Bible Study Law: A Fresh Look

[JM]

It's important to keep in mind, the Law didn't make anything wrong (except the Sabbath) that wasn't already wrong. Following is a mixed post of quotes, mostly mine but some are taken from unsited sources.

From the time of Adam, it was wrong to kill, steal, or lie. Law merely added penalties (and they are strictly limited to Israel) for breaking the Law.

It was to be carried out by the Jewish leaders (quote: 'notice that God protected the murderer Cain, because there was no law yet, and, therefore, no penalty.')

No one today who believes we are under the Law would advocate putting church members to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. That's why Paul says in Galatians, "you who desire to be under the Law, do you not hear the Law? (4:21).

The believer is not under the Law in any sense as we read in Rom. 6:14, because Jesus our Lord has already paid the death penalty demanded of those who break it (Rom. 6:6; 7:4) Remember what James wrote, you're dead after breaking the Law once (James 2:10). From that point on (a death sentence) being under a law is meaningless, because you can only die once, so the second murder, etc., are freebies. What happens to a condemned murderer on death row who kills a guard?

Quote: But, the believer (new man) has also been resurrected from the dead (Col. 3:1-3) as a new man with the life of Christ, and the old man is still dead. The position of the new man is one of having already attained perfect righteousness positionally, so all sin is in the past and the penalty has already been paid (Eph. 4:22-24 - you have put off the old man... you have put on the new man...). Now, it is not the Law that is worked out (forbidding unrighteousness), but it is the life of Christ worked out (positive righteousness) from the new nature and the indwelling HS, none of which can be found in the Law.

Quote: Galatianism- the mingling of law and grace; the teaching that justification is partly by grace, partly by law, or, that grace is given to enable an otherwise helpless sinner to keep the law. Against this error, the most wide-spread of all, the solemn warnings, the. unanswerable logic, the emphatic declarations of the Epistle to the Galatians are God's conclusive answer.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:2- 3).

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another [there could not be another gospel]; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-8 ).

Before the Law

1. Innocence, or Untested Holiness (Genesis 1-3):
a. God offers man (Adam and Eve) eternal life for obedience (Gen. 1:26-28, 2:15-17).
b. Man rebels, and is expelled from the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-6; 3:7-19).

2. Conscience (Genesis 4-6):
a. God offers to govern man through his conscience (Gen. 3:5, 7, 22, 4:4).
b. Man sears his conscience, and God brings the universal flood (Gen. 6:5, 6, 11, 12; 6:7, 13, 7:11-24).

3. Government (Genesis 7-11):
a. God offers to govern man through civil government (Gen. 8:15-9:7).
b. Man corrupts civil government, and God brings the confusion of tongues and scatters man (Gen. 11:1-4; Gen. 11:5-9).

4. Promise (Genesis 12 -- Millennial Kingdom):
a. God promises to bless Abraham and his descendants, and all nations through them (Gen. 12:1-7).
b. Jacob's sons apostatize and God brings them into slavery in Egypt (Gen. 12:10, 46:6; Exodus 1:8-14).

Which brings us to ...

5. Law (Exodus 20 -- Millennial Kingdom):
a. God promises to grant Israel the promises he made to Abraham conditional to their obedience to his Law Exodus 19:3-8 ).
b. Israel apostatizes (broke law, rejected Christ), undergoes exile and dispersion, and is finally purified through the Great Tribulation (2 Kings 17:7-20, Matt. 27:1-25; Deut. 28:63-66, Luke 21:20-24).

The doctrine many folks keep bringing up without realizing it is called "active righteousness" and ends up in the believer being under the law because Christ kept the Law. Reformed writer Dr. R. C. Sproul sums it like this: The cross alone, however, does not justify us . . . We are justified not only by the death of Christ, but also by the life of Christ. Christ's mission of redemption was not limited to the cross. To save us He had to live a life of perfect righteousness. His perfect, active obedience was necessary for His and our salvation . . . We are constituted as righteous by the obedience of Christ which is imputed to us by faith [R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p. 103].

