ECT The Gospel Proper

[Danoh]

Can you not get anything right? I never said that works were not required of Israel but instead I said that "works" were not required for salvation for the Jews who lived under the law.

When the nation of Israel was in covenant relationship with God circumcision was a requirement for the sons of Israel and any uncirumcised male was cut off from that nation:

Yah, okay, Jerry.

:chuckle:

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[john w]

Fantastic!

It is one great, great book!

I heard it all before in the Jordan audios its' material was based on, but it is great to have it in book form - which is way faster than wading through all the audios.

I have read it several times, have enjoyed it each time, and have never found one thing off in it.

Not a one.

And you well know how nit-picky I can be, lol.

You're in for a real treat!

Romans 5: 6-11!

I was afixinta offer Blades my input for the book, but, like Burt, the "salesman" from "The Andy Griffith Show," I did not want to be "too pushy!"

 

[Rosenritter]

Correct. The New Covenant is still of law, because it was for the people of the circumcision (which is used many times in the Bible as a synecdoche for the law)

And how is that remission achieved? :think:

Question: Why is the word "remission" used instead of "forgiveness" in the English versions of the Bible? The same word ("aphesis") is used every time, and it means forgiveness... So why "remission"?

Its because APHESIS' primary definition is "release."

Strong's g859 - Lexical: ἄφεσις - Transliteration: aphesis - Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: af'-es-is - Definition: a sending away, a letting go, a release, pardon, complete forgiveness. - Origin: From aphiemi; freedom; (figuratively) pardon. - Usage: deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission. - Translated as (count): forgiveness (15), deliverance (2).

The Greek word used for "testament" in this verse (and others) means "covenant" (and "testament", to be sure, and "a will" (like a "last will and testament")).

Jesus is speaking about the New Covenant, Not just "a" new covenant.

Not once in Jesus' entire ministry did Christ speak the word grace, as far as we know.

The first time the Bible records Christ using the word grace is when He is speaking to Paul:

And He said to me, [JESUS]“My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.”[/JESUS] Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. - 2 Corinthians 12:9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians12:9&version=NKJV

Correct.

However, Not once does Paul use the word "remission".

Remission is found only 9 times in the New Testament, and ONLY in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews, and the one time it's found after Paul is introduced is when it's used by Peter, speaking to Cornelius.

Question:

Where, in anywhere before Acts 9, is it mentioned that the forgiveness of sins is "according to the riches of [God's] grace" and not a requirement of the law, as stated and explained by Christ Himself:

And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.“ . . . For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. - Matthew 6:12,14-15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew6:12,14-15&version=NKJV

That's law, not grace.

Grace is being forgiven, and then because of that, forgiving others.

Here's a chart that explains it, from Pastor Enyart's The Plot:

See above.

That's what you're trying to prove. Assuming the conclusion of your argument is called circular reasoning.

Right, the New Covenant, which He made with Israel, the people of the LAW.

The new covenant of the spirit, not the law.

Which is grace, not law.

I recommend you start reading chapter 9 at verse 1, and read up to this verse.

Then tell me if it's not talking about LAW.

Note the "sprinkling of blood", which was part of, you guessed it, the LAW.

The problem with the above is that, while unintentional, you have assumed that the phrase "new covenant" is ALWAYS referring to the same thing, yet as I showed above (briefly), paying attention to the details shows that two different new covenants are spoken of.

If I got anything from what you said above, it's that you think that when the Bible speaks of "the New Covenant" you think it means either "New Covenant One" or "Newer Covenant Two" ... even though the text itself never speaks of there being two new covenants. I don't know why you used so much talking to get to that point but the reasoning you gave shows some breaks at a few places along the way.

1. The New Covenant is of grace. There is forgiveness of sins through the shedding of blood. It's not earned; someone else's blood is shed. The New Covenant is not of law, for if the New Covenant were of law then its merits could be earned, which is counter to the whole gospel, that eternal life is a gift from the giver. See Romans 6:23 as a reminder, "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Eternal life is never earned and has never been earned and cannot be earned. Law earns, whereas grace gives.

2. Remission is simply another word for forgiveness of sins. You can Google the word definition even to find "FORMAL forgiveness of sins. synonyms: forgiveness, pardoning, absolution, exoneration, exculpation; historical indulgence "the remission of sins"" There is no secret hidden meaning why our English translation would use one word one time and a different word another. Besides minor grammatical considerations, variety of language and meter would be sufficient reason; I don't think there's some secret hidden meaning behind that word choice. I'm not sure why you think the use of synonyms is significant.

3. "Not once in Jesus' entire ministry did Christ speak the word grace, as far as we know" (???) and so what? You don't hear Paul once using the term "the Word" but we know that's whom he speaks about. A remark like yours leads me to believe that you don't know the meaning of the word grace. Using scripture to define the word, grace is the free gift of God (Romans 5:15, Ephesians 2:8, 3:7, 1 Peter 4:10.) What exactly do you think "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise' represents? Was that earned through deeds of law, or received as an unearned free gift of grace?

