John the Baptist

[stovebolts]

Answer this: Could anyone under the old law be saved by the blood of animals (Heb.10:4)?? I know of only ONE ( 1 ) way any could but I shall leave it to you to discover it, if you can.
God bless

Webb, if we look at Heb. 10:4, we see that the sacrifices in and of themselves have no saving power, and that's the point. I believe this is why scripture states, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Why? Because sin is a condition of the heart and the sacrifices, although the law says clearly that they are able to forgive sins I do not believe that the law should be looked at as a legal transaction.

In the same way, the act of Baptism does not save in and of it self. Peter put it this way,
1 Peter 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

It is "the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" that is the catalyst for baptism. If this were not the case, then everyone who was put into the baptismal pool and parroted the "right" words at the right time would be saved. But we both know that this is not true.

Paul makes the point over and over and over that it's about faith just as the Hebrew writer brings to mind in chapter 11 and we both know that if one comes to the baptismal pool without faith, they are just getting wet and they are not saved.

So I see the same thing with the sacrificial system. Scripture clearly states that the sacrifices are for the forgiveness of sins and I know that you stated that the baptism in Acts was for the remission of sins, but so was John's a baptism for the remissions of sins and for those baptized by John with a clean conscience that maybe died before they knew of Jesus, I'm sure they were saved too. Why? Because it's about faith.

But here is a thought. Maybe I'm assuming that your think that because John wasn't baptized with the baptism of Jesus because scripture is silent, then I'm taking it as if one is saved, then they will have a share in the world to come. If they are not saved, then they are bound to hell.

To clarify, where do you say John will spend the world to come? Heaven or Hell. Why?

Now then, maybe you think he's in Abraham's boosum waiting for the resurrection of the dead. That's surely an alternate view.

But anyway, I think if we got the heaven, hell, abraham's boosum question answered, it might leave more ground because until I really thought about it, I took it initally as you saying John was in hell, and I don't think that's what your saying.

Thanks Brother.

 

[Webb]

Hi brother Stovebolts:

Where do I believe John will live in eternty? In heaven, of course. Why? Because of Jesus' sacrifice, please read Heb.10:4-10. When were John's sins remitted in reality? In the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If any could be saved without the cross it would nullify the advent of Christ (Rom.5:8-10). Note the passage states we are justified, saved "by His blood", we are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son". The passages you previously gave from Leviticus etc., simply said "shall be saved" but said nothing of when. The when awaited the shedding of Christ's blood.

As for baptism, I read that "it doth now save us" but of the sacrifice of animals the record says it "cannot" save. There is th old (and I believe true) saying that the "blood of Christ flowed backward to the faithfull of the OT as well as forward to us".

God bless

 

[smaller]

Hello Smaller
The question is NOT are those OT worthys saved, the question is WHEN were they saved. You wrote: "Fact is you have no clue at what point John was saved." I take the position John and other OT worthys were saved at the "point" of the cross of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And I will ask you: IF NOT, WHY NOT? Please answer.

You still refuse to answer the question, did John live under the law of Moses? yes or no? Please answer!

You still refuse to answer the question: "Could the blood of animans save? Yes or no? Please answer!

You said: "Sacrifice in general was a showing of obedience in those who practiced same on many levels." I agree. So what? Heb.10:4 still reads the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

Whever the point you try to make about "dust and ashes" is about I declare I do not know, it must be a smokescreen.

You write: "Again, your claim is that no man of faith lived past the grave until the resurrection." No sir, that is NOT my claim, you simply wish it were.

And you conclude: "The just in the Old Testament lived by faith just as all in faith so live." Of course they did, and of course we today do. Whatever gave you the idea I don't believe that.

For the 2nd time, please answer the above questions.
God bless

You have a load of guesswork to uphold an unneeded polemic.

Gods Mercy and Grace sufficient unto salvation was ever Eternal.

The Gospel was preached to Israel long prior to the cross.

s

 

[Robert Hern]

The question: did John live under the law of Moses?
---The answers is yes .......JTB was is in God's Grace


"Could the blood of animals save? Yes or no?

--Under the Law, OT, the blood sacrifice covered their sins from the past. This sacrifice had to be repeated to be acknowledged by God.
--God is Perfect and Just. The penalty must be paid. There are no loop holes around God’s law, the flesh counts for nothing. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
Romans 11:11 tell us the Jews lost their inheritance because they denied the Christ. Because of this, their inheritance was given to foreigners and strangers (Eph 2:19) those outside of Gods Chosen people. Salvation by Grace was given to the world and given a right to become children of God. John 1
At this point the Jews have nothing, today they still have nothing. Salvation is only in the belief in the Gospel of Christ.
But in spite denial and of their loss (Jews), in the end God’s Grace will save only a remnant described in Romans 11, it is in the plan of God. For now the Jews are hardened until the time of the Gentile is complete.

 

[Webb]

Hi Smaller

Its long been obvious that the religious teacher who refuses to answer questions is the teacher who has been backed into a corner.

Fair thee well

 

[smaller]

Hi Smaller

Its long been obvious that the religious teacher who refuses to answer questions is the teacher who has been backed into a corner.

