What is the difference between Grace of God in OT & NT

Gen 6:8  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Tit 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Tit 3:6  Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Tit 3:7  That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 I do not see any difference in the grace of God between the Old and New Testaments. But perhaps I did not understand what you are asking.

Babu George

I have to disagree with what was posted by Mr.Koshy and Babu. There is indeed a qualitative and quantitative difference between the grace seen in the OT and NT.

'Grace' seen in the OT is exemplified by Ps 84:11 - "For the LORD God is a sun and shield;The LORD will give grace and glory; No good thing will He withhold From those who walk uprightly." In the OT, as the Psalmist observes, the Lord gives grace and glory ONLY to those who walk uprightly. This is true of Noah and Moses, both of whom are stated as having received God's grace. In fact Isaiah proposes and declares the futility of giving grace to the wicked in Isa 26:10. That was the concept of grace in the OT.

In the NT, grace of God is exemplified by the John 1:17 - "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." and 2 Cor 8:9  says "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." Rom 5:8 tells us when this grace became available "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Even though grace of God is definable as "undeserved mercy", the objects of His grace are different in the OT versus the NT. In the NT, God has shown His grace to all mankind. This grace, which abounded as sin abounded, came in the NT with the birth of Jesus Christ.

One other difference between OT and NT is the "measure of grace". Paul talks about this is Rom 12:6 and Eph 4:7 - each person has received a unique measure of grace. The measure (if we could measure God's grace) poured out on individuals is vastly greater than what we see in the OT. This is seen in Acts 4:33 - "And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all." We do not read of such "great grace" anywhere in the OT.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

You wrote that you do not disagree with what I wrote. I take it then that you understood what I wrote because, if you did not understand, then you would not "not disagree".  Since you understood what I wrote, I do not see any need for more "explanation". However, if some other readers disgaree and request it, I will be happy to provide more explanation.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "All I understand is that your statements do not agree with the verses you cited." If you understood that my statements do not agree with the verses cited, then why did you write before that  "I am not disagreeing with what you wrote"? If you are not disagreeing, then that means that you agree with the statements in what I wrote. In other words you agreed with the statements that you now claim do not agree with the verses cited. Why did you not disagree with statements that you understood not to agree with the verses cited?

You asked me why I disagreed with what you wrote. This is my answer - I disagree with the phrase "there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments" in your statement "If we study these in detail, then we come to realize that there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments." But I agree with you that source of the 'grace of God' is God Himself and God is the same in the OT and NT. In the NT we read that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17).

Quote “I request you to explain from the Scriptures, your statement, “There is indeed a qualitative and quantitative difference between the grace seen in the OT and NT.” Where do we read about this “quantitative and qualitative difference between grace in the OT and NT?”” I still wait to hear from you." - Please do not wait anymore. Just re-read my post 18 May 2010 7:45:55 PM where I explained the qualitative and quantitative difference. Remember you wrote that you do not disagree with what I wrote. Since you did not disagree, then you just need to re-read and understand better that which you did not disagree.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

 You said "Let us think about a dialog between two people." In connection with this statement from you, let me say this:

1. My post was not a "dialog" with you. I was addressing the question raised by 'sambudhanoor'. So your analogy of A and B dialog is not very congruent to this situation.

2. Quote "If B does not understand certain things that are placed before him by A, then B cannot say that he agrees or disagrees with what was said by A." That is exactly what I am saying also. Unlike B, you said that you are "not  disagreeing" with what I wrote. So that tells me that you (person B) understood EVERYTHING that I (person A) wrote in my post of 18 May 2010 19:45:55. That is why I find it amusing that you are asking for more explanation.

3. Quote "No one can disagree with another without understanding what the other person said." Perhaps that is why you did not disagree with me?...because you really did understand what I am saying. Yet still you are asking for more explanation.

4. Quote "On the other hand, one may agree without understanding because of various factors, fear of the other person is one of them. In such an instance, B will say that he does not disagree with A, and A should explain or clarify what he said." In a good dialog, B will not only say that he does not disagree with A, but will also state the things that he does 'not disagree' (but would 'agree' with more explanation), with the objective of B being to fully 'agree' with the requested clarification. In your case, you did not state what part of my post of 18 May 2010 19:45:55 you do "not disagree". Instead you asked for more explanation. In fact you later alleged that what I wrote does not agree with the verses quoted. So how did you come to the conclusion that you 'do not disagree' even though you knew that it did not agree with scripture? And if it did not agree with scripture, why are you asking for more explanation?

5. Quote "This is done so that A has another opportunity to make what he said to be understandable to B." If B did not understand something, but did understand enough to know what he 'agrees' and what he does 'not disagree', then, as I said before, B needs to state which part of A's statements needs more explanation. In other words, B 'agrees' with 95% of what A has said, but there is a 5% that he does not disagree. B should tell A what that 5% is that he does 'not disagree'. In your case, instead of asking for the 5% that needs clarification, you ask a very vague and generic question "Where do we read about this “quantitative and qualitative difference between grace in the OT and NT?” My entire post is devoted to answering that question. So, in effect, on the one hand you question everything I wrote, and on the other hand, you do 'not disagree' with ANYTHING I wrote. If you do not disagree, then why are you asking such a question?

6. Since you asked me what I disagreed with your post, I already answered this in my post of 20 May 2010 13:36:40.

Dear readers,

If anybody did not understand my post of 18 May 2010 19:45:55, where I explained the difference between how the grace of God seen in the OT and NT, please speak up and post your difference of opinion. Please do not allow this thread to dis-integrate further. If you keep quiet, should I consider your silence as consent?

Dear Brothers, Babugeorge, George P. Koshy and moses 2006 thanks you for your reply.

Dear Bro.George P. Koshy

Gen 6:8  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.(KJV)

Gen 6:8  But Noah found favour in the eyes of Jehovah. (Darby).

Darby and well as American Standard Version (ASV) translates it as “founds favour in the eyes of Jehovah”.

In Old testament God give grace (found favour) depending on a person’s belief and action. Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah because he was Just, perfect and walked with God.

Gen 6:9  These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

In Psalm 84 we see one who walk uprightly receives Grace from the Lord.

Psa 84:11  For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

In the Old Testament a person who obeys the Law and walk according to that found favour (Grace) in the sight of the God, is that right?

Whereas, in New Testament Grace is provided when a person is unworthy, sinner, who has enmity with God, not because of one’s belief or practice.

Apostle Paul was given the Grace of God when he was torturing the saints.

Rom 11:6  And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Tit 2:11  For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Will you please explain why there is no difference in Grace of God in OT & NT?

Dear Bro, moses 2006

As you said there is difference in Grace of God in OT & NT, will you please explain little more what are the differences?

Gen 6:8  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.(KJV)

Gen 6:8  But Noah found favour in the eyes of Jehovah. (Darby).

Heb 11:7  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Gal 2:21  I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Gal 3:12  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Gal 3:13  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Gal 3:14  That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Dear 'moses2006,'

It becomes apparent that you are not interested to explain what you wrote, but want to engage in a argument, as usual.  If you could explain what I requested, then it will be helpful.  Otherwise, you are trying to establish your ideas without scriptural support..  How many days have passed, after my first request.  You have not answered.

It is becoming like your changing of the word in Romans 10:4.

Shalom Malekim!!! 

Dear Mr. Koshy,

To me it was apparent  from your posts (as usual) that you want to take this discussion into the areas your expertise - a critical analysis of the English words used, challenges on where such words are in the holy scriptures, meanings of phrases and idioms, logical analysis of statements and conjectures, and statistical analysis/pareto of Hebrew and Greek words, etc. Quite frankly, (though I up to the challenge) I am not interested in any of these - they do not edify me spiritually or any of the readers.

What I find odd is that bro Sam understood what I posted, but you (a more scholarly person) is still asking me to repeat what I said. Your only motive is to 'trap' me in a minefield of word games. Just like the pharisees and Herodians tried to 'catch Him in His words' (Mk 12:13). My suggestion is that you try and answer the questions that Bro Sam raised in his post of 24 May 2010 07:53:13.

Dear 'moses2006,'

It is you who want to take the discussion away from the Scriptures to follow your own ideas.  In the past, you tried it in other threads.  If you are not, then please provide the explanation from the Scriptures.  I have shown why your explanations of 18 May 2010 were not in accordance with the verses you cited.  Since you have no explanations to your disagreement then I conclude that you disagree for the sake to disagree and that is without any Scriptural support.  I do not agree with that approach.  Therefore, I disagree and my disagreement is strictly based on your inability to explain what you write, using the Scriptures.  Citing a verse and writing whatever you want is not cutting the Word of God in a straight line.  It has only the appearance.  Even the Seventh Day Adventists do that.

I will continue to answer your questions only after you answer my request from 19 May 2010.  My request of 19 may 2010 came after your posting of 18 May 2010.  You disagreed about what I wrote about the grace of God and how it was received by man, 18 May 2010.  My exact request was, "I request you to explain from the Scriptures, your statement, “There is indeed a qualitative and quantitative difference between the grace seen in the OT and NT.” Where do we read about this “quantitative and qualitative difference between grace in the OT and NT?”"

