Who was the Book of John Addressed to?

[Jim]

@GodsGrace

First, concerning a present burning hell fire ~ there's no such a place where the wicked go at death? This lie is a added place to the doctrine of purgatory, which the Catholic church as we know it today, made a lot of $$$$$$$$$ off of this false teaching a few years back. So, if there was a purgatory, then it had to be a hellfire for the wicked at death, which is not taught in the scriptures, without using Luke 16:19-31 which can easy be proven a parable. The wicked do not have eternal life, they will perish, after the final judgement, just as the scriptures said many times over. In the meantime, they all are in an unconscious state, and are so, until the resurrection of the last day.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus suggests that the wicked are not in an unconscious state until resurrection and judgment.

Second, the scripture said little about the resurrection and the final judgement, and infants, they are very silence concerning much of this. What we do know is this: God is very merciful, exceedingly so ~yet no infants will ever stand before him as infants to be judged, that is so illogical to even think so. Again, much is hidden from us, and rightly so. Again, at what age will we all come forth at in the resurrection? We do not know. And it is of no profit to even speculate.

Of course, the nasty concept of Original Sin and the even worse Total Depravity says that infants, being in sin and not born again, will indeed die the second death. But, of course, both Original Sin and Total Depravity are disgustingly false. And the infants being born in Original Grace and die before having sinned will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus Christ.

There is a lake of fire where the wicked shall perish, which is the second death, that will not be until this world is destroyed by fire after the final judgement. But, no one will be suffered as long as God is God, that also is so illogical and this lie presents God as an merciless God which he is not. The wages of sin is DEATH, not endless sufferings!

The suffering will be in the intermediate state between physical death and the judgement of the second death knowing that it could have been different with eternal life.

 

[Red Baker]

2 Timothy 1:9-Grammatical and Syntactical Breakdown

@Johann

A another long post by you which is okay, but I'm only going to address the most important points.

Btw, I care nothing about what the so-called Greek say, (so you can save yourself some time when at least posting to me) no more than the apostles care about the originals ~ they had faith in God (Psalms 12) in their translated scriptures handed down to them by ready scribes who were gifted to keep the word of God intact for God's people.

Johann, by all means let us follow the "order of words" in 2nd Timothy 1:9 ~ using the KJV

2 Timothy 1:9​

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”

Greek Analysis:
"σώσαντος ἡμᾶς" (sōsantos hēmas, "who saved us") – Aorist active participle, genitive singular masculine. This construction suggests an act completed in the past but does not inherently specify whether it was before or after the calling.

"καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ" (kalesantos klēsei hagiāi, "and called us with a holy calling") – Another aorist active participle, implying a past completed action.

The key issue is whether these aorist participles are antecedent (i.e., happening before) or simultaneous with the main action.

The structure does not explicitly indicate that salvation occurred before calling. In Greek, when two aorist participles are used in sequence, they can either denote events occurring at the same time or events in logical order, but context determines this. In this case, Paul emphasizes both salvation and calling as part of God’s sovereign purpose, but does not assert that salvation precedes calling temporally.


Romans 8:30: "Whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Here, calling precedes justification and glorification, suggesting that calling is not a secondary event after salvation, but a necessary step.

After you quoted the Greek, you said: "does not inherently specify whether it was before or after the calling"...
Well Johann, our English bible is clear..... salvation in the eternal sense is before the calling forth of God's children out of darkness into the light of the glorious truths of God. Grace was freely given to God's very elect according to God eternal purpose, God's grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Question for you to answer: How do you think God was a friend of Abraham "before" Christ ever died for him. God went to his heathen country and called Abraham alone (Isaiah 51:2) because grace and mercy was freely given to him in and through Jesus Christ before God ever created this world and certainly before Abraham ever did good or evil. Have you ever read any subject addressing eternal justification. Justification is used in more than one sense in the scriptures which is very clear to see. https://www.libcfl.com/articles/brine.htm https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=354 You said:

"The structure does not explicitly indicate that salvation occurred before calling. In Greek, when two aorist participles are used in sequence, they can either denote events occurring at the same time or events in logical order, but context determines this."

Well, Johann, "context" is against you using the Greek and the overall scriptures when taken as a cohesive whole is against your strong desire to use anything but what the scriptures are actually saying. We were saved, THEN CALLED..."Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling"

Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This demonstrates that a person's response to God’s calling (repentance and faith) is instrumental in the application of salvation.

Johann, I dare say you do not understand this scripture, which has not one thing to do with your regenerate state, a child of God could be in error concerning many truths ~ so, do not take this personal.

Here is my understanding of Acts 2:38. which would prove your use of this scripture, in the manner in which you are attempting to use it, to be error.

Peter had just completed his message concerning Christ's death and resurrection and his exaltation to David's throne which is to be understood spiritually.

Acts 2:30--37~"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Johann, these men were pricked in their hearts ~ what does this mean to you? Let me help you...it proves that at some time God had regenerated these men which said these words to Peter, and why do I say this? Very simply by comparing scriptures with scriptures.

When Stephen preached one of the most powerful sermons recorded in the scriptures apart from Matthew 5-7 preached by Christ, those that heard Stephen had a totally different reaction ~ consider:

Acts 7:54-59~"When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Johann, one group were pricked in their hearts, the others were cut to their hearts, one already born of God, the others not as of yet, and maybe some never were!

So, when I read Acts 2:38, this is how I read it, just as God intended for us to do so:

Acts 2:38​

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

For, meaning because of, not in order to obtain! Peter, a man of God understood the evidence of a child of God, and one being a since desire to do what God commands them to do ~ and once he saw that their hearts were truly pricked, he told them what to do. The gift of the holy Ghost was the gift of KNOWLEDGE of knowing that he indwelt all who are believers, power there waiting for them to tap into.

I'll may come back today and finish, if not, tomorrow.

