THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO NOT TRUST IN OSAS.

[fzappa13]

For salvation, yes.
But her works will be tried by fire by the LORD.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

While disagreeing with the premise of this post I would also note that you allude to an aspect of our fate that few have the courage to touch upon ... that being the baptism of fire. As you come to understand that subject better it can't help but leave you a little less comfortable about what lay ahead.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

While disagreeing with the premise of this post I would also note that you allude to an aspect of our fate that few have the courage to touch upon ... that being the baptism of fire. As you come to understand that subject better it can't help but leave you a little less comfortable about what lay ahead.

The LORD Jesus baptizing some with fire is not the same as him trying some's works by fire.

 

[fzappa13]

The LORD Jesus baptizing some with fire is not the same as him trying some's works by fire.

We evidently disagree.

1 Cor 3: 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.



Luke 12: 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!


Mat 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.


2Pet 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

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:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;




Zec 13: 7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.



Dan 3:22 Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

24 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

 

[Right Divider]

We evidently disagree.

1 Cor 3: 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Once again, it is you what does not understand.

 

[fzappa13]

Once again, it is you what does not understand.

Understand what, king of the hasty answer?

 

[Right Divider]

Understand what, king of the hasty answer?

Your 1 Cor 3 passage is NOT a warning about "losing salvation", but about how WORKS are tested by fire. That passage clearly shows that EVEN though a man's works get burned, he is still saved.

In our present day (since God revealed it to Paul), salvation is secure in Christ.

This is according to the riches of God's grace.

P.S. Don't mistake brief for hasty.

 

[fzappa13]

Your 1 Cor 3 passage is NOT a warning about "losing salvation", but about how WORKS are tested by fire. That passage clearly shows that EVEN though a man's works get burned, he is still saved.

Well, I'm not in any way surprised that you focused on the one passage you thought applicable to you while ignoring the rest as irrelevant (being a self professed Pauline). Unfortunate, but not unanticipated. That's why I included it. To start with, this fire tries our works. What do you make of that?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I'm not in any way surprised that you focused on the one passage you thought applicable to you while ignoring the rest as irrelevant (being a self professed Pauline). Unfortunate, but not unanticipated. That's why I included it. To start with, this fire tries our works. What do you make of that?

Gee, I focused on God's instructions for the present time. How odd?

From that I "make" that our works will be tried with fire. Another shocker, eh?

Again, since you didn't listen the first time: The passage shows that EVEN when all of a man's works get burned, he still gets saved.

What do you make of that?

P.S. The reason that I ignored the rest of your post is that you are mixing many things that are NOT the same things. Like too many you just grab passages from all of the Bible that have similar words, but different meanings and think that you're "proving" something.

 

[heir]

That was a simple yes or no question put to Heir, not you guys.

I wasn't here, but would have answered the same.

During the course of this thread the two of you have answered for her on occasion but one of my many points is that though you may do so here with what you think is good intent you cannot do so in the judgment.

Beloved saints like SaulToPaul or Right Divider speak the same thing, are of the same mind and of the same judgment as I (1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV). They are free to answer something directed at me any time they want!

 

[heir]

What do you expect from someone that calls themselves "Ask Mr. Religion"?

I would expect a bunch of religion. Blah, blah, blah.....

Just as godrulz is a die hard so called "Pentecostal". AMR is a die hard Calvinist. Both are the result of rebelling against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...the result of rebelling against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

Spoiler

Rightly Dividing the Word

I can distinctly remember the time during my college days when a Christian whom God used in my life gave me a short introduction to dispensationalism. He quoted 2 Timothy 2:15 from the King James Version and pointed out the importance of "rightly dividing the word of truth." He then went over with me the seven dispensations of the Scofield Reference Bible. I now doubt that 2 Timothy is directly referring to dividing Biblical history into different economies. The American Standard Version translates this verse "handling aright the word of truth," which I believe better conveys the verse's intent.

Nevertheless, regardless of how one interprets that verse, Christians have recognized from earliest times that God has worked through different economies in different ages. Dividing Biblical history into different dispensational periods is not distinctive of dispensationalism.

To say that all Christians who do not today offer animal sacrifices and who do not today abstain from pork are at least incipient dispensationalists is extremely simplistic. The particular number and choice of historical division points presented by Scofield do not define dispensationalism either. The true distinctives are found on a more subtle level.

I believe that one can begin to discern some of the real distinctives of dispensationalism by examining Scofield's definition of a dispensation: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."

