ayoku777:


Faith might be misused but I don't misuse it. Faith is faith in who Christ is and what He did according to the scriptures. That He is the Messiah the Son of the Living God; and that He dided for our sins and rose for our justification.

This is faith according to the scriptures.

Now, is it the entire gentile world that is standing by this faith? Because it was the gentiles that "standeth by this faith" that Paul was addressing in Romans 11.

Those are the gentiles grafted into Christ; and those are the only gentiles that can be cut off if they don't continue in faith.

As for the issue of Romans 8. It was talking about a believer who sins, not one who stops believing in Christ.

A believer is not cut of from God when he sins, he is cut off when he stops believing. The two scemarios are different.

I think you're not being explicit about your stand. Let me help.

Do you believe the entire gentile world has been grafted into Christ? Or only gentiles who believe in Christ.

Because to be cut off, you need to be grafted first. So if the cutting off is for the entire gentile world, then you mean they are presently grafted into Christ. Christians, muslims, athiest are all grafted into Christ according to you.

But if it is only believing gentiles that are grafted, then it means the warning of being cut off is also to them. Which nullifies the OSAS doctrine.

Remember you've also not given the flipside of the statements we gave in explanation to names not being blotted out.

Those who get 70% in the test will not be removed from the state bursary

OR

Those who pass the training exercise will not be resigned.

Does this statements automatically explain what will happen to those who don't pass?

Romans 11
12 Now if the fall of them be the[size=20pt] riches of the world[/size], and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the [size=20pt]Gentiles[/size], I magnify mine office:


Before dealing with the issue of faith, can we both agree that according to the above quote, Paul was referring to the world?

ayoku777:


The reason every jew, good or bad, were grafted into God under the law was because the condition was simply to be a seed of Abraham after the flesh. A condition met by everyone born a jew.

But to be grafted into Christ now, you need to be a seed of Abraham after the Spirit. Do the entire gentile world meet this condition.
Are athiest and budhists seedo of Abraham after the spirit?

Let me show you another point about how Paul describes those that are grafted to Christ.

Romans 11v16 -For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, SO ARE THE BRANCHES.

Anyone grafted into Christ is imputed with the holiness of the root.

If every unbeliever is grafted as you said, then the entire gentile world is holy.

So NO NO, only believing gentiles are grafted, they are the only ones holy like the branch and the seed of Abraham after the spirit. Not the entire gentile race.

Being grafted does not mean the OPPORTUNITY of being nourished, being grafted is BEING NOURISHED.

Was the death of Jesus for the Holy or for the entire sinful world?

shdemidemi:



Was the death of Jesus for the Holy or for the entire sinful world?

You're trying to form your own definition of "grafted" to suit what you want to say.

Jesus died for the whole world but they're not saved until they're grafted into Him by faith.

You can't be grafted and be unholy.

Is a muslim grafted into Christ? Is a muslim imputed with the holiness of Christ? Coz that is the reality of everyone grafted.

ayoku777:


Do you follow Rick Joyner on Facebook?

Yes. One of my mentors. You follow him?

ayoku777:


[size=20pt]Jesus died for the whole world [/size]
.

Was there a time the Gentile nation as a whole had no opportunity to be saved?

I don't like it when I take the time to type and show scriptures with explanation, but someones just ignores them and just picks on a line he can continue the argument with.

It looks like the person is just attempting to wiggle his way through the dicourse.

If the bible says; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Does that mean unbelievers too are holy? Since according to you the entire gentile world are grafted into Christ -believers and unbelievers alike?

Because it is getting scary to see you saying unbelievers have been grafted into Christ.

Don't belittle saving faith. How can anyone who doesn't have the spirit of Christ be engrafted into Him.

To be grafted is a very intimate word, next to intercourse. Infact what intercourse is in human language, engraft is in plant or agricultural language.

Its a most intimate term that implies the exchange of virtues and essence.

No unbeliever is this intimate with Christ, only the church. No unbeliever has been grafted into Christ. Don't give the word your own meaning.

Bidam:
Yes. One of my mentors. You follow him?

I follow him too. He's one of mine too.

Nice to see this.

ayoku777:
I don't like it when I take the time to type and show scriptures with explanation, but someones just ignores them and just picks on a line he can continue the argument with.

It looks like the person is just attempting to wiggle his way through the dicourse.

If the bible says; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Does that mean unbelievers too are holy? Since the entire gentile world are grafted inot Christ -believers and unbelievers alike?

