So why the drastic change in beliefs?

[Smellin Coffee]

I believe you have a valid point. A point that is not easily reconciled when you introduce the words of James. I don't believe the answer involves rejecting salvation by faith alone. That seems the the direction you're taking. I believe you're wrong in doing so. I've enjoyed discuss the book of James through the years with those who are open to such a discussion. You're basing your beliefs largely on the words of "James". You should honestly consider the possibility you're are wrong to take them as being equally persuasive as the writings of Paul you've referenced.

The way I am approaching this is trying to see it from a blank slate. This means rejecting nothing and accepting nothing. And when it comes down to it, why should James be rejected and not Paul? We know James was taught under Jesus personally with eyewitness accounts. Paul claims he was taught by Jesus but only through personal visions and revelations, never eyewitnessed by others. In addition, it was James facing Paul, and with the support of the other 11, suggesting Paul take a Nazarite vow to show he still chose to support the Law. Paul actually went along with what James had said. He didn't confront James in front of the others telling him that no one was obligated to keep the law. He didn't tell James that Jesus gave him personal revelation that surpassed what James had told him.

So from a "blank slate" point of view, it seems to me there is more credibility with James than with Paul. And if James truly was a significant church leader, there is reason to believe that the Book of James may have been preparation for a trial of Paul, perhaps concerning church discipline. Admitted speculation of course, but there are elements in his letter that give that perception.

Also, there is difference between God establishing a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 and the very moment Abraham forsook his homeland. The difference is found in what Abraham placed his faith "in".

God called Abraham out of Ur. In obedience AND faith, Abraham left Ur. How could this faith NOT have been "in" God? Seriously, I really don't get it.

Isaac is a clear allusion to Jesus Christ. Its is unmistakeable. When God spoke of a promise seed, it extended beyond just Isaac. It was an illusion to Jesus Christ Himself. Its a truth Abraham began to understand. Abraham believed more than just Isaac would be born of God's promise. Abraham picked a "telescope" of faith and saw the redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ. This was a process.

Again, from the blank slate of view, where does Genesis teach this? "Seed" clearly was his lineage, his offspring. Paul tried to convey it to mean Christ alone (Gal. 3:16) but in essence, God did not promise that "Jesus" was going to be multiplied like the sand and stars. Nehemiah said, "Thou art Jehovah the God, who didst choose Abram, and... gavest him the name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite,...., to give it unto his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Clearly, not a picture of Jesus. "Seed" is obviously plural, even in singular form.

That being said, "seed" can be singular as well in lineage. Jesus was of the "seed" of David. Paul was of the "seed" of Benjamin. So when the covenant said that within the seed all nations would be blessed, I do see how a Messiah could be portrayed as the blessing. However, the covenant itself was made to the entire seed because it was "an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7) and did not cease with Jesus as Paul proclaimed. ("Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.") The promises were made to Abraham and his entire lineage, not to Abraham and ONLY one other, that being Christ.

Again, please understand that I am trying to come at this with an open mind and not a POV skewed toward or against any particular bent. Not saying I don't have one as we all do by human nature, but I'm just trying to make sense of all this.

 

[christundivided]

The way I am approaching this is trying to see it from a blank slate. This means rejecting nothing and accepting nothing. And when it comes down to it, why should James be rejected and not Paul? We know James was taught under Jesus personally with eyewitness accounts. Paul claims he was taught by Jesus but only through personal visions and revelations, never eyewitnessed by others. In addition, it was James facing Paul, and with the support of the other 11, suggesting Paul take a Nazarite vow to show he still chose to support the Law. Paul actually went along with what James had said. He didn't confront James in front of the others telling him that no one was obligated to keep the law. He didn't tell James that Jesus gave him personal revelation that surpassed what James had told him.

So from a "blank slate" point of view, it seems to me there is more credibility with James than with Paul. And if James truly was a significant church leader, there is reason to believe that the Book of James may have been preparation for a trial of Paul, perhaps concerning church discipline. Admitted speculation of course, but there are elements in his letter that give that perception.

