Featured Spiritual Truth and Doctrine

Said the Prophet.

 

Romans 5:8-10, ". . .
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. . . ."

 

So if the op insults people, and he has, then those he insults are too sensitive but if he is insulted well then its an ungodly interaction…. Got it.

As far as the craziness in the op its unclear gibberish. We cannot understand God without doctrine. We also cannot understand God without living out that doctrine. Both are needed.

Anyone who tries to minimize doctrine is suspect. I suspect they do not like biblical teaching. I suspect they are of the progressive left. I suspect they want to depend on experience over doctrine.

 

Reconciliation is salvation. Christ's death is central. It is where God's love toward us is commended. It is the act that propitiates, and redeems, and reconciles. And the work of Redemption was accomplished fully on the cross. "It is finished."

His death is what we show in our ordinances. I see now the wisdom in these rites and the commandment to observe them regularly. Because apostates worm their way in with a show of godliness and deny the fact. But Jesus said, Nope. Don't go there. Here is bread and the cup. Show My death in your assemblies. My Death is the thing.

What is being said in Romans, is this. If His death saved us from wrath, how much more are we secured by His life.

 

That's not what the Apostle said. He said how much more will we be saved. If the death of Christ saves, how much more saved are we by the fact that he lives.

It's like Hebrews 10:28, 29. He that despised Moses' law is worthy of punishment. How much more punishment is he worthy of who despises the Gospel.

But if you were to comment on it as you do on Romans, you would say something like, breaking the law only kills us, but rejecting the Gospel damns us. We're damned either way, and rejecting the Gospel is still a transgression of the Law of Moses. But one makes that damnation more sure.

You are twisting the Romans passage to say things that fit your agenda in the denial of the central truth that Christ died in our place on the Cross.

 

We are saved by the death of Jesus upon that Cross in our stead!

 

Blah, blah, blah. Having you misquotation corrected, you still aren't dealing with the passage.

 

That's not all Paul is saying.

1 Corinthians 1:17-1 Corinthians 2 addresses the Mystery of the Gospel. Thee is more than just the truth that we, as believers, understand the spiritual things of God because it is God enlightening us to those truths.

There was spiritual truth that was not revealed to the prophets that has been revealed to us, and that is what Paul is explaining in detail in 1 Corinthians 2.

According to the Bible, we are saved by the words of the Bible:


Acts 11:13-18 King James Version

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


In this passage we see it is the very Gospel of Jesus Christ that God uses, through Peter, to save Cornelius. In Acts 10 we see Peter preach the Gospel and he (Cornelius) is Baptized with the Holy Ghost as a result. Meaning he (Cornelius) received the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5) just as they (the disciples at Pentecost) did.

I mention this, not because I am in complete disagreement with what you have been saying, but to point out that Revelation has always been progressive, and the spiritual things of God have been progressively revealed to the saints of God. This is, in my view, also true in the Body of Christ in this Age: there are those among the Body who are infantile in their understanding and those who are eating meat.

It is true that all truth we embrace should be founded in Scripture and its Doctrine, but when we look at the progression of Revelation we see understanding given in more detail as time goes by.

The Gospel was revealed to Abraham in veiled form, that Abraham would have a son and that all families of the earth would be blessed through that son. Because the Spirit Paul is speaking about in 1 Corinthians 2 (the Comforter) has revealed to us what was not revealed to men then (eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men that which I have prepared...). we can look at that veiled Gospel and understand it as the Gospel of Christ as Abraham could not:

"Abraham, the Son that you shall have will be the Seed through Whom all families/nations of the earth will be blessed through."

Both are the Gospel, but we know a truth beyond the truth Abraham received. Men can believe Christ died to save intellectually, but that doesn't mean they view it as "spiritual truth."

Again, I think we can see this in the Body today.

This is very true.

But both the "truth" that is in view as well as Who we receive and come to understand it by are two entirely different things for the two groups used as an example above.

I think there is going to be a minimum amount of knowledge that the Comforter is going to bring conviction concerning in the hearts of those yet unbelieving in Christ. The Comforter glorifies Christ in His ministry, and brings conviction concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. "Of sin," Christ said, "because they believe not on me."

So no one, in my understanding of salvation, is going to be saved apart from understanding that Jesus is the One that will save them. Only an understanding of the Gospel is salvific, therefore.

Those are the words by which Cornelius was saved, and are the words by which all of us are saved.


God bless.

 

I have looked at some of these and I don't really see anything more than what most of us do: present threads which we feel support our views.

One primary reason why this is beneficial is that it allows the OP to test his own views against those of others in the Body.

Could you present a quote where he redefines atonement? Because you have presented this without a quote, and while you and several others might be familiar with what it is you object to, the reading public may not be.

I would deny that "need" as well.

Why exactly do I (or anyone) "need" to study the teachings of those you call "universally accepted teachers?"

There is no such things as a "universally accepted teacher," except for the inspired writers of Scripture, the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ.

Why should we not simply study Scripture then deal with the errors of these universally accepted teachers when they are presented by those who teach their teachings instead of the Doctrine of the Bible?

I would agree with that as well.

If more Christians quoted the Doctrine of the Bible instead of the doctrine of men we would see far less bickering and backbiting among the Body.

Now, you might say, "Well how do we know it is Bible Doctrine?" Answer:

I agree with that: the Spirit of God will lead and guide us into all truth.

Not early church fathers (the rally cry of the Catholic), not universally accepted teachers from among men, who are not universally accepted but have their own groups who themselves stand in opposition to other groups following the doctrines of other universally accepted teachers.

If our theology is nothing more than repeating the theology taught by other men then we do not actually have a theology, we have simply borrowed someone else's. And if we then club our brothers and sisters over the head with their theology—what exactly is accomplished?

Because we wouldn't want to rely on what Scripture says, and anyone claiming they view Scripture as the only authority must be a heretic.

?

Again, could you quote where this is done?

How about a quote.

What happened to "Address the Post, not the Poster?"

I mention this because I think we should strive for the dignity that the Word of God demands of its teachers. Everyone dogmatically posting their doctrine has fallen into this category and we will be judged to a higher standard.

Okay, we say some stupid things from time to time (and I mean all of us, lol), but if we disagree with a view or position, how are we going to resolve the conflict?

Yep, you guessed it: only with Scripture. Not with commentary. Not with so-called "universally accepted teachers (and I'd like to know who you think is universally accepted, by the way)."


God bless.

 

No. I will not try to make my case with a holier-than-thou Johnny-come-lately.

Those who know our histories on the board can testify if they wish to the truth of my charges.

So, go stack marbles.

 

Where does Scripture tell us we are to insult people, either explicitly or implicitly?

Where does Scripture tell us we are to insult people, either explicitly or implicitly?


God bless.

 

So who decides what the Church has historically held, and where is the first place we see what it is the Church historically held?

You reject the idea that the Church historically held to a Pre-Tribulation Rapture based on the teachings of Paul. So who settles that dispute among believers?


God bless.

 

First, it depends on which baptism you are referring to.

Secondly, all baptisms spoken of related to the Church are necessary for a sound understanding of Baptism. One cannot understand the Baptism with the Holy Ghost if one doesn't understand baptism of identification and vice versa.

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is core Doctrine from Day One of the Church. Yet there are numerous views as to what it is and the majority of those who actually teach on the subject teach it as an empowering.

All that to say that even what might be considered "Non-Essential" impacts the overall theology one either embraces or teaches.


God bless.