Jerry ignored this
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Jerry ignored this
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where in the OT do we find the truth of the gospel of grace and the imputed righteousness of God spoken of here?:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).
The OT will be searched in vain for that truth because Paul makes it plain that the truth of the righteousness of God apart the law was not revealed until his day:
"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).
That is why Paul calls the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles the "UNSEARCHABLE riches
"Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph.3:7-9).
The OT will be searched in vain for the truths concerning the gospel of grace because that truth has been hidden in God from the beginning of the world.
Even the leaders of Dallas Theological Seminary, including Chafer and Walvoord, understood that no one was given an understanding of the gospel of grace before Paul.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you do not believe that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born and God and saved DESPITE what the Apostle John says here:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
Would you please explain why you believe as you do?
Also, here we read what Paul said about the events surrounding his receiving of the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles:
“But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17).
When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8).. But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
Shasta
Well-known member
First of all, if someone were to come to me and say "Yes I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the promised Messiah but I do not believe He died for my sin" then I would say that person did not know Him as their savior . Someone who does not believe He is the savior is not saved be they Jew or Gentile. As the Son of God He would be admirable, an shining example to emulate, worthy of praise and perhaps even to be worshipped but He could not save us from our sins. Only the shedding of blood can bring forgiveness. Our relationship to Him would not even be equal to that of the angels for they never sinned whereas we did. Jesus' perfection would be a reminder to us forever of what we do not and would never possess. Without our sins being removed we could never draw near to Him. In fact, we would probably find the light of heaven unbearable.
If someone else were to say "I believe Jesus died for my sin and saved me but as for being the divine Son of God...I do not see that is possible. He was a good man, perfect even the best humanity has to offer. In fact, the Father honored His death by granting the rest of us forgiveness because of His intercession." I do not think that person would be saved either because a Jesus who is merely human is "another Jesus." Jesus has to be God and man to represent God and man as the covenant sacrifice. In dividing the gospel this way you come very near to making two equally heretical systems.
Here is a partial response to your post.
Grammarians of the Koine Greek dialect who know more than either one of us say that the present tense can be used in a variety of senses which do not fit into the narrow definition you have given. I have counted at least eight different uses of the present tense some of which do not speak of anything actually occurring in the present. The one that is relevant here is the futuristic present. It has been defined in the following manner:
The present tense is sometimes used for confident assertions about what is going to take place in the future. The event, although it has not yet occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is thought of as already occurring. The futuristic present is often used in prophecies. A test for this use is the ability to translate the Greek present with an English future, though the future, will not always be used in the translation.
http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=5282 see definition G
In his 1450-page masterwork “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research,” A. T. Robertson also says that the futuristic present is frequently used to express a future event in a prophetic or dramatic style. The futuristic present is also used to speak of an ordinary event when there is certainty that it will occur (page 869-870) .
As examples Robertson cites the following scriptures. You will see in these how the translators use a future tense English verb to represent a Greek verb in the present tense. Even your KJV does this, showing that they too recognized the existence of the futuristic present
Matthew 17:11
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall come first, and restore all things.
Here the word (shall) come is translated in the future tense although it is actually a present tense verb
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/17-11.htm
Matthew 24:43
"But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, (or would be coming) he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
The word coming is in the present tense but the looking back to the time before the break-in he did not know it was going to happen. It was, at that time, still in his future.
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/24-43.htm
Matthew 26:2
You know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified
The Passover, as well as the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus were future events but they were being foretold with as much certainty as if they were unfolding before their eyes in the present.
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/26-2.htm
Matthew 26:18
And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is near; I (am) keep (ing) the Passover at your house with My disciples."'"
Jesus is speaking of an event in the present tense that has not happened yet
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/26-18.htm
Luke 19:8 Zaccheus says Behold (look) I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much."
He uses the word “behold” dramatic effect then presents his future intended action as if it were happening in the present.
Should you still not be convinced here are some other other examples: John 4:35, John 8:14,21, John10:15, John12:26, John 20:17, John 21:23,1 Co 15:26
Some things that seem obvious when you have not studied are not so obvious when you have.
Regarding the scripture under consideration, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” I have argued that the present tense verb “takes away” is an example of the “futuristic present,” that it is not speaking about anything Jesus was doing at that moment but that it was prophetic of what His role would be and what He would do in the future.
John introduces his proclamation dramatically with “behold” (look and see). Then, using the metaphor of the Lamb, he says that Jesus would take (or carry) away the sin of all. He could not possibly have been talking about anything Jesus was doing then because his public ministry at had not begun yet. You claim that John's proclamation was not referring to Jesus' sacrificial death but to His ministry of bearing the weakness, sorrow and illnesses of fallen man. Isaiah 53:4 speaks of this and Matthew 8:16-18 links the prophecy directly to Jesus ministry of healing and deliverance which, again, was not happening yet. John the Baptist was not talking about Jesus delivering people from demons and diseases. He was talking about Jesus delivering us from our SINS. That is something He would do in his role as the Lamb of God on the cross True the prophecy of the slain Lamb is not to be found in Isaiah 53:4 but it is in the next verse Isaiah 53:5. In contrast to verse 4 the language of verse 5 is of violence, torture and death. According to the source I quoted in my last post, the lamb was a potent and familiar image to First Century Jews, being associated with the binding of Isaac for sacrifice. The Lamb always saved and delivered but he always did so through dying a bloody death to which it was led without struggle or complaint. Jesus dealt with sin and iniquity on the cross, an event which would take place three years or so after John 1:29.
