Just One Gospel?

[Jerry Shugart]

Apollos,

You said:

On the questions about when one actually is “born of God” or receives eternal life, you surprise me that you accept “easy believe-ism”.

Just because I accept the teaching of the Scriptures you say that I accept “easy believ-ism”.The Lord Jesus said that those who ‘believe” His teaching received eternal life and shall not come into judgment (Jn.5:24).

He said that His “words” were Spirit and life (Jn.6:63).

Peter said that he was “born again” by the word of God (1Pet.1:23).

It seems as if you will not believe so why would you call it easy believ-ism?It is evidently not easy for you.

If it is so “easy” then why does John say that those who have “faith” have “overcome the world” (1Jn.5:4)?

But perhaps I did not give enough consideration to your phrase of if they believed “in their heart”, although I can not find that phrase in any of the passages you have been using to support your thoughts on being “born of God”, as I can not find “at the moment”. Does this phrase “in their heart” indicate sincerity, conviction, some emotion, or something else?

The phrase “in the heart” is to distinguish those who “believed on Him” because they had a “political” faith from those who truly believed that He was the Messiah,the Son of God.The Lord Jesus would not commit Himself to those whose faith in Him was based on His miracles or in the idea that He was there to deliver Israel from the yoke of Rome:

”Now when He was in Jeusalem at the passover,in the feast day,many believed in His name,when they saw the miracles which He did,But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them,because He knew all men”(Jn.2:23,24).

It also makes me rush to ask, must a man REPENT to be “born of God”?

The Greek word translated “repent” means “to have a change of mind”.The Jews were told to repent of their past way of life.They could not “serve” the Lord if they continued to live the way that they had been living.But yes,a man must have a change of mind in order to believe the gospel.By nature a man is an enemey of God.So he must change his mind about God,and the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit is the very instrument that brings about “repentance”.

I realize the context of Matthew 7 is false teachers, but Jesus speaks within that context of those that DO, and those that DON’T do the Father’s will. In this passage Jesus said of those two groups, that those who DO the Father’s will are those that will enter the kingdom of heaven.

The “kingdom” spoken of here is in regard to the kingdom which will be set up on heaven.And the Lord will “cause” all believers to do Hs will:

”And I will put My Spirit within you,and cause you to walk in My statutes…and do them”(Ex.36:27).

Some may view these two remarks as contradictory. I am certain you can clarify this for me. Perhaps you are you saying that by a WORK we can be “born of God”, yet by our work(s) we cannot stand before God righteous ???

Anyone recognizes that “believing” is not a “work”.A work is something that is done in the flesh.So when the Lord spoke of doing the “work” of God He was merely using the word in a figurative fashion.

Those who are “born of God” are born through faith and not through the will of the flesh:

”Who were born,not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh,nor of the will of man,but of God”(Jn.1:13).

Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia. However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17.

So you are saying that Paul went to Arabia between Acts9:19a and 19b?

”And when he had received food,he was strenghtened.Then was Paul certain days with the discilples who were at Damascus”(Acts9:19).

There is absolutely nothing in this verse that would indicate that Paul went into Arabia between the first part of that verse and the last part.You say that this is speaking of Paul’s “return” to Damascus,but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that indicates that he ever left Damascus.

Then after receiving the gospel, Paul tells us that he “CONFERRED” with no man. Paul did not seek out any man for the purpose of receiving any type of advice or instruction.

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16:

“with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

By the definition of this Greek expert Paul did in fact “confer” with men when he “was certain days with the disciples” and it is certain that he conferred with other men when he preached Christ in the synagogues.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Apollos]

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

Just because I accept the teaching of the Scriptures you say that I accept “easy believe-ism”.The Lord Jesus said that those who ‘believe” His teaching received eternal life and shall not come into judgment (Jn.5:24).

My point would be do you accept ALL that the scriptures teach about what it takes to be saved. You say here that those who believe “His teaching” are saved – Does this not require more than just “believing” (mental acknowledgement)? Before this post you have indicated this was all that was required, but now I am not certain your view has not “morphed” somewhat.

He said that His “words” were Spirit and life (Jn.6:63).

I agree, but that means ALL of His words, not just to use those passages about belief. More is required than mental assent.

Peter said that he was “born again” by the word of God (1Pet.1:23).

I believe the word of God tells what we need to do to be “born again”. Agreed?

It seems as if you will not believe so why would you call it easy believ-ism? It is evidently not easy for you.

I don’t believe what you are saying in reference to “believing”. I believe being saved or “born again” requires more than you suggest.

If it is so “easy” then why does John say that those who have “faith” have “overcome the world” (1Jn.5:4)?

Again, your “definition” of “belief” or “faith” is “easier” (requires less) than what I believe the Bible defines. See more below.

The phrase “in the heart” is to distinguish those who “believed on Him” because they had a “political” faith from those who truly believed that He was the Messiah,the Son of God.

I am not certain how to respond to this because you have used -3- undefined man-made terms here – “in the heart”, “political faith”, and “truly believed”. I earlier suggested we use scripture to define “faith” or “belief” – may I continue to suggest such – for both example and precept. Jesus not trusting in human nature in John 2:23 does not define the terms used here, and this verse seems more a commentary on the human condition, more than on the type of faith they had. I am more than surprised that you did not take the position here that, because “many believed”, that they were saved “at that point” (or is that only if you perceive that they “truly believed” in a particular verse ?).

I asked in my last post if a man must REPENT to be “born of God” ?? You replied…

The Greek word translated “repent” means “to have a change of mind”. … …But yes,a man must have a change of mind in order to believe the gospel.

Was that a yes that repentance is necessary in order to believe the gospel or a yes to be “born of God” ? I take you to mean the latter.

-2- points:

1.) I mentioned earlier in this post in regards to “easy believe-ism” that your view of what is required to be saved seemed to have “morphed”. You are now including repentance in the path of being saved / being “born of God” – so I would say I am correct that your view is morphing as I continue to probe that view of yours.

2.) Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.

By nature a man is an enemey of God.So he must change his mind about God,and the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit is the very instrument that brings about “repentance”.

Enemies of God by nature? I disagree. But I don’t care to discuss this point. I do agree that God’s word is the instrument of power that brings about repentance – 2 Cor. 7:10, Romans 1:16.

At this point in our discussion, I have your list of things required to be “born of God” to be inclusive of hearing (or reading) the Word, believeing that Word, and that Word causing one to repent. We shall see if anything else has been overlooked from your list of “essentials” in time.

In reference to Matthew 7:21f you replied…

The “kingdom” spoken of here is in regard to the kingdom which will be set up on heaven.And the Lord will “cause” all believers to do Hs will… (Ex.36:27).

I believe this kingdom that Jesus spoke in Matt. 7 is the kingdom that the saints were already being “translated into” as mentioned in Colossians 1:13 (cf. Rev. 1:9) and is in no way related to Exodus 36:27. But I care not to discuss the “kingdom” at this time.

Anyone recognizes that “believing” is not a “work”.A work is something that is done in the flesh.So when the Lord spoke of doing the “work” of God He was merely using the word in a figurative fashion.

