Jesus? I think so; a lost sheep of the House of Israel would be an unbelieving Jew while a Gentile would simply be a lost sheep. A 'found' sheep, whether from the House of Israel or from the other fold, is one of His sheep, member of the single fold of Christ's sheep.

First, who were the "goats?" Second, ALL His sheep will be found because the shepherd leaves the 99 to recover the one that went astray.

Morris:

Furthermore, you really misquoted the passage by saying "He gave his life for His sheep only". It actually says "The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep". It does not specify any group of sheep.

There are sheep and there are goats. Christ said that He gives His life for the sheep. He said that those who do not believe do not BECAUSE they are not of His sheep (10:26).

Morris:

Only the 'found' sheep know their Shepherd and are given eternal life, and that makes perfect sense once you realize that this eternal life is knowing God and His Christ.
John 17:3
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.",
and again in John 10:27,28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
Eternal life can only be given to the found sheep by its very definition.

The unbelieving Jews were not lost sheep. They are not of His sheep at all.

26 But you do not believe, BECAUSE you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish;

Christ's sheep hear His voice!

Morris:

Jesus even clearly shows that "sheep" does not denote believers only. There are sheep that are not His.
John 10:26
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."

If there are sheep that are not His, then He couldn't have died for them. So what's this about?

Morris:

They are the lost sheep, the ones not in the fold of Christ's sheep, because His sheep are defined by their belief in Him. There are lost sheep and found sheep.

[/color][/quote]
Jesus did not call them sheep at all. He simply said that they were not OF His sheep. You help me out by admitting that His sheep are "defined by their belief in Him."

Morris:

That's a different analogy. The previous one was using lost and found sheep, where belief in Jesus places one into His fold of found sheep.

But the found sheep were still sheep before they were found. Right? The shepherd leaves the 99 to recover the 1 lost one that is his own. Right?

Morris:

This one uses the analogy of comparing believers as sheep to unbelievers as goats.

Jesus did not say that they are not sheep because they do not believe. He said that they do not believe BECAUSE they are not of His sheep.You have the order backwards.

In John 8 Jesus told them that they were the sons of the devil (John 8:44). In the parable of the wheat and the tares Jesus identified the tares as the sons of the devil. He said that the sons of the devil would remain the sons of the devil TO the harvest at the end of the age:

4 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. Matthew 13:37-40

Jesus said that wheat and the tares would grow together until the harvest at the end of the age. A wheat stalk does not become a tare during that time. Neither does a tare become a wheat stalk.

The wheat stalks are the sons of the kingdom and the tares are the sons of the devil. Therefore, to the harvest each individual continues to be what he is. The sons of the kingdom ALL remain the sons of the kingdom. And the sons of the devil ALL remain the sons of the devil. The sons of the kingdom will shine forth because of their faith vs. 43.

I said:

Men do not become His sheep when He saves them. They become His found sheep.

Morris replied:

This is confusing separate illustrations. Remember, we already saw that only the found sheep are His in the Shepherd analogy; the rest remaining lost.

Not so! In the shepherd analogy the shepherd leaves the 99 to seek out the 1 that went astrey. Does the one that went astray mystically and magically stop being of that shepherd's sheep?

Morris:

In the sheep and goats illustration, we see that the shepherd 'has' both the sheep and the goats. The Greek simply says the Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. It does not say "His sheep" from the goats. This is to illustrate the judgment, not salvation as does the other picture.

Of course goats are His too. He owns the heathen (Ps. 2). But He didn't die for them. He died for the sheep.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Sept 3, 2010 12:26:44 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Roo said:

Men continue to defile into the next age and are not permitted to enter into the the city. If they are not permitted to enter into the city they cannot hear the "whosoever will" call.

If this is true, how can anyone be saved? How can you or I be saved? None of us were born into the city, were we? So, not being in the city, how can we hear the "whoever will" call? I asked this question before. Perhaps you can answer it this time.