You've said a lot in a short paragraph. I don't have time at the moment to deal with all of what you wrote, but I'll work on it later. I'd even be willing to discuss over the phone if you ever want to talk about it.

First you assume James the Just wrote the book of James and there really is no external evidence to support this. Eusebius listed the book as disputed. Luther rejected James as canonical yet some say he later embraced it. I personally believe Luther fell to peer pressure. Don't confuse James the Just with the James the son of Zebedee, an apostle. I do honestly believe there is no reconciling the book of James with anything Paul wrote. To try to do so is really futile.

 

[IFB X-Files]

I do honestly believe there is no reconciling the book of James with anything Paul wrote. To try to do so is really futile. 

Very true.  One main reason was the early death of James.  He was never influenced by Pauline doctrine.

James has its own place, right where it is in the canon.

 

[christundivided]

I do honestly believe there is no reconciling the book of James with anything Paul wrote. To try to do so is really futile. 

Very true.  One main reason was the early death of James.  He was never influenced by Pauline doctrine.

James has its own place, right where it is in the canon.

There was a time I would have disagreed with you and I still do to some degree. If you're referring to an early production of James that did not have the privilege of later revelation, then I can see that as being possible. I don't think James should be removed. I do believe there is rudimentary truth to be found in James. However, I believe his arguments concerning justification are seriously flawed. We can discuss it if you like.

 

[christundivided]

God called Abraham out of Ur. In obedience AND faith, Abraham left Ur. How could this faith NOT have been "in" God? Seriously, I really don't get it.

We must admit that Abraham had unique experience with God. There are many parallels between the time of Abraham and many other periods of time throughout the Scriptures. God called Abraham in person. At that time, all Abraham knew was he had experienced a super natural occurrence of manifest of God. There is little reason to believe that he knew much of anything about God. His time period had experienced a great falling away from the truth of God. We Abraham left his own homeland, he wasn't exercising faith in all the truths of God. He simply went by his experience. Now this is faith and I rather would call it the begins of faith. Yet, it is not the faith He expressed in God later in his life.

Heb 11:13  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Again, from the blank slate of view, where does Genesis teach this? "Seed" clearly was his lineage, his offspring. Paul tried to convey it to mean Christ alone (Gal. 3:16) but in essence, God did not promise that "Jesus" was going to be multiplied like the sand and stars. Nehemiah said, "Thou art Jehovah the God, who didst choose Abram, and... gavest him the name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite,...., to give it unto his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Clearly, not a picture of Jesus. "Seed" is obviously plural, even in singular form.

Seed is both plural and singular. A single seed is a single seed. It can not be both singular and plural at the same time. There is no mistaking "seeds" as being plural. The phrase used to Abraham was "thy seed". The phrase "some seed" would be plural and the phrase "a seed" would be singular. Neither are both. Grammatical use of the word "seed" sets its use. For a singular reference to seed consider

Gen 4:25  And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

You're being selective with your quote of Neh 9:8. The context of the passage clearly references the nation of Israel even though you simple see the word "seed" used in the passage.

Some consider Paul's reference 3:16 to be singular, yet reference a plural cooperative in the Church being called by the singular name of Christ. 

That being said, "seed" can be singular as well in lineage. Jesus was of the "seed" of David. Paul was of the "seed" of Benjamin. So when the covenant said that within the seed all nations would be blessed, I do see how a Messiah could be portrayed as the blessing. However, the covenant itself was made to the entire seed because it was "an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7) and did not cease with Jesus as Paul proclaimed. ("Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.") The promises were made to Abraham and his entire lineage, not to Abraham and ONLY one other, that being Christ.

You've been reading after several Messianic authors.

Lets consider the argument made by Paul in Romans.

Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Can you apply your same logic to Romans 9:7-8. By your own logic, why wouldn't Ishmael be part of the "seed" of promise. If the "seed" referenced is only plural, then the promises are to Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. I'd say many Messianic believers have a problem with this. You should consider their agenda.

We also see a reference in Christ in Gen 3:15

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Has Israel or any "seed" of the earth "bruised the head of the serpent"?

There is unmistakable allusion of Christ seen in Isaac. It is seen throughout the life of Abraham and Isaac.

1. Isaac's birth was prophesied before he was ever born.
2. Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah
3. Isaac had a miraculous supernatural birth. He was born when Sarah was well pass the age of having children. She was 90 years old.
4. Isaac was offered on mount Moriah. While I can't prove it. I personally believe this is very place God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth.
5. Abraham believed that God was able to resurrect Isaac from the dead
6. After the death of Sarah, Isaac took a bride from where Abraham had come from. A perfect picture of the Gentile bride.

What is your take on

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.

It is reference to Genesis,

Gen 22:18  And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

If Gen 22:18 is true. Then just how is all nations of the earth getting blessed in Abraham?

Also, Jesus Christ himself said that Moses wrote of Him.

Joh 5:45  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Can you accept this? If so, then where did Moses write of Christ?

Jesus also that Abraham saw His day.

Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57  Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Just when did Abraham see the day of Christ? Can you reference a time this happened?

There is a unmistakable reference to the Gospel of Christ in the OT. I know I've said a lot. I pray you consider it. It can't be easily ignored. I look forward to your response.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The way I am approaching this is trying to see it from a blank slate. This means rejecting nothing and accepting nothing. And when it comes down to it, why should James be rejected and not Paul? We know James was taught under Jesus personally with eyewitness accounts. Paul claims he was taught by Jesus but only through personal visions and revelations, never eyewitnessed by others. In addition, it was James facing Paul, and with the support of the other 11, suggesting Paul take a Nazarite vow to show he still chose to support the Law. Paul actually went along with what James had said. He didn't confront James in front of the others telling him that no one was obligated to keep the law. He didn't tell James that Jesus gave him personal revelation that surpassed what James had told him.

So from a "blank slate" point of view, it seems to me there is more credibility with James than with Paul. And if James truly was a significant church leader, there is reason to believe that the Book of James may have been preparation for a trial of Paul, perhaps concerning church discipline. Admitted speculation of course, but there are elements in his letter that give that perception.

You've said a lot in a short paragraph. I don't have time at the moment to deal with all of what you wrote, but I'll work on it later. I'd even be willing to discuss over the phone if you ever want to talk about it.

First you assume James the Just wrote the book of James and there really is no external evidence to support this. Eusebius listed the book as disputed. Luther rejected James as canonical yet some say he later embraced it. I personally believe Luther fell to peer pressure. Don't confuse James the Just with the James the son of Zebedee, an apostle. I do honestly believe there is no reconciling the book of James with anything Paul wrote. To try to do so is really futile.

Concerning James the Just, he was never an apostle of Jesus as there were only 12.

The biggest argument against James having written the letter is that it opposes Pauline teaching and it is assumed that that James could not be opposed to Paul, specifically after Acts 21. It is also assumed that James would have mentioned that he was the brother of Christ but since there was no such mention, he didn't write it. (Why not assume he wrote in humility, specifically calling himself a servant?) There are other points of view such as the cultural style of writing and the use of "law of freedom" (and James was known to have remained faithful to the law) are points of interest which may support it being a pseudograph. However, there is other documentation that James was opposed to Paul, specifically in Ebionite writings.