Because it is getting scary to see you saying unbelievers have been grafted into Christ.

Don't belittle saving faith. How can anyone who doesn't have the spirit of Christ be engrafted into Him.

Sorry if you feel that way...

I was going somewhere with my question, and I expected a direct answer not an answer to clamp a potential question.

As for the branch being holy because they are part of the treee.. I will then ask if the entire Jewish nation was Holy before they got cut off?

shdemidemi:


Sorry if you feel that way...

I was going somewhere with my question, and I expected a direct answer not an answer to clamp a potential question.

As for the branch being holy because they are part of the treee.. I will then ask if the entire Jewish nation was Holy before they got cut?

No one was holy under the law, but by the standard of being God's holy (set apart) people; YES. Every jew was holy in that context -until they rejected Christ.

You can't be an uncircumsized gentile and be a people of God or be grafted into Him under the law.

ayoku777:


No one was holy under the law, but by the standard of being God's holy (set apart) people; YES. Every jew was holy in that context -until they rejected Christ.

You can't be an uncircumsized gentile and be a people of God or be grafted into Him under the law.

If they were truly Holy before they rejected Christ, why did Christ come?

Why was John preahing repentance and Holiness to a Holy people?

shdemidemi:



If they were truly Holy before they rejected Christ, why did Christ come?

Why was John preahing repentance and Holiness to a Holy people?

Seriously?

Why did Paul preach good works and right living to believers. Why did Jesus preach repentance to the 7 churches who were already righteous by faith?

This issue is really digressing.

And besides. John preached repentance because God was bringing in a new covenant. So even if they were holy in good works they would still need to repent to receive the new covenant.

Repentance is "Metanoeo" -which means change of mind. Someone who is upright in good works under the law still needs to repent to accept righteousness by faith.

John came to prepare the minnds of the Jews in preparation for Christ and what He came to do.

The jews were God's set apart people until they rejected Christ.

ayoku777:


Seriously?

Why did Paul preach good works and right living to believers..

It was initially impossible for Gentiles to hear a message of Christ but something happened..a change and a pardigm shift suddenly made it possible for Gentiles to hear a message Jesus wouldn't permit his disciples to share with them before His death.

ayoku777:

Why did Jesus preach repentance to the 7 churches who were already righteous by faith?.

This church isn't a church that will be judged by Grace and the entire chapter explain what work they had to do else He spit them out of His mouth(conditional).

ayoku777:

This issue is really digressing..

And besides. John preached repentance because God was bringing in a new covenant. So even if they were holy in good works they would still need to repent to receive the new covenant..

The question was if they were Holy in good works... I believe we both agree they were not.

Were they Holy in any way atall? if you think they were, explain.

ayoku777:

Repentance is "Metanoeo" -which means change of mind. Someone who is upright in good works under the law still needs to repent to accept righteousness by faith.

John came to prepare the minnds of the Jews in preparation for Christ and what He came to do..

Would there have been a need for righteousness through faith in Christ, if there was righteousness/holiness by the virtue of birth(an offspring of Abraham)?

ayoku777:
The jews were God's set apart people until they rejected Christ.

I particularly like the word 'set apart'...

I am saying the Gentiles are now the set apart people. There is a caveat to become Holy, which is by belief in the gospel, do you understand what I mean?

Look closely at Paul the ideal Jew and you will get your answer
It breaks my heart to hear Dispensationalism reintroducing the Law in the millenium. There will be animal sacrifices, circumcision and so forth, the very same things that Paul was fleeing from and which Jesus Christ delivered him from


About John the Baptist, he came to prepare the way for the lamb of God

Philippians 3:5-9 King James Version (KJV)

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

shdemidemi:



If they were truly Holy before they rejected Christ, why did Christ come?

Why was John preahing repentance and Holiness to a Holy people?

MEILYN:
People like Goshen hahahaha

na you get your mouth ooooo

shdemidemi:


It was initially impossible for Gentiles to hear a message of Christ but something happened..a change and a pardigm shift suddenly made it possible for Gentiles to hear a message Jesus wouldn't permit his disciples to share with them before His death.



This church isn't a church that will be judged by Grace and the entire chapter explain what work they had to do else He spit them out of His mouth(conditional).


The question was if they were Holy in good works... I believe we both agree they were not.

Were they Holy in any way atall? if you think they were, explain.




Would there have been a need for righteousness through faith in Christ, if there was righteousness/holiness by the virtue of birth(an offspring of Abraham)?



I particularly like the word 'set apart'...