 

[Johann]

After you quoted the Greek, you said: "does not inherently specify whether it was before or after the calling"...
Well Johann, our English bible is clear..... salvation in the eternal sense is before the calling forth of God's children out of darkness into the light of the glorious truths of God. Grace was freely given to God's very elect according to God eternal purpose, God's grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Question for you to answer: How do you think God was a friend of Abraham "before" Christ ever died for him. God went to his heathen country and called Abraham alone (Isaiah 51:2) because grace and mercy was freely given to him in and through Jesus Christ before God ever created this world and certainly before Abraham ever did good or evil. Have you ever read any subject addressing eternal justification. Justification is used in more than one sense in the scriptures which is very clear to see. https://www.libcfl.com/articles/brine.htm https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=354 You said:

"The structure does not explicitly indicate that salvation occurred before calling. In Greek, when two aorist participles are used in sequence, they can either denote events occurring at the same time or events in logical order, but context determines this."

Well, Johann, "context" is against you using the Greek and the overall scriptures when taken as a cohesive whole is against your strong desire to use anything but what the scriptures are actually saying. We were saved, THEN CALLED..."Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling"

The Function of Aorist Participles in 2 Timothy 1:9
Your argument claims that the two aorist active participles (σώσαντος and καλέσαντος) necessarily indicate a temporal sequence in which salvation is first and calling follows. However, Greek grammar does not support such a rigid reading.

Aorist participles generally denote completed action relative to the main verb, but they do not inherently establish a strict sequence unless the context demands it.

In 2 Timothy 1:9, both σώσαντος ("having saved") and καλέσαντος ("having called") are dependent on ἔδωκεν ("has given"), showing that both salvation and calling are aspects of God's grace that was given in Christ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ("before time eternal").

The participles should be understood as describing a single act of divine grace rather than two temporally distinct events.
This is a common construction in Greek where multiple aorist participles function together to describe one comprehensive action. The same pattern appears in Titus 3:5:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς), by the washing of regeneration (διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας) and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Here, salvation (ἔσωσεν) is explained by regeneration and renewal, showing that salvation involves a process that includes calling. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 1:9, salvation and calling are linked as aspects of God's redemptive work.

2. The Logical Order of Salvation and Calling in Scripture
Your argument asserts that salvation (in the eternal sense) precedes calling and justification, appealing to a deterministic interpretation of divine grace. However, key passages contradict this claim:

Romans 8:30 ("Golden Chain of Redemption")

"Whom he predestinated, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Here, calling precedes justification, making it impossible to argue for eternal justification before calling.

If justification were an eternal reality before calling, why does Paul place calling first?
Acts 2:39

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The promise of salvation is realized in the calling. If eternal justification were already established, there would be no need for calling.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Salvation is "through sanctification and belief of the truth" and is realized through calling by the gospel.
Thus, Scripture teaches that calling is the means by which salvation is applied to the believer in time, rather than salvation being a completed reality before calling.

3. The Theological Error of "Eternal Justification"
Your claim that justification occurred before time contradicts the biblical teaching that justification is applied at the moment of faith.

Romans 5:1: "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Justification is by faith, not an eternal decree apart from faith.

Galatians 2:16: "A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." Again, justification happens in time as a response to faith.

If justification were eternal, faith would be unnecessary. Yet, Paul consistently teaches that faith is the means by which justification is received.

4. Misuse of Isaiah 51:2 (Abraham)
The claim that Abraham was justified before Christ’s death because he was chosen and called (Isaiah 51:2) does not support eternal justification.

Romans 4:3 explicitly states:
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Abraham was not justified before his calling but at the moment of faith. His justification was reckoned to him in time, not eternally.

Furthermore, Galatians 3:8 states:

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

Justification is tied to faith, not an eternal decree independent of faith.

Conclusion

The Greek grammar of 2 Timothy 1:9 does not establish a rigid temporal sequence proving salvation occurred before calling. Rather, both participles describe the single divine act of God's grace.

The "golden chain" of Romans 8:30 shows that calling precedes justification, refuting eternal justification.
Justification is consistently presented in Scripture as occurring at the moment of faith, not in eternity past.

The appeal to Abraham (Isaiah 51:2) does not support eternal justification, since Abraham was justified by faith in time (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:8).

Thus-your argument for eternal justification misinterprets both Greek syntax and biblical theology. Salvation is planned in eternity but applied in time through calling, faith, and justification.

So, when I read Acts 2:38, this is how I read it, just as God intended for us to do so:

Acts 2:38​

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

For, meaning because of, not in order to obtain! Peter, a man of God understood the evidence of a child of God, and one being a since desire to do what God commands them to do ~ and once he saw that their hearts were truly pricked, he told them what to do. The gift of the holy Ghost was the gift of KNOWLEDGE of knowing that he indwelt all who are believers, power there waiting for them to tap into.

Acts 2:37 – "Pricked in Their Heart" (κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν)

The Greek word κατανύσσω (katanyssō) means "to pierce thoroughly" or "to agitate violently."

This describes deep conviction brought about by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8: "He will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment").

Nowhere does the text indicate that those pricked were already regenerate. Instead, their question, "What shall we do?" shows they had not yet responded in faith.

Acts 7:54 – "Cut to the Heart" (διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις)
The Greek word διαπρίω (diapriō) means "to saw through" or "to be infuriated."

This describes a reaction of anger rather than repentance, similar to Acts 5:33, where the Sanhedrin was also "cut to the heart" and sought to kill the apostles.

Their reaction was hostility, proving that conviction does not always lead to repentance but depends on one's response to the Spirit.

Both groups experienced conviction, but one group responded with repentance (Acts 2), while the other responded with rage (Acts 7). There is no grammatical or theological basis for claiming that pricked in the heart = already regenerate and cut to the heart = unregenerate. Rather, conviction precedes faith and repentance (John 16:8-9).

2. Acts 2:38 – "For" (εἰς) Does Not Mean "Because Of"

Here your argument claims that "for the remission of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) in Acts 2:38 means "because of" remission of sins rather than "in order to obtain" remission. This claim is grammatically and contextually incorrect.

The Greek Preposition "εἰς" (eis)
The word εἰς ("for") in Greek always expresses movement into or toward something. It never means "because of" in any unambiguous use.
The phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ("for the remission of sins") is identical to Matthew 26:28:

"This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν."

Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven? No. He shed it for the purpose of remission of sins.

Contextual Meaning of Acts 2:38

Peter was answering the question, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37).

If their sins were already remitted, Peter’s instruction to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" would be meaningless.
The connection between repentance, baptism, and remission follows the same pattern as Luke 24:47:
"That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations."