Don't have time to go into detail and it is stuff that I have read but not studied heavily nor even made conclusion about, but it seems that the Marcionites did all they could to destroy as much of the Ebionite writings as possible. "Ebion" means "poor" in Hebrew and when Paul told the Galatians his side of the events in Jerusalem, they were told to "Remember the poor (ebion)". James appeared to have been a key member of the Ebionite community. Getting back to the Marcionites, they tried to destroy all the literature that opposed Paul. From some things I've read, it seems that the Ebionites tried to preserve their works by disguising Paul's identity. Clementine Homilies calls him "Simon Magus". Recognitions of Clement call him "the enemy". The Dead Sea Scrolls, assumed to contain Ebionite writings, names him as "Spouter of Lies". Granted, this is all presumed and I have not seen firm documentation about these labels. Regardless, the literature shows conflict between Paul and James as well as between Paul and Peter. I have yet to see rebuttals concerning any conflict amongst them. Not saying there isn't rebuttal, just haven't studied that far.

So if James was at odds with Paul, it would actually give some credence to the idea that the Epistle of James just might have been written to combat the teachings of Paul.

Now with Paul and James in Jerusalem, James took the humble approach and told Paul that there was a rumor which said Paul taught against the keeping of the Law. He told Paul that by taking a Nazarite vow, he would dispel those rumors. Paul took the vow and toward the end of the time the vow was to be completed, along came Trophimus, the Ephesian who desecrated the temple with his presence (abomination that causes desolation). Fingers pointed at Paul as Trophimus traveled to Jerusalem with him. Paul did not contest that Trophimus was guilty, only that he himself had an alibi (and I believe a legitimate one). However, it is logical to assume that since Paul wrote to the Ephesians that God broke down the partition in the temple in abolition of the Law (Ephesians 2), it can be surmised that Trophimus thought it was OK to enter the holy place in the temple.

After that incident, not one of the Apostles came to the defense of Paul by defending his teaching. In fact, there is no biblical record of any more contact between Paul and the Apostles after that incident. The silence between Paul and the Apostles was deafening after Paul's trial. It appears all ties were cut. And later on when we see that the church of Ephesus eventually abandoning Paul, it seems more reasonable to assume there was a faction between those who Jesus physically called with the one who was called by a light and given "special, personal revelation".

 

[Smellin Coffee]

God called Abraham out of Ur. In obedience AND faith, Abraham left Ur. How could this faith NOT have been "in" God? Seriously, I really don't get it.

We must admit that Abraham had unique experience with God. There are many parallels between the time of Abraham and many other periods of time throughout the Scriptures. God called Abraham in person. At that time, all Abraham knew was he had experienced a super natural occurrence of manifest of God. There is little reason to believe that he knew much of anything about God. His time period had experienced a great falling away from the truth of God. We Abraham left his own homeland, he wasn't exercising faith in all the truths of God. He simply went by his experience. Now this is faith and I rather would call it the begins of faith. Yet, it is not the faith He expressed in God later in his life.

Heb 11:13  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Again, from the blank slate of view, where does Genesis teach this? "Seed" clearly was his lineage, his offspring. Paul tried to convey it to mean Christ alone (Gal. 3:16) but in essence, God did not promise that "Jesus" was going to be multiplied like the sand and stars. Nehemiah said, "Thou art Jehovah the God, who didst choose Abram, and... gavest him the name of Abraham, and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite,...., to give it unto his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous." Clearly, not a picture of Jesus. "Seed" is obviously plural, even in singular form.

Seed is both plural and singular. A single seed is a single seed. It can not be both singular and plural at the same time. There is no mistaking "seeds" as being plural. The phrase used to Abraham was "thy seed". The phrase "some seed" would be plural and the phrase "a seed" would be singular. Neither are both. Grammatical use of the word "seed" sets its use. For a singular reference to seed consider

Gen 4:25  And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

You're being selective with your quote of Neh 9:8. The context of the passage clearly references the nation of Israel even though you simple see the word "seed" used in the passage.

Some consider Paul's reference 3:16 to be singular, yet reference a plural cooperative in the Church being called by the singular name of Christ. 