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear brother Sambudhanoor,

In the NT, God's grace comes first and reigns supreme. In the OT, God's law comes first and reigns supreme. In the NT, the grace of God leads to obedience and faith. In the OT, the law requires obedience in order to receive grace. In both OT and NT, the grace of God is a free gift from God and leads from death to life.

The NT order of grace - Rom 1:5 - Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name. Notice the order:

1. First, all nations have received God's grace (through Him and His apostles),

2. The grace came for producing  'obedience' and

3. The obedience leads 'to the faith' - in that order.

This is the straight forward interpretation from the NT scripture. God shows His grace first to the sinner, the  sinner receives His grace and becomes obedient and that obedience leads to saving faith.

This is exactly what happened to Paul:

1. First the grace ("he is My chosen vessel" - Acts 9:15),

2. Then obedience (Acts 26:19 - "Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" - notice the use of the word 'therefore' - obedience came because of grace) and

3. Then faith and filling by the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).

Nowhere in the OT, do we see such grace that leads to obedience, as we see in the NT. In the OT, obedience to the law is required for grace, whereas disobedience leads to wrath.  This we see all over the OT. Egypt was disobedient and did not receive God's grace. On the other hand, Nineveh was obedient and so did receive God's grace. There are many many other such examples in the OT.

In the OT, the law reigns supreme and so, sin did not create an environment for God's grace, but only His wrath. In the NT, we read Rom 5:20, 21 - But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. So we see that in the OT, the law reigned supreme producing death, but in the NT grace reigns and leads to eternal life through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is the most important difference between the grace of God seen in the OT and NT - grace that abounded where sin abounded. According to John 1:17 - "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." There is definite point in time that 'this grace' CAME. It was not present before. It CAME through Jesus Christ.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Regarding my post of 18 May 2010 19:45:55, you said you are not disagreeing with what I wrote. Can I take that to mean that there is something that you "do not disagree' but cannot 'agree'? Can you tell me what that is?

My 2cents ...

God was always gracious. His grace was bestowed to all kinds of people in all dispensations. Nevertheless, the there is a difference in the extent of grace God has showed in various times.

For Israel  -Old Covenant... grace was there... but hard punishment as well. Let's face it. They were under the BONDAGE of the law according to Paul.

New Covenant  - God promsied that He will make an unconditional covenant, where they will keep the law in liberty (James), and the law will be written in their hearts. No punishment as in the OT.

Grace shown in both cases, but exceeding grace under the New Covenant.

The grace shown to the saints within the one Body whose Head is Christ --> this is EXCEEDING rich grace. The kind of things that God has given to us today are unspoken of in the OT, hidden in the counsels of God:

- spiritual blessings in heavenly places

- inheritance of the saints in light

- seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus

- ALL trespasses forgiven

- made complete in Christ

etc.

Dear bro Lemuelraj,

Considering the impact of the contrast made in John 1:17, the kind of grace we have received came through (and since) Jesus Christ. Before He appeared, the world (and Israel) did not really see the grace of God. From Adam to Malachi, law breakers did not receive any grace. But those who kept the law and the commandments, pleased God, and did see His grace (perhaps more aptly referred to as 'favour').

The real grace of God we see in Jesus Christ, is the kind of grace that ABOUNDED where sin abounded.

Bro Moses,

God indeed showed grace to Israel in the OT. Please consider the following verses in their context. I do agree of courses that there is a great contrast in how God showed grace in the NT, esp the exceeding riches of His grace in relation to the body of Christ.

Exodus 34:5-8  And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and GRACIOUS, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

Nehemiah 9:31  Nevertheless for thy great mercies' sake thou didst not utterly consume them, nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God.

Isaiah 65:2-3  I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

In Christ Jesus

Moses

Dear Mr. Koshy,

The evolution of your disposition towards what I wrote in my post of 18 May 2010 19:45:55 is fascinating and a study in human motives. Please note I did not change my post or restate what I wrote. But see how you change your mind:

On 19 May 2010 18:49:51, you wrote "On the other hand, I am not disagreeing with what you wrote, but I am asking for some explanation.." Note the words "some explanation".

On 20 May 2010 12:42:08, you wrote "All I understand is that your statements do not agree with the verses you cited."

On 21 May 2010 17:38:43, you wrote, "If B does not understand certain things that are placed before him by A, then B cannot say that he agrees or disagrees with what was said by A." The corollary of your statement is - 'If B understands the things placed before him by A, then B can agree or disagree with A'. Based on this corollary, it is clear that you understood my post 18 May 2010 19:45:55, since you 'did not disagree'. So, even though you understood what I wrote, you are still asking for explanation.

Finally on 26 May 2010 19:23:08, you said, "I do not agree with you at all." Again going by your statement of 1 May 2010 17:38:43 (If B does not understand certain things that are placed before him by A, then B cannot say that he agrees or disagrees with what was said by A), if are not agreeing then you must have understood what I wrote on 18 May 2010 19:45:55.

Clearly, your motives have been evolving from your first post of 9 May 2010 18:49:51 to the last post of 26 May 2010 19:23:08. You started with ''do not disagree'' and "some explanation" to "do not agree". I do not care if you agree or disagree, but do you think you can you explain how your disposition to this post of mine (18 May 2010 19:45:55) changed from 'do not disagree' to 'do not agree' within a matter of 7 days?

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I honestly think you already understood very well what I wrote and I do not think of any further explanation is warranted. If I failed to provide scriptural support, you should have said that you do not agree from the beginning. On my part, what I wrote was supported by the verses that I quoted, not just in that post, but in several ones later. 

On the other hand, your statement on 18 May 2010 14:09:22 "If we study these in detail, then we come to realize that there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments." did not have any scriptural support. Show me how many verses you listed to support this conclusion? Can you support your statement with at least one verse? Instead of providing verses in support of your claim, you did a Hebrew/Greek word analysis (although you failed to publish your study in detail). Your approach of FIRST doing statistical analysis with Hebrew/Greek is shown clearly to be an approach that does not work well, in each and every situation. In this particular case, your conclusion leads away from straight forward interpretation of the scripture.

Dear 'noj'

According to John 1:17, "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ". The Son revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament. As Jehovah, He gave them the law. Those kept the law found grace before Him. This is how Noah and Moses received His grace. (Before the actual law was given, God still expected people to follow the laws He has written in our hearts - see Rom 2:14, 15). Ps 84:11 makes this fundamental principle of grace clear. 

In the NT, we read about grace in this way - Rom 5:20,21 - But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. This kind of grace, which abounded in face of abounding of sin (i.e. abounding law breakers) is only seen in the NT with arrival of the Son as Jesus Christ. Not only that, the law which was contrary to us has been WIPED OUT, TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY and NAILED TO THE CROSS (Col 2:14,15).

In the light of all this, it is incorrect to say that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT. If it was, there would have been no need for a new covenant in Jesus Christ and John 1:17 is incorrect. Can you give any example of "grace abounding" where "sin abounded" in the Old Testament?

Dear 'noj'

It is true that God clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skin. This is a prophetic pointer to the grace that would be revealed in Jesus Christ in the NT. But both Adam and Eve broke the law (commandment) of God and received the punishment for that in their body, exactly as God had said would happen. They died spiritually immediately and then a few years later they died physically also. If Adam and Eve received the just punishment for their sin, then how can we say that they received the grace of God? Grace is undeserved mercy. Neither Adam or Eve received "undeserved mercy" from God - they received "just punishment". The clothing by the coats of skin, is not grace of God. It is a shadow or type of being clothed by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. God was showing them, what would be needed for them to stand in the presence of God (fig leaves that they made for themselves just would not do). The writer of Hebrews says this about the OT - "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward" (Heb 2:2). So then, there is no grace where there is "just recompence" of reward.

I agree with you that grace of God is not a licence to sin. I never said that one can use the grace of God to continue in sin. In fact, it is the grace of God is what motivates a believer to keep away from sin. Remember that a child of God is always standing in the grace of God, not in the merits of a sin-free life. According to Paul, those who seek to be justified by keeping God's law, have fallen from His grace (Gal 5:4). In the OT, compliance with the law was required for fellowship with God and for His grace. In the NT, the pursuit of holiness in a believer is prompted by love towards God in response to His love, not out of fear of punishment. Do we see such grace in the OT? I do not think so.

Dear 'noj'

Quote "The redemption of Adam and Eve was complete with the grace of God shown to them in covering their sin with the coats of skin."

Where do we read that Adam and Eve's REDEMPTION was COMPLETE by their being covered in coats of skin? Could you please post the relevant scripture?

