User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Were works ever required? - Battle Royale VIII - Jerry Shugart vs. *Acts9_12Out*

  1. #16
    Journeyman *Acts9_12Out*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    169
    Round III

    POSITIVE CASE CONTINUED:

    For Round III, I will offer only one positive case since we already have many unresolved issues... With that said, here we go!

    Peter was a circumcision Apostle. Peter sat at the feet of our Lord Jesus Christ who was "born under the law to redeem those under the law.

    Galatians 4:4b-5a
    4b God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
    5a to redeem those who were under the law,
    Christ was sent for his lost sheep.

    Matthew 15
    24 But Jesus answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
    Christ commanded Peter to continue preaching justification by faith works, even after the resurrection.

    Matthew 28
    20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
    How does Peter respond? According to Jerry, Peter must have been preaching justification by faith alone. Let's see what Peter does...

    In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from God. While he is on the rooftop praying, the Holy Spirit comes to him, telling Peter to "doubt nothing."

    Acts 10
    19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you.
    20 “Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”
    Peter receives the three men who have been sent by Cornelius. Cornelius was a Roman Centurion (Gentile). Peter follows the men from Joppa to Caesarea to meet Cornelius. Peter, a circumcision Apostle under the law makes this statement:

    Acts 10:28
    28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
    Now I ask... If Peter was preaching the same "message" as Paul, why does Peter say it is unlawful for him to be there? Peter is following the instructions of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter, however, does not know that God started the body of Christ in Acts 9 with the uncircumcision Apostle, Paul. Back to our point... Peter says it is unlawful for him to be there. Jerry hopes that Peter will preach a wonderful message of "faith alone" to these Gentile belivers. What does Peter preach to them?

    Acts 10
    34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
    35 “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
    Now I ask you Jerry... Is this how you got saved? Me neither. As stated before, Peter was preaching the only message he knew. "Fear God and do works of righteousness to be accepted by God." Where did Peter learn this conditional message? From the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter says it is unlawful for a Jewish man to keep company with or to go to one of another nation. Peter went because the Holy Spirit commanded him to go and doubt nothing! When Peter arrives, what message of salvation does Peter preach? “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

    I will cut this portion short, and have more positive case building in Round 4. I have lots of questions for Jerry...

    QUESTIONS FOR JERRY

    For this round of "questions," I will try to do some housecleaning. I have made numerous points that Jerry has failed to respond to. I hope to recap, and will end up re-asking many questions.

    In Round 1, I showed that the context of James 1:25-2:26 was clearly referring to the Mosaic Law. I ask again,

    1. Jerry, is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the mosaic Law?

    James 1
    1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.
    James 2
    2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well;
    2:9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
    2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
    2:11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
    2:12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
    Instead of responding to the context of James 1:25-2:26, Jerry goes into a rant concerning Abraham. Here’s what Jerry does say when he finally comments on James:

    First of all,the words of Paul in the epistle to the Romans are essentially "doctrinal",while the words of James are essentially "practical".Paul's epistle unfolds the mind and purposes of the Lord while the epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground.The argument concerning "faith" in the epistle of James is between men:
    This is Jerry’s opinion. Jerry provides no support for us to believe that James’ writings are not doctrinal. I wonder how Jerry has the ability to discern between what is “practical” and what is “doctrinal” in this case. Jerry seems to have the Spiritual gift of Knowledge… Next, Jerry says,

    Abraham believed,and the Lord declared that he was righteous.He acted,and man acknowledged he was righteous.So then in one sense a man is justified by faith without works and in another sense we see "how by works a man is justified,and not by faith only".Justified by faith before God;justified by works before men.
    Jerry also argues that James is speaking of Justification before men. Jerry, I must ask, what “man” was on Mount Moriah with Abraham for him to be justified before? Abraham was justified before God when he offered us Isaac on the altar.

    2. Jerry, why did the sect of the Pharisees who believed argue that the Gentiles who were turning to God needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law?

    Next, Jerry asked me about Peter’s comments in Acts 15:11. I clearly showed that Peter’s statement referred to Jews and Gentiles being “saved” in the same manner, namely faith in God.

    Acts 15
    15:8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
    15:9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
    I asked Jerry why the sect of the Pharisees who believed were under the impression that the Gentiles who were turning to God needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law,”

    Acts 15
    15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
    …to which Jerry replied,

    The "works of the Law" were indeed necessary for "salvation",but that salvation is not in regard to "eternal salvation" but instead in regard to "temporal" or "physical" salvation.When a Jew committed a sin that was punishable by "physical" death he could bring an "offering" to be killed in his place.The Mosaic Covenant was never in regard to "eternal salvation" but instead was only in regard to temporal things:
    Again, I wonder how Jerry is able to discern between “temporal” and “eternal” salvation. Maybe it’s that gift of Knowledge again… What I find interesting is, in this context (Acts 15:1-20), Jerry wants to apply Acts 15:11 as “eternal” salvation for Jews and Gentiles, but says Acts 15:5 is “temporal” salvation. Jerry’s point in the Round 1 was that Jews and Gentiles are “saved” in the same way. By Jerry’s line of reasoning, Acts 15:11 can only refer to “temporal” things. Is this what you think Jerry? Again, I ask Jerry to respond to the context of Acts 15 and the Pharisees arguments.


    3. Jerry, why is “will be supplied” in the future tense?

    I asked Jerry to respond to the following:

    Notice Jerry, if the elect of the circumcision are diligent to “make (their) call and election sure” they will never stumble. An entrance will be supplied into the everlasting kingdom. “Will be supplied” is the word epicorhghqhsetai which is a Future Passive Indicative Third Person Singular. Their entrance is future tense and is dependant upon their “making their calling and election sure” and “never stumbling.”
    Jerry, if the circumcision believers “possess” eternal life, why do they need to make their calling and election sure? Why is their entrance into the everlasting kingdom a future event dependant upon their “never stumbling?”

    4. Jerry, why do circumcision believer need to “keep on confessing” their sins?


    I asked Jerry about 1 John 1:9. This is how he responded…

    He goes back to the first chapter in order to find a "condition" that he can apply to an "unconditional" statement four chapter later.However,the verse he quotes (1Jn.1:9) is in regard to the believer's "fellowship"(v.6) with the Lord and not in regard to one's "eternal salvation".If we confess our sins,or "judge ourselves",then we will not be chastened by the Lord in our "walk" or "fellowship" with Him.The following words are written to those in the Body of Christ:
    I ask again, how does ”He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, relate to “fellowship” and not salvation? Jerry is wrong again. 1 John 1:9 is referring to salvation, not fellowship. That’s what forgive us our sins is all about Jerry. Maybe Jerry’s gift of Knowledge is kicking in again…

    5. Could Noah have refused to build the ark, been killed in the flood, and still been saved?

    I asked Jerry if Noah could have rejected God’s command to build the ark and still “posses” eternal life. Here’s how Jerry responded:

    The words in the Hebrews says that Noah received a good report before the Lord because of his "faith" and there is no mention of his "works":

    " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.For by it the elders obtained a good report"(Heb.11:1,2).

    Noah was justified by his "faith" even before he built the ark.The author of Hebrews says nothing about Noah obtaining a good report because of his "obedience of faith".
    To which I responded:

    Really Jerry? You must have overlooked Hebrews 11:7
    Hebrews 11
    7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
    Isn’t this what I’ve been saying all along? Noah showed his faith by doing a physical act. Hebrews 11:7 agrees Jerry! Noah “prepared and ark for the saving of his household.” Now, I know Jerry will try to say that Noah was saved only physically, but the author of Hebrews contrasts Noah’s work and saving with the condemnation of the world. Noah was saved, and those who died in the flood went to hell.
    How does Jerry respond in light of this “new” information to him?

    Again,the Scriptures reveal that he recived a "good report" with God based on his "faith" alone:

    " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.For by it the elders obtained a good report"(Heb.11:1,2).

    The Scriptures reveal that Noah received a "good report" with the Lord based soley on his "faith".You say that it was more than faith,that it was "faith" plus the "obedience of faith".But that is not what the Scriptures say.
    I guess I need to be more clear. Jerry, how do you respond to Hebrews 11:7 which clearly shows Noah built the ark (a physical act) by faith, for the saving of his household? Why does the author of Hebrews contrast Noah’s faith work with the condemnation of the world if it referring to “physical” things only?

    6. Did the man in Numbers 15, who was cut off completely, his sin upon him, go to hell?

    I took time to exegete Numbers 15 for Jerry. The information provided seems to have gone unnoticed. I clearly showed that a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day was completely cut off and died in his sin. When I asked Jerry about this man, Jerry said:

    Only the Lord knows the answer to that question.However,if he "believed God" then he was a "saint" of God,and this is what the Lord says about those who are His "saints" in the OT:

    "For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever"(Ps.37:28)
    Again, I guess I need to be more clear. Jerry, did the man in Numbers 15, who was completely cut off, with his sin upon him, go to heaven or hell? I find it interesting that Jerry has this magic gift of Knowledge and is able to tell us what is “doctrinal” and what is “practical” but is unable to tell us the fate of a man who died in his sin. Later, Jerry is able to tell us the fate of men who believed in Christ and says they never believed in their hearts. How does Jerry know about those men, and not the man in Numbers 15?

    7. What the heck is going on in Hebrew 10:26-29?

    I showed Jerry how Hebrews 10:26-29 directly related to the man in Numbers 15. I asked Jerry to deal with the text, and this is how Jerry responds:

    Yes,but again the "punishment" that is handed out to those people is not in regard to "eternal" punishment but instead to "temporal" punishment.
    I really don’t know how to be more clear on this one. Here’s what Hebrews says… I’ll let our readers decide if Jerry’s “temporal” explanation cuts it or not…

    Hebrews 10
    10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
    Why would “temporal” salvation need a sacrifice for sins Jerry?

    Hebrews 10
    10:27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
    How does “a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries relate to “temporal” things only?

    Hebrews 10
    10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
    If they reject Moses’ law, they expect that judgment and fiery indignation? Maybe that’s just a temporal judgment and fiery indignation, huh Jerry?

    Hebrews 10
    10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
    They were sanctified by the blood of the covenant Jerry. I’ll ask you the same question the author of Hebrews asks… “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy?” Please respond…

    8. Jerry, do you stand by your interpretation of Ezekiel 18?

    I asked Jerry specific questions about my exegesis of Ezekiel 18. Here’s how Jerry responds:

    Yes,and you have given no evidence to the contrary.
    Either Jerry didn’t read my Post, or Jerry is an outright liar. I hope for the former… I ask our readers to return to my Round 2 post to see if I have “given any evidence” to the contrary. Secondly, I would ask Jerry what benefit a “wicked” man, who is already physically alive, would receive for turning to God. If Ezekiel 18 is to be understood “temporally,” and not “physically,” then we must conclude that the “wicked” man who turns to God will continue living temporally. Please respond to my points in Round 2 Jerry…

    9. Did the men in John 8, who believed in Christ lose their eternal life?

    Again, I offered a complete exegesis of the middle portion of John 8. I showed that certain men, after hearing Jesus speak, believed in Him. According to Jerry’s formula, based in John 3:16, these men “possessed” eternal life when they believed in Christ. Only after Christ challenges them, and they “no longer believe” in Him, do they lose their salvation. Here’s how Jerry responds:

    These men never believed in their "hearts" and were never "born of God".Therefore,they were never saved to begin with so they could not lose something that they never possessed.
    Again, I wonder how Jerry has this special gift of Knowledge to know the heart state of those men who believed in Christ. Jerry is able to tell us that these men were never saved, but is unable to tell us what happened to the man in Numbers 15. Jerry understands that he has a problem, so he puts a band-aid on his problem passage and says, “Well, they didn’t really believe in their hearts.” Again, I implore our readers to return to my Round 2 and make an educated decision on their own. I ask Jerry to return to John 8 and explain how he knows that those specific men “didn’t really believe in their hearts” even though God’s Word says they believed in Christ, and then fell away.

