ECT How is Paul's message different?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What I asked did not come from Shugart, it just happened to coincide with what he asked.
Well, okay but it was very Shugartesque.

Also, my question is not contrived, and I guess you clarified it: no one preached the death of Christ and His resurrection as, itself, THE saving good news before Paul did. I now see that you're not saying anyone did. But for a moment I thought you were saying someone had done so.
I see. Well, good. I'm glad to see there was no actual disagreement.

Cheers!

Clete
 

lifeisgood

New member
The fact that Paul's message is different than everyone else's in the bible couldn't be clearer and yet you cannot see it.

I have to disagree with you Clete. :nono:

It is not that it couldn't be clearer and he/she cannot see it. Oh, he/she sees it alright.
it is that 'he/she choose not to accept it' which is a shame for it couldn't be clearer.

No one ever reject the Cross of Christ because of theological ground (too difficult to understand) but because of moral ground (because I do not have to do anything and I want to).

Thank you for your patience.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Some of that went past you.

But it often does for many.

See if this makes sense, as a case in point...

Clete is still off - the gospel preached of by Paul was neither a response to Israel's fall, nor a modified version of the gospel the Twelve had preached.

Fact is that Israel's fall was prophesied and that God had planned the Mystery Paul's gospel is based on, before the world began, Dan. 9; Rom. 16.

From God's perspective through Paul's writings, The Mystery is more like "at this point in history, Israel will fall again. But this time, instead of My turning from them for a season prior to My pouring out My Wrath before blessing them at at last, as in Hosea, for example, this time around I'm going to turn from them, and unfold this Mystery. For I first need to solve for those fallen Heavenly places, that My Will might then be able done in Earth, as it is in Heaven. That My Will be done, un-impeded at last, by the prince of this word."

This book "Satan and His Plan of Evil" does a really great job of laying all that out...

http://www.forgottentruths.com/satanandhisplanofevil.aspx

Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.

Paul's gospel cannot have been both a mystery and prophesied.

Besides Paul himself said that the Body of Christ was not prophesied.

Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

Paul goes on from there to explain that he was a super Jew. If his ministry had been prophesied, he'd have known it and would have proclaimed as much and he would certainly never have said this...

Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have to disagree with you Clete. :nono:

It is not that it couldn't be clearer and he/she cannot see it. Oh, he/she sees it alright.
it is that 'he/she choose not to accept it' which is a shame for it couldn't be clearer.
Well, it is possible that you're correct but I know from experience that it could still well be that he truly cannot see it. It is a paradigm level issue. When you see it, you can't understand how you ever didn't but yet you know that the fact is you didn't.

I've been a Christian my entire life and I've probably believed, at one time or another, nearly every different kooky Christian doctrine you can think of. I literally was blown by every wind of doctrine. I had a rather simple standard. I understood that I had changed my doctrinal beliefs from time to time and was wise enough to know that I was likely to do it again and so I consciously decided that I couldn't do so based on something as flimsy as "it sounds good" or "it feels right". I began from a very young age (junior high aged) that before I accepted a doctrine someone had to show me the argument. If the particular doctrine (or usually system of doctrines) did a better job of explaining what I could read for myself in the bible then that's the doctrine I went with.

Then I read Bob Enyart's the Plot and nothing was ever the same again. It was totally what people refer to as a light bulb moment. It was as if I had been blind! There were whole passages of the bible that I had read a million times and had never noticed and that now made totally perfect sense! It seems so simple to those of us who see it. It seems impossible that there can be someone who just cannot see it but I assure you that they do exist.

Whether or not Turbosixx can't see it or won't see it is an open question. For now, I'm content with giving him the benefit of the doubt.

No one ever reject the Cross of Christ because of theological ground (too difficult to understand) but because of moral ground (because I do not have to do anything and I want to).

Thank you for your patience.
While I understand the gist of what you're saying here, this is surely an overstatement. Not every presentation of the gospel is done with wisdom and skill. I can see perhaps millions of people rejecting the gospel on doctrinal grounds if the gospel is presented by a Calvinist or a Catholic, even if they do get the basics of the gospel message correct in spite of themselves.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
They didn't preach the same sermon!


Saying it doesn't make it so.

