Christ's sinless Head with a sinful body?

[ScottA]

With all respect, one clarification: They weren't "saved" in the same way that we are "saved".

Hebrews 11:40
39And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive [aa]what was promised, 40because God had [ab]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

They were "righteous" by faith, but this did not constitute the "perfection" that came through the blood of Christ.

Hebrews 12:23
23to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood...

Hebrews 10:11-14
11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Thank you for your input.

You speak of the first who would be last, for those who received the promise did not receive it in life as was made available to the gentiles, but only received it in death. These are "the dead in Christ."

 

[GracePeace]

Thank you for your input.

You speak of the first who would be last, for those who received the promise did not receive it in life as was made available to the gentiles, but only received it in death. These are "the dead in Christ."

Again, with all respect: The text says those Jews died in faith without having received what was promised, and, without us (the audience is "Hebrew"), they would not be made perfect.

What is the distinction between "us" and "them"? Not Jew and Gentile, but pre-New Covenant blood of Christ, which perfects, and post-New Covenant blood of Christ, which "perfects".

 

[ScottA]

Again, with all respect: The text says those Jews died in faith without having received what was promised, and, without us (the audience is "Hebrew"), they would not be made perfect.

What is the distinction between "us" and "them"? Not Jew and Gentile, but pre-New Covenant blood of Christ, which perfects, and post-New Covenant blood of Christ, which "perfects".

Why do you presume the need to correct me (again) when I have named all who are in Christ, both the dead and the living?

If you wish to elaborate or clarify points you see as important--please do. But when you begin "with all respect" it would seem you are addressing error as if I left some out, which I did not.

 

[GracePeace]

Why do you presume the need to correct me (again) when I have named all who are in Christ, both the dead and the living?

If you wish to elaborate or clarify points you see as important--please do. But when you begin "with all respect" it would seem you are addressing error as if I left some out, which I did not.

You had said that the ancients, before Christ, were "saved", like we are, because they believed in promises--I just wanted to clarify that they were not "saved" like we are. They lacked. We do not lack what they lacked. That's all. They did not have the blood of Christ, nor could they have partaken in the benefits of the New Covenant. Their sins were not removed by the blood of animals. They were righteous but not perfected. They died without receiving. We receive.

Also, you seemed to say the difference was "before, only Jews had it, now, Gentiles do"--but that was not the case.

I do not know why you are objecting to my corrections.
Loving truth means loving correction, because you prefer to hold to truth.

 

[GracePeace]

Why do you presume the need to correct me (again) when I have named all who are in Christ, both the dead and the living?

If you wish to elaborate or clarify points you see as important--please do. But when you begin "with all respect" it would seem you are addressing error as if I left some out, which I did not.

You had said that the ancients, before Christ, were "saved", like we are, because they believed in promises--I just wanted to clarify that they were not "saved" like we are. They lacked. We do not lack what they lacked. That's all. They did not have the blood of Christ, nor could they have partaken in the benefits of the New Covenant. Their sins were not removed by the blood of animals. They were righteous but not perfected. They died without receiving. We receive.

How could they have believed unto salvation when Paul says the Gospel was not even available to them?

Romans 16
25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now has been disclosed, and through the Scriptures of the prophets, in accordance with the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Now, maybe they could have believed in a partial "Gospel"--eg, Abraham was told his seed (which we later see refers to Christ) would bless all on earth--but the actual Gospel, Christ's death and resurrection, wasn't even understood by His very own Apostles !
Imagine if people understood--but it says "had the rulers of this world understood He was the Lord of glory they wouldn't have crucified Him"--and yet it is that belief in the crucified and risen Messiah that is righteousness resulting in justification (Ro 5:1, etc, etc).

 

[ScottA]

You had said that the ancients, before Christ, were "saved", like we are, because they believed in promises--I just wanted to clarify that they were not "saved" like we are. They lacked. We do not lack what they lacked. That's all. They did not have the blood of Christ, nor could they have partaken in the benefits of the New Covenant. Their sins were not removed by the blood of animals. They were righteous but not perfected. They died without receiving. We receive.

Also, you seemed to say the difference was "before, only Jews had it, now, Gentiles do"--but that was not the case.

I do not know why you are objecting to my corrections.
Loving truth means loving correction, because you prefer to hold to truth.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

What God has joined together in Christ (those before salvation came who believed in the promise of Messiah, and those after) I have rightly also joined--which is to say both those before and those after "were" crucified with Christ, and yes, thereby and therefore saved in the one act of Christ.

No correction needed.

 

[GracePeace]

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

What God has joined together in Christ (those before salvation came who believed in the promise of Messiah, and those after) I have rightly also joined--which is to say both those before and those after "were" crucified with Christ, and yes, thereby and therefore saved in the one act of Christ.

No correction needed.

Well, I stand by the Scripture: they lacked.

What did they lack, and why did they obtain it AFTER the New Covenant was inaugurated?

 

[ScottA]

How could they have believed unto salvation when Paul says the Gospel was not even available to them?