Dear 'noj'

Thank you for pointing out some of the areas that I NEED to understand the basics. I have been learning these truths for many years, and I certainly need to continue to do so. Allow me to point out that you have only made statements of personal opinion and have not provided any scriptural basis for your opinions. You have not displayed how your opinions arise from pertinent scripture. So, I am not sure how to respond to such personal opinions which have little value towards spiritual edification.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I have no problem giving more explanation and when Bro Sam asked for it, I did provide. Based on my past experiences with YOU, I cannot help but be reticent and very cautious. Everything I say or write, you will find a way to ridicule or criticize (as an example, just look at the way you took my words "honestly think" - you even called it "meaningless honest thinking" - after reading that kind of commentary, what makes you think that I would want to engage you more?). You also have a unique ability to ask leading questions that can trap people in their words. Even things taken straight from the scriptures, you have the ability to disprove using an analysis of Hebrew or Greek, which for the last 20 centuries was hidden to the body of Christ. Due to these reasons, I am not explaining any more to you. Between all my posts (including those to Bro Sam and 'noj') I have said most of what I had to say on the topic. If I provide more explanation, it will be redundant and a waste of time.

I feel it is you who should provide some scriptural support to your statement "If we study these in detail, then we come to realize that there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments." May I remind you that if I provided verses for fingers in one hand, you did not provide even a SINGLE verse to support your claim. Please start with John 1:17 which says that grace (of God) came through Jesus Christ. This verse is found in the New Testament. You should read it 'as it is written'. This verse itself stands against your statement that "no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments." There are many other verses.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "The summarization I used is only a tool to search the Scriptures using a particular translation without missing verses that may be pertaining to the subject." Would you agree that this kind of analysis is from human ingenuity? Also, would you agree that this method of bible study is highly subjective and prone to interpretational errors based on the bias of the person? Is there an example of such a study or interpretation anywhere in the scriptures? Does the scriptures anywhere indicate that a 'summarization' tool is needed for studying the scripture? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in your 'summarization tool'?

Dear Koshy,

It is not clear how your summarization tool lead you to state that "If we study these in detail, then we come to realize that there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments." Can you elaborate? It would be preferable if instead of using such man made tools,  you support your statement using just the scriptures.

 Dear Mr. Koshy,

Please read the following, where I will explain the same things I wrote above, once again, per your request:

The terms "qualitative" and "quantitative" are not found in the English Bible. Those are my words used to describe how different is God's grace revealed in the NT when compared to what is revealed in the OT. (I hope I do not have explain what the words 'OT' and 'NT' mean).

"Qualitative grace" refers to the "how grace was received". In the OT, over and over, God's grace is received by those who by their works proved their walk with God. For example about Noah we in Gen 6:9 - "Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God." Because of his works, he found grace which is seen in how he was selected by God to build the ark to the saving of himself and his family. In Ps 84:11 we read that no good thing will the Lord withhold from them that walk uprightly. Grace and glory are listed as good things from the Lord - received by those who walk uprightly. The land of Egypt was destroyed, but the city of Nineveh was spared because of their works (of repentance). Many verses refer to Israel being sparred because of God looking at the upright walk of Abraham and His covenant with him.

In contrast to this grace by works, in the NT, we read of grace that abounded where sin abounded. This we read in Rom 5:20. Grace that came by works in the OT is "qualitatively" different from the grace that abounded where sin abounded in the NT. Yes, grace in the OT is a shadow or type of the grace we receive in the NT. But nowhere in the OT do we read about grace that abounded where sin abounded. Quite contrary, in the OT, where sin abounded, the law brought judgement and death. It is only in the NT and only AFTER the coming of Jesus Christ, did the grace of God appear on all sinners. It only AFTER the coming of Jesus Christ that God's grace, once reserved to those who walk uprightly, abounded in the face of abounding sin. In the NT, Nineveh, Egypt and Sodom have all received grace that leads to salvation.

Paul makes this stark contrast between OT and NT in Rom 5:21 - "..so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord..." When did sin reign in death? Before Jesus, in the OT. When does grace reign to eternal life? Through the righteousness of Jesus Christ in the NT. The difference in the grace of God seen in Jesus Christ is so different from the OT, that apostle John writes in John 1:17 that grace came through Jesus Christ. Meaning, before Jesus came, there was no grace of the TYPE we see in the NT. This is what I meant by "qualitative" difference in the grace of God seen in the OT versus the NT. I hope I have clarified the "qualitative" difference in grace in OT versus the NT.

"Quantitative grace" refers to the "measure of grace". In Eph 4:7 we read "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift." In the parable of the talents, we see how each servant got a different measure of talent. Not everybody has the same measure of grace (although Christ is the grace that all have received is the same) in regards to the gifts or talents each have received. In this regard, the apostles in the NT received "great grace" (Acts 4:33). In Acts 4:33, the apostles witnessed themselves as having received grace that can only be described as "great". Nobody in the OT is reported to have received such great "quantity" of grace. We cannot measure God's grace, but we can tell there is a difference in how much each have received. That is what I meant by saying that there is "quantitative" difference also between the grace seen in the OT and the NT in the lives of individuals who received God's grace.

As you can see, you forced me to retype everything that I had posted above. All of the above are repetitions from my posts above. I don't like typing and even though it took me 30 minutes to re-type all this again, I am doing this, to provide the "more explanation" that you are seeking. I have no doubt that you did understand what I had written before. Anyway, can you also provide some SCRIPTURAL support for your statement - "If we study these in detail, then we come to realize that there is no difference in the ‘grace of God’ in the Old and New Testaments"? 

A Side Note:

What's going on here is a wordy duel "without any grace" over "God's grace"!!

Where is grace in the "Snake and Mongoose Fight?"

Dear Mr. Koshy,

The division of the history of the revelation of the word of God into the OT and NT itself is evidence of the difference in grace that is seen in the NT vs. the OT.  According to 1 Cor 3:4, the grace of God was given in Jesus Christ. According to Heb 1:2, in the NT,  “God (is) speaking to us by His Son”.  Both of these verses are indicative of the main theme of the NT. In the NT, it is in Jesus Christ, that we see the fullness of the grace of God. This fullness of the grace of God is not seen anywhere in the OT. The difference between the OT grace and NT grace is the person of Jesus Christ.

When we talk about the grace of God, let’s be sure we are grasping the full scope of what this grace is and why God chose to reveal His grace. God’s grace is summed up in the person of Lord Jesus Christ. It is fulfilled by the glorification of the children of God, which the Father gave to His Son. The goal of God’s grace is not to just show some divine sympathy to a sinful world. The purpose of God’s grace towards man is to bring glory to His Son, Jesus Christ. Without, Jesus Christ, the grace of God is empty. Similarly, without the salvation of His children (that the Father gave to the Son), the grace of God is ineffectual. The NT (not OT) does not reveal an empty or an ineffectual grace of God. On the contrary, it triumphantly teaches the glorified Son of God and the children of God glorified in Him, together defining the extend and scope of the grace of God. Such an insight into the grace of God is only found in the NT. By reading the OT, there is no clear indication of what God’s grace is or even  WHY God showed His grace to man.

What about grace in the OT? In the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve sinned, they received the just punishment for their sin - spiritual and physical death. But the occasion of humanity ‘s fall into sin, afforded to man a glimpse into something unique in the very heart  of God – His mercy and grace. This glimpse of grace was embodied in a promise God made to man - the promise of a Savior. In Eden, man did not receive the grace that we today call “amazing grace”. Far from it, what we do see very clearly is the cherubim with the sword turning every way to keep man from returning to Eden. The dread and fear of the sword of God (i.e. fear of God who hates and punishes sinners) dominates over the hope and the promise of the Savior (who loved and forgave sinners). This we see all through the OT. In different passages, we see glimpses of God’s grace, but the dominating theme in the OT, is not grace, but judgment of sin and punishment.

Nevertheless, the OT saints knew from their experience that God is gracious. At least 2 people are reported as having received the grace of God – Noah and Moses. But we also know (from indirect interpretation) that Abraham, Lot,  Jacob, Joseph and Gideon also received grace from God. Foreigners like Naaman and the widow of Zarephath were recipients of God’s grace. Even cities like Nineveh received grace from God. But in all these cases, God's grace is received (1)by works of righteousness (e.g. Noah), (2)acts of penitence (e.g. Lot, Nineveh) or (3)by promise/covenant (e.g. Abraham, Jacob) (4) by appeasing sacrifices that are symbolic of the cross of Jesus Christ (e.g. the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, Noah, Israel, etc) (5) by people chosen by the sovereignty of God (e.g. Naaman, widow of Zarephath, etc). David in Psalms 84 observes that the Lord does give grace and glory and He does not withhold these good things from those who walk uprightly. Thus, reason (1) and (2)  are the most common reason for receiving the grace of God in the OT. In general, we can observe that in the OT, sinners almost never received the grace of God.

Not so in the NT. In the NT, the grace of God as seen in our Lord Jesus (1)is revealed to a world of sinners as a free gift that does not require a "payment" of any works  - Rom 3:24, 4:4, 4:16 (2) is revealed to all sinners all over the world and abounded where sin abounded - Rom 5:20, Tit 2:11 (3) is an irresistible grace that leads to obedience and faith - Rom 1:5, 9:16, Phil 2:12,13, Acts 13:48 (4) is a secure standing for a believer - Rom 5:2 (6) convicts and keeps people from the dominion of sin - Rom 6:14 (7) will never end until the recipients of His grace are made like unto His Son - 1 Pet 1:13 (8) builds a person and secures his eternal inheritance - Acts 20:32 (9) is made perfect in weakness - 2 Cor 12:9.

