vooks:
The BIGGER point is you have zero basis for claiming that when Jesus spoke of 'many' he was talking about miracle workers BEFORE his Passion and resurrection.

Now,why would you be so insistent (without proof)that the 'many' MUST be the pre-resurrection miracle workers?

It is because you are convinced or rather you BELIEVE/ASSUME that no justified believer can be thrown to hell and since ONLY believers can use the name of Jesus,the only believer/miracle workers who will be thrown in hell are the unjustified ones, the ones doing their thing BEFORE resurrection

Food for thought:
1. Do you honestly believe that of all that believed on Jesus during his ministry, ONLY 120 survived up to Pentecost?

2. Who were the firstfruits of Justification? What made them eligible?

we all know that there is time for everything.
consequently, there was time before resurrection (between the birth of Christ and his resurrection, popularly known as the days of John the Baptist where the entering of Christianity suffereth violence I.e multitude of disciples or believers struggling to enter the time of Christianity ).this period falls within the time of old testament known as BC, because Christ was not yet crucified, even though it was recorded in the new testament. But no justification at this period. that means, believers may carry out miracles during this time, But they were yet to be justified because Christ has not yet died.
And there was time after resurrection ( which is the time or era we are now also known as the time of Christianity or AD, which is the kingdom of God ) this is where there is justification.
the event of pentecost in the book of act,was the beginning of Christianity ( the justified people ). act1:15 says they were about 120 people, I didn't write it.
the name Christianity was gotten at Antioch, But Christianity has started long before then.
name does not matter, name is only for identification, what matter is that we were justified at crufixion long before Antioch

5solas:


Faith is God-given. In those that are saved, works are the products of that justifying faith and are the effects of salvation not by any iota the cause.

Yes but you can't have faith without works. And if there is no works it shows there is no faith.

Hiswordxray:

Your problem is that you don't understand what faith is.
Yes the faith I defined is the same faith used everywhere in the Bible.
Faith is not just believing but it is believing and acting in accordance to what you believe.

To know more about faith read this:
www.nairaland.com/2079035/faith-hebrews-11

Bro, you don't have a problem neither do I, don't adopt such language, it should be outlandish where God is been discussed.

Faith is not generic, it can mean different things.

I gave you a part where Jesus said 'ye of little faith', the Greek word used the is 'OLIGOPISTIS'

The other 'faith' as used in 'the just shall live by faith' is 'PISTIS' and this can also be used in different ways.

E.g you here people ask 'of what faith are you', that is way different from where it is used as 'trust' or 'hope'.

Am allergic to BS
1. Did Paul teach 7 dispensations? Yes/no

2. Did anybody before John Darby teach 7 dispensations?

A clear scripture showing how you will perish and end up in hell is rejected because of
1. The audience of the epistle to Hebr
2. The author of Hebrews
3. Dispensationalism garbage


You are an old man. Old man listen up, start a thread on Dispensationalism and I gladly tear it apart and like Joagbaje, you will crawl back to the same hole you came from

The OP is least interested in Dispensationalism and that's why out of respect for his/her request,am solely focused on the subject at hand; SINNING AFTER JUSTIFICATION AND ITS CONSEQUNCES

You on the other hand are busy dancing like the ground under you is on fire,hopping from one irrelevance to the other all to defend your garbage. How sad

shdemidemi:


This is why you were hesitant and remain so to the issue of dispensationalism raised by Apostle Paul. I guess vooks has his own rules regardless of bible instructions. We can as well quote Revelation, mix it with Genesis, support it with Exodus, one size fits all, right?

Hiswordxray:

Yes but you can't have faith without works. And if there is no works it shows there is no faith.

This thing seem so simple yet so hard to comprehend or accept.

New International Version
And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

New Living Translation
And since it is through God's kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God's grace would not be what it really is--free and undeserved.

English Standard Version
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

New American Standard Bible
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

King James Bible
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


Can't you see these two Apostles were coming from two different view points? One from Judaism/legalism/law/tradition and then Christ and one purely Christ and nothing else?

