/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>572210

(((Scofield Reference Bible))) is what really got it

I am just discussing this with my girl but let's not be farcical: Its the jews.

Don't believe me? Look at all the bs that has been added to the supersessionism kikepedia article. They have the nerve to call it anti-satanic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

>>572214

What bs do you speak of?

Supersessionism sounds alright to me.

>>572256

Seems to me that the similarity is just that both (all 3 tbh) religions claim the title of God's Chosen, and say that their Holy Text is the final truth and revelation.

What's your point?

>>572214

>Its the jews

This. This garbage became so widespread because a certain group of (((people))) that have a near monopoly on the media wanted it to become widespread, because it serves their interests.

>>572261

Christians don't discount all of abrahamic history and corrupt it for their purposes. Jesus himself clearly stated the succession of Israel from race to faith. You don't get to set up a barbaric law forced upon people through conquest, force allusions to abraham, undermine the importance of the Messiah, tell me that apostasy is tantamount to death, then tell me that you're cool with Christians, while simultaneously calling for our destruction via imams and state heads.

>>572263

Fair enough. Islam is in my opinion just something Muhammad (a demon-possessed warlord) fabricated to assert that God was pleased with his caravan raiding woman stealing ways.

I would say that as Christians we are the chosen people of God.

Romans 2

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

and Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

>>572267

While I appreciate your quoting of scripture, I think it is just as important to be able to explain ourselves using the internally consistent logic inherent to our faith. Hypocrisy is the downfall of all other religions, even if our enemies obfuscate the truth from the uninitiated through force and guile.

>>572270

Do you believe in supersessionism?

>>572280

Its not a belief my friend, its a fact that founds our faith. Its why I'm on the road to orthodoxy these days. While I love you baptists for your zeal, you are just as susceptible to heresy as I was.

>>572270

Christ explains the passing of the covenant from the biological jews to the Church in several ways.

>parable of the wicked husbandman

The prophets were the messengers sent, the Son was Christ, the husbandmen are replaced

>wedding party

The jews are those who don't come, so the party is opened to all

>cursing of the fig tree

It didn't bear fruit in its season (Paul echoes this theme in branches discarded from vs grafted into the One Vine)

>prodigal son

the younger one is celebrated, the older one resents it (this parable has many interpretations this is one part of it, the other part is repentance)

>the wages are the same regardless of when they're called, even at the eleventh hour

the gentiles are called last, this is one part of of it, the other is that repentance is always possible)

>the pride of the pharisees

one of many sections where the inadequacy of the old Law is pointed out

In Isaiah, it is said that the ox and the ass know their master. This is why there is an ox and an ass in a proper Nativity scene, because this symbolizes that the new covenant applies to both the ox and the ass, jew and gentile, who in the old Law would never be yoked together (Lev, Deut).

There is no Israel but the Church, and there is no Jerusalem but the Kingdom to Come.

>>572281

Okay, just trying to see where you stood.

>>572283

Absolutely this.

>>572283

>the inadequacy of the old Law

Calm the fuck down son

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

Seriously what is so difficult to comprehend here that literally every denomination has zionist fringe groups?

>>572656

Really this. When you allow everyone to have their own personal interpretation of the Bible, it becomes much easier to subvert.

>>572658

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

>>572658

Don'¨t sperg out. The question was how a protestant doctrine got so widespread.

A reminder also for Cats to never pay attention to this cryptoJew (prot convert, can't blame him) who writes for catholic answers.

> That is not the case. The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds.

>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-corporate-conversion-of-israel

For the record, "Supersessionism" is basically catholic doctrine. i.e Jews covenant was already fulfilled. The messiah was born through them. The current "so called jews" are tamludist synagogue of sataners.

>>572682

>Dispensationalism

>Protestant

good one m8

I never really "got" Dispensationalism. Would someone care for a summary?

>>572615

The love of money.

>>577055

Seconding this.

>>577055

Basically the idea that there are different ages during which there are different ways to go to heaven. The specific ages depend on who you ask but the important ones are the Mosaic or Law age, the current Church or Grace age and the coming Kingdom. Now many non-Dispensationalists hold a similar view and look at the New Covenant as either fulfilling the Old one or replacing or something along those lines.

Where the real kicker comes in is that they believe that the Old Covenant is still in effect. The idea that Jews can get to heaven simply just by observing the Mosaic Law even if they reject Christ because they are God's chosen people.

