Post "Plot" Questions?

[godrulz]

I suggested there is an ad hominem parallel in a few sentences that misrepresent my beliefs or motives/intents/interests. I was not suggesting the whole tone of the post is ad hominem.

I have read enough of the book to know that it is not as biblical as some assume.

Bob is not anti-pentecostal or baptism for OT saints or pre-Mid Acts. However, to negate the Pentecostal experience and believer's baptism for today (vs Judaistic issues) does not make one supportive/pro either. He is anti-baptism (against) for modern believers, is he not?

 

[STONE]

This is flat out not true, Godrulz! What's that matter with you? It is not like you to simply fabricate crap like this out of thin air. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Bob does not come with a conclusion and then provide arguments to support that conclusion. That is what 99% of what Christian books do today, but that definitely is not what The Plot does. In fact, it does the exact opposite and is built on a principle that teaches the exact opposite. The basis for The Plot is to take the overview of the plot of the Bible (thus the title of the book) and work from there to get a handle on the details. Most Christian books do just the opposite, they build a case for one particular detail at a time a Christian must attempt to build a "big picture" puzzle without the benefit of seeing the box top and as a result they almost always get it wrong. They attempt to force pieces to fit where they do not belong and it just doesn't work.
Bob does NOT do this! He does not begin with any conclusion and work up a supporting argument. He simply establishes what the clear plot line of the Bible including plot twists that most seem to overlook but which are very obviously there as plain as day and then based on this clear understanding of what the story line of the Bible is, he almost doesn't even have to make any arguments for the individual doctrines which he addresses in the later chapters of the book. The correct answers on those doctrinal debates become so simple that one wonders why anyone would bother to debate them. To use the puzzle piece analogy again, if you have a puzzle piece that looks like the headlight on the '57 Chevy and have no access to the box top, you might go with that conclusion and attempt to build you puzzle based on that one puzzle piece. But, on the other hand, if you have access to the box top and you find that it is supposed to be a picture of fruit salad, it suddenly becomes clear that your puzzle piece isn't a head light at all but rather a reflection off one of the apples. You don't even have to know which apple in order to avoid the error that you would have made without the benefit of the box top.
This is the same thing that The Plot accomplishes Biblically. Each individual doctrine or passage of Scripture is a piece of the puzzle and when you know what the plot of the Bible is and where the characters of the story fit with one another, interpreting what those pieces are and where they fit becomes so easy that most third graders could do it on most issues.

Now, would you please just read the book already?! You say it a matter of disinterest that you haven't read it yet but you never miss an opportunity to debate against it without the benefit of having read it. That doesn't sound like disinterest to me, except maybe disinsterest in being influenced away from pet doctrines by sound biblical arguments.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I am astonished Godrulz made it to page 65. Clete do you think that the Plot is simply where countless hours of theological study led Bob, or do you think the Plot was Bob's attempt to make sense of passages which appeared to contradict in scripture? I know from listening to His radio show how he explains what it is.

 

[godrulz]

I am astonished Godrulz made it to page 65. Clete do you think that the Plot is simply where countless hours of theological study led Bob, or do you think the Plot was Bob's attempt to make sense of passages which appeared to contradict in scripture? I know from listening to His radio show how he explains what it is.

I paid Canadian dollars for the book and am enjoying it. I have no problem reading other views and incorporating the good while testing the questionable. Many books sound persuasive without detailed critique. None of us agree with every thing from every author. Why would you be surprised I made is to far? I have many partially finished books due to interest at the moment (some here claim I am disinterested except to bash it= wrong). These attacks on my motive show they do not have a clue about my personal circumstances in this last year or desire to know truth and expose error for 25 years.

 

[STONE]

I paid Canadian dollars for the book and am enjoying it. I have no problem reading other views and incorporating the good while testing the questionable. Many books sound persuasive without detailed critique. None of us agree with every thing from every author. Why would you be surprised I made is to far? I have many partially finished books due to interest at the moment (some here claim I am disinterested except to bash it= wrong). These attacks on my motive show they do not have a clue about my personal circumstances in this last year or desire to know truth and expose error for 25 years.

It is good that you want to know the truth and expose error.

BTW- A while back you asked me if I was a JW because I once didn't capitalize the h in Holy Spirit. No, this was an accident; I am far from a JW.

 

[Clete]

I am astonished Godrulz made it to page 65. Clete do you think that the Plot is simply where countless hours of theological study led Bob, or do you think the Plot was Bob's attempt to make sense of passages which appeared to contradict in scripture? I know from listening to His radio show how he explains what it is.

If you know the answer to the question, why do you ask me? Why don't you just tell us what Bob said was the answer to this question is? Personally I would suspect that it is some of both.

