Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

If you're talking about this:

I responded to this.  I pointed out your statement that the OT men of faith did not personally believe in Christ was wrong.  I cited Hebrews 11. But which did not say what you have wanted it to say in relation to the issue.

 

[Samie]

2 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Also remember that Abraham is the father of all who believe.  This is Galatians 3.  Also in Galatians 3 is the explanation that the promises to Abraham are to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ; and if you believe in Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.  This means that all , at any time, who have received the Gospel promises, have done so by believing in Christ.  This is Paul's whole argument in Galatians 3.  (he makes the same argument in Romans)

Rehash, rehash, and more rehash of what has been.

Answer the issue in the post referenced.  You simply evade by rehashing what has been rehashed.

[Samie]

Here's the whole post:

Quote

 

I simply ask you a question: Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel?  I want to know your answer.  This is in relation with your belief that a person has to believe in Christ first before he can be empowered to overcome evil with good.

According to you, believing in Christ is a must before one can overcome, but Scriptures are replete with OT characters who were overcomers but have no personal knowledge of Christ.  You counter this fact by saying that "people may not know they are believing in Christ, but they are".  Yet this seems to be not in accord with what Paul meant when he asked: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?".  Looks like believing in Christ occurs after one has heard about Him.  And since the OT men of faith, did not personally hear about Christ, then they could have not personally believed in Christ, yet they were overcomers.

 

You may start with the first paragraph.

[pnattmbtc]

14 minutes ago, Samie said:

Here's the whole post:

You may start with the first paragraph.

I responded to this.  I'll fetch it and repost it for you.

What you are calling rehash is the Gospel straight from Paul.  Why are you saying something different than Paul?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Yes, you are not putting words into my mouth.

I simply ask you a question: Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel?  I want to know your answer.  This is in relation with your belief that a person has to believe in Christ first before he can be empowered to overcome evil with good.

 

 

 

Where did I say this?  I've repeatedly asked you to quote something I've said. Please do so.

Regarding your question, it depends upon what you mean when you say God set Paul apart for the preaching of the gospel.  I would say in a general sense God has set everyone apart for the preaching of the Gospel, and whether or not this applies to a particular person depends upon how he chooses to respond to Christ.

 

Quote

 

According to you, believing in Christ is a must before one can overcome, but Scriptures are replete with OT characters who were overcomers but have no personal knowledge of Christ. 

 

 

 

 

This is directly contrary to Scripture, tons and tons of Scripture.  You've completely misunderstood what's happening in Scripture if you think any overcome, any whatsoever, did so with no person knowledge of Christ.

Quote

You counter this fact by saying that "people may not know they are believing in Christ, but they are".  Yet this seems to be not in accord with what Paul meant when he asked: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?".  Looks like believing in Christ occurs after one has heard about Him.  And since the OT men of faith, did not personally hear about Christ, then they could have not personally believed in Christ, yet they were overcomers.

No one has overcome apart from Christ.  This isn't possible.

[Samie]

Your answers above did not address the issues in the post referenced.  Thanks anyway.

[pnattmbtc]

3 minutes ago, Samie said:

Your answers above did not address the issues in the post referenced.  Thanks anyway.

Sure they did.  I posted what you wrote, and then responded.  If you disagree with something I wrote, you should quote it and explain why, but to simply respond as you have here is puerile.

[Samie]

54 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Sure they did.  I posted what you wrote, and then responded.  If you disagree with something I wrote, you should quote it and explain why, but to simply respond as you have here is puerile.

I guess it is more childish if one answers a question answerable by Yes or No or I don't know, with one that caters to the question WHO.

My question:

Quote

Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel? 

Your reply:

Quote

Regarding your question, it depends upon what you mean when you say God set Paul apart for the preaching of the gospel.  I would say in a general sense God has set everyone apart for the preaching of the Gospel, and whether or not this applies to a particular person depends upon how he chooses to respond to Christ.

Hope you now understand why I said your response did not cater to what I asked. Is my question that difficult for you to answer you seem to have wanted it not asked as much as possible?

[pnattmbtc]

1 minute ago, Samie said:

I guess it is more childish if one answers a question answerable by Yes or No or I don't know, with one that caters to the question WHO.

My question:

Your reply:

Hope you now understand why I said your response did not cater to what I asked. Is my question that difficult for you to answer you seem to have wanted it not asked as much as possible?

I answered your whole post point by point.  You could at least respond to the other points made to your post, and if there is some portion of it that you didn't like the response to, ask for clarification, but there's no need to not respond to an entire post because you didn't care for one portion of the response.

Please respond to the other points made to your post.

Regarding your question, I'll try again.  I believe that God set Paul apart to preach the Gospel in the same way that he set me apart to preach the Gospel, contingent upon Paul's response, and mine, with the caveat that Paul lived in a different time, had different gifts and experiences, so a positive response on his part could lead to vastly different results than a positive response on my part.

To answer the question yes or not, I would say yes, Paul was set apart to preach the gospel before he believed (the same as for you or I, or anyone else).

