What is His name?

[RockyMidnight]

Good Morning ALL!!!
This is quite a forum!
Everyone has contributed some really good scriptural based ideas, but why then the contradictions that are arising?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think you each are correct but are missing one vital element, the Old Covenant versus the New.

Up until the time of Christ's Crucifixion, all scripture, including much of the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where directed at the Jews. It was they who were under the law and still under the Old Covenant. Gentiles were never under the law, nor were they being asked to become Believers in Christ. That came after Pentecost.

When Christ was rejected by the Jews, they remained under the law, which requires salvation by works. This never applied to Gentiles, hence two different types of Salvation. One by works, the other by Faith. Hence what appears to be contradictions for Salvation, buy in fact is not contradictory at all.

For reference:

http://dowlenroad.com/?p=4027

https://bible.org/question/does-new-tes ... -book-acts

Cheers

[BavarianWheels]

Good Morning ALL!!!
This is quite a forum!
Everyone has contributed some really good scriptural based ideas, but why then the contradictions that are arising?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think you each are correct but are missing one vital element, the Old Covenant versus the New.

Up until the time of Christ's Crucifixion, all scripture, including much of the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where directed at the Jews. It was they who were under the law and still under the Old Covenant. Gentiles were never under the law, nor were they being asked to become Believers in Christ. That came after Pentecost.

When Christ was rejected by the Jews, they remained under the law, which requires salvation by works. This never applied to Gentiles, hence two different types of Salvation. One by works, the other by Faith. Hence what appears to be contradictions for Salvation, buy in fact is not contradictory at all.

For reference:

http://dowlenroad.com/?p=4027

https://bible.org/question/does-new-tes ... -book-acts

Cheers

Are you suggesting that the manner in which Jews receive/d salvation was through the law?

I think that's the biggest misconception being perpetrated by modern Christianity. The law ( the old covenant or the 600+ laws regarding the temple, the sacrificial animals, etc. ) pointed at Christ and His blood ( the new covenant Luke 22:20 )

It's always been a covenant in blood. The old was a promise and the new in the promise realized.
.
.

[RockyMidnight]

I'm not suggesting, since I have already explicitly stated "I'm not 100% sure on this".

The reason behind my post is the obvious differences between Old and New Testaments on the topic of Salvation and what appears to be contradictions, where none should exist.

For example, from the Old Testament specifically for the Jews:

Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee. [Deut. 6:17]

And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: [Deut. 17:19]

And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: [1 Kings 2:3]

8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. [Joshua 1:8]

These scriptures all warn of doing according to the law. Doing=works.

And the consequences under the OT of not doing the law?

32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. [Exodus 32:32-33]

17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. [Leviticus 5:17]

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. [Ecclesiastes 12:14]

Anyway, my post was not to create further dispute and conflict, but rather have you all consider that your apparent difference are no different at all, but instead a lack of acknowledgement between salvation for the Jews and Gentiles.

Cheers, Peace, and !

[BavarianWheels]

I'm not suggesting, since I have already explicitly stated "I'm not 100% sure on this".

The reason behind my post is the obvious differences between Old and New Testaments on the topic of Salvation and what appears to be contradictions, where none should exist.

For example, from the Old Testament specifically for the Jews:

[...]

Anyway, my post was not to create further dispute and conflict, but rather have you all consider that your apparent difference are no different at all, but instead a lack of acknowledgement between salvation for the Jews and Gentiles.

Cheers, Peace, and !

Do we agree with Galatians 3:28 , Colossians 3:11 , 1 Corinthians 15:22 , Galatians 3:29 , Genesis 15:6 , Romans 4:2,3 etc. ? ...that there is no difference? Am I picking up what you're putting down? Because there are some here that make a pretty emphatic distinction and say things like, "That was given to the Jews, not the NT believer."

I'm thinking we are speaking the same language, but I'm not always sure.
.
.

[DBowling]

Some thoughts on Old Covenant vs New Covenant

Hebrews 8:6-13

6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Note that Old Covenant vs New Covenant is not a Jew vs Gentiles thing. According to the writer of Hebrews, the establishment of the "New Covenant" and the disappearance of the "Old Covenant" involves the people of Israel. Which has expanded beyond nationalistic Israel and now also includes the grafted in Gentiles who have put their faith and trust in Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:26-29).

Hebrews 10:1-10

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Here the author of Hebrews tells us that the law was merely a shadow that pointed to the reality that would come in Jesus Christ. This the same point that Paul makes in Colossians 2:16-17.
The law was incapable of saving anyone from their sins. Rather the law functions as a reminder of the sinfulness of man.

In Romans 4:1-3 Paul tells us that even under the Old Covenant, Abraham was justified by faith not by works. No one was ever saved by keeping the Law under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant.
People have always been saved by grace through faith, not by works.

