Thread
G
Giannis
Hello Gerald.
In general terms, yes, we have the same type of righteousness as Abraham. As the meaning of the word "righteousness" in Hebrew suggests, our faith in God brings us into the right relationship with Him. However, I believe there is a difference. Our righteousness saves us; our sins are wiped away because we believe (have faith) and accept the sacrifice of Jesus. This was not the case for Abraham. The fact that he believed God—when He told him that his descendants would be like the stars of the sky—and the fact that he did not hesitate to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, did not erase his sins. There is no connection between Abraham 's faith (and Isaac's sacrifice) and remission of sins. Furthermore that type of righteousness does not involve repentance for sins.
We see that the saints of the Old Testament, after their death, descended to Hades, to the place of comfort. Why not in heaven? Because, without the Blood of Jesus, no one can enter the Holy of Holies in heaven—that is, the very presence of God. Why not? Because no one who bears sin can approach God. And if one were to attempt it—as would happen if the priest who entered the Holy of Holies once a year without having been cleansed, he would fall down dead.
Hebrews 10;19-20 "19
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;..." Before the sacrifice of Christ, no one could enter the Holy of Holies in heaven. Jesus was the first, and we follow through His Blood—all the saints, from both the Old and the New Testament. In the Book of Revelation, we see the souls of the saved under the altar of the heavenly temple—that is, under the sacrifice of Jesus. Therefore, the righteousness of Abraham could not have the same outcome as our own.
Blessings.
We are in the fortunate position of looking back to Calvary .From z Abel onwards they all looked forward to Calvary . Both required belief in Gods Word and their faith in the promise .
Abel offered a sacrificed lamb. Why?
Because God had sacrificed an animal to get skin to cover their nakedness .
But if that had restored them to a full and total relationship with God why then the need of the promise?
That animal skin thst God had sacrificed to provide for them pointed to the Lamb of God that wouod take away the sin of the world but it did not restore man it covered them and pointed to the animal sacrifices that were to come but we’re not sufficient to remove sin .
But at the same time God gave them a covering He also gave a promise . “ The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpents head ( fatal) but in the doing wouid himself be bruised in the heel “ suffer.
It is not the woman who has the seed but the man . Hence we are Mankind.
Does not God know the biology of His own creation?
Of course z he does . But willing to show that this one (“it”) male ( “ he”) child born of a woman thus fully man but not of Adams seed ,(neither wisdom or time could say more)who wouod not only destroy the works of the devil but restore mankind back to God.
Why do you think God had respect to Abel’s offering?
Because in offering a sacrificed lamb he was following the way ,the pattern God had laid down but was at the same time confessing his sin acknowledging the righteousness of God and by that lamb showed he put his faith in Him who was to come .
Cains offering God had no respect for . Because not only was he offering something zGod had already cursed and by the sweat of his brow . Cain was g trying to establish his own righteousness by his religious hold works and in doing so ,not only denied the Righteousness of God but sought his own glory not Gods . And in rejecting the blood found no place of repentance .
Every one else in Paul’s list of the heroes of zthe faith in Hebrews all did the same thing .
And it was counted unto them for righteousness . See the argument if Paul in Hebrews and his in Romans concerning righteousness .
We eho look back must also believe God and repent of our sin and put our faith in Jesus Christ .
Ruth though a Moabite which under the Law were forbidden any place forever!
Found that when she followed her mother-in-law back to Isreal saying “ wherever you go I go ,yiu stay I stay , your God is my God etc . Not only did she find favour but by her marriage to Boaz entered into the lineage of Christ !
Paul adequately and perfectly argues the case better than I . About how both Jews and gentiles are sold unto sin and ar3 therefore ALL guilty under the Law .
And can only be saved through grace by faith in Jesus Christ .
Romans 1- 8
Hi Brother Giannis.
Great topic! Here's my view on this.
The source of Abraham's righteousness is faith!
He's the father of us all!
In Romans 4:1-5 we see that the righteousness of Abraham was justified by faith!
Therefore righteousness was imputed over unto him.
We see the account in Genesis 15:4-6.
Abraham believed God while the Gospel was being preached to him looking ahead of one who would come. Christ Jesus!
Abraham will exhibit his faith by works in Genesis 22:1-18.
