Was Abraham saved by Grace?

Fireinfolding · Feb 23, 2012

InSpiritInTruth said:
I think of Paul when Jesus said...

Luke 7:41-42

King James Version (KJV)

41There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

I believe because of the Grace afforded to Paul after persecuting the believers of Jesus, he was forgiven the most amoung the apostles.

And like Peter answered, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And Jesus replied "Thou hast rightly judged."

In this we see some of the worst sinners can also become some of the greatest saints.

Amen bro, Gees I just posted something similiar repping Lion King on this thread (or was that you?) I forget which ^_^

But I posted he who is forgiven little loves little and how Paul called himself the cheif of sinners

But I reversed it from what you just posted (going from the top of my head)

Amen, sure makes sense bro

God bless you InSpiritInTruth

Fireinfolding · Feb 23, 2012

Lindas Place said:
exactly... but now I'm going to get out of here, because i'm being convicted for hijacking this thread... lol's... but i'm serious.

Its so ok

Catch cha later gater

God bless you sister

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 23, 2012

Lion King said:
We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 1:3

Paul certainly laboured more than others and faced all kinds of hardship (2 Corinthians 11:21-27) because of His faith, love and hope in our LORD Jesus Christ.

Paul's bro John just happens to mention that concerning the Assembly of the Ephesians

Kindgdom Bible Studies Revelation Series 31
The Ephesian Assembly

Young) Revelation 2:1 `To the messenger of the Ephesian assembly write: These things saith he who is holding the seven stars in his right hand, who is walking in the midst of the seven lamp-stands--the golden:
2 I have known thy works, and thy labour, and thy endurance, and that thou art not able to bear evil ones,
and that thou hast tried those saying themselves to be apostles and are not, and hast found them liars,

God's Word · Feb 23, 2012

LLoJ said:
Theofane said:

Abraham was saved through Grace by faith. It was his own faith that saved him. Without it, he would never have known God's Grace.

Who agrees?

Click to expand...

I do

NKJV) Romans 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith that [it might be] according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Amen.

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 23, 2012

Lindas Place said:
exactly... but now I'm going to get out of here, because i'm being convicted for hijacking this thread... lol's... but i'm serious.

Thread hijacking is generally a given on GT.
If I "disappear" off CF after this post, please pray for me

Stravinsk · Feb 23, 2012

Frogster said:
u said he was sheltering, but the bible says he was a prisoner, and acts 23;11 says, it was the will of The Lord, to preach in rome, and Paul preached in rome, as seen in acts 28, so then u either have to say the Lord "sheltered him under nero", or u must think he was a prisoner, and u were inocrrect.

he called himself a prisoner in eph 3;3.

ok, now lets stay on topic.

Frogster - Instead of picking verses out - I really think you need to read the whole story.

Paul is being sheltered by Rome from the Jews. (Acts 22:22-29), 23:17-22

But according to Agabus "prophecy" (Acts 21:11) it was the Jews who were to *deliver* him to the Gentiles.

Instead we see that the Jews want the Gentiles to deliver him to *them* (23:20-22)

Paul is treated well by Rome, given certain freedoms24:23

Paul appeals to Caesar: 25:10-12

Keeping in mind that this is the man who said he was ready to die at Jerusalem for Christ. (Acts 20:13)

Caesar - Nero - one of the most evil rulers - this is who Paul appeals to.

One of the things to keep in mind is this lie:

Paul says in his defense that it is for the resurrection of the dead for which he is sought by the Jews (Acts 23:6)

But the Jews *never* made THAT charge against him.

Their accusations were:

1) He defiled the Temple
2) He preaches against Moses
3) He preaches against them
4) He preaches against the law

Acts 21:28

James, one of the true Apostles has previously said he has heard the same thing about Paul:

Acts 21:21

Which is why he asks him to go through the purification ritual(Nazirite vow):

Acts 21:24

Which Paul of course - is not able to complete (because the Jews seized him before he could get the offerings that completed the Ritual)

Acts 21:30

So if God was so pleased with Paul to send him to Rome, and call him "Apostle"

One wonders why He wouldn't allow Paul to complete the Nazirite Vow in the temple.

The conclusion is simple. Paul is lying by taking the vow - he could have said plainly to James "Not neccessary, I do preach against circumcision and I do preach against Moses and the People"

And then, to top it off....