See how great is the grace of God we see in Jesus Christ in the NT. We can only call His grace as “amazing grace”. Did any individual in the OT receive this amazing grace? In which Psalm did David sing "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound"? He cannot and could not because this revelation of the full scope of the grace of God is seen ONLY in the NT and in Jesus Christ. Can we see this kind of amazing grace in the OT? How can you say that this “amazing grace” is the same as seen in the OT?

 To say that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT, amounts to saying that the NT does not reveal a greater grace from God more than what is seen in the OT. It discounts and belittles the truth of the Word of God which says in John 1:17 that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ".  John, writing 30-40 years after Jesus resurrection continues, "of His fullness have we all received grace for grace." So, the fullness of the grace of God is only in Jesus Christ and this fullness was not received nor ever seen before Jesus came or in the OT. If the grace of God was the same revealed in the OT and NT, one could get saved simply by reading the OT. But we know this is not true.

You mentioned 3 questions to consider in this discussion – “What is the grace of God; how do we receive the grace of God; and the means by which God provides His grace to sinners.” All 3 questions have only one answer and that answer found in the NT, not OT – the person of Lord Jesus Christ. Q1 – What is the grace of God? – The grace of God is the “undeserved mercy” shown to sinners in His Son, Jesus Christ. The grace of God is fulfilled in His Son and the children of God, which the Father gave to His Son. Q2– How do we receive the grace of God? – The grace of God is received only in and through the name of Jesus Christ. Q3 – The means by which God provides His grace to sinners – by drawing sinners to His Son, Jesus Christ. All 3 questions are answered satisfactorily, completely and clearly only by applying the teachings of the NT. We cannot answer these questions satisfactorily, just by studying the OT.

Peter says in 1 Pet 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you..". The prophets prophesied of a grace that would come in the future to those who lived in the NT age. If these prophets, all of whom lived in the OT, prophesied of a grace to come in the future(i.e.  NT), how can you say that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT? If the grace of God was the same in the OT and NT, why did these prophets have to "enquire and search diligently" for the salvation that this grace would bring?

Let me summarize the above paragraphs which conclusively demonstrate a “qualitative” and significant difference in the grace of God seen in the NT versus that seen just in the OT. (Note: The use of the word “qualitative” is arbitrary and not from scripture. The ONLY “quality” about the grace of God in the NT is the person of Jesus Christ)

1 - The very fact that we have an OLD and NEW testaments is evidence of something different and new about the NT – this is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the very embodiment of the fullness of God’s grace. Before Jesus came, we do not see this FULLNESS of God’s grace anywhere in the OT. This is what is “new” about the New Testament.

2 - The full scope of the grace of God is not only seen but also fulfilled in the teachings of NT, in Jesus Christ. The Son and the children that the Father gave unto the Son fulfills the grace of God, which began in the Garden of Eden. Such a fulfillment is not seen (but is prophesied) in the OT.

3 - We do see glimpses into the grace of God in the OT. But unlike the NT, grace is not the main theme of the OT. In the OT, the predominant theme is the law and commandments which warn sinners of judgment and death.

4 – In the OT we see grace of God received mainly by the righteous and the penitent. Almost never does a sinner (or an outsider to the Abrahamic covenant) receive the grace of God.

5 -  In the NT, the grace of God is a free gift of His love to all the world of sinners.  Jesus came to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous. This grace of God is an irresistible grace that takes a sinner from the lowest hell and ensures his eternal destiny in glory with God – amazing grace, not seen in the OT.

6 - To say that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT, amounts to saying that the NT does not reveal a greater grace from God more than what is seen in the OT. It discounts and belittles the truth of the Word of God which says in John 1:17 that "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ".

7 - If the grace of God was the same revealed in the OT and NT, one could get saved simply by reading the OT. But we know this is not true. Only in the NT is righteousness of God revealed by faith in His Son.

8 – Answers to the 3 questions you raised can only be fully and satisfactorily answered by looking at the doctrines taught in the NT.

9 – 1 Pet 1:10 makes it very clear that the OT prophets prophesied of the grace that WOULD COME to the saints in the NT. This verse is a clear evidence that the grace of God revealed in the OT and NT are not the same.

God willing, I will continue with the “quantitative” differences in the grace of God later.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "In KJV, This expression is in italics. That means that they are added by the translators. Without that, this verse will read, “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace unto you...”

If the OT prophets prophesied of the grace unto NT saints, how can you say that this grace received by NT saints is the same as the grace experienced by these OT prophets? The "grace unto you" was a prophecy and it was fulfilled by the coming of Lord Jesus. This "grace" prophesied by OT prophets is fulfilled when John said in Joh 1:17 - "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." 

I am amazed at the disregard for the plain interpretation of the Word of God!!!

Dear Mr. Koshy,

This thread is about grace, not about truth. But if I were to diverge to the area of 'truth', Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life". If Moses saw Jehovah only partially, then in Jesus we see God, the Father completely. So, indeed (just like grace) TRUTH revealed is greater in the NT than the OT. But, as I said, "truth" is not the topic of this discussion. In this thread we are focusing on 'grace'. If you would like to discuss 'truth' in the OT and NT, please start a new thread.

Coming to Joh 1:17, the Greek word G1096 has the following meanings as given by Thayer:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 
2a) of events 
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage 
3a) of men appearing in public 
4) to be made, finished 
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought 
5) to become, be made

In none of the meanings above did I see the word you used: 'subsist' - can I ask where you got this word from? If the meanings given by Thayer is incorrect, can you post the meanings you found?

Moses gave them the law (even though he knew Jehovah as being gracious and truth). But in Jesus we have grace from God and the truth about God. So Christ Jesus is the embodiment of grace and truth. His coming is what makes the NT "new".

Also you ignored 1 Pet 1:10, where it is clearly stated that the grace of God seen in the NT in Jesus Christ, was a prophecy. The prophets enquired and searched diligently regarding the salvation associated with this grace of God. If they experienced the same grace of God as NT saints, why would they have to enquire and search diligently for this salvation? You need to answer this question. Are you are willing to accept the word of God AS IT IS WRITTEN?

Dear Mr. Koshy,

For your information, theologians and bible scholars, regard this present dispensation as the "age of grace". This age of grace began with advent, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In other words, the age influenced most by the teachings from the NT - where you find the doctrine of the grace of God.

To say that the OT and NT have no difference in the revealed grace of God, to me is naive and un-scriptural.

Dear 'moses2006,'

Once before, you tried to justify your unscriptural idea of qualitative and quantitative differences of the grace of God in the Old and New Testaments by using a hymn, not the Scriptures, written in the 18th century.  Then you introduced another unscriptural idea that the Old Testament grace of God was lesser than that of the New Testament's.  Now you are using the expression, "theologians  and Bible scholars," to make both these ideas scriptural without any support from the Scriptures.

If you cannot find the teaching on the 'grace of God' in the Old Testament, then you should spend some time searching in it.  When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Search the Scriptures," it was the Old Testament that was available for them to search. The same Old Testament is available for us to do the search.  Instead of trying to be spoon-fed by theologians and Bible scholars, you should search the Scriptures after hearing or reading them.  That is what the Jews in Berea did, after hearing Apostle Paul.  The result was, many believed.  Are you willing to spend some time to search the same Old Testament?  I am asking for it over a month and have suggested one of the many ways to you.  Please start to search the Scriptures.

You have an opinion about those who ask you to search the Scriptures, as encouraged by the Holy Spirit.  In my expereince, you are the first one who wrote that being scriptural is not only unscriptural but also naive.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Let us get to the scripture and focus on 1 Pet 1:10. According to you, the right way to translate this verse is "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace unto you...”

For this verse you gave the following explanation:

"Remember, the prophets prophesied to the children of Israel who lived under the law and to all those who lived after them. Those prophets did their work, as it pleased God to reveal His will and mind through them. The subject was the salvation through the Son as God’s grace. Verse 11 tells that it included the suffering and the glory that was to follow in Christ. Verse 12 tells us that the believers in Jesus Christ are those who received this revelation. If you read this verse in KJV, you will note one important and significant thing and that is, “that should come.” In KJV, This expression is in italics. That means that they are added by the translators. Without that, this verse will read, “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace unto you...” Then they did search about the manner in which it will happen. Does verse 11 tell us that the grace could be understood by the glory that is to follow the suffering of the Messiah? This is what was “testified beforehand.” The grace was to come unto men, all men, and not limited to those who live in the New Testament period. Do you think that this includes those who will live after the rapture? You already admitted that there are many who are recipients of the grace in the Old Testament. When you did that, you left out more than half of the history of the Old Testament. You think that the Old Testament period is only after the law was given. Now it appears that over 1,000 years after the rapture is being left out in your writing. This is a shortfall associated with the covenant theology and Calvinism. Actually, Calvinism started 100 years after John Calvin and is deviated from his teachings."