Fair thee well

The only obvious thing is I don't buy guesswork used to hold up certain doctrines that are used to minimize the salvation of pre-cross Prophets.

 

[Webb]

Hi Smaller

Asking you such questions as (1) was John under the law of Moses, and (2) was it possible for the blood of animals to remove sin, etc., etc., requires absolutely no "guesswork" but a simple yes or no. Your corner is gettig smaller, Smaller.

God bless, anyway

 

[smaller]

Hi Smaller

Asking you such questions as (1) was John under the law of Moses,

What does that have to do with salvation by Grace through faith? You raise a phony measure and expect it to be saluted? There is no purpose of salute.

Some believers raise that same flag in order to eliminate or minimize Jesus upholding His Own Word and Ways of the Old Testament in the New Testament. It's called a red herring.

and (2) was it possible for the blood of animals to remove sin, etc., etc., requires absolutely no "guesswork"

Again, such matters are raised as red herrings. They are certainly not 'all' that there is to observe. Not all there is to observe is called the fallacy of the excluded middle. Certain matters are raised, falsely presented as being the entire enchilada of views, which is again not the case.

I could point to the fact that the Gospel was preached to the Old Testament people and you will totally ignore that fact. Why? Because your subjectively imposed components were not in place yet.

Well, too bad. The Gospel was PREACHED to them PRE-WEBB REQUIRED COMPONENTS.

but a simple yes or no. Your corner is gettig smaller, Smaller.

God bless, anyway

I remain unimpressed by your abilities to communicate in civil fashions, insisting that if your views and your views alone are not upheld as THEE only matters to see, then you scurry out. Let's forget about the Mack Truck holes in your opinions.

Abraham SPOKE post death in Luke 16.

Was Abraham DEAD in the ground? lol.

Abraham was a prophet. So was JTB.

If you were even remotely interested in anything but your own limited constructs you'd also be able to see that they are still WAITING for the 'final construct' as well, and WELL after the CROSS or the BLOOD. I might suggest you don't have a clue WHY they are waiting. But that doesn't mean ANY of them were not LIVING immediately POST DEATH as previously noted:

John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

In 'Webb's world' we'd have to heavily edit and redact those Words of Him wouldn't we? We'd have to add:

A. Wait til I die on the Cross
B. Wait til I am resurrected
C. Get baptized in water
D. Belong to Webbs sect

Jesus should have spoken to 'suit your doctrines.' I for one am quite happy that didn't transpire.

s

 

[stovebolts]

A study of Heb.11:39,40 concludes that John was not saved in reality before the cross. The blood of animals could not remit sin, Heb.10:4. John lived under the law of Moses.

Ahh, ok so I just caught this. I just got focused on "John was not saved" Geesh, I thought you were trying to say that John was going to hell! PHew! Sorry about that! My bad.

Hi brother Stovebolts:

Where do I believe John will live in eternty? In heaven, of course. Why? Because of Jesus' sacrifice, please read Heb.10:4-10. When were John's sins remitted in reality? In the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If any could be saved without the cross it would nullify the advent of Christ (Rom.5:8-10). Note the passage states we are justified, saved "by His blood", we are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son". The passages you previously gave from Leviticus etc., simply said "shall be saved" but said nothing of when. The when awaited the shedding of Christ's blood.

God bless

Got it, thank's for clearing that up. Certainly brings a broader meaning to the words of Jesus huh?
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

As for baptism, I read that "it doth now save us" but of the sacrifice of animals the record says it "cannot" save. There is th old (and I believe true) saying that the "blood of Christ flowed backward to the faithfull of the OT as well as forward to us".

My point on baptism is that it is more than simply getting dunked. If it were just a wrote ritual, anyone could get baptized including infants.

 

[stovebolts]

smaller,
You sure are typing a lot trying to get around a few simple questions. You running for office somewhere?

 

[smaller]

smaller,
You sure are typing a lot trying to get around a few simple questions. You running for office somewhere?

I was responding specifically to the claim that JTB was not saved until 'X' point in time based on 'X' construct.

If you'd like to engage on that matter with any facts whatsoever, you are welcome to do so.

Will cite again for a very nice starter:

John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Knock yerself out from there.

s

 

[stovebolts]

Facts huh? Ha! Sorry, but scripture is living and breathing... I'll not reduce it to mere 'facts'.

Just an observation smaller... but it would seem so easy to answer a few questions and have some sort of productive dialog. Look at all the effort and self aggravation your putting yourself through. Just seems to me that your fighting yourself. Oh well...

Anyway, take care and God bless.

 

[smaller]

Facts huh? Ha! Sorry, but scripture is living and breathing... I'll not reduce it to mere 'facts'.

Just an observation smaller... but it would seem so easy to answer a few questions and have some sort of productive dialog. Look at all the effort and self aggravation your putting yourself through. Just seems to me that your fighting yourself. Oh well...

Anyway, take care and God bless.

I will certainly not be taking on the non-salvation of prophets by any mans sights.

Jesus was clear on belief in Him = never die.