- tea time

I didn't see your question before. Remember, it is five against one and I can't follow everything posted.

Yes we were born into the city just as Isaac was born into it (Galatians 4:21-31). It is by faith that it became manifest that we were born into the city. But we must still drink of the water that is in the city. And if being in the city meant that we are automatically saved then why does it say that the tree of life is for the "healing" of the nations (22:2). What is this "healing" if it is not salvation?

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 2, 2010 16:24:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Again, where do you get the idea that Jesus said that He came to save all men? He came to save all sheep. He said that if a man has 100 sheep and one is missing he will leave the 99 and bring the one stray sheep back. So Christ indeed came to save all but not in the sense you say. He came to save ALL His sheep. He plainly and repeatedly said so!

I've already shown that not all sheep are His, yet 'He came to save all sheep'. Jesus said, "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture". He did not say, "If My sheep enters by Me". Jesus said, "The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep". He did not say, "My sheep".

Titus 2:11
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men"

1 Timothy 2:3,4
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

Acts 17:30
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

These are just a sample of scriptures that show that what Christ did was for "all men", not only for "His sheep". It has been shown that receiving Jesus in belief will take you from being a 'lost' sheep' to a being a 'found' sheep. In one illustration, all mankind are as sheep; the question is, are you lost or found? Do you know the shepherd or not?

As I see it, you are confusing the concept that 'all those who believe on Christ are His sheep', with 'only those who are His lost sheep can believe on Him'. However, the passage clearly shows that Christ died for the sleep and those who believe will be His sheep.

Morris:
Where did the author to the Hebrews say "faith alone?" Those Hebrew christians were still under the old covenant which contained the threat of damnation. James said that faith without works is dead alone. James threatened condemnation to anyone who did not have works (5:12).

Hebrews 10:38
"Now the just shall live by faith". Chapter 11, the great faith chapter, does not mention works at all; and that spoke of Old Testament times! It is all "By faith".

The writer even says that "He takes away the first that He may establish the second". That "takes away" literally means "to take away (violently), i.e. abolish, murder". Yet the English words used do not convey the strong language used here.

James said this when they were still under the old covenant.

This is your doctrine, not mine. I will not be using your doctrine to interpret scriptures. It is my opinion that scripture explains itself quite well without imposing theories onto it. This is one such example, in my view, and is a slightly different topic for a different thread (and such threads already exist). I will leave it at this; I do not find any scripture that isn't used without needing an 'explanation' that suggests the old covenant continued beyond the cross.

James was the very first epistle written and it says nothing about the death of Christ. Why was an apostle who walked with Jesus totally silent about the death of His Lord? I'll tell you why. James said nothing about Christ's death because God had not yet revealed new covenant truth to His people. James did not know what the death of Christ meant. And until God revealed new covenant truth and what Christ's death meant they had to live according to the old covenant principles.

Speculation I'm afraid.
# Luke 24:44
"Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures."

Jesus fully showed them what the scriptures meant in relation to Him. And not every letter deals with every subject matter.

God revealed the meaning of Christ's death only to Paul who came nearly three decades later. And Paul said that it was revealed to him that salvation is now by faith APART from the works of the law (Romans 3:21).

Read Acts. Read any of the gospels. Read any of the new testament. Faith is what saves. Works/fruit are the evidence of faith.

I have not responded to the rest due to time restraints and because it is such a broad subject. However, I believe those statements to be of doctrinal origin and not of scriptural origin.

[kangaroojack]

Sept 3, 2010 12:26:44 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Roo said:

Men continue to defile into the next age and are not permitted to enter into the the city. If they are not permitted to enter into the city they cannot hear the "whosoever will" call.

If this is true, how can anyone be saved? How can you or I be saved? None of us were born into the city, were we? So, not being in the city, how can we hear the "whoever will" call? I asked this question before. Perhaps you can answer it this time.