Jesus tells us that he did not come to abolish the Law, rather he came to fulfill/accomplish the Law. That is why the Law became obsolete and disappeared (Hebrews 8:13) only after Jesus fulfilled/accomplished/completed the Law through his death and resurrection and established the New Covenant.

[BavarianWheels]

Jesus tells us that he did not come to abolish the Law, rather he came to fulfill/accomplish the Law. That is why the Law became obsolete and disappeared (Hebrews 8:13) only after Jesus fulfilled/accomplished/completed the Law and established the New Covenant.

Yes, He certainly did fulfill the law...the law that points to Christ. The law that points to Christ became obsolete.

But Jesus' OWN words clarifies the difference between the old and new covenant.

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

The law is clearly NOT the covenant. The law describes what the blood does...how it is to be shed, etc. But the blood IS the covenant, both old and new. The old was based on the blood of animals and a promise and the new is based on Christ's own blood and the promise fulfilled.

Christ fulfilled the law that points to Him as the Lamb of God.

All of your quoting of Hebrews is in this context.
.
.

[DBowling]

The law is clearly NOT the covenant.

You are asserting a distinction that the text of Hebrews does not make...
You also need to look at how Hebrews and Jeremiah describe the New Covenant.
Animal sacrifices are part of the Law, but unlike your assertion, the Law goes beyond just the animal Sacrifice system.

And Jesus goes beyond both the Sacrificial System and the Law in Matthew 5.

It is not just the Law that was a Shadow of the reality that points to Jesus. The whole Old Testament was a merely a shadow that pointed to the ultimate reality of Jesus.

Jesus fulfilled/completed the OT Sacrificial System
Jesus fulfilled/completed the whole Law.
And
Jesus completed/fulfilled the Prophets... all of which point to him and find their ultimate reality in him.

Which is why the Law which is merely a shadow became obsolete (Heb 8:13) after the reality (Jesus the Messiah) came and fulfilled/completed All the Law and the Prophets.

Do you agree that Scripture teaches that the Old Covenant has become obsolete (Heb 8:13)?

[RockyMidnight]

I'm not suggesting, since I have already explicitly stated "I'm not 100% sure on this".

The reason behind my post is the obvious differences between Old and New Testaments on the topic of Salvation and what appears to be contradictions, where none should exist.

For example, from the Old Testament specifically for the Jews:

[...]

Anyway, my post was not to create further dispute and conflict, but rather have you all consider that your apparent difference are no different at all, but instead a lack of acknowledgement between salvation for the Jews and Gentiles.

Cheers, Peace, and !

Do we agree with Galatians 3:28 , Colossians 3:11 , 1 Corinthians 15:22 , Galatians 3:29 , Genesis 15:6 , Romans 4:2,3 etc. ? ...that there is no difference? Am I picking up what you're putting down? Because there are some here that make a pretty emphatic distinction and say things like, "That was given to the Jews, not the NT believer."


I'm thinking we are speaking the same language, but I'm not always sure.
.
.

We are speaking the same language BW! Yes, we agree with the scriptures you quoted, but do we agree with the OT ones I quoted?
Now, you wrote "Because there are some here that make a pretty emphatic distinction and say things like, "That was given to the Jews, not the NT believer."
The fact is however, it's scripture that says this; again refer to the OT quotes. There are more as well, but say the same thing.
Here's where we are saying the same thing but it's coming out like a contradiction.
Up until the Crucifixion, all scripture was for the salvation of the Jews, who were under the law. This included the Apostles, at least until they became Apostles. Once in Christ, they were no longer under the law. Once in Christ, as you pointed out in
Galations 3:28 and Colossians 3:11, 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. and 11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
What then of those Jews who rejected Christ's Gift of Salvation? Did that automatically condemn them to Hell? Of course not, but they did remain under the OT law.
Those Jews who accepted Christ did not. They became in Christ and Christ in them. It no longer required any distinction between Jew and Gentile, etc. per your NT scriptures above.
Did the NT then simply ignore OT Jewish believers and instead devote preaching the Gospel only to Gentiles? Again, of course not. The effort to bring those under the law continued in the NT. Now, would the disciples preach to those under the law the same as to Gentiles? Of course not because Gentiles have nothing to do with the law and the OT. So again, my original point was that in reading NT scripture, it should be taken into consideration who is being addressed, Jew or Gentile, because the message leads to the same end, but is different according to the audience; Jew or Gentile.
This clears up what otherwise appears to be scriptural contradictions. It in no way detracts one dot from Christ's message.
If this still remains unclear to you, or if you want to insist I am misquoting scripture, then so be it, but I will not continue this further. It is either spiritually evident or it is not, and that's OK, since what's REALLY important here is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. On that there can be no dispute.

[BavarianWheels]

Up until the Crucifixion, all scripture was for the salvation of the Jews, who were under the law.