Romans 16
25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now has been disclosed, and through the Scriptures of the prophets, in accordance with the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Now, maybe they could have believed in a partial "Gospel"--eg, Abraham was told his seed (which we later see refers to Christ) would bless all on earth--but the actual Gospel, Christ's death and resurrection, wasn't even understood by His very own Apostles !
Imagine if people understood--but it says "had the rulers of this world understood He was the Lord of glory they wouldn't have crucified Him"--and yet it is that belief in the crucified and risen Messiah that is righteousness resulting in justification (Ro 5:1, etc, etc).

Unlike the times and the timeline kept by men and this world, the things of God (including salvation) are "the same yesterday, today, and forever."

In other words, all who are "in Christ" before and after the cross, "were" crucified with Him, and therefore saved.

 

[GracePeace]

Unlike the times and the timeline kept by men and this world, the things of God (including salvation) are "the same yesterday, today, and forever."

In other words, all who are "in Christ" before and after the cross, "were" crucified with Him, and therefore saved.

What did those men die in faith without having obtained, then (Hebrews 11:40)--and why did they obtain it together with those who partook in the New Covenant?

 

[ScottA]

Well, I stand by the Scripture: they lacked.

What did they lack, and why did they obtain it AFTER the New Covenant was inaugurated?

It is not that they alone "lacked", but what all lacked-- which is Christ and salvation that was attained for all who believe (whether in His coming before or after) at the cross.

 

[GracePeace]

It is not that they alone "lacked", but what all lacked-- which is Christ and salvation that was attained for all who believe (whether in His coming before or after) at the cross.

Right, so they lacked the New Covenant benefits, meaning they were not partakers, meaning they were not "saved as we are saved".

That's precisely what I had said before.

 

[ScottA]

Right, so they lacked the New Covenant benefits, meaning they were not partakers, meaning they were not "saved as we are saved".

That's precisely what I had said before.

But other than some need for you to attempt to catch me in some error or for one-up-man-ship, what is your point?--because that was not what was being discussed.

I was answering the question of, "How can anyone be saved without hearing Jesus' gospel?"...and I gave the correct answer--that all are saved "in Christ" by His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[GracePeace]

But other than some need for you to attempt to catch me in some error or for one-up-man-ship, what is your point?--because that was not what was being discussed.

I was answering the question of, "How can anyone be saved without hearing Jesus' gospel?"...and I gave the correct answer--that all are saved "in Christ" by His sacrifice on the cross.

Sir, this is a Bible discussion forum--the fact that you are not grateful for being corrected, so that error does not spread, and are, instead, insulted that someone inserted a small correction, speaks volumes about how you are interacting in all your interactions here.

 

[ScottA]

Sir, this is a Bible discussion forum--the fact that you are not grateful for being corrected, so that error does not spread, and are, instead, insulted that someone inserted a small correction, speaks volumes about how you are interacting in all your interactions here.

No, but your off topic meddling and your need to assume an upper hand where you have none, speaks of you rather than me. God knows.

 

[GracePeace]

God knows.

Yup..

 

[Ghada]

Sorry in advance for being harsh, but you are in need of correction.

You are stumbling over the timing...which does not actually exist, and yet it has become your reasoning and your gospel. Which is to say, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth for not "rightly dividing the word of truth."

In other words, you know that we who are Christ's "were" crucified with Him, meaning that there is actually (biblically) no notation of time regarding being "in Christ" and sinless. Thus, it is written: "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation"--again without any notation of time other than "now." And yet you preach that many of those who come to believe in Christ and answering His knock on the door continue to sin as if they would have had to be born, lived, and died with Him during His time in order to be saved "with" Him as His body, even though most were not even born then, but nonetheless "were" saved in spite of your not reconciling the times, which you do by leaning on your own understanding.

And what of those who lived and died before salvation came, are their sins counted against them because they too continued to sin in the flesh until death? You condemn them--but God has not. They are "the dead in Christ" who died in their sin and were not saved until "in Christ" as they too "were" crucified with Christ--without regard to the times according to the keeping of it by men, just as you are now doing.

Even so, against what you preach, Christ was actually crucified before the times of men even began, and all who are His with Him. Meaning that the timing by which you base your accusations, is of no bearing on one's salvation. But you are a prisoner of time and therefore preach a false gospel for lack of understanding. Fortunately, God who saves is not a prisoner of time and does not keep it as you do.

But now you have been told. Stop preaching what you do not understand. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

God is timeless not time. God can see all time at any time. But once He made the worlds, He made time and Himself walking in time without changing time.

Your timelessness of time, where God does the same thing over and over again through time is metaphysical philosophy, not Bible truth.

The Lamb of God died once on the cross, not many many times throughout time in order to save everyone at the time.

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Even as it is given unto men once to die and then be judged by our works, so it was given Jesus once to die and then to be risen from the dead.