The question then is, does following the Law make one righteous? Was Abram declared rigtheous because of his works or his faith? Jesus is perfect, He is God and did the will of the Father perfectly “For Christ once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh . . .†1 Peter 3:18 “. . . being justified by His blood we shall be saved from wrath through Him†Rom.5:9. We are justified and seen as righteous because of Christ's death and not His perfect Law keeping. Our justication is in the risen Christ, He is our righteousness, not Christ Law keeping in our place, "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." Gal. 3

So what is the purpose of the Law if it doesn't make one righteous? The Law was a school master ("Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.") and as the school master of the Mosaic covenant, it showed the Jewish nation their sins and condemned those under the Law.

Quote: "Law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth†(Rom. 7:1). Paul then sets forth our complete deliverance from under the law when he says that those who were under the law were made dead to the law by the death of Christ, that they might be joined to another, to Him that was raised from the dead (Rom. 7:1-6). A dead man is not subject to civil or religious law; in like manner, the believer is not subject to the law of Moses because he is dead and risen in Christ. Therefore, to those who believe on Christ, the law has lost its authority to bring either condemnation or righteousness through the obedience of Christ. Paul finally concludes this argument in Romans by writing, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes†(Rom. 10:4). David Dunlap

William Kelly (the man in the pic under my name) wrote: Had Christ only kept the law, neither your soul nor mine could have been saved much less be blessed as we are. Whoever kept the law, it would have been a righteousness of the law, and not God's righteousness, which has not the smallest connection with obeying the law. Because Christ obeyed unto death, God brought in a new kind of righteousness â€â€not ours, but His own favor. Christ has been made a curse upon the tree; God has made Him sin for us that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.

Note: This is the Biblical view, it's not antinomianism (The word comes from the Greek anti, against, and nomos, law. It is the unbiblical practice of living without regard to the righteousness of God, using God's grace as a license to sin, and trusting grace to cleanse of sin.) http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_a-b.htm#_1_7 In no way am I suggesting that we live sinful lives, that's a red herring.
So what is the basis as a rule of life for the believer?

Quote: We are fully convinced that a superstructure of true, practical holiness can never be erected on a legal basis; and hence it is that we press 1 Cor 1:30, upon the attention of our readers. It is to be feared that many who have, in some measure, abandoned the legal ground, in the matter of "righteousness," are yet lingering thereon for "sanctification." We believe this to be the mistake of thousands, and we are most anxious to see it corrected. It is evident that a sinner cannot be justified by the works of the law; and it is equally evident that the law is not the rule of the believer’s life. As to the believer’s rule of life, the apostle does not say, "To me to live is the law;" but, "To me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1:21). Christ is our rule, our model, our touchstone, our all. We receive the Ten Commandments as part of the canon of inspiration; and moreover, we believe that the law remains in full force to rule and curse a man as long as he liveth. Let a sinner only try to get life by it, and see where it will put him; and let a believer only shape his way according to it, and see what it will make of him. We are fully convinced that if a man is walking according to the spirit of the gospel, he will not commit murder nor steal; but we are also convinced that a man, confining himself to the standard of the law of Moses would fall very short of the spirit of the gospel. – C.H. MACKINTOSH [Footnote #9--THE MACKINTOSH TREASURY– MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS BY C.H.Mackintosh, p. 628, 653-654].

I stand with Paul when he wrote, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I LIVE BY THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Gal. 2:20 Because of Christ, I am a new creature (Gal. 6:15-16) set apart from the Law (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8-10; 4:24; Col. 3:10)

Peace and God bless.

Jason

 

[JM]

Here's a wonderful story to explain the relationship a believer has with the carnal nature and the Law.