Repentance leads to remission of sins, not because of it.

The preposition εἰς never means "because of" in this construction. The parallel with Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47 confirms that remission of sins is the result of repentance and baptism, not the cause of them.

3. The Meaning of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost"

And here-your argument claims that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38 refers to a knowledge that He already indwelt them rather than the actual reception of the Spirit. This is incorrect.

Greek Grammar and Context
The phrase τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ("the gift of the Holy Ghost") is an objective genitive, meaning that the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift.

This is consistent with Acts 10:45, where "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (same phrase) refers to the Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his household.

The Spirit is received at conversion (Acts 19:2; Ephesians 1:13-14).

The Purpose of the Gift
The Spirit is given as a seal and indwelling presence (Ephesians 1:13; Romans 8:9).
The Spirit empowers believers, but He is more than just knowledge of His indwelling—He indwells them at conversion (John 7:37-39).

The phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" refers to the Holy Spirit Himself as the gift, not merely knowledge of His presence. The consistent usage in Acts shows that the Spirit is received at conversion, not something believers already have before repenting.

4. The Order of Salvation in Acts 2
Your argument assumes that the people in Acts 2 were already regenerate and that baptism was a sign of an existing reality. However, Peter’s sermon and the response show the following order:

Conviction (Pricked in their heart) → Shows they were not yet saved (Acts 2:37).
Repentance & Baptism → Necessary for remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Reception of the Holy Spirit → Occurs after repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
Compare this with Acts 10:43-48, where:

Faith precedes baptism.
The Holy Spirit is received at the moment of faith.
Baptism follows as a response.
This shows that remission of sins happens at repentance and faith, not before.

Conclusion
The distinction between "pricked in their heart" and "cut to the heart" is arbitrary. Futhermore-conviction by the Spirit does not automatically mean regeneration. Some respond in repentance, others in anger.

Acts 2:38 cannot mean "because of" remission of sins. The Greek εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν means "for the purpose of" remission, as seen in Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47.

The "gift of the Holy Ghost" refers to receiving the Spirit Himself, not just knowledge of His presence. The Spirit indwells believers at conversion.

The order in Acts 2 refutes your claim that these people were already regenerate. They heard, were convicted, repented, were baptized, and then received the Spirit.

This passage does not support a doctrine of regeneration preceding faith or repentance. Instead, it confirms that salvation is received through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

More than happy to keep this conversation going brother.

J.

 

[ProDeo]

God's Sovereign Choices

Abraham
Joz 24:2 And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods.
Joz 24:3 Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him through all the land of Canaan, and made his offspring many. I gave him Isaac.

Moses
Ex 2:11 One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people.
Ex 2:12 He looked this way and that, and seeing no one, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
...
Ex 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

Paul
Hand 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Hand 9:2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Hand 9:3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him.
Hand 9:4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
Hand 9:5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
...
Hand 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
Hand 9:16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

--------

God can't be put in a box.

 

[MTMattie]

And why are you skipping Ephesians 1:13-14? Paul makes it abundantly clear that faith is put before life.

Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

To be sealed with the promised Holy Spirit is to be born again. There is no way to escape that fact. There is no rational argument that one could be sealed with the promised Holy Spirit and not be born again. Here in verse 13 which says that hearing and believing results in being sealed; "when you heard and believed in him, you were sealed....."

@Jim ,You will be debating for ever on this point as you cannot make headway with a KJO person who would not believe another translation even if it served them better.

 

[GodsGrace]

Never does God identify non-Hebrew Gentiles as an Olive tree let alone a wild Olive tree. The Olive tree is Israel and those that are being grafted BACK IN are the disobedient Hebrews/Jews.
Stop adding to the Bible things that are not there

Who is being grafted in or back in??

Are you referring to Romans 11 or something else??

Romans 11
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch * then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


Doesn't verse 17 state that the gentiles are a wild olive tree?

 

[jeremiah1five]

The only person adding to the word of God on this subject and clinging to Jewish fables would be you, Jeremiah.....look in the mirror and you will find your guy who is a lover of Jewish fables, and a fable it is!. But, I refuse to address this anymore in this thread, but will in another, and it will be easy to do so btw.

My statement still stands as true: God never identifies non-Hebrew Gentiles as Olive tree in Scripture. The Olive tree is Israel and those being "grafted BACK in" are disobedient Jews/Israel.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Rom 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.

Paul certainly has you pegged.

The Jews called mixed heritage Jews Samaritan and not Jews the same attitude Jews called mixed heritage Jews "Gentile" because for 15-20 generations Jews who were not the "remnant" but remained in Gentile lands were heavily influenced by Greek culture (Hellenized.) Interesting that the remnant consisted of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and they took the name of their northern kingdom brethren "Israel" and not "Judah. In 1948 when Israel became a nation, they almost designed their flag using the symbol of the Lion for the tribe of Judah and it would have looked like this instead of the Magen David:



You focus too much on the NT when you should really study the foundation of the NT which are the Hebrew Scripture - Genesis to Malachi.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Who is being grafted in or back in??

Are you referring to Romans 11 or something else??

Romans 11
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch * then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.


Doesn't verse 17 state that the gentiles are a wild olive tree?

If there is no Old Testament precedence there can be no New Testament reality.

God identifies the Olive tree as Israel and those being grafted BACK IN are the disobedient Israelites. But nowhere in the Old Testament does God call non-Hebrew Gentiles as Olive tree. So, in order to make sense of Saul's words that Gentiles are Olive tree there must be precedence in the Old Testament but there is none. You are holding to a false understanding of Saul's words in Romans. All three Hebrew covenants (Abraham, Mosaic, New) are centered around the children and House of Israel.

 

[ProDeo]

If there is no Old Testament precedence there can be no New Testament reality.

Following your logic there can't be hell / LOF (only Sheol) since there is no Old Testament precedence of hell / LOF.

 

[Jim]

The Jews called mixed heritage Jews Samaritan and not Jews the same attitude Jews called mixed heritage Jews "Gentile" because for 15-20 generations Jews who were not the "remnant" but remained in Gentile lands were heavily influenced by Greek culture (Hellenized.) Interesting that the remnant consisted of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and they took the name of their northern kingdom brethren "Israel" and not "Judah. In 1948 when Israel became a nation, they almost designed their flag using the symbol of the Lion for the tribe of Judah and it would have looked like this instead of the Magen David:

View attachment 1545

You focus too much on the NT when you should really study the foundation of the NT which are the Hebrew Scripture - Genesis to Malachi.