In 70 A.D. Rome destroys the temple.

Just as Daniel said it would. Daniel 9:26

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 23, 2012

Originally Posted by InSpiritInTruth Faith and works go hand in hand. Both Paul and James understood this.

Because of Paul's faith, and love for God, he worked harder than all the other apostles to bring the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.

Originally Posted by Lindas Place Paul did not say because of my faith and love for God I work harder than others

Paul said, it was Gods grace (which would be Gods love for Paul) that was with him is why he worked harder than the others.

Originally Posted by InSpiritInTruth I did not say Paul said that, I said that about Paul.

Lindas Place said:
oh, sorry... and I agree, Paul had faith and loved Jesus...

Sounds like you 2 are saying essentially the same thing

InSpiritInTruth · Feb 23, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
Sounds like you 2 are saying essentially the same thing

It was one of those Paul said, I said things.

But we got it all straightened out. I think?

Nanopants · Feb 24, 2012

Frogster said:
Hi. Rom 5 is very clear, all sinned and were dead in Adam, the old man, in the reign of sin, Rom5 talks about the act of the one man, that created the reign of grace of 5;17, and 5;21, and that one act, was the cross, so prior to that, all were still in Adam, they had to be, the new Adam, which we are raised up into, according to Rom 6;4, did not happen until the cross, rom 6;6.

So all were in Adam there are no exemptions in 5 for anyone, and they had to be, the last Adam did not rise yet, taking us with him into the new dominion, the new man of 5;21.

The cross went back in time.

Rom 3;25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

But it was not until the cross came, that the regin of grace came, according to rom 5.

These verses confirm, 3;25, and how the cross went back in time, retrospectively...where prior to the cross, sin was not dealt with, in the way that the whole Adamic creation was destroyed, for those who are in the grace reign, of 5;17.

Acts 14:16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.

Acts 17;30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

frog.

Hey Frogster. Good points.

I think we agree on the cross working backwards.

As far as Grace not being available before the cross, I don't think that was true in Abraham's case. If we receive Grace through faith, being declared righteous by faith, and Abraham didn't, what did he receive when he was declared righteous? Also, I think context is relevant. If sin reigned, what did it reign over? If the Gospel of Grace was hidden before the cross, then we can say that sin reigned over the world, and now that Christ is revealed now Grace reigns. Otherwise, we have to say that our declaration of righteousness by the Grace of God, which is patterned after Abraham's, isn't worth much.

The cross is very important, and we shouldn't minimize that, but there are two components of salvation for us in this life: Christ's body, which was broken for us (the cross), and His blood (life through Christ). John said that it is His blood (life) that actually cleanses us from sin in 1 jhn 1:7. The cross would be for pardon of sins committed.

If Abraham and other believers before the cross hadn't yet been pardoned because of the cross, does that mean the life of Christ was unavailable to them? To assume that to be the case might be a problem because the scriptures are very consistent in showing us that the same Spirit through which we are saved was in the former believers as well.

Then there's that issue of proving the inferiority of the Levitical order. From the other thread:

Frogster said:
well..the only thing is, the lesser, abe, was blessd by the greater melchizedek 7;7, and the priesthood was not based off abe, as we see in heb 7, it was off melchizedek.

But the question is how was Abraham blessed by him? Verses 25 says he was able to save everyone, and 27 confirms the superiority of his priesthood because he doesn't have to offer up sacrifice since he offered himself once. That implies that Abraham found salvation, and if Abraham found salvation through a high priest with the likeness of Christ (unless he was actually Christ) then his order is most definitely superior.

If we say that it was just because he came before the levitical order, well then that's not very superior at all. So imagine we are Jewish converts around the time of Pentecost, and the Apostles are preaching Jesus. How do we know that our old priesthood isn't the correct religion? We can't answer that question without Abraham having been saved by Grace through faith in Christ who came before Moses.

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

Stravinsk said:
Frogster - Instead of picking verses out - I really think you need to read the whole story.

Paul is being sheltered by Rome from the Jews. (Acts 22:22-29), 23:17-22

But according to Agabus "prophecy" (Acts 21:11) it was the Jews who were to *deliver* him to the Gentiles.