Let me add verses 11, 12 and 13, since you talk about it:

v11 - Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

v12 - Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

v13 - Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

I would like to discuss v10, 11, 12 and 13. Before that could you please paraphrase what your saying in the paragraph quoted above..I read it 6 times and I am still not able to grasp what you are saying. So can you please rewrite and clarify what you wrote about v10 (in light of V11-13)(remember I did the same when you asked for it). We will continue after your clarification.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Both Joh 1:17 and 1 Pet 1:10 are relevant to this discussion independently. You cannot NOT address 1 Pet 1:10 by saying that I did not address Joh 1:17. If you do so, then it is obvious that you are trying hide under some silly "technicality" you came up with.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Could you tell me the strong number for the word you said is translated as 'came' in KJV - EGENETO?

Dear 'moses2006,'

Why do you want the Strong's number for EGENETO?  There are many Greek words without Strong's number in the New Testament.  EGENETO is one of them.  Instead of going off at a tangent, let us come back to the subject.  You brought the name of Thayer, in connection with John 1:17, and I ask what did he write on EGENETO.  All you have to do is to look into the book written by Thayer and write it on this Forum.  After that we could proceed with all the verses that deal with the "grace of God" in the Scriptures, including 1 Peter 1:10.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Please don't dictate what I should do or not do and how I should study my Bible. EGENETO and GINOMAI are related verbs, one being the aorist form of the other. The meanings of both are the same, with only the tense specification. In the aorist form, EGENETO places even greater significance to the "coming into existence" of grace (and truth). John places the origin of grace (and truth) in Jesus Christ. John does not mix grace and truth, as you un-scripturally did. Both grace and truth are divine attributes of God and they were revealed to man in Jesus Christ.

You deny that the NT period until the Lord's coming is the age of grace and then you go great lengths to twist and teach things that are not supported by the Word of God.

Dear 'moses2006,'

If EGENETO is aorist tense, then what should be the actual meaning?  What did Thayer say about it?

Where do we read about the expression "Age of Grace" in the New Testament?  is it a term assigned by some for easy understanding?  I am not denying, but I am asking for Scriptural justification for leaving out "truth" and considering "grace" only, in John 1:17.  I also ask what did Thayer say about EGENETO.  If it is aorist tense, what should be the meaning of the "grace and truth" coming by Jesus Christ, especially in the light of the Light that came to lighten man in the Old Testament?

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear Mr. Koshy,

In aorist form, EGENETO does not specify the time of the tense - it is simple past tense. In John 1:17, the Lord Jesus is compared with Moses, who was an OT figure. The law came through Moses in the OT, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, in the NT. So, simply by comparing Jesus against Moses, the verse does imply a time factor of when grace and truth came - in Jesus whose life is recorded in the NT. I believe that is why the aorist form was used by John.

I am not against grace and truth being studied together, because both grace and truth are attributes of God. In addition to grace an truth, God has revealed other attributes. We can study all of them and should study all of them. However, this thread is dealing with the grace of God. From John 1:17, we can study about Moses, the law, Lord Jesus Christ, grace of God and truth of God independently. We do not have to mix them all into one discussion, simply because they are in one verse together. The verse is making a statement about how Jesus is different from Moses. In doing so, the verse marks the difference between the OT and the NT.

The 'age of grace' is a phrase used to represent how the grace of God was revealed to all mankind in Jesus Christ. Of course this phrase is not in the Bible, but is commonly used as a generally accepted terminology. In the OT, there was no commandment to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all the nations for salvation. In NT, God commands ALL MEN everywhere to repent and be saved by believing the gospel. Thus in the NT, the grace of God by the gospel is commanded to all people. This was not so, in the OT.

You mocked me for using the expression "amazing grace". You asked me where in the Bible do we read of "amazing grace"!!!! I never said that we can find the words "amazing grace" in the Bible. John Newton wrote the hymn 'Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound' and he wrote these words. My question is whether John Newton would have written this hymn if he was living in the OT? This is a rhetorical question and you do not have to answer it - just pause and consider why we who live in the NT have reason to call the grace of God "amazing".

Dear Mr. Koshy,

There are many topics from your post that I want to write on - let me focus for now on the hymn "Amazing grace" by John Newton.

You wrote "On the other hand, John Newton wrote the hymn ‘Amazing Grace’ in the 18th century as a summary of his life. You should not use a hymn to establish an idea as Scriptural, but you should use the Scripture to establish Scriptural ideas."

1. I assume you often sing this hymn in your church (if you do not sing this hymn, then ignore this question). I understand that John Newton wrote under consideration of his own life. But when YOU sing this hymn, are you singing in consideration of the summary of John Newton's life? If not, then what are you considering when you sing 'amazing grace' ?

2. When the old testament saints sang "His mercy endures for ever" what were they considering?

3. Is the consideration you give when you sing "Amazing grace" the exact same scriptural consideration that old testament saints had when they sang "His mercy endures for ever"?

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "....you tried to use your rhetoric and feelings that are not inspired of God to demean the inspired words of God in the Old Testament."

What do you mean by this harsh statement? When I asked you very specific questions on this topic, you have the nerve to allege that I am "demeaning" the Word of God? You are the one who refuses to accept the Word of God and "demean" it when you say that there is no difference in the grace of God in OT vs. NT. In writing that statement, you have displayed GARGANTUAN ignorance and indifference in regard to the progressive revelation of the grace of God. The fullness of this grace of God is only in Jesus Christ, WHEN He revealed Himself as the SON OF MAN and the SON OF GOD in the NT part of the scripture.  But you have denied this grace of God that is revealed in Jesus Christ in the NT, by refusing to accept that the fullness of God's grace in indeed revealed only in NT. John said in John 1:16 - And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. This verse clearly shows that the grace we have received is from the fulness that is in Jesus Christ.

You have further demeaned the Word of God, by saying that the OT saints were cognizant of the fullness of God's grace when they sung the hymn "for His mercy endures for ever". By this you have discredited the Word of God written in 1 Pet 1:10. When I asked you some pointed questions, you have revealed fear for what those questions will reveal, if you were to answer them honestly. That is why you took this extreme step of alleging that I am demeaning the Word of God.

I agree there are other issues that needs to be looked at. But can you at least answer me if the reasons for OT saints singing "for His mercy endures for ever" is the same as the reasons why NT saints sing of God's grace (as in for example John Newton's Amazing Grace). After all you are the one who brought it up. So why can you not substantiate what you brought up? When I pointed out the significance of the hymn "Amazing Grace", you had the nerve to say that the hymn is un-scriptural summary of John Newton's life. How dare you discredit the worship themes embedded in this hymn sung by generation of believers? How dare you say that NT grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ is no different from the grace received by OT saints?

Dear Mr. Koshy -  Your statements have also revealed that you are ignorant of the scriptural difference between the "mercy of God" and the "grace of God".

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Please re-read my post of 9 Jun 2010 01:50:02 for "qualitative" and "quantitative" difference between the OT and NT grace of God.

And just to clarify (since you brought this up over and over), my God also is not a hapless apple seller and He is not helpless before Satan. To allege that I asserted that God was a helpless apple seller, is touching on the limits of incredulity. What happened is (as is usually the case) that you did not understand a commonly used idiom in English ("upset the apple cart" - the meaning of this idiom is here: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/118400.html). Since you did not understand this idiom, you made and continue to make these silly allegations that I compared God to an apple seller. (Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for the preposterous allegations you make against me.)

When are you going to respond to my questions from 16 Jul 2010 19:38:08?

 Is it Biblical to have our own private gods?. “Arundhati Roy” published a novel more than a decade ago titled: “God of small things”. 

English language allows the usage of “thing” as a noun after an adjective to refer to a person or animal with love or sympathy. But, nobody on this Board may claim to have inspired Ms. Roy to write that book.

Dear 'moses2006,

I will be glad to answer your questions, but it will be after you show from the Scriptures that the 'Grace of God,' and attribute of God, was qualitative in the Old Testament and is quantitative in the New Testament.  This request from me is older than your question of 16 July; 2010.

You wrote that God was a helpless apple seller before Satan when he toppled His apple cart.  Now you deny that, in a sort.  No child of God would compare God to an apple seller with an apple cart and standing helplessly while Satan topples it, because the Holy Spirit will restrain him from doing so.  English idioms should not be an excuse to make statements of that sort about God, who is of course gracious from the beginning of creation towards man..

Shalom Malekim!!!

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear Mr. Koshy

Quote "You wrote that God was a helpless apple seller before Satan when he toppled His apple cart. "

Let me quote exactly what I wrote. Please remember this is in response to your claim that since God saw that everything is good in Gen 1:31, Satan's rebellion happenned after Gen 1:31. I did not agree with you and so I wrote this in response:

"What if Satan was indeed present during Gen 1:31 but the sovereign God knew that Satan being Satan was exactly what God wanted to fulfill His plans and purposes? Some people are shocked by this perspective of God's sovereignty. People, like GPK, think that Satan upset the perfect apple cart that God had put together. That God stood by helplessly as Satan wrecked havoc in God's creation. If that is true, then that is not sovereignty on Gods part. If God is sovereign, then the fall of Satan and the events of Gen 3 are part of His sovereign plan and purpose!!"