So are you making the animal sacrifices called for in the OT?

 

[Red Baker]

@Johann

The Function of Aorist Participles in 2 Timothy 1:9
Your argument claims that the two aorist active participles (σώσαντος and καλέσαντος) necessarily indicate a temporal sequence in which salvation is first and calling follows. However, Greek grammar does not support such a rigid reading.

Aorist participles generally denote completed action relative to the main verb, but they do not inherently establish a strict sequence unless the context demands it.

In 2 Timothy 1:9, both σώσαντος ("having saved") and καλέσαντος ("having called") are dependent on ἔδωκεν ("has given"), showing that both salvation and calling are aspects of God's grace that was given in Christ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ("before time eternal").

The participles should be understood as describing a single act of divine grace rather than two temporally distinct events.
This is a common construction in Greek where multiple aorist participles function together to describe one comprehensive action. The same pattern appears in Titus 3:5:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς), by the washing of regeneration (διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας) and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Here, salvation (ἔσωσεν) is explained by regeneration and renewal, showing that salvation involves a process that includes calling. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 1:9, salvation and calling are linked as aspects of God's redemptive work.

Johann, once again, I do not use the Greek, and your post, though maybe done with a sincere spirit, only reminds me why I'm thankful that God has caused me to trust my English bible that he has so graciously preserved for us. I know many say that we know not the original, and our Bibles are not rightly translated, nor cannot be pronounced and known according to the original; besides in translations there are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. We demand of them and you, Johann, answer if you can; as to how know you that your Hebrew and Greek copies are true copies? Is it not possible for any to write contrary to their copy, if copies may be printed false, they may be written false. Can you or anyone produce the first original copy, or any of those the Apostles wrote? Of course not, If not, the cause is the same and you know the original no more than those that know not Greek or Hebrew? Which most of God's children cannot know, because they are not among the wise of this world per 1st Corinthians 1:26-31. You and others put God'c children at your mercy, (much like the Catholic church did during the dark ages) when they should be put at the mercy of God revealing his truth to them in their own native language.

The KJV does support that God's election of grace is first, (Jeremiah 1:5) then calling, etc., follows. God's love for his elect is determine by the council of God's own will, period, (Ephesians 1:4,5) and that love once purposed, is eternal without any repentance, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, per Paul. Romans 11:29.

Acts 2:38 – "For" (εἰς) Does Not Mean "Because Of"

Here your argument claims that "for the remission of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) in Acts 2:38 means "because of" remission of sins rather than "in order to obtain" remission. This claim is grammatically and contextually incorrect.

The Greek Preposition "εἰς" (eis)
The word εἰς ("for") in Greek always expresses movement into or toward something. It never means "because of" in any unambiguous use.
The phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ("for the remission of sins") is identical to Matthew 26:28:

"This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν."

Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven? No. He shed it for the purpose of remission of sins.

Contextual Meaning of Acts 2:38

Peter was answering the question, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37).

If their sins were already remitted, Peter’s instruction to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" would be meaningless.
The connection between repentance, baptism, and remission follows the same pattern as Luke 24:47:
"That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations."

Repentance leads to remission of sins, not because of it.

The preposition εἰς never means "because of" in this construction. The parallel with Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47 confirms that remission of sins is the result of repentance and baptism, not the cause of them.

"Contextual Meaning of Acts 2:38"~I can and do live by! You asked, and then answered your own question:

"Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven? No. He shed it for the purpose of remission of sins."

Johann, that's the only means by which sins are forgiven, by the blood (or death) of Jesus Christ. Johann, our sins are not forgiven us by any work preformed by us, that would negate what Jesus' life, death and resurrection, secured for the forgiven of the sins of his people.
"Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven?" Legally, of course not, but, what God eternally purposed to do, it was as good as done, the only thing it lack was TIME to carry out the will of God, concerning the redemption of His elect, through His Son, Jesus Christ, being made their surety. You said"
"Repentance leads to remission of sins, not because of it." Wrong sir, so wrong. Repentance is the evidence of regeneration, which gives the right for one to be baptized into the faith and religion of Jesus Christ! John the Baptist, said:

​

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

Which only a person born of God can do!

Romans 7:18​

“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.”

​

Romans 8:5​

“For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.”

You said: "The preposition εἰς never means "because of" in this construction. The parallel with Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47 confirms that remission of sins is the result of repentance and baptism, not the cause of them."
First~consider:

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

You said "for" is never means "because of" ~ yet, here is it clearly used in that sense. Your Greek source is wrong.

Let us look at Luke 24:47 that you provided as a proof to support your understanding that repentance is the means of forgiven of one's sins.

Luke 24:47​

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

There's not a word that repentance is the means of forgiven of one's sins, that's a private interpretation of yours! The gift of repentance itself is a blessing of the covenant, a gift of God's grace, and in the hands of Christ to bestow; and therefore the doctrine of it is published in his name, as well as remission of sins; which, though it springs from the free grace of God, was secured by the blood of Christ, and through him it is preached.

2 Timothy 2:25​

“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”

I'll come back and address the last two points.

 

[Jim]

@Johann


Johann, once again, I do not use the Greek, and your post, though maybe done with a sincere spirit, only reminds me why I'm thankful that God has caused me to trust my English bible that he has so graciously preserved for us. I know many say that we know not the original, and our Bibles are not rightly translated, nor cannot be pronounced and known according to the original; besides in translations there are errors, for no translation is simply authentical, and the undoubted Word of God. We demand of them and you, Johann, answer if you can; as to how know you that your Hebrew and Greek copies are true copies? Is it not possible for any to write contrary to their copy, if copies may be printed false, they may be written false. Can you or anyone produce the first original copy, or any of those the Apostles wrote? Of course not, If not, the cause is the same and you know the original no more than those that know not Greek or Hebrew? Which most of God's children cannot know, because they are not among the wise of this world per 1st Corinthians 1:26-31. You and others put God'c children at your mercy, (much like the Catholic church did during the dark ages) when they should be put at the mercy of God revealing his truth to them in their own native language.