Romans 7:

Notice first that in the picture by which, in Romans 7:1-4, Paul illustrates our deliverance from the Law, there is only one woman, while there are two husbands. The woman is in a very difficult position, for she can only be wife of one of the two, and unfortunately she is married to the less desirable one. Let us make no mistake, the man to whom she is married is a good man; but the trouble lies here, that the husband and wife are totally unsuited to one another. He is a most particular man, accurate to a degree; she on the other hand is decidedly easy-going. With him all is definite and precise; with her all is casual and haphazard. He wants everything just so, while she takes things as they come. How could there be happiness in such a home?

And then that husband is so exacting! He is always making demands upon her. And yet one cannot find fault with him, for as a husband he has a right to expect something of his wife; and besides, all his demands are perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with the man and nothing wrong with his demands; the trouble is that he has the wrong kind of wife to carry them out. The two cannot get on at all; theirs are utterly incompatible natures. Thus the poor woman is in great distress. She is fully aware that she often makes mistakes, but living with such a husband it seems as though EVERYTHING she says and does is wrong! What hope is there for her? If only she were married to that other Man all would be well. He is no less exacting than her husband, but He also helps much. She would fain marry Him, but her husband is still alive. What can she do? She is "bound by law to the husband" and unless he dies she cannot legitimately marry that other Man.

The first husband is the Law; the second husband is Christ; and you are the woman. The law requires much, but offers no help in the carrying out of its requirements. The Lord Jesus requires just as much, yea more, but what He requires from us He Himself carries out in us. The law makes demands and leaves us helpless to fulfill them; Christ makes demands, but He Himself fulfills in us the very demands He makes. Little wonder that the woman desires to be freed from the first husband that she may marry that other Man! But her only hope of release is through the death of her first husband, and he holds on to life most tenaciously. Indeed there is not the least prospect of his passing away (see Matthew 5:18).

The law is going to continue for all eternity. If the Law will never pass away, then how can I ever be united to Christ? How can I marry a second husband if my first husband resolutely refuses to die? There is only one way out. If HE will not die, I can die, and if I die the marriage relationship is dissolved. And that is exactly God’s way of deliverance from the Law. The most important point to note in this section of Romans 7 is the transition from verse 3 to verse 4. Verses 1 to 3 show that the husband should die, but in verse 4 we see that in fact it is the woman who dies. The Law does not pass away, but I pass away, and by death I am freed from the Law. [Footnote #15--Watchman Nee, THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE, pages 107-109 (Chapter 9).]

 

[Bob10]

I am a new creature (Gal. 6:15-16) set apart from the Law (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8-10; 4:24; Col. 3:10)

BOLDERDASH !

That's not a new, fresh look at the law. That's the same first century anti-Law --- anomia --- stance that JESUS calls iniquity (lawlessness, anomia, without law) --- Matt. 7:23.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearB ... &new=1&oq=iniquity


PAUL --
1 Cor.
7:19

Circumcision does not matter and uncircumcision does not matter, but keeping God's commandments does.






Matt.
19:16
Just then someone came up and asked Him, "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?"



19:17
.........If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." ---JESUS

 

[JM]

Bob, you posted a fallacy called a "Red Herring" (aka: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase).

I ask anyone to read the quote below and compare it to bob's post.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"Argument" for a tax cut:
"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."


"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html

"Antinomianism comes from two Greek words: anti means against and nomos means law. So antinomianism means against the law, against God's moral law. It means lawlessness." This is a clear red herring, I'm not against the Law. The use of the word antinominianism was against those who were against the Law in order to sin, I suggested no such thing, rather "we still fulfill the Law in the Law of love (Rom. 13:8,10; Gal. 5:14; 6:2)." Bob tried to detract from my post by giving you a red herring, saying that I'm against holiness of the believer but this isn't even mentioned in my post, my post is based on position and nothing to do with holiness.

Please re-read my post and keep in mind Bob's red herring.

jason

 

[Bob10]

Paul, as a "new creature in Christ", kept the Lord's holy day (Isa. 58:13; acts 17:2) and the LORD's "appointed times" - acts 18:21; 20:6,16; 27:9

 

[Bob10]

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes†(Rom. 10:4).