I am saying the Gentiles are now the set apart people. There is a caveat to become Holy, which is by belief in the gospel, do you understand what I mean?

Obviously this discussion is going no where.

You've given "grafted" your own definition to include every gentile including unbelievers.

That is pretty shocking to me, to say the entire gentile world has been grafted into Christ or set apart and sanctified unto God, which would imply they all now share the life and holiness of the root even as unbelievers.

How you drew that conclusion is far-fetched to me.

I don't think I can help much further than this for now.

ayoku777:


Obviously this discussion is going no where.

You've given "grafted" your own definition to include every gentile including unbelievers.

That is pretty shocking to me, to say the entire gentile world has been grafted into Christ or set apart and sanctified unto God, which would imply they all now share the life and holiness of the root even as unbelievers.

How you drew that conclusion is far-fetched to me.

I don't think I can help much further than this for now.

The branch that got cut off was part of the tree in its entirety with conditions that determine wheather they live or die. Likewise, the one that has been grafted is also attached in its entirety. It takes 'belief' to live and unbelief to die as a branch.


GRAFT----- http://studybible.info/vines/Graff,%20Graft%20(RV)

[ 1,,G1461, enkentrizo ]
denotes to graft" in (en, in, kentrizo, to graft), to insert a slip of a cultivated tree into a wild one. In Romans 11:17, Romans 11:19, Romans 11:23-Romans 11:24, however, the metaphor is used "contrary to nature" (Romans 11:24), of grafting a wild olive branch (the Gentile) into the good olive tree (the Jews); that unbelieving Jews (branches of the good tree) were broken off that Gentiles might be grafted in, afforded no occasion for glorying on the part of the latter. Jew and Gentile alike must enjoy the Divine blessings by faith alone. So Jews who abide not in unbelief shall, as "the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree."



It was nice having the discourse with you bro.

When I call Dispensationalism BS you now understand what I mean
Subscribing to this means DEFENDING 'eternal security' by irrelevancies, illogic and plain obtuseness

Any portion that contradicts this doctrine MUST at all costs be pushed into the Grace-less futiristic age called Millenium.

If you look at this discussion, it started with the assertion that Romans 9-11 are not written for Christians. Why so? Because Romans 11 specifically warns believers of being cut off, something the Dispensationalist rabidly rejects

Earlier on, Revelation which talks of 'not remove their names from the book of life' came up. Initially, the argument was Jesus WILL not remove names, sovereignty bla de bla. When this was proven faulty reasoning, Revelation is quickly discarded as being un-Church age

Hebrews 6 was quickly dismissed as Jewish. I sought to understand how the epistles audience/addressee' race overturns this logic. We were first told that they were not 'fully saved'. Semantics and word play were thrown in; TASTING was aid to imply 'temporal' given the context. Next, I sought to know whether one can receive the Holy Spirit temporarily. OT examples were given. When I insisted on NT, the argument changed. We agreed Holy Spirit baptism is not temporary.

2 Peter is Jewish. But pray let me ask. What gospel did first century Jews received? We agree it was the same as Gentiles. This means regardless of whether the epistle was written for Jews,Gentiles or both, the gospel was the same. Unless you argue that beside Paul, the other Inspired authors propagated a distorted gospel

Matthew example came in of miracle workers who are cast to hell. This attracted two dumb excuses. The first was it referred to pre-resurrection UNJUSTIFIED believers. This is nonsensical because there were FEW miracle workers before resurrection and in any case, we can presume that immediately after resurrection they were automatically justified ( I have a problem with this). SO the many that Jesus spoke of would have to be the pre-resurrection miracle workers who died BEFORE his resurrection.
Next we heard that these were miracle workers during the so called 'Grace-less Dispensation aka Millenium. But if you notice, the many also cast out demons. How do demons possess people when Satan is bound?

And finally come to Acts, when evidence of similarity between Paul and Peter is adduced, it is dismissed since 'revelation was progressive'. Peter preached faith long before Paul and Paul preached works to his death. This from the same person who quoted Peter's 'repent and be baptized' vs paul's 'believe'

The whole theological circus hinges on Eternal Security. Every scripture debunking this MUST be resisted, ignored,doubted and wished away. Dispensationalism BTW is a ruse for watering down scriptures. They know they cant beat you in Greek. So they hive off huge works Holy Spirit painstakingly inspired and push it into a utopia called Millenium

So you have first century Jews receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ which is relevant for Jews living under Moses thousands of years away

John Darby must be happy with his disciples

ayoku777:


Obviously this discussion is going no where.