- tea time

TO ALL:

Try to keep in mind that I am out numbered here and so I cannot reply to everyone. I leave you tonight with a statement regarding didymus's question above. Yes we were born into the new Jerusalem from our physical births.

Isaac was born of Sarah who represented the heavenly Jerusalem. This means that Isaac was born of the heavenly Jerusalem when he came into the world.

Paul said that we are heirs "as Isaac." Thus we were born into the heavenly (or new) Jerusalem when we came into the world. Just as Isaac still had to come to faith in God so must all others who are born into the heavenly Jerusalem. For faith is the "operation of God" within the confines of the heavenly Jerusalem.

See Galatians 4:21-31.

Good night all,

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 3, 2010 13:28:53 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Of course goats are His too. He owns the heathen (Ps. 2). But He didn't die for them. He died for the sheep.

Jesus said that the owner would die for what He owns.

The rest of the post was more doctrine overriding scripture, IMO. The responses were interpretations and not scripture.

If there are sheep that are not His, then He couldn't have died for them. So what's this about?

I have no idea what your point is here. Why couldn't He have died for them if He said He died for the sheep?

"But you do not believe, Because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."
If they were not of His sheep, whose sheep were they of? He didn't say 'you are not sheep"! He gave a declaration about whose sheep they weren't.

I have already shown that the expression "His own" in John 1:10 is simply a reference to His own flesh and blood people.

But Jesus said in John 10:14, "I know My sheep, and am known by My own". Here, He says that His own are His sheep, not a flesh and blood people.

[kangaroojack]

TO ALL:

One more post and then I will retire for this evening.

Morris:

I've already shown that not all sheep are His, yet 'He came to save all sheep'. Titus 2:11
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men"

1 Timothy 2:3,4
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

Acts 17:30
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

These are just a sample of scriptures that show that what Christ did was for "all men", not only for "His sheep".

First, you did not show that Christ died for sheep that are not His own. Second, these statements were made to Jews who at that time thought that salvation was for them alone. The apostles were saying "all men" in the sense that salvation was now for the Gentile as well. It does not mean every single man. The book of Hebrews uses the same expression "every man" and then clarifies it by saying "the many sons." Thus Christ died for "all men" racially but it is limited to "the many sons." Some men are not God's sons. Jesus told the Jews that they were the sons of the devil. Therefore, He did not die for them.

Morris:

It has been shown that receiving Jesus in belief will take you from being a 'lost' sheep' to a being a 'found' sheep. In one illustration, all mankind are as sheep; the question is, are you lost or found? Do you know the shepherd or not?

Not all men are His sheep. Jesus told the Jews that they did not bellieve BECAUSE they were not of His sheep. If they were of His sheep they would have believed because Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life anf they shall never perish."

Morris:

As I see it, you are confusing the concept that 'all those who believe on Christ are His sheep', with 'only those who are His lost sheep can believe on Him'. However, the passage clearly shows that Christ died for the sleep and those who believe will be His sheep.

Jesus told the Jews, "You believe not BECAUSE you are not of my sheep."

Morris:

Now the just shall live by faith". Chapter 11, the great faith chapter, does not mention works at all; and that spoke of Old Testament times! It is all "By faith".

The writer even says that "He takes away the first that He may establish the second". That "takes away" literally means "to take away (violently), i.e. abolish, murder". Yet the English words used do not convey the strong language used here.

You missed that the verb is a participle which indicates that He is takingaway the first that He might establish the second. Hebrews 8:13 says that the old is becoming obsolete and is ready to vanish away. So the action was occurring when the epsitle was written. James said that salvation was by faith and by works. It was not until Paul that the faith plus works system began to vanish.

Morris:

do not find any scripture that isn't used without needing an 'explanation' that suggests the old covenant continued beyond the cross.

See Hebrews 8:13 which I just cited. The present participles indicate that the action of the old passing away was occurring even when the epistle was written. See also chapter 9 inwhich it is said that Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary with His blood to accomplish the remission of sins. Until that remission was completed some of the elements of the old covenant had to remmain. Jesus accomplished the full remission by ad70 and the destruction of the temple was the sign. The old is gone forever and salvation is now by faith ALONE!