 

[Lighthouse]

godrulz-
You have not read enough of The Plot to know anything about it. Bob does say that baptism is unecessary for today's believers, but he is not against it if someone wants to be baptised.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz-
You have not read enough of The Plot to know anything about it. Bob does say that baptism is unecessary for today's believers, but he is not against it if someone wants to be baptised.

Thank you for clarification.

It seems to me that Jesus and Paul linked the preaching of the Gospel with baptism.

Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, but reducing its importance in discipleship also seems half truth. Many believers do many things optionally that do not affect salvation, but should we not desire to be biblical?

I would think Bob would suggest that baptism or tithing would place us under the law and should not be considered OK if we 'want' to.

Refresh my memory....does his church also not practice communion/Lord's Supper?

Lighthouse, I trust all is well with you and yours. You are loved by many here (including me).

 

[Lighthouse]

Thank you for clarification.

It seems to me that Jesus and Paul linked the preaching of the Gospel with baptism.

Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, but reducing its importance in discipleship also seems half truth. Many believers do many things optionally that do not affect salvation, but should we not desire to be biblical?

I would think Bob would suggest that baptism or tithing would place us under the law and should not be considered OK if we 'want' to.

Refresh my memory....does his church also not practice communion/Lord's Supper?

Lighthouse, I trust all is well with you and yours. You are loved by many here (including me).

I'm not sure on the communion aspect. But I do know the way it is practiced these days, in most churches, is unBiblical.

 

[godrulz]

I'm not sure on the communion aspect. But I do know the way it is practiced these days, in most churches, is unBiblical.

For example? Catholic Mass is unbiblical. Quoting the Gospels or Corinthians while remembering the death and resurrection of Christ does not seem unbiblical. The 'love feast' in Corinthians was cultural, not absolute for today.

 

[Lighthouse]

The bread isn't unleavened, for one thing. Also, bread and wine were not the only things involved in the feast. And Jesus was telling His disciples to remember Him everytime they celebrated the Passover. Passing out croutons and little cups of grape juice is not Biblical.

 

[Clete]

Water baptism is not practiced as it is clearly part of the law and Paul also clearly taught that there was but ONE baptism which of course is Spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ of which there is also only one.

The Lord's Supper or Communion is quite a bit different in that Paul talks at some length about the institution of and how one should conduct themselves during the Lord's Supper, including the fact that we are to observe it "till He comes". Futher, Paul says clearly that he received such instruction from the Lord Himself and so there can be no doubt that such observance is in keeping with the current dispensation.

1 Corinthians 11: 17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.​

 

[godrulz]

The bread isn't unleavened, for one thing. Also, bread and wine were not the only things involved in the feast. And Jesus was telling His disciples to remember Him everytime they celebrated the Passover. Passing out croutons and little cups of grape juice is not Biblical.

One could also argue using overheads for choruses or padded pews is not biblical. It would be better to follow accurate Jewish symbolism, but we adopt principles where the NT is relatively silent.

 

[kmoney]

ok, read up through chapter 3 now. Here are some thoughts/questions on it....

First, the part about the "little puppy" was hilarious!

The "little dogs" does not mean "cute puppy" as many who want to sfoten Christ's words suggest.

I literally laughed outloud when I read that.

One part I just thought was cool was the part about the philosophy professor trying to prove God didn't exist. The professor yelled up to heaven "God, if you exist, kill me in the next minute". After a minute the professor, still being alive, claimed victory. Then a student said "Professor, do you think you can exhaust the mercy of God in one minute?"

now for some questions....

Bob says,

For prior to this, God never accepted a 'Gentile' for all converted Gentiles became Jews.

Did I miss a verse that mentions this? Did all convered Gentiles prior to the new dispensation become Jews? And what was involved in becoming a Jew? Just circumcision and putting themselves under the law?

Also, Bob says the original plan was to first go to Israel and then once they believed they would then preach to the Gentiles. He then says there was a hitch in the plan because Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus, therefore God grafted the Gentiles in with Israel. Bob says cutting out Israel and accepting the "nations" doesn't mean that no Jews could be saved anymore, but simply there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles anymore, instead the dispensation of grace was to Jews and Gentiles......Lets say, however, that Israel did accept Jesus and then they were in "part 2" of the plan and they began preaching to all the nations instead of just Israel.....would God have kept the difference between the 2? Would the Gentiles have had to become Jews? Or would all the Jews be continue to be under the law and the Gentiles under grace?

another question....during Jesus' 3 years of ministry on the earth, if a Gentile believed in him, did they have to convert? because Jesus hadn't died and been resurrected yet? Or if they were still alive after the resurrection and the opening of the grace disp. would they have been saved under grace?

also, doesn't necessarily tie into what I've read, but it kinda goes along....