I am sure you have seen the silly Evangelicals that almost worship the Jews and Israel and that is where these people come from. They believe that Israel is God's nation and by helping them, the US will be blessed by God. Not all of them are that extreme but even just advocating not to evangelize to the Jews because they still have the old Covenant and basically don't need to accept Jesus is heretical in my view.

>>579902

Have they ever even read Saint Paul?

>>579902

Found a better explanation:

>First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a “test” of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.

>Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.

>Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium).

>In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in “two peoples of God.” Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional “earthly” promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus “heavenly.”

In contrast to that the "Covenant theology":

>Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations. For example, in Scripture we explicitly read of various covenants functioning as the major stages in redemptive history, such as the covenant with Abraham, the giving of the law, the covenant with David, and the new covenant. These post-fall covenants are not new tests of man’s faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensationalism), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.

>The requirement of perfect obedience for eternal life is not annulled by the covenant of grace, but is rather fulfilled by Christ on behalf of His people, since now that all are sinners no one can meet the condition of perfect obedience by his own performance. The covenant of grace, then, does not set aside the covenant of works but rather fulfills it.

>As mentioned above, covenant theology emphasizes that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all of the various redemptive covenants that we read of in the Scripture are simply differing administrations of this one covenant

And finally the "New Covenant Theology":

>The essential difference between New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and Covenant Theology (CT), however, concerns the Mosaic Law. CT holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws — those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel’s theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.

>NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.

>Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God’s eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code’s particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled.

>>579925

In addition to that wikipedia also lists some more "viewpoints about Church-Israel distinctions".

Supersessionism:

> It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant. From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist [outside the Church], the Jews dissent"

And "Dual-covenant theology":

>Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Old Covenant or the Bible's Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.

Historic Premillenialism:

>A major difference between historic and dispensational premillennialism is the view of the church in relation to Israel. Historics do not see so sharp a distinction between Israel and the church as the dispensationalists do, but instead view believers of all ages as part of one group, now revealed as the body of Christ. Thus, historic premillennialists see no issue with the church going through the Great Tribulation, and they do not need a separate pre-tribulational rapture of some believers as the dispensational system requires.

Lastly, wikipedia also has a "Progressive dispensationalism" but that is basically the same as the traditional one except that the dispensations are "progressive stages in salvation history".

Have some more Anderson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTqIqm9SDc

What are some good books on this topic?

>>572680

>Muh Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

http://time.com/4145056

>Vatican Says Catholics Shouldn’t Try to Convert Jews.

>Jews do not need to be converted to Catholicism to find salvation since God did not revoke his covenant with Israel.

>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

You realize the idea of a rapture is fundamentally dispensationalist, right? The alternative is absolute preterism which falls apart. If you're any part dispensationalist, then you are by definition dispensationalist.

>>572210

Rick Wiles explains how it become so popular in America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcFP6--OV4&t=9s

>>580806

Romans 11.

They rejected Christ definitively (blood over our sons). So it won't work that way. But their envy will convert them.

>>572615

So basically a number of Western Christians think John 3:16 doesn't really apply, and that's why you should support the Talmudists?

We have our share of problems in Orthodoxy, but this kind of theology has zero foothold. Arabs and Slavs are pretty redpilled on the subject.

>>580806

>vatican says

>a swiss cardinal wrote some shit

>it's the same thing as an Ex Cathedra papal decree

Your mind on protestantism.

>>580971

It is based in the love of their money. They paid to have the Scofield bible made back in the day, they paid to have it taught in seminaries, they still pay you if you will preach zionism today, one way or another you will be recompensed by them and get some of their stolen money. And I'm pretty sure they are behind a lot of so-called biblical scholarship today, increasingly so.

>How did this garbage get so widespread?

Because it's the truth?

It's logical that as we get closer and closer to the tribulation, once cloudy scriptures would become clear, as prophecy is fulfilled; thus why it was not known until recently.

Also, dispensationalism does not imply dual-covenant theology; most dispensationalists (including me) believe that unsaved Jews are hellward bound.

God's promise to Israel is physical in this dispensation, not spiritual.

>>572708

anything but supersessionism makes no sense, if the Jews' covenant is still valid, why not be a Jew?

>>581066

Not an argument.

>>581069

It is because if you understood partial preterism you wouldn't be a useful idiot for a Jewish ethnostate.

>>581072

Those are spiritual promises. I'm assuming you're an Andersonite. Consider that the Jews must rebuild the Temple and the Antichrist must enter it for the tribulation to be in progress. How can this happen if God didn't give the Jews an everlasting deed to Israel?