You are welcome to see otherwise.

s

 

[stovebolts]

That's your problem smaller. Nobody here is saying that jtb isn't saved. Webb himself declared that through the blood of Jesus John the baptist IS saved.

I read webbs reply the same way as your above post when I first webbs first reply. But I asked questions and he answered and the misunderstanding cleared up. It really was that simple and way more productive than positioning and pandering.

 

[smaller]

That's your problem smaller. Nobody here is saying that jtb isn't saved. Webb himself declared that through the blood of Jesus John the baptist IS saved.

Webbs claim says what it says. I don't accept such claims, of which he has many many more designed on the same basis, to keep and hinder salvation by faith in Gods Given Grace.

You are certainly welcome to entertain his supposed restrictions. The world of theology is filled with such gate keepers demanding their sole views keep people from being saved by faith in Jesus Christ through Gods Grace. Those who enter those sifters will continue to be rightfully divided and separated into nearly innumerous sects who will continue to drop each others next to the gate of hell, til they are all divided from each others on the basis of single words and the meanings of same.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

ALL of the above PRE-CROSS.

I read webbs reply the same way when I first read it. But I asked questions and he answered and the misunderstanding cleared up. It really was that simple and way more productive than positioning and pandering.

He can 'temporarily kill' anybody he wants to by such sights.

I happen to think they are quite worthless sights.

s

 

[thightower]

Was he saved?

He was one of the few that was chosen in the womb.

 

[stovebolts]

Webbs claim says what it says. I don't accept such claims, of which he has many many more designed on the same basis, to keep and hinder salvation by faith in Gods Given Grace.

You are certainly welcome to entertain his supposed restrictions. The world of theology is filled with such gate keepers demanding their sole views keep people from being saved by faith in Jesus Christ through Gods Grace. Those who enter those sifters will continue to be rightfully divided and separated into nearly innumerous sects who will continue to drop each others next to the gate of hell, til they are all divided from each others on the basis of single words and the meanings of same.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

ALL of the above PRE-CROSS.



He can 'temporarily kill' anybody he wants to by such sights.

I happen to think they are quite worthless sights.

s

So your saying that none of the OT Prophets needed the blood of Jesus for their salvation. Interesting small.... very interesting.

 

[rrowell]

Webbs claim says what it says. I don't accept such claims, of which he has many many more designed on the same basis, to keep and hinder salvation by faith in Gods Given Grace.

You are certainly welcome to entertain his supposed restrictions. The world of theology is filled with such gate keepers demanding their sole views keep people from being saved by faith in Jesus Christ through Gods Grace. Those who enter those sifters will continue to be rightfully divided and separated into nearly innumerous sects who will continue to drop each others next to the gate of hell, til they are all divided from each others on the basis of single words and the meanings of same.

Webb has as long as I have been on these forums said the Blood of Christ flowed to both sides of the Cross...

He has never stated otherwise, and he is correct.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

ALL of the above PRE-CROSS.


He can 'temporarily kill' anybody he wants to by such sights.

I happen to think they are quite worthless sights.

s

Again, you have no problem with John 5:24 but completely deny this:

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now either John 5:24 is right, or Mark 16:16 is right, or for the true believer they are both right and in deed they are, which indeed means you fail to understand what is meant for one to "believe".

To believe (just as in the Baptizer days) is to obey "ALL" his commandments, and those who did so (on both sides of the cross) are "saved".

But there is another commandment that is included in the "belief" system its endurance :

Matthew 10:22 (KJV)
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

You seem to think Webb and myself (myself being the free willer remember?) condemn people, it is not us but your Bible if you read it, you too sin, and if you don't your a liar (thus saith the lord):

1 John 1:5-10 (KJV)
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The walking in the light, and confession of sins was for both sides of the Cross, the washing of the blood was for both sides of the cross, the forever washing is for us on this side of the cross that will sin and sin again, as long as we repent.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Heb 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

The Hebrew writer said without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Yet John preached that his baptism was 'for the remission of sins', Mark 1:4 but John's baptism took place before Christ shed His blood so how could John preach his baptism was for remission of sins when Christ blood had not yet been shed? The remisson of sins of John's baptism would have been in promise, when Christ died those baptized with John's baptism would have had their sins at that time along with all those faithful OT characters including John, Abraham, etc, etc.

 

[Robert Hern]

He was one of the few that was chosen in the womb.

you are correct even though He was under the law

--Under the Law, OT, the blood sacrifice covered their sins from the past. This sacrifice had to be repeated to be acknowledged by God.
--God is Perfect and Just. The penalty must be paid. There are no loop holes around God’s law, the flesh counts for nothing. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Romans 11:11 tells us the Jews lost their inheritance because they denied the Christ. Because of this, their inheritance was given to foreigners and strangers (Eph 2:19) those outside of Gods Chosen people. Salvation by Grace was given to the world and given a right to become children of God. John 1

At this point the Jews have nothing, today they still have nothing. Salvation comes only in the belief in the Gospel of Christ.

But in spite of thier denial and of their loss (Jews), in the end God’s Grace will save only a remnant described in Romans 11, it is in the plan of God.

For now the Jews are hardened until the time of the Gentile is complete.
​