I believe the ressurection is preached in these verses as well!
Galatians 3:6-9 reads "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
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.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Here's the Gospel being preached to Abraham in a unique way!
When Abraham offered Isaac who was the heir of the promise he told his servants, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. (Gen 22:5)
In verses 7and 8 Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
In Gen 22:2-4 Abraham counted his Promised Son as dead but also counted God's promise to him in Genesis 15:4-6 as faithful!
He was ready to perform knowing God would have to raise him from the dead!
Abraham named the place "Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen!
I believe this is near or the location where Christ would later be crucified.
Note:
Also, I believe at the ressurection this is where the old testament saints could be freed to go to be with the Lord awaiting their ressurected bodies.
Hebrews 11:17-19 reads "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from WHENCE ALSO HE RECEIVED HIM IN A FIGURE.
Blessings.
Hello Spencer
I don't disagree with your post. I just simply say (my opinion, wrong or right) that Abraham's righteouness serves as an example of how God justifies people. It is the same as far as faith, trust in God's wiord, obedience and the resulting rightousness is considered. But Abraham did not know Jesus and His sacrifice: he siply had a vague idea that through one of his descedants the whole humanity will be blessed. I don;t think he knew anything really about Jesus and His crucifiction and what it meant. On the contrary as Paul says in Colossians 1:26-27, "26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory::"
By the way, the phrase in Galatians 3:8 "preached before the gospel unto Abraham" is not what it sounds like at first glance. If you look at Strong's Concordance you will see it translated as "announced the glad news to Abraham in advance". Which good news? That all nations will be blessed through Abraham. Gospel (in grk Evangelion) means "good news". This was its meaning in ancient times. Gospel was really any good news that was announced, such as a victory of the Roman army, even the birthday of an Emperor was a gospel. (Just some information).
Anyway I will have all these in consideration. Blessings.
Amen Brother Giannis.
I am agreeing with you.
Abraham was given the Goodnews in a unique way and apart from the law and it's Levitical sacrifices that pointed to the sacrifice of Christ that would later come.
Abraham was justified by promise!
Within that promise was the Gospel/Great news laid out that by his seed all the world shall be blessed. And that seed is Christ!
There was the Gospel preached before the ministry of condemnation. "The law"
In this way Abraham's vision is different though the source is the same.
Blessings
Hi Spencer,
Some say that the Gospel is simple and easy to understand. In a sense, it is—at least regarding its core meaning: salvation through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. However, if one wishes to dig deeper, things become complex. In the two thousand years since the time of Jesus, dozens of different christian beliefs have emerged. We cannot always attribute these to a lack of knowledge or to pre conceived beliefs. The Gospel has a huge depth; the more one reads it, the more one comes to understand it and find new things. Sometimes, language itself acts as a barrier to understanding. For instance, in my own language, the word used for "righteousness" actually means "justice." This made it difficult for me to see the connection between faith and righteousness. But when I happened to read an explanation of what these terms mean in Hebrew, everything became clear. I have read many discussions regarding translations. I would suggest using two or better three different translations, while also having access to concordances and commentaries from various theological schools. We often say that the Spirit will guide us, but if we are ignorant of certain things, where can the Spirit lead us? He might lead us to a specific text or to the sermon of someone who understands the correct meaning. Consequently, I have decided to listen and read. Nowadays, it is easy to find information. Something new I recently discovered is that you can pose questions to artificial Intelligence. This algorithm gathers information from all sorts of sources and provides you with a wealth of answers very quickly. For instance, you can ask for the interpretation of a passage according to Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox theology, and then compare the various beliefs and arguments. It is truly very interesting and useful. Next I want to write about some things about "faith". When I get the time to do so. Blessings
That is Brother Giannis.
We have to make sure we're not getting ahead of the Spirit leading us to truth.
The spirit may lead us away from what we thought was correct.
I know for sure that I'm learning a lot by studying the Bible by word searching in the original language.
We often hear "the Holyspirit will guide us to truth" That is true but doesn't that also mean truth about ourselves?
What about conviction, humility and correction.
We have an everlasting growth in these areas providing that we have Christ Spirit dwelling in us!
Knowledge never cease to increase, there's always more to learn.
The only barrier to truth is to think we already have it all!