    10. Jerry, could Abraham have refused God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision, been cut off, and still been saved?

    Genesis 17
    7 “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
    14 “And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
    Again, I offered substantial proof that Abraham and his descendants were required to keep God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision. Jerry fails to respond yet again. Secondly, I ask Jerry to explain how an everlasting covenant could not be followed. Why isn’t God’s everlasting covenant still applicable today Jerry? What does evelasting mean to you?

    11. Jerry, did the children of Israel need to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be righteous?

    I provided Jerry with a portion of Scripture from Deuteronomy 6.

    Deuteronomy 6
    24 ‘And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day.
    25 ‘Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.’
    For some reason, Jerry didn’t like this passage. Jerry again resorts to his special gift of Knowledge and reinterprets for us. Here’s what Jerry had to say:

    First,we can see that these verses are speaking about "physical" life-"that He might preserve us alive,as it is at this day.".Next,the "righteousness" of which this verse speaks is in regard to "our righteousness",and not the "righteousness of God apart from the law" that comes unto ALL who believe.Here is what the prophet Isaiah says about "our righteousness":

    " But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags"(Isa.64:6).

    Perhaps Jeremy can explain how "our own righteousness",which "are as filthy rags",can save anyone eternally?If the Jew would keep all the statutes then they would not lose their "physical" life.But this law keeping saved no one "eternally",
    Jerry is able to tell us that this is talking about “physical” life only. Again, I must ask, what is the benefit of keeping the law here? The children of Israel are already “alive” physically. How much more “physically alive” can God make them. I bet Jerry wouldn’t believe this is speaking of eternal life, even if God Himself said so. We shall see…

    In Deuteronomy 24, God sets forth a number of commandments for the children of Israel. I ask that our readers look for themselves, and consider Deuteronomy 24:5-13a. This is the list of God’s physical commandments for the people. What happens to those who follow His commandments?

    Deuteronomy 24
    13 and it shall be righteousness to you before the LORD your God.
    Notice Jerry, this isn’t “righteousness for us,” but rather “righteousness to you before the LORD your God." Again, the circumcision believers are to keep God’s commandments, and it will be righteousness for them before God.

    12. Jerry, how did circumcision believers “know that they knew” Christ?

    I asked Jerry about 1 John 2:

    1 John 2
    3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.
    4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
    5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
    Here’s how Jerry responds…

    All John is saying is that if the believer really knows the Lord in a personal way (through his fellowship with Him) then he will indeed keep the things which are commanded of him.However,he says that someone may say that he really has fellowship with the Lord but if that person's life shows no evidence of that fellowship then that person is not telling the truth.
    Then I said,

    Sorry Jerry, the passage says “by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.” The passage says nothing about “keeping the things commanded of him.” Again, John’s point was that they know Christ if they keep God’s law.
    Jerry did not respond. I ask again Jerry… How did circumcision believers know that they knew Him? Was it by keeping His commandments?

    13. Jerry, why did Peter preach “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. to the Gentiles? Why did Peter say it was unlawful for him to be there?

    I have given Jerry 13 questions to respond to. I ask that Jerry respond to each question. I will pick up as much as possible in Round 4 after I make my positive case.

    God Bless, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
    Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

  2. #17
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1011
    DING, DING, DING.... that's it for round #3. We're over halfway through Battle Royale VIII as we move into round #4!

    Jerry Shugart is now on the clock!


    ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Turbo), Knight, Jerry Shugart, or *Acts9_12Out*.
    You may discuss Battle Royale VIII here.
    Last edited by Turbo; March 31st, 2004 at 05:53 AM.

  3. #18
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,519
    Thanks
    1,027
    Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,930 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1839662
    Round IV

    In my very first post in this debate I pointed out that Paul uses the example of David of a man who is justified before God apart from worksto him that worketh not(Ro.3:5).

    But Jeremy still refuses to reconcile his view that David was required to do “works” in order to be saved with Paul’s words that it is the sinner who “worketh not but believeth” who is justified before God.He has already had three opportunites to answer,but he still refuses to even attempt to reconcile his ideas with the words of Paul.

    In fact,Jeremy did not answer even one of my seven questions despite the fact that I answered all of his.But despite this I will answer the questions that he asked in regard to his “positive case”.
    Now I ask... If Peter was preaching the same "message" as Paul, why does Peter say it is unlawful for him to be there? .... Jerry hopes that Peter will preach a wonderful message of "faith alone" to these Gentile belivers.
    First of all,I never said that Peter was preaching the same message that Paul preached to the Gentiles.Peter remained under the Law at the time that he spoke to Cornelius.However,that does not mean that Peter thought that he could be justified by the Law before God.And Jeremy says, Jerry hopes that Peter will preach a wonderful message of ‘faith alone’ to these Gentile belivers.

    Jerry does not have to “hope” that “faith alone” was preached to them as we can see that Peter was sent there for that express purpose—”who shall tell thee words by which thou and all thy house shall be saved”(Acts11:14).

    Here is what Peter said to these Gentiles immediately before the Holy Spirit fell upon them:

    ” To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”(Acts10:43).

    When Cornelius and his household believed the words concerning the Lord Jesus—that ”God raised Him up the third day” and that it is ”He Who was ordained by God to be the Judge of the living and the dead”(Acts10:40,42)—then at that moment the Holy Spirit fell on them.As Peter said,”God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe(Acts15:7).

    Not one word about anything but “hearing and believing”!But despite this clear Scriptual evidence Jeremy seems unaware that they believed the “good news” and then the Holy Spirit fell on them.

    The Acts narrative in regard to Cornelius and his household make it plain that they were saved when they heard and believed the “good news” which was preached to them.Jeremy continues:
    What does Peter preach to them?

    ” Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him”(Acts10:35).
    Here Peter is not saying that our own “righteousness” is necessary for salvation (because “our own righteousness” is compared to “filthy rags”--Isa.64:6),but instead he is “describing” those in other nations who are accepted by the Lord.It is their “fear of the Lord” (or have a respect of the Lord) which is the reason why they are accepted of Him.This “fear” or “respect” of God combined with their “conscience”(the law that is written in their hearts”—Ro.2:15) leads them to lead “righteous” lives but this personal righteousness in no way makes them acceptable to Him.As I said,the words of Peter are merely a “description” of those who are found acceptable by Him.The following words of the Lord Jesus is also a “description” of those who will be saved:

    ”And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”(Mt.19:29).

    Here the Lord is merely “describing” some who will inherit everlasting life.He surely is not saying that a “condition” or “requirement” for eternal life is that one must forsake his family in order to be saved.And Peter is not saying that a requirement of being accepted by Him is one’s “own righteousness”.Peter is merely describing those in other lands who find acceptance in the eyes of the Lord.After all,we know that Cornelius and his household were not saved because of their “own righteousness” but because they heard the “good news” and believed that gospel (Acts11:14;15:7).

    So we can see that when we examine exactly how Cornelius and his household were saved we see that Jeremy’s so-called “positive case” is not supported by the Scriptual evidence.Jeremy says:
    Christ commanded Peter to continue preaching justification by faith works, even after the resurrection.
    Here Jeremy says that the Jews were being taught that they were justified by “faith works” of the Law.But let us see exactly what Paul said to the Jews in regard to justification by the law:

    ” Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:And by him all who believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses(Acts13:38,39).

    Why does Jeremy continue to insist that the Jews were “justified by the law” despite the clear words of Paul that no one is justified by the law?:

    ” 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.3:11).

    It is “evident” to almost everyone but Jeremy.Here is Paul saying the same thing:

    ” Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”(Ro.3:20).

    Jeremy says that the Jews were receiving a message that said that they must be justified by “faith works” but Paul tells them that they “could not be justified by the law of Moses”!

    Nonetheless,Jeremy continues to insist that the Jews must be justified by the works of the law.

    Jeremy says:
    As stated before, Peter was preaching the only message he knew. "Fear God and do works of righteousness to be accepted by God."
    Are we to believe that Peter did not know this “message” which was preached to the Jews?:

    ” For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”(Jn.3:16).

    Not one word about doing any works!

    Jeremy knows that this verse is fatal to his idea,so he attempts to change the plain meaning of the Lord’s words.He says that the “tense” of the word “believeth” refers to a “continuous” action of believing.

    However,an examination of the “tense” of the word “believe” demonstrates the the word is in the “present” tense (“Present Active Participle”).It does not indicate “continuous” action,as the following verses indicates:

    ” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”(Jn.1:12,13).

    The word “believe” in this verse is in the “present” tense (“Present Active Participle”) just as in John 3:16.If Jeremy is correct that this “faith” must be continuous then it is evident that those who “believed” would not be “born of God” and become His “sons” until the end of a life evidenced by a “continued” belief.However,we can see that the Jewish Apostles were indeed “born again” before they died:

    ” Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever”(1Pet.1:23).

    The Greek present tense by itself does not convey the idea of “continuity” - nor does its counterpart in English.If someone wishes to express the idea of “continuity” then a special context and/or additional words such as "diapantos" (continually), must be inserted into the text in order to convey the idea of continuous believing. No first century Greek reader or hearer would understand these words to mean to 'continue to believe' without the necessary additional qualifiers to the simple present tense.And that is why the author of Hebrews uses such a “qualifier” in order to express the idea of “continuious action”:

    ” By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name”(Heb.13:15).

    The word “offer” in this verse is the “action”,and it is in the “present” tense.But since this “tense” does not express a “continuous action” the author of these words added the word “continually” in order to say that this “offfering” is to be “continuous”.

    If continuous believing is necessary to provide one with a state of not perishing then Jn 3:16 must be changed to read "whoever continuously believes in Him will (future) not perish but will (future) have eternal life."

    The words at John 3:16 cannot be denied.The one who “believes” in the Lord Jesus “should never perish”.They will not come into condemnation.The Lord Jesus told the Jews:

    ” He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life”(Jn.5:24).

    Once again the word “believeth” is in the “present” tense (“Present Active Participle”).Those Jews who were “believing” Him when He spoke His words already posssessed a life which the Lord describes as “everlasting”.At the moment they belived Him they are assured that they will not come into condemnation.

    Jeremy knows that if the Jewish believers possessed “eternal security” then his idea that “works” were required for “eternal salvation” comes tumbling down like a child’s house of cards.Therefore,he is forced to attempt to prove that those who “believe” and are “born of God” can indeed perish despite the words of the Lord Jesus to the contrary.

    And he also seems to be under the impression that the “only” meassage that Peter knew about was in reference to “fearing God” and “working righteusness”.Nothing could be further from the truth!

    In my first post,I pointed out that “eternal life” is a free gift,and since it is a gift one does not need to “work” for that gift.Jeremy clearly understands that this Scriptual fact is a HUGE problem since he is arguing that at some point in the past “works” were indeed required for this “free gift”.I asked him the following question:
    If “eternal life” is a free gift then why should we believe that works are required in order to acquire that free gift?
    Jeremy answered,saying:
    I am not saying that “works are required” to obtain that free giftThe question that will be asked I’m sure is, did the “works” in and of themselves “save” anyone. The answer is, no way… The works they did were in no way magical and did not equal salvation. The works they did were an expression of faith. It was a physical expression that God asked them to do to show that they had faith in Him.
    Despite the fact that in this debate he is indeed arguing that “works” were required for salvation in previous dispensations he now says that he is “not saying that ‘works are required’ to obtain the free gift” of eternal life!

    He attempts prove that he is not teaching that “works” are required for savation by saying that “the ‘works’ in and of themselves did not save anyone.However,he continues to argue that without “works” the Jewish believers could not be saved,but then he turns around and says that these “works” in themselves saved no one!