Can't we just move from one level to a higher ground?
Hebrews 6
1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God,

You haven't answered me.
Let me rephrase

Peter believed in Jesus BEFORE His death and persisted after. At what exact point was he justified? At the death or resurrection of Jesus or at Pentecost?

paxonel:

we all know that there is time for everything.
consequently, there was time before resurrection (between the birth of Christ and his resurrection, popularly known as the days of John the Baptist where the entering of Christianity suffereth violence I.e multitude of disciples or believers struggling to enter the time of Christianity ).this period falls within the time of old testament known as BC, because Christ was not yet crucified, even though it was recorded in the new testament. But no justification at this period. that means, believers may carry out miracles during this time, But they were yet to be justified because Christ has not yet died.
And there was time after resurrection ( which is the time or era we are now also known as the time of Christianity or AD, which is the kingdom of God ) this is where there is justification.
the event of pentecost in the book of act,was the beginning of Christianity ( the justified people ). act1:15 says they were about 120 people, I didn't write it.
the name Christianity was gotten at Antioch, But Christianity has started long before then.
name does not matter, name is only for identification, what matter is that we were justified at crufixion long before Antioch

vooks:
Am allergic to BS
1. Did Paul teach 7 dispensations? Yes/no

2. Did anybody before John Darby teach 7 dispensations?

A clear scripture showing how you will perish and end up in hell is rejected because of
1. The audience of the epistle to Hebr
2. The author of Hebrews
3. Dispensationalism garbage


You are an old man. Old man listen up, start a thread on Dispensationalism and I gladly tear it apart and like Joagbaje, you will crawl back to the same hole you came from

The OP is least interested in Dispensationalism and that's why out of respect for his/her request,am solely focused on the subject at hand; SINNING AFTER JUSTIFICATION AND ITS CONSEQUNCES

You on the other hand are busy dancing like the ground under you is on fire,hopping from one irrelevance to the other all to defend your garbage. How sad

Boy, get on with it, can't wait to see you tear scripture apart.

Make a mention, I will be there.

vooks:
You haven't answered me.
Let me rephrase

Peter believed in Jesus BEFORE His death and persisted after. At what exact point was he justified? At the death or resurrection of Jesus or at Pentecost?

The condition for Pater's salvation was on the premise that 'Jesus is indeed the son of God' plus repentance. That is not the same for me today, I must believe in my heart that He died, He was buried and He rose to be saved.

It's your junk. Teach the world and ask the mod to shut me out else you won't get past your first line of garbage

Of course you are a coward,a weeping coward. Can I get you some more kleenex?

shdemidemi:


Boy, get on with it, can't wait to see you tear scripture apart.

Make a mention, I will be there.

Were the disciples before Jesus' death justified?

shdemidemi:


The condition for Pater's salvation was on the premise that 'Jesus is indeed the son of God' plus repentance. That is not the same for me today, I must believe in my heart that He died, He was buried and He rose to be saved.

vooks:

It's your junk. Teach the world and ask the mod to shut me out else you won't get past your first line of garbage

Of course you are a coward,a weeping coward. Can I get you some more kleenex?

Go ahead if you so desire...are you bitter that you're not having your way, awww

Make that mention boy let's look in to scripture.

I can't start a thread to disprove what you believe because I don't even know what you do believe seeing there are several shades of Dispensationalism. That's Logic 101 but puny brains overheat over such stuff

shdemidemi:


Go ahead if you so desire...are you bitter that you're not having your way, awww

Make that mention boy let's look in to scripture.

BabaGnoni:

bro, nothing personal and no offense meant, please oblige so we all can learn:
1. How many times is Christian mentioned in the Bible?
2. Under what circumstance, implication and background were each of the Christian mention done?
3. Did Jesus call Himself a Christian?
3b. If No, why didn't Jesus call Himself a Christian?
4. Did Jesus teach or preach Christianity?
4b. If No, why didn't Jesus teach or preach Christianity?
5. Did Jesus ever teach or preach that He came to start or build Christianity?
6. Did Jesus call the Kingdom of God Christianity or referred to it as Christianity?
7. Who started the Christian tag?
7b. How did the Christian tag come about and why did the Christian tag start?
8. Did the apostles or anyone else in the NT use the tag Christian, to call each other, to describe themselves or use it when greeting each other at all?
8b. If No, if not Christian, then what did the apostles or anyone else in the NT use?
9. Is there anything disparaging about the tag Christian like was nigger?
10. You said "...Christianity started in the book of act...", where exactly in Act? (i.e. what chapter and verse are you linking this with)