Morris:

"Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures."

Jesus fully showed them what the scriptures meant in relation to Him. And not every letter deals with every subject matter.

Jesus did not "fully" show them. He also said, " I have many more things to say to you but you cannot bear them now. But when the Spirit of truth is come He will guide you into all thruth and will show you all things that I said to you."

I am amazed that you can think that an apostle such as James can know the meaning of Christ's death and then write an epistle without any mention of Christ's death. Furthermore, why is Paul the chief expositor of the meaning of Christ's death?

We get our understanding of the meaning of Christ's death chiefly from Paul. You ignore the progressive nature of God's revealed truth.

Morris:

Read any of the gospels. Read any of the new testament. Faith is what saves. Works/fruit are the evidence of faith.

Read any of the new testament you say? Okay. Hear James:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 2:24

There it is! James said that a man is NOT justified by faith only. He says nothing about works as a 'fruit' but as a part of justification. Then he says in 5:12 that they could still fall under condemnation.

But Paul denied that faith is accompanied by works for justification (3:21). And he said that "there is therefore NOW no condemnation" to us. Is this a contradiction? No! James wrote nearly 30 years before Paul when the old covenant faith plus works principle was still in efffect. Then God gave to Paul the FULLY revealed gospel which says that justification is by faith ALONE.

God took nearly 50 years to reveal His new covenant truth to the Church. And until that truth was fully revealed they were bound to live by the revelation they had up to point. It was still faith plus works under James. But decades later Paul brought new covenant faith to the people of God.

Roo

[Allyn]

Everybody is doing a great job of supporting your understanding and with relative calm.

[Morris]

Sept 3, 2010 14:59:28 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

TO ALL:

One more post and then I will retire for this evening.

No problem, I'll be away until Tuesday. So here are some very quick comments.

Not all men are His sheep.

Indeed, I didn't say they were all His sheep, I said they were all sheep.

Jesus told the Jews, "You believe not BECAUSE you are not of my sheep."

Naturally. If they were of His sheep, they would believe. But they were of another's sheep.

You missed that the verb is a participle which indicates that He is takingaway the first that He might establish the second.

Not at all: note the time context this is being said in. It is when Christ came the first time and said "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God". This was when He was on earth and had yet to complete all that He was to do. He was about to violently remove the old. His will was to 'murder' the old that the new may 'stand'. Hebrews teaches that only one will can be in effect at a time.

The very next verse is "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

It is said in the manner of "is doing" because the timeframe of the statement was from when Christ was on the earth to do the will God. That's the whole point of this passage; He came to do the will of God.

Okay. Hear James:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 2:24

There it is! James said that a man is NOT justified by faith only. He says nothing about works as a 'fruit' but as a part of justification. Then he says in 5:12 that they could still fall under condemnation.

The funny thing is that the notion that "the just shall live by faith" was from the old testament. Now, this is an entire subject unto itself but let my attempt to sum it up really fast. The works spoken of hear is the same as character. If you are something, by faith, what you are must be visible. If we are a child of God, are we not going to look like one (in character)?

This concept is throughout the new testament. In fact, as I've posted in another thread, when speaking about doctrines it is usually speaking about character. We can't be children of God and not "adorn" ourselves with His character (be "partakers of the divine nature") and if this is true, works (the demonstration of God's character) will be evident. If it isn't, is there really any faith?

As for James 5:12, all I can say right now is that we have a very different understanding of what is being said here.

But Paul denied that faith is accompanied by works for justification (3:21). And he said that "there is therefore NOW no condemnation" to us.

So the sprinkling of blood had been accomplished by this time? I'm sorry but I'm out of time.

Have a great weekend, Roo! I hope you continue to know that, although we disagree, I still consider you my brother in Christ and hold no judgment toward you.

Talk to you all soon!