It is certainly true that in every divine economy, God gave further revelation of Himself and His will, and man was responsible for responding to that revelation in obedience. It is also true that man apart from God's saving grace will always fail the test of obedience because of man's depraved nature. Yet, while there is truth in Scofield's definition and scheme, there is also oversight and error.

Perhaps more significant is the oversight: there is no mention of the progressive revelation of and preparation for the Messianic Seed-Redeemer in each dispensation. For the reformed theologian, Christ and His saving work is the most significant element in each dispensation and is the theme that unifies the progressive and organic development of the Biblical drama. Yet Dr. Charles C. Ryrie says:

"The covenant theologian in his zeal to make Christ all in all is guilty of superimposing Him arbitrarily on the Old Testament. He does the same with the doctrine of the church and with the concept of salvation through faith in Christ."

I also mentioned an error in Scofield's definition. I believe one is there at least implicitly. Dispensationalists and reformed theologians tend to disagree as to the relationship that revelation given to past dispensations has to the present dispensation. Dispensationalists tend to teach that such past revelation is not binding today except to the extent that it is reaffirmed in the revelation given specifically for this present dispensation. In contrast, reformed theology teaches that past revelation continues to be binding today except to the extent that it was time bound or situation specific in its original application or to the extent that is has been modified by more recent Biblical revelations.

Like Christ, the reformed theologian emphasizes the continuing relevance of God's former revelations, whereas the dispensationalist puts the emphasis on the nonbinding nature of past revelation that is not specifically reaffirmed for today. This difference in emphasis seems to be implied in Scofield's statement that each dispensation is related to "some specific revelation," as if each dispensation is limited to the revelation specifically directed to that dispensation.

In order to really appreciate the distinctives of dispensationalism's "rightly dividing the word," one needs to think through the dispensational explanation of Biblical history. A good place to start is the dispensational teaching on the Abrahamic covenant and the dispensation of promise. Here God provided a salvation administered on a by faith basis and administered without moral conditions. All went well for the people of God until Mount Sinai when, according to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, a rash and tragic mistake occurred. There the people of God rashly abandoned their unconditional by faith covenant position and instead tragically accepted the conditional and legalistic Mosaic covenant, which they should have refused to accept.

By faith salvation based upon an imputed righteousness was abandoned at Mount Sinai and was not resumed until after Mount Calvary, according to Dr. Chafer. If one considers the period from the Abrahamic covenant to the end time church rapture, the Mosaic covenant was a legalistic parenthesis in a by faith administration of grace that began in the dispensation of promise and resumed in the dispensation of grace. If one considers the period from the Mosaic covenant to the end of the millennium, then the church age is a parenthesis of grace in a meritorious administration of law. It is only fair to mention that many recent dispensationalists have in various degrees modified this excessively rigid dichotomy between law and grace in their explanations of redemptive history and have begun to drift toward the teachings on law and grace more traditionally held by reformed theologians.

The next major development in a dispensational view of the Bible is the Gospels and the early chapters of Acts. According to dispensationalism, Christ was offering the Jewish nation a Judaistic political kingdom. Since the Jews rejected Christ's offer, Christ postponed the Jewish kingdom and instead inaugurated the parenthetical and previously unrevealed church age. Because of this analysis of the ministry of Christ, dispensationalists see the Gospels as a complex combination of truth relating directly to three different dispensations: law, grace and kingdom. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is legal and Jewish kingdom truth that is not directly meant for the church age. Scofield labeled the Lord's prayer petition "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" as "legal ground." The parables of Matthew 13, which obviously refer to the church age, are interpreted as an initial explanation of some of the unexpected mysteries of the coming age due to the postponement of the Jewish millennium and the unrevealed introduction of the church age.

Matthew 16:18 is where Christ first openly revealed the coming parenthetical church age, and Matthew 18:17 is where Christ gave church truth on discipline. The Olivet discourse is again Jewish truth that is interpreted as a detailed prophecy of the seven year Jewish tribulation period after the church rapture. The upper room discourse that occurred a few days later is church truth. The apostles in Acts 1:6 again represent the Jewish remnant, but in Acts 2 they again represent the church and are involved with church truth as they preach on Pentecost. In Acts 3:12-26, the apostles reoffer the Judaistic kingdom to the Jewish nation for the last time until the yet future tribulation period. If the Jews had accepted this reoffer, the rapture would have occurred then, and the Jewish kingdom would have come after a very short church age.

Dispensationalists view the rest of the book of Acts as church truth. The only problem with this is the frequent references to the kingdom both in Acts and in the epistles written during that period.