    He says that the “works” they did were just an “expression” of faith.But Jeremy uses the words of James to attempt to prove that the Jewish believers were “justified” before God by “works”—”ye see then,that by works a man is justified,and not by faith only”(Jms.2:24).

    So despite the fact that Jeremy knows that the “free gift of eternal life” is not dependent on “works”,he continues to argue that “works” were a necessary expression of faith that the Jewish believer must perform before they could receive the “gift” of eternal life,and he also argues that the Jewish believer must be justified by “works” before God!

    Work,work and more work!

    But Jeremy expects us to overthrow our reason and believe him when he says that he is not saying that “works are required” to receive the free gift of eternal life!

    I answered every single question that Jeremy has asked.But when I asked him seven questions in my last post,he answered none of them!But now he says:
    I have given Jerry 13 questions to respond to. I ask that Jerry respond to each question.
    I will answer several of his questions in the hope that he will answer mine in his next post.He asks:
    1.Jerry,is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the mosaic Law?
    It is hard for me to believe that the “perfect law of liberty" is in reference to the Law.Peter calls the Law a “yoke”:

    ” Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?(Acts15:10).

    And so does Paul:

    ” Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage(Gal.5:1).

    Jeremy must think that the “yoke of bondage” is the same thing as “the perfect law of liberty”!

    James is saying that the “perfect law of liberty” (grace through faith) enables us to fulfill the “royal law” (the Law—“thou shalt love thy neighhbor as thyself”;Jms.2:3):

    ”Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”(Ro.3:31).

    James is saying that if they treat a rich man with respect but a poor one with disrespect then they “are become judges with evil thoughts” (2:4) because they have “respect of persons” (or are playing favrites) and therefore they are committing sin (v.2:9) and under the law that they are supposed to be fulfilling they are “transgressors”.So he says to do as one under the “perfect law of liberty” and they will fulfill the law.

    Jeremy continues,saying:
    Jerry also argues that James is speaking of Justification before men. Jerry, I must ask, what “man” was on Mount Moriah with Abraham for him to be justified before?
    All the “men” who read the passages in regard to Abraham offering up Isaac on Mount Moriah are aware that Abraham did indeed perform a righteous act.There are many men who are aware of his righteus act because the Scriptures speak of it in more than one place.Perhaps Jeremy is under the impression that one had to be with Abraham when he performed the righteous act before they can recognize that it was indeed a righteous act!Jeremy also says:
    Instead of responding to the context of James 1:25-2:26, Jerry goes into a rant concerning Abraham.
    Jeremy forgets that I said that if one is really interested in the teaching of James concerning salvation then all they have to do is to go to the following verse:

    ” Of His own will begot he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures”(Jms.1:18).

    Both the Gentile believers as well as the Jewish believers are “regenerated” when they believe the Word of God.But Jeremy conveniently says nothing about this answer of mine in his “fair and balanced” debating style.It must have just slipped his mind!And of couse when asked questions about the “born again” experience he has no answers!

    Jeremy asks:
    Jerry,why do circumcision believers need to “keep on confessing” their sins?
    To remain in “fellowship” with the Lord.I answered you previously by pointing out that we too should judge ourselves so that we will not be judged by the Lord:

    " For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world"(1Cor.11:31,32).

    But Jeremy says::
    We don’t judge ourselves… But, if we did, we still would not be judged.
    Jeremy might consider the words of the father of Mid-Acts dispensationalism,Sir Robert Andeson,in regard to this subject:

    ”For the believer who sins against God to dismiss the matter by ‘the blood cleanseth’,is the levity and daring of antinomianism.For such the word is,’If we confess our sins’:no flippant acknowledgement with the lip,but a solemn and real dealing with God;and thus he obtains again and again a renewal of the benefits of the death of Christ. '‘He is faithful anf just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”(Anderson,”The Gospel and Its Minisry”,p.177).

    There is a lesson that an be learned in regard to the time when the Lord Jesus washed the feet of Peter.Peter said,”Lord,not my feet only,but also my hands and my head”.To which the Lord Jesus said,”He that is washed needeth not except to wash his feet,but is entirely clean"(Jn.13:10).

    The ”New Scofield Study Bible” says this about these words of the Lord:

    ”The underlying imagery is of an oriental returning from the public baths to his house.His feet would acquire defilement and require cleansing,but not his body.So the believer is cleansed as before the law from all sin ‘once for all’ (Heb.10:1-12),but needs throughout his earthly life to bring his daily sins to the Father in confession,so that he may abide in unbroken fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 Jn.1:1-10).The blood of Christ answers forever to all the law could say as to the believer’s guilt,but he needs constant cleansing from the defilement of sin.”(Note at John 13:10).

    Now that I have answered several of Jeremy’s questions despite the fact that he answered none of mine,I hope that in his next post that he will finally answer these questions:

    1.Why should we believe you when you say that those who have been given "eternal life" can perish despite the fact that the Lord Jesus says that they "shall never perish" and that they "shall not come into condemnation"?

    2.Do you really believe that the people whom the Lord Jesus said had the devil as their father were ever in possession of eternal life?

    3.Are you ever going to attempt to reconcile the fact that Paul uses David as example of someone who is saved "apart from works" ("to him that worketh not") with your idea that in order to be saved David had to do works?

    4.Do you really believe that Abraham was first justified by "faith" alone but later he was saved by "faith plus works" and then later it was once again by "faith" alone and then later it was by "faith plus works"?

    5.Do you believe that one who is "born of God" can become "unborn"?

    6. The Scriptures reveal that those who are "born of God" and become the "sons of God" will be treated as "sons" by the Lord (Heb.12:5-11).He may "chasten" them,but do you believe that the Lord will send them to hell for sinning?

    7.If the Lord God can still save men despite the "sin" of killing the Lord Jesus Christ,what "sin" might it be that they Lord will not forgive in regard to His own sons?

    8. Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus came to do the will of the Father but that He failed?

    I hope that you will answer these questions in your next post.

    In His grace,--Jerry

  4. #19
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1011
    ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Turbo), Knight, Jerry Shugart, or *Acts9_12Out*.
    You may discuss Battle Royale VIII here.
    Last edited by Turbo; April 1st, 2004 at 11:22 PM.

  5. #20
    Journeyman *Acts9_12Out*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    169
    Round IV

    I must say, I am a bit disappointed with Jerry. Jerry had 48 hours to post, but chose to respond before even 12 hours had passed. Jerry had over 36 hours left to focus on pointed questions I asked, but chose to post quickly. It wouldn’t have been that big of a deal except, Jerry posted so fast he confused himself. Jerry said,

    I will answer several of his questions in the hope that he will answer mine in his next post.He asks:
    Jerry said he would answer several of the “housecleaning” questions I asked. After Jerry makes this statement, Jerry answered only three questions! Jerry responded with yet another inconsistent answer to my question about James, but I will deal with that later in this post. After Jerry responded to my positive case question (which needs to be addressed as well) and answered two of the twelve remaining questions, Jerry has the audacity to say,

    Now that I have answered several of Jeremy’s questions despite the fact that he answered none of mine,I hope that in his next post that he will finally answer these questions:
    Jerry, does several have a different meaning in Mexico? Did you post so fast that you “thought” you responded to several, but responded to only three out of thirteen questions? Jerry, you have some serious explaining to do. Three out of thirteen doesn’t even come close to several.

    For Round IV, I will submit yet another positive case, re-ask several questions, and respond to Jerry’s questions.

    POSITIVE CASE

    As stated in Round III, Jesus Christ was “born under the law” and came “to redeem those under the law.”

    Galatians 4
    4b God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
    5a to redeem those who were under the law,
    Christ’s earthly ministry was for God’s chosen but lost children of Israel, who were under the law.

    Matthew 15
    24 But (Jesus) answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
    Paul tells us that Christ was “a servant for the circumcision” for the truth of God.

    Romans 15
    8 Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,
    Mary & Joseph were under the law, and acted accordingly…

    Luke 2
    21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
    22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord
    23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD”),
    24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
    As was the custom, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3). The couple was required by the Law not only to have Jesus circumcised (Lev. 12:3), but also to present their firstborn to God (Ex. 13:2, 12) 33 days later and to bring an offering for Mary’s purification after childbirth (Lev. 12:1-8). The offering which they presented for her purification showed that they were a poor couple. They could not afford a lamb, so they bought a pair of doves or pigeons, which were all they could afford. They traveled the short distance from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for the presentation and purification at the temple.

    Now Jerry, why would Mary and Joseph go through all this trouble? They were under the law, and God required certain physical acts for salvation. Luke refers to the Mosaic Law as “the law of the Lord,” but Jerry seems to think the “law of the Lord” is a yoke of bondage. If Mary and Joseph would have rejected God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision for their son, then God would have sought to kill them, just like He did with Moses.

    Exodus 4
    24 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, [b]that the LORD met him and sought to kill him.
    Now, why would God seek to kill Moses? Moses had not yet circumcised his own son! Moses did not keep God’s Law that started with Abraham in Genesis 17! Jerry believes that God would have killed Moses “physically” but would have still allowed Moses to enter into heaven. Unfortunately Jerry, God required law works for salvation. God’s covenant was everlasting and those who rejected God’s Law would be cut-off completely. How does Moses’ wife respond to save her husband from death?

    Exodus 4
    25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!”
    26 So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.
    After Zipporah fulfills the requirement of circumcision, God let Moses go! God set Moses free from the penalty of death. The circumcision of Moses’ son (either Gershom or Eliezer) seems strange. In his years in Midian Moses had neglected to obey God’s command (Gen. 17:10) to circumcise one (or both?) of his sons. So God was about to kill Moses. Zipporah reluctantly circumcised her son with a sharp stone and then God let Moses live. Her touching Moses’ feet with the son’s foreskin was possibly a symbolic act of substitution, in which obedience was seen as replacing disobedience. Zipporah called Moses a "husband of blood." The meaning of this phrase is unknown, but some say it was used in a derogatory way to suggest that she did not favor the rite. (Yet she did it to save her husband’s life.) Others propose that she saw in the act a sort of redemption by which the blood of his son restored Moses to the Lord and also to her as a new husband. At this time Zipporah and the sons may have returned to Jethro (18:2-3). Moses’ sudden illness was a warning that he must obey God wholly and fulfill his mission. Isn’t it interesting Jerry that this incident follows up the emphasis in 4:22-23 on sons (Pharaoh’s son, and Israel as God’s son)? Now, back to our story with Jesus…

    Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the law and “usher in grace” Jerry. Christ came to fulfill the law.

    Matthew 5
    17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
    18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
    The righteousness they were currently seeking—that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law—was insufficient for entrance into the kingdom Jesus was offering. The righteousness He demanded was not merely external; it was a true inner righteousness based on faith in God’s Word shown by physically keeping the Mosaic Law. This is clear from what follows:

    Matthew 5
    19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    This follows my point that Jerry failed to respond to in Numbers 15 and Hebrews 10. God set forth His requirements for unintentional sin compared to intentional or presumptuous sins. If they committed unintentional sins, and broke “the least of God’s commandments,” then they would be called “least” in the kingdom of heaven. If they attempted to keep the law by faith, and taught others to do the same, they would be called “great” in the kingdom of heaven. The main point that must be considered Jerry is, Christ warned his followers against breaking even “the least” of the commandments of the law. If law based faith / works were not necessary for salvation, why would Christ warn His followers to keep the law? Another point is, Christ admonished His followers to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat…

    Matthew 23
    1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
    2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
    3 “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
    Jesus’ point here is, the scribes and Pharisees have the right message of law works, but are hypocrites when applying the law to their own lives. Christ admonishes His followers to ”observe and do” the works of the law, but do not “do” works the way hypocritical Pharisees “do not do” what they say.