[didymus]

Sept 3, 2010 13:40:56 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Sept 3, 2010 12:26:44 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Roo said:

If this is true, how can anyone be saved? How can you or I be saved? None of us were born into the city, were we? So, not being in the city, how can we hear the "whoever will" call? I asked this question before. Perhaps you can answer it this time.

- tea time

I didn't see your question before. Remember, it is five against one and I can't follow everything posted.

Yes we were born into the city just as Isaac was born into it (Galatians 4:21-31). It is by faith that it became manifest that we were born into the city. But we must still drink of the water that is in the city. And if being in the city meant that we are automatically saved then why does it say that the tree of life is for the "healing" of the nations (22:2). What is this "healing" if it is not salvation?

Roo

You are using the symbolism of Paul to say Isaac was born into the "Jerusalem above." But, it is not written that way. Nowhere does the passage in Galatians 4 say that Isaac was born into the city. Then you further augment your confusion by bringing in Rev. 22.2. What does one have to do with the other?

We enter the city through faith in Christ, right? Did you have faith in Christ when you popped out of your mother's womb? I don't know about you, but I don't even remember anything when I was born. I guess I should have asked my dad if he preached to me when I was in my mother's womb. Although, based on how they got a long, I doubt it. Did anyone preach to you when you were in your mother's womb? How else could have faith, and be born into the city? Or can you learn without a preacher?

- coffee time

[didymus]

Sept 3, 2010 16:12:09 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Everybody is doing a great job of supporting your understanding and with relative calm.

Do you know how difficult that is?

[Allyn]

Sept 3, 2010 19:07:26 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Sept 3, 2010 16:12:09 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Everybody is doing a great job of supporting your understanding and with relative calm.

Do you know how difficult that is?

From experience? I don't do all that well but in principal its a great idea.

[didymus]

One more comment on this, then I think I'll go on vacation too. Why not, everybody else is.

This thread started by Roo saying "Preterism implies Calvinism." It very quickly became a discussion on Calvinism. Since the OP says that "Preterism implies Calvinism," an understanding of Calvinism is important. It seems we are no more closer to that understanding than someone who knows nothing about hockey understanding why fights breakout in nearly every game.

Why has this happened? Roo has a different understanding of Calvinism, and quite confusing at that, than what most of us know as established Calvinism. That is probably true because most of us probably never read all of Calvin's institutes. I know I haven't. Unfortunately, modern Calvinists probably haven't either. Even when I was a young Christian, Calvinism was different than it is today. There appear to be three strains of Calvinism. Original Calvinism, literally based on Calvin's Institutes. Modern Calvinism, which is Calvinism understood by the contemporaries of modern religious thought. Then, what I call Universal Calvinism, the foundation thereof is not all that different from Universalism.

Our new friend seems to be leaning toward Original Calvinism, with a little Modern Calvinism threw in for good measure, along the lines of an A.W. Pink. In reading his "Sovereignty of God," I did not get the idea that God controls all things right down to the toothpaste we buy. It's been a while since I read that book, but I do remember my impressions. I actually enjoyed reading that book, which I did about 20 years ago. Solomon was right, time is a but a vapor.

I suggest, after Labor day, we come back and get back to how Preterism implies Calvinism, and forget about picking apart whatever Calvinism is. Since we all seem to have a different understanding as to what Calvinism is, that discussion can take a very long time. And we do have ample other threads to discuss the various nuances of Calvinism. I really would like to know how Preterism implies Calvinism, whatever Calvinism is.

Have a great Labor Day, y'all.

[kangaroojack]

Hi,

I'll be back after the Labor Day holiday.



Roo

[Allyn]

You really do love those kangaroos

[kangaroojack]

Didymus said;

You are using the symbolism of Paul to say Isaac was born into the "Jerusalem above." But, it is not written that way. Nowhere does the passage in Galatians 4 say that Isaac was born into the city. Then you further augment your confusion by bringing in Rev. 22.2. What does one have to do with the other?