Israel is part of God's physical plan for the end times.

>>581078

I'm assuming you're a zionist. What scripture do you have that even shows that Jews are those who follow the Talmud? Because that's what are merely mistaken today for Jews, according to Revelation 2:9 (the only time jews are mentioned in that book other than Revelation 3:9). It says they lie and they are not Jews. And furthermore, Israel is not equivalent to Jews in the first place. These are even more lies, not surprising since they originate in the synagogue of Satan, the father of lies.

So don't confuse later jews with Israel either, because that's us according to Romans 11, Galatians 6:16 and 1 Peter 2:9-10. I am in the spiritual Israel, along with my church, since I as an individual am Christ's, and so I am Abraham's seed and so an heir according to the promise, Galatians 3:29. It's only a matter of time. So again, please don't confuse later jews with Israel. Rather, go back to Romans 11 and read again. And they may yet build something which they have no right to build, we'll see.

Here's more Scriptures to set the stage for this thread:

>Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

>He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

>>581086

>I'm assuming you're a zionist.

Correct.

>What scripture do you have that even shows that Jews are those who follow the Talmud?

Those who are ethnically Jewish are so no matter what religion they practice.

>I am in the spiritual Israel, along with my church, since I as an individual am Christ's, and so I am Abraham's seed and so an heir according to the promise, Galatians 3:29.

Amen!

>Because that's what are merely mistaken today for Jews, according to Revelation 2:9 (the only time jews are mentioned in that book other than Revelation 3:9). It says they lie and they are not Jews.

They are not spiritually Jewish, i.e., part of the spiritual Israel, that is, all people saved by their works before the Church age, and then the Christians, Jew and Gentile, during the Church age.

But their spiritual status does not negate their ethnic status: they're still Jewish!

>>581102

>Now you know.

All you've done with this post is make a lot of assertions. Those who say they are Jews, but are not, but do lie, in Revelation 2:9, are those who still believe that Jews are saved. So, they say they are spiritual Jews, but they lie, because as they have not the Father, they also have not the Son.

There are ethnic Jews today and Israel is their ethnostate, a physical promise fulfilled by God in the last days.

>The Jews in the Bible were not descended from this closely inbred population that calls itself Judaism today.

Yes, they are.

>>581178

I meant because they have not the Son they also have not the Father spiritually.

Gittin 57a

>Onkelos the son of Klonimus desired to convert himself to Judaism. He brought forth Jesus by means of Seance. Onkelos queried to Jesus whom is of importance in that world? Jesus answered him; The Children of Israel. Onkelos further queried; what do you advise to cleave to them? Jesus answered; "their benefit seek, their harm do not seek, as all who touch them is as if he is touching the pupil of God's eye". Onkelos said to Jesus; what is the judgement of that man [Jesus]? Jesus said to him "in excrement he is boiling".

>>581192

Who's the first "Jesus" in there? Is he just some Rabbi with the same name?

>>581193

No that's them putting words in the Lord Jesus' mouth.

>>581179

>You define Jews as those people who follow the Talmud and their immediate descendents.

No, I don't. I define them as all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through matrilineal descent. Most people who are ethnically Jewish don't believe in the Talmud at all.

Here's a good overview of some kinds of things many Zionists are unknowingly supporting and blessing.

2 John 1:9-11

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

>>581196

I am watching the video now but it seems to be just more attacks on the Talmud. I'm a Christian - why would I support the Talmud? You're continuing to fail to understand the difference between ethnic Jews and spiritual Jews. Ethnic Jews can be of any religion - spiritual Jews are Christians, but were in times past, Jews according to the Torah; but the so-called "Oral Torah" has never been valid. The Talmud is a wicked and Satanic book which re-interprets the OT to remove Jesus Christ.

God's promise was that in the last days there would be an ethnostate for all ethnic Jews. It just so happens that most of them are mixed up in the false religion of Talmudic Judaism – they say they are spiritual Jews, but are not.

>>581193

There are many such blasphemous passages regarding "Yeshu" in (((the Talmud))). (((They))) of course have no qualms about lying to goyim and so will shrug and say it could be anyone to the goyim’s face, but (((they))) know exactly who they mean by Yeshu. Video related.

>>581197

The most shocking fact of this coverage is not that one man carried out a massacre, but rather the most shocking is the reaction of all the zionist Jews and zionist Christians to support and defend his acts.