Instead we see that the Jews want the Gentiles to deliver him to *them* (23:20-22)

Paul is treated well by Rome, given certain freedoms24:23

Paul appeals to Caesar: 25:10-12

Keeping in mind that this is the man who said he was ready to die at Jerusalem for Christ. (Acts 20:13)

Caesar - Nero - one of the most evil rulers - this is who Paul appeals to.

One of the things to keep in mind is this lie:

Paul says in his defense that it is for the resurrection of the dead for which he is sought by the Jews (Acts 23:6)

But the Jews *never* made THAT charge against him.

Their accusations were:

1) He defiled the Temple
2) He preaches against Moses
3) He preaches against them
4) He preaches against the law

Acts 21:28

James, one of the true Apostles has previously said he has heard the same thing about Paul:

Acts 21:21

Which is why he asks him to go through the purification ritual(Nazirite vow):

Acts 21:24

Which Paul of course - is not able to complete (because the Jews seized him before he could get the offerings that completed the Ritual)

Acts 21:30

So if God was so pleased with Paul to send him to Rome, and call him "Apostle"

One wonders why He wouldn't allow Paul to complete the Nazirite Vow in the temple.

The conclusion is simple. Paul is lying by taking the vow - he could have said plainly to James "Not neccessary, I do preach against circumcision and I do preach against Moses and the People"

And then, to top it off....

In 70 A.D. Rome destroys the temple.

Just as Daniel said it would. Daniel 9:26

first you said Paul never quoted Jesus, then I proved you wrong, showing the new cov verse of 1 cor 11, and acts 20.

then you said Paul lied about the reason for the trial, then i showed u he did not, he mentioned both, the charges to felix in acts 24, and the resurreaction was a part, becuse i showed u where festus told agrippa, that part of the charges were about the resurrection in acts 25, meaning paul did not lie, and u were wrong again.

now u r making like paul was sweeting up to nero, when in fact in acts 28 he was chained to a guard, he was a prisoner, and really, he was just trying to use his leagl rights as a roman, knowing full well he could not get a fair trial by the jews, if you read earlier in acts. would u use your American rights if you could? dude...

u have an unanswered wall u hit.

Did jesus say in acts 23:11, preach of me, in rome, and did Jesu say this after paul got arrested, knowing full well the means in which paul would be in rome, in chains, under roman possesion?

so u either gotta admit u r wrong, or admit Jesus put Paul under roman domination!

all this other stuff is starting to bore me now, besides, lets stay on topic,

love frog.

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

Nanopants said:
Hey Frogster. Good points.

I think we agree on the cross working backwards.

As far as Grace not being available before the cross, I don't think that was true in Abraham's case. If we receive Grace through faith, being declared righteous by faith, and Abraham didn't, what did he receive when he was declared righteous? Also, I think context is relevant. If sin reigned, what did it reign over? If the Gospel of Grace was hidden before the cross, then we can say that sin reigned over the world, and now that Christ is revealed now Grace reigns. Otherwise, we have to say that our declaration of righteousness by the Grace of God, which is patterned after Abraham's, isn't worth much.

The cross is very important, and we shouldn't minimize that, but there are two components of salvation for us in this life: Christ's body, which was broken for us (the cross), and His blood (life through Christ). John said that it is His blood (life) that actually cleanses us from sin in 1 jhn 1:7. The cross would be for pardon of sins committed.

If Abraham and other believers before the cross hadn't yet been pardoned because of the cross, does that mean the life of Christ was unavailable to them? To assume that to be the case might be a problem because the scriptures are very consistent in showing us that the same Spirit through which we are saved was in the former believers as well.

Then there's that issue of proving the inferiority of the Levitical order. From the other thread:

But the question is how was Abraham blessed by him? Verses 25 says he was able to save everyone, and 27 confirms the superiority of his priesthood because he doesn't have to offer up sacrifice since he offered himself once. That implies that Abraham found salvation, and if Abraham found salvation through a high priest with the likeness of Christ (unless he was actually Christ) then his order is most definitely superior.

If we say that it was just because he came before the levitical order, well then that's not very superior at all. So imagine we are Jewish converts around the time of Pentecost, and the Apostles are preaching Jesus. How do we know that our old priesthood isn't the correct religion? We can't answer that question without Abraham having been saved by Grace through faith in Christ who came before Moses.