Didymus,

Paul said that Sarah was the Jerusalem that was from above. Isaac was born of Sarah. Paul's meaning is clear. Isaac came into the world an heir of salvation and Ishmael was not.

Go back to the beginning of the chapter. Paul said that they were children and heirs before Christ redeemed them. Upon being redeemed they became adopted sons (4:1-6). They came into the world as child-heirs as Isaac. Christ redeemed them form their sins and made them sons so they could take possession of their inheritance.

Didymus:

We enter the city through faith in Christ, right? Did you have faith in Christ when you popped out of your mother's womb? I don't know about you, but I don't even remember anything when I was born. I guess I should have asked my dad if he preached to me when I was in my mother's womb. Although, based on how they got a long, I doubt it. Did anyone preach to you when you were in your mother's womb? How else could have faith, and be born into the city? Or can you learn without a preacher?

We drink the water of life by faith. It is at that point that we become saved. The water is in the city. We must be in the city before we can drink the water. Right?

blessings,

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Sept 3, 2010 19:43:31 GMT -5 @didymus said:

One more comment on this, then I think I'll go on vacation too. Why not, everybody else is.

This thread started by Roo saying "Preterism implies Calvinism." It very quickly became a discussion on Calvinism. Since the OP says that "Preterism implies Calvinism," an understanding of Calvinism is important. It seems we are no more closer to that understanding than someone who knows nothing about hockey understanding why fights breakout in nearly every game.

Why has this happened? Roo has a different understanding of Calvinism, and quite confusing at that, than what most of us know as established Calvinism. That is probably true because most of us probably never read all of Calvin's institutes. I know I haven't. Unfortunately, modern Calvinists probably haven't either. Even when I was a young Christian, Calvinism was different than it is today. There appear to be three strains of Calvinism. Original Calvinism, literally based on Calvin's Institutes. Modern Calvinism, which is Calvinism understood by the contemporaries of modern religious thought. Then, what I call Universal Calvinism, the foundation thereof is not all that different from Universalism.

Our new friend seems to be leaning toward Original Calvinism, with a little Modern Calvinism threw in for good measure, along the lines of an A.W. Pink. In reading his "Sovereignty of God," I did not get the idea that God controls all things right down to the toothpaste we buy. It's been a while since I read that book, but I do remember my impressions. I actually enjoyed reading that book, which I did about 20 years ago. Solomon was right, time is a but a vapor.

I suggest, after Labor day, we come back and get back to how Preterism implies Calvinism, and forget about picking apart whatever Calvinism is. Since we all seem to have a different understanding as to what Calvinism is, that discussion can take a very long time. And we do have ample other threads to discuss the various nuances of Calvinism. I really would like to know how Preterism implies Calvinism, whatever Calvinism is.

Have a great Labor Day, y'all.

didymus,

I trust you had a restful holiday. Reformed Preterists will differ from traditional Calvinists on some things.

Roo

[didymus]

Sept 7, 2010 11:59:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Didymus,

Paul said that Sarah was the Jerusalem that was from above. Isaac was born of Sarah. Paul's meaning is clear. Isaac came into the world an heir of salvation and Ishmael was not.

blessings,

Roo

I believe you are misreading the text. Sarah was a "symbol" of the Jerusalem above. She was not literally the Jerusalem above.

[kangaroojack]

Morris said:

Indeed, I didn't say they were all His sheep, I said they were all sheep.

Morris,

First, they are not all sheep. Second, He saves only His own sheep.

Morris:

Naturally. If they were of His sheep, they would believe. But they were of another's sheep.

If they are not Christ's sheep they will not believe. Jesus said, "You believe not BECAUSE you are not of my sheep." The cause and effect is clear.

I said:

You missed that the verb is a participle which indicates that He is taking away the first that He might establish the second.