Dispensationalists explain that the kingdom there referred to is not the theocratic Messianic kingdom of Old Testament prophecy but instead is either God's nontheocratic sovereign rule of providence or is "the kingdom in mystery form" of Matthew 13, which dispensationalists interpret as a name applicable to the non-kingdom church age. This explanation does not satisfy the ultra-dispensationalists who view Acts and the epistles of that period as Jewish truth and not as truth for the later Gentile Pauline Body and Bride of Christ church.

In the epistles, even the "orthodox" dispensationalists find some scattered traces of Jewish truth. For example, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 speaks of the flaming return of Christ in judgment upon the persecutors of God's people. In dispensational thinking, there is no flaming judgment associated with the church return of Christ, which is a secret rapture. Flaming judgment is associated only with the Jewish second advent. So the recipients of 2 Thessalonians 1 were there being taught Jewish truth even though Paul used his message as an encouragement to church age Christians. The Christians at Thessalonica must have there been acting as representatives of Jewish tribulation saints.

Notice also Titus 2:13. There Paul combined the church return of Christ (the blessed hope) with the Jewish return of Christ (the glorious appearing) in one statement as if they were one event! To be a good dispensationalist, one must read Scripture with one's presupposed dichotomies ever in mind so that one can catch such distinctions.

Dividing Scripture categorically and relegating the message to the proper age and people are key to good dispensational interpretation. Finally there is the book of Revelation where the early chapters (1-3) are church truth and the rest of the book is Jewish truth concerning the Jewish tribulation and millennium until the mention of the Bride of Christ, which is the church, at the end.

Dividing Biblical history into a progression of dispensations is not unique to dispensationalists. All theologians do that. What is characteristic of the consistent dispensationalist is that he suffers from an acute case of "hardening of the categories." Having in practice rejected the typological and organic union of the two testaments that is found in Christ and His saving work, the consistent dispensationalist has instead adopted a two program, two people view of Biblical history in which the church age is a logically unnecessary parenthesis in the divine program and, from the perspective of the Old Testament prophets, a divine afterthought and adjustment. My own opinion, to use a pun, is that consistently interpreting Scripture through the rigid grid of dispensational assumptions has the potential for turning Biblical bread into theological shredded wheat. Fortunately, many dispensationalists today are mild dispensationalists who are not all that rigid when it comes to dispensational interpretation and theology and who have had little actual exposure to the classical and definitive dispensational works by men such as Darby, Chafer and Scofield where these dispensational dichotomies are rigidly pressed.

AMR

 

[heir]

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

AMR

Let's begin to test that you rightly divide the word of truth.

Q1 What is it?
Q2 How do we rightly divide it?
Q3 Do you believe that God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth as the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL to be testified in due time? (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV)

 

[glorydaz]

Well, I'm not in any way surprised that you focused on the one passage you thought applicable to you while ignoring the rest as irrelevant (being a self professed Pauline). Unfortunate, but not unanticipated. That's why I included it. To start with, this fire tries our works. What do you make of that?

A refiner's fire comes to mind.

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Zechariah 13:9
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Malachi 3:3
And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.​

I think Paul is talking about the refining fire of chastening.

1 Corinthians 11:32
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

2 Corinthians 6:9
As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;​

 

[heir]

Beloved, believers are not mere punctiliar (one-time event) Christians.

vs. Ephesians 1:13 KJV

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let's begin to test that you rightly divide the word of truth.

Q1 What is it?
Q2 How do we rightly divide it?
Q3 Do you believe that God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth as the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL to be testified in due time? (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV)

Er, no movement of the goal posts allowed. You, with your claim of the affirmative that you rightly divide, bear the burden here, not me.

The "burden of proof" is forensic burden on the one making a claim to provide sufficient proof or evidence for the claim. The affirmative side enters with the burden of proof, while the negative side has no such burden—and until and unless the affirmative side makes a prima facie case, your claim may in principal at least be dismissed without any argumentation at all from the negative side.

Dispensational Rope-a-Dope...

Dispensationalist: "See Amos, Chapter 9"

Non-Dispensationalist: "But isn't that interpreted in Acts 15, which opposes the central view of dispensationalists?"

Dispensationalist: "Not at all, for we see in Amos, Chapter 9, where it literally states etc etc etc. Now we simply reconcile Acts 15 that 'appears' to conflict directly with Amos 9 using said literal interpretation of Amos 9, as in etc etc etc."

Non-Dispensationalist: "Wait a minute. Does not James tell us what Amos 9 means?"

Dispensationalist: "Actually, as noted, the literal meaning of Amos 9 clearly states etc etc etc."