That being said, "seed" can be singular as well in lineage. Jesus was of the "seed" of David. Paul was of the "seed" of Benjamin. So when the covenant said that within the seed all nations would be blessed, I do see how a Messiah could be portrayed as the blessing. However, the covenant itself was made to the entire seed because it was "an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7) and did not cease with Jesus as Paul proclaimed. ("Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.") The promises were made to Abraham and his entire lineage, not to Abraham and ONLY one other, that being Christ.

You've been reading after several Messianic authors.

Lets consider the argument made by Paul in Romans.

Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Can you apply your same logic to Romans 9:7-8. By your own logic, why wouldn't Ishmael be part of the "seed" of promise. If the "seed" referenced is only plural, then the promises are to Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. I'd say many Messianic believers have a problem with this. You should consider their agenda.

We also see a reference in Christ in Gen 3:15

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Has Israel or any "seed" of the earth "bruised the head of the serpent"?

There is unmistakable allusion of Christ seen in Isaac. It is seen throughout the life of Abraham and Isaac.

1. Isaac's birth was prophesied before he was ever born.
2. Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah
3. Isaac had a miraculous supernatural birth. He was born when Sarah was well pass the age of having children. She was 90 years old.
4. Isaac was offered on mount Moriah. While I can't prove it. I personally believe this is very place God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth.
5. Abraham believed that God was able to resurrect Isaac from the dead
6. After the death of Sarah, Isaac took a bride from where Abraham had come from. A perfect picture of the Gentile bride.

What is your take on

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.

It is reference to Genesis,

Gen 22:18  And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

If Gen 22:18 is true. Then just how is all nations of the earth getting blessed in Abraham?

Also, Jesus Christ himself said that Moses wrote of Him.

Joh 5:45  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Can you accept this? If so, then where did Moses write of Christ?

Jesus also that Abraham saw His day.

Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57  Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Just when did Abraham see the day of Christ? Can you reference a time this happened?

There is a unmistakable reference to the Gospel of Christ in the OT. I know I've said a lot. I pray you consider it. It can't be easily ignored. I look forward to your response.

There are some things on here for me to chew on over the weekend. Will try to address next week.

 

[IFB X-Files]

I don't think James should be removed. I do believe there is rudimentary truth to be found in James. However, I believe his arguments concerning justification are seriously flawed.

So if James was at odds with Paul, it would actually give some credence to the idea that the Epistle of James just might have been written to combat the teachings of Paul.

Whether or not these discussions belong in the HAC forum is not for me to decide, but I wish they were elsewhere.  I believe the OP topic was more along the lines of "standards", and now it has degraded to attacking Scripture.

There is no issue with asking questions, but I do have an issue with those who question the Scriptures themselves, at least in this forum.  There is a huge difference between "How can I understand this" to "I don't understand it so it must be wrong".  There is a huge difference between getting a person to think, and getting a person to think there is error.

Of course, you don't take your positions elsewhere because then you'd have no audience.  Here, you get a chance to spread your doubts among us.  Be honest, go elsewhere.

 

[RAIDER]

I don't think James should be removed. I do believe there is rudimentary truth to be found in James. However, I believe his arguments concerning justification are seriously flawed.

So if James was at odds with Paul, it would actually give some credence to the idea that the Epistle of James just might have been written to combat the teachings of Paul.

Whether or not these discussions belong in the HAC forum is not for me to decide, but I wish they were elsewhere.  I believe the OP topic was more along the lines of "standards", and now it has degraded to attacking Scripture.

There is no issue with asking questions, but I do have an issue with those who question the Scriptures themselves, at least in this forum.  There is a huge difference between "How can I understand this" to "I don't understand it so it must be wrong".  There is a huge difference between getting a person to think, and getting a person to think there is error.

Of course, you don't take your positions elsewhere because then you'd have no audience.  Here, you get a chance to spread your doubts among us.  Be honest, go elsewhere.

X-files, do you thing a dispensational view would help answer any of Smellin's questions?

 

[IFB X-Files]

X-files, do you thing a dispensational view would help answer any of Smellin's questions?

