The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

lightninboy

Member
For Clete:

Do you think it is impossible for an Acts 2 Dispensationalism church to teach salvation by grace through faith plus nothing?

For Lighthouse and patman:

You may reply if you wish.
 

patman

Active member
lightninboy said:
Dear Jerry,

If I recall correctly, you did accuse patman of saying that Paul taught the Law of Moses or something when patman didn't mean anything of that sort.

It would be okay to apologize to him, wouldn't it?

If you are going to debate Lighthouse too, please don't make him mad.


Wow,

Thank you lightninboy. I am glad you can see beyond disagreement.

Blessed are the peacemakers.
 

patman

Active member
lightninboy said:
Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

They had salvation of a sort, and I call them saved.

Doesn’t your Clete idea of them being damned for breaking the Law contradict Paul saying there is no difference between Jew and Gentile? If the Jews of the Circumcision were saved, they had eternal security just like the saved Gentiles.

Yes. With no salvation by grace alone. Where in the Bible is it said that the Great Tribulation will be like Bob Hill says it will be?

Where does Paul say that salvation by grace alone won’t be in the Great Tribulation? And what is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

Bingo! We are both Acts 2 Dispensationalists? If not, where are we different?

Lightinboy,

Midacts is a complex issue when you have been taught otherwise. There are many reasons I think it is the answer to a great many questions both of the Bible and of life.

Jesus said:

Matthew 17:20
So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

Faith is powerful. But who among christians today can move a mountain with their faith?

He also said:

John 14:12
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.

You believe in him. Yet who have you raised from the dead? What illness have you cured? I have none attributed, not even by great faith or many prayers have those whom I have prayed for been healed. Why?

Jesus' words are true. They stand forever as truth. But they were for a different audience. His death was for the world, but his teachings and promises of healing was for the pre-trib believers, not us who are under grace.

Those who do not believe in M.A.D. have no answer for the confusion these verses cause. They wish them away, or they lie to uphold them. There are those who will say you can be healed of anything, and lead you down a path of great disappointment and drain your faith because they misunderstand, and preach anyway.

Or they say it is partly true. Healing and miracles happen sometimes, some people can do it, just not you. Now we go to some televangelist for answers that no one can backup, and that cause more questions for when their signs fall through.

They fail to see that the audience of Jesus' word is not us when it comes to these things that have changed. And they bring down believers faith, and worst, they cause unbelievers to never believe.

I was almost one of them. I have a great passion against this and wish to shed light on it because I do not want to see what almost happened to me happen to others.

Jesus upheld the law. He taught it, he commanded those who asked him how to be saved to follow it as a part of the plan. His disciples followed it. When people were saved, they got them to follow it. Even Peter had the Gentiles who were saved by grace baptized because he wanted them to follow Jesus' instructions that didn't apply to them.

God plainly told Peter that the law had passed away for Gentiles in Acts 10:9 and following. But Peter still had them follow the law. But it was at that moment that God did it. It was never said by sign or revelation before then that the law was not needed.

It was then that Paul was saved. He tells us that he received the revelation of Grace for the Gentiles and was made the leader of its preaching from God.

But what was going on before then? The 12 were readying for the Great Tribulation that Jesus said was coming. Daniel 9:25-27 tells us that 7 years after the Messiah was cut off that God would make an end of things, and the 12 understood this.

But the Jews didn't turn to God, so God halted this plan.

So God postponed it for a later time. The great tribulation is a time God pours out his wrath on the world. But Paul tells us we, who are saved by Grace, were not appointed to wrath.

Paul said to the Gentiles saved by Grace
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Paul tells us that we will meet him in the sky. But all other prophecy tells of Jesus coming to take his throne in Israel. This is all a part of the mystery, that was never made known before Paul, by God. The plan for us under Grace is not the same as it is for Israel.

For us, the tribulation will not be experienced. It was never meant for us, but rather for Israel. It is during this time that signs and wonders will be seen, and preformed by believers. It is then that Antichrist will be alive and the days will be cut short. Not now tho. Because those saved by Grace are still here so the wrath cannot come because we are not appointed to it.

As a believer in the MAD doctrine I do not disrespect or ignore Jesus' words. They are true, but he is speaking to Israel, the Israel who obeyed the law and who was just about to enter the tribulation. Now God has made a new Covenant with the Gentiles. One of Grace, with no law.

Do you think the prophecies against Nineveh apply to you? Did God command you to let his people go? No, but the words are still true. Same applies to us and Jesus. His words are holy and true, but his commands are not for us, because we are under grace. Yet his death is for all.

For now, God has made Jew and Gentile alike, both under grace, but only after the Jews rejected Jesus in Acts 7 and 8, as his own people ran the church ragged.

I hope I have given enough to make a strong case for MAD that you might consider it.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
lightninboy said:
For Clete:

Do you think it is impossible for an Acts 2 Dispensationalism church to teach salvation by grace through faith plus nothing?

For Lighthouse and patman:

You may reply if you wish.
It is possible for them to say that, yes. However, they always, every one I've been in, end up teaching that salvation is lost every time you sin, and so you must confess and repent every time, or go to hell. They ultimately preach works salvation without admitting they do. Much like godrulz.
 

lightninboy

Member
Dear Lighthouse,
Thank for your reply.

If you go to an Arminian Assembly of God, of course you are going to hear that message sooner or later. But what about