Morris replied:

Not at all: note the time context this is being said in. It is when Christ came the first time and said "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God". This was when He was on earth and had yet to complete all that He was to do. He was about to violently remove the old. His will was to 'murder' the old that the new may 'stand'. Hebrews teaches that only one will can be in effect at a time.

The very next verse is "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

It is said in the manner of "is doing" because the timeframe of the statement was from when Christ was on the earth to do the will God. That's the whole point of this passage; He came to do the will of God.

Sanctifcation and remission are two different things. To sanctify means "to set apart." In the sense of being set apart our sanctification is complete. But He still had to offer the blood on the heavenly altar and make the atonement for the full remission of sins.

The sprinkling of the blood on the altar was the atonement:

18 And He said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the ordinances for the altar on the day when it is made, for sacrificing burnt offerings on it, and for sprinkling blood on it. 19 You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites, who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister to Me,’ says the Lord GOD. 20 ‘You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and make atonement for it. Ezekiel 43:18-20

Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary with His blood:

12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:12

Some elements of the old covenant had to remain in effect until Christ completed the full remission of sins.

Morris:

The funny thing is that the notion that "the just shall live by faith" was from the old testament. Now, this is an entire subject unto itself but let my attempt to sum it up really fast.

Paul indicated that the expression "the just shall live by faith" was fulfuilled in the gospel that was revealed to Him (Romans chaps 1-3).

Morris:

The works spoken of hear is the same as character. If you are something, by faith, what you are must be visible. If we are a child of God, are we not going to look like one (in character)?

James clearly said that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only."

Martin Luther denied that James was canonical because of this statement and also because James made no reference to Christ's death. Many Calvinists today deny the canonicity of James for the same reasons. Most Calvinists adopt your explanation that James was speaking about works as the fruit of justification.

There are a small few of us Calvinists who insist that James should be classified as an old covenant book in the sense that God kept the old covenant faith + works principle in effect until He revealed new covenant faith to Paul. Again, the people of God had to live according to the revelation they had until God gave them more revelation. The people of God discarded old covenant principles as God progressively revealed new covenant truth to them. This explains how James could still be canonical even though it teaches works-justification and is silent on the death of Christ.

Therefore, James' faith + works principle is not how a man is justified today. The book of James applies today in the sense that all other old covenant books apply.

Morris:

This concept is throughout the new testament. In fact, as I've posted in another thread, when speaking about doctrines it is usually speaking about character. We can't be children of God and not "adorn" ourselves with His character (be "partakers of the divine nature") and if this is true, works (the demonstration of God's character) will be evident. If it isn't, is there really any faith?

Agreed. But that's not what James is talking about. He is talking about the way a man was justified before God. According to James a man was justified by faith + works. According to Paul a man is justified by faith alone. God fully cancelled James' works-justification principle when He revealed the new covenant way of justification to Paul.

Morris:

Roo! I hope you continue to know that, although we disagree, I still consider you my brother in Christ and hold no judgment toward you.

Same feelings here Morris my brother!

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Sept 7, 2010 12:12:34 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Sept 7, 2010 11:59:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Didymus,

Paul said that Sarah was the Jerusalem that was from above. Isaac was born of Sarah. Paul's meaning is clear. Isaac came into the world an heir of salvation and Ishmael was not.

blessings,

Roo

I believe you are misreading the text. Sarah was a "symbol" of the Jerusalem above. She was not literally the Jerusalem above.

I did not say that Sarah was literally the Jerusalem that is from above. Paul said that Hagar corresponded to the earthly Jerusalem (vs. 25). Likewise Sarah corresponded to the heavenly Jerusalem. Isaac came into the world an heir because he was born of Sarah who was a representation of the Jerusalem that is from above. Therefore, when Isaac was born of Sarah he was born of the Jerusalem that is from above.

Paul told the saints at Galatia that they were child-heirs under the law before Christ came to redeem them (4:1-6). At what point did they become child-heirs if not when they came into the world?