    We have two very important accounts in the gospels where two different men approach our Lord Jesus Christ and ask Him how they might inherit eternal life. The topic of discussion in ”Battle Royale VIII” is, “Were Works Ever Required For Salvation?” The following two examples answer the debate topic question for us…

    Luke 10
    25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
    26 He (Jesus) said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
    27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
    28 And He (Jesus) said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
    Notice, Christ told this lawyer to “do this” to inherit eternal life. What did Christ tell the lawyer to do? Keep the Law! The lawyer quotes the Mosaic Law (Deu 6:5; Lev 19:18) and Christ tells him to do those law works by faith to be saved. Next, we have the example of the rich young ruler…

    Matthew 19
    16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
    17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
    18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’
    19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
    Jesus’ response to the question is, ”Keep the commandments.” Jesus goes on to again quote the Mosaic Law. How much clearer could it be Jerry? If Jesus did not truly believe in “faith works for salvation,” He sure was not concerned with sending out the wrong message, now was He Jerry? If Christ did not believe in a “faith / works” program, why would He tell the lawyer and young man a lie? Was Christ attempting to intentionally deceive these men Jerry? Jerry, do you realize that Christ answered our topic question in two separate instances? ”Were Works Ever Required For Salvation?” Jesus answered YES! at least twice. Jesus even commanded His remaining 11 Apostles to do works to show that they had faith. If they did not continue in their good works, they would suffer the same fate as Judas.

    John 15
    1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
    2“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
    3“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
    4“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
    5“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
    6“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
    Judas’ betrayal is already complete. Christ knew the instant satan “entered Judas” and is now speaking to the remaining 11 only. If they do not “bear good fruit” and “abide in Him,” they will be withered, gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” As stated before, Christ commanded the 11 to “continue teaching” everything He taught them. After the resurrection, Christ told the 11:

    Matthew 28
    20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (aiwnoV).” Amen.
    Just a side note: Jerry was critical of my definition of aiwn as “agelong” in a previous post. What must be noted is the word translated “age” in the above passage is aiwnoV. The word does mean “age” or “agelong” Jerry. In fact, Hebrews tells us that Christ was “manifested” at the completion of at least two “ages” Jerry.

    Hebrews 9
    26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, aiwnwn He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
    Yes Jerry, ages end, and another age always begins. A valid definition of aiwn is “agelong.” Back to our story…

    Peter was a faithful servant and followed Christ’s commands. I would like to ask again Jerry… Why did Peter say it was ”unlawful” for him to be at a Gentile’s home? Secondly, I raise the same point as raised with Christ above. If Peter did not believe in a “faith plus works” program, why did he make the following statement?

    Acts 10
    35 “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
    Peter, like Christ, did not seemed concerned with leading people astray if Jerry’s interpretation is correct. Peter clearly understood that under the gospel of the circumcision, faith was demonstrated by doing good works. I still have many more comments, but will cut this post short as well so that I can respond to Jerry’s questions.

    RESPONSE TO JERRY’S QUESTIONS

    Jerry opens with a response to my question about Peter.

    First of all,I never said that Peter was preaching the same message that Paul preached to the Gentiles.Peter remained under the Law at the time that he spoke to Cornelius.However,that does not mean that Peter thought that he could be justified by the Law before God.
    A couple questions and a point here. If Jerry recognizes that Peter and Paul are preaching different messages, then what does Jerry believe the difference in their message to be? If Peter is “under the law” then why are we still discussing the issue? What was the point of Peter keeping the law (but Paul did not) if Peter’s “faith works” did not accomplish something? Since Jerry recognizes that Peter was under the law when he went to a Gentile, doesn’t it follow that it was unlawful for Peter to be there? Doesn’t it follow that Peter would preach a “works oriented” message? (Acts 10:35)

    Jerry does not have to “hope” that “faith alone” was preached to them as we can see that Peter was sent there for that express purpose—”who shall tell thee words by which thou and all thy house shall be saved”(Acts11:14).
    This contradicts what Peter actually said Jerry. As stated before by me, Peter argued that the hearts of the Gentiles were “justified by faith” in the same way the circumcision believers hearts were “justified by faith.” This in no way implies “faith alone.” Peter said, “Whoever fears God and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” Peter is arguing that, just as circumcision believers are “justified by keeping the law by faith,” Gentiles are also “justified by faith.” Peter does not understand, nor allude to what Gentiles “have faith in.” Peter argues that they are saved by faith, just as circumcision believers are saved by faith. This validates my premise in Round I that God changes the way He asks man to show faith. Circumcision believers are “justified by faith” by keeping the Mosaic Law by faith. As Jerry rightly noted in the event with Cornelius, Gentile believers were “justified by faith” when they heard the message of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. God showed that His requirements for salvation changed by saving Cornelius and his household before Peter could go on with his message of Repent and be baptized… Peter states that this is the case. After Peter departs from Caesarea and returns to Jerusalem, “those of the circumcision contended with Peter.

    Acts 11
    1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
    2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him,
    3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”

    4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:
    This explains why it was unlawful for Peter to be there. Peter defends himself and recounts what happened in Caesarea (Acts 11:5-14). Peter’s next comment clarifies that he was just starting to preach to them. Before Peter could say ”Repent and be baptized,” God interrupted Peter and saved the Gentiles.

    Acts 11
    15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
    Peter was just getting started when God interrupted him! Peter continues defending himself…

    Acts 11
    16 “Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
    17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
    18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”
    Peter argues that “it wasn’t his fault,” he was doing what God told him to do. Isn’t it interesting that the circumcision believers also recognize a division between the “circumcision” and the Gentiles? Jerry never responded to this fact either. Jerry offers his interpretation of Acts 10:35…

    As I said,the words of Peter are merely a “description” of those who are found acceptable by Him.The following words of the Lord Jesus is also a “description” of those who will be saved:

    ”And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”(Mt.19:29).

    Here the Lord is merely “describing” some who will inherit everlasting life.He surely is not saying that a “condition” or “requirement” for eternal life is that one must forsake his family in order to be saved.And Peter is not saying that a requirement of being accepted by Him is one’s “own righteousness”.Peter is merely describing those in other lands who find acceptance in the eyes of the Lord.After all,we know that Cornelius and his household were not saved because of their “own righteousness” but because they heard the “good news” and believed that gospel (Acts11:14;15:7).
    Jerry, you totally missed Christ’s point. You seem to believe that Christ is implying “turning their backs on” their own families. You said, “He surely is not saying that a “condition” or “requirement” for eternal life is that one must forsake his family in order to be saved.” You’re right… Christ didn’t say this. This follows the answer given to the rich young ruler. Peter doesn’t understand what has transpired after Christ told the young man to sell all his possessions and follow Him.

    Matthew 19
    27 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?”
    28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
    29 “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
    30 “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
    In the previous incident Jesus told the rich young man to sell all he had and follow Him. This was exactly what the disciples had done, as expressed by Peter. “We have left everything to follow You! What then will there be for us?” The young ruler did not leave his possessions (v. 22), Peter and the other disciples had. Surely then, Peter reasoned, God would bless them for they were not trusting in their wealth! The Lord explained there would be a renewal of all things. Though the nation was then rejecting His offer of the kingdom, the kingdom would come. Christ will then sit on His glorious throne (Matt. 25:31; Rev. 22:1).
    The disciples will have a special place in the kingdom, sitting on thrones and judging the 12 tribes of Israel. How can they be in the body of Christ Jerry? Christ’s point was not that they “forsake” their families, but rather, all who leave their homes and relatives for the Lord’s sake will receive physical blessings that will more than compensate for their losses (Matt. 19:29). While it might appear they are giving up everything now and are the last, they will be given everything eternally and will be first. Conversely those, like the rich young ruler, who appear to have everything now (the first) will discover one day they have lost everything (they will be last). Jerry continues,

    Here Jeremy says that the Jews were being taught that they were justified by “faith works” of the Law.But let us see exactly what Paul said to the Jews in regard to justification by the law:

    Why does Jeremy continue to insist that the Jews were “justified by the law” despite the clear words of Paul that no one is justified by the law?:

    It is “evident” to almost everyone but Jeremy.Here is Paul saying the same thing:

    Jeremy says that the Jews were receiving a message that said that they must be justified by “faith works” but Paul tells them that they “could not be justified by the law of Moses”!
    Didn’t you just say that you recognized that Peter was under the law, but Paul was not? Why use Pauline references to prove a point about circumcision believers? Do you see your own theme here Jerry? Every reference to justification by faith apart from works comes from the uncircumcision Apostle, Paul?

    Are we to believe that Peter did not know this “message” which was preached to the Jews?:

    ” For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life”(Jn.3:16).

    Not one word about doing any works!
    Peter understood the words of Christ in light of the conditional circumcision gospel. Christ later admonished the 11 Apostles to “bear good fruit” and “abide in Him.” Let Scripture interpret Scripture Jerry.

    Jeremy knows that this verse is fatal to his idea,so he attempts to change the plain meaning of the Lord’s words.He says that the “tense” of the word “believeth” refers to a “continuous” action of believing.
    I never commented on the Greek of John 3:16, so your points are meaningless. You accuse me of saying something I did not say. Maybe if you took a little longer to post, you would have all your ducks in a row and stop launching false accusations (and answer several more questions).

    Jeremy knows that if the Jewish believers possessed “eternal security” then his idea that “works” were required for “eternal salvation” comes tumbling down like a child’s house of cards.Therefore,he is forced to attempt to prove that those who “believe” and are “born of God” can indeed perish despite the words of the Lord Jesus to the contrary.
    That’s a big “IF” Jerry. Maybe we would have more to discuss if you would have responded to Hebrews 10:26-29. Here’s one more for good measure…

    2 Peter 2
    20For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
    21For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
    They “escaped” the pollutions of the world through an experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ. Were these men saved Jerry? If they are “again entangled” in the things of the world and are overcome, ” the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.” Why is “the latter end is worse for them than the beginning” Jerry? In the “beginning” they would still have the opportunity to be saved. How do we know this? “For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.” The circumcision gospel is conditional and must be understood as such Jerry. These men “knew” Christ, fell away and were lost. Jerry continues,

    Despite the fact that in this debate he is indeed arguing that “works” were required for salvation in previous dispensations he now says that he is “not saying that ‘works are required’ to obtain the free gift” of eternal life!
    How many times are you going to misrepresent me Jerry? You even posted my quote in context this time! As I said before, I say again… Circumcision believers were justified by keeping the law by faith. God’s requirement for salvation for them was to show their faith by keeping the law. Please do not misrepresent me again Jerry.

    I answered every single question that Jeremy has asked.
    Yet more lies… One of the three out of thirteen questions Jerry does respond to follows with his comments…

    1. Jerry, is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the Mosaic Law?
    It is hard for me to believe that the “perfect law of liberty" is in reference to the Law.Peter calls the Law a “yoke”:
    And so does Paul:
    Then James must have been mistaken when he quoted the Mosaic Law.

    James 2
    8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;
    11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
    12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
    It seems that there is much that is “hard for Jerry to believe.” Jerry, is James calling the “Royal Law” and the “Perfect Law of Liberty” the Mosaic Law or not?

    All the “men” who read the passages in regard to Abraham offering up Isaac on Mount Moriah are aware that Abraham did indeed perform a righteous act.There are many men who are aware of his righteus act because the Scriptures speak of it in more than one place.Perhaps Jeremy is under the impression that one had to be with Abraham when he performed the righteous act before they can recognize that it was indeed a righteous act!
    Jerry, the point remains. If you say Abraham was justified before men, what “men” was he justified before? It was God alone that he was justified before…

    Jeremy forgets that I said that if one is really interested in the teaching of James concerning salvation then all they have to do is to go to the following verse:

    ” Of His own will begot he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures”(Jms.1:18).
    Jerry forgets that just 7 verses later, James speaks of justification by law works… I also asked,

    4. Jerry, why do circumcision believer need to “keep on confessing” their sins?
    To remain in “fellowship” with the Lord.I answered you previously by pointing out that we too should judge ourselves so that we will not be judged by the Lord:
    I ask again, how does ”He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, relate to “fellowship” and not salvation? Jerry is wrong again. 1 John 1:9 is referring to salvation, not fellowship. That’s what forgive us our sins is all about Jerry.