You've given "grafted" your own definition to include every gentile including unbelievers.

That is pretty shocking to me, to say the entire gentile world has been grafted into Christ or set apart and sanctified unto God, which would imply they all now share the life and holiness of the root even as unbelievers.

How you drew that conclusion is far-fetched to me.

I don't think I can help much further than this for now.

shdemidemi:


Very possible, but that don't make them dead to the spirit, does it?.As one of the spirit you are motivated by things of the spirit just as one in the flesh is with things of the flesh. One in the flesh will hardly feel a sense of guilt while one of spirit will always be pricked by what they know about the Word.

so you say a man of the spirit can do the works of tthe flesh!

And paul says that a person who does those works shall not inherit the kingdom of God, gal 5:21.

I hope you can add 1 + 1 together.

If a justified christian can do works of the flesh, and those who do such work will not inherit eternal life, then it follows that it is possible for one who was justified to willingly greviously sin and thus lose eternal life.


What do you say dear?

Looking back at the OP, we all are guilty as charged, the entire world deserve the wrath of God if God decides to be fair. But by God's mercy He has reserved for Himself a remnant by His sovereign choice.
Romans 9 NLT
10 This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins.[f][size=26pt] 11 But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes; 12 he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) [/size]

How unequivocal can the Word of God be if God permit the heart of men to be opened to the truth of His complete authority to harden who He chooses to harden and permit the heart of who He calls to be receptive to the divine message of His son.

18[b] So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.[/b]

It is never the work of man to save himself nor to de-save self. There is obviously a place for gospel responsiblity for the elect, which is to preach the message to the world.

shdemidemi:


He chose some by Grace--- Free gift of salvation
The Jewish nation botched it but they were never justified. However, God still have them in His plan according to promise. The promise to the churh is better, way better than the promise to the nation of Israel. The bible says they have only stumbled, they will rise as a nation when the fullness of Gentile
Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

So when it comes to God's promise to the elect/the church, it is sealed. But the Gentile world as a whole is getting to a place where Israel was when they crucified their king. Paul was sending a message to the Gentile world and not to the saved christians.

but do you agree that the first people God "foreknew" were the isrealite?

Do you agree that the said foreknowledge didn't suffice to save them all?

Do you agree that only a remnant were?

I hope you do!

If you do then i'll see that foreknowledge doesn't guarantee glorification.

If you do i'll see that not all who were called were chosen.

If we can agree on this then maybe we can move forward.

shdemidemi:


It is not enough to say 'well, he also said ...'. The man clearly mentioned those he was addressing, didn't he?

I also think the most miused word in christendom is the word- 'Faith'.

If you get to this chapter to say christians can be cut off from God, that means Romans 8 which explains the work of the Holy Spirit in us is completely wrong.

Is Paul saying if we boast to the Jews then we lose our salvation as christians.. Is that what the passage is saying?

then it seems you do not understand roman 8, you should reread and read well.

Ubenedictus:


so you say a man of the spirit can do the works of tthe flesh!

And paul says that a person who does those works shall not inherit the kingdom of God, gal 5:21.

I hope you can add 1 + 1 together.

If a justified christian can do works of the flesh, and those who do such work will not inherit eternal life, then it follows that it is possible for one who was justified to willingly greviously sin and thus lose eternal life.


What do you say dear?

There are two sets of people- those of the spirit and those of the flesh.
Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

There is something that occur by being one of the spirit- you start producing those fruits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance

On the flipside you have the Adamic nature/ the flesh and its fruits which are -Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings. These are people who still live in the realm of old Adam, and know nothing of God's saving Grace.


The people who live by the flesh will definitely not see God.

Ubenedictus:


but do you agree that the first people God "foreknew" were the isrealite?

Do you agree that the said foreknowledge didn't suffice to save them all?

Do you agree that only a remnant were?

I hope you do!

If you do then i'll see that foreknowledge doesn't guarantee glorification.

If you do i'll see that not all who were called were chosen.

If we can agree on this then maybe we can move forward.

Foreknowledge of God does not mean it He foreknew you to be saved, does it?

Right from the beginning God knew what will be of Israel- He knew not all Israel are Israel?

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

As for Christians He started from calling us to glorifying us-

King James Bible Rom 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

God never chooses everyone, He has always elected a remnant. Christians happen to be that remnant He has chosen.

shdemidemi:


There are two sets of people- those of the spirit and those of the flesh.
Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

There is something that occur by being one of the spirit- you start producing those fruits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance

On the flipside you have the Adamic nature/ the flesh and its fruits which are -Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings. These are people who still live in the realm of old Adam, and know nothing of God's saving Grace.