Regardless of who the person is, until they realize that "they" are the problem and not the Scriptures, then there will never be any answers for them.

 

[christundivided]

I don't think James should be removed. I do believe there is rudimentary truth to be found in James. However, I believe his arguments concerning justification are seriously flawed.

So if James was at odds with Paul, it would actually give some credence to the idea that the Epistle of James just might have been written to combat the teachings of Paul.

Whether or not these discussions belong in the HAC forum is not for me to decide, but I wish they were elsewhere.  I believe the OP topic was more along the lines of "standards", and now it has degraded to attacking Scripture.

There is no issue with asking questions, but I do have an issue with those who question the Scriptures themselves, at least in this forum.  There is a huge difference between "How can I understand this" to "I don't understand it so it must be wrong".  There is a huge difference between getting a person to think, and getting a person to think there is error.

Of course, you don't take your positions elsewhere because then you'd have no audience.  Here, you get a chance to spread your doubts among us.  Be honest, go elsewhere.

Wow. If you don't want to participate that is fine and I certainly will not waste anymore of your time. However, you're being a little arrogant thinking you can say "go away" and do this somewhere else. I haven't introduced anything that wasn't part of the conversation to start with. SM was questioning it and I responded honestly. I could care less what you think about "spreading doubt". If you can't handle it, then that is not my problem. There is a lot more to fear from just about Christian source than what I've written here.

 

[christundivided]

X-files, do you thing a dispensational view would help answer any of Smellin's questions?

Regardless of who the person is, until they realize that "they" are the problem and not the Scriptures, then there will never be any answers for them.

That does bring up an interesting point I'll make it quickly. Many systematic theologies has been formed to explain away the truths of the Scriptures. When someone finds something they question, they might not question the text themselves..... Yet, they sure will form a new theology to "explain" the texts they don't understands. In doing so they "negate the same Scriptures  they dare not "question".

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

I'll take the conversation somewhere else.

 

[RAIDER]

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

What are your thoughts on how OT folk were "saved"?

 

[christundivided]

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

What are your thoughts on how OT folk were "saved"?

By grace through faith.

 

[RAIDER]

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

What are your thoughts on how OT folk were "saved"?

By grace through faith.

Faith in what?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Lets consider the argument made by Paul in Romans.

Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Can you apply your same logic to Romans 9:7-8. By your own logic, why wouldn't Ishmael be part of the "seed" of promise. If the "seed" referenced is only plural, then the promises are to Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. I'd say many Messianic believers have a problem with this. You should consider their agenda.



You do have a good point about the promises through Ishmael and I haven't thought through it enough. But I would like to point out a couple things. First, the seed of Abraham through Ishmael can also be considered "as the sands" and "stars". The seed is still procreant, so at least that part of the covenant still exists and fulfills God's covenant to Abraham in Genesis 21:13. Second, Abraham was told that as a seal of the covenant, he was to circumcise his offspring. He had Ishmael circumcised in recognition that he was a part of the covenant. Third, Genesis 21:20 says that "God was with" Ishmael. Granted, it may have been strictly for personal protection but it is curious to note, specifically when a couple verses later Abimilech told Abraham that it was evident that God was with him (Abraham) also.

We also see a reference in Christ in Gen 3:15

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Has Israel or any "seed" of the earth "bruised the head of the serpent"?



This prophecy was for the SERPENT and the promise was for mankind, not Abraham's seed. Reason? Context. The serpent was told that he would thereafter have to crawl on his belly. Does Satan crawl on his belly? If so, how is it that he told God in Job that he was "walking to and fro" on the earth? The prophecy was directed specifically to the reptile.

There is unmistakable allusion of Christ seen in Isaac. It is seen throughout the life of Abraham and Isaac.