Then Christ redeemed them and made them free sons. But they had been heirs all along.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Roo writes:

James clearly said that "a man is justified by works and not by faith only."

Martin Luther denied that James was canonical because of this statement and also because James made no reference to Christ's death. Many Calvinists today deny the canonicity of James for the same reasons. Most Calvinists adopt your explanation that James was speaking about works as the fruit of justification.

There are a small few of us Calvinists who insist that James should be classified as an old covenant book in the sense that God kept the old covenant faith + works principle in effect until He revealed new covenant faith to Paul. Again, the people of God had to live according to the revelation they had until God gave them more revelation. The people of God discarded old covenant principles as God progressively revealed new covenant truth to them. This explains how James could still be canonical even though it teaches works-justification and is silent on the death of Christ.

Therefore, James' faith + works principle is not how a man is justified today. The book of James applies today in the sense that all other old covenant books apply.

...

Agreed. But that's not what James is talking about. He is talking about the way a man was justified before God. According to James a man was justified by faith + works. According to Paul a man is justified by faith alone. God fully cancelled James' works-justification principle when He revealed the new covenant way of justification to Paul.

And who is James writing to? the 12 tribes scattered abroad - who have the faith of Christ.

James 2:1 - My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

If you really think that Paul cancelled out James and was not in harmony with him, then you might want to explain how the faith of these 12 tribes in Christ differs from those Paul was writing to.

James points to Abraham's justification by faith because his audience is Israel. And in his context, Abraham's faith was proved by the works born of it - his obedience. At which point, ready to slay Isaac, because he believed that God would raise him from the dead to keep His promise - Abraham's faith was perfected - and his works revealed it. Which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.

And we find other responses of faith in the gospels & Acts - like Zaccheaus and Cornelius and the Ethiopian enuch. And also a few that showed hypocrisy - like Ananias and Sapphira and Simon the Sorcerer, because of the covetousness hidden in their hearts - which was also revealed by their works.

True faith responds rightly giving evidence of itself to men and angels. Which when Abraham & Hagar gave birth to Ishmael was the example of not holding fast to the promise by faith. And that was because Sarah was to bear the child of the promise - which neither of them yet believed.

A witness and a testimony is required. Which is how Jesus was revealed to be the Christ, the Son of God come into the world - by His words and His works - John 5:36-37; Rev 19:10

[didymus]

Galatians 4.1-7 states, in the NKJV:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

You must consider the flow of the entire letter. Paul talks about the difference of being under the Law and being in Christ. Plainly, to be an heir, you must be in Christ. And, when you look at the flow of the entire letter.

Wouldn't you know it, I pressed the wrong button, and posted before I was finished.

The purpose for the letter:

False teachers, called Judaizers, were troubling the Christians in Galatia. They were insisting that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised and abide by the ceremonial laws as given by Moses to be saved. Faith in Jesus alone was not enough to save the Gentile Christians. They must add their own works of the law to be saved. This false teaching of the Judaizers threatened the true gospel of salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus. This false teaching also endangered the faith and salvation of the Christians in Galatia. Paul wrote the letter to clarify and uphold the true gospel that we are justified by grace through faith without the works of the law and to prevent the Christians in Galatia from losing their faith and salvation.

-from: www.christianinconnect.com/gal.htm

So, now, how do we understand Galatians 4.1-7 within that framework? One thing that I understand, if Gentiles, they were never under the law, so how could they be child-heirs under the law? It wasn't until Christ that the Gentile Christians became sons, and if sons, heirs.

- coffee time

[Morris]

Sept 8, 2010 11:49:53 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

And in his context, Abraham's faith was proved by the works born of it - his obedience. At which point, ready to slay Isaac, because he believed that God would raise him from the dead to keep His promise - Abraham's faith was perfected - and his works revealed it. Which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.

Indeed. If we say we have faith that the rope bridge across the canyon is perfectly safe, but don't actually step out and cross it when we should, do we really believe that the bridge is safe?

Works/acts are born of the faith we hold.