What “figure” would that be? Jesus clearly meant that this is something man must do here – that is to believe! John 6:29 says believeing IS a work and I agree with John. And if by “something that is done in the flesh” you mean something like a work of merit, then I can agree.
There are -3- types of works shown in the NT: 1.)Works of God, 2.) of the (OT) Law, & 3.) of merit. We must do the “works” of God.
As I pointed out a perceived contradiction of yours from your last post, it looks to me that you perceived how by “works” a man is “born of God”, but refuse to accept that by “works” a man is also “righteous” before Him.

Those who are “born of God” are born through faith and not through the will of the flesh… John 1:13…

Our definitions of “faith” differ but I think we agree on this premise. We are “born of God” by doing what He directs us to do – these being works of God !
<<<*>>>

So you are saying that Paul went to Arabia between Acts9:19a and 19b?

Yes! Some translations (Ex. ASV, RSV, NASV) indicate the change in thought Luke presents at this point and separate these 2 sentences by paragraph. Paul received food and was strengthened. THEN is an adverb… def. - next in order – of time. We do not know exactly how much time.

Acts9:19 – A.“ …and he took food and was strengthened.
B. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.” ASV

There is absolutely nothing in this verse that would indicate that Paul went into Arabia between the first part of that verse and the last part.

I agree. Look back at my post. I said – “Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia”. But by comparing Luke/Acts 9 with Paul/Galatians 1, we can make a more complete chain of events. I included my time table – you made NO remark !

[A.]You say that this is speaking of Paul’s “return” to Damascus,[B.]but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that indicates that he ever left Damascus.

A.) This is not what I said either. Luke does not speak of Paul’s “return” – look back again. I said – “However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17.”. Acts 9:19b is where Luke picks up what Paul was doing – which is at the point of Paul’s “return” from Damascus, as we know from Galatians chapter 1.

B.) We know Paul left Damascus – read Galatians 1:17 – “… returned again unto Damascus…” You are going have to figure out WHEN Paul did this. Do you know? If so, share it with us. If not, you have based your theology on the unknown! I also solicit more careful reading from you!

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

I have no problem with the definition. This definition is just how I used it to explain the event in Galatians 1:16… that being, Paul did not seek “consult” with any man or “take one into counsel”. Paul did not seek advice or instruction from any man. Now let’s look back at YOUR earlier quote.

Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel (that he preached to the Gentiles) that he did not confer with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel (that he preached to the Jews) he did in fact confer with other men… (Emphasis mine – A.)

It was YOU that failed to make the distinction between CONFER in Gal. 1:16 and PREACH in Acts 9:20 here. You are using –2- DIFFERENT words with –2- DIFFERENT meanings interchangeably.

Now for you, here is the definition of “preach” as used in Acts 9:20 –
“… to herald, to proclaim after the manner of a herald… always with the suggestion of gravity, formality, and authority which must be listened to and obeyed. – Thayer.

As you can see, what Paul did in Acts 9:20 – preach is different than what Paul did in Gal. 1:16 – confer. Therefore, when you compare these two you compare actions that are not equivalent – it is apples and oranges! Further, Paul’s first action is NOT mutually exclusive of the second. Your argument above for two revelations fails because it is based on errant information!

By the definition of this Greek expert Paul did in fact “confer” with men when he “was certain days with the disciples” and it is certain that he conferred with other men when he preached Christ in the synagogues.

In fact, Paul did not. Our Greek expert Mr. Thayer tells us that Paul “confered” in Galatians 1:16, not in Acts 9:20. Mr. Thayer also tells us that Paul “preached” in Acts 9:20, not in Galatians 1:16. And by Mr. Thayer’s definitions we know these are different words with actions that are not equivalent.

Look at the color above in the quote from yourself. You take the word “confer” out of Galatians 1:16 and shove it into Acts 9:20 – “was certain days with the disciples”. “Confer” is not found in Acts 9:20. Jerry, you know this is improper exegesis – why are you attempting to do this?

Paul received only one revelation from Jesus Christ, which is recorded in two passages – Acts 9 & Galatians 1. Both passages together give us a fuller view of the events of the time and when they happened. Neither one of these passages indicates a second event of revelation at an unknown place and unknown time. Neither record contradicts the other.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I believe the word of God tells what we need to do to be “born again”.

Apollos,

Peter said that he was born again by the word of God.How can one be born again by the word of God but by "believing" that word.Peter does not say that he was born again by "doing" the commandments of God.

I believe being saved or “born again” requires more than you suggest.

Yes,you believe that one or another knid of "works" are also required,don't you?

I asked in my last post if a man must REPENT to be “born of God” ??

The people who received the gospel were told to repent (or change their mind) in regard to their past way of living.This is in regard to "service" or "work" for the Lord.The Baptist came to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"(Lk.1:17).They could not serve Him if they contiued in their past lifestyle.But if a believer[s "service" or "work" for the Lord comes up short they will still be saved (1Cor.3:15).

So the repentance that the Baptist spoke of is in regard to "service" and not a requirement in order to be born again.

Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.

So Paul just forgot to mention "works" when asked what a person must do to be saved?:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).

At this point in our discussion, I have your list of things required to be “born of God” to be inclusive of hearing (or reading) the Word, believeing that Word, and that Word causing one to repent. We shall see if anything else has been overlooked from your list of “essentials” in time.

Of course you must be referring to the Nicodemus sermon in regard to the water and the Spirit.

The Lord Jesus was not speaking of a rite of water baptism in this verse.Instead,he was speaking in "type".He said,"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?(Jn.3:12).He also makes it plain that Nicedomus should have know what HE was speaking of.And if we go to the OT we can see a chapter that deals with the nation of Israel being "born again" by the Word and the Spirit.First we see that Israel is described as being dried bones and in the "grave"(Ez.37:11,13).

Then we see that she is brought back to life by the Word and the Spirit (Ez.37:4,5,9,10).

So we see that the "eartly" teaching of which the Lord spoke was in regard to the Israelites being "born again" by the word of God that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit.And Peter did not leave out anything when he said that the sinner is born again by the word of God (1Pet.1:23).The sinner is born again when he believes the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit (1Thess.1:5).

Our definitions of “faith” differ but I think we agree on this premise. We are “born of God” by doing what He directs us to do – these being works of God !

If you think that you can be saved by "works" of any kind then you should consider the words of Paul:

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his works:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life"(Ro.1:5-7).

You must "continue" in well doing inorder to receive eternal life.But those who do not continue and commit a sin will perish.

By this way Paul says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

But if you think that you can continue in well doing then go ahead and try and be the first man who is saved by his works.

I agree. Look back at my post. I said – “Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia”. But by comparing Luke/Acts 9 with Paul/Galatians 1, we can make a more complete chain of events. I included my time table – you made NO remark !

I did make a remark.I said that it is obvious that Paul did in fact consult other men at Acts 9.
[quoe]Paul did not seek “consult” with any man or “take one into counsel”. Paul did not seek advice or instruction from any man.[/quote]
That is not the only meaning of the word "consult".

It was YOU that failed to make the distinction between CONFER in Gal. 1:16 and PREACH in Acts 9:20 here. You are using –2- DIFFERENT words with –2- DIFFERENT meanings interchangeably.

The word "preach" can indeed be fit into the definition that I gave for "consult":

Here is the meaning of the word “confer” means at Gal.1:16: “with a dat. Of the pers. to put one’s self upon another by going to him,i.e. to commit or betake one’s self to another…to consult,to take one into counsel…Gal.1.16'(”Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).