In the statement above, I was defending God's sovereignity. You, by mis-interpreting Gen 1:31, claimed that God would not call His creation good, if Satan had sinned before Gen 1:31, In doing so, you claim to have better knowledge than God and placed your judgement of greater value than God. You are the one who thinks that Satan's rebellion disturbed God "good" in Gen 1:31. In doing so, you have revealed that you do not believe that Satan's rebellion was a part of God's sovereign plans and purpose. So, not only have you second guessed God, you do not subscribe to the theology of total sovereignity of God.

Coming back to the topic, it is your turn to answer questions. Please start with the questions I had on 16 Jul 2010 19:38:08. Trust me, this is just the begining.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Unfortunately, it is you who is making assumptions about what God was saying in Gen 1:31 and in doing so, you stated things that have no basis from scripture. Will any child of God do that? I will leave that for your consideration. Far from mocking God, my position is to defend the sovereignty of the Almighty God and to not look foolish by assuming to know the deep things of God. You, however, do not have any such constraints.

You said EGENETO means "subsist". I asked you where you got this meaning from and I still have not received a satisfactory answer. You think you are better at Greek/Hebrew than all the other scholars who translated the KJV. I would rather trust the KJV than you, any day. You failed to show how EGENETO shows that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT. So you wrote Greek in here to just show off your ability to write Greek, not to help defend your position.

In fact, other than pose 3 questions on what the grace of God is, I have not seen you do any systematic study to scripturally show that grace of God is the same in the OT and NT. All you have done to attack me for what I wrote. I wrote over and over on this thread. You have not done any explaining from your side on why you hold your position. It is your turn to defend your views and stop attacking me.

Please start with the questions I raised on 16 Jul 2010 19:38:08. I said "Trust me, this is just the beginning" not as a threat, but as an indication that I have many other questions to ask from all your posts.

Quote from Reply by : George P. Koshy     Since : 27 Jul 2010 18:22:14 about the writing of moses2006:

 “When you write that God was a helpless apple seller before Satan when he toppled His apple cart, you were writing what you usually think about God from your mindset” End quote.

Mr Koshy,

Where did moses2006 write the above sentences?

Are you referring to the following from the writing of moses2006?

Quote from Reply by : moses2006     Since : 22 Jul 2010 13:47:52 on this thread:

"What if Satan was indeed present during Gen 1:31 but the sovereign God knew that Satan being Satan was exactly what God wanted to fulfill His plans and purposes? Some people are shocked by this perspective of God's sovereignty. People, like GPK, think that Satan upset the perfect apple cart that God had put together. That God stood by helplessly as Satan wrecked havoc in God's creation. If that is true, then that is not sovereignty on Gods part. If God is sovereign, then the fall of Satan and the events of Gen 3 are part of His sovereign plan and purpose!!" End quote.

Something is not adding up. If moses2006 had not written what is alleged of him, it is an untrue – false – allegation. For winning an argument, we must use only fair / just / ethical means. We are not enemies but members of one family, children of one Father.

Regards,

PTV

(reposted with edits)

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "Similar to the Hindu theology, you think that God, the creator and sustainer of all things, is in need of your defense about His sovereignty. If that is so, He is no more sovereign, because He depends on your defense. God does not need His creation’s defense, but demands its obedience to His word."

God is not in need of my defense and in that I agree with you. But when said "I am defending God sovereignty" I did not mean "I am protecting God's sovereignty". Defending, as I used it, meant UPHOLD. Not PROTECT. I am upholding the revealed sovereignty of God. God does not need our protecting, but He does demand what we uphold His revelation. You, on the other hand, neither defend nor uphold God's sovereignty, when you assert confidently as to WHY God saw everything as good in Gen 1:31. (Very frequently, you display unusual ignorance of simple English words and statements!! The "end" vs "bury" statement also shows this ignorance. I did not use the word "bury" when I quoted the scripture. I used it as a paraphrase to explain the relevant words in contemporary language. You confused yourself using my paraphrase as the Word of God!!)

Now let me explain why I quoted Thayer. I was simply showing you that Thayer (your favorite translator) did not translate EGENETO as "subsist". I am not "name dropping" Thayer for any other reason, other than to question where you got your "subsist" from.

Subsist means "to continue in existence". So, I do not agree that "subsist" captures the specific intent of the apostle John in Joh 1:17. EGENETO simply means "it happened". The apostle's intend is to contrast Moses with Jesus Christ, specifically in what they accomplished for the people. In this contrast, we also see a similar pattern of revelation.

1. Moses accomplished giving the full law of God to the people. (God used Moses to reveal His Law). There were some laws revealed before Moses.

2. Jesus Christ accomplished giving the full Grace and Truth to the people. (God used His Son Jesus Christ to reveal His Grace and Truth). But there was some grace and truth revealed before Jesus Christ was born.

Just as Moses was a vessel to reveal God's Laws, it was through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that God fully revealed His grace (and truth). There were some laws before Moses, but it was through Moses that whole law of God was revealed. In the same way, there is "some" God's grace in the OT. But it is only AFTER Jesus Christ was born, that God FULLY revealed the FULLNESS (and the riches) of His grace.

Therefore, the birth of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is what makes the grace of God in NT (i.e. from His inception to His second coming) different from the grace of God in the OT. To say that the grace of God is the same in the OT and NT, is to show indifference and apathy to the FULLNESS of grace revealed in Jesus Christ by God. I hope you will change your mind on this important concept.

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I have in many posts asserted that the Son, is eternal and equal with the Father in being God. So please don't make the kind of silly statements you made in the post above. The Son was in the OT and the NT. But when did the Son become the man (and God) Jesus Christ? In the OT or in the NT? In the NT. We read that the eternal Son took on flesh by being born of a woman, took the name Jesus and became the lamb of God, sacrificed for the sins of the world.

This whole thread started with a simple, yet profound question - What is the difference between Grace of God in OT & NT? My answer is that the difference between grace of God in the OT and NT, is the appearance of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, in human form, recorded in the pages of the NT scripture. The eternal Son, did appear pre-incarnate Christ in the OT, but in none of those appearances did He appear to become a Lamb of God.

Therefore, stating this in simple English - the difference between the grace of God in the OT and NT is manifestation of the eternal Son, in human form to become the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I am saved today because of what is recorded as having happened in the NT (not the OT). That is why I am saved.  If I lived in the OT times, there would be no evangelist from Jerusalem who would have come to shores of Kerala to tell me that God loves sinners like me. If I was living in the OT times, there would be no gospel message for me to believe in. If I lived in the OT times, I would never have heard about righteous that comes simply by faith. If I was living in the OT period, I would never have known the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. If I lived in the OT period, I would not have had this living hope of transformation and glory in me, that I have now. If I was living in the OT times, I would never have heard about John Newton or ever sing his hymn in adoring worship "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.."

So, I find it very difficult to accept your teaching that this grace of God I enjoy today would have been the same, had I been living in the OT times. The difference between the grace of God in the OT and NT is the divine man, Jesus Christ. Don't tell me you deny this!! If you do, then I have nothing more to add to this discussion. 

Quote"We read in Hebrews 12:28, “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” When personal attacks are unleashed against me, I thank God for helping me to be recipient of such abuses. I remember what my Lord received on my behalf. Compared to that, the personal attacks on me are so minuscule. On the other hand, when such statements are made against my God without reverence and godly fear (please read my reply to ‘moses2006,’ today), I could not sit quiet and say that that person did well with the use of his rhetorical prong. What ‘moses2006’ did was mocking my God and it was similar to what that giant did, before the army of Saul. A lad named David answered that mocking. If there were other lads like David, it would have been wonderful. However, there was only one. Even his brothers preferred to be silent."

In above para, Mr. Koshy claims that he is victim of "personal attacks" (from me I suppose). For the record, I have nothing "personal" against Mr. Koshy. In fact I have never met him or seen him or know who he is. I only know him from his posts in this forum. Those who read his posts however, know very well the attacking style of his words. We all have seen how he twists words, idioms, phrases and his knowledge of Greek/Hebrew to attack, intimidate and humiliate anyone who dares oppose his views. Still, he claims to be the one who is attacked "personally". And also for the record, I have never willfully tried to mock God in any of posts. Mr. Koshy's zeal often gets him carried away and anyone who does not agree with him, will eventually receive this treatment.

Quote "When I questioned ‘moses2006’ on changing the word in Romans 10:4, he reminded me about his quick writing English style."

I admit that I often write (type) fast and have not always been accurate. My word choices have sometimes been poor. Anybody who reads these posts, however, do so knowing that this forum is not a bible school. In this forum, we all have the freedom to write with the words we know and the language styles we are used to. Mr. Koshy, spends considerable time analyzing my word choices to figure out which of them are "weak" and can be challenged with the rod of his Hebrew/Greek lexicons. I, however, have no time to entertain his questions on my word choices. Especially, since he is trying to spring a word trap. Often to get out of being challenged scripturally, Mr. Koshy will continue to hang on to the words used by the other person. Hence, no fruitful debate is ever possible with him.

Quote "When I asked him about John 1:17, he brought the name of Thayer, a renowned Greek lexicologist, and refuses to tell what Thayer wrote about the Greek word EGENETO. However, he likes the KJV translation of John 1:17, because the translators used the past tense instead of the aorist tense that was in Greek, and it suits his purpose. Meanwhile, he does not like what they translated without changing the tense or context in Genesis 1:31, Matthew 10:38-39, and Romans 10:4. He wants to change those verses and/or their contexts as we read in KJV."