For the moment, I can only reply quickly on the above:

This is simply not true. ( not in the literal words you write at least ) While it was the Jews that held the law ( God gave it to them ), the law or the promise within that law/covenant was for ANYONE, not just the Jew. Every person born through the Adam and Eve were/are under the law...that is to say ( in the context of the law being the ceremonial laws that pointed to Christ as the Lamb ) ALL are in need of Christ's blood covering, therefore all are under and are still under the law ( in that we remain in a sinful state. ) That's not to say I believe the law is still in effect ( the ceremonial laws ).

I'll reply to the rest later...[/quote]

[BavarianWheels]

What then of those Jews who rejected Christ's Gift of Salvation? Did that automatically condemn them to Hell? Of course not, but they did remain under the OT law.

Rejecting Christ's gift of salvation does not afford them another salvation. The only salvation is that through Christ. I think we agree. Though again, we must clarify which laws are those that the OT believer/pre-crucifixion believer was UNDER and as it has to do with the covenant...of blood...those are the ceremonial laws. The Decalogue does not point to Christ. The Decalogue points to sin. e.g. Romans 3:20 Romans 7:7 So the law that is obsolete is those ceremonial laws that pointed to Christ...that is the law nailed to the cross.

Those Jews who accepted Christ did not. They became in Christ and Christ in them. It no longer required any distinction between Jew and Gentile, etc. per your NT scriptures above.

We agree.

Did the NT then simply ignore OT Jewish believers and instead devote preaching the Gospel only to Gentiles? Again, of course not. The effort to bring those under the law continued in the NT. Now, would the disciples preach to those under the law the same as to Gentiles? Of course not because Gentiles have nothing to do with the law and the OT.

We, "Gentiles" are no longer under the old covenant, True. That covenant was spoken of specifically by Christ. e.g. Luke 22:20 It's the covenant of blood. The new covenant is that of Christ's blood.

So again, my original point was that in reading NT scripture, it should be taken into consideration who is being addressed, Jew or Gentile, because the message leads to the same end, but is different according to the audience; Jew or Gentile.
This clears up what otherwise appears to be scriptural contradictions. It in no way detracts one dot from Christ's message.
If this still remains unclear to you, or if you want to insist I am misquoting scripture, then so be it, but I will not continue this further. It is either spiritually evident or it is not, and that's OK, since what's REALLY important here is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. On that there can be no dispute.

I don't know that I ever said you were misquoting scripture...did I? I think I said it was others here, but I apologize if that seemed to include you.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ...but again there is at least one other person that has said certain things were given ONLY to the Jews. My contention is not that it wasn't given to Jews, it's that "ONLY" part that concerns me since salvation has always been for ALL except that God entrusted a certain family, if you will, to carry the torch.

Do you or anyone else reading along think that if a Gentile or non-Jew in the days of Abraham believed the 'Jewish religion' and followed the dictates of the ceremonial laws that they would not be counted as part of Abraham's seed...heir to the promise through the spilling of animal blood as a sign of faith?

Even the blood of the Paschal lamb that was painted on the door posts at the Exodus protected all whom were inside the home(s), not just the Jews. e.g. Exodus 12:48,49 which alludes to that fact...if foreigners could celebrate later, one could make the argument that the original Passover included non-Jews also passed over.

I've asked questions on your position but I don't see that you've misquoted anything. It seemed to me that we were in more agreement than disagreement.
.
.

[PaulSacramento]

I don't know if OSAS is correct.
That would mean that people's ability to choose God is a "one time" thing ( once you believe you can never stop believing).
That angels are inferior to humans ( some fell away).
I am sure that not everyone believes the same way or to the same degree.
I have never been a fan of the term "true believer" since everyone things they are one, even those that "fall away' and become atheists ( it is argued that they were never true believers).

I don't see why God would eliminate free will, the ability to choose NOT to love Him, from a person just because they Love Him at any given point.

That's not an accurate representation of OSAS. In osas, one can turn his back on God, and stop believing. But once one is a new creation in Christ, God will never turn His back on us.

Unbelief is a sin. Saying that we lose salvation if we stop believing, is the same as saying we lose salvation because of sin.

Ah, so, regardless of what a person believes or even if they try to turn others from God, the moment that at even just ONE POINT in their life they did believe in God, God will save them from judgment?

Paul,

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a belief in God, as in "I believe God exists". I'm talking about belief in Christ. To believe, as in John 3:16 believe. The word for believe is pisteuō. That kind of believing is more like trust. Or, to place one's confidence in. In other words, believe/trust in Christ, what He did so that we may be saved.

And once one trusts in Christ, one becomes a new creation, passing from death, to life.

Yes, I understand that and I understand Christ not giving up on us even if we give up on Him.
But that is not the question.
I guess to really address the question we must first answer this one:
Saved from WHAT?
What are believers saved from?