This word "end" does NOT mean termination--------check most translations.


Even in modern dictionaries "end" has the meaning of "result" an "outcome".------example: "For to this end Christ both died......" - Romans 14:9.


JAMES 5:11 -- "....and have seen the END of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy. -------the Lord did not END.


James (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
5:11
See, we count as blessed those who have endured. You have heard of Job's endurance and have seen the outcome from the Lord: the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.





5:11 (New Revised Standard Version)

Indeed we call blessed those who showed endurance. You have heard of the endurance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.



---------------------------------------------------------


Has anyone read Thomas Paine's small book, Common Sense--------in it he talks about the "end" or "purpose" of Government: "Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government........" - chapter 1, page 1.

---
---

 

[JM]

OK Bob, I'd like to debate you on the issue of the Sabbath so you'll stop using this logical fallacy to disrupte my post...which is the position of the believer in Christ. You couldn't even refute what I posted and instead, responded with emotion...emotional pleas don't win arguements or prove points.

A simple reading of Romans 7 will clear up any misunderstandings Bob has.

Jason

 

[ddubsolo85]

Jason,
I have a comment and a question for you:

Which brings us to ...

5. Law (Exodus 20 -- Millennial Kingdom):
a. God promises to grant Israel the promises he made to Abraham conditional to their obedience to his Law Exodus 19:3-8 ).

I'm not sure how you mean this, but I would want to clarify that the promise made to Abraham WAS NOT conditional. The timing of it's fulfillment was conditional, but the promise itself is surely UNCONDITIONAL;


Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant [be] not with day and night, [and if] I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;


Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, [so] that I will not take [any] of his seed [to be] rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

b. Israel apostatizes (broke law, rejected Christ), undergoes exile and dispersion, and is finally purified through the Great Tribulation (2 Kings 17:7-20, Matt. 27:1-25; Deut. 28:63-66, Luke 21:20-24).

I notice that you said Israel was purified (past tense). Do you believe the Great Tribulation has already taken place?

God Bless!

 

[JM]

I'm not sure how you mean this, but I would want to clarify that the promise made to Abraham WAS NOT conditional. The timing of it's fulfillment was conditional, but the promise itself is surely UNCONDITIONAL;

I agree. This is what is quoted, 'God promises to grant Israel the promises he made to Abraham conditional to their obedience to his Law.' Meaning, if Israel was obedient they would be granted the promises that was made (unconditionally) to Abrahams seed.

I notice that you said Israel was purified (past tense). Do you believe the Great Tribulation has already taken place?

All Christian go through tribulation but not the Great Tribulation. This is what is quoted, 'undergoes exile and dispersion, and is (meaning they will be) finally purified through the Great Tribulation.'

Peace and God bless.

j

 

[ddubsolo85]

Quote:
I'm not sure how you mean this, but I would want to clarify that the promise made to Abraham WAS NOT conditional. The timing of it's fulfillment was conditional, but the promise itself is surely UNCONDITIONAL;

Jason:

I agree. This is what is quoted, 'God promises to grant Israel the promises he made to Abraham conditional to their obedience to his Law.' Meaning, if Israel was obedient they would be granted the promises that was made (unconditionally) to Abrahams seed.

Agreed. Only, under the New Covenant, God will put his law into Israel's hearts and minds, and allow them to know Him. Therefore, this promise will be fulfilled to Israel.

Quote:
I notice that you said Israel was purified (past tense). Do you believe the Great Tribulation has already taken place?

Jason:

All Christian go through tribulation but not the Great Tribulation. This is what is quoted, 'undergoes exile and dispersion, and is (meaning they will be) finally purified through the Great Tribulation.'

Would that mean there will be a rapture, in your opinion, that will remove Christians from experiencing the great tribulation?

God bless!

 

[JM]

Agreed. Only, under the New Covenant, God will put his law into Israel's hearts and minds, and allow them to know Him. Therefore, this promise will be fulfilled to Israel.