The fact is that Jesus already had Twelve apostles, all twelve of whom received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (A JEWISH FEAST DAY) and He had instructed them to go into all the world preaching all the things He had taught them (i.e. repent and obey the Law). THEY DID NOT DO THAT! Instead, they agreed with Paul, who was not even known by the Twelve nor was he in any way affiliated with nor even associated with the ministry of Jesus or the Twelve. Indeed he was actively engaged in persecuting the faith prior to his supernatural conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul was then given what he repeatedly calls "his gospel" not by men nor through man but by direct divine revelation. A gospel which he was required to go, again by revelation, and explain to the Twelve! When that meeting was over, the Gentile that was with Paul was not compelled to be circumcised and the Twelve agreed with Paul that they would stick around and minister in Israel while Paul went to the whole world teaching things that the Apostle John said some of which was "hard to understand".

These are all facts and there are many more (like the fact that the Twelve required, on penalty of God Himself executing you on the spot, that their converts sell everything they owned and live in a commune). It isn't my opinion, it isn't speculative, it's all clearly recorded in black and white in every bible that has ever been printed and none of it - none of it - makes a dime's worth of sense from within your doctrinal paradigm. All of it is usually ignored and when it is looked at, it gets explained away as meaning little or nothing of any significance. The facts of the events are acknowledged but why they happened and what they mean isn't even questioned never mind explained.


Of course they are but I understand what you mean.

The verses that talk about the things I point out are invisible to you. Until I or some other Mid-Acts Dispensationalist pointed these facts out to you, you barely knew that they happened and you never thought of them in the context of the gospel or in relation to Paul's arrival on the scene or his distinct ministry. Everyone one you've ever head speak, did so in terms of all of it being the same and so that's what you see.

But that doesn't mean you can answer my question. You likely won't even make the attempt. If you do, you'll be forced to do one of two things. You'll either have to turn passages on their heads, making them say something other than what the plain text would seem to indicate, or you'll have to drop your multi-decades long history of belief in your particular theological paradigm. God Himself will need to get involved for the later to occur. There's not one person in a million who would even be capable of dropping a lifetime's worth of doctrine by their own strength, never mind willing to do it. Any Christian over the age of thirty-five who isn't already a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist probably never will be this side of Heaven's gates.


The two gospels are similar, as your verses clearly indicate. But things that are similar are not the same. "Similar" and "same" are not synonyms. Both gospels are based on Jesus and what He accomplish at Calvary. But no one before (other than) Paul taught a syllable about righteousness apart from works. No one but Paul taught about righteousness apart from the Law. No one since Abraham ever suggested that circumcision was PROHIBITED except the Apostle Paul. If there was no Paul and all you had was the gospels and Hebrews through Revelation, you would be circumcised on the eighth day of you life, you would observe the Sabbaths including every Saturday and all the Feasts, etc, etc. You would practice your Christianity pretty much exactly the way many Messianic Jews do. The book of Acts is the ONLY reason you don't reject Paul as a heretic, as many modern Messianic Jews do. That's how different his message is from that of every other Biblical author.

In fact, a very great many of the doctrinal disputes that exist in the church today hinge on - you guest it - the Apostle Paul.
Can you lose your salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Are works required for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Will the Rapture occur before the Tribulation?: "Yes" is Pauline, "No" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian be circumcised?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian avoid "unclean" foods?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Is water baptism require for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christians observe the Sabbath?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Etc, etc, etc.

The fact that Paul's message is different than everyone else's in the bible couldn't be clearer and yet you cannot see it.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Well said, Clete.


Paul's gospel cannot have been both a mystery and prophesied.

Besides Paul himself said that the Body of Christ was not prophesied.
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

Paul goes on from there to explain that he was a super Jew. If his ministry had been prophesied, he'd have known it and would have proclaimed as much and he would certainly never have said this...
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men

Resting in Him,
Clete
I agree, Clete, it cannot be prophesy and mystery.

However, there are principles in the OT that Paul uses to show that the mystery was not in opposition to the way GOD operates.
Principles such as Abraham before circumcision, not as prophesy fulfilled, but showing that the principles were not foreign concepts in how GOD establishes the BOC.

Not only can the mystery not be prophesy, but it cannot be about Israel, because Amos has already told Israel that GOD will do nothing to them unless it is first revealed by the prophets. Amos 3:7
Paul teaches that the individual salvation of all the people of all nations (Jew and Gentile alike) comes due to the fall of Israel.
But prophesy tells us the nations will come to the Lord due to Israel's rise.

The mystery Paul teaches happens during the fall of Israel.
When that period is over, and Israel is restored (their rise), we see all nations flocking to the Lord.


I'm so glad you are here!
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Well said, Clete.