The only barrier to learning is to think you already know it all.
I believe when a person is born of God's Spirit and begin to grow in the knowledge of Christ there will be a virtue and you will see it in their walk especially around other Christians.
We operate in humility knowing there's one that lords over us and aligns our hearts.
Christ governs our inward parts.
That's the mark of a mature Christian!
The scripture says you shall know them by their fruits! Not Doctrine!
The truth transforms and there will be visible fruit!
This is seen amongst true Brothern!
However it's sad to say everyone amongst us is not always of us!
Some day Maybe we should do a study on Galatians 5:14-26!
I'm looking foward to your posting on faith again. GBU.
Doctrines are if “ sound” also truth . They are the bones of the body as it were each in their place with different functions and give strength and form to the body .
The church which the Lord is building is “ line upon line precept upon precept “ the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness was to exact commandments so too the Temple of God not made with hands .
Just make sure those doctrines are of God and scripturally sound and not built upon one verse but upon many .
Doctrine is the teachings and core beliefs derived from the word of God, line upon line, precept upon precept that defines the Christian faith.
Often these doctrines are debated amongst scholars and also Non-believers.
God's word is life and when we possess life we bare fruit!
We shall know them by their fruit!
While they maybe ‘debated among scholars ‘ every child of God should have a good grasp of them not just in head knowledge but spiritual understanding of them .
Debates among none believers is in most respects neither here nor there . Though the churches ‘debates’ about even the most basic neither profits them who debate them or helps unbelievers . “For if the trumpet blows an uncertain sound how can we prepare for battle”?
The woeful failures of the Archbishop of Canterbury and many of her bishops being a very good example of not doing so.
“The letter killeth but the Spirit bringeth life”.
We need both do we not ? For its the fruit of the Spirit by which we shall know them ,but it’s the seed of the Word of God which is their root .
Doctrine is very important and we neglect it at our peril .
And just because there is ‘debates’ and confusion we should still endeavour to know sound doctrine by Him who leads us into all truth .
GB
Gerald.
If we're connected to a vine, we will bare fruit, we don't produce it!
The fruit is the evidence of the truth in us.
It's the evidence of life!
Reciting doctrine or studying scripture does not automatically equate to possessing eternal life.
You can have a head knowledge of scripture but yet never RECEIVE Christ.
This is not difficult and is doctrinal and fundamental.
I've seen Christian apologetics debate Muslim apologetics and the Muslim apologetic knew the Bible well and he loves to debate!
He appeals to the flesh with fleshly arguments using scripture.
He puts on a show.
He glorifies himself and draws people after him and away from Christ out of pride!
This is the work of the flesh! Not the fruit of the Spirit!
We shall know them by their fruit!
Hello brother Spencer,
“Fruit is the evidence of the truth in us.”
Amen! I have mentioned in the past which you may recall that John Chapter 15 is my favorite chapter in the whole Bible.
I just want to comment on your first statement. That statement is true if you are speaking of the branches that are abiding in the vine. In Jesus’ teaching, it shows that there are also branches that can be in the same vine and not produce any fruit at all. Only the branches that are abiding in the vine (Christ) are the ones that produce fruit. That may be what you are saying because you have spoken on this in the past; only worded differently this time.
Please know I am not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are two types of branches that can be in the same vine, one that produces fruit and the other being a dead branch. I have been thinking for a while now about sharing what I have learned from John Chapter 15, especially on the vine and the branches. I may do that soon.
Blessings to you!
Amen Brother Jesse!
I remember our very first conversation several years ago!
I was posting on this subject and you commented saying John 15 was your favorite chapter in the bible and you gave a very good commentary on it!
That is a very important chapter!
And yes I'm aware of the two branches.
I was focusing on the one that SHOULD be baring fruit!
The fruit of the Spirit and the keeping power of the Holyspirit is tragically neglected.
I'd love to hear your comments on this section of scripture again Brother Jesse if you decide to do it.
If you don't I still have my notes!
God bless you.
Brother Spencer,
I do recall us discussing this section of scripture quite some time ago and we shared the same understanding. But to be honest, I don’t remember what it was exactly that you and I shared so I might be asking you for some of your notes as I go through this chapter (ha-ha!).
Blessings to you also!