    1.Why should we believe you when you say that those who have been given "eternal life" can perish despite the fact that the Lord Jesus says that they "shall never perish" and that they "shall not come into condemnation"?
    I have answered this already Jerry. They “have been given eternal life, shall never perish and shall not come into condemnation” as long as they remain faithful. The men described in 2 Peter 2 had an experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ. They possessed eternal life. If they would have remained faithful, they would “have never perished, and not entered into condemnation.” They fell away, “became again entangled and overcome,” and lost their salvation. This idea mirrors the men in John 8 that you supposedly know the heart state of. This idea mirrors the man in Numbers 15, which you do not know the heart state of…

    2.Do you really believe that the people whom the Lord Jesus said had the devil as their father were ever in possession of eternal life?
    They did not have the devil “as their father” until after they stopped believing. They said that Abraham and God were their Fathers. When they first believed, they possessed eternal life. When they rejected Christ, they lost their salvation.

    3.Are you ever going to attempt to reconcile the fact that Paul uses David as example of someone who is saved "apart from works" ("to him that worketh not") with your idea that in order to be saved David had to do works?
    Jerry, I already answered this too. Paul uses David as an example of a man under the law who God did not impute iniquity. David deserved physical and spiritual death for his sin, but God spared him. That’s why he is “blessed” compared to the man in Numbers 15 who was not blessed. God enforced His law on the man in Numbers 15. God should have enforced His law on David, but freely chose not to.

    4.Do you really believe that Abraham was first justified by "faith" alone but later he was saved by "faith plus works" and then later it was once again by "faith" alone and then later it was by "faith plus works"?
    I never said that. I would however say that Abram / Abraham’s salvation was conditional. Why would God continue “testing” Abraham’s faith if Abraham was eternally secure?

    Genesis 22
    1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”
    2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
    Does God test your faithfulness Jerry? Of course not. We, as members of the body of Christ, are eternally secure (Eph 1:14; 4:32).

    5.Do you believe that one who is "born of God" can become "unborn"?
    If a circumcision believer is “born again” and falls away, then he loses his salvation (John 8, 2 Peter 2, Hebrews 10, etc).
    6. The Scriptures reveal that those who are "born of God" and become the "sons of God" will be treated as "sons" by the Lord (Heb.12:5-11).He may "chasten" them,but do you believe that the Lord will send them to hell for sinning?
    Yes. See the passages cited above that you have not responded to.

    7.If the Lord God can still save men despite the "sin" of killing the Lord Jesus Christ,what "sin" might it be that they Lord will not forgive in regard to His own sons?
    Those who killed Christ committed a sin of ignorance.

    Acts 3
    14 “But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
    15 “and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.
    17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
    Because it was a sin of ignorance, they could still ask for forgiveness. If one of “His own sons” committed a high handed sin, he would not forgive them. If they did not ask for forgiveness, they would not be forgiven.

    Mark 11
    25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.
    26 “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
    They had to forgive others in order to be forgiven. We, in the body of Christ should forgive because we have been forgiven. Huge difference Jerry.

    Colossians 3
    13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also.
    Yet another “Big Difference” between the two gospels Jerry.

    8. Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus came to do the will of the Father but that He failed?
    No. When did I ever say this?

    QUESTIONS FOR JERRY

    1. Jerry, is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the mosaic Law?
    2. Jerry, why did the sect of the Pharisees who believed argue that the Gentiles who were turning to God needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law?
    3. Jerry, why is “will be supplied” in the future tense?
    4. Jerry, why do circumcision believer need to “keep on confessing” their sins?
    5. Could Noah have refused to build the ark, been killed in the flood, and still been saved?
    6. Did the man in Numbers 15, who was cut off completely, his sin upon him, go to hell?
    7. What the heck is going on in Hebrew 10:26-29?
    8. Jerry, do you stand by your interpretation of Ezekiel 18?
    9. Did the men in John 8, who believed in Christ lose their eternal life?
    10. Jerry, could Abraham have refused God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision, been cut off, and still been saved?
    11. Jerry, did the children of Israel need to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be righteous?
    12. Jerry, how did circumcision believers “know that they knew” Christ?
    13. Jerry, why did Peter preach “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him," to the Gentiles? Why did Peter say it was unlawful for him to be there?

    For the above, please refer to my comments in Round III for clarification.

    14. Why would Christ be deceptive and tell the lawyer and young ruler to “keep the law” if Christ did in fact not mean just that?
    15. Does 2 Peter 2:20,21 refer to men who knew Christ, fell away, and went to hell?

    God Bless, --Jeremy Finkenbinder
    Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

  6. #21
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1011
    DING, DING, DING.... that's it for round #4. Now we're moving into the fifth and final round of Battle Royale VIII!

    Jerry Shugart is back on the clock!


    ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Turbo), Knight, Jerry Shugart, or *Acts9_12Out*.
    You may discuss Battle Royale VIII here.
    Last edited by Turbo; April 4th, 2004 at 01:39 PM.

  7. #22
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,519
    Thanks
    1,027
    Thanked 5,832 Times in 3,930 Posts

    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1839662
    In the first four chapters of Romans Paul addresses man’s righteousness (a right relationship with God) or how a man is “justified” in the sight of God.The first way that he discusses is a “righteousness” that is strictly in regard to man’s “actions”—apart from “faith”.He says:

    ”Who (God) will render to every man according to his works:

    “To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,eternal life;

    “But unto them that are contentious,and do noty obey the truth,but obey unrighteousness,indignation and wrath,tribulation and anguish,upon every soull of man that doeth evil,to the Jew first,and also of the Gentile;

    “But glory,honor,and peace,to every man that worketh good,to the Jew first,and also to the Gentile”
    (Ro.2:6-10).

    He then says that the “standard” by which man will be judged is “law”.For those who have not “the law” will be judged by ”the work of the law that is written in their hearts” of which the “conscience” bears witness (v.15).The Jew will be judged by “the law”.In both instances the “law” is in regard to the “moral” law.If the Gentile sins then he will perish.If the Jew sins then he will be judged by the law,and the law says that if he breaks even one commandment then he is guilty of breaking the whole law (v.12;Jms.2:10).So therefore,he too will perish if he sins.

    Paul says that by “works” no man meets the standard of “law”:

    ”…for we have before proven both Jews and Gentiles,they are all under sin;As it is written,There is none righteousness,no,not one(Ro.3:9,10).

    ”For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God(Ro.3:23).

    However,since the beginning of time not all men have “perished”.The Lord had been saving sinners since the beginning,but it was not until Paul was converted that it was revealed exactly how the Lord was doing this.The Lord had been imputing His own righteousness to men who “believed God”,no matter what the particular revelation from God was at the time:

    ”Abraham believed God,and it was counted to him for righteousness”(Ro.4:3).

    Paul writes:

    But now the righteousness of God apart from law is revealed,being witnessed by the law and the prophets,even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all who believe(Ro.3:21,22).

    The Lord imputes His own righteousness unto all who believe (both Jews and Gentiles,for there is no difference),and this is apart from “law” (To the Gentile the “law that is written in his heart” and to the Jew the Ten Commandments).

    Throughout time,when any man “believed God”,he was ”justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Ro.3:24).Before the Cross the Lord would “overlook” the sins of the believer all the while knowing that He would place their sins on the Lord Jesus at the Cross.

    So we can see that Paul speaks of two ways whereby man can be justified before God.One way is by “earning” it by his “works” or “deeds”.But since the beginning of time that way has proved futile as no man has been able to meet the standard of God’s law.The other way is in reference to the “grace” of God,and since the beginning the Lord has imputed His own righteousness into the account of those who “believe”.

    It is also a fact that Paul says nothing about a righteousness that involves both “faith” and “works”.And the reason that he says nothing about it is because there is no such thing.It is either by “works” or by “grace”.There is nothing in between.With that said,let us see how Jeremy attempts to prove that some men are “justified” before God by “faith” and “works”.

    Jeremy takes a verse out of its context and then uses that verse to support his belief that the Jew was justified by “faith” plus “works of the law” .When the Lord Jesus was asked by the rich man what he must do to have eternal life.The Lord replied,”If you want to enter into life,keep the commandments”(Mt.19:17).

    Jeremy says::
    Jesus’ response to the question is, ”Keep the commandments.” Jesus goes on to again quote the Mosaic Law. How much clearer could it be Jerry?
    It is too bad that Jeremy did not quote the rest of the Lord’s discourse.After the rich man went away the Lord Jesus told His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven.Then we see the following exchange:

    ” When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

    “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible”
    (Mt.19:25,26).

    The Lord Jesus was saying the same thing that Paul later said—that no man is justified by the works of the law in the sight of God:

    ”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.3:11).

    ”Therefore by the works of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”(Ro.3:20).

    Jeremy does not understand that the words NO MAN and NO FLESH mean just that!He contiues to insist that some Jews were indeed justified by the works of the law before God despite the fact that Paul says that “no man” will be justified by the works of the law.Jeremy continues,saying:
    If Christ did not believe in a “faith / works” program, why would He tell the lawyer and young man a lie? Was Christ attempting to intentionally deceive these men Jerry?
    Paul says, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”The law was to “convict” the Jew of his sinfulness so that he would realize that he was in need of a Savior to save him from the penalty and defilement of his sins.Instead of just leaving the rich man should have said that he is a sinner and cannot keep the law and beg for the Lord’s mercy.The Lord Jesus explains this idea in the “parable of the Pharisee and the publican”.Here are His words in regard to the “publican”:

    ” And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted(Lk.13,14).

    In my very first post in this debate I pointed out that Paul uses the example of David as a man who is justified before God apart from worksto him that worketh not(Ro.3:5).

    But Jeremy still refuses to reconcile his view that David was required to do “works” in order to be saved with Paul’s words that it is the sinner who “worketh not but believeth” who is justified before God.He has already had three opportunites to answer,but he still refuses to even attempt to reconcile his ideas with the words of Paul.Instead,he says:
    Jerry, I already answered this too. Paul uses David as an example of a man under the law who God did not impute iniquity. David deserved physical and spiritual death for his sin, but God spared him.
    That does not answer my question and Jeremy knows it!We are discussing how David was “justified” and not whether or not David was spared by grace or not.Paul uses David as an example someone who lived under the law and he was justified before God apart from worksto him that worketh not!:

    ” But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works(Ro.4:5,6).

    Jeremy says that David could not possibly be saved “without works” but Paul uses David as an example of one who worketh not but believeth!Righteousness was imputed to David apart from works.But since it is impossible to reconcile the idea that “works” are required for justification with Paul’s teaching that it is he who “worketh not” Jeremy does not even try.

    In my first post I also asked,since “eternal life” is a free gift (Ro.6:23) and no one has to do “works” to receive a free gift,why would “works be required in order to receive this “free gift”?Jeremy said:
    I am not saying that “works are required” to obtain that free giftThe question that will be asked I’m sure is, did the “works” in and of themselves “save” anyone. The answer is, no way… The works they did were in no way magical and did not equal salvation. The works they did were an expression of faith. It was a physical expression that God asked them to do to show that they had faith in Him.
    Since Jeremy understands that “work” is not required in order to receive a free gift,he knows that he must deny that he is saying that works are required for salvation.Hence,he says,I am not saying that ‘works are required’ to obtain that free gift.