But even the foundation of that part on the word "remission is in error" as Paul does use the word in Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, Col 1:14, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:22, Hebrews 10:18. But even if he were not to use that word (but he does) it isn't as if the meaning is absent the writings.

Ephesians 1:7 KJV
(7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Romans 3:22-25 KJV
(22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
(23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Matthew 26:28 KJV
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Where, in anywhere before Acts 9, is it mentioned that the forgiveness of sins is "according to the riches of [God's] grace" and not a requirement of the law, as stated and explained by Christ Himself:

John 8:10-12 KJV
(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
(11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(12) Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Was the woman innocent? Did she earn forgiveness? or was it freely given?

Matthew 6:14-15 KJV
(14) For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
(15) But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Explain how Matthew 6:14-15 represents earned forgiveness through keeping law? There is no law that says "if you forgive your neighbor his trespass against you God must forgive you your sins" but if there was there would have been no need for Christ's sacrifice.

Galatians 2:21 KJV
(21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

You speak like you do not understand the grace of God. God does not have to forgive anyone. All forgiveness of sin against God is of grace.

I recommend you start reading chapter 9 at verse 1, and read up to this verse.

Then tell me if it's not talking about LAW.

Here's my specific observation:

First, he speaks of a first covenant (verse 1, 18) and by this comparison it it compared to the new covenant. There is no mention of a "first new covenant" compared to a "second new covenant" or even a "third covenant" as to what you were maintaining earlier.

Second, the old covenant is replaced with a new covenant sealed with the blood of Christ. and we are told that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.... not twice offered to bear the sins of some and then another some, as your premise required. The shedding of blood seals one covenant, not two different covenants.

Hebrews 9:28 KJV
(28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Third, the new covenant is not of law, not in Hebrews 9:1-15 and not in anywhere in scripture. Do you not recognize the meaning of grace in the New Covenant? Where is salvation earned?

Hebrews 9:13-14 KJV
(13) For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Christ offered himself.

Stop and let that sink in.

Christ offered himself.

John 10:18 KJV
(18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

That's called grace.

So as to your conclusion... that there are "two different new covenants" it seems completely unfounded. It's certainly not preached in scripture and it seems like an artificial construction to try to patch holes in another doctrine. If I had to summarize, if's like a denial of Grace when it's right there on the cross in front of us.

John 3:14-16 KJV(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

That's called GRACE.

Matthew 9:2 KJV
(2) And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

That's called grace.

Matthew 18:32 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

Did the servant earn that forgiveness? NO, it was given unto him.

Grace, grace, and further grace. There are not "two new covenants" - there is the Old Covenant, and there is a New Covenant. The New Covenant is sealed with his blood, and he was once offered for forgiveness of sins.... not twice. Why does KGOV have this strange idea of two new covenants, two gospels, two types of of grace? I don't know and cannot say, but I don't have to know why to know that it's wrong.

Is there any way to progress here? I think we're stuck unless you are willing to discuss the meaning of grace.

 

[Rosenritter]

You haven't proven that I speak lies.

Unless you actually ARE God that name is at best arrogant and at worst blasphemous. I didn't give it that thought until I saw you respond to someone with "You are denying God's Truth" (with your Proper Name capitalization.)

 

[Rosenritter]

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "repent" is "a change of mind" and the following verse demonsrates that "whoever" believes will never perish:

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

So if I "repent" and "change my mind" that chocolate is better than vanilla my sins will be forgiven? That is an absurd example, but it is meant to demonstrate that the obvious meaning is to "repent" of sins and that this is an integral part that cannot be separated from "believing in Him."

 

[Rosenritter]

Obviously, you see that that is not what I am saying.

It's what the original poster was saying that I was replying to. He clarified that he meant the New Covenant was not of grace in that many words. Sorry if I got you mixed up.

And I meant what I asked you - do you believe you are saved, and what is your Scriptural basis for it?

I'm just concerned about that.

Romans 5: 6-8, in each, our stead - "not of works, lest any man should boast" Eph. 2:9.

It's been my experience that people start saying "Do you believe you are saved" when their own doctrine gets tangled in cords of their own making. I don't know if I've ever heard that question in a sincere context; it's typically a pretense for attack.

Luke 22:20 KJV
(20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Colossians 1:14 KJV
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Hebrews 10:4 KJV
(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

For clarification, and to differentiate yourself from the other poster, would you agree that the New Covenant is of grace and that all salvation and forgiveness of sin is of the grace of God?

 

[Rosenritter]

Can you not get anything right? I never said that works were not required of Israel but instead I said that "works" were not required for salvation for the Jews who lived under the law. And I have quoted the following words of the Lord Jesus to prove my point and so far none of those who share your view about salvation under the law have even attempted to give an interpretation of the meaning of His words:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Perhaps you will be the first to give us your interpretation of the meaning of His words there, words which were spoken to those who lived under the law. One thing is certain--they won't go away.