1. Isaac's birth was prophesied before he was ever born.
2. Isaac was the only son of Abraham and Sarah
3. Isaac had a miraculous supernatural birth. He was born when Sarah was well pass the age of having children. She was 90 years old.
4. Isaac was offered on mount Moriah. While I can't prove it. I personally believe this is very place God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth.
5. Abraham believed that God was able to resurrect Isaac from the dead
6. After the death of Sarah, Isaac took a bride from where Abraham had come from. A perfect picture of the Gentile bride.



Allusion? I don't see it. Symbolic, perhaps but it was not recorded that it was made known to Abraham if it was an allusion.


What is your take on

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.

It is reference to Genesis,

Gen 22:18  And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

If Gen 22:18 is true. Then just how is all nations of the earth getting blessed in Abraham?



My take is that Paul made a reputation out of taking the Old Testament out of context.

If the "blessing" of "all nations" refers to Christ (and it just might, ), how is it that there are nations throughout history that never knew of Christ? There are still languages today that do not have any Scripture in their tongue. Have there ever been nations that died, never knowing Christ?

Also, Jesus Christ himself said that Moses wrote of Him.

Joh 5:45  Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Can you accept this? If so, then where did Moses write of Christ?



When he recorded the Law that Jesus upheld.

Jesus also that Abraham saw His day.

Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Joh 8:57  Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Just when did Abraham see the day of Christ? Can you reference a time this happened?



The Old Testament doesn't record a specific time as far as I can tell. It could have been when Abraham left Ur. It could have been when Abraham almost sacrificed his son (the time which James claims he was justified and Genesis shows that God would keep his end of the covenant because of the obedience).

There is a unmistakable reference to the Gospel of Christ in the OT.

I agree. However, it seems to me that the "Gospel" that Christ taught was obedience mixed with faith and not faith alone.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

What are your thoughts on how OT folk were "saved"?

By grace through faith.

Faith in what?

God.

 

[christundivided]

Dispensationalism is a joke. It was established by certain teachers to deal with perceived "weaknesses" in existing theologies. You shouldn't question my integrity and then turn right around and embrace such doctrines as dispensationalism. Every time someone runs into a issue in the "Scriptures". They just create another "dispensation" to explain it.

What are your thoughts on how OT folk were "saved"?

By grace through faith.

Faith in what?

It certainly wasn't faith in the law. The law was never given to redeem anyone. Nor was it ever given to make anyone righteous. Not even in some mysterious "dispensation of the law".

Faith in God and the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

 

[RAIDER]

It certainly wasn't faith in the law. The law was never given to redeem anyone. Nor was it ever given to make anyone righteous. Not even in some mysterious "dispensation of the law".

Faith in God and the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

So, all of the OT "believers" knew that Jesus was going to come to earth, live a sinless life, be crucified, and rise again on the third day?

 

[christundivided]

You do have a good point about the promises through Ishmael and I haven't thought through it enough. But I would like to point out a couple things. First, the seed of Abraham through Ishmael can also be considered "as the sands" and "stars". The seed is still procreant, so at least that part of the covenant still exists and fulfills God's covenant to Abraham in Genesis 21:13. Second, Abraham was told that as a seal of the covenant, he was to circumcise his offspring. He had Ishmael circumcised in recognition that he was a part of the covenant. Third, Genesis 21:20 says that "God was with" Ishmael. Granted, it may have been strictly for personal protection but it is curious to note, specifically when a couple verses later Abimilech told Abraham that it was evident that God was with him (Abraham) also.

Thanks for the response. I will go through most of it later. I would like to respond to your first comment.

The rejection of Ishmael is detailed first in Gen 15. 

Gen 15:4  And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Following this declaration, you find God speaks specifically to Abraham about the heir (Isaac) being the source of the "seed" that shall number as the "stars of heaven". I don't think you can accurately place Ishmael in such after being rejected in verse 4 of chapter 15. I do believe that God has blessed the children of Ishmael. Yet, after Gen 21 you see very little of Ishmael. The "blessings" received from Abraham are not to be compared to those in Isaac or The Son of Man, Jesus Christ.