What is the purpose of Grace?

[shepherdsword]

This isn't just about you.

I've responded in general to my understanding of how several have spoken of grace.

You yourself wrote, "The grace of God empowers us . . ." Perhaps if you think I've misunderstood you (power of grace), perhaps you could say it in different words so I can better understand.

Or you can do as you've done, and become accusatory of my twisting your words, and lying to you.

Much love!

You did twist my words. I said God's grace empowers us and you tried to make it sound as if I was referring to some new age "grace force". However, think what you wish. I am not going to play paddy cake with you. Discussions with you always end up in some adolescent game of immature ping pong. I am not interesting in debate only to win the argument.

Much love!

 

[Peter1]

Grace is a free unearned gift from God that brings salvation to the believer

 

[Episkopos]

It remains noteworthy to me, that as there are essentially 2 groups posting on either side of this thread, there are two distinct spirits on display in each set of posts. Have you noticed that?

Much love!

Yes! There are the carnal greasy grace lot, that twists every verse to serve the self, that you champion. And there are the real truth seekers that understand that twisting the scriptures to suit one's taste is abhorrent and lawless.

 

[Episkopos]

Grace is a free unearned gift from God that brings salvation to the believer

Do you "bible know" that or can you testify to the resurrection life and power of Christ?

BTW welcome to the forum! :) I spent a number of years in "Winterpeg" ;)

 

[Episkopos]

I ask the greasy grace lot here. Do you cite scripture to your own advantage....or to your own hurt? What is your motive...truth or self?

 

[Wick Stick]

I'd like to suggest to you that Adam was more than representing humanity, that when God created Adam, He created all who would ever live in Adam. That God created Humanity as a single thing.

We tend to think of humanity as being a collection of individuals who self-replicate, producing more individuals.

The Bible tells us, for instance, that Levi paid tithes to Melchesidek "being in the loins of Abraham". Not that Levi would be someone born in some future time, but that Levi was already in Abraham, and humanity is not a collection of individuals, but a single thing, unfolding over the centuries.

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Also allegory? Or reality?

Much love!

I think the idea of groups being considered corporately is correct.

But I think you haven't enough groups. There is the elect, Abraham's children. There are those outside the elect group. And then there are those who have been removed from the elect due to offense - the sons of Esau.

 

[Wick Stick]

Read the entire chapter of Heb 7 and ask yourself this question....did Jesus also pay tithes in Abraham?

Is Melchizedek a theophany? If so, it doesn't make much sense to pay tithes to... yourself.

 

[marks]

I think the idea of groups being considered corporately is correct.

But I think you haven't enough groups. There is the elect, Abraham's children. There are those outside the elect group. And then there are those who have been removed from the elect due to offense - the sons of Esau.

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

I agree, there are various groups we can consider. The children of promise and the children of works, Isaac and Ishmael. The chosen and the nations. For the purposes I was thinking, those in Adam, and those in Christ.

Much love!

 

[Wick Stick]

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

There was a prophecy that each son would become a nation and that the older would serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I don't know that I'd call that a rejection... it isn't a positive. Maybe you're thinking of something else?

I agree, there are various groups we can consider. The children of promise and the children of works, Isaac and Ishmael. The chosen and the nations. For the purposes I was thinking, those in Adam, and those in Christ.

Your earlier question of whether Jesus was "in Adam" is a head-scratcher. I immediately want to answer in the negative, but... the phrase "Son of Man" is a fly in the ointment. How would you answer the question?

 

[shepherdsword]

Wasn't Esau rejected before being born, having not done anything neither good nor bad?

Sure he was, God knew by his foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright and mixed up his bloodline. He was therefor rejected.

 

[ProDeo]

It remains noteworthy to me, that as there are essentially 2 groups posting on either side of this thread, there are two distinct spirits on display in each set of posts. Have you noticed that?

Much love!

Sure.

And it is time to take a break.

 

[marks]

There was a prophecy that each son would become a nation and that the older would serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

I don't know that I'd call that a rejection... it isn't a positive. Maybe you're thinking of something else?

Malachi, and quoted by Paul,

Malachi 1:2-3 KJV
2) I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3) And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God's love for Jacob is a word showing God's intention for them, just as "Esau I have I hated" signified God's intent for Esau (Edom), "they will build, but I will throw down."

Your earlier question of whether Jesus was "in Adam" is a head-scratcher. I immediately want to answer in the negative, but... the phrase "Son of Man" is a fly in the ointment. How would you answer the question?

I say that no, Jesus was not "in Adam", as, all in Adam die, and Christ did not die. I'd like to give some thought concerning how Jesus' title "Son of Man" relates before replying to that part.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Sure he was, God knew by his foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright and mixed up his bloodline. He was therefor rejected.

Romans 9:10-13 KJV
10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This states that God's choice was not based on what these children would go on to do.

Have you considered the possibility that Esau might not have rejected his birthright were God's election on him?

Much love!