Now there is one baptism, the Spirit baptism....I grew up being taught that Christians receive salvation and then water baptism and HS baptism are separate from salvation. You didn't need to be water baptized or baptized in the HS to be saved, but you could have both.
My question is basically this....Is salvation and being baptized in the HS the same thing? Now I understand that a lot of people on TOL don't believe in tongues for today, but I think they still believe in being baptized in the HS, just it manifests itself in a different way than it did in the NT. So is being baptized in the HS the same as being saved? Or is that baptism separate from being saved?
Does that make sense?

I think that's it for now. If I think of more I'll post them....

 

[Clete]

Bob says,
Did I miss a verse that mentions this? Did all convered Gentiles prior to the new dispensation become Jews? And what was involved in becoming a Jew? Just circumcision and putting themselves under the law?

Yes exactly. If one was proselytized (converted) he became a proselyte Jew. He would have to submit himself to the law, including circumcision, the dietary laws, sacrifices, etc. In effect, one became a member of the nation of Israel and was expected to be an Israelite.
This specific topic is a little out of my area of expertise. Perhaps we could get Knight or Lion or maybe even Bob to give Biblical support for this. That is, assuming that I have this right!

Also, Bob says the original plan was to first go to Israel and then once they believed they would then preach to the Gentiles. He then says there was a hitch in the plan because Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus, therefore God grafted the Gentiles in with Israel. Bob says cutting out Israel and accepting the "nations" doesn't mean that no Jews could be saved anymore, but simply there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles anymore, instead the dispensation of grace was to Jews and Gentiles......Lets say, however, that Israel did accept Jesus and then they were in "part 2" of the plan and they began preaching to all the nations instead of just Israel.....would God have kept the difference between the 2? Would the Gentiles have had to become Jews? Or would all the Jews be continue to be under the law and the Gentiles under grace?

If Israel had repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah, He would have returned very quickly (before some of them present as His ascension had died) and established Israel's Earthly kingdom which would have persisted for at least 1000 years. The Body of Christ may have been started as a separate group during that time or perhaps after, we cannot know but for at least the vast majority of the world if not all of it, the "difference" would have been maintained in the sense that you will have had to follow the law (minus the sacrificial laws which had been fulfilled by Christ (see Hebrews)).
Again, this area is not my strong suit and it has been some time since I read the Plot so I may have it a bit wrong here but this is my best guess. Your questions and comments have prompted me to want to read it again and I will do so but in the mean time, perhaps someone could fill in the gaps in my answer.

another question....during Jesus' 3 years of ministry on the earth, if a Gentile believed in him, did they have to convert? because Jesus hadn't died and been resurrected yet? Or if they were still alive after the resurrection and the opening of the grace disp. would they have been saved under grace?

My understanding is that it would depend on who it was that converted them and therefore which Gospel they responded too. Prior to the opening of the Dispensation of Grace all those that believed where saved under the Dispensation of Law and remained so until their death. But after the Dispensation of Grace began there were two groups which existed side by side and if you were converted by Paul then you were under Grace and if by the twelve then you were under law.
And not to be overly repetitive but, again, I'm offering answers because I'm right in the thick of it here on this thread but there are others more qualified to do so. I really need to get studied back up on this stuff, it's pathetic how much I'm just winging it here! :help:

also, doesn't necessarily tie into what I've read, but it kinda goes along....

Now there is one baptism, the Spirit baptism....I grew up being taught that Christians receive salvation and then water baptism and HS baptism are separate from salvation. You didn't need to be water baptized or baptized in the HS to be saved, but you could have both.
My question is basically this....Is salvation and being baptized in the HS the same thing? Now I understand that a lot of people on TOL don't believe in tongues for today, but I think they still believe in being baptized in the HS, just it manifests itself in a different way than it did in the NT. So is being baptized in the HS the same as being saved? Or is that baptism separate from being saved?
Does that make sense?

It makes sense but I'm not answering this one until you've read chapter four and perhaps the chapter on miracles as well. Remember. NO PEEKING!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

Clete, Thanks for posting!

This specific topic is a little out of my area of expertise. Perhaps we could get Knight or Lion or maybe even Bob to give Biblical support for this. That is, assuming that I have this right!

ha, of course you have it right!

If Israel had repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah, He would have returned very quickly (before some of them present as His ascension had died) and established Israel's Earthly kingdom which would have persisted for at least 1000 years.

yeah, I had just always taken that verse and basically believed that Jesus said that because no one knows the day or time but the Father. That is why Jesus said some of them wouldn't die, because Jesus didn't know when and He thought it would happen sooner. I actually think everyone in the NT thought Jesus' second coming would be ALOT sooner. I guess it can be looked at differently if you say there was a "plot twist".