If you ask for everyone’s opinion only confusion and error will be the result for having put everyone’s opinion in front of you and everyone different by what criteria will you choose?
“Jesus spoke with authority not like thecPharasees” He spoke with authority because He was subject to that authority and “ The words that I speak are not my own words but the Father who is in me ,He doeth the work “. His words were Spirit and Life” And there was a direct correlation between His Words and the Works that followed .
An opinion are simply man’s own words and carry no authority but rather gather endless debates.
“When the Spirit of Truth shall come ,HE will lead is into all truth “
All truth so even when some one is lying to us we will know it . Or when men speak error we will know that too for the Spirit will not bare witness to it .
“Thus by practice we will know good from evil “
The days are coming and in part are already here when things will become so subtle and deceiving that the difference from truth from error will be very hard to spot. So difficult in fact “ that if it was possible even the very elect would be deceived “.
Which means the only way not to be is first be totally committed to “seeking first the Kingdom of God and HIS righteousness “: and not only having the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit having you.
I’m not interested in what Rome says for anything that comes out of her mouth needs a barrel of salt to make it palatable it’s not worth the effort .
She is still teaching her heritical,doctrine's proved to be so by biblical arguments at the Reformation ( worth reading now) but has since added to them and now counts herself infallible !
And given many what were once calked Protestant churches / denominations seem to be in a reverse reformation their modern scholars are already in trouble .
Thank God thee are still some faithful ministers of God who are doing the work of God and ministering the pure undiluted Word of God .
“Little children yiur sins are forgiven and you know the Father “
“Young men the Word of God dwelleth in you richly and you have overcome the wicked one “
Ye fathers you know Him who is from the beginning”
There are a lot of little children because they Gospel has been reduced to being BORN again.
But little children can often be deceived .
But what about those “ young men”? Not so many of them who have overcome the wicked one . Now there is a sermon I’d like to hear!
And even fewer “ ye fathers” who know Him who is from the beginning .
For many do not believe what He who was in the beginning inspired men to do write .
If we do not receive His words how can we receive Him?
Good morning Gerald. Your thoughts are true. It might be said that the Bible is complete in itself and we have all we need because Jesus has spoken once in the likeness of man's flesh and once from heaven. The Comforter that he sent is the Lord's witness in men and gives inspiration to men presently for our walk in him. My thoughts.
Hello, Gerald.
Over the course of the last two thousand years, there have been countless interpretations of the Holy Bible. Yes, the Catholic Church undoubtedly contains many erroneous theories and practises within her beliefs. The same holds true for the Eastern Churches.
However, to dismiss christian history prior to 1600 as if it never existed—as though Christianity began in the 16th century with Luther is, in my view, entirely out of any logical thinking. It amounts to rejecting 1,600 years of Christianity; it is like to discarding 1,600 years of Christian literature and thought.
Protestantism, while claiming to be divinely inspired - and I believe it was- and to restore the original faith, has not, in reality, been that effective, given that it subsequently splintered into various denominations.. Where, then, is the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Does the Comforter lead to different destinations?
In my opinion, a fundamental problem within Protestantism is the rejection of all prior Christian thought as erroneous. They have severed their ties to the Christian past. Today, however, as many Protestant theologians have begun to study the vast wealth of Christian texts - including the so called "Church Fathers" - from those first 1,600 years, they have discovered that what they previously believed about that period of Christianity was not, in fact, correct. The problem nowadays is the church becomig worldly. We have brought the world inside the church. Beliefs are moderated to fit worldly theories.
The notion held by many churches—both today and throughout the centuries—that they are the sole possessors of absolute truth, and that God has revealed the Truth exclusively to them, often leads to a self-centered pride that prevents them from "listening." From listening, and subsequently, from exercising judgment. From listening to what another has said and, if it is correct, accepting it. Or, if not, rejecting it. Yet, one might hear something one had never even thought of.
God has not revealed His truth only to us. Throughout the centuries, there have been millions of Christians who were very sincere about their faith.
I do not hold the belief to go back to the past. But give them a chance to bring their arguments infront of me and then judge according to the scripture.
Thanks for post .
I do not deny the history of one can say the church but in this case I will say of “:The faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints “.