How can one preach without taking a person into counsel?

The words are not mutually exclusive.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Apollos]

Preach = herald or proclaim truth / Confer = seek instruction or advice.

Preach = herald or proclaim truth / Confer = seek instruction or advice.

Jerry –
Thank you for your reply.

Peter said that he was born again by the word of God.How can one be born again by the word of God but by "believing" that word.Peter does not say that he was born again by "doing" the commandments of God.

What Peter suggests by “the word of God” is ALL that God has to say about being “born again”. I am not meaning to be difficult, but the opposite of what you have presented here is that we are saved by “doing” nothing. Peter certainly did not suggest that! “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.

Yes,you believe that one or another knid of "works" are also required,don't you?

One or another kind? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29) that one appropriates (not merits) God’s blessings – including salvation.

Not every man will be saved – Matthew 7:14. What separates those that will be saved from those that will be lost? It is what they DO! EVERYONE believes man must DO something to appropriate the salvation God offers man by His grace, except Calvinists. (While it is only Calvinists that truly believe that man must DO nothing, they do recognize something must be DONE, so they have God DO that for man instead.) Whether or not you will admit it, you believe man must DO something to be saved. You and I differ ONLY on WHAT MUST BE DONE to be saved! You already have hear, believe, and repentance on YOUR list, as I have previously stated in my last post. Is there anything else?

YET, it is by the GRACE of God we are saved. But how can this be? Do I not contradict myself? I do not, for I recognize I can never “merit”, earn, or deserve the glory and salvation God affords me through His grace, made possible by the blood of Jesus on the cross, by any or all that I do for Him – Luke 17:7-10. I recognize that I have only done that which it is my duty to do – the duty placed upon me by God to do.

Eph. 2:8 –“For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9not of works, that no man should glory.

We are saved by His GRACE, through our faith (believing ALL that He says). This grace is not of ourselves, that is, there is nothing in us that merits that GRACE – there is no reason found in us that God should give His grace to us! This is why is it is GIFT ! We do not receive that GRACE by doing “boastful works”, ei. works that would allow us to boast we earned or deserved His GRACE – works of merit. We receive His grace through faith.

Now we are back to: What does “faith” consist of – what does “faith” require? What does it mean to “believe on” Him? To come to salvation we ask, at what “point” do we have the “faith” to be granted God’s grace? (I will save my analogies for a later time.)

So the repentance that the Baptist spoke of is in regard to "service" and not a requirement in order to be born again.

But repentance is required. Without a change of mind, a man will not turn to God to be born again – he won’t want to be born again, and he won’t be… why would he? Man’s mind must be in accord with the will of God. Jesus, Paul, and others speak of repentance as being necessary/required for man to approach salvation – Lk. 13:3, Acts 17:30. God is commanding repentance!

Apollos >> Of the verses that you and I discussed in our prior posts (ei. John 1:12,13, 5:24, 1Jn 5:1-5, 1Pt.1:23,25), NONE of them mention REPENTANCE. This validates my early point that “ONE VERSE does not tell us everything that we need to know to be ‘born of God’ ”… The verses you have used certainly don’t mention all we need to know to be “born of God” as indicated by the point you make now on repentance.
Jerry >>> So Paul just forgot to mention "works" when asked what a person must do to be saved?:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).

Quik answer: Well Jerry, you say repentance is necessary – and this verse doesn’t say anything about repentance, does it? So Paul just forgot to mention “repentance” when asked what a person must do to be saved, huh?

Full answer: “Believe on” is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing and appealing to the authority of the LORD Jesus (see also John 1:12 again). Christ has ALL authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18f) and it is to that authority – ALL of that authority, that we are to submit ourselves. Mental assent is insufficient.

Once again, ONE verse does not tell us all we need to know to be saved.

Of course you must be referring to the Nicodemus sermon [Jn.3:3] in regard to the water and the Spirit.

I believe Jesus was referring to water baptism in this passage. I also believe you made some incorrect application in your “types”. And while I realize that I was the one that brought up John 3:3f, may I suggest we not yet debate this passage until you and I get the “born again” and “believe on” discussion cleared up a bit more. If we do not agree IF a man must do anything to be saved, then why debate the things we think a man should do at this point in the discussion?

If you think that you can be saved by "works" of any kind then you should consider the words of Paul: "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his works: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life".[#Typo corrrected to Rom. 2:5-7]
You must "continue" in well doing inorder to receive eternal life.But those who do not continue and commit a sin will perish.
By this way Paul says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).
But if you think that you can continue in well doing then go ahead and try and be the first man who is saved by his works.

(First, let’s note that we have changed from talking about OBTAINING salvation, to MAINTAINING (keeping) salvation.)
Romans 2: Verse 4 asks if we despise God’s longsuffering [of our sins] while His goodness attempts to lead us to repentance and
(Verse 5) while our impenitent hearts store up wrath for us in view of God’s coming judgment.
Verse 6 says God will judge us according to our works – cf. Rev. 20:12.
Verse 7 - Paul tells us that God gives those who patiently continue in well-doing eternal life.
Verse 8 says those that “obey not the truth” shall receive things not so nice from God.
Verse 9&10 says this applies to both Jews and Gentiles – for those doing good or doing evil.

I have already discussed above that I do not believe I am saved by WORKS, so let’s proceed to commission of sin. Paul is not suggesting sinless perfection here, but, as he stated, to patiently CONTINUE in well doing after we repent of sin. Should we sin, John informs us that by confessing our sins (1Jn 1:9) God will forgive us – cf. Acts 8:22.
<<<+>>>

Apollos >> I included my time table – you made NO remark !
Jerry >>> I did make a remark.I said that it is obvious that Paul did in fact consult other men at Acts 9.

I was looking for remarks about the time table. Did you agree with it? WHEN do you think Paul went to Arabia?

In our discussion about the word “confer” in Galatians 1:16 you stated:

That is not the only meaning of the word "consult".

Okay, it is not the only meaning, BUT the meaning will be determined by the CONTEXT. I previously posted that at this point in Galatians 1 Paul was defending his apostleship (not the first time in his epistles) and Paul’s point in doing such was to show of a certainty that he did not get the gospel by “conferring” with man (ei. consulting with man for advice/instruction), but that he got it by revelation. This CONTEXT won’t allow the other meanings.

In reference to Acts 9:20 you stated:

The word "preach" can indeed be fit into the definition that I gave for "consult".

Maybe it can in English, but it can’t in the Greek. Mr. Thayer shows us two different words with different meanings. I am certain the HS would have used prosanatithemi (“confer” – Gal. 1:16) in BOTH passages if that was the thought that needed to be presented in both passages. But the HS chose kerusso (“preach” – Acts 19:20) to convey the proper thought in this passage. We “mix&match” a lot in English – in Greek it ain’t so, expecially since it is a “dead” language! The definitions of the words are different to convey different thoughts, and are, therefore, mutually exclusive. This was some heavy rationalizing by you on word usage.

Anyone computer savy enough to find this thread at TOL, can go to a site such as Blue Letter Bible, and with a few clicks, find all this info for themselves firsthand.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What Peter suggests by “the word of God” is ALL that God has to say about being “born again”. I am not meaning to be difficult, but the opposite of what you have presented here is that we are saved by “doing” nothing. Peter certainly did not suggest that! “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.