I do not have a Thayer lexicon in my possession and so I have no way to know how he translated EGENETO. However, from the research I did on this word, I learned that EGENETO is the aorist form of GINOMAI. "The aorist refers to a past action, in a general way or as a completed event." (quote from Wikipedia). Also from the same source "the aorist tense is a verb tense, namely the aorist aspect of the past tense, which refers to a past action in the same pure and simple way". So GINOMAI expressed in its aorist form EGENETO, indicates some thing happened in the past, with no indication as to when it happened. In John 1:17, when used by John indicates a past action that is completed in our Lord Jesus. Grace and truth "happened" in Jesus Christ. The KJV translation "came through" is the simplest and most accurate way to translate EGENETO. However, this will not suit Mr. Koshy's agenda. So he invents a new translation of EGENETO as "subsist". However "subsist" is not in simple past tense that EGENETO is when written in Greek. Despite that Mr. Koshy will come up with such innovative translations just to suit his teaching. In doing so, he is writing contrary to the written Word of God.  

Quote "In addition to all these, ‘moses2006’ wrote and encouraged a Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) to pray for the sick. The denial of the deity of Christ is the fundamental requirement and teaching of SDA, and God does not hear the prayers of such a person. Unfortunately, ‘mose2006’ encourages the prayers of SDA members. This is what he wrote on 13 October 2009, “I did not seek any SDA prayers, but if someone in the SDA group offers to pray for my needs to the Lord Jesus, I will not crucify him for the offer. I will thank him and will leave his prayer and its acceptability to the Lord.” I have nothing to say about ‘moses2006’ wanted all people in the world to pray for him. May be he thinks that God could be influenced by the strength of numbers. I did not ask any one to crucify any SDA member, but I asked a person not to pray for my brother-in-law, because he was a member of SDA, and ‘moses2006’ wrote as if I was crucifying him. I did not hear you saying anything about that."

I cannot believe that I accused of "encouraging" SDA to pray for the sick!!! What happened is that one SDA person offered to pray for Mr. Koshy's brother-in-law. In stead of being gracious, Mr. Koshy took the judgement seat of God and condemned the SDA person for making such an offer. When I read that, I could not believe what he wrote. Who is Mr. Koshy to deny anyone (whether he is an SDA or not) the right to pray? What if the Lord wanted to heal Mr. Koshy's brother in law, just to get the attention of this SDA person? How unwise to condemn someone for an offer to pray - it is beyond me and I cannot fathom the depths of such a heart. Even if a hindu or a muslim offers to pray for us, we have to be gracious, even when we know that God may not answer such prayers. But God works in mysterious ways. God can use such a opportunity to reach out to that person. But we should not block God from reaching a person by our discouraging and condescending attitude towards that person. 

Quote "There is an emerging pattern or trend in his approach to God and His word (please see my today’s reply to him), and you are overlooking it, if not excusing it. How many times do we read in the Scriptures about not to have false balances and unjust weights in our bag? All I ask is to read the Scriptures as written without forgetting that they are from the God-breathed words. If we look into the original languages, we could get a better understanding of what we read in a translation. We should not neglect or down play the original languages. When we do not have the capacity to read and write those languages, we could use various tools that are available. In using those tools, we should not forget that we should not change what is written in the original languages from which the translation is made. It is the linguistic rule that the originals should have the preeminence over the translations."

Let me just quote the Lord Jesus - Matt 23:23, 24 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." In this debate, the gnat is the simple word 'EGENETO' and camel that is swallowed is the 'grace of God in Jesus Christ'. 

Quote "Let me assure you one thing, when we are in the habit of reading the Scriptures as written as commanded by Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 10:26 while holding the literal inspiration of the Scriptures as stated by the Lord in Matthew 5:18, I could cease writing on this Forum. I cannot sit quiet when my God is mocked, directly or indirectly, using the art of rhetoric and when men change the words of my God to establish their pet theories."

Mr. Koshy, according to the Word of God, it is written that "God is not mocked" (Gal 6:7). When you accuse me of mocking God, you are contradicting the written Word of God. And further, know that it was the same zeal, that led Saul to persecute the church of the Lord. He at least confessed that he did it in ignorance. What is your excuse?

Dear GPK,

I don’t intend to write anything more on this. The seriousness of the issues pointed out from your posting still remains and it will not get diluted by the offences alleged on others. The world is full of ungodly is no excuse for us to be ungodly. The plea that others are equally guilty would not be a valid argument in a believer’s defense.

2 Corinthinas 10:1-5

 By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—

³ For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. ⁴ The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. ⁵ We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Now, the most crucial question:

“Who wrote” the profanity that: “God was a helpless apple seller before Satan”?

Regards,

PTV

Dear PTV,

You wrote that you do not want to write any further.  Then you asked a question about the authorship of a statement made by 'moses2006.'  It was 'moses2006' who wrote it and you quoted him over a week ago.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Dear GPK,

I had no intention of writing any further, but the above posting of GPK constrains me to seek help for putting the matter in proper perspective as you mention of what I quoted over a week ago.

Regarding the authorship of the statement that “God was a helpless apple seller before Satan”, GPK stated on 13 Aug 2010 19:18:25 the following:

Quote: “Then you asked a question about the authorship of a statement made by 'moses2006.'  It was 'moses2006' who wrote it and you quoted him over a week ago.” End Quote.

Here are my observations:

1.     I quoted moses2006, but that quotation doesn’t contain the statement, the authorship of which is under scrutiny now. See my posting on 28 Jul 2010 04:45:43.

2.     The statement of GPK quoted above contradicts what he wrote  on 30 Jul 2010 17:34:31 about the authorship of the statement in  question and here is it:

Quote “Thank you for your posting on 28 July 2010. I did not place what I wrote about ‘moses2006’s’ past writings in quotation. I only summarized what he wrote”. End quote.

3.     The statement in question that “God was a helpless apple seller before Satan” is part of the summarization made by GPK, and not written by moses2006.

4.     What remains is to:

a.      Impartially consider “how accurate & true is the summarization made by GPK” of the writings of moses2006, “as it is written”;

b.     Objectively review the writings of moses2006 in question and

c.     Listen what moses2006 has to say or said about:

                                                     i.    his writings GPK is referring to and

                                                   ii.    the summarization made by GPK.

Further, the posting of GPK on 27 Jul 2010 18:22:14 opens, saying -  

Quote: “You should read the Scriptures as it is written. That is what Lord Jesus Christ told and is written in Luke 10:26.” End quote. 

GPK is right.  Not only the Scriptures; we must read what others write also, ‘as it is written’.

After reading the contributions of GPK and moses2006, “as it is written” this is what I have understood:

1.     The statement that “God was a helpless apple seller before Satan” is NOT seen in the writings of moses2006 as indicted, repeatedly, by GPK on July 19, 21, 22 & Aug 13.

2.     GPK produced no reference to show where moses2006 had written the blasphemy in question; therefore, his allegation is Unsubstantiated.

3.     Incidentally, it was in the summarization writing of GPK this profanity appears, that: “God was a helpless apple seller before Satan”.  I quoted this statement from GPK and not from moses2006.

4.     In addition to writing (in GPK’s own words) “the nonsensical & heretical thing about God”, GPK attributed the statement he wrote in his summarization to moses2006, which is offensive.

I request the Forum & GPK to do a critique of what I have written above.

Thanks,

PTV

Dear Mr. Koshy,

(1 of 2)

Quote -You wrote that you never willfully mocked God. Is that true? When you wrote about God as a helpless apple seller, that is exactly what you did. I never wrote anything to that effect. I asked to read what is written in Genesis 1:31, as it is written. Another example of mocking God took place on this thread. You wrote, “Therefore, the birth of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is what makes the grace of God in NT (i.e. from His inception to His second coming) different from the grace of God in the OT.” When the Scriptures teach us about the eternal sonship of the Son, you wrote that he has a beginning. Jesus Christ was not born “as the Son of God.” The Word, the Son that was with God from the beginning took the form of a servant, was made flesh, and took the human name Jesus. The Scriptures do not teach anything about “the birth of Jesus Christ as the Son of God,” as you wrote. When such teachings are produced, then they are mocking God, telling God that they know more that He does. This is what SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons teach and they took it from the teachings of Cerinthus of the first century. Apostle John wrote against his teachings in the Gospel of John and in his epistles. You could see the teachings of Cerinthus in the writings of Mohamed, as he was well acquainted with the teachings of Nestorius. The above quoted writing of yours is not a ‘gnat’ to be overlooked or ignored, but it is the major ‘beam’ of the teachings of SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.

As usual, you read my sentence incorrectly. The Son is eternal, has no beginning, no end of days and is equal with the Father. When He took on flesh, He did so as the Son He always has been eternally. At His incarnation He did not change being the Son. That is what I meant when I said "..the birth of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.." I did not mean that the Son of God has a beginning. Now to the main point that you deny - The fact that the eternal Son took on flesh in the NT and the fact that forgiveness of sins is preached in His name to ALL nations, is the grace of God we see in the NT and not seen in the OT. What a huge theological error you make when you say that there is no difference in the grace of God from the OT to the NT!! Essentially, you deny that the Son taking on flesh and the forgiveness of sins preached to all gentiles in His name amounts to any difference in the grace form God. In doing so, you have taken a stand against the Word of God.