Ok, i under stand your point about Abe, and itis tricky, but it does not say anything about the rest of makind at that time does it? You're kinda spreading it about to liberally, and how would you possibly put abraham, into romans 5? And again, the cross still had not happened yet, to retro back to Abraham, so abraham still had only one nature. Peter said WE have been given a divine nature, to escape the corruption of lust, like what Paul said in romans 5-6, so I just don't see how you can put Abraham in there yet. In other words yes, the cross went backwards, but it could not go backwards until it happened. See what I mean?

In other words, u r saying that they had divine natures, before the divine nature was created, in their time and space reality. So again, if you could somehow put Abe into romans 5-6, as an exemption, I would be most interested to hear it.

as far as melchizedek, really the blessing contextually was just about the money he gave him, really 7 was just about how great mel was, and the writer was introducing him, to set the stage of Jesus and mel.

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 24, 2012

Frogster said:
as far as melchizedek, really the blessing contextually was just about the money he gave him, really 7 was just about how great mel was, and the writer was introducing him, to set the stage of Jesus and mel.

Mel was kewl

http://www.christianforums.com/t4633867-11/#post30965076
Melchizedek Connection, Royal Priesthood

LittleLambofJesus · Feb 24, 2012

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus Sounds like you 2 are saying essentially the same thing

InSpiritInTruth said:
It was one of those Paul said, I said things.

But we got it all straightened out. I think?

I think so too. Thanks

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

Nanopants said:
Hey Frogster. Good points.

I think we agree on the cross working backwards.

As far as Grace not being available before the cross, I don't think that was true in Abraham's case. If we receive Grace through faith, being declared righteous by faith, and Abraham didn't, what did he receive when he was declared righteous? Also, I think context is relevant. If sin reigned, what did it reign over? If the Gospel of Grace was hidden before the cross, then we can say that sin reigned over the world, and now that Christ is revealed now Grace reigns. Otherwise, we have to say that our declaration of righteousness by the Grace of God, which is patterned after Abraham's, isn't worth much.

The cross is very important, and we shouldn't minimize that, but there are two components of salvation for us in this life: Christ's body, which was broken for us (the cross), and His blood (life through Christ). John said that it is His blood (life) that actually cleanses us from sin in 1 jhn 1:7. The cross would be for pardon of sins committed.

If Abraham and other believers before the cross hadn't yet been pardoned because of the cross, does that mean the life of Christ was unavailable to them? To assume that to be the case might be a problem because the scriptures are very consistent in showing us that the same Spirit through which we are saved was in the former believers as well.

Then there's that issue of proving the inferiority of the Levitical order. From the other thread:

But the question is how was Abraham blessed by him? Verses 25 says he was able to save everyone, and 27 confirms the superiority of his priesthood because he doesn't have to offer up sacrifice since he offered himself once. That implies that Abraham found salvation, and if Abraham found salvation through a high priest with the likeness of Christ (unless he was actually Christ) then his order is most definitely superior.

If we say that it was just because he came before the levitical order, well then that's not very superior at all. So imagine we are Jewish converts around the time of Pentecost, and the Apostles are preaching Jesus. How do we know that our old priesthood isn't the correct religion? We can't answer that question without Abraham having been saved by Grace through faith in Christ who came before Moses.

in other words, sin and death regined over all, in adam, all sinned, 5;12, untill the cross, the one act, i just don't see the exemption for Abe in 5?

so the definition of grace, contextually, was the power over sin, 6;14, and that power was the new creration, that came with the resurrection, so in time and space, abe could not have been in that yet, so he was not in the reign of grace yet, of 5;17, and 5;21. How could he be taken out of adam, and all the rest, if the second adam had not been created yet? the new dominion of 5;21.

in othe words, the only way for sin to not reign in rom 6;12, was to be as alive from the dead in 6;11, and 6;13, and that only was the alive, of the resurrection, newness of life in 6;4, the divine nature of 2 Peter 1, which did not happen until a cerain time and space, as far as the actual manifestation, the cross.

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
Mel was kewl

http://www.christianforums.com/t4633867-11/#post30965076
Melchizedek Connection, Royal Priesthood

me too and taaaaint Shem!