Apollos,

You must "add" to Peter's words in order to cling to your false idea that "works" are necessary for salvation.But the following demonstrates that "works" (which cannot be performed apart from the will of the flesh) are not involved in the process of being "born of God":

"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 sinner is born of God at the moment he believes the gospel,and this process has nothing to do with "works".

One or another kind? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29) that one appropriates (not merits) God’s blessings – including salvation.

If one does "works" to be saved then the reward is not reckoned of grace but instaed the reward is owed (Ro.4:4).

If works are required then the reward is not of grace--if of grace then it is not of works,otherwise grace is no more grace (Ro.11:6).

YET, it is by the GRACE of God we are saved. But how can this be? Do I not contradict myself?

Yes,you are right.You do contradict yourself.

We are saved by His GRACE, through our faith (believing ALL that He says). This grace is not of ourselves, that is, there is nothing in us that merits that GRACE – there is no reason found in us that God should give His grace to us!

You say that there is nothing in us that merits salvation.But then you turn around and say that we cannot be saved without doing "works",as if these works have nothing to do with our salvation.

Now we are back to: What does “faith” consist of – what does “faith” require? What does it mean to “believe on” Him? To come to salvation we ask, at what “point” do we have the “faith” to be granted God’s grace?

What does faith consist of,you ask?:

"Where is boasting then?It is excluded.By what law?Of works?Nay,but by the law of faith"(Ro.3:27).

Quik answer: Well Jerry, you say repentance is necessary – and this verse doesn’t say anything about repentance, does it? So Paul just forgot to mention “repentance” when asked what a person must do to be saved, huh?

When one goes from being an "unbeliever" unto being a "believer",then it is obvious that since he now believes that he has also repented.

Until you come to an understanding of the true meaning of grace you are going to remain in the dark.Grace and works are mutually exclusive.It is those who believe the "gospel of grace" who are saved and it is only those people who "know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12).

WHEN do you think Paul went to Arabia?

He could have gone there after he went to Tarsus (Acts9:30).

In His grace,--Jerry

”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Apollos]

Believe on His name...

Believe on His name...

Jerry –

Thank you for your reply.

Apollos >> “Believing” is Doing something and we must believe ALL of that word.
Jerry >>>You must "add" to Pater's words [1 Peter 1: 23]in order to cling to your false idea that "works" are necessary for salvation.

Add to Peter’s words? Not at all, please finish the thought presented here by Peter. He says we are “born again” by the “word of God”. Now can that be accomplished by one single word or two? Would that be by 2 sentences or 3? Perhaps 1 passage or 2 ? Did Peter mean 1 epistle or more? When we read the “word of God” in the passage it must mean ALL of His word. When it comes to being “born again” we need to know everything that God has said about being “born again”. I re-affirm, no one verse tells us everything we need to know about obtaining salvation. You have also affirmed this but for some reason attempt to deny yourself.

But the following demonstrates that "works" (which cannot be performed apart from the will of the flesh) are not involved in the process of being "born of God":

"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).

If man is obeying God’s will in doing the works that he does, then it is God’s will that he is doing - not the will of the flesh. A man in the flesh is able to “will” himself to do God’s will (John. 7:17), which is a big part of repentance – man must have a change of mind toward God and in doing His will.

These works may be done in the fleshly body, but we accomplish “the works of God” in this fleshly tabernacle – the source of these works being God. When God directs us through His word about being “born again”, we are but doing what God states He wants in the way God states He wants it to be. When God includes “works” it must be what God wants – and being “born again” does involve “works of God”. Only those who misunderstand or have a problem with what God says about being “born again” try to change or try to ignore what God has chosen to be done.

The sinner is born of God at the moment he believes the gospel,and this process has nothing to do with "works".

I previously illustrated and said that none of the verses that we have discussed teach this “at the moment” birth that you add into the thought of the passage. Nor do they teach salvation at the point of belief (mental assent). John 1:12,13 does not teach such, as the verse teaches the “who” that were “born”, were born [not by the will of the flesh] but of [the “will”] of God – those who make an appeal to His authority (“believe on his name”). We must know what God’s will is about being “born” of Him and appeal to his authority. It is out of context to insert the thought of “easy believe-ism” into this statement about doing the authority & “will” of God.

What makes people so unhappy with the thought that a man MUST DO something to appropriate salvation from God ? What has people conditioned to not want to attain to “obedience of faith” ? I expect it is their understanding of faith and works. With little exception, God blessings have been contingent upon obedient faith from man to receive them. Example:

The Walls of Jericho… (see Joshua chapter 6)

God said – All the men of war were to march around the city once a day for 6 days – with 7 priests bearing 7 rams horns (trumpets) going before the ark. On the seventh day, after marching around the city seven times, the priests were to blow their trumpets. When they heard a long blast upon the trumpets, and all the people shouted with a great shout, the walls would fall down flat.

The people did as God required (6:20) and the walls fell flat – as God promised!

Analysis of God’s plan: How silly, the plan doesn’t look anything like a plan that man would make – but then God’s ways are not the way of man. God made the plan – it was up to man to faithfully obey to receive what God promised.

The plan included “works” that did not allow any boasting – man could not brag about what he had done, marching about and blowing trumpets. This was hardly military logistics and planning. To a man of war, it was embarrassing!


The plan of God included works that were not meritorious. Would anyone think that marching around the walls, in place of something like a full frontal assault, would make anyone think they deserved the end result? Would any dare say that they EARNED what God gave to them for their obedience? No.

God said march and blow, and upon completion of the tasks, God delivered what He promised. Doing the “works of God’ was followed by God’s blessing.
<<<*>>>
One kind of work or another? I am disappointed you would say such a thing. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that it is by doing the “works of God” (ex. John 6:29 – not works of merit or of the Law) that one appropriates the salvation of God.

If one does "works" to be saved then the reward is not reckoned of grace but instaed the reward is owed (Ro.4:4).

IF the “works” are done in the attempt to EARN or MERIT the reward I would agree. A better understanding of the CONTEXT of “works” Paul uses here in this verse is needed by many. But if one “works” by faith in the promise of God to give His blessing, then it is by GRACE.

If works are required then the reward is not of grace--if of grace then it is not of works,otherwise grace is no more grace (Ro.11:6).

There are -3- types of works shown in the NT: 1.)Works of God, 2.) of the (OT) Law, & 3.) of merit. We must do the “works” of God.
In this verse, “works” of the OT law are the CONTEXT of Paul’s remarks and are not “required” as you put it. Paul is explaining to the Jewish part of his audience that grace displaced OT works.

Jerry >>> Yes,you are right.You do contradict yourself.

Ouch – you took this “cheap shot” because you have not been paying attention in the past to:
a.) the different TYPES of works as seen in scripture and,
b.) the context of how the word “works” is used within these verses you quote and other passages as well .

You say that there is nothing in us that merits salvation.But then you turn around and say that we cannot be saved without doing "works",as if these works have nothing to do with our salvation.