Quote - Let me ask, expecting a reply, why you did not address my writings against your version of the Cerinthus’ teaching, while spending much time on other matters?

I have no idea who Cerinthus is and have no time at my disposal to research what his teachings were. Now I know we can add your name also to the list of people who teach un-scriptural mental frameworks and models.

Quote - After writing such unscriptural and heretical ideas, you excuse yourself claiming the superior knowledge of idioms and fast writing English style. If you are aware of your weakness in misusing the idioms and fast writing English style, then you should slow down and make sure that they are used properly, especially when it is in relation to God and His word.

This is a good suggestion and one that I am going to adopt.

Quote - Your research outside the Scriptures led you to errors. One example is that the ‘aorist’ form of the Greek word is not as you quoted from Wikipedia. You quoted, “"The aorist refers to a past action, in a general way or as a completed event." (quote from Wikipedia).” If you want to know about the ‘aorist’ tense, please refer to a dictionary. That will provide a better idea about the meaning of that word than a modern theologian with an agenda to mislead many and publishes his writings in Wikipedia. Being read in the internet does not make that to be true or real. If you could search the Wikipedia for the last two months, why cannot you search the Scriptures on the “grace of God?” The Lord Jesus Christ asked to search the Scriptures, and He was addressing the doctors of the law, who were searching what the fathers’ wrote. There is a similarity. I ask you to search the Scriptures. What Thayer wrote would help you to understand, what you read in translations, better and clearer.

The word 'aorist' is an expression coined by secular people who study the Greek language. This word is not in the Word of God? So, I can use any means to understand what it means. You have the one who first pointed to the fact that EGENETO is different from GINOMAI. By doing that and then inventing a private meaning "subsist" for EGENETO, you thought you could just spread your un-scriptural concepts. The fact is that EGENETO is the aorist form of GINOMAI and in using that aorist form, Apostle John was placing the coming of grace (and truth) in Jesus Christ in the past tense. John was also contrasting the Lord Jesus with Moses. Moses gave to Israel the law of God. The Lord Jesus gave to the world, the grace (and the truth) of God. You deny this when you say that the grace of God is same in the OT and NT. In effect you equated the Lord Jesus as no different from Moses. In doing so, you took a stand against the revealed Word of God.

Quote - About the prayers of SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, etc., I have no objections, if you solicit them and/or encourage them for yourself. When I request the prayers for any reason from the members of this Forum, I am requesting that from only those who know the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, Lord, and God. I do not read any request or encouragement in the New Testament for prayers from unbelievers. I read in KJV, “Brethren, pray for us.” Who are these “brethren” who should be praying for Apostle Paul and others? When Apostle Paul wrote those words, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was addressed to the saints in an assembly. To you, the expression, “brethren,” includes all humans and not limited to the Disciples of Christ. When the risen Lord Jesus Christ asked Mary to “… go, bring word to my brethren, …,” she did not proclaim it to the Jews or the Romans, but only to the Disciples. In reply to a request for prayer from me, if a SDA or any one who teaches and upholds doctrines contrary to what is in the Word of God volunteers his/her willingness to pray, I ask them not to do so. They are not my ‘brethren.’ I repeat after what I read in the Scriptures, “Brethren, pray for us.”

I do not go around and solicit prayers from the SDA. Unlike you, I do not put up prayer requests on this website. For your information, there is a big difference between being gracious when someone offers to pray and soliciting someone's prayer. When you put the thread asking for people to pray for your brother-in-law, you were soliciting prayers from everyone who read your thread. You knew that even SDA people read your thread. In doing so, you violated the very principle that you wrote "Brethren, pray for us". After you make such a public solicitation for prayer, when an SDA person offers to pray for your relative, how could you condemn him for it.? You talk a lot about the grace of God, but when an opportunity arose for you to show that grace, you revealed that you have no grace inside. So, it is not surprising that you cannot discern a difference between the grace of God in the OT and NT.
 

 (2 of 2)

Quote - Do you know that SDA’s cardinal teaching is that Jesus Christ lied to the Disciples? William Miller proclaimed about the coming of Christ to receive His own will take place in 1843. The followers of William Miller were known as the Millerites or Adventists. They are the present day Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). When his prediction did not come to fruition, the date was changed to 1844, October 22 to be exact. That day came and gone without any incident. Those who went to the mountain top were still in the mountain top. Mr. Miller admitted his error. At that juncture, Mrs. Ellen G. White came to the rescue and said that she saw the Adventists marching straight to heaven. No one asked about the multitude that was left on the mountain top. She also wrote, we read that in The Great Controversy, that those who observe Sunday are those who receive the mark of the beast, as stated in Revelation. This is the SDA teaching and it contradicts what is written in John 14. Thus, SDA teaches that Jesus Christ lied to His disciples in John 14. When they teach such a heretical doctrine, then they deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son. Apostle John wrote in his second epistle that such ones should not be even received into the house. You are not only inviting them, but also ask them to pray for you and others hoping that one of the prayers will hit the spot. (“Hit the spot” is an English idiom.) You are in bed with them. (“In bed with them,” is another English idiom. I did not use either of these idioms against God.) You are not upholding the sovereignty of God, as you claim. On the contrary, you are showing your solidarity with those who deny the deity of Christ and thus deny the sovereignty of God.

Thank you for your account of the SDA. However, I neither care for their teachings nor want to be in anyway associated with them. My hope is that God would give them a true understanding of the scripture and its proper interpretation. I pray for them, but have never solicited prayer from them. You said "..you are not only inviting them, but also ask them to pray for you and others hoping that one of the prayers will hit the spot. " Can you put your reputation on the line and show me where I have asked SDA to pray for me? When you requested pray for your brother in law in one of the threads, you were actively soliciting prayer from all the public, including SDA.

Quote - You should remember about the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, as taught by the Son in Matthew 5:18. What the Lord Jesus Christ taught are the beams in the New Testament doctrines, teachings. EGENETO is the Greek word used by the Holy Spirit in inspiring Apostle John to write the Gospel. In the Prayer that the Son made to the Father in John 17, we read, “… For the words which thou hast given me I have given them, and they have received them, and have known truly that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou sentest me…” Matthew 5:18 is one of those words that the Lord Jesus Christ gave, as He mentioned in John 17:8. Therefore, EGENETO is not a “simple word” or a “gnat,” as you claimed. That is a pure word of God given from God through Apostle John for us to believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31). These pure words are like the silver tried in the furnace of the earth, purified seven times. No one should change even its tense from ‘aorist’ to ‘past.’ By changing of the tense or even the smallest crowns or letters of the words in the inspired Scriptures and calling them “simple words” is not upholding the sovereignty of God. On the contrary, it is the first step in denying the sovereignty of God.

I am always aware of the inspiration of the Word of God. I am aware that every word in the ORIGINAL was inspired by God. EGENETO is also a word that is inspired by God. The aorist form of GINOMAI indicates a past action, but also indicates a continued action. So, when the KJV translators said "grace and truth came through Jesus Christ", they were conveying the aorist sense of GINOMAI. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ as a past action and it continues today. That is the inspired tense sense of using EGENTO. But when you invented your own translation for EGENETO ("subsist") which is incorrectly tensed from the tense that God inspired, you went against the Word of God. You have shown that you take the freedom to change the tense as you please, in order to suit your teaching. Instead of using the inspired tense to guide your teaching, you change the tense to suit your teaching.

Quote - By the way, you brought this word, EGENETO, and the name of Thayer into this discussion. I was interested to ask you to search the Scriptures. When you brought the name of Thayer, you did not mention anything about Wikipedia. Now you write that your source was Wikipedia and not Thayer.

I only brought Thayer, because I did not find your word "subsist" in an website where Thayer's meanings are published. I personally do not have the Thayer Greek Concordance. Later on, used wikipedia to understand the tense sense of the aorist form. I feel confident that I understand what the aorist tense means and knowing that, I am sure that the KJV translators were correct in rejecting your word "subsist".

Quote - You are right, when you wrote that it is written in Galatians 5:7, “… God is not mocked; …” When you change the Word of God and write against the Word of God, even to say that the Son of God has a beginning (this is the latest of your quick writing English style), then you are not only mocking God, but also trying to teach what is contrary to that is written, God’s revelation through the Son (2 Corinthians 2:17). In other words, that is not how one upholds the sovereignty of God. On the contrary, that is how one denies the sovereignty of God.

Regarding the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, I have already written a lot in the beginning of this post. When it come to the sovereignty of God, my views are close to those published by Arthur Pink. I do not think anyone does a better job of upholding the sovereignty of God than Arthur Pink.

When are you going to respond to my questions from 16 Jul 2010 7:38:08 PM? As I said, there are many more questions I have. Can you please start with the ones from 16 Jul 2010 7:38:08 PM?