Well, I agree somewhat. Israel is Abrahams seed after the flesh and has been set aside, I think you're going down Replacement road. One becomes Israel in the flesh, one becomes a member of the Church by faith...Hagar and Sarah...flesh and faith.

Would that mean there will be a rapture, in your opinion, that will remove Christians from experiencing the great tribulation?

Following a literal hermeneutic, yes. As we see in Rev. 1-3 the Church is mentioned 17 times and then it is not mentioned again until the end of Rev. "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" Matthew 24:44. The only time frame I can think of when we believers would not be expecting Jesus to return would have to be before the tribulation.

Peace,

jason
Classic Pauline Dispensationalist. :D

 

[Vic C.]

Tthere is no secret harpizo.

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Also, is basing a doctrine on the fact that a particular word (church, in this case) is not used for several chapters, wise? I just see this as a moot point in light of so many other verses that show oterwise.

 

[ddubsolo85]

Quote:
Agreed. Only, under the New Covenant, God will put his law into Israel's hearts and minds, and allow them to know Him. Therefore, this promise will be fulfilled to Israel.

Jason:

Well, I agree somewhat. Israel is Abrahams seed after the flesh and has been set aside,...

Set asid for a time, but not put away. God will fufill His promise to Israel, agreed?

Jason:

I think you're going down Replacement road.

Never.

Jason:

One becomes Israel in the flesh, one becomes a member of the Church by faith...Hagar and Sarah...flesh and faith.

Only Israel can be Israel. Only those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can be Israel. There are no others eligible. Is that what you mean?

Quote:
Would that mean there will be a rapture, in your opinion, that will remove Christians from experiencing the great tribulation?

Jason:

Following a literal hermeneutic, yes. As we see in Rev. 1-3 the Church is mentioned 17 times and then it is not mentioned again until the end of Rev.

I don't think I agree with that. Who is being spoken of in Rev. 12:17? But I also don't see the relevance. Why does the chruch have to be mentioned?

Jason:

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" Matthew 24:44. The only time frame I can think of when we believers would not be expecting Jesus to return would have to be before the tribulation.

Again, I disagree. The Bible is clear that believers will go through tribulation. However, a rapture before the wrath of God makes complete sense to me. I believe tribulation and wrath are two different things.

God Bless!

 

[JM]

Quote: Classic Pauline Dispensationalism (found in the works of Darby and Scofield) is used to describe the biblical emphasis as originally set forth by Darby and other original Brethren leaders, together with many dispensational Bible teachers in America such as Clarence Larkin, William R. Newell, Miles J. Stanford, and others. The Americans drew heavily upon the deeply-spiritual writings of the original Plymouth Brethren. We hold to the following indispensable tenets regarding the Church--the Body and Bride of Christ.

First and foremost, "Classic Pauline Dispensationalism is based upon the division of LIFE, not simply that of economies. Once that total separation of the two seminal lives [First and Last Adam] is seen and maintained, the economies will never coalesce." The quintessence of the rightly divided Word is the doctrine of the two Adams!

"The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in OT Scriptures." The Church is a heavenly entity. The Church is not, according to covenant theory, the fulfillment of the promised blessings to Gentiles according to the Abrahamic Covenant. Further, the Church is not the recipient blessing formerly promised to the nation of Israel nor of any "spiritual blessings" from Israel's New Covenant. God made no covenant with the heavenly Church. The Bride of Christ is unique.

"The Church was a complete mystery until revealed doctrinally by Paul." It is the Body and Bride of Christ and her uniqueness that is the central mystery, not the principle of grace or faith. There is one Church, whose advent was on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts Chapter 2. It is doctrinal error to posit separate Jewish and Gentile churches in the book of Acts. The Church did not begin with the Apostle Paul, but rather his ministry was one of unfolding the truths associated with the one Church.