[Samie]

11 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

. . .

To answer the question yes or not, I would say yes, Paul was set apart to preach the gospel before he believed (the same as for you or I, or anyone else).

A corporate manager delegates a responsibility to one he knows is capable of doing the job.  The given responsibility is commensurate with the person's ability. God knows Paul is capable of the preaching job and set him apart for it. And this He did BEFORE Paul personally believed in Christ on the way to Damascus.

So with our overcoming. Because of Christ, we already were made capable of overcoming BEFORE we even heard of and believed in Him.  The OT men of faith overcame because of Christ, but they were not aware of this fact.

[Wingnut]

The Church of God  (COG) used to teach the following on predestination as taught in the NT.

 

Examine all times the word "predestinate/d" (P..n) is used in the NT and it always is speaking about a firstfruits group.  For instance this scripture

Romans 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

If there are firstborn, there must be others born later.

P..n refers to God calling a small group of leaders to rule with Christ.  We believed this was during the 7M, and on earth.

This group was called before others.  They were so to speak under probation, undergoing a job interview.  That job was to rule the Gentile and Israelite nations on earth in the 7M and beyond.

Thus we believed that God was not calling most folks now.  They were spiritually dead, in darkness.  They would live, die and be raised again in the 8M when Satan was no longer around to deceive  them.  Then, and only then would they, having eyes wide open, and Christ ruling from Jerusalem, make a choice or not to follow Christ.

And most/all scriptures on predestination do seem to refer to an elite few called ahead of time.

P..n does not refer to the future being predicted or not.  It refers to God deciding to call some before the main group, just as a fig tree produces firstfruits before the main batch later.  

Below are some other scriptures on predestination. 

 

 

Romans 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.

 

Ephesians 1:5

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

 

Ephesians 1:11

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:  12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

 

[Wingnut]

The word "predestination" goes together with the word "elect". This word means in Gk "chosen ones".

If everyone is called now, then why speak of "chosen ones".

And choosing is done by God "calling".  And to be called, God first has to quicken or open their eyes.

Until God opens their eyes, they are concluded in unbelief.

Romans 11:32

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

[Samie]

All - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - were predestinated, all were chosen. All were written in the BOL. All because of Christ and Him Crucified. But not all will ultimately make it to heaven, because only overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.  What amazing love of our God of justice and mercy.

[Wingnut]

13 hours ago, Samie said:

Samie

Here is an analogy for you.

 

 

You are going to throw a party, an extended party, perhaps a week long one, perhaps an eternal one.

Would you invite your friends? Yes. These are people you know and trust, people you enjoy being with from past experience.  People you know who subscribe to the same values as you, who get along with others, who will not get disorderly and trash your place. Of course.

Or would you open it to all, even those you have no relationship with you? No.  People who let their consciences be their guides.  Your kind of overcomers? Yes.

Don't think about it too much to find the PC answer, but give the answer which you ACTUALLY would do.

Now what?

So how do atheists have a relationship with God?

[Wingnut]

13 hours ago, Samie said:

Of course we are in agreement with my type of overcomer, since you have set the bar so low that everyone is an overcomer.

Then you did not yet fully understand me in this area. The fact that many will be blotted out from the BOL is proof enough that many are non-overcomers.

Name one person on earth today whom you would not call an overcomer, and I will point out that he has overcome something

That’s where we part ways as far as overcoming is concerned. The full definition of an overcomer is one whose name Christ will not blot out from the BOL.

This is a circular definition of non-overcomer.  We can't know now because there are no absolutes but we will just have to see who makes it.

Christ, who we call Lord, gave 1050 NT commands.  You say they are optional.  Let's see what Christ thinks of those who turn His commands into "Meh".

[Wingnut]

13 hours ago, Samie said:

No. I believe we are held accountable for what we know, not with what we don't know.

And you know what Christ commands since you are a Christian.  I think its just for others that you say "Meh".

For instance would YOU consider sabbath keeping optional for YOU?

[Wingnut]

13 hours ago, Samie said:

For example, if someone tells you that you need to believe in Christ so that you will not perish but have eternal life (this is John 3:16).  Now that you have been told this, are you accountable if you choose not to believe in Christ?

Yes, provided the person fully understands it.  I may have explained everything about Newton’s first law of motion to my 5 year old grandchild, but I would be a fool expecting him to fully understand me.

There is such a thing as being willingly ignorant.  We ignore truths which do not suit us, such as things which demand a lifestyle change.  For instance, we may know that Christ commands 1050 things.  But we may choose wilful ignorance and say these are optional.  God has never spoken of two paths to salvation, one for the ignorant, one for the believer.  The Bible from Gen to Rev lists no ignorant who are among the faithful/(overcomer to you).

 

2 Peter 3:5

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

[Wingnut]

12 hours ago, Samie said:

14 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Putting it this way, it almost sounds like preaching the Gospel puts an extra stumbling block in the path to eternal life since now Christians have something to feel guilty about, viz the state of their belief/faith.