God has always left Himself a witness and throughout the dark ages for they were spiritually dark dominated by the Roman church . Those who refused to conform to RomeS errors were always persecuted and more often than not martyred . That church which was born on the day of Pentecost and suffered greatly under the Roman political empire effectively failed to crush the growing and Holy work of God. So the enemy of man’s soul through Constantine ‘blessed’ the church and in doing so corrupted it . It did not take long for that church to be effectively buried and like the Pharisees of the Lords time “by their traditions made the Word of God of none effect”.
John Wycliffe 1328-84 often called ‘ The morning star of the reformation and who’s life and ministry is worth and child of Gods time to get to know heralded and proved God in spite of that darkness was still working . Luther’s revelation or spiritual understanding “ That the just shall live by faith”:Was and turned out to be the first green shoot and reemergence of that faith that was once and fir all delivered unto the saints of THE church founded not upon the usurped authority of Rome but upon the ROCK Christ Jesus .
But like those who built the tower of Babel who wanted to make a name for themselves and build a monument to theur ‘greatness(?) they stopped and God had to go outside Lutherism to extend the Kingdom.
Peter made the same mistake . In very truth his revelation that Jesus was the Christ thecSon of the living God “ was confirmed by the Lord to be of heaven . But when the Lord began to reveal more of HIS purpose and the coming cross Peter thinking his revelation was the whole rejected what the Lord said and tried to dissuade Him from the purpose of heaven so much so the Lord rebuked him severely “ Get behind me Satan…….” So much for Peter being the rock . For with one breath was a mouthpiece of heaven the next of the devil!
Not many would have continued after such a rebuke but shows the character of the man that he did not . But that still does not make him that Rock upon which an eternal church can be built on . One swallow does not make a summer nor does one verse misunderstood maje or prove a doctrine . For the rest of the scriptures say who that Rock is ….. GOD! No son of Adam can be and God in his wisdom laid out a peters failures and weaknesses for our admonishing and learning to prove it.
Luther did not stop learning and his exposition on John 17 is worth anybodies time . None the less his followers thought that was all of it .
But God is a God of progressive purpose. So outside of Lutherism we have Calvin who the Lutheran church persecuted .
They made the same mistake and God had to reveal more of his purpose through the anabaptists who in turn were persecuted by the Calvinists . Then you had the then Quakers who in their turn were persecuted but so persevered their integrity in banking in particular laid the foundations fir the City of London’s prosperity .
Then you had John Wesley who founded what became to be called Methodism . A progression of spiritual understanding for he taught sanctification . Whitfield also brought such a revolution with Wesley it raised Britain out of the gutter and not much different from then France who having persecuted severely and murdered the French Protestants had no one and fell into the revolution and the terror from which she still has not truly recovered from .
Europe was riven in two and suffered religious wars for a long time .
England suffered her wars with Roman Europe and has done so even to this day .
Anyone in London would be worth their time and go to the National gallery in Trafalgar Square ,not to the religious paintings but to the first landing up from the entrance steps inside to the mosaic on the floor .
There is also a monument in Stratford east London reminding us of those east London martyrs who were burnt at the stake after being dragged out of a prayer meeting and ‘trial’. And others .
Shall we talk about the first terrorist bombers ? Who tried to blow up Parliament on Nov 5th .
But we digress .
Pentecostalism arrived that too was a move of God but stagnated into its own traditions .
All the ‘Protestant’ denominations were simply God moving forwards in spite of man.
Rome however who might boast she has never changed has indeed not . She is still teaching the same false and heretical doctrines as I said before and added to them . So she has sunk even lower . And because she now counts herself ‘ infallible’ how can she ever repent ! Of her errors! ? Protestant churches have still that possibility .
But church history is also laid out in the first few chapters of Revelation .It LEFT its first love . That opened the door to the Nicolaitans that is the separation of the ministers and laity and into a false priesthood as well Lording it over the people of God .
which in turn led to the errors of Baalam
Which in turn led to the errors of Jezebel .
All but one are calked to repent .
It finishes up with a church that in its own eyes is rich increased with goods and in need of nothing . That can apply easily to Rome but also and often to the church in ‘the West .’
To the extent that the Lord is OUTSIDE knocking on the door.
There are no denominations in heaven and there is but ONE church with but one door it is not Rome .
But if you counted her among those inside or dared to think she is THE church the message is the same . Repent!