    Jeremy forgets that in this debate he is arguing just the opposite—that at one time works were required for salvation.In order to get around the fact that “works” were never required for the “free gift” of eternal life,he argues that the works in themselves did not save but were just a demonsration of faith.But if “works” were required in order to demonstrate faith and faith is necessary for salvation,then it is obvious to anyone who will use his brain that Jeremy is teaching that “works” are required for salvation.And not only that,he also teaches that the Jews must be “justified” by “works”.So it is beyond me how Jeremy can say that he is “not saying that ‘works are required’ in order to receive the free gift of eternal life!

    Next,Jeremy asks:
    A couple questions and a point here. If Jerry recognizes that Peter and Paul are preaching different messages, then what does Jerry believe the difference in their message to be? If Peter is “under the law” then why are we still discussing the issue?
    When a “gospel” went to the Jews after the resurrection the “message” is the fact that the Lord Jesus is the promised Messiah,the Son of God.On the day of Pentecost Peter used the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah:

    ” Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ(Acts2:36).

    As soon as Paul was converted he also preached the same message to the Jews:

    ” And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ(Acts3,4).

    Those Jews who believed this “good news” were “born of God” at the very moment they believed.They were “regenerated” or “born again” when they believed that the Lord Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God:

    ” Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God(1Jn.5:1).

    The Jews were “born again” or “born of God” whenever they believed the “good news” that Jesus is the promised Messiah.And this new birth is not according to the “will of the flesh” and that rules out the idea that “works” were involved in the “born again” process:

    ” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God(Jn.1:12,13).

    The Jew was regenerated when he believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.And that was accomplished by “faith” and “faith” alone.Any “works” done after the “born again” experience did not contribute in any way to his salvation,and that is because he was already saved by the time he did any “works”.

    We can see that Jeremy is very confused in regard to exactly how the Jews were being saved after the resurrection.He said:
    Christ commanded Peter to continue preaching justification by faith works, even after the resurrection.
    If we are to believe Jeremy then we must ignore the fact that when Paul preached to the Jews he told them that they could not be justified by the Law of Moses:

    ”Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:And by Him all who believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses(Acts13:38,39).

    These words mean absolutely nothing to Jeremy—”from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”!

    No matter how much Scriptual proof is given to Jeremy that “no man” is justified by the Law he just will not believe.He just ignores the following words of Paul that can have only one meaning:

    ” Therefore by the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”(Ro.3:20).

    Despite these clear and explicit statements Jeremy remains under the illusion that the Apostles were preaching “justification by faith works” of the Law after the Lord’s resurrection!

    In the following verse Paul again makes it plain that “all who believe” receive the “righteousness of God apart from law”:

    ” But now the righteousness of God apart from law is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them who believe(Ro.3:21,22).

    Since these verses demonstrate beyond any doubt that all of those who “believe” receive this “righteousness of God apart from law” there can be no question whatsoever as to whether or not “works of law” are required for salvation.But despite this fact Jeremy insists that only “some” of those who believe receive this righteousness of God apart from the law!

    However,these words have no meaning whatsoever for Jeremy.

    Let us exaimine more of Jeremy’s “ideas” in regard to what was being preached to the Jews after the resurrection.

    First he seems to think that the preaching of the death,burial and resurrection was only for the Body of Christ.He says:
    God, when dealing with Israel, asked man to show faith in a physical way. Now, God asks us (the body of Christ) to show our faith by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    Jeremy is under the illusion that Peter did not preach any message other than “fear God and do works of righteousness”:
    Peter was preaching the only message he knew. "Fear God and do works of righteousness to be accepted by God."
    He seems to think Peter did not preach a “faith only” meassage to Cornelius and his household:
    Jerry hopes that Peter will preach a wonderful message of "faith alone" to these Gentile belivers.
    However,even a cursory reading of the Acts record reveals that when Peter went to Cornelius he preached the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

    ” And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; Whom they slew and hanged on a tree:Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly”(Acts10:39,40).

    And notice that Peter also says that “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”:

    ” To him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins(Acts10:43).

    And while Peter was saying those words the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and all those in his household!They were saved without doing any works.Peter was not preaching a message demanding “works of righteousness” for salvation.He said that those who “believe” will receive the remission of sin—“faith only”.

    The Acts narrative is so plain and easy to understand,but Jeremy seems incapable of understanding these simple things.

    Next,according to Jeremy’s ideas,the Jewish believers had no eternal security.However,John tells them:

    ”And this is the record,that God hath given to us eternal life,and this life is in His Son”(1Jn.5:11).

    The word “eternal” is translated from the Greek word “aionios”,which means ”without end,never to cease,everlasting”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

    So John says that they already possess a life in Jesus Christ that is without end.But Jeremy attampts to add “conditions” to this “unconditional” statement.Typical!If there were “conditions” John would say,”You will have eternal life if you do this or don’t do that.But he does not,but instead tells them that they already possess eternal life.

    When the rich man asked the Lord Jesus how he could “have eternal life”(Mt.19:16),he was not asking how he could have an “agelong” life,but instead the question was in regard to a life “without end”.So why should we expect that the use of the phrase “eternal life” as used by the rich man does not mean the same thing when John uses it at 1John 5:11?

    But Jeremy knows that his ideas are exposed as being in error if the same meaning is put on the same phrase at 1Jn.5:11 as it is at Matthew 19:16.But there can be no misunderstanding of what the Lord Jesus says about those who have been given eternal life:

    ”And I give unto them eternal life,and they shall never perish;neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.My Father,who gave them to Me…”(Jn.10:28,29).

    Here Jeremy is forced to violate a principle of sound Bibical exegesis when he adds “conditions” to the Lord’s “unconditional” statement.Jeremy just cannot deal with the Scriptures as they are written or else he must admit that his ideas are wrong.Also, the Lord Jesus said that those who He has given eternal life were given to Him by the Father:

    ”And this is the Father’s will Who hath sent Me,that of ALL that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but should raise them up again at the last day(Jn.6:39).

    Jeremy knows that this verse is devestaing to his teaching,so he says that the Lord did not do the will of the Father because Judas was lost!He says:
    Judas is another example of one who “possessed eternal life,” fell away, and went to hell. The Father gave Judas to Christ, and Judas was lost…
    Despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that He came to do the Father’s will and the Father’s will is that He should lose “none” of those who were given to Him by the Father,Jeremy says that “the Father gave Judas to Christ,but Judas was lost!”

    But now Jeremy denies that he ever said that the Lord Jesus did not do the will of the Father.Jeremy is so confused that he cannot remember what he said from one moment to another.I asked him?:
    Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus came to do the will of the Father but that He failed?
    Jeremy answered,saying:
    No. When did I ever say this?
    Jeremy is so confused that he does not understand the implications of the things he says.

    Despite all of Jeremy’s protests to the contrary,there can be no doubt that the Jewish believers did in fact possess “eternal security”.The Jewish believers were told that they already possess a life in the Son that will not end.The Lord Jesus said that those who have been given eternal life shall not perish and that He will lose none of those who were given to Him by the Father.Jude thells them that they are “preserved” in Jesus Christ:

    ”…to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ(Jude1).

    Peter tells them that they are “kept” by the power of God:

    Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”(1Pet.1:5).

    But despite all of this evidence Jeremy says that they have no eternal security.In order to get around these verses he just adds “conditions” to “unconditional” statements.I could do the same thing in regard to the verse Jeremy uses over and over to prove the “eternal security” of those in the Body of Christ:

    ” And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption”(Eph.4:30).

    This is clearly an “unconditional” statement,but I will use Jeremy’s method and add “conditions” to this statement.I would say,”Just a few verses later Paul starts to tell them what “conditions” are necessary to “remain” sealed so that they can have an inheritance in the Kingdom of God”:

    ” For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God”(Eph.5:5).

    I would say,”See,Paul warns them that those of them who are ‘disobedient’ will receive the wrath of God”:

    ” Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience”(Eph.5:6).

    And then I would say,”Paul warns them not to become “partakers” with “the sons of disobedience”,which necessarily implies that they can indeed become “sons of disobedience” and therefore they can receive the wrath of God”:

    ” Be not ye therefore partakers with them”(Eph.5:7).

    How would Jeremy answer this?I would think that he would answer in the same manner in which I answered.He would say that you cannot “add” conditions to an “unconditional” statement.However,when I say the exact same thing to Jeremy it falls on deaf ears.Of course in order to cling to his false beliefs Jeremy has no other choice but to add “conditions” to “unconditional statements”.

    I also asked Jeremy the following question:
    Do you really believe that Abraham was first justified by "faith" alone but later he was saved by "faith plus works" and then later it was once again by "faith" alone and then later it was by "faith plus works"?
    Again,he denies ever teaching such a thing.He says:
    I never said that. I would however say that Abram / Abraham’s salvation was conditional.
    Jeremy said that Abraham was justified by “faith plus works” when he was circumcised and he said that Abraham was justified by “works plus faith” when he offered up Isaac.

    So if that is true (which it is not) then we see that initially Abraham was justified by “faith alone”(Gen.16:6) and then later by “faith plus works” when he was circumcsed (Gen.17:11) and then by “faith alone” when he believed the promise that the promised seed would come through Sarah (Gen.17:17;Ro.4:19-22) and then once again by “faith plus works when Abraham offered up Isaac (Jms.2:21).

    So if we believe Jeremy’s ideas we must throw away our reason and believe that at first Abraham was justified by faith alone,and then later it was by faith plus works and then later by faith alone and then finally by faith plus works!And Jeremy is so confused that he does not even understand the implications of his teaching!

    Jeremy contnues to teach that those under the law must establish their own righteousness despite the fact that Paul says that the Jews who attempted to do such a thing were acting in “ignorance”:

    ” For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God(Ro.10:3).

    Paul says that the Jews who attempted to establish their own righteousness by “works” are in “ignorance” of God’s righteousness but Jeremy teaches that the Jew did in fact have to establish their own righteousness before God by “works”.

    Now to Jeremy’s questions.
    1. Jerry, is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the mosaic Law?
    It is hard for me to believe that the “perfect law of liberty" is in reference to the Law.Peter calls the Law a “yoke”:

    ” Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?(Acts15:10).

    And so does Paul:

    ” Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage(Gal.5:1).

    Jeremy must think that the “yoke of bondage” is the same thing as “the perfect law of liberty”!

    James is saying that the “perfect law of liberty” (grace through faith) enables us to fulfill the “royal law” (the Law—“thou shalt love thy neighhbor as thyself”;Jms.2:3):

    ”Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”(Ro.3:31).

    James is saying that if they treat a rich man with respect but a poor one with disrespect then they “are become judges with evil thoughts” (2:4) because they have “respect of persons” (or are playing favrites).He says that if they do that then they they are committing sin (v.2:9) and therefore they are not fulfilling the “Royal law” and are instead “transgressors”.So he says to do as one under the “perfect law of liberty” and they will fulfill the law.

    But Jeremy overthrows his “reason” and asserts that the “yoke of bondage” is the same thing as the “perfect law of liberty”.We can see that Jeremy will say anything,no matter how ridiculous,in order to attempt to prove that the Jews were saved by “faith” plus “works”.
    2. Jerry, why did the sect of the Pharisees who believed argue that the Gentiles who were turning to God needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law?
    First of all,their argument was not in the will of God.James made it perfectly clar that they had no authority from the Apostles to do such a thing (Acts15:24).But despite this fact Jeremy attempts to use these “unauthorized” arguments of the Pharisees in order to prove that the Jews were “justified before God” by “works” despite the fact that Paul says that no man is justified before God by the “works” of the Law (Gal.3:11;Ro.3:20).Jeremy remains under the illusion that “some men” were justified by the law even though Paul says that “no man” is justified before God by the “works” of the law.
    3. Jerry, why is “will be supplied” in the future tense?… Notice Jerry, if the elect of the circumcision are diligent to “make (their) call and election sure” they will never stumble
    Peter is telling them to examine themselves so that they will have confidence about their standing with God.Their Godly behavior is evidence that they have indeed been “elected” of God and do in fact possess a true “faith” that bringeth salvation.This is the same thing that Paul tells believers:

    Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates.But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates”(2Cor.13:5-7).