Stravinsk · Feb 24, 2012

Frogster said:
first you said Paul never quoted Jesus, then I proved you wrong, showing the new cov verse of 1 cor 11, and acts 20.

then you said Paul lied about the reason for the trial, then i showed u he did not, he mentioned both, the charges to felix in acts 24, and the resurreaction was a part, becuse i showed u where festus told agrippa, that part of the charges were about the resurrection in acts 25, meaning paul did not lie, and u were wrong again.

now u r making like paul was sweeting up to nero, when in fact in acts 28 he was chained to a guard, he was a prisoner, and really, he was just trying to use his leagl rights as a roman, knowing full well he could not get a fair trial by the jews, if you read earlier in acts. would u use your American rights if you could? dude...

u have an unanswered wall u hit.

Did jesus say in acts 23:11, preach of me, in rome, and did Jesu say this after paul got arrested, knowing full well the means in which paul would be in rome, in chains, under roman possesion?

so u either gotta admit u r wrong, or admit Jesus put Paul under roman domination!

all this other stuff is starting to bore me now, besides, lets stay on topic,

love frog.

All that I cited was backed up by the texts referenced. Anyone who wants to see can look for themselves. Hey - it wasn't *me* who wrote Acts! I'm just referencing what's there!

Nanopants · Feb 24, 2012

Frogster said:
Ok, i under stand your point about Abe, and itis tricky, but it does not say anything about the rest of makind at that time does it? You're kinda spreading it about to liberally, and how would you possibly put abraham, into romans 5?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Do you mean the reign of Grace? I'm not trying to say that the whole world is saved but there was a major difference between the world before and after the cross, namely that the promise that was given to Abraham was fulfilled: he became a light to the Gentiles so that nations were being grafted in. My point is that the reign of sin and the reign of Grace reflect this change in world order.

And again, the cross still had not happened yet, to retro back to Abraham, so abraham still had only one nature. Peter said WE have been given a divine nature, to escape the corruption of lust, like what Paul said in romans 5-6, so I just don't see how you can put Abraham in there yet. In other words yes, the cross went backwards, but it could not go backwards until it happened. See what I mean?

In other words, u r saying that they had divine natures, before the divine nature was created, in their time and space reality. So again, if you could somehow put Abe into romans 5-6, as an exemption, I would be most interested to hear it.

What I'm saying is that the divine nature is uncreated: it existed both before and after the cross, and yes, Abraham and the former believers had been given that nature through faith. I'm not saying that nothing changed, but God gave them faith because He was working out His divine plan, so that the blessing of a few could become blessing for many through the cross (Gen 26:4).

I'm also saying that the divine nature is the life of Christ, and is part of our deliverance, not the whole, as is the cross. And actually, it's because we receive the life of Christ and live through Him that we are able to receive the benefit of the cross (see Rom 6:3,4). That actually explains how it works backward and how God was able to have mercy on them before the cross: if we are saved through the life of Christ, then we have already received the penalty of the law, Christ having paid it on our behalf. IOW His crucifixion is our crucifixion, such that God is just in punishing all disobedience, Christ having taken our punishment. If the former believers lived through Christ, then Christ's punishment also provided the same for them.

as far as melchizedek, really the blessing contextually was just about the money he gave him, really 7 was just about how great mel was, and the writer was introducing him, to set the stage of Jesus and mel.

Well if my theory is correct here then Paul's argument using Mel wasn't just a weak comparison. He was uncovering the truth about the Gospel of Grace which predated Moses and the law but was hidden. That is also backed up by Gal 3:8.

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

Nanopants said:
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Do you mean the reign of Grace? I'm not trying to say that the whole world is saved but there was a major difference between the world before and after the cross, namely that the promise that was given to Abraham was fulfilled: he became a light to the Gentiles so that nations were being grafted in. My point is that the reign of sin and the reign of Grace reflect this change in world order.

What I'm saying is that the divine nature is uncreated: it existed both before and after the cross, and yes, Abraham and the former believers had been given that nature through faith. I'm not saying that nothing changed, but God gave them faith because He was working out His divine plan, so that the blessing of a few could become blessing for many through the cross (Gen 26:4).

I'm also saying that the divine nature is the life of Christ, and is part of our deliverance, not the whole, as is the cross. And actually, it's because we receive the life of Christ and live through Him that we are able to receive the benefit of the cross (see Rom 6:3,4). That actually explains how it works backward and how God was able to have mercy on them before the cross: if we are saved through the life of Christ, then we have already received the penalty of the law, Christ having paid it on our behalf. IOW His crucifixion is our crucifixion, such that God is just in punishing all disobedience, Christ having taken our punishment. If the former believers lived through Christ, then Christ's punishment also provided the same for them.