ahahahaahaaa, bros
ok
how many times did christian mentioned in the bible?
name does not matter, what matter is that, there is Christianity now. Jesus founded Christianity for men, not for himself, christians are men.
all the parables of Jesus where geared at Christianity, anytime Jesus mentioned the kingdom of God in his parables, just know that he was talking about the Christianity he was going to establish.
Christianity is the church, Jesus says i will build my church.
the tag Christianity started at Antioch, But in the real sense, the religion has started long before Antioch at crucifixion. like i said, the name Christian doesn't matter, what matter is, we had a religion long before antioch, name is only adopted for identification
before Antioch the apostles were called apostles or disciples, they were 12 of them, the other believers where known as disciples.
the name christians, was gotten because of their good works, But they were justified by grace at crucifixion not by works.
so, if we are to adopt the name christians, we should have this at the back of our mind

vooks:
Were the disciples before Jesus' death justified?

Justification by faith as we have it in the epistles of Paul isn't what they had before the passion of Christ.

They were justified to be a part of the kingdom Jesus came to earth to establish with the nation of Israel. But as a nation, israel denied its king..
John 1:11
New International Version
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

The speaker for the disciples asked Christ just before ascension-
Acts 1:6
New International Version
Then they gathered around him and asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

To Peter, it was all about the kingdom and the disciples will definitely be a part of the Kingdom of God.

To Apostle Paul it was not about 'Israel' getting restored as a kingdom where Jesus rules, it is now about the world getting saved through justification to be a part of the God's Kingdom. Not just for Israel anymore but for anyone who believe.

vooks:
You haven't answered me.
Let me rephrase

Peter believed in Jesus BEFORE His death and persisted after. At what exact point was he justified? At the death or resurrection of Jesus or at Pentecost?

at the resurrection of Jesus, that means, if Jesus had not resurrected he wouldn't have been justified

vooks:
I can't start a thread to disprove what you believe because I don't even know what you do believe seeing there are several shades of Dispensationalism. That's Logic 101 but puny brains overheat over such stuff

I smell a coward behind this post...are you there vooksy?

You are full of unintelligible glib.
Were they justified before the death of Jesus Christ?

If not, at what point were they justified

shdemidemi:



[size=2pt]Justification by faith as we have it in the epistles of Paul isn't what they had before the passion of Christ.

They were justified to be a part of the kingdom Jesus came to earth to establish with the nation of Israel. But as a nation, israel denied its king..
John 1:11
New International Version
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

The speaker for the disciples asked Christ just before ascension-
Acts 1:6
New International Version
Then they gathered around him and asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

To Peter, it was all about the kingdom and the disciples will definitely be a part of the Kingdom of God.

To Apostle Paul it was not about 'Israel' getting restored as a kingdom where Jesus rules, it is now about the world getting saved through justification to be a part of the God's Kingdom. Not just for Israel anymore but for anyone who believe.[/size]

shdemidemi:


Boy, get on with it, can't wait to see you tear scripture apart.

Make a mention, I will be there.

i can't wait to follow that thread.Oya vooks over to you

Thank you.
After Resurrection, did Jesus appear to unbelievers? That is barring Paul

paxonel:

at the resurrection of Jesus, that means, if Jesus had not resurrected he wouldn't have been justified

vooks:

You are full of unintelligible glib.
Were they justified before the death of Jesus Christ?

If not, at what point were they justified

Lol..Guess you thought you had a checkmate question you can dwell on. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

I know objectivity is not your forte neither is comprehension, I advice you take time to read the post again it might just resonate if you revise long enough.

Bidam my broda,
There is so much garbage there and the onus is on its adherents to present their version and we examine it. If it is so scriptural, do they want vooks to perish or remain in the dark?

Be very wary of 'new' doctrines

Bidam:
i can't wait to follow that thread.Oya vooks over to you

Lol is for your teenage kids you never had

1. Were believers before resurrection justified?

2. If not, at what point were they justified?

Paxonel has so eloquently and wisely answered. That's a man of God

shdemidemi:


Lol..Guess you thought you had a checkmate question you can dwell on. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

I know objectivity is not your forte neither is comprehension, I advice you take time to read the post again it might just resonate if you revise long enough.

vooks:
Bidam my broda,
There is so much garbage there and the onus is on its adherents to present their version and we examine it. If it is so scriptural, do they want vooks to perish or remain in the dark?