    The word “stumble” or “fall” is not in reference to “salvation”,but instead is in reference to falling from their own “steadfastness”(see 2Pet.3:17).
    Jerry, if the circumcision believers “possess” eternal life, why do they need to make their calling and election sure?
    For the same reason that Paul tells those in the Body to “examine themselves” so that they will know that they do indeed have a true “faith” that saves.

    Peter is saying that if they remain steadfast and continue to live holy lives then the entrance which they receive into the Kingdom will be an “abundant” one.The ultimate reward of a growing,Christ-honoring life is a “crown of glory” (1Pet.5:4) that will be given at the appearing of the Lord Jesus.

    The Jewish believers have been told that when the Lord appears that they will be like the Lord Jesus:

    ”…we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”(1Jn.3:2).

    This has to be in reference to the rapture,and that is because only those who will be raptured are told that those who are alive at His “appearing” will be changed so that they have glorious bodies like His glorious body (Phil.3:21).If believers do not keep themselves holy then at His coming they will be “ashamed” because their entrance into the Kingdom will not be “abundant”(1Jn.2:28).

    So Peter is not saying that they will not have an “entrance” into the Kingdom but instead is saying that if they remain steadfast and keep themselves holy then an “abundant” entrance will be supplied for them.

    This particular discussions is in regard to Jeremy’s misreading of the following verse:

    ” Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”(1Pet.1:9).

    And I have already demonstrated,this verse is better translated in the following way:

    ”Receiving the result of your faith, the salvation of your souls”(1Pet.1:9;HNV).

    I also pointed out the the word “receiving” is in the “present” tense and not the “future” tense.But Jeremy had nothing to say about that.Here is what Sir Robert Anderson has to say about this verse:

    [I]”But the Christian’s faith rests upon the living Lord,in whom we are bidden to rejoice,receiving now ‘the end of our faith,even the salvation of our souls’ “(Anderson,”Redemption Truths”,p.144).
    4. Jerry, why do circumcision believer need to “keep on confessing” their sins?
    To remain in “fellowship” with the Lord.I answered you previously by pointing out that we too should judge ourselves so that we will not be judged by the Lord:

    "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world"(1Cor.11:31,32).

    Jeremy,who considers himself a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, would be well served to consider the words of Sir Robert Andeson,the father of Mid-Acts dispensationalism,in regard to this subject:

    ”For the believer who sins against God to dismiss the matter by ‘the blood cleanseth’,is the levity and daring of antinomianism.For such the word is,’If we confess our sins’: no flippant acknowledgement with the lip,but a solemn and real dealing with God;and thus he obtains again and again a renewal of the benefits of the death of Christ. '‘He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”(Anderson,”The Gospel and Its Minisry”,p.177).

    There is a lesson that can be learned in regard to the time when the Lord Jesus washed the feet of Peter.Peter said,”Lord,not my feet only,but also my hands and my head”.To which the Lord Jesus said,”He that is washed needeth not except to wash his feet,but is entirely clean"(Jn.13:10).

    The ”New Scofield Study Bible” says this about these words of the Lord:

    ”The underlying imagery is of an oriental returning from the public baths to his house.His feet would acquire defilement and require cleansing,but not his body.So the believer is cleansed as before the law from all sin ‘once for all’ (Heb.10:1-12),but needs throughout his earthly life to bring his daily sins to the Father in confession,so that he may abide in unbroken fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 Jn.1:1-10).The blood of Christ answers forever to all the law could say as to the believer’s guilt,but he needs constant cleansing from the defilement of sin.”(Note at John 13:10).
    5. Could Noah have refused to build the ark, been killed in the flood, and still been saved?
    As I already said,the Scriptures make it plain that the elders received a “good report” by “faith” and by “faith alone”:

    ”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.For by it the elders obtained a good report"(Heb.11:1,2).

    The words cannot be any plainer.But Jeremy uses the following verse which thinks that the “good report” was a result of “faith” plus “works”:

    Jeremy quotes the following verse in order to show that Abraham was justified before God by “faith” plus “works:

    Hebrews 11
    7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
    It was Noah’s “faith” that resulted in his preparing the ark.As anyone can see,the “righteousness” which is spoken of is “the righteousness according to faith and not a righteousness according to “faith and works”.
    I guess I need to be more clear. Jerry, how do you respond to Hebrews 11:7 which clearly shows Noah built the ark (a physical act) by faith, for the saving of his household?
    By faith he built the ark and saved those in his household “physically”.It seems as if Jeremy is arguing that his household was saved “eternally” because Noah built the ark!Surely Jeremy knows better than that!
    Why does the author of Hebrews contrast Noah’s faith work with the condemnation of the world if it referring to “physical” things only?
    He contrasts Noah’s “faith” with the non-faith of those who the Lord described as “corrupt”.Those who are “corrupt” had no faith unlike Noah.And Jeremy must not be aware that “condemnation” can indeed refer to “physical” things.And the corrupt people of the earth were indeed “condemned” when they were drowned in the flood.

    So depite that the Scriptures state plainly that it was by “faith” whereby Noah received a good report Jeremy wants to add the word “works”!:

    ” And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise”(Heb.11:39).

    Jeremy proves over and over that he just cannot distinguish “faith” from the “obedience of faith”.When he sees the word “faith” in regard to Jewish believers he thinks that the word means both “faith” and “obedience of faith”.
    6. Did the man in Numbers 15, who was cut off completely, his sin upon him, go to hell?
    Jeremy just cannot believe that verses which speak of a “physical” death are not in reference to a “spirtual” death. If we examine the teaching of Paul in regard to the Christians who sin presumptuously we can see that the Lord might put them to death "physically" but they will remain saved nonetheless.Here are his words in regard to the Christian who was living with his father's wife:

    " To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"(1Cor.5:5).

    The Lord will chasten his "sons" (those "born of God"),but he will not send his sons to hell.There were some in the church at Cornith who were participating in the Lord's supper in an "unworthy" fashion.Paul says that for this reason many of them are "sick" and some have been put to death.These Christians lost their "physical" life when they were chastened by the Lord,but they remained saved eternally nonetheless:

    " For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world"(1Cor.11:30-32).

    These Christian's who are put to death "physically" but they do not lose their "eternal salvation".But Jeremy thinks that the "physical" death under the Law is in reference to a "spiritual" death that lasts forever.As I have already demonstrated,those who lived under the Law and "believed" were eternally secure:

    "For the LORD loveth justice, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever"(Ps.37:28).

    There is another “principle” of the Lord of which Jeremy seems unaware.And that is the fact that in regard to “eternal salvation” the Lord treats all men in the same way.He does not play favorites:

    ”For there is no respect of persons with God”(Ro.2:11).

    If a Gentile Christian can lose their “physical” life and still be saved,then so will the Jewish believer.And if “no works” are required of Gentile believers in regard to “eternal salvation”,then that same truth also applies to the Jewish Christians.
    7. What the heck is going on in Hebrew 10:26-29?
    Of course when I provided Scriptual passages from the epistle to the Hebrews that demonstrate conclusively that these Hebrew Christians possessed eternal security.However, Jeremy ignored them.

    ” Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us(Heb.9:12).

    The author also says that these Hebrew believers are “sanctified” by the death of the Lord Jesus,and then says that those who are being sanctified are “perfected forever”:

    ” For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”(Heb.10:14).

    But these words mean nothing to Jeremy and because of that he has no answer as to their meaning.Instead,he attempts to prove that they are not “perfected forever” and that they have not received “eternal redemption”.He cannot understand that the words later in chapter 10 are only in regard to “temporal” punishment.The writer of this epistle speaks of “judging His people”(Heb.10:30).In saying this,the author quoted twice from Deuteronomy (32:35-36),a chapter which shows the Lord’s people suffering His retributive judgments (Deut.32:19-27).The words “fierry indignation” cause many to think of hell,but there is nothing in the text to suggest this.God’s anger against against His failing people in the OT is often likened to the burning of fire (Isa.9:18-19;10:17).

    So Jeremy ignores the words that demonstrate conclusively that these Hebrew Christians have been eternally redeemed and perfected forever and then attempts to prove that they have not been eternally redeemed and have not been perfected forever.
    8. Jerry, do you stand by your interpretation of Ezekiel 18?
    I have already proven that a “physical” death in regard to the people of the Lord does not equate “eternal” death (1Cor.5:5;11:30) but of course Jeremy just ignores these Scriptual passages.
    9. Did the men in John 8, who believed in Christ lose their eternal life?
    Jeremy thinks that those who the Lord said had the father as their father really believed in their heart in the Lord Jesus:
    These believers have fallen away faster than they believed. They possessed eternal life, and have lost it.
    We are supposed to believe that at one moment that they believed in their heart that the Lord Jesus was their promised Messiah but in an instant they were seeking to kill Him and the words of the Lord had no place in them (Jn.8:37).Jeremy has lost touch with reality if he can believe such nonsense.

    We can see that those who truly believed in their hearts will never come into eternal condemnation:

    ”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"(Jn.3:16).

    Jeremy thinks that they believed in their hearts but despite that they will perish.
    10. Jerry, could Abraham have refused God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision, been cut off, and still been saved?
    Abraham was saved by “faith” and “faith alone”.Upon belief he became a “saint” of the Lord.And this is what the Lord says about His OT “saints”:

    ”The Lord loveth justice,and forsaketh not His saints;they are preserved forever(Ps.37:28).

    Of course Jeremy just ignores this verse and continues to insist that the “saints” of the Lord are not preserved forever and the Lord will indeed forsake His saints.
    11. Jerry, did the children of Israel need to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be righteous?
    If they kept the law then they established their “own righteousness” (not to be confused with the “righteousbness of God apart from the law” that comes upon all who believe—Ro.3:21,22).Isaiah describes our “own righteousness” as nothing but “filthy rags”.Jeremy seems to think that a righteousness that is compared to “filthy rags” can save a man in the eyes of God!
    12. Jerry, how did circumcision believers “know that they knew” Christ?
    These Jewish Christians were told that if they know the Lord in a personal way,then they are given a simple test:We know that we know Him because we keep His commandments.

    The word “know” (ginosko) in this instance means ”to become acquainted with…1 Jn.ii.3”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).This personal acquaintence can only come from being in “fellowship” with Him.If we are in fellowship with the Lord and “walking in the Spirit” then,as Paul says,”the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,who walk not after the flesh,but after the Spirit(Ro.8:4).

    If we are walking in the Spirit then we are keeping His commandments so therefore by our behavior we know that we are “in Him”.Paul also tells the believe to “prove themselves” by “examining themselves” so that they too will know whether or not they are “in the faith”:

    Examine yourselves,whether you are in the faith;prove yourselves(2Cor.13:5).
    13. Jerry, why did Peter preach “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him," to the Gentiles? Why did Peter say it was unlawful for him to be there?
    Here Peter is not saying that our own “righteousness” is necessary for salvation (because “our own righteousness” is compared to “filthy rags”--Isa.64:6),but instead he is “describing” those in other nations who are accepted by the Lord.It is their “fear of the Lord” (or have a respect of the Lord) which is the reason why they are accepted of Him.This “fear” or “respect” of God combined with their “conscience”(the law that is written in their hearts”—Ro.2:15) leads them to lead “righteous” lives but this personal righteousness in no way makes them acceptable to Him.As I said,the words of Peter are merely a “description” of those who are found acceptable by Him.The following words of the Lord Jesus is also a “description” of those who will be saved:

    ”And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”(Mt.19:29).