The Body of Christ may have been started as a separate group during that time or perhaps after, we cannot know but for at least the vast majority of the world if not all of it, the "difference" would have been maintained in the sense that you will have had to follow the law (minus the sacrificial laws which had been fulfilled by Christ (see Hebrews)).

I guess it just seems strange to me that God's orignal plan was to put the Gentiles under the law(except sacrificial laws), but than He changed it to grace because the Jews rebelled. Why would that change the fact that we(Gentiles) would have grace AND Jews born after this new dispensation would be under grace as well. I mean God was going to preach to the "nations" no matter what so why would Israel's rejection of Jesus suddenly bring in grace?

But after the Dispensation of Grace began there were two groups which existed side by side and if you were converted by Paul then you were under Grace and if by the twelve then you were under law.

could it really have been so arbitrary? I feel bad for those who happened to be convered by the 12 they'd be under the law instead of grace. I thought under dispensationalism that once the "grace" dispensation was in effect than EVERYONE was saved by grace, no matter who converted you. I understand that Paul went to the uncircumcised and the 12 to the circumcised, but I still thought that once grace came everyone was under grace. Everyone is under grace now right? even Israel?

It makes sense but I'm not answering this one until you've read chapter four and perhaps the chapter on miracles as well. Remember. NO PEEKING!

ok...

And not to be overly repetitive but, again, I'm offering answers because I'm right in the thick of it here on this thread but there are others more qualified to do so. I really need to get studied back up on this stuff, it's pathetic how much I'm just winging it here!

don't worry about it ....you're helping....and maybe someone else can come help some also like you said.


WOW...I used a lot of smileys!!

 

[Clete]

I guess it just seems strange to me that God's orignal plan was to put the Gentiles under the law(except sacrificial laws), but than He changed it to grace because the Jews rebelled. Why would that change the fact that we(Gentiles) would have grace AND Jews born after this new dispensation would be under grace as well. I mean God was going to preach to the "nations" no matter what so why would Israel's rejection of Jesus suddenly bring in grace?

The Dispensation of Grace had always been part of God's plan. The only major thing Israel's rejection of Christ changed was the timing of it.

could it really have been so arbitrary? I feel bad for those who happened to be convered by the 12 they'd be under the law instead of grace.

Don't feel bad! Peter and the the rest of the twelve and their converts were extremely blessed in every way. Their relationship with God was different but not less real than is ours. Feeling bad for Israel would be like me feeling bad for my older brother because he didn't get to be the youngest child in the family, or my feeling bad for my sister because she didn't get to be a son. That just wouldn't make any sense.
Israel had and will have again a particular sort of relationship with God and we have one of another sort but they are both real relationships with the living God and I suspect that a billion years from now when this Earth is a faded memory, it won't matter so much which was which.

I thought under dispensationalism that once the "grace" dispensation was in effect than EVERYONE was saved by grace, no matter who converted you. I understand that Paul went to the uncircumcised and the 12 to the circumcised, but I still thought that once grace came everyone was under grace. Everyone is under grace now right? even Israel?

Well you may actually be correct on this at least to some degree. But if this were totally the case then it wouldn't make sense for Peter, James and John to write the things they wrote in their epistles. That's all I'm saying on that until after the fourth chapter though.

I'm hoping to get Lion to respond on this point as well as the rest of your questions. He would know better than I on some of these details.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[kmoney]

Clete,

The Dispensation of Grace had always been part of God's plan. The only major thing Israel's rejection of Christ changed was the timing of it.

I guess I got the impression that what the disp. of grace was going to be changed because of Israel's rebellion.

Don't feel bad! Peter and the the rest of the twelve and their converts were extremely blessed in every way. Their relationship with God was different but not less real than is ours. Feeling bad for Israel would be like me feeling bad for my older brother because he didn't get to be the youngest child in the family, or my feeling bad for my sister because she didn't get to be a son. That just wouldn't make any sense.

still kinda seems like they were getting the same thing, but had to do more work.

Well you may actually be correct on this at least to some degree. But if this were totally the case then it wouldn't make sense for Peter, James and John to write the things they wrote in their epistles. That's all I'm saying on that until after the fourth chapter though.

ok

 

[Turbo]

STONE & godrulz,

I split your discussion from this thread. You will find it here: Covenants & Kingdoms

 

[dale]

Still here guy's...I've got another question if someone cares to respond.

Do the scriptures show just when it was that Isreal was cut off? I hear Acts 9, but I don't see it. I see Paul getting saved and being Baptized. I highlighted Baptized because I was under the impression that baptisim was no longer practiced after Israel was cut off. In fact, I see Paul talking about the fact that he himself baptized a couple in 1 Corinthians 1:14. Were these two baptized after Israel was cut off?

-Thanks

 

[dale]

BTW, just what is "Rep Power?" I see I have 1. what does that mean?