There is an entire field of study of the biblical canon of that you reject out of hand while making personal statements about the canon which have absolutely no basis except your own brain.

The KJV does support that God's election of grace is first, (Jeremiah 1:5) then calling, etc., follows. God's love for his elect is determine by the council of God's own will, period, (Ephesians 1:4,5) and that love once purposed, is eternal without any repentance, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, per Paul. Romans 11:29.

Jeremiah 1:5 is a statement about the person Jeremiah. It is not a doctrinal statement of the "election of grace".

"Contextual Meaning of Acts 2:38"~I can and do live by! You asked, and then answered your own question:

"Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven? No. He shed it for the purpose of remission of sins."

Johann, that's the only means by which sins are forgiven, by the blood (or death) of Jesus Christ. Johann, our sins are not forgiven us by any work preformed by us, that would negate what Jesus' life, death and resurrection, secured for the forgiven of the sins of his people.
"Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven?" Legally, of course not, but, what God eternally purposed to do, it was as good as done, the only thing it lack was TIME to carry out the will of God, concerning the redemption of His elect, through His Son, Jesus Christ, being made their surety. You said"
"Repentance leads to remission of sins, not because of it." Wrong sir, so wrong. Repentance is the evidence of regeneration, which gives the right for one to be baptized into the faith and religion of Jesus Christ! John the Baptist, said:

Actually, both you and @Johann are conflating forgiveness of sins with salvation. What Jesus accomplished on the cross was technically not the forgiveness of sins but rather it was the payment of the debt owed by the whole of mankind for their sins. Salvation includes the forgiveness of sins, but forgiveness of sins is not the whole of salvation. The OT is replete with forgiveness of sins; consider, for example,

Lev 16:30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.

John's baptism was for (in order to obtain) the forgiveness of sin.

Mar 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
So, strictly speaking, while sins were forgiven, there was yet a need for the payment of the debt owed. Forgiveness was not sufficient in and of itself to accomplish that. And that is what Jesus accomplished on the cross. That is what He meant when Jesus, on the cross, cried out, "It is finished" (John 19:30). And that is what He meant when He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17).

Matthew 3:8​

“Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:”

Which only a person born of God can do!

You insert your own personal thinking there. God has never said that. There is no such statement in the Bible. In fact, just the opposite.

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it."

Romans 7:18
“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.”

Again, that is not a statement of total depravity. That is a definition of perfection. It defines "good" in the sense of Matthew 19:17. For one to obey God perfectly in the whole law except for once means that one has not done good.

Mat_19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

You said: "The preposition εἰς never means "because of" in this construction. The parallel with Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47 confirms that remission of sins is the result of repentance and baptism, not the cause of them."
First~consider:

Mark 1:44​

“And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”

You said "for" is never means "because of" ~ yet, here is it clearly used in that sense. Your Greek source is wrong.

No, Red, He didn't say that "for" never means "because of"; he said, the Greek word "eis" never means "because of". And that is how your refusal to deal with the original language of the NT, i.,e. the Greek language of the NT, has caused you get it wrong.

Mar 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for [Greek - peri, meaning "because of"] thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for [Greek - eis, meaning "in order for"] a testimony unto them.

 

[Jim]

The Function of Aorist Participles in 2 Timothy 1:9
Your argument claims that the two aorist active participles (σώσαντος and καλέσαντος) necessarily indicate a temporal sequence in which salvation is first and calling follows. However, Greek grammar does not support such a rigid reading.

Aorist participles generally denote completed action relative to the main verb, but they do not inherently establish a strict sequence unless the context demands it.

In 2 Timothy 1:9, both σώσαντος ("having saved") and καλέσαντος ("having called") are dependent on ἔδωκεν ("has given"), showing that both salvation and calling are aspects of God's grace that was given in Christ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ("before time eternal").

The participles should be understood as describing a single act of divine grace rather than two temporally distinct events.
This is a common construction in Greek where multiple aorist participles function together to describe one comprehensive action. The same pattern appears in Titus 3:5:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς), by the washing of regeneration (διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας) and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Here, salvation (ἔσωσεν) is explained by regeneration and renewal, showing that salvation involves a process that includes calling. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 1:9, salvation and calling are linked as aspects of God's redemptive work.

2. The Logical Order of Salvation and Calling in Scripture
Your argument asserts that salvation (in the eternal sense) precedes calling and justification, appealing to a deterministic interpretation of divine grace. However, key passages contradict this claim:

Romans 8:30 ("Golden Chain of Redemption")

"Whom he predestinated, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Here, calling precedes justification, making it impossible to argue for eternal justification before calling.

If justification were an eternal reality before calling, why does Paul place calling first?
Acts 2:39

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The promise of salvation is realized in the calling. If eternal justification were already established, there would be no need for calling.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Salvation is "through sanctification and belief of the truth" and is realized through calling by the gospel.
Thus, Scripture teaches that calling is the means by which salvation is applied to the believer in time, rather than salvation being a completed reality before calling.

3. The Theological Error of "Eternal Justification"
Your claim that justification occurred before time contradicts the biblical teaching that justification is applied at the moment of faith.

Romans 5:1: "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Justification is by faith, not an eternal decree apart from faith.

Galatians 2:16: "A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." Again, justification happens in time as a response to faith.

If justification were eternal, faith would be unnecessary. Yet, Paul consistently teaches that faith is the means by which justification is received.

4. Misuse of Isaiah 51:2 (Abraham)
The claim that Abraham was justified before Christ’s death because he was chosen and called (Isaiah 51:2) does not support eternal justification.

Romans 4:3 explicitly states:
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Abraham was not justified before his calling but at the moment of faith. His justification was reckoned to him in time, not eternally.

Furthermore, Galatians 3:8 states:

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

Justification is tied to faith, not an eternal decree independent of faith.

Conclusion

The Greek grammar of 2 Timothy 1:9 does not establish a rigid temporal sequence proving salvation occurred before calling. Rather, both participles describe the single divine act of God's grace.

The "golden chain" of Romans 8:30 shows that calling precedes justification, refuting eternal justification.
Justification is consistently presented in Scripture as occurring at the moment of faith, not in eternity past.