Well if my theory is correct here then Paul's argument using Mel wasn't just a weak comparison. He was uncovering the truth about the Gospel of Grace which predated Moses and the law but was hidden. That is also backed up by Gal 3:8.

bro, can u show me anything in 5 or 6, to prove that somehow the divine nature of Christ, was given to men, prior to the cross, because everything in there, stresses the one act, of the one man in5, and the cross, and being raised and alive , and newness of life 6;4, after that event in time and space, the cross. (See red above in your quote.

to be buried into his death, then we were united in his resurrection, it couldn't be before that, no new man, until the resurrection.

rom 6;5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

only after the old nature was destroyed, were we given a new.

6;6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Nanopants · Feb 24, 2012

Frogster said:
bro, can u show me anything in 5 or 6, to prove that somehow the divine nature of Christ, was given to men, prior to the cross, because everything in there, stresses the one act, of the one man in5, and the cross, and being raised and alive , and newness of life 6;4, after that event in time and space, the cross. (See red above in your quote.

I don't know why it has to be constrained to Rom 5 and 6, but it is most definitely shown. The divine nature is the image of God in Christ, and we are given this nature through the Spirit (2 Cr 3:18). If one has the Spirit, he is not in the flesh, that is, the old nature (Rom 8:9). The former believers had the Spirit (1 Pe 1:11). Here's Romans 6:3 again:

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? -Rom 6:3

"As many of us" must include the former believers, unless we want to say that they did not have the nature of God through the Spirit of Christ, i.e. they did not have the Spirit, and that contradicts so many passages I don't even want to get started on that.

to be buried into his death, then we were united in his resurrection, it couldn't be before that, no new man, until the resurrection.

rom 6;5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

A key term here is "united". That shows us that the paradigm of living through Christ is the key to being covered by His death.

only after the old nature was destroyed, were we given a new.

6;6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

I was on the fence for a while with how I read this, but now I'm convinced that this refers to pardon through the cross. The old self/old man that was crucified with Christ, meaning, our old natures by which we ought to be condemned, they are covered by His crucifixion if we live through Him (that means we are Him).

If that is the paradigm we use, it plugs in quite nicely with the model of the Eucharist. There are two components: body and blood representing pardon and life. If we have found life through Him, through faith on Him, we have found pardon through Him. Remember, Jesus didn't say believe on the cross, He said: "he that believes on Me has eternal life" (jhn 6:47).

Frogster · Feb 24, 2012

Nanopants said:
I don't know why it has to be constrained to Rom 5 and 6, but it is most definitely shown. The divine nature is the image of God in Christ, and we are given this nature through the Spirit (2 Cr 3:18). If one has the Spirit, he is not in the flesh, that is, the old nature (Rom 8:9). The former believers had the Spirit (1 Pe 1:11). Here's Romans 6:3 again:

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? -Rom 6:3

"As many of us" must include the former believers, unless we want to say that they did not have the nature of God through the Spirit of Christ, i.e. they did not have the Spirit, and that contradicts so many passages I don't even want to get started on that.

A key term here is "united". That shows us that the paradigm of living through Christ is the key to being covered by His death.

I was on the fence for a while with how I read this, but now I'm convinced that this refers to pardon through the cross. The old self/old man that was crucified with Christ, meaning, our old natures by which we ought to be condemned, they are covered by His crucifixion if we live through Him (that means we are Him).

If that is the paradigm we use, it plugs in quite nicely with the model of the Eucharist. There are two components: body and blood representing pardon and life. If we have found life through Him, through faith on Him, we have found pardon through Him. Remember, Jesus didn't say believe on the cross, He said: "he that believes on Me has eternal life" (jhn 6:47).

well..wait a minute

. romans 5-6, with it's definitions are pretty clear, and i just don'rt see how u can exempt Abr from all that clear established very importan doctrine? the only united ones there, contextually, were those after the cross.

but anyway...nice chat.

Was Abraham saved by Grace?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Neo Baroque/Rococo Classical Artist

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Nanopants

Guest

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Neo Baroque/Rococo Classical Artist

Nanopants

Guest

Galatians is the best!

Nanopants

Guest

Galatians is the best!

Similar threads