For after the resurrection no door was an obstacle to the Lord so why is He unwilling to enter His own church? Can one say unable?
Therefore that knocking is a call to ALL inside to repent . But the promise is only to those “ who have ears to hear and opens the door “.
You say we shouid give our ears to Rome?
The scriptures say be careful what you hear .
Rome has nothing to give save as an abject lesson. And “ to come out from among her lest you become partakers of her judgements”
You say still you should listen to what she has to say?
How can I listen to a man who says he is infallible?
Even if a man spoke the truth that does not make him infallible but a witness of it .
If you mix a horse with a donkey you will get a mule . But a mule has no life in it and cannot reproduce another mule .so if you want another mule you need another mule and donkey.
If you mix truth with error you will get something but it has no life in it.
Unity at the expense of truth is high treason to heaven .
Hello Gerald
Well, I have read your post, but it seems to me -without trying to be offensive -that—as they say in my country—you are placing different things together in the same pot
This is the perspective from the side of Protestantism. I know very little about Rome or the history of Protestantism, as I come from the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
For the first 10 centuries, Rome was simply part of a unified Church, until the Schism in the 10th century. Since then, the Catholic Church developed many erroneous teachings. Luther, who was originally a Catholic priest, was guided by the Spirit to discover salvation through faith, independent of works. However, this is a central teaching in the writings of the Church Fathers; it was not a new discovery or a new revelation. Evidently, Luther did not have access to these texts; he was simply observing the situation and the practices that prevailed within the Catholic Church at the time—a dark period for that particular Church. Even if we were to assume that the entire Church, during those first ten centuries, had already gone astray and transformed into a political power—in league with the rulers of the era—the overwhelming majority of the lower clergy and simple people continued to follow the word of God. Throughout these centuries, the Church confronted every heresy that emerged—such as Arianism—and preserved the true faith.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Athanasius of Nyssa are some of these people who spend their life establising the proper theology and fought those heresies.
Now, Protestants seek to discard all of this. Was Luther right? In many instances, no. Because he maintained that salvation depends exclusively on faith, he rejected the Epistle of James as inauthentic. His view that salvation is due solely to the work of Jesus on the Cross—requiring no human participation—later led to the teaching that salvation cannot be lost. This is a concept entirely unknown to ancient writers for at least the first fifteen centuries; it is something relatively new. The notion that there is an ongoing revelation is, in my view, illogical. Whatever was to be revealed was revealed from the very beginning. The rest is a matter of interpretation.
What is then right? What is the position regarding women preaching? Should women cover their heads when they pray, or not? Is a second marriage permitted? Is the Lord’s Supper symbolic or literal? When is it observed—every Sunday, or only occasionally? Are musical instruments allowed in the church? Is the "gospel of prosperity" right, or the "gospel of struggles"? Do prophecies still exist? Is it stated anywhere in the Bible that these spiritual gifts have an expiration date—as if they were packaged food items in a supermarket? Is God selecting some for salvation or every man is free to believe or not? That is regeneration before hearing the gospel or after? Baptism in the Holly Spirit together with regeneration or a separate event? Rapture now or after? One God, three persons or one God one person who is revealed either as Father or as son or as HS? Was Jesus the only begotten son also as a God or only as a man? Jesus a God's creature or Jesus God? Fixed destination or not? This is not merely a matter of practice; it is also a matter of doctrine. The ancient church already had answers to these questions and established a solid theology. But the protestants just dismissed all that written and tried to start all over from the beginning cutting ties to the past. But they ended at different destinations. I am not saying that that reformation ended up wrong. I also now belong to a Pentecostal segregation. But let us be willing to hear what the others have to say.
Hello, Gerald.
Regarding that incident involving Peter and the Lord:
What did Jesus really mean in response to what Peter said?
What does the word "satan" mean in Hebrew? It means an adversary, an opponent—someone who stands as an obstacle.
In an incidence in the Old Testament, the Philistine lords—who did not want David to fight alongside them—said to their king: "4And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?"
The KJV text uses the term "adversary," but the Hebrew word employed in the Hebrew text is "satan." Therefore, the Hebrews used the term "satan" for any adversary—not just the devil.