The appeal to Abraham (Isaiah 51:2) does not support eternal justification, since Abraham was justified by faith in time (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:8).

Thus-your argument for eternal justification misinterprets both Greek syntax and biblical theology. Salvation is planned in eternity but applied in time through calling, faith, and justification.


Acts 2:37 – "Pricked in Their Heart" (κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν)

The Greek word κατανύσσω (katanyssō) means "to pierce thoroughly" or "to agitate violently."

This describes deep conviction brought about by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8: "He will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment").

Nowhere does the text indicate that those pricked were already regenerate. Instead, their question, "What shall we do?" shows they had not yet responded in faith.

Acts 7:54 – "Cut to the Heart" (διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις)
The Greek word διαπρίω (diapriō) means "to saw through" or "to be infuriated."

This describes a reaction of anger rather than repentance, similar to Acts 5:33, where the Sanhedrin was also "cut to the heart" and sought to kill the apostles.

Their reaction was hostility, proving that conviction does not always lead to repentance but depends on one's response to the Spirit.

Both groups experienced conviction, but one group responded with repentance (Acts 2), while the other responded with rage (Acts 7). There is no grammatical or theological basis for claiming that pricked in the heart = already regenerate and cut to the heart = unregenerate. Rather, conviction precedes faith and repentance (John 16:8-9).

2. Acts 2:38 – "For" (εἰς) Does Not Mean "Because Of"

Here your argument claims that "for the remission of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) in Acts 2:38 means "because of" remission of sins rather than "in order to obtain" remission. This claim is grammatically and contextually incorrect.

The Greek Preposition "εἰς" (eis)
The word εἰς ("for") in Greek always expresses movement into or toward something. It never means "because of" in any unambiguous use.
The phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ("for the remission of sins") is identical to Matthew 26:28:

"This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν."

Did Jesus shed His blood because sins were already forgiven? No. He shed it for the purpose of remission of sins.

Contextual Meaning of Acts 2:38

Peter was answering the question, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37).

If their sins were already remitted, Peter’s instruction to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" would be meaningless.
The connection between repentance, baptism, and remission follows the same pattern as Luke 24:47:
"That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations."

Repentance leads to remission of sins, not because of it.

The preposition εἰς never means "because of" in this construction. The parallel with Matthew 26:28 and Luke 24:47 confirms that remission of sins is the result of repentance and baptism, not the cause of them.

3. The Meaning of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost"

And here-your argument claims that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38 refers to a knowledge that He already indwelt them rather than the actual reception of the Spirit. This is incorrect.

Greek Grammar and Context
The phrase τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ("the gift of the Holy Ghost") is an objective genitive, meaning that the Holy Spirit Himself is the gift.

This is consistent with Acts 10:45, where "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (same phrase) refers to the Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his household.

The Spirit is received at conversion (Acts 19:2; Ephesians 1:13-14).

The Purpose of the Gift
The Spirit is given as a seal and indwelling presence (Ephesians 1:13; Romans 8:9).
The Spirit empowers believers, but He is more than just knowledge of His indwelling—He indwells them at conversion (John 7:37-39).

The phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" refers to the Holy Spirit Himself as the gift, not merely knowledge of His presence. The consistent usage in Acts shows that the Spirit is received at conversion, not something believers already have before repenting.

4. The Order of Salvation in Acts 2
Your argument assumes that the people in Acts 2 were already regenerate and that baptism was a sign of an existing reality. However, Peter’s sermon and the response show the following order:

Conviction (Pricked in their heart) → Shows they were not yet saved (Acts 2:37).
Repentance & Baptism → Necessary for remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Reception of the Holy Spirit → Occurs after repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
Compare this with Acts 10:43-48, where:

Faith precedes baptism.
The Holy Spirit is received at the moment of faith.
Baptism follows as a response.
This shows that remission of sins happens at repentance and faith, not before.

I agree with a great deal of what you post here at the forum. However, your statement that the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of faith is false. You quote Acts 2:38 to show that baptism is "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" meaning "for the purpose of" remission of sins. Similarly "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 means for the purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. There the Holy Spirit IS the gift.

Baptism is the point in the life of the sinner when God promises to forgive the repentant believer of his sins and to give him the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:39). Baptism is not a response to salvation; it is the moment when salvation is received.

 

[Johann]

I agree with a great deal of what you post here at the forum. However, your statement that the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of faith is false. You quote Acts 2:38 to show that baptism is "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" meaning "for the purpose of" remission of sins. Similarly "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 means for the purpose of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. There the Holy Spirit IS the gift.

Baptism is the point in the life of the sinner when God promises to forgive the repentant believer of his sins and to give him the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:39). Baptism is not a response to salvation; it is the moment when salvation is received.

Whatever you say @Jim.

Eph 1:10 for the administration of the fullness of times, to bring together all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him
Eph 1:11 in whom also we were chosen, having been predestined according to the purpose of the One who works all (+) things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 (+) that we who hoped beforehand in Christ should be for the praise of his glory,
Eph 1:13 in whom also you, when you heard [This participle (“hearing”) and the following one (“believing”) are understood as temporal] the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also when you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.