I agree, Clete, it cannot be prophesy and mystery.

However, there are principles in the OT that Paul uses to show that the mystery was not in opposition to the way GOD operates.
Principles such as Abraham before circumcision, not as prophesy fulfilled, but showing that the principles were not foreign concepts in how GOD establishes the BOC.

Not only can the mystery not be prophesy, but it cannot be about Israel, because Amos has already told Israel that GOD will do nothing to them unless it is first revealed by the prophets. Amos 3:7
Paul teaches that the individual salvation of all the people of all nations (Jew and Gentile alike) comes due to the fall of Israel.
But prophesy tells us the nations will come to the Lord due to Israel's rise.

The mystery Paul teaches happens during the fall of Israel.
When that period is over, and Israel is restored (their rise), we see all nations flocking to the Lord.


I'm so glad you are here!





This is blabber about what the mystery is. it is not a mystery outright because it was revealed by the prophets, as Acts 15 says about David's fallen tent--the explanation for Gentiles' believing. It was a mystery TO JUDAISM AND THE OLD COVENANT, because it was going to take place in Christ--in his suffering, his exodus, his resurrection, himself as the passover, the atonement. The NT doesn't have "theology" like most modern people think of it. It has a battle with Judaism. Once you get that, it will make sense.

There is no periods of Israel falling and coming back. The period is Christ who has come. Everything is defined by what he did and what people respond to what he did. He is the new creation. He is the tree that people need to be/stand in, otherwise they are outside of Christ. God bound all men to sin, and has mercy on all in Christ; obviously a person can void that by unbelief. But it is not about races or nations, and a mistake to think it ever was. God does not do 2 kinds of things on opposing moral or ethical bases. He was in Christ, and all business was through that event.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Paul teaches that the individual salvation of all the people of all nations (Jew and Gentile alike) comes due to the fall of Israel.

This is horrid. It always was individual. But the % of Israel that believed (or rather did not) when the decisive generation came meant certain things for that generation: the extirpation of Acts 3.

There is also plenty of proof that Gentiles would believe no matter what Israel did. He just means what he said in Acts 13. 'If you consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we are going to go to the Gentiles.' He still hoped tons of Jews would believe and save many people, because of their background, and because he believed the 'time was short.'

You are applying things as seen within the decisive generation to the rest of time, which is a huge mistake.
 

turbosixx

New member
They didn't preach the same sermon!

Could you please provide scriptural proof.

It's says Paul continued to preach the gospel in Acts 14 so it stands to reason what he preached in Acts 13 is the gospel he received from Jesus.

If you can prove Paul converted Christians differently than Peter, I would be more inclined to see things your way.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
It was well known that the Gentiles would believe; the Seed always was to save and bless all nations. The fact that this was realized in Christ was not known to other men and generations, and they read the OT literally/christlessly and that turned rancid in the zealots of the 1st century. it is what crucified Christ.

The prophets did ponder how the things they wrote were actually going to take place (I Pet 1), but in post-exile Judaism, it was taken for fact to mean a race/nation golden age.

I Pet 1 on this should be placed beside Heb 11's end about the old covenant believer/prophet 'not serving themselves but you/us' and THEY HAVE NOW BEEN REVEALED right while the nation is turning into a bonfire/funeral pyre. There is nothing else to look for, or else you must declare Peter to be absent minded and forgetful for the 20th time.
 

turbosixx

New member
They didn't preach the same sermon!


Saying it doesn't make it so.

The fact is that Jesus already had Twelve apostles, all twelve of whom received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (A JEWISH FEAST DAY) and He had instructed them to go into all the world preaching all the things He had taught them (i.e. repent and obey the Law). THEY DID NOT DO THAT! Instead, they agreed with Paul, who was not even known by the Twelve nor was he in any way affiliated with nor even associated with the ministry of Jesus or the Twelve. Indeed he was actively engaged in persecuting the faith prior to his supernatural conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul was then given what he repeatedly calls "his gospel" not by men nor through man but by direct divine revelation. A gospel which he was required to go, again by revelation, and explain to the Twelve! When that meeting was over, the Gentile that was with Paul was not compelled to be circumcised and the Twelve agreed with Paul that they would stick around and minister in Israel while Paul went to the whole world teaching things that the Apostle John said some of which was "hard to understand".