>>581199

The Arabs are there illegally – while Goldstein's actions are not just, neither are those of the Arabs for continuing to disallow the temple to be rebuilt. Most of the Torah requires a working temple, and we, that is, most dispensationalists, believe that the end times hinge on the Third Temple.

Most articles cite the Dome of the Rock as the third holiest site in Islam, yet it's the holiest site in Judaism. The Muslims have Mecca, but yet they also demand a mosque in Jerusalem on top of that, while Judaism, which is much more ancient, gets nothing. My Bible tells me that the Dome will eventually come down – and I can sympathize with those who are frustrated with Arab demands, even if I wouldn't murder a bunch of Arabs, because it won't result in the Dome coming down unless it's an official state action.

>>581198

Disgusting.

>>581044

>Because it's the truth?

Why is it without basis in the bible and is infact contradicted by it?

>>581278

Dispensationalism necessarily arises from the following:

1. Biblical inerrancy;

2. Biblical literalism;

3. Conflicting plans of salvation in the Old and New Testaments presenting a challenge to (1).

Just as the Trinity is not clearly laid out in Scripture, but it arises from statements made all over the Bible, dispensationalism has naturally arisen from the text of the Bible, and it is a way to understand the text that preserves all three.

Most Christians aren't at all interested in preserving all three, but I'm only concerned with arguing with those who are yet still reject dispensational truth.

>>581281

>3. Conflicting plans of salvation in the Old and New Testaments presenting a challenge to (1).

Wow. Read Hebrews 11 sometime. That is, if you're serious about this.

>Just as the Trinity is not clearly laid out in Scripture,

This concept is already in 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19. Not to mention Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8 and John 15:26. Now tell me where you get this modern doctrine and don't use Scofield footnotes?

>it is a way to understand the text that preserves all three.

Why exactly do you want to preserve conflicting plans of salvation? It's not there in the Bible. You're only failing to understand it in this point.

>>581281

>3. Conflicting plans of salvation in the Old and New Testaments

Astoundingly unbiblical view of redemptive history. The fact salvation is the same now and forever is Paul's central argument in Romans 4. He explicitly says Abraham was saved by grace through faith, and on top of that uses it to argue that we are saved by grace through faith in the same way. More than that, every argument he makes in any epistle hinges on the inability of men to be saved by works. Have we only been sinners since Pentecost? Are we only Adam's children since Christ came? The reality is that God's gracious covenant with man has always been on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, and so the Abrahamic covenant is the selfsame covenant of grace.

>>581394

>Why exactly do you want to preserve conflicting plans of salvation? It's not there in the Bible. You're only failing to understand it in this point.

I don't want to preserve it. I don't have any choice in the matter: it's God's word. How was Adam saved? Or Abel? How was anyone before the Law saved? Before the current Church Age, there were two things required for salvation: faith and works. It will also be this way during the tribulation, but that's another matter entirely.

>This concept is already in 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19. Not to mention Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8 and John 15:26. Now tell me where you get this modern doctrine and don't use Scofield footnotes?

I meant that the concept of the Trinity in its fullness is not laid out in any particular place; you proved that for me by having to jump all over the Bible. It's exactly the same with dispensationalism. If Scripture is taken literally, it's obvious that the plan of salvation has changed repeatedly, because it is re-instituted in different ways as the grand narrative of the Bible marches on.

>>581657

Obviously we're all sinners; but that doesn't mean that Abraham was completely justified by faith as Christians are today, you're misunderstanding Romans 4. Faith played a big part in Old Testament salvation, but works were also critical: God explicitly kills wicked people repeatedly in the OT. How could Abraham believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, when He had not been born in the days of Abraham, or even prophesied? He had faith in God, but he was not completely justified by this faith; otherwise, why is Cain in heaven? What was the point of the ceremonial law? What was the point of the sacrifices? All this stuff had to fail first in order for the current dispensation to take effect.

>>581744

meant why isn't Cain in heaven

>>580809

Only if you are pre-Trib retard. Post-Trib is not dispensationalist.

>>581744

>How was Adam saved? Or Abel?

The same way as any other man, the only way a man can be saved, by grace alone through faith alone.

>Before the current Church Age, there were two things required for salvation: faith and work

Then everyone under the old covenant has been damned, since God's holiness has not increased since then. The requirements of the law were no less rigorous. “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."