"Paul, in the Church Epistles, was the minister of Church truth." "Those who do not center in the truths which the ascended Lord communicated directly to this Apostle will not know who and where they are in Christ, nor what their part is in the purpose of God. Neither will they know their heavenly privileges and responsibilities. Those who are ignorant of, and not centered in, the Pauline Gospel as set forth exclusively in Paul's Church epistles, are constantly astray in their interpretation of the Gospel, to say nothing of Church truth." MJS

"The thirteen epistles of Paul (Romans to Philemon) form a distinct body of truth; and this realm of truth is about us, the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ, as no other Scriptures are. And Paul is the Father’s special messenger to us. As has been truly said, 'All of the Bible is for us, but it is not all about us.'†end of quote.

I really don't deserve all this attention, thanks any ways guys.

peace,

j

 

[ddubsolo85]

I apologize for the slow response. I didn't see your response.

Jason:

"The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in OT Scriptures." The Church is a heavenly entity. The Church is not, according to covenant theory, the fulfillment of the promised blessings to Gentiles according to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Then why would Paul say this?

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

God justified Gentiles based upon the OT blessing given to Abraham. Isn't this the promised blessing to the church?

God Bless!

 

[JM]

Did Abraham believe that Christ died for his sins and is now seated in heaven? I don't think so. Abraham believed he would be saved by the coming Christ, this is 'good news' no doubt. The content of the faith changed, Abraham looked to a future time when he would be saved [and wasn't given the details in OT Scriptures] and we looked back at the accomplished fact. Abraham wasn't part of the Church, ex. Upon this rock I will build my Church. Notice, Jesus didn't say I'm building my Church but rather I will build...future tense.

When it comes to theology, it's just a system. Whatever system you use will lead you to the conclusion you really, really want to affirm.

 

[ddubsolo85]

Jason:

Did Abraham believe that Christ died for his sins and is now seated in heaven? I don't think so. Abraham believed he would be saved by the coming Christ, this is 'good news' no doubt. The content of the faith changed,...

Huh??? The "content of the faith changed"? I'm not sure I follow you here. What change was there in the content of the faith? The Bible says we're under the same faith Isaac was under;

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

As you can see, they (Abraham, Isaac,...) were born again, and didn't have to wait.

Jason:

Abraham looked to a future time when he would be saved [and wasn't given the details in OT Scriptures] and we looked back at the accomplished fact. Abraham wasn't part of the Church, ex. Upon this rock I will build my Church. Notice, Jesus didn't say I'm building my Church but rather I will build...future tense.

I disagree. Abraham didn't need to look forward, as he was saved by Christ while he was alive, just as we are. Notice what scripture says;

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Abraham was saved by the LORD Jesus Christ when he was counted righteous. He had no need to look forward, he was saved at that moment. Gal.4:28-29 help confirm this fact.

Let me say that I appreciate all of your well thought out responses.

God Bless!

 

[Jay T]

Jason:

"The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in OT Scriptures."

No church, in the OT ?
Well, we better get rid of the following Bible verse then....
Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
[quote:c7f1d]
Then why would Paul say this?

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

[/quote:c7f1d] And we know Abraham, kept God Laws and commandments, (Genesis 26:5)....by faith in God.

 

[JM]

Jason:

"The Church was neither prophesied nor revealed in OT Scriptures."

No church, in the OT ?
Well, we better get rid of the following Bible verse then....
Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
[quote:d897a]
Then why would Paul say this?

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

And we know Abraham, kept God Laws and commandments, (Genesis 26:5)....by faith in God.

[/quote:d897a]

Nice one... : Israel WAS IN FACT in the wilderness, simply translate the word ecclesia/called-out assembly, but this is in contrast with the N.T. ecclesia.

 

[PHIL121]

Nice one... : Israel WAS IN FACT in the wilderness, simply translate the word ecclesia/called-out assembly, but this is in contrast with the N.T. ecclesia.

Sure, Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years, but they WERE delievered to the Promised Land. And they whole history of the OT shows how they were rewarded for their Faith, and punished for breaking from it.