These are all facts and there are many more (like the fact that the Twelve required, on penalty of God Himself executing you on the spot, that their converts sell everything they owned and live in a commune). It isn't my opinion, it isn't speculative, it's all clearly recorded in black and white in every bible that has ever been printed and none of it - none of it - makes a dime's worth of sense from within your doctrinal paradigm. All of it is usually ignored and when it is looked at, it gets explained away as meaning little or nothing of any significance. The facts of the events are acknowledged but why they happened and what they mean isn't even questioned never mind explained.


Of course they are but I understand what you mean.

The verses that talk about the things I point out are invisible to you. Until I or some other Mid-Acts Dispensationalist pointed these facts out to you, you barely knew that they happened and you never thought of them in the context of the gospel or in relation to Paul's arrival on the scene or his distinct ministry. Everyone one you've ever head speak, did so in terms of all of it being the same and so that's what you see.

But that doesn't mean you can answer my question. You likely won't even make the attempt. If you do, you'll be forced to do one of two things. You'll either have to turn passages on their heads, making them say something other than what the plain text would seem to indicate, or you'll have to drop your multi-decades long history of belief in your particular theological paradigm. God Himself will need to get involved for the later to occur. There's not one person in a million who would even be capable of dropping a lifetime's worth of doctrine by their own strength, never mind willing to do it. Any Christian over the age of thirty-five who isn't already a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist probably never will be this side of Heaven's gates.


The two gospels are similar, as your verses clearly indicate. But things that are similar are not the same. "Similar" and "same" are not synonyms. Both gospels are based on Jesus and what He accomplish at Calvary. But no one before (other than) Paul taught a syllable about righteousness apart from works. No one but Paul taught about righteousness apart from the Law. No one since Abraham ever suggested that circumcision was PROHIBITED except the Apostle Paul. If there was no Paul and all you had was the gospels and Hebrews through Revelation, you would be circumcised on the eighth day of you life, you would observe the Sabbaths including every Saturday and all the Feasts, etc, etc. You would practice your Christianity pretty much exactly the way many Messianic Jews do. The book of Acts is the ONLY reason you don't reject Paul as a heretic, as many modern Messianic Jews do. That's how different his message is from that of every other Biblical author.

In fact, a very great many of the doctrinal disputes that exist in the church today hinge on - you guest it - the Apostle Paul.
Can you lose your salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Are works required for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Will the Rapture occur before the Tribulation?: "Yes" is Pauline, "No" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian be circumcised?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian avoid "unclean" foods?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Is water baptism require for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christians observe the Sabbath?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Etc, etc, etc.

The fact that Paul's message is different than everyone else's in the bible couldn't be clearer and yet you cannot see it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I agree that Paul taught things that we don't see other writers teaching. The way I see it is they are all one and what they teach should harmonize not contradict. The way I view scripture it does all harmonize and agrees. No contradictions. I'm afraid you have believed a doctrine that has taken a Ginsu to scripture where the pieces no longer fit together.

I would love to explore more into the many things you have laid out and I hope we will but first I want to determine that what Paul preached to make people members of the body is different than what Peter preached. It's a logical and reasonable starting point because Paul's letters are written to Christians. His letters apply to those who are in Christ.
 
Last edited:

musterion

Well-known member
Well, okay but it was very Shugartesque.

Not really. The way you phrased it, at first, was hard to read any other way. That's why i started asking. But it's cleared up now.

It was decidedly NOT the same as Shugart saying two saving good news are in force today, which modern Jews are at liberty to shop around and select from. That issue remains an unreconcilable denial of Paul's gospel.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I agree that Paul taught things that we don't see other writers teaching. The way I see it is they are all one and what they teach should harmonize not contradict. The way I view scripture it does all harmonize and agrees. No contradictions.

That harmonization is as false as it is forced.

You are deluded if you think you've reconciled the dispensational "contradictions" which do exist in the Bible. You haven't.

You are deluded if you think the Bible all teaches the exact same things to everyone, just in different words. It doesn't. To say it does makes God the author of confusion. There are things in His Word that do not line up with one another. They cannot be made to line up without destroying both through unbelief disguised as human tradition. That is what you're doing now and that's what you've done since you got here.

[the word contradictions above is in quotes because they aren't actual contradictions, not the way infidels love to say exist. They are simply incidences of God speaking very differently to different people at different times ... but they do not line up and cannot be forced to line up without ignoring contexts and denying what they very plainly say. The fact that they bug you enough that you have to beat them into a false reconciliation proves you have zero understanding.]
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Paul's gospel cannot have been both a mystery and prophesied.

Besides Paul himself said that the Body of Christ was not prophesied.

Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

Paul goes on from there to explain that he was a super Jew. If his ministry had been prophesied, he'd have known it and would have proclaimed as much and he would certainly never have said this...

Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men

Resting in Him,
Clete

Good stuff, Clete.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Prove it.

Simple.

One cannot be forgiven all his sins (Col 2:13) AND at the same time required to confess sins else God won't forgive them (1 Jn 1:9).

One cannot need to be baptized with water else he won't be forgiven (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) AND need only be baptized with ONE spiritual baptism that involves no water (Eph 4).

One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works AND believe he needs to "keep short accounts with God," be water baptized to prove he's saved, to confess sins to remain forgiven, have quiet times in order to stay pleasing to Him, sign up to vacuum the "sanctuary" else God will ding him...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

One cannot say that "people are saved by faith alone" AND say that "people are not saved by faith that is alone."

In each of the above examples either one proposition is valid and necessary for an individual, or the other is, but not both.

There. Proven.

Want more? There's more.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I agree, Clete, it cannot be prophesy and mystery.

However, there are principles in the OT that Paul uses to show that the mystery was not in opposition to the way GOD operates.
Principles such as Abraham before circumcision, not as prophesy fulfilled, but showing that the principles were not foreign concepts in how GOD establishes the BOC.

Not only can the mystery not be prophesy, but it cannot be about Israel, because Amos has already told Israel that GOD will do nothing to them unless it is first revealed by the prophets. Amos 3:7
Paul teaches that the individual salvation of all the people of all nations (Jew and Gentile alike) comes due to the fall of Israel.
But prophesy tells us the nations will come to the Lord due to Israel's rise.

The mystery Paul teaches happens during the fall of Israel.
When that period is over, and Israel is restored (their rise), we see all nations flocking to the Lord.


I'm so glad you are here!
I agree entirely.

God bless!
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
In fact, a very great many of the doctrinal disputes that exist in the church today hinge on - you guest it - the Apostle Paul.

Can you lose your salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.

This is just another one of your blunders, Clete.

The following words of the Lord Jesus were addressed to the Jews who lived under the law:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

These words are not referring to physical death because people who believe in Him die physically. Instead, these Jewish believers who lived under the law will never experience the following death:

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev.20:13-14).​

We also know that those who received the Hebrew epistles had already received eternal life in the Son (1 Jn.5:11) and here is what the Lord Jesus said about those to whom He gives eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

We also know that eternal life is a gift (Ro.6:23). We also know that the Lord will never take back a gift once it is given:

"For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro.11:29).​

We also know that the Lord Jesus told the Jews who believe that they will not come into condemnation:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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).​

Of course those Jews who believed will not come into condemnation because we see that Paul used David (who lived under the law) as an example of a person to whom the Lord will not impute sin:

"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 without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"
(Ro.4:5-8).​

Of course you will never believe what the Bible says about the eternal security of the Jewish believers who lived under the law because your final authority is not the Bible but instead your little "Neo-MAD Handbook."

You are the blind leading the blind!
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works AND believe he needs to "keep short accounts with God," be water baptized to prove he's saved, to confess sins to remain forgiven, have quiet times in order to stay pleasing to Him, sign up to vacuum the "sanctuary" else God will ding him...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

This is just another example of the nonsense found in the Neo-MAD Handbook!

Those who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"
(Ro.11:6).​

If you would actually study the Bible like you study your little Neo-MAD handbook you would know that the Lord told the Jews the following:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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).​

Whosoever "believes" has everlasting life and will not come into condemnation." And again, His words were addressed to those who lived under the law!

You don't even understand that grace and works are mutually exclusive because you said that "One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works."

If it is of grace then it cannot be said to be of works.

You don't even understand salvation on the principle of grace so it is clear that you do not believe the gospel of grace. After all, since you can't understand that gospel you cannot believe it!
 

musterion

Well-known member
This is just another example of the nonsense found in the Neo-MAD Handbook!

More of your peculiar brand of context-ignoring. I'll try again anyway...

AND believe he needs to "keep short accounts with God," be water baptized to prove he's saved, to confess sins to remain forgiven, have quiet times in order to stay pleasing to Him, sign up to vacuum the "sanctuary" else God will ding him...

Do you deny there are professing believers today who think along those lines? Because that was the entire extent of my point.

I mean no disrespect here, Shugart, but when you go off on irrational tangents because of what people DIDN'T say -- which lately has been often -- you look like a combative elderly man who is growing demented.
 
Top