The people who live by the flesh will definitely not see God.

and you just told me that people of the spirit may perform works of th flesh, the very same works that paul says christian should abstain from because those who do them will not inherit eternal life right?

vooks:
When I call Dispensationalism BS you now understand what I mean
Subscribing to this means DEFENDING 'eternal security' by irrelevancies, illogic and plain obtuseness

Any portion that contradicts this doctrine MUST at all costs be pushed into the Grace-less futiristic age called Millenium.

If you look at this discussion, it started with the assertion that Romans 9-11 are not written for Christians. Why so? Because Romans 11 specifically warns believers of being cut off, something the Dispensationalist rabidly rejects

Earlier on, Revelation which talks of 'not remove their names from the book of life' came up. Initially, the argument was Jesus WILL not remove names, sovereignty bla de bla. When this was proven faulty reasoning, Revelation is quickly discarded as being un-Church age

Hebrews 6 was quickly dismissed as Jewish. I sought to understand how the epistles audience/addressee' race overturns this logic. We were first told that they were not 'fully saved'. Semantics and word play were thrown in; TASTING was aid to imply 'temporal' given the context. Next, I sought to know whether one can receive the Holy Spirit temporarily. OT examples were given. When I insisted on NT, the argument changed. We agreed Holy Spirit baptism is not temporary.

2 Peter is Jewish. But pray let me ask. What gospel did first century Jews received? We agree it was the same as Gentiles. This means regardless of whether the epistle was written for Jews,Gentiles or both, the gospel was the same. Unless you argue that beside Paul, the other Inspired authors propagated a distorted gospel

Matthew example came in of miracle workers who are cast to hell. This attracted two dumb excuses. The first was it referred to pre-resurrection UNJUSTIFIED believers. This is nonsensical because there were FEW miracle workers before resurrection and in any case, we can presume that immediately after resurrection they were automatically justified ( I have a problem with this). SO the many that Jesus spoke of would have to be the pre-resurrection miracle workers who died BEFORE his resurrection.
Next we heard that these were miracle workers during the so called 'Grace-less Dispensation aka Millenium. But if you notice, the many also cast out demons. How do demons possess people when Satan is bound?

And finally come to Acts, when evidence of similarity between Paul and Peter is adduced, it is dismissed since 'revelation was progressive'. Peter preached faith long before Paul and Paul preached works to his death. This from the same person who quoted Peter's 'repent and be baptized' vs paul's 'believe'

The whole theological circus hinges on Eternal Security. Every scripture debunking this MUST be resisted, ignored,doubted and wished away. Dispensationalism BTW is a ruse for watering down scriptures. They know they cant beat you in Greek. So they hive off huge works Holy Spirit painstakingly inspired and push it into a utopia called Millenium

So you have first century Jews receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ which is relevant for Jews living under Moses thousands of years away

John Darby must be happy with his disciples

this is a funny gospel, i don't think calvin went this far, the basis calvinism was a misunderstanding of original sin and a presumption on predestination, calvin didn't separate scriptures into 7 despensation.

Ubenedictus:


and you just told me that people of the spirit may perform works of th flesh, the very same works that paul says christian should abstain from because those who do them will not inherit eternal life right?

Being of the spirit does not mean you are perfect, rather it means you have a capacity to suppress your flesh and is fruits by the renewing of your mind by God's word.

A christian can make mistakes, he can fall, he can slip but that isn't where he belongs, he would always find himself looking for more of the mind of God in his pursuit of perfection.

This is not Calvin but John Darby and his erstwhile student Scoffield. Scoffield made notes as he studied scriptures and thenhe INSERTED the same in a bible. The product was Scoffield Reference Bible. In it he propagates Dispensationalism.

It is 150 years young. Am extremely cautious of NEW beliefs and teachings that were virtually nonexistent for over 1800years of Christendom. This is no difference from Catholicism and their 'traditions'-progressive revelation

In some quarters, test of orthodoxy includes believing in Scoffield Bible.

Shdemidemi and others would do well to apply their brains to looking outside Scoffield. He did well but he is as fallible as vooks. You know you got it bad if inside EVERY scripture you quote, it has to. Be 'aligned' with Dispensationalism/Scoffield.