Let us return, then, to Jesus’ words. Simply put, He said to Peter: "Get out of my way; you are an obstacle to me, because in your ignorance, you are thinking like a man rather than according to God’s will." So it isn't really as bad as it sounds in the first place.
Let us also examine the other incident, where Jesus speaks about the "rock."
Jesus says: "And I tell you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Let us look at the grk. "Petros" is the grk for "Peter", while the word for "rock" is "petra"—which is feminine in gender. Therefore, if one wishes to refer to a man as a "rock," the word must be adjusted to the masculine gender; hence, it becomes "Petros" (Peter).
To return to the point: what Jesus is essentially saying to Peter is, "I call you a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." He likely meant that the Church is founded through Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost. Another interpretation is that, by "rock," Jesus was referring to the confession Peter had just made: that Jesus is the Son of God. Finally, there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome and became the archbishop there, as Catholics claim. Furthermore Peter was an apostle for the Hebrews, not for the gentiles
Satan is THE adversary of every work of God He is the accuser of the brethren and opposer .
Jesus meant exactly what He said .
Your question what did Jesus really mean is simply another version of “ yea hath God said……….”?
Trying to water down the exact meaning simply won’t do .
For it is quite clear what Jesus meant by his reason for it!
“ Get behind me Satan ,thou art an offence unto me for thou savourest not the things of God but iof those that be of men “.
That Rome does not like that is not surprising given what it has tried to build upon their false teaching of him.
The idea that Jesus was careless with His words is absurd and knew exactly what He was saying and rightly so . For Peter opposed Him indeed began to rebuke him! Saying be it far from thee this shall not be unto thee”
Apart from having the temerity to rebuke the Lord began also to teach Him!
His spiritual vision of who Jesus was had gone to his head and so became a mouthpiece of satan.
In the next breath almost after he had been a mouthpiece of heaven .
So it was as bad as it sounds .
It is not enough to ‘likely mean’ . As I said one verse does not prove a doctrine . But that one verse must be read in the light of all scripture not a mountain built upon one verse.
2 Samuel 24:7
Isiah 48 12
Luke 46:7
1Cor 10:4
Are a few .
You cannot build an eternal church on any thing but the eternal,Son of God .
“And upon that rock I will build my church ……..”
That church of God is built on certainties not uncertainties fir that would be a church built on sand
We are meant to know the truth not have debates about it swimming round in our head and heart .
You are right there is no evidence at all Peter was in Rome but there is scriptural evidence that he was based in Jerusalem for as you pointed out he was the Apostle to the Jews .
Paul was clearly in Rome and as you pointed out the Apostle to the gentiles.
The keys the Lord gave Peter were the keys to the Kingdom . He firs5 preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost and opened the door to them .
He then preached to the house of the gentiles who God said not to call unclean what he had cleaned.
That would be by the washing of the word . God had prepared the way already for Peter .
It suits Rome however to build a mountain upon that one verse but it is like an inverse pyramid built upon a grain of sand a lie that needs more lies to support it .
The truth stands four square and will not be moved for it built upon The Rock which is God .
Thank you, Gerald, for this summary of the history of the Reformation.
I fully agree that God was, and remains, the One who directs events in the church history. It is true that if a church fails to fulfill the mission entrusted to her by God, He will choose someone else to carry on the work. I apologize if I appeared disrespectful at. the beginning of my post.
In your opinion, then, which specific faith—or which specific church—serves as the instrument through which God acts nowadays? And , in your opinion, what are we to expect in the future?
It is also true that the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches are unlikely to ever correct their errors, although I believe that the greater part of Eastern Orthodox theology is sound. There are some bright exceptions within that church today, but I doubt they can bring about any substantive internal change. There exists a core of faithful and sincere Christians who are earnestly working their own salvation, even though they find themselves within a framework characterized by some erroneous teachings and practices. It is, however, noteworthy that in Europe, the areas serving as the first line of defense against atheism are precisely those where these two Churches remain strong—primarily in Southern and Eastern Europe. It is better to have churches with certain flaws—some minor, others more significant—than to have nothing at all. Europe has turned into a continent dominated by atheism. There are countries, such as—if I am not mistaken—the Netherlands, where preaching against homosexuality can lead to imprisonment under anti-racism legislation. In the future, this could potentially spread across the entire continent. Not a very pleasant situation, is it? Once again, thank you for your post. GBU
Hello ,thanks for your reply . Text is or can be misunderstood in tone and expression , I noticed that in my last post it could be misconstrued in attitude . Not my intention at all .