In 1802, Pastor T. B. Montanye, representing the “elders and messengers of the Philadelphia Association,” wrote the work “On the Baptism of the Holy Ghost” as a circular letter, which was “signed by order of the Association” by the Association moderator.[ii] This letter, as representative of the beliefs of the most influential Baptist body of the time, is worth quoting at some length. The letter stated:
The Baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . was never inculcated . . . [as] the work of regeneration and sanctification . . . in the Gospel, and we think ought not to be considered as constituting any part in the office work of the Divine Spirit in renewing the heart. . . . [O]ur respected [non-Baptist but Christian] friends . . . may be regenerated, and enjoy the highest consolation in the sweet incomes of the Holy Comforter, and the most sensible communion with Christ; yet as all this does not constitute the baptism of the Holy Spirit, nor is designed by it in the sacred Scriptures, it follows of consequence, that, rejecting the water baptism, they have no baptism whatever, and ought cheerfully to submit to that prescribed in the example of Jesus Christ. . . . [T]here is no well founded evidence of [the] present existence . . . of the baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . The term baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . was first taught by the harbinger of Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:11, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” . . . the accomplishment of the promise made by Jesus Christ [of Spirit baptism was in] . . . Acts 2:16-22 . . . [as predicted in] Luke 24:49 . . . Acts 1:4, 5 . . . [and it was] the ground on which the apostles went to Jerusalem, and there in holy concert joined in prayer and supplication for the accomplishment of such qualifying aid, to [promulgate] the knowledge of their exalted Redeemer. . . .
The nature of this baptism, most clearly evinces it to be distinct, and materially different from that of regeneration. The one a still small voice, saying “this is the way;” the other, that of “a rushing mighty wind.” One invisible, “A white stone, and a new name given, which no man knew save he that had received it;” the other, to be seen, “Cloven tongues of fire sat on them.” One internal, filling the heart with secret consolation, joy, and pleasure; the other external, “The whole house where they were sitting.”
This renders the term baptism proper, because they were immersed in the fountain of the Spirit, and thereby made partakers of such extraordinary and miraculous influence, as in regeneration and conversion were never promised.[iii] . . .
The subjects of this baptism differ essentially from those of regeneration. The work of grace is upon the hearts of the unregenerated, bringing them from a state of moral death to life, from darkness to light, and from the power of sin, and service of Satan, to the liberty of the gospel, and the enjoyment of fellowship with God. Whereas, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was upon the apostles; who, having experienced the work of grace upon their souls, and being thereby made partakers of all that is peculiar to regeneration, could not be regenerated by the descent of the sacred Spirit, which being a work only once in the divine life, could not be effected again. . . .
Here it is proper to remove some apparent difficulties, which are a means of puzzling the minds of many. First, what baptism the apostle denominates one baptism? We answer, The instituted appointment of Jesus Christ, which he authorized after his resurrection, which remains a standing ordinance in the church, and which Peter, when filled with the Holy Ghost, enjoined on Cornelius and the rest of the believing Gentiles, even after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit; though the baptism of the Spirit was never an essential prerequisite to water baptism[.] . . . n 1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . there seems no absurdity in saying that the same Spirit influences all nations to yield an obedience to the instituted appointments of Jesus Christ, and so come [by immersion in water] into the union of the body the church. As for sundry other Scriptures, such as Romans 6:3, 4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; Galatians 3:27; they have an evident relation to water baptism, and are no way connected with, nor yet refer to, the work of grace in the heart. . . .
We . . . leave you to [some closing] further instruction. 1.) That though regeneration and sanctification be essential to the character of a Christian, yet neither of them constitute the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 2.) However much you may enjoy of the Spirit, as the Spirit of life, light, and love; you have no Scripture grounds to call this the inward baptism, and so the one baptism, and thereby live in the neglect of the appointments of Jesus Christ. 3.) That as the baptism of the Holy Ghost was given for the confirmation of the gospel dispensation, it has effected its design; the sacred prophecy is fulfilled, and it has ceased. 4.) That as [this] extraordinary work, and no other, is known in the gospel as the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that took place after faith in Christ, or regeneration, we have no right to call regeneration baptism. 5.) Though we are the hopeful subjects of divine grace, and live in the smiles of heaven; it is both our duty and privilege to submit to the appointments of Jesus Christ, as laid down in his word.----------

Spirit Baptism—the Historic Baptist View, part 19

Historic Baptist support for a first century fulfillment of Spirit baptism and for interpreting 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a reference to the ...

kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

 

[MTMattie]

My statement still stands as true: God never identifies non-Hebrew Gentiles as Olive tree in Scripture. The Olive tree is Israel and those being "grafted BACK in" are disobedient Jews/Israel.

@jeremiah1five , dont be as my grandpap would say.... ανοησία

@GodsGrace posted this above, and you have as usual ignored.

YOU said " God never identifies non-Hebrew Gentiles as Olive tree in Scripture. The Olive tree is Israel and those being "grafted BACK in" are disobedient Jews/Israel."

Paul says you are wrong.

See what the following says about Gentiles... I reddened the important words in case you get lost.


Romans 11
11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!

13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch * then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited *, but fear;

21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Do you not understand that In Romans 11:11–24 Paul compares Israel to the natural branches of a cultivated olive tree and the Gentile believers to the branches of a wild olive tree. Some of the natural branches (Israel) were broken off, and the wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in (verse 17).

The Gentiles, then, have been made partakers of the promises and inherit the blessings of God’s salvation.

 

[Jim]

Whatever you say @Jim.

No @Johann, it is not whatever I say. It is what the scriptures say.

Eph 1:10 for the administration of the fullness of times, to bring together all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him
Eph 1:11 in whom also we were chosen, having been predestined according to the purpose of the One who works all (+) things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 (+) that we who hoped beforehand in Christ should be for the praise of his glory,
Eph 1:13 in whom also you, when you heard [This participle (“hearing”) and the following one (“believing”) are understood as temporal] the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also when you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.

In verse 13, to "believe in" God is more than simply mental assent. It also means to have confidence in God, to trust in God, to act in accordance with God's commands and teaching. As another has said, "How can anyone say they believe in God and then not do what God says?" God says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