I was shocked when I quoted the 2Peter where Peter says Paul......and shdemidemi instinctively quoted Romans a particular verse in Scoffield marginal notes never mind the fact that it was totally irrelevant to the discussion

Dispensationalism is indoctrination and it's conclusions are ones you would NEVER arrive at unless you were specifically looking to scriptures to validate your existing beliefs. And even then, you'd need to suspend logic and adopt the. Strangest hermeneutics under the sun

Ubenedictus:


this is a funny gospel, i don't think calvin went this far, the basis calvinism was a misunderstanding of original sin and a presumption on predestination, calvin didn't separate scriptures into 7 despensation.

Awww...

vooks:
This is not Calvin but John Darby and his erstwhile student Scoffield. Scoffield made notes as he studied scriptures and thenhe INSERTED the same in a bible. The product was Scoffield Reference Bible. In it he propagates Dispensationalism.

It is 150 years young. Am extremely cautious of NEW beliefs and teachings that were virtually nonexistent for over 1800years of Christendom. This is no difference from Catholicism and their 'traditions'-progressive revelation

In some quarters, test of orthodoxy includes believing in Scoffield Bible.

Shdemidemi and others would do well to apply their brains to looking outside Scoffield. He did well but he is as fallible as vooks. You know you got it bad if inside EVERY scripture you quote, it has to. Be 'aligned' with Dispensationalism/Scoffield.

I was shocked when I quoted the 2Peter where Peter says Paul......and shdemidemi instinctively quoted Romans a particular verse in Scoffield marginal notes never mind the fact that it was totally irrelevant to the discussion

Dispensationalism is indoctrination and it's conclusions are ones you would NEVER arrive at unless you were specifically looking to scriptures to validate your existing beliefs. And even then, you'd need to suspend logic and adopt the. Strangest hermeneutics under the sun

oh yes!

I happened to have read someone who used to rely on the scoffield bible, before that i didn't even know it existed. The person claimed it contains fundamental errors but i have never see the said work to judge for myself.

And catholics will reject "progressive relevation" any day anytime. Catholics believe revelation ended with the apostle and they'll certainly find it uncharitable to be classed with any group that denies the authority of scripture.

Ubenedictus:


oh yes!

I happened to have read someone who used to rely on the scoffield bible, before that i didn't even know it existed. The person claimed it contains fundamental errors but i have never see the said work to judge for myself.

And catholics will reject "progressive relevation" any day anytime. Catholics believe revelation ended with the apostle and they'll certainly find it uncharitable to be classed with any group that denies the authority of scripture.

This is the point where the rubber meets the road, I hope you and our very in-house thug called vooks enjoy your ride with the pro and anti catholic rhethorics.

I have never read scoffield's work, so the junk yard dog's aspersions are baseless and unfounded.

vooks:
This is not Calvin but John Darby and his erstwhile student Scoffield. Scoffield made notes as he studied scriptures and thenhe INSERTED the same in a bible. The product was Scoffield Reference Bible. In it he propagates Dispensationalism.

It is 150 years young. Am extremely cautious of NEW beliefs and teachings that were virtually nonexistent for over 1800years of Christendom. This is no difference from Catholicism and their 'traditions'-progressive revelation

In some quarters, test of orthodoxy includes believing in Scoffield Bible.

Shdemidemi and others would do well to apply their brains to looking outside Scoffield. He did well but he is as fallible as vooks. You know you got it bad if inside EVERY scripture you quote, it has to. Be 'aligned' with Dispensationalism/Scoffield.

I was shocked when I quoted the 2Peter where Peter says Paul......and shdemidemi instinctively quoted Romans a particular verse in Scoffield marginal notes never mind the fact that it was totally irrelevant to the discussion

Dispensationalism is indoctrination and it's conclusions are ones you would NEVER arrive at unless you were specifically looking to scriptures to validate your existing beliefs. And even then, you'd need to suspend logic and adopt the. Strangest hermeneutics under the sun

Seriously? Are you cautious of Arminianism then?

shdemidemi:


This is the point where the rubber meets the road, I hope you and our very in-house thug called vooks enjoy your ride with the pro and anti catholic rhethorics.

I have never read scoffield's work, so the junk yard dog's aspersions are baseless and unfounded.

it seems vooks really bullied you.

I have no "junk yard dog's aspersions" for you dear, if you have a good memory you'll remember we had a discussion some time ago, i was highly critical of the way you were throwing passages away because they aren't pauline, and you considered them 2nd class. I still have a very critical view of your theory and i'm sure you've gathered that much. I'm been critical, i am not casting aspersions.