When I quoted Robertson's interpretation of this scripture you ignored it as if if he were merely extemporizing but, being a linguist, one emphasis of his Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament is on explaining underling subtleties of the Greek language. You can ignore his remarks but when he speaks about the present tense he does so as a grammarian. The future work of the Lamb of God here described in present tense as in 1*John 1:7 about the blood of Christ. He is the Lamb of God for the world, not just for Jews.
http://m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-1-29.html
The truth of the Sacrifice Lamb was written about in the Bible. Isaiah spoke of it (Isaiah 53:10). Jesus, who used the scriptures to explain to the Twelve the purpose of His horrendous death on the cross would most certainly have used these the key verses from Isaiah. How else would He have explained about His suffering from the scriptures? If He did not cite Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel whom did He cite from the prophets. If He did not teach about His death from Psalm 22 what other Psalm would he reference? I am applying what the scripture says Jesus said. The fact remains that the disciples wrote about the sacrifice of Jesus in their letters 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 3:18 1 John 2:2. Paul also said Jesus carried our sins ON the cross (Romans 4:25) so all of them were in agreement.
In the Revelation we see that the Messiah's ascension to the throne and his rule over the universe, His purchase of a people, His bringing to completion the redemptive plan of God was due to the role He played as the slain Lamb. It was not Jesus healing and deliverance ministry that ultimately brought the nations together into His family but His being lifted up from the earth on the cross. John prophesied that as the Lamb Jesus would take away the sin of WORLD meaning all nations. You cannot suppose because the Targums did not see that the slain Lamb would deliver them from sin that John the Baptist who was the unique forerunner of the Messiah and the greatest of the old prophets did not.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What about Peter? At the time when he said the following He did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Mt.24:16-18).
Did not Peter receive the following blessings when he believed what the Father had revealed to him?:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
Of course Peter was saved when he believed the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, even though he did not even know that the Lord was to die. But according to you mistaken ideas that could not possibly happen.
Do you deny that Peter had received eternal life and had passed from death unto life when he believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God even though he did not even know the Lord was to die?
Do you deny that the Son of God saved the following woman from her sins before the Cross?:
"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48=50).
And you received a partial response to your post.
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (*Genesis *15:*6 NASB)
Next question my son
If you are so sure that two different gospels were preached during the acts period then why do you continue to run and hide from these two simple questions?:
Do you believe that it was "good news" or gospel when it was revealed to the children of Israel that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
And do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Jerry, your question is wrong and you should know better.
What is your definition of "believes"?
Answer that and perhaps I will change my answer from no and no to no and yes.
Do you believe that it was "good news" or gospel when it was revealed to the children of Israel that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
And do you believe that "everyone" who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and saved?
Jerry, your question is wrong and you should know better.
What is your definition of "believes"?
Answer that and perhaps I will change my answer from no and no to no and yes.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The primary meaning of the Greek word translated “believth” is “to think to be true” (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon).
And the following applies directly to what Peter said on the day of Pentecost:
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Ro.10:9).
That was the subject of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. He used the resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove that Jesus is both Lord and Christ:
“He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:31-36).
Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:
"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).
The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:
"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31)" (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).
Those who confess the Lord Jesus' divinity and believe in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead will be saved:
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Ro.10:9).
It is also a fact that the verses I quoted are included within an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a a word about the purpose of the Cross found in the gospel of grace, that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Ro.3:24).
Absolutely not, as all know it. And the Bible bears this out. See Acts 5 were believers are executed for trading with the beast and lying to hide it.
No you won't. You have been shown what the Bible clearly teaches and you reject it.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Bible bears out the fact that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is born of God and therefore saved:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
So I can believe that Jesus is the Christ, but deny 1 Cor 15:1-4 and still be saved?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If you were "born of God" by believing that the Lord Jesus is the Christ then you would not deny what is said at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That verse says nothing about how that was possible, which is an essential truth found in the "gospel of grace," that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Ro.3:24).
I guess you just overlooked that fact!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Lots of people on TOL believe that Jesus is the Christ, but deny Paul's gospel.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There are a lot of people on TOL who aren't born of God.
Do you believe that whosoever believes that Jesus is the Crist is born of God?:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 Jn.5:1).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
For the dispensation it fits, obviously doesn't fit this one
Nobody is saved in those letters, and it is not addressed to the Body of Christ. This is why you skip so much of it.
godrulz denies it all the time when comes around. So does a whole load of people here.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He that is born of God sinneth not. In fact, he cannot sin.