The Bible always has a verse to debunk theory and philosophy of men. I have found that is found most with Christians that want to indoctrinate themselves into heaven while sinning. Some even go so far as you to preach everyman onto the new earth dwelling with God.

When I first knew I needed to repent of sinning to come to Jesus, I tried the mental gymnastics of having every soul saved in the end. I figured if Hitler to be resurrected unto life, then certainly so could I.

But that is not only not Bible, but is flawed ignorance of God's judgement: human moral relevance does not make any sinning trespasser judged worthy by the Father to walk with His Son in white forever.

 

[Ghada]

It's a good point, actually.

You will undoubtedly hear the retort, "Therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus! Romans 8:1!"

Unfortunately, virtually no one is serious in their Bible reading. An elementary school student could look at the word "therefore", and understand that what ever came before is going to be important in understanding this.

Tell me about it.

What came before?
He described life under the rule of Sin, which was a slave master (Ro 6:14), when he was "in the flesh" and "under Law", and how he cried out for a deliverer, and found this in the person of Christ. THEREFORE, those who are walking after the Spirit, who are remaining in Christ, are not condemned, because they are no longer slaves of sin, but fulfilling the Law's righteous requirements (Ro 8:4)!

Well amen and amen! A Christian that takes God's words seriously! Many think He is only a Spirit that can't exactly communicate with flesh and blood. They act like He's some big puffy white cloud on high, and His words are like smoke signals, that a man can read only in general, so that we must fill in the specifics for themselves.

It's called agreeing with the Bible in general, but not always in fact.

 

[Ghada]

And what about Christians who do not walk after the Spirit, but who sin by doing things they do not believe are correct?
They are "condemned" (Ro 14:23).
"Condemned" is the opposite of "justified".

There is one reason alone for the Christians sinners that try to make Romans 7 God's endorsement of double hearted sinning. And so they also teach it for life. It's solely from Christians sinning for life and saying they are justified with Christ in it.

They are not remotely interested in not sinning, and so go about making a myriad of bloated arguments on why it's not necessary to cease sinning in the kingdom of Christ, in order to obtain His eternal salvation at the end. They declare it impossible for one reason alone: because they have not repented of their sinning themselves and so declare it impossible for themselves and any other Christian on earth.

But any repented saint who knows Jesus within and without, therefore also knows by His faith that Romans 7 cannot possibly have God commanding all men everywhere to repent, and then turn and justify anyone that only repents in part

 

[Ghada]

Now, how can there be both "no condemnation", but, also, "condemnation"?

While that sounds impossible to normal reason, in the doctrinal world of imaginative sinners, it's quite normal.

While their continued sinning is condemned and not justified, they themselves are not condemned but still justified by their own faith alone. They [preach the blood of the Lamb the same as of bulls and goats. The blood they preach only covers their continued sinning, and does not wash it all away. They preach being saved from condemnation for sinning, nor saved from sinning.

Some even preach a great blind Father above, who can't see their sinning covered by their own doctrinal blood. Their doctrinal father can't see through all the white puffy clouds on high, to be able to see exactly what they are doing on earth, which any person on earth can see.

They literally preach an idol on high, that has eyes that cannot see. And wonderfully the Bible says such idol makers are like the idols they make. They refuse to see their sinning condemning themselves, and so they make an idol for themselves than can't see it either.

I call it indoctrinating oneself into their own idol heaven. It's their doctrine alone that saves and justifies them. That's why they must say their works have nothing to do with it, but only the faith proceeding from their own minds and mouths.

It seems the answer is this: there is no condemnation for those who abide in Him, but they are not abiding in Christ when they are not acting in faith.

Well, once again brother, they would say this is far too simplistic. They teach themselves to be abiding in Christ, while sinning against Christ, because it's only their old sinful bodies sinning, not their sweet loving souls trapped within.

I call it their soul separation theology. Their souls are now transported and beamed up into heaven, while their dastardly old bodies remain on earth doing what dastardly old bodies do: Sin with the devil against God in heaven, which includes themselves now seated with Him.

They preach that the old man of sin is their physical body, and not the life they live, so that their body continues sinning against God and themselves.

The Bible say we can sin against our own souls and life, but they say their bodies sin against their souls, and their souls have nothing to do with the life, that their bodies still live.

I can teach their stuff better than they do, because I am a careful student not just of the Bible, but also of errors with the Bible. They just don't appreciate the way I teach their own words back to them, because I leave out all their theological flowers and smoke.

 

[Ghada]

"So, now, little children, remain in Him, so that when He appears
we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at his coming." 1 Jn 2:28
So, it seems like actions must be in faith. Just the same as James teaches.

And so we see how it all comes down to simple faith in the exact words of God in the Bible. James 2 says faith without works is dead and cannot save nor justify any man without works of faith, and they say no, it just can't be so.

Christians sinners are still sinners at heart, and so unbelief in all words of the Bible as being God's, is just their continuing MO.

It's really quite interesting sometimes to observe the multitudes of hoops they jump through, just to make God say something else, than what His plain words say.