I can do better than that – there is nothing man can DO to merit/earn our salvation. But there is something man can do to appropriate salvation.
God as creator knew man’s short-comings, so God devised a plan whereby we can appropriate salvation by His grace. God chose some “works” (ei. works of God) for man to do. These “works” will never EARN that salvation. These “works” will never dispose MERIT within us. These “works” will never allow us to BOAST we devised or DESRVE that salvation.
God chose and God set up for man to do some “works” that exemplify obedient faith. When man faithfully complies with God’s will, man knows that he shall receive the blessing. Man will know that he did not EARN or MERIT that blessing, man will know he received it all by the grace of God – for it was He that devised the plan and made it possible for man.
Ironically, you believe man MUST DO (hear, believe, & repent) something yourself, yet do not admit to seeing the difference in the works that must be done as opposed to those works that are excluded.

Luke 17:10 – “Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.”

What does faith consist of,you ask?:

"Where is boasting then?It is excluded.By what law?Of works?Nay,but by the law of faith"(Ro.3:27).

This is a perfect verse to point out the TYPES of works under discussion. Works of boasting (merit) – these are excluded. Works of the Law – excluded. Works as required by faith – yea, by the law of faith – these works are included.

When one goes from being an "unbeliever" unto being a "believer",then it is obvious that since he now believes that he has also repented.

Why is it obvious? What is here to indicate there has been a “change of mind” ? (2 Cor. 7:10) Nothing! Rather, the only thing a change of BELIEF indicates is that there has been an acknowledgment of information.

Until you come to an understanding of the true meaning of grace you are going to remain in the dark.Grace and works are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. I believe I have clearly stated the relationship between grace and works above. You have not noticed the distinction in the NT made in regards to the types of “works”, and how God chose His works and uses those works that man may access His grace.

It is those who believe the "gospel of grace" who are saved and it is only those people who "know the things that are freely given to us of God"(1Cor.2:12).

You have used this verse out of context.

BTW – Did you ever determine with any certainty WHEN Paul went to Arabia???
Why do you think it may have been Tarsus @ Acts 9:30??

<<<<<<*>>>>>>

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Add to Peter’s words? Not at all, please finish the thought presented here by Peter. He says we are “born again” by the “word of God”. Now can that be accomplished by one single word or two? Would that be by 2 sentences or 3? Perhaps 1 passage or 2 ? Did Peter mean 1 epistle or more? When we read the “word of God” in the passage it must mean ALL of His word.

Apollos,

All of His word?Did you even bother to read Peter's words?If you would have you would know that he was referring to the "gospel":

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"(1Pet.1:23,25).

That is why Paul calls the "word of truth" the "gospel of your savation"(Eph.1:13).

If no one can be born again until they hear all of God's word then we would all be in trouble.

I previously illustrated and said that none of the verses that we have discussed teach this “at the moment” birth that you add into the thought of the passage. Nor do they teach salvation at the point of belief (mental assent).

If a man's "born again" experience does not take place in a moment of time are we supposed to believe that this is a life-long birthing process?And if it life/long,why do the writers of the Scriptures speak of this experience in the "past" tense?

And are you not aware that after we believe that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the time when we will put on our new,immortal bodies?:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession...the redemption of our body"(Eph.1:13,14,Eph.4:30,Ro.8:23).

What makes people so unhappy with the thought that a man MUST DO something to appropriate salvation from God ?

The reason some are unhappy by the teaching that "works" are required for salvation is because it is not Scriptual.

What has people conditioned to not want to attain to “obedience of faith” ? I expect it is their understanding of faith and works. With little exception, God blessings have been contingent upon obedient faith from man to receive them. Example:

The people did as God required (6:20) and the walls fell flat – as God promised!

This says nothing about eternal salvation.And the Christians that I know do in fact strive to be obedient to the faith.

The plan included “works” that did not allow any boasting – man could not brag about what he had done, marching about and blowing trumpets.

The verse you are referring to says that man is saved by grace (unmerited favor) through faith and not by works:

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

All the rest of your arguments that some kind of works are necessary for salvation are made null and void because of the fact that once the sinner believes the gospel he is sealed by the Holy Spirit and will remain sealed until he receives his new,glorified body.

One last thing.According to the Acts narrative it would be possible for him to go to Arabia after he got to Tarsus at Acts 9:30).

But the following verses leave no time when Paul would have gone into Arabia:

"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts 9:18-20).

We are supposed to believe that sometime in this time period Paul went to Arabia?And during this time he did not "confer" with any other men?Even though he was just saved and had the most amazing experience of his life and he was around other believers we are supposed to believe that he did not "confer" with anyone?

The word "confer" at Gal.1:16 means "to take one into counsel"."Counsel" means "to give or receive advice or opinion."

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[BChristianK]

All,

This has been one of those topics that I have gone back and forth over for awhile on this bulletin board.

One the one hand, Bob Hill does a pretty compelling job spelling out the differences in the gospels, showing how there are different requirements for one verses the other. There are those, like Jerry Shugart, that disavow the distinctions such as OSAS for one dispensation, and conditional security for another. Honestly, I have come away from conversations with them wondering what the big difference really is for Jerry Shugart type dispensationalists.

But for the more Hill and Enyart type of mid-acts dispensationalists there is a compelling reason to hear their arguments out.

That being said, I have come down on the side of a non-mid acts dispensationalist and a non-dispensationalist at that.

There are essentially 3 reasons why I have done so.

One: A lack of exegetical fidelity in pretribulation rapture eschatology.

1st. The lack of an exegetical fidelity in pretrib rapture type eschatology.
There is simply no clear articulation of a 7 year tribulation or a rapture prior to the tribulation in the New Testament. Most justification for the a pre-tribulation rapture rests on an interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel, inserting an arbitrary parenthesis between the 69th week of Daniel and the 70th week of Daniel. I have often asked those who believe in such a parenthesis what exegetical reason they have for interpreting this passage in such a way.

I have never heard an exegetical answer. I have heard numerable eisegetical answers that are aimed at reading dispensationalism into the 70 weeks of Daniel but no exegetical reason.

The bottom line for me is that week 2 followed directly after week 1, week 3 followed directly after week 2 so why doesn’t week 70 follow directly after week 69 as weeks are apt to do?

More on that point, I have found no reason to interpret that the rapture event as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4 as a pretribulation rapture.

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Two important things this passage does say. One that this was not a brand spankin’ baby fresh new revelation from God given only to Paul to teach to the church. It was, as Paul says, “according to the Lords own word.”
Second, were one to make a primae facia comparison of this passage to Matthew 24:30 they would most likely conclude it was the same event, not a different one.

Consider the comparison:

For the Lord himself will (1) come down from heaven, with a loud command, (2) with the voice of the archangel and with (3) the trumpet call of God, and (4)the dead in Christ will rise first.

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the (1) Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. (2) And he will send his angels with (3) a loud trumpet call, and (4) they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Incontestable parallelisms
(1) Son of man coming on the clouds
(2) Angelic hosts accompany Jesus
(3) Call of the Trump
(4) Gathering of the faithful.

Yet mid-acts dispensationalism must make two separate events out of these two passages in order to salvage a pretribulation rapture.

I just couldn’t continue to be honest and claim that a common sense, unbiased interpretation of these two passages suggests that they were different.

Second, the historical problem of the mid-acts dispensational repudiation of believers baptism.