Be very wary of 'new' doctrines

Pauline doctrine is nothing new my friend, it has been there since Paul got saved. Exegetical study of scriptures shouldn't be frowned at either.

you might just end up like Frosbel after that thread because you will be forced to make a choice between The Bible and Vooks' 'puny' enormous cerebral capacity.

vooks:
Lol is for your teenage kids you never had

1. Were believers before resurrection justified?

2. If not, at what point were they justified?

Stop asking answered questions my dear friend, you are not deranged that I think I am sure of.

There was a man who used to beg his friends to hold him tightly every time he lost his cool lest he he beats up somebody. One day he was offended and he begged them and they did. But they released him and he was beaten up so bad.

Bring it on negro, make my day. Trust me if I was to lose my faith, it would not be over harebrained half-misunderstood garbage

shdemidemi:


Pauline doctrine is nothing new my friend, it has been there since Paul got saved.

you might just end up like Frosbel after that thread because you will be forced to make a choice between The Bible and Vooks' 'puny' enormous cerebral capacity.

vooks:
There was a man who used to beg his friends to hold him tightly every time he lost his cool lest he he beats up somebody. One day he was offended and he begged them and they did. But they released him and he was beaten up so bad.

Bring it on negro, make my day. Trust me if I was to lose my faith, it would not be over harebrained half-misunderstood garbage

This is your best part of the discourse, isn't it?

Exchanging those lines with you was my way of letting you spit out what you have been willing to do all along. Enough of all those childishness, get back to God's business- not vooks business so no need to get personal with it.

No competition, no imposition of ideas, share your understanding while I share mine, we just might come out better christians. That is if you agree we both don't know it all.

vooks:
Bidam my broda,
There is so much garbage there and the onus is on its adherents to present their version and we examine it. If it is so scriptural, do they want vooks to perish or remain in the dark?

Be very wary of 'new' doctrines

Ok vooks, back to the discuss concerning the heb verse you harangue shdemidemi with. I think it was a warning against apostasy, the hebrew audience were thinking of abandoning their faith in Jesus and lapsing back into Judaism...fastfoward to modern day and you will notice folks who are tired of church becoming atheist.

This excerpt from an article i am reading now might provoke some thoughts and contribute to the discuss.

The proper application of this passage requires review of the Jewish situation.

We first need consider the five-fold description of their spiritual condition.
They were enlightened (John 1:4; II Cor 4:1-4; Ephesians 1:18; Heb 10:32).
They tasted of the heavenly gift (Ac 2:38; Rom 6:23; 8:28-39; Ep 1:3-4; 2:.
They were partakers of the Holy Ghost (Jn 7:39; Rom 8:9,14; Galatians 4:6).
They tasted the good word of God (John 8:43,47; I Cor 2:13-16; I Thes 2:13).
They tasted the powers of the world to come (He 2:4-5; Matt 13:17; Mk 9:1).
This description and the context require us to assume true regenerate saints.
We then need consider the great warning Paul makes regarding Jewish apostasy.
God has spoken to us by His Son instead of by the prophets (He 1:1-3; 2:1-4).
As the Law brought great obligation, Christ brings irremediable fear (Heb 2:1-3).
God offered Israel rest, but He then swore in wrath against them (Heb 3:7-19).
The Hebrews had a limited period of time called "To Day" (Heb 3:7,13,15; 4:7).
They were to diligently pursue the gospel lest God swear against them (Heb 4:11).
See his irremediable and imminent warnings (Heb 10:26-31,38-39; 12:15-17,25-29).
Let us remember the principle of responsibility (Pr 29:1; Luk 12:47-48; John 15:6).
Let us also consider the warnings of Jesus Christ to the Jews of His generation.
Rejection of Jesus Christ by Israel was irremediable (Matthew 3:7-12; 12:45; 21:33-44; 22:1-7; 23:34-36; 24:12-13; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24).
Judgment for rejection was imminent (Matthew 12:45; 16:28; 23:36; 24:32-34).
Let us further consider the warnings of prophets and apostles (Deut 18:15-19; II Chron 36:12-21; Mal 3:1-5; 12:1-6; Acts 2:16-21,40; 3:19-26; 13:38-41; 18:6; 28:23-28; Romans 11:17-22; I Thess 2:14-16; James 5:1-9; II Peter 2:20-22).http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/exposition/hebrews/sermon.php

The lesson is simple: If the believing Hebrews who had received gospel blessings and privileges fell away to Judaism, their practical recovery from judgment was impossible due to the seriousness and timing of their crime.