In 1802, Pastor T. B. Montanye, representing the “elders and messengers of the Philadelphia Association,” wrote the work “On the Baptism of the Holy Ghost” as a circular letter, which was “signed by order of the Association” by the Association moderator.[ii] This letter, as representative of the beliefs of the most influential Baptist body of the time, is worth quoting at some length. The letter stated:
The Baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . was never inculcated . . . [as] the work of regeneration and sanctification . . . in the Gospel, and we think ought not to be considered as constituting any part in the office work of the Divine Spirit in renewing the heart. . . . [O]ur respected [non-Baptist but Christian] friends . . . may be regenerated, and enjoy the highest consolation in the sweet incomes of the Holy Comforter, and the most sensible communion with Christ; yet as all this does not constitute the baptism of the Holy Spirit, nor is designed by it in the sacred Scriptures, it follows of consequence, that, rejecting the water baptism, they have no baptism whatever, and ought cheerfully to submit to that prescribed in the example of Jesus Christ. . . . [T]here is no well founded evidence of [the] present existence . . . of the baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . The term baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . was first taught by the harbinger of Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:11, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” . . . the accomplishment of the promise made by Jesus Christ [of Spirit baptism was in] . . . Acts 2:16-22 . . . [as predicted in] Luke 24:49 . . . Acts 1:4, 5 . . . [and it was] the ground on which the apostles went to Jerusalem, and there in holy concert joined in prayer and supplication for the accomplishment of such qualifying aid, to [promulgate] the knowledge of their exalted Redeemer. . . .
The nature of this baptism, most clearly evinces it to be distinct, and materially different from that of regeneration. The one a still small voice, saying “this is the way;” the other, that of “a rushing mighty wind.” One invisible, “A white stone, and a new name given, which no man knew save he that had received it;” the other, to be seen, “Cloven tongues of fire sat on them.” One internal, filling the heart with secret consolation, joy, and pleasure; the other external, “The whole house where they were sitting.”
This renders the term baptism proper, because they were immersed in the fountain of the Spirit, and thereby made partakers of such extraordinary and miraculous influence, as in regeneration and conversion were never promised.[iii] . . .
The subjects of this baptism differ essentially from those of regeneration. The work of grace is upon the hearts of the unregenerated, bringing them from a state of moral death to life, from darkness to light, and from the power of sin, and service of Satan, to the liberty of the gospel, and the enjoyment of fellowship with God. Whereas, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was upon the apostles; who, having experienced the work of grace upon their souls, and being thereby made partakers of all that is peculiar to regeneration, could not be regenerated by the descent of the sacred Spirit, which being a work only once in the divine life, could not be effected again. . . .
Here it is proper to remove some apparent difficulties, which are a means of puzzling the minds of many. First, what baptism the apostle denominates one baptism? We answer, The instituted appointment of Jesus Christ, which he authorized after his resurrection, which remains a standing ordinance in the church, and which Peter, when filled with the Holy Ghost, enjoined on Cornelius and the rest of the believing Gentiles, even after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit; though the baptism of the Spirit was never an essential prerequisite to water baptism[.] . . . n 1 Corinthians 12:13 . . . there seems no absurdity in saying that the same Spirit influences all nations to yield an obedience to the instituted appointments of Jesus Christ, and so come [by immersion in water] into the union of the body the church. As for sundry other Scriptures, such as Romans 6:3, 4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; Galatians 3:27; they have an evident relation to water baptism, and are no way connected with, nor yet refer to, the work of grace in the heart. . . .
We . . . leave you to [some closing] further instruction. 1.) That though regeneration and sanctification be essential to the character of a Christian, yet neither of them constitute the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 2.) However much you may enjoy of the Spirit, as the Spirit of life, light, and love; you have no Scripture grounds to call this the inward baptism, and so the one baptism, and thereby live in the neglect of the appointments of Jesus Christ. 3.) That as the baptism of the Holy Ghost was given for the confirmation of the gospel dispensation, it has effected its design; the sacred prophecy is fulfilled, and it has ceased. 4.) That as [this] extraordinary work, and no other, is known in the gospel as the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that took place after faith in Christ, or regeneration, we have no right to call regeneration baptism. 5.) Though we are the hopeful subjects of divine grace, and live in the smiles of heaven; it is both our duty and privilege to submit to the appointments of Jesus Christ, as laid down in his word.----------

Spirit Baptism—the Historic Baptist View, part 19

Historic Baptist support for a first century fulfillment of Spirit baptism and for interpreting 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a reference to the ...

kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com

I believe absolutely that baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit is baptism in water for the receiving of the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. I believe the one baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism which is the occasion of two specific results; the first is the forgiveness of sins and the second is the receiving of the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit is the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not associated with the empowering of the Holy Spirit to work miracles such as speaking in tongues and prophesying. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was first addressed by John the Baptist (Matt 3:11). It was a promise, spoken of by John the Baptist, to those from Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan who were going out to him. The same can be said of Mark's promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8); similarly, for Luke (Luke 3:16). Such was not the power to work miracles. The difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is that Christain baptism is not only for the forgiveness of sins, but also for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. That is the clear message of Acts 19:1-9, showing that the receiving of the Holy Spirit comes with baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, the empowering of the Holy Spirit to work miracles came separately with the laying on of Paul's hands.

I can add a much deeper and more complete discussion of the topic if you wish.

 

[Johann]

No @Johann, it is not whatever I say. It is what the scriptures say.

In verse 13, to "believe in" God is more than simply mental assent. It also means to have confidence in God, to trust in God, to act in accordance with God's commands and teaching. As another has said, "How can anyone say they believe in God and then not do what God says?" God says, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

I believe absolutely that baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit is baptism in water for the receiving of the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. I believe the one baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism which is the occasion of two specific results; the first is the forgiveness of sins and the second is the receiving of the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit. Baptism in/with/by the Holy Spirit is the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not associated with the empowering of the Holy Spirit to work miracles such as speaking in tongues and prophesying. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was first addressed by John the Baptist (Matt 3:11). It was a promise, spoken of by John the Baptist, to those from Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan who were going out to him. The same can be said of Mark's promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8); similarly, for Luke (Luke 3:16). Such was not the power to work miracles. The difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is that Christain baptism is not only for the forgiveness of sins, but also for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. That is the clear message of Acts 19:1-9, showing that the receiving of the Holy Spirit comes with baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, the empowering of the Holy Spirit to work miracles came separately with the laying on of Paul's hands.

I can add a much deeper and more complete discussion of the topic if you wish.

Do you believe in baptismal regeneration @Jim?

J.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Following your logic there can't be hell / LOF (only Sheol) since there is no Old Testament precedence of hell / LOF.

Sheol is the grave.
"Hell" (Hades) is the grave.
Both are "unseen" (Strong's.)
Too many medieval interpretations confusing the literal definitions.
Stick with the literal unless the context indicates another understanding. Don't be too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good.

 

[jeremiah1five]

So are you making the animal sacrifices called for in the OT?

The Ceremonial has been fulfilled by Christ. Same of the Social and Moral Law. But for the Jew they do not err by planning to build their third Temple and reestablishing animal sacrifices. In time the Law will show them their Messiah and they will reform.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24.

For those that erroneously believe the Law was "abolished" or "obsolete" if that is the case then NO ONE can be saved. Leave Israel to their Messiah and their God and let's not tell another nation how they are to worship their God.