The New Testament affirmation that Paul practiced baptism and that the early church continued to practice baptism continuously with no break and no indication that the cessation of water baptism was ever communicated to them. Furthermore, the only verse that one could rest the a theology of the cessation of baptism upon was the verse in 1 Corinthians.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Now, there is no real easy answer to this passage. But for the mid-acts dispensationalist who sees this passage as an abrogation of baptism, the problem becomes why the early church seemingly ignored Paul. Yet even more of a question, why would Paul, who was sent by Christ not to baptize, baptize the woman at Lystra and her household (Acts 16:15), the Philippian Jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), Crispus and “many of the Corinthians” (Acts 18:8) and some disciples previously acquainted with the baptism of John (Acts 19:5) as well as Gaius and Stephanas (probably numbered among the “many” of Acts16)?

Can we assume that Paul was such an idiot as to practice something that God had told him he shouldn’t be doing?
Or should we do what most mid-acts dispensationalists do and say that God revealed the abrogation of baptism to Paul sometime during latter half of his third missionary journey long after he had founded and visited most of the churches that would become the early church.

So lets review, God calls Paul to be the disciple to the gentiles and he is sent out on his first missionary journey establishing churches and baptizing as he goes, he returns and goes on a second missionary journey founding other churches and strengthening the ones he planted during the first missionary journey and then he gets halfway through the third missionary journey when God drops the bomb and tells him to baptize no more.

What does Paul do. Send out an all point bulletin to all the churches he had founded and baptized in? No. He includes some obscure reference to his not being sent to baptize couched not in a dissertation on baptism at all, but couched in the context of admonishing those to identify with Christ not specific personalities.

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Here’s what’s troubling to the mid-acts dispensational position. Paul does not repudiate their baptisms but rather uses their legitimate baptisms, done in the name of Christ, to make the point that their current enamorment with certain personalities such as Apollos is inappropriate.
Then he goes on to say that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel.
It just makes more sense to suggest that the context in which Paul makes the statement informs the statement itself, and that as such, Paul was not repudiating baptism, or abrogating baptism, but declaring that his purpose was not to get in the lake with them and baptize them but to leave that up to others in whom the Corinthians would do well not to think more highly of than they ought for they are not baptized in their name but in the Name of Christ.

Third, the historical problems of The Great Commission in Mid-Acts dispensationalism.

I can’t count the number of times I have heard mid-acts dispensationalists say that the gospels are products pertinent primarily for the “gospel of the circumcision.” Thus Matthew 28:19-20 was given as a commissioning statement to go make disciples of Jews.

There are 2 basic problems with this that are t00 problematic for me to embrace the mid-acts dispensational position.
1. Though the words were spoken to the disciples prior to the conversion of Paul and the supposed advent of the dispensation of Grace the words were written to the church and meant to be applied long, long, long after the conversion of Paul and well into the supposed dispensation of Grace. Thus we are left to assume that Matthew consummates his gospel with a message that is completely irrelevant.
How cathartic….
Matthew was written between 40-45 AD at the earliest, 60-65 at the latest at least 6 years after the conversion of Paul.
What would the purpose be in concluding a gospel account with a commission that was largely irrelevant?
Second, the greek word that matthew employs (eqnh) is a word that is commonly employed to describe gentiles and gentile/Jewish mixed groups much, much more often than it is used to describe people of Jewish decent and were that not enough, eqnh is used throughout the book of Matthew to refer to gentiles (Matthew 6:32, 12:21, 25:32) In fact, I can’t think of one other verse where Matthew uses the term eqnh where it means Jews. Come to think of it, I can’t think of one verse in the New Testament where eqnh means Jews only. Perhaps I will be educated in this thread.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

[1st. The lack of an exegetical fidelity in pretrib rapture type eschatology.
There is simply no clear articulation of a 7 year tribulation or a rapture prior to the tribulation in the New Testament.

BChristianK,

If you will check the events described in the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the events that follow you will see that there is absolutely no mention of the Church,which is His Body.It is as if that Body has disappeared off of the face of the earth before the "great tribulation".And that is exactly what is going to happen.

Most justification for the a pre-tribulation rapture rests on an interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel, inserting an arbitrary parenthesis between the 69th week of Daniel and the 70th week of Daniel. I have often asked those who believe in such a parenthesis what exegetical reason they have for interpreting this passage in such a way.

The reason is quite simple.We can see that the offer of the kingdom was "conditional" on whether or not the nation of Israel accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.At the end of the 69 weeks the Lord Jesus was "cut off",and then we see Peter offering the kingdom to Israel on the day of Pentecost:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began"(Acts3:19).

The Jews would have understood that the reference to the "times of refreshing" and the "restitution of all things" was in regard to the blessings that were to come to the Israelites at the end of the 70 weeks.

Non-dispensationalists seem to think that there was no "condition" whatsoever in regard to the Jews receiving the blessings set forth at the end of the 70th week.

However,one non-dispensationalist,Alfred Edersheim,recognized that the blessings promised were indeed "conditional" on reveiving the testimony of John the Baptist.He says that " 'the spirit and power' of Elijiah of the New Testament (the Baptist),which was to accomplish the inward restoration through penitent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality,could only accomplish that object IF 'they received it'---if 'they knew him'.And as in his own view,and looking around and forward,so also in fact the Baptist,though Divinely such,was not really Elijiah to Israel--and this was the meaning of the words of Jesus: 'And if ye will receive it,this is Elias,which was to come.' "

He also wrote:

"Between the Elijiah of Ahab's reign,and him of Messianic times,lay the wide cleft of quite another dispensation"(Edersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah",Book 1,p.341).

There was a dispensation that was not revealed in the OT,and Paul referes to this dispensation as the "dispensation of the mystery":

"...and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things"(Eph.3:9,ASV).

Today the believer is given a stewardship that was kept secret since the beginning of time.Although a "dispensation" is not in itself a period of time,it does in fact cover a period of time.And it will not be until the pesent dispensation comes to a close that the things that are prophesised will come to pass.

Today the Christian is to preach the "gospel of grace",the "word of reconciliation",and that is the stewardship that was kept secret.And the end of the present dispensation will come to an end when all those who are "in Christ" meet the Lord Jesus in the air.

Then sometimes after that the word that will be preached will be the "gospel of the kingdom"(Mt.24:14) and when that gospel goes into the whole world then the prophecies concerning the "end of the age" will began to be fulfilled.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[Turbo]

All,

This has been one of those topics that I have gone back and forth over for awhile on this bulletin board.

One the one hand, Bob Hill does a pretty compelling job spelling out the differences in the gospels, showing how there are different requirements for one verses the other. There are those, like Jerry Shugart, that disavow the distinctions such as OSAS for one dispensation, and conditional security for another. Honestly, I have come away from conversations with them wondering what the big difference really is for Jerry Shugart type dispensationalists.

But for the more Hill and Enyart type of mid-acts dispensationalists there is a compelling reason to hear their arguments out.

That being said, I have come down on the side of a non-mid acts dispensationalist and a non-dispensationalist at that.

There are essentially 3 reasons why I have done so...

BCK, I didn't see anything in your response that addressed the questions raised in post #11, which I think get right to the heart of this topic. Would you please answer them?

 

[BChristianK]

BCK, I didn't see anything in your response that addressed the questions raised in post #11, which I think get right to the heart of this topic. Would you please answer them?

I'll give it a shot, here are the questions and your responses, if I miss anything, lemme know.

Turbo said:

How could the twelve have been preaching that Christ would be killed and be raised on the third day if they had not yet heard it, and when they did hear it they still didn't get it?