I suspect (and perhaps he can clarify) that Danoh might be under the impression that the Old Covenant was a list of rules that earned eternal life.

Hebrews 10:4 KJV
(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As if I need your help to do that!

All you have demonstrated so far is that you run and hide from the words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted and you care nothing about an "honest" discussion about those words. I answered the very first verse which you quoted to try to prove that I am wrong and you avoid saying anything about the words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted.

Jerry is trully an openly dishonest and therefore a hopeless case.

So I am dishonest? Since you can't answer the message you try your best to assassinate the character of the messenger, showing just how petty you really are. It is you who is a hopeless case because you cannot even understand what the Lord Jesus said in the following passage He spoke to a Jewess who lived under the law:

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

The Savior Himself says that the Jews who lived under the law and "believed" received the blessing of which He spoke. He mentioned no "works" of any kind as a "requirement" to receive that blessing. What He said is either true or false. I say that what He said is true.

Clete, now I am giving you a chance to shine in front of all those who agree with your teaching that the Jews could not be saved apart from "works" by telling us your interpretation of the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words at John 11:15-27.

You also quoted the following verse in a lame attempt to prove that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from "works":

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

In the following verse the Lord Jesus tells us what the Father's will is in regard to those who lived under the law:

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (Jn.6:40).​

Again, the only "requirement" which the Lord Jesus mentioned in order for those who lived under the law to receive this blessing is "believing." But according to your teaching believing on the Lord Jesus is not enough for those who lived under the law to receive that blessing because they could not receive that blessing apart from "works."

I have answered the first verse you quoted to try to prove that my teaching is in error so if we are going to have an "honest" discussion it is time for you to step up to the plate like a man and address John 11:25-26. Show us that you really have an intelligent answer to the Lord Jesus' words there that supports your teaching.

We read in the Bible that when Paul was ministering the word he "reasoned out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2) so if your teaching is correct you should be able to give a reasonable answer to the Lord Jesus' words at John 11:25-26.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I suspect (and perhaps he can clarify) that Danoh might be under the impression that the Old Covenant was a list of rules that earned eternal life.

Yes, he must think that being guilty of all somehow contributes to the salvation of the Jews who lived under the law. James said the following:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas.2:10).​

 

[john w]

All you have demonstrated so far is that you run and hide.......Since you can't answer the message you try your best to assassinate the character of the messenger,...I have answered the first verse you quoted to try to prove that my teaching is in error so if we are going to have an "honest" discussion it is time for you to step up to the plate like a man

Jer, Some advice: You did a great job, in one post, of mixing in your cliches. Good job. However, I'd recommend you include your sure fire debate ender, clincher:

There can be no doubt whatsoever that..............................

No charge.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So if I "repent" and "change my mind" that chocolate is better than vanilla my sins will be forgiven? That is an absurd example, but it is meant to demonstrate that the obvious meaning is to "repent" of sins and that this is an integral part that cannot be separated from "believing in Him."

In some instances the words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews demanded a "change of mind" in regard to His identity in order that they might be saved, as witnessed by His following words:

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn.8:23-24).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jer, Some advice. You did a great job, in one post, of mixing in your cliches. Good job. However, I'd recommend you include your sure fire debate ender, clincher:

Those of us who have the "evidence" of things not see because the LORD's words come, not in the wisdom of men, but in His power, there is no doubt whatsoever that the blessing of which the Lord Jesus spoke of to a Jewess who lived under the law is received by faith and faith alone:

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

There can be no doubt!

 

[musterion]

Though you would never know it from my erratic, imprecise and lazy posting style, in the past I received considerable training in the mechanics of reading, both in literacy and comprehension, which naturally relates to written communication. Yeah, so what, you ask. Point is, I've read enough of GT's posts to be convinced that she (if it is really a she, who knows) has at least an average grasp of everyday English and is not ESL (English as Second Language...or if she is, it's good enough).

No, what you're seeing is not a reading weakness but is what JohnW says: the simple, deliberate deceptiveness and evasiveness masquerading as obtuseness which so common to TOL.

For whatever it's worth.

 

[john w]

Those of us who have the "evidence" of things not see because the LORD's words come, not in the wisdom of men, but in His power, there is no doubt whatsoever that the blessing of which the Lord Jesus spoke of to a Jewess who lived under the law is received by faith and faith alone:

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

There can be no doubt!

"There can be no doubt whatsoever...."


I charge $200 per day, plus expenses.

John Rockford W

 

[Rosenritter]

In some instances the words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews demanded a "change of mind" in regard to His identity in order that they might be saved, as witnessed by His following words:

"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (Jn.8:23-24).​

Repentance is such a thing that it is not done halfway. If they would otherwise die in their sins then that repentance and belief that was called for would have been the change of heart that would both accept Christ and likewise repent of sin. I don't think you can legitimately "accept Christ" without repenting of sin.

 

[Sherman]

This has degraded into a poop flinging contest. Shutting this down.