No, there's no extra stumbling block.  I believe God will only allow certain truths to be made known to a person at specific points in time when the truth would best benefit the man. He is the best Father, isn't He? This is called growing up in Christ.  One example is the Ethiopian eunuch.

I agree with you here Samie.  But God never leaves them in complete ignorance of Him, and then saves them.  Not one ignoramus made it to heaven.  God removes the blindness, calls them, exposes them to truth and then they choose.  No record of any never having known Him making it to heaven.  That is a Samie fabrication.  And a page 638/563 fabrication.  It goes against the whole theme of the Bible.

[Wingnut]

12 hours ago, Samie said:

 

 

12 hours ago, Samie said:

If you're talking about this:

I responded to this.  I pointed out your statement that the OT men of faith did not personally believe in Christ was wrong.  I cited Hebrews 11. But which did not say what you have wanted it to say in relation to the issue.

OT and NT faithful follow very much the same pattern of knowing the God of the Bible, choosing Him, Having faith in Him, Obeying Him.

No record of folks whisked into the kingdom who were atheists or non-believers in Him

[Wingnut]

12 hours ago, Samie said:

Rehash, rehash, and more rehash of what has been.

Answer the issue in the post referenced.  You simply evade by rehashing what has been rehashed.

This was in response to pantbmtc saying"Also remember that Abraham is the father of all who believe.  This is Galatians 3.  Also in Galatians 3 is the explanation that the promises to Abraham are to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ; and if you believe in Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.  This means that all , at any time, who have received the Gospel promises, have done so by believing in Christ.  This is Paul's whole argument in Galatians 3.  (he makes the same argument in Romans)"

It needs rehashing, since it is the core of the Gospel.  How can one let in unbelievers as you do? Goes against all God is trying to tell us, that we MUST believe and have faith in Him to be saved.  Yet you say "rehash" or "Meh".

 

[Wingnut]

12 hours ago, Samie said:

Quote

 

I simply ask you a question: Did Paul believe in Christ first BEFORE God set him apart for the preaching of the gospel?  I want to know your answer.  This is in relation with your belief that a person has to believe in Christ first before he can be empowered to overcome evil with good.

According to you, believing in Christ is a must before one can overcome, but Scriptures are replete with OT characters who were overcomers but have no personal knowledge of Christ.  You counter this fact by saying that "people may not know they are believing in Christ, but they are".  Yet this seems to be not in accord with what Paul meant when he asked: "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?".  Looks like believing in Christ occurs after one has heard about Him.  And since the OT men of faith, did not personally hear about Christ, then they could have not personally believed in Christ, yet they were overcomers.

 

You may start with the first paragraph.

God revealed ENOUGH truth to each person in say the faith chapter for them to respond appropriately to Him.

He (Christ) was the God of the OT, the Messenger of the Father in heaven.  So every one of the OT faithful were responding to Christ.

You claim they were responding to the Father.  You are wrong, but it makes no difference. They were responding to the Godhead.

Believing in Christ occurs before (when He draws/calls)/during and after.  But it is never excluded like you Samie claim.  There can be no saving overcoming without Christ.  Sure you can overcome gluttony or whatever, but it scores no heavenly points when you overcome on your own steam without God.  And atheists are without God.  As is every religion without Christ.  Its a Satanic forgery, devised to lure folks to their deaths.  And you Samie, are a pusher of salvation without Christ. 

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Samie said:

All - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - were predestinated, all were chosen. All were written in the BOL. All because of Christ and Him Crucified. But not all will ultimately make it to heaven, because only overcomers will not be blotted out from the BOL.  What amazing love of our God of justice and mercy.

But if I were to come to you Pure Gospel Preacher Samie and say "Please tell me what I must do to be saved?" you would tell me to "overcome".  And I would beg and plead with you to be more specific (since its my eternal life at stake) and you would be just as evasive with me as you have been for the last 50 posts.

I would turn to pnattmbtc for help and his message would be crystal clear - the traditional Gospel message.

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

So how do atheists have a relationship with God?

They respond negatively to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  They don't overcome evil with good. If they die in that condition, I believe their names will be blotted out from the BOL.

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

This is a circular definition of non-overcomer.  We can't know now because there are no absolutes but we will just have to see who makes it.

Christ, who we call Lord, gave 1050 NT commands.  You say they are optional.  Let's see what Christ thinks of those who turn His commands into "Meh".

They are not optional.  They are mandatory to those to whom they are all revealed. A person given 1000 of the 1050 will be accountable for the 1000 written in his heart and mind but he will not be held accountable for the 50 not yet written in him.

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

And you know what Christ commands since you are a Christian.  I think its just for others that you say "Meh".

For instance would YOU consider sabbath keeping optional for YOU?

No. I will be held accountable for what was written in me, and among them is Sabbath-keeping. I enjoy the Sabbaths because I know God wrote that in me for my own best interest.  As to why He wrote it in me and not in some others is not for me to delve into.  He knows what is best for each of His children at any point in their spiritual growth in the Body of Christ.