They couldn’t. That wasn’t their message. Unlike others who might gravitate toward an equally untenable extreme, I will not try to argue that the gospel has not changed or been progressively revealed or contextualized.

And why would Jesus order them to tell no one that He would be killed and raised on the third day if He had already sent them out to preach it?

Again, he hadn’t. The message the disciples were sent with was not identical to the message that Paul preached or that Peter gave in the second chapter of acts.

You will undoubtedly go on to argue that the message Peter gave and the message Paul preached were also distinct. I would even agree, to a point.

Do you now see that the twelve must have been preaching something other than Christ's death, burial, and resurrection Luke 9:1-6?

Yes, I see this.

Which does not get us to a mid-acts dispensational viewpoint quite yet only that the message the disciples were sent with prior to the ressurection was changed by virtue of ressurection.

Grace and Peace

 

[Turbo]

:up:

 

[Delmar]

Moderator note: This thread was split from post #156 of Closed view [non-Calvinist] and OSAS - :turbo:




Really?

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

Where in the four gospels did Jesus ever say anything remotely like, "...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Where did Jesus ever say, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. ", or "if you become circumcised, I (Christ) will profit you nothing."

Where? Did anyone before Paul ever say such things in connection with the gospel? NO! I think not! Either the Gospel changed or else Paul is a fraud. Take your pick.


Resting in Him,
Clete

It would be fun to have Leo V. back for this one...Never mind!

 

[Ya'nar#1]

To Clete and Turbo,

To Clete and Turbo,

TURBO asks,How could the twelve have been preaching that Christ would be killed and be raised on the third day if they had not yet heard it, and when they did hear it they still didn't get it? And why would Jesus order them to tell no one that He would be killed and raised on the third day if He had already sent them out to preach it?

Do you now see that the twelve must have been preaching something other than Christ's death, burial, and resurrection Luke 9:1-6?”

Sorry for interrupting your thread, but thought this might be of help to the conversation:

YA’NAR responds: The disciples message was the same as that of John the Baptist and of Christ himself: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” They were to enter into no controversy with the people as to whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; but in His name they were to do the same works of mercy as He had done. He bade them, “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. After Christ spoke to them of His coming death, He bid them not speak of it (even though admittedly they did not understand fully His words), because of the number of Jews who had falsely claimed to be God's anointed, but who had been beaten and their people scattered, and come to nothing. He did not want His ministry to be associated in any way with their's. Good idea, don't you agree?

This was their “gospel” until the time of Jesus death and resurrection. After Pentecost and the reception of the Spirit, at this point they were empowered to preach the gospel as we know it today.

It may seem like two separate gospels—but it only seems that way. The gospel before the reception of the Spirit is only the “before” version. After He was given, the apostles then understood all the words of Christ pertaining to His death and resurrection. It was this understanding that empowered them to do the work that went out to all the world!

God Bless!

--Ya’nar rincess:

 

[HopeofGlory]

All,

Second, the historical problem of the mid-acts dispensational repudiation of believers baptism.

The New Testament affirmation that Paul practiced baptism and that the early church continued to practice baptism continuously with no break and no indication that the cessation of water baptism was ever communicated to them. Furthermore, the only verse that one could rest the a theology of the cessation of baptism upon was the verse in 1 Corinthians.

I disagree that the verse in 1 Cor. is the only verse that cessation of water batptism is indicated.

The testimony of the Baptist concerning remission of sins was a baptism in water, Mark 1:4.

Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

"But" would indicated a baptism contrary to the baptism for remission that John performed.

Jesus also told us that His witness, which can be understood as a testimony for remission, is greater than that of John.

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.


Now, there is no real easy answer to this passage. But for the mid-acts dispensationalist who sees this passage as an abrogation of baptism, the problem becomes why the early church seemingly ignored Paul. Yet even more of a question, why would Paul, who was sent by Christ not to baptize, baptize the woman at Lystra and her household (Acts 16:15), the Philippian Jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), Crispus and “many of the Corinthians” (Acts 18:8) and some disciples previously acquainted with the baptism of John (Acts 19:5) as well as Gaius and Stephanas (probably numbered among the “many” of Acts16)?

I would think that Paul was not sent not to water baptize as the Baptist was sent.

Can we assume that Paul was such an idiot as to practice something that God had told him he shouldn’t be doing?
Or should we do what most mid-acts dispensationalists do and say that God revealed the abrogation of baptism to Paul sometime during latter half of his third missionary journey long after he had founded and visited most of the churches that would become the early church.

I think we should take a closer look at what Christ (Matt 26:28) and Paul (Rom 3:25) taught concerning remission of sins as opposed to what The Baptist (Mark 1:4) and the apostles (Acts 3:38) taught.

So lets review, God calls Paul to be the disciple to the gentiles and he is sent out on his first missionary journey establishing churches and baptizing as he goes, he returns and goes on a second missionary journey founding other churches and strengthening the ones he planted during the first missionary journey and then he gets halfway through the third missionary journey when God drops the bomb and tells him to baptize no more.

I don't think that we can assume that God told Paul not to baptize anymore but we know that Christ did not send Paul to baptize with water as John was sent (John 1:33).

What does Paul do. Send out an all point bulletin to all the churches he had founded and baptized in? No. He includes some obscure reference to his not being sent to baptize couched not in a dissertation on baptism at all, but couched in the context of admonishing those to identify with Christ not specific personalities.

Paul never baptized in water for the remission of sins, Christ did not send him to do that, no need for an all points bulletin.

Here’s what’s troubling to the mid-acts dispensational position. Paul does not repudiate their baptisms but rather uses their legitimate baptisms, done in the name of Christ, to make the point that their current enamorment with certain personalities such as Apollos is inappropriate.
Then he goes on to say that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel.
It just makes more sense to suggest that the context in which Paul makes the statement informs the statement itself, and that as such, Paul was not repudiating baptism, or abrogating baptism, but declaring that his purpose was not to get in the lake with them and baptize them but to leave that up to others in whom the Corinthians would do well not to think more highly of than they ought for they are not baptized in their name but in the Name of Christ.

Water baptism and repentance was for remission of sins during John's ministry and Paul was not sent as John was but to preach the gospel of Christ which is a greater witness. Paul doesn't tell us that he expected others to perform water baptism on those that belived his preaching.

Third, the historical problems of The Great Commission in Mid-Acts dispensationalism.

I can’t count the number of times I have heard mid-acts dispensationalists say that the gospels are products pertinent primarily for the “gospel of the circumcision.” Thus Matthew 28:19-20 was given as a commissioning statement to go make disciples of Jews.

If one believes that Matt 28:19-20 is a commission for the apostles to baptize in water then they must understand that Paul was not given this commission.

There are 2 basic problems with this that are t00 problematic for me to embrace the mid-acts dispensational position.
1. Though the words were spoken to the disciples prior to the conversion of Paul and the supposed advent of the dispensation of Grace the words were written to the church and meant to be applied long, long, long after the conversion of Paul and well into the supposed dispensation of Grace. Thus we are left to assume that Matthew consummates his gospel with a message that is completely irrelevant.
How cathartic….
Matthew was written between 40-45 AD at the earliest, 60-65 at the latest at least 6 years after the conversion of Paul.
What would the purpose be in concluding a gospel account with a commission that was largely irrelevant?
Second, the greek word that matthew employs (eqnh) is a word that is commonly employed to describe gentiles and gentile/Jewish mixed groups much, much more often than it is used to describe people of Jewish decent and were that not enough, eqnh is used throughout the book of Matthew to refer to gentiles (Matthew 6:32, 12:21, 25:32) In fact, I can’t think of one other verse where Matthew uses the term eqnh where it means Jews. Come to think of it, I can’t think of one verse in the New Testament where eqnh means Jews only. Perhaps I will be educated in this thread.