There is but “ One faith which is “ The faith once and for all given unto men…” What people call these days ‘faiths” is not faith but a vain and empty hope that has no foundation in the Word of God .
In answer to your question I’ll say this , Jesus said “ I will build my church ……..” that is not a denomination but a spiritual church made up living stones of believers who are members of one bread partakers of the same bread and many members of that bread.
That Union of the children of God is not a group of people having a common interests , rituals , or observances but as the scriptures have it are many but One. “For He thst sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one” and in another place “ They that are joined to the Lord are one Spirit .”
It is the same Oneness as that of the Trinity which are three but one .the church are and to be “ One even as we are one “ John 17.
Jesus speaking of Himself said “ Unless a seed or corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone but if it dies it bringet( forth much fruit “ What sort of fruit? After its own kind .
A corn of wheat when sown does not produce a field of wheat .it produces another stalk of wheat which has 30 60 or a 100 seeds of wheat. They are sown and produce 30 60 or a 100 stalks of wheat .
They then are sown etc etc etc .
Multiplication of the same kind .
If you was to cut open a stalk of wheat with a razor ,inside you will find that ear of corn still green coming up,through the stalk .
The first Adam was created from the dust of the earth . Eve was created from the body of the man while in a deep sleep.
So too the “ last Adam “ will have a bride who will come from His body which is the church .
She will be despised and rejected by that body like her Lord and will have to “ suffer without the camp too”.
For it is written “ thy enemies will be of thine own household”.
I don’t pretend to understand all of it ,but it is certain that there is a Bride of Christ every true born child of God is called to that “ high calling”:but not all have ears to hear or will respond .
Being BORN again qualifies us “to run the race “ it does not win us the prize “
Protestant denominations were a necessity to a prodigal church .
There is not going to be any more nor is one more than the other .
The two orthodoxy are but the two legs of iron of that political power that split in two one based in Rome the other based in Constantinople and which was foreseen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream interpreted by Daniel .
And as the Roman political power was split so too the Roman religious power founded by Constantine .
The profusion of graven images in both shows just how far they have fallen . IF there are any true born children of God in them they need to get out for they will become unfruitful and die if they stay . Some might say God will preserve them . Not if they stay . For that argument couid be applied to Lot who was counted righteous but needed to flee from the wrath of God that was coming or else perish.
Those denominations that are falling away one way or the other either by conforming to the world or by getting into bed with Rome those children of God in them need to consider their positions .
For clearly the leadership of those denominations like the C of E have lost the plot and thrown away the Bible .
We are not called to blindly follow anyone not even God calls for that .
While as in Isiah 5 I think shows that even a “ very small remnant” can defer destruction as in Sodom ,It’s not the denomination that is doing the work but the earnest prayers of the children of God who when translated to meet the Lord in the air will remove any restraints on the spirit of antichrist and will also reveal him .
Don’t stop preaching then Netherlands and fill the prisons with preachers and bring revival there!
It’s time the church the Bride came out of the wilderness terrible as an army with banners leaning upon her beloved “ More than Conquerors through Him that loved us “.
She does not hold to her ‘erroneous theories’ but to her doctrines and traditions that in her own cannon law still has the death penalty attached if you deny them and given the ‘liberty’ would put again into effect .
Why should you right something you are not sure is right?
“ When you know the truth the truth shall make you free”.
That ‘knowing ‘ is as intimate as a husband knowing his wife .
Abraham at the very least heard the gospel as much as Adam and Eve did when God gave them the promise after He gave them a covering .
But I think more also for God is a God of progression and progressive revelation .
If then he heard of the good news before the Law was given then the Bible being consistent with itself means he ;perhaps imperfectly , but clear enough to believe it.
And as Paul Saudi was “counted righteous” for Christ sake .
Isn't our righteousness in NT the result of Christ's sacrifice? Isn't it God's righteousness imputed to us?
Did I not say that? If I put it badly ,my apologies.
But the imputed righteousness of Abraham as Paul so argued is on the same foundation .