The salvation of 6:9 is practical salvation from judgment (Compare Ac 2:40).
This solution fits the overall message of Christ and the apostles to the Jews.
This solution fits the overall context of Paul's persuasion against apostasy.
This solution fits the immediate context of Paul's rebuke for slothfulness.
This solution places a most excellent and severe warning land exhortation here.
This solution fits Paul's fear of their departing from God (Heb 3:12) and fall (Heb 4:11).
This solution fits Hebrews' wording (Heb 2:1-3; 4:1,11; 10:26-31,38-39; 12:15-17,25-29).
This solution satisfies the urgency and finality of "nigh unto cursing" (Heb 6:.

The Hebrews were under far greater gospel duty than the Gentiles at this time.

When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ, Paul left them (Acts 18:6; 13:46; 28:28).
But he was sure of renewing Gentile apostates again to repentance (Gal 4:19).
The blinding of elect Jews is a great mystery of the gospel (Romans 11:25-28).

The presence or lack of growth and fruit shows God's position to the ground (Heb 6:7-.

Ground and men are similar - fruit evidences God's blessing and thorns His curse.
Ground that brings forth thorns is rejected, nigh unto cursing, and to be burned.
God rejects those that reject Him (II Kgs 17:20; Jer 7:29; Hos 4:6; Heb 12:17).
God curses (swares against) His enemies (Ge 4:11-22; Deut 11:26-28; Heb 3:11,18).
God will burn plants without fruit (Mat 3:10; 7:19; Jn 15:6; Heb 10:27; 12:29).
Paul had similarly, though not identically, warned the Gentiles (I Cor 16:22).
God burned up the Hebrew nation for rejecting Christ (Malachi 4:1; Matt 22:7)
God will burn up the Gentiles that do not obey Christ's gospel (II Thess 1:7-10).

The man does not see the disparity between the Hebrews and Christians, he thinks they are one and the same. Hence, what applies to a Jew (Hebrew) who mix Jesus with Judaism is applicable to a Christian who 'back slide'. What you posted might just fly over his head.

Bro... I dey kampe! Following your tail lights!!
I blew my horn on one or two of your posts, but you didnt do same back, until now on this my post about Adam

Right. Hmm. Sharp guy, I can see where you are coming at me from on this:

That Adam actually believed the word of God but wilfully (i.e. intentionally and determinedly) went against it
That Adam's faith in the word of God that "death shall surely happen" was there, intact.
That Adam was not deceived but rather it was Eve who was deceived and who lost the faith
I see a stalemate in this as opposed to you checkmating, if I didn't, I would have thrown in a towel
Depending on your next response and whether you want to play a semantic move, you might even get checkmated

BabaGnoni:


Bro... I dey kampe! Following your tail lights!!
I blew my horn on one or two of your posts, but you didnt do same back, until now on this my post about Adam

Right. Hmm. Sharp guy, I can see where you are coming at me from on this:

That Adam actually believed the word of God but wilfully (i.e. intentionally and determinedly) went against it
That Adam's faith in the word of God that "death shall surely happen" was there, intact.
That Adam was not deceived but rather it was Eve who was deceived and who lost the faith
I see a stalemate in this as opposed to you checkmating, if I didn't, I would have thrown in a towel
Depending on your next response and whether you want to play a semantic move, you might even get checkmated

Thank God bro

I certainly will not ignore your posts if addressed to to me with a conscious intent to do so. I didn't see them, I read your post even when it isn't addressed to me and they are often worth a read, if you don't mind you can post them again.


As for Adam, I think the right word is 'disobedience' and not lack of faith. I don't think that is really worth arguing about.

I have never claimed to know all but I sure can sniff garbage from miles off. You got problem with that? Aks God who made me thus

shdemidemi:


This is your best part of the discourse, isn't it?

Exchanging those lines with you was my way of letting you spit out what you have been willing to do all along. Enough of all those childishness, get back to God's business- not vooks business so no need to get personal with it.

No competition, no imposition of ideas, share your understanding while I share mine, we just might come out better christians. That is if you agree we both don't know it all.

vooks:
I have never claimed to know all but I sure can sniff garbage from miles off. You got problem with that? Aks God who made me thus

Don't shove your nauseating attributes to God, rather deal with it with His Word. Get objective, make your point without expecting it to be a rule I must accept or share. Beyond that, make scripture the judge of what is garbage and what isn't..