Maybe the commission was not a baptism in water but might be understood as a baptism by teaching the the word of Christ.

Craig

 

[Ya'nar#1]

To Clete,

To Clete,

Originally posted by Clete,

Where in the four gospels is Jesus ever recorded as having uttered the word grace?

In one sublime spiritual understanding, GRACE IS THE HAND OF GOD REACHING EARTHWARD. Faith is the hand of man reaching up to take hold of God’s hand. The principles of the outworking of grace was demonstrated in the Old Testament. It remains, however, for the New Testament to proclaim the fullness of divine grace, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” –JOHN 1:17.

LUKE 2: 40 “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.”

Grace was first mentioned by the apostle Luke, followed by Paul, and later by John. But the spiritual idea of grace has been with mankind since Adam and Eve, Genesis 3:15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman . . . it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Grace in the OT most generally meant “favor,” from God, without any special philosophical or theological implications. However, the NT concept of grace as God’s saving love toward sinners is not absent from the OT, but this idea was expressed more nearly by the Heb. chesed, frequently translated “loveingkindness” in the KJV and “steadfast” love in the RSV, and was illustrated in the experience of OT saints: The promise given to Adam and Eve despite their disobedience; they were also provided physical protection (v. 21); Noah was saved from the general destruction of the Flood (chs 6: 8; 7: 1), Abraham was selected, despite his imperfections, to keep alive the knowledge of God (ch. 12:1); Moses was prepared for leadership by specific, divine guidance (Ex. 3:10); Israel was chosen of God and patiently nurtured through centuries of waywardness as God’s chosen people (Ps. 135:4), etc. The OT reveals not only God’s displeasure with sin but also His patience and love for sinners, and the GRACE provided for their salvation.

So it is clear the spiritual concept of “grace” has been with mankind since time began. It has been left up to each and every Christian to spiritually discern this truth, depending upon his individual spiritual relationship to God.

The principle exponent of the doctrine of salvation by grace is Paul. His thesis is that salvation is the result not of law or of books or of nationality but of divine FAVOR (grace) freely bestowed, and human faith. “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2: 8). Paul pictures one of the blessings of the gospel as “access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5: 2). The saving dynamic is the grace of God. God has decreed that His grace shall be available to all men of all nationalities and conditions of life in all time, provided they practice faith (Eph. 4: 7; Titus 2: 11).

It is through grace that God calls men to His service (Gal. 1: 15, 16), and it is the operation of divine grace that influences men to respond to God’s call (Acts 20: 32). God’s grace leads men to repent (2 Ti 2:25) and imparts faith (Rom 12: 3; Heb 12: 2). The grace of God was mediated to man throiugh Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15) and imparts consolation and hope (2 Th 2: 16). God’s throne is not only a symbol of judgment and power but of grace (Heb 4: 16).

What I am trying to say here is that understanding scripture and its various terms (such as "grace"), takes more than a keen eye when reading. It also requires spiritual discernment. The kind of discernment that can only be provided by the Holy Spirit; imparted to those Christians who have the kind of relationship to God that will open up to them the deep mysteries of God. Two of these requirements, I believe, is humility combined with absolute dependance upon God; in other words, heart submission combined with a willingness to learn. Another would be obedience to His word, without any sign of obstinacy. Naturally God does not insist on blind obedience, for He does expect us to follow Him INTELLIGENTLY. If we have questions, then take them to Him and He will answer. But once we are convicted by the H.S., then we are expected to obey Him without further doubt:

JOHN 9: 41 "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

I hope this has helped answer your question, Clete. Looking forward to your reply!

God Bless,

--Ya'nar rincess:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

After Pentecost and the reception of the Spirit, at this point they were empowered to preach the gospel as we know it today.

Ya'nar#1,

You say that the gospel that was being preached after Pentecost is the same gospel that we are to preach today.

Nothing could be further from the truth.The heart and soul of the gospel we are to preach today is centered on the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross,how He died for our sins.This gosel is also referred to as the "word of reconciliation" and we are given the "ministry of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:18,19).It is impossible to preach this word apart from the "purpose" of His death:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"(Col.1:20-22).

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

The Acts record will be searched in vain for any occasion where the word "reconcile" was ever mentioned to the Jews,and the "purpose" of His death upon the Cross was likewise never preached to the Jews.

The "gospel" that was preached on the day of Pentecost and was later preached to the Jews was the "good news" that it is Jesus Who is the Promised Messiah,the Son of God.Perter summed up his gospel to the Jews on the day of Pentecost by saying,"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).

That is the same thing which Apollos preached to the Jews--"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

And that is exactly what Paul preached 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"(Acts17:2,3).

The "gospel" that proclaims that it is Jesus Who is the Christ,the Son of God,is not the same "gospel" which declares the "purpose" of the Lord's death upon the Cross.

It may seem like two separate gospels—but it only seems that way.

It "seems" as if there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period because there were in fact two different gospels being preached during that time.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[HopeofGlory]

Jerry,


Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Is this not the word of reconcilliation which Paul preached to the Jews? Is not the purpose of His death that forgiveness of sins is through Him?

Craig

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,


Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Is this not the word of reconcilliation which Paul preached to the Jews? Is not the purpose of His death that forgiveness of sins is through Him?

Craig

Craig,

No,it is not.This verse says nothing about how it was possible the Lord could remit sins.And it is made plain in other verses that it was those who "believed in His Name" who would receive the remission of sins.And believing in His Name is in regard to believing the Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

"And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all"(Acts3:15).

The Jews who believed in HIs Name--Jesus Christ--received salvation at the time they were "born again":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

That is why the Lord said that Peter was blessed because he believed that He is the Christ,the Son of God:

"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.16:15-17).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

 

[HopeofGlory]

Craig,

No,it is not.This verse says nothing about how it was possible the Lord could remit sins.And it is made plain in other verses that it was those who "believed in His Name" who would receive the remission of sins.And believing in His Name is in regard to believing the Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.

"And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all"(Acts3:15).

The Jews who believed in HIs Name--Jesus Christ--received salvation at the time they were "born again":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?(1Jn.5:1,4,5).

That is why the Lord said that Peter was blessed because he believed that He is the Christ,the Son of God:

"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.16:15-17).

In His grace,--Jerry

Acts 13, Paul had already explained that Christ was their Savior, and that the testimony of the Baptist pointed to Christ.

Paul went on to say that their Savior died and rose again. Paul revealed to the Jews that all who "believe" that Christ died and rose again and that through Him sins are remitted are "justified" from all things from which you could not be justified by the law.

I don't know how you can say that is not the ministry of "reconciliation"!

I don't know how you can say it doesn't reveal the "purpose" of His death.

I don't know how you can say it is a "different" gospel.

Is it not more than just believing Jesus is the Christ?

Is it not more than Peter preached to the Jews?

Craig