Non-Dispensationalist: "Wait a minute. Does not James, in Acts 15, tell us exactly what Amos 9 means? :think:"

Dispensationalist: "The literal meaning of Amos 9, applied to Acts 15, means etc etc etc."

Non-Dispensationalist: "No! :bang: James is speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit which was recorded in Acts 15, so what James says in Acts 15 as to what Amos 9 means is what Amos 9 means and must control any sort of interpretative method of Amos 9."



AMR

 

[Right Divider]

Your real name is "Mr. Religious".

 

[fzappa13]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fzappa13
Well, I'm not in any way surprised that you focused on the one passage you thought applicable to you while ignoring the rest as irrelevant (being a self professed Pauline). Unfortunate, but not unanticipated. That's why I included it. To start with, this fire tries our works. What do you make of that?

Gee, I focused on God's instructions for the present time. How odd?

From that I "make" that our works will be tried with fire. Another shocker, eh?

Sarcasm aside (which I am an admitted purveyor of) I made the point about works because several of the folks making offerings to this thread have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from their works and yet time and time again God's word, (and Paul's) bring us right back to them. Why do you think God would go to the trouble of lighting this fire for the purpose of trying our works if they didn't matter to Him?

Again, since you didn't listen the first time: The passage shows that EVEN when all of a man's works get burned, he still gets saved.

What do you make of that?

P.S. The reason that I ignored the rest of your post is that you are mixing many things that are NOT the same things. Like too many you just grab passages from all of the Bible that have similar words, but different meanings and think that you're "proving" something.

Well, I offered a number of scriptures that would seem to flesh out the beginnings of an answer concerning the baptism of fire for those who will to hear it. There are more but it would seem useless to offer them here at this point. Apparently your chosen doctrine precludes associating the various passages in scripture with similar wording concerning this subject. That is unfortunate in that following words and phrases across the Bible has been one of the more valuable tools I have run across in understanding the Bible. To each their own.

To me, precluding the meaning of similar scriptures because you hold a conflicting doctrine has the tail wagging the dog. One would hope that doctrine follows scripture and not visa verse but time and experience has taught me that is usually not the case. If you wish to limit your understanding of this subject to what Paul has said that is up to you. The rest of the Bible awaits you should you chose to embrace it.

 

[fzappa13]

A refiner's fire comes to mind.

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Zechariah 13:9
And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Malachi 3:3
And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.​

I think Paul is talking about the refining fire of chastening.

1 Corinthians 11:32
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

2 Corinthians 6:9
As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;​

Exactly. We are being refined by this fire. Fire is not pleasant but it does separate the dross from the gold. I think that is its purpose at least as it concerns God's word and metallurgy.

That said, I think Jesus has a little something else in mind when He returns though the purpose served is the same.

 

[Right Divider]

Sarcasm aside (which I am an admitted purveyor of) I made the point about works because several of the folks making offerings to this thread have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from their works and yet time and time again God's word, (and Paul's) bring us right back to them. Why do you think God would go to the trouble of lighting this fire for the purpose of trying our works if they didn't matter to Him?

Why would you say something like that? Who said that "works don't matter to Him"?

These are FALSE accusations.

The point is that the dispensation of the grace of God is where God gives salvation FREELY to those that will accept it THAT WAY.

WE who DO accept it can do the works that God has for us to walk in.

Eph 2:8-10 KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. (10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
​

I really don't know how it could be more clear that we are save BY grace THROUGH faith and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT of God!

Well, I offered a number of scriptures that would seem to flesh out the beginnings of an answer concerning the baptism of fire for those who will to hear it. There are more but it would seem useless to offer them here at this point. Apparently your chosen doctrine precludes associating the various passages in scripture with similar wording concerning this subject. That is unfortunate in that following words and phrases across the Bible has been one of the more valuable tools I have run across in understanding the Bible. To each their own.

To me, precluding the meaning of similar scriptures because you hold a conflicting doctrine has the tail wagging the dog. One would hope that doctrine follows scripture and not visa verse but time and experience has taught me that is usually not the case. If you wish to limit your understanding of this subject to what Paul has said that is up to you. The rest of the Bible awaits you should you chose to embrace it.

Those scripture were NOT related and it's NOT my doctrine that is the problem. They just aren't related.

Again, I accept and believe ALL scripture IN its proper CONTEXT.

 

[heir]

Er, no movement of the goal posts allowed. You, with your claim of the affirmative that you rightly divide, bear the burden here, not me.

The questions have simple answers. Surely, someone who calls himself "Ask Mr Religion" has answers to questions.

I've no problem showing yet again from scripture what it is we are to rightly divide and how and that the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, but I asked you first. You should answer the questions.