>that doesn't mean that Abraham was completely justified by faith as Christians are today, you're misunderstanding Romans 4

Then Paul is making a poor argument in Romans 1-3 when he argues from the sinfulness of man, since according to you such sinfulness doesn't necessarily require a gracious salvation. Furthermore, unless Abraham was justified in the exact same way as us, Paul has no argument. This is his entire argument in Romans 4, and if Abraham was justified in part by works the judaizers could defeat him very easily just by pointing it out. But what does he say? "The promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void". I was going to provide interpretation, but I think this passage is more than clear enough to speak for itself. The promise is founded on the righteousness of faith, not works of the law.

>God explicitly kills wicked people repeatedly in the OT

Has He stopped doing so? We the wicked whom He has called are not spared, but we are killed in Christ. He became our curse for us.

But even those saints in the old and new covenants whom God makes to give up the ghost for their sins do not come before God as servants in judgement, but children in chastisement.

>How could Abraham believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, when He had not been born in the days of Abraham

Though the message has come in clarity since the Lord was born, the old covenant saints were not without the gospel, as Paul says "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed'". Furthermore, the law contains a promise conditioned on perfect obedience, on pain of eternal death, but the gospel proclaims a promise which is without condition. The former drives sinners to misery, the latter to peace with God and themselves. How is the gospel not clearly seen in so many gracious promises of the Old Testament, such as "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee"?

>or even prophesied

The first prophecy of Christ was at the fall of man, see Genesis 3:15

>why is Cain in heaven?

I don't remember the bible telling me what Cain's final fate is, but I do know that whatever it is it is for the same reason as everyone else.

>What was the point of the ceremonial law?

Threefold as per usual, with an additional forth; first, it was to constrain the wicked hearts of men, second, it was to show sinners their need for Christ by their inability to keep it, third, it revealed the proper course of righteousness to those grateful to be saved (though improperly and principally rather than properly and explicitly), and fourth, to show the zeal of the Israelite nation, that the Gentiles might come unto it and be saved.

>What was the point of the sacrifices?

As with all sacraments, they were signs and seals of the grace of God in Christ. Scripture says that the sacrifices could never take away sins, and it also tells us the sacrifices took away sins, that they were shadows and figures and by Christ's sacrifice alone will men be forgiven. How can these two things be reconciled? The sacrifices took away sins, not of themselves, but because a promise was affixed to them, that is, men who drew near to God through them were saved by them, not because of the faith of the men in them, but because of their faith in the perfect offering they revealed would come.

>>581744

>I don't want to preserve it. I don't have any choice in the matter: it's God's word.

You listed it as one of your three axioms. In other words, you are assuming it must be true along with Biblical inerrancy. The question is why is this required as a tenet along with Scripture instead of being derived from it?

>I meant that the concept of the Trinity in its fullness is not laid out in any particular place;

Yes it is, in 1 John 5:7. That's all I would have to quote if I just needed one sentence from scripture.

>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I added all the other verses that further support it because I just have an abundance of scripture to support it. Which is my point because you don't have this abundance of scripture to support this third point, because it's not actually there.

>Faith played a big part in Old Testament salvation, but works were also critical:

Romans 4:2-5

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:13-14

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

>How could Abraham believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, when He had not been born in the days of Abraham, or even prophesied?

Genesis 15:6

And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

>He had faith in God, but he was not completely justified by this faith; otherwise, why isn' Cain in heaven?

Hebrews 11:4. So you see now why this whole conflicting plans of salvation idea is founded on nothing but misconceptions, only found written in the footnotes of the Scofield study bible. Before him and Darby, the concept was unknown because it's a manmade tradition.

>>581798

>The first prophecy of Christ was at the fall of man, see Genesis 3:15

This.

>>572210

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHppGqFC-6Q

Psalm 94

O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.

Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud.

LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?

How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?

They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage.

They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.

Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.

Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?

He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?

The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.

For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.

Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.

When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up.

In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?

They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.

But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

If you are a zionist dispensationalist, you cannot appreciate this. You have to know that we are the people and the inheritance, only through Jesus Christ, the Psalm is talking about us, and the synagogue of Satan is long ago cut off in its iniquity, as it also says in Romans 11. But we are the inheritance and the people, Galatians 4:28, Psalm 22:30-31, Acts 15:14, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Otherwise, you have to praise the Talmud as being "righteous" and "upright" in this Psalm! Which is exactly what evangelical dispensationalists tend to do! And furthermore they say that later jews will be saved by blood inheritance, denying that Jesus Christ, the Son of David inherits all things by right. Let this not be so named among you all. Romans 4:14.