    Here the Lord is merely “describing” some who will inherit everlasting life.He surely is not saying that a “condition” or “requirement” for eternal life is that one must forsake his family.And Peter is not saying that a requirement of being accepted by Him is one’s “own righteousness”.Peter is merely describing those in other lands who find acceptance in the eyes of the Lord.After all,we know that Cornelius and his household were not saved because of their “own righteousness” but because they heard the “good news” and believed (Acts11:14;15:7).
    14. Why would Christ be deceptive and tell the lawyer and young ruler to “keep the law” if Christ did in fact not mean just that?
    As I explained earlier,instead of just leaving the rich man should have said that he is a sinner and cannot keep the law and beg for the Lord’s mercy.The Lord Jesus explains this idea in the parable of “the Pharisee and the publican”.Here are his words in regard to the “publican”:

    ” And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted(Lk.13,14).

    But Jeremy has no understanding of this and continues to teach that the Jew could be justified in the eyes of the Lord even though Paul says that no man shall be justified by the works of the law.
    15. Does 2 Peter 2:20,21 refer to men who knew Christ, fell away, and went to hell?
    The following words are used by many who deny that the Christian possesses eternal security:

    ” For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”(2Pet.2:21).

    This is not speaking of turning from the “gospel” but instead it is in reference to the commandments in regard to the “moral” law and personal righteousness—“collectively,of the whole body of moral precepts of Christianity:2Pet.2:21”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

    These verses are speaking of some Christians who were born again and they are described as “those who are just escaping from those who live in error” (v.18) and as having escaped the pollutions of the world (v.20).However,some false teachers had”promised them liberty” (v.19) and allured them through the lusts of their flesh into believing a false teaching in regard to “morals”.This false teaching is probably the same thing that Paul refers to at Romans 3:8—that the Christians were falsely accused of teaching,”Let us do evil that good may come.”This was a false teaching that said that the more we sin then the more that grace will abound,and was based on a false interpretation of the words at Romans 6:1—”shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”

    So the people who had escaped moral pollution by the knowledge of the gospel as well as the moral teachings that urge the Christian to keep himself “holy” had been deceived into believing that they should continue to sin so that grace would abound even more.They returned to their old way of life (v.22).They are worse off now and it would have been better if they had never even heard the moral commandments at first because now they have no excuse for their behavior.

    Now that I have fully answered every single question that Jeremy sks,I will ask him to fully answer mine.

    1.) You say that there are “some” believers who cannot be saved unless they do works,but Paul speaks of a “righteousness of God apart from the Law which comes upon ALL who believe.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?

    2.) Paul says that NO MAN is justified by the works of the Lord in the eyes of the Lord (Gal.3:11;Ro.3:20) but you say that some men are.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?

    3.) Will you finally attempt to reconcile your idea that David could not be saved without works while Paul uses David as an example of a man is is justified before God “apart from works”—to him that worketh not!(Ro.4:5,6).

    4.) Since “eternal life” is a “free gift” why do you say that the Jew must be “justified by works” and prove his faith by “works” in order to receive the gift of eternal life?

    5.) Since we can see that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah were “born again” or “born of God” why do you continue to insist that this “born again” experience is not in regard to “eternal salvation” but instead these “born again” people must continue to do “works” throughout their lives before they can be saved?

    6.)You say that the Jew must establish their own righteousness in order to be saved,but Paul says that the Jews who tried to do this were “ignorant” of God’s righteousness.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?

    7.)Do you still believe that after the resurrection that Peter was preaching nothing other than “fear God and worketh righteousness” despite the fact that we can see him preaching the death and resurrection of Christ and saying that “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”(Acts10:43).

    8.)You say that the works of the law can justify the Jew in the sight of God,but Paul says that “all who believe are justified by all things,from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses(Acts13:39).Why should we believe you instead of Paul?

    9.) When the rich man asked the Lord what he must do to “have eternal life” he was clearly speaking about something more than a “agelong” life.In fact,he was speaking about a life that is “without end”.That being the case,why should we believe you when you imply that when John uses those same words (eternal life) that he is not also speaking about a life in Jesus Christ that is “without end”?

    10.) I showed you how simple it is to change the plain meaning of the Scriptures by adding “conditions” to “unconditional” statements as you did in regard to 1Jn.5:11.Please tell me how you would answer the “conditions” that I added to the “unconditional” statement in regard to the “sealing” of the Holy Spirt (Eph.4:30).

    11.) The Lord Jesus said that the will of the Father was that none of those who were given to Him by the Father would become lost.But you said that Judas was given to the Lord Jesus and he became lost.Therefore,you are teaching that the Lord Jesus did not do the will of the Father.Why should we believe that?

    12.) Why do you still continue to teach that the OT “saints” did not enjoy eternal security despite the fact that the Scripture reveal that the OT “saints” of the Lord are “preserved forever” and the Lord will not “forsake” them (Ps.37:28)?

    13.)Do you deny that your ideas in regard to the “justification” of Abraham leads to the conclusion that initially Abraham was justified by “faith alone” and then later by “faith plus works” and then later is was back to “faith alone” and then finally he was justified by “faith plus works”?

    14.) Are you serious when you say that “the law”,which Paul calls a “yoke of bondage”,is in reference to “the perfect law of liberty”?

    15.)In view of the verses I gave that demonstrates that “physical” death does not always equate to “spiritual” death for the people of the Lord (1Cor.5:5;11:30),are you still willing to argue that a “physical” death is always in regard to a “spritual” death?

    In conclusion,I would like to thank Jeremy for agreeing to debate these issues.And I also commend him for teaching that all men who live in the presemnt dispensation are saved by faith alone and are eternally secure.But I also beg him to let Scripture be his guide and realize that “works” can never justify anyone before God in any dispensation:

    ”For by grace are ye saved through faith;and it is not of yourselves,it is the gift of God—Not of works,lest any man should boast”(Eph.2:8,9).

    ”To the praise of the glory of His grace,through which He hath made us accepted in the Beloved”(Eph.1:6).


    In His service,--Jerry

  8. #23
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1011
    ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Turbo), Knight, Jerry Shugart, or *Acts9_12Out*.
    You may discuss Battle Royale VIII here.
    Last edited by Turbo; April 5th, 2004 at 11:26 AM.

  9. #24
    Journeyman *Acts9_12Out*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    169
    Round V

    The topic of our discussion was, “Were Works Ever Required For Salvation?” As stated in my opening post,

    1. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for us.
    2. Man must have Faith.
    3. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show Faith.

    Jerry seems to have overlooked point two in my discussion. God’s requirements for salvation always included man’s faith. Point three was crucial for understanding this debate. God changed the way He asked man to show faith numerous times.

    Under the law, God asked man to show faith by doing physical acts. My first four posts showed this over and over again. Christ Himself stated that keeping the law by faith resulted in salvation for circumcision believers. Jerry argued that “faith alone” has always been God’s requirement for salvation. I must ask, “What does it mean to have faith?” I believe I have shown that in order to show that a person has faith in God, that person must do whatever God asks to show faith. Jerry never defined what “faith alone” entails.

    I showed that God asked man to show faith in different ways. I used Noah as an example. God asked Noah to show his faith by building an ark. Jerry failed to respond to the fact that Noah and his family were right with God because they spent 120 years remaining faithful to God by building an ark. Today, God asks man to show faith by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The point Jerry fails to comprehend again was point three. Even today, “faith” by itself is not enough. Man must have faith in whatever way God asks.

    Jerry continually uses Pauline Epistles to show justification apart from works. Again, I agree with Jerry. What Jerry failed to define was the reason Paul argued “faith alone” in God. Paul recognized that God changed the way He asked man to show faith. Paul argues that the children of Israel were no longer pursuing the law by faith.

    Romans 9
    9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;
    9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
    9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
    9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
    The nation of Israel had gone so far away from God, they were attempting to “work for” their salvation. They no longer pursued the law by faith. God set Israel aside at the stoning of Stephen and raised up the Apostle Paul with a new “method” of salvation. Now, God did not ask the body of Christ to show faith by keeping the law, but changed the way He asked man to show faith. God, through the Apostle Paul, asked man to show faith by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection for salvation.

    When I dealt with the “method” of salvation for those under the law, Jerry failed to respond to numerous points. Jerry failed to acknowledge that James was referring to the Mosaic Law in James 1:25-2:26. Jerry’s deflected the argument by obfuscating the issue:

    It is hard for me to believe that the “perfect law of liberty" is in reference to the Law.Peter calls the Law a “yoke”:
    Jerry fails to respond to the fact that James quoted the law in order to build his case. Jerry failed to acknowledge that the writer of Hebrews was under the impression Noah was saved by showing faith in a physical way (Hebrews 11:7). Jerry goes back to Hebrews 11:1,2 and believes his verses somehow trump the clarification made in Hebrews 11:7. Jerry failed to respond to the account in Ezekiel 18 where a “wicked” man, who turned from his evil ways and kept God’s laws would live. Jerry argues that this is in reference to “physical salvation” but fails to explain how a physically alive “wicked” man would benefit only physically by keeping the Mosaic Law.

    These are just a few examples of Jerry’s inability to deal with the character of God. I hope to continue our discussion in the commentary after the debate is finished.

    Jerry continually argued eternal security for circumcision believers. Jerry did not respond to the man in Numbers 15 who was “completely cut off” and died with “his guilt upon him.” Jerry failed to understand the conditional nature of the circumcision gospel. I would like to offer a couple more passages that clearly show circumcision believers conditional salvation.

    Revelation 3
    3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
    Why do they need to overcome? What if they do not overcome? If they fail to remain faithful, God will blot their names out of the Book of Life. Circumcision believers understood that they needed to remain faithful in order to receive their entrance into the kingdom. Jerry failed to respond to the future tense and admonition to “make their calling and election sure” in 1 Peter 1:10,11.

    Hebrews 6
    6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
    6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
    6:6 having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
    If circumcision believers fell away after receiving the knowledge of the truth, it was impossible for them to be renewed again to repentance. They lost the salvation the once possessed. I argued this same principle in Hebrews 10:26-29 and 2 Peter 2:20,21. Jerry failed to address the conditionality of the above passages. Jerry failed to acknowledge that those spoken of in Hebrews 10 were [b[sanctified[/b] by the blood of Christ. When they sinned presumptuously (like the man in Numbers 15) they lost their salvation. Jerry failed to respond to the men spoken of in 2 Peter 2:20,21 who “escaped” the pollutions of the world by having a relationship with Christ. When they fell away, they lost their salvation.

    I asked Jerry numerous times about 1 John 1:9. Jerry responded by saying 1 John 1:9 spoke of “fellowship” with the Lord, not salvation. I must asks again, “What does, ’ He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,’ have to do with fellowship? John is clearly speaking of continual confession of sin for salvation for circumcision believers.

    In closing, I would like to offer again Christ’s words on our topic question:

    Matthew 19
    19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
    19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
    I ask again, if the above statement is not true, why would Christ deceive this man? If I had leukemia, and I asked Jerry, “Jerry, what can I do to help my leukemia?” Would it make any sense for Jerry to say, “Well Jeremy, if you eat four Big Macs a day, the leukemia will go away.”? Wouldn’t it make more sense if Jerry told me the truth? Wouldn’t we expect Jerry to say, “You should see an oncologist. Maybe the doctor can help you find a person in your family that would match your bone marrow for a transplant.”? Why would Christ respond with an answer that is so far in left field? He didn’t… He was telling the young man the truth.

    I apologize for Round V being cut short. My computer crashed last night due to a virus, and I lost everything. I had to post this round from my dad’s computer. I plan to respond to Jerry’s questions in the commentary section after this is all over.

    God Bless,

    Jeremy Finkenbinder
    Do you desire to make all men see what is the Dispensation of the Mystery? (Eph 3:9)

  10. #25
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1011
    That's the end of Battle Royale VIII! Thanks to both Jerry and Jeremy for your efforts in this debate. I think we all have a better understanding of both sides of this debate thanks to you.

    Readers may continue to discuss Battle Royale VIII here.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us