[DBowling]

I guess to really address the question we must first answer this one:
Saved from WHAT?
What are believers saved from?

Oh... I know that one...
Matthew 1:21

[PaulSacramento]

I guess to really address the question we must first answer this one:
Saved from WHAT?
What are believers saved from?

Oh... I know that one...
Matthew 1:21

Yep and also John 5:19-29

Our salvation is being saved from Judgment on our sins.
Those that believe will not be judged, why?
Because on belief and on putting trust in Our Lord, the process of redemption begins via the Holy Spirit.

[BavarianWheels]

And once one trusts in Christ, one becomes a new creation, passing from death, to life.

Are you saying, then, that once a person trusts in Christ, there's no manner in which to distrust in Christ afterwards?

Are we unable to change our minds or does God close His eyes and ears to us after we've "put trust in Christ"?

It's odd because belief/faith is a choice we MUST make...otherwise it's not true love for God. Can't we fall in "love" with another? I know a fair number of people that claim they DID have trust in Christ at one point ( who am I to judge their heart? ). Things went wrong in their life and their prayers seemed to go unanswered and too many unanswered questions that arose, went without answer...leading to them rejecting the existence of God altogether, not to mention "trust" in Christ.

For that matter, doesn't every child raised in a Christian home "truly" believe?

I'm asking questions, not to mischaracterize, but to draw out what one actually means and how one APPLIES this 'doctrine' of OSAS.

I believe in OSAS*, I don't believe in OSAS...if you get my drift.
.
.

[Philip]

Bav: Are you saying, then, that once a person trusts in Christ, there's no manner in which to distrust in Christ afterwards?

NO one holds up their salvation with human effort! It is GOD who initiates, guides and completes one's salvation. What, are you going to "boast" that YOU kept your salvation intact because of YOUR faithfulness???!!!

Bav: Are we unable to change our minds or does God close His eyes and ears to us after we've "put trust in Christ"?

That's not even the question. The questions are, how were you saved to begin with - via GOD's hand of offering it, of making you understand what was being offered / of realizing you must make a choice, or is it partially a work of humans? You could boast if it were - but you cannot ever do so because it isn't!

Bav: It's odd because belief/faith is a choice we MUST make...otherwise it's not true love for God. Can't we fall in "love" with another? I know a fair number of people that claim they DID have trust in Christ at one point ( who am I to judge their heart? ). Things went wrong in their life and their prayers seemed to go unanswered and too many unanswered questions that arose, went without answer...leading to them rejecting the existence of God altogether, not to mention "trust" in Christ.

1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they WERE not of us; for if they HAD BEEN of us, they WOULD HAVE continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

Notice the tense of those who abandoned what APPEARED to be faith in Christ. John says such people NEVER had faith in Christ, because if they had, they would continue to have it. People can have all the appearances of being saved, but their hearts and minds were never filled with faith in Jesus!

Both Paul and John write of having confidence of our fate before God. Again, how could that be possible if you think you can lose your salvation? Bav, do you think you are maintaining your own faith?

1 John 4:17: "By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment..."

How can John assert God's love is "PERFECTED" in us if it can become corrupted? How could he ever assert we can have such confidence - IF we could still lose our faith? Notice, the confidence of being secure in our eternal fate involves an event and time that is yet to come. But that confidence would be impossible if one could later loose their faith and salvation. But God tells us we can boldly face death with confidence!

1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

There is "no fear" in WHOSE love? WHOSE love is perfect? Yours? Mine? Anyone's? And what does this fear John addresses have to do with - "punishment!" What punishment does God's "perfect" love avoid - it's that which is meted out at the "Day of Judgment."

So, Bav, per your belief, you have NO idea if you will remain saved. And if that is the case, and you are depending upon YOUR own ability to be faithful to your last breath, then YOU should rightfully feel VERY fearful. You're human, right? You're asserting many others were once saved and later they no longer were - what, do you think you are better, stronger, more moral and loving of God than you assert they ONCE were? So this confidence that Paul and John asserted we can HAVE if we are already ("currently") saved - they are talking about and speaking to believers, many of them, at the time, long from death. So, how could they possibly assert such confidence is possible, particularly if they, like you, believe that confidence is based upon sinful, mortal men not to screw up, to not stay faithful? Of course, if that were the basis of this confidence they speak of, they couldn't have such - as how could they?

So, Bav, do you have any confidence that you will be with God in eternity - and if so, WHY? Based upon some self effort you will one day PLAN to "boast" about? And as you can't know your entire remaining life, you certainly must feel the pressure, the uncertainty, the wondering if there is anything that you, like all those other sinful Christians you assert, might later abandon Christ? What is so special about you or anyone to have this confidence in THEMSELVES for their yet "unknown" future fate? Scripture says GOD completes our salvation? Yet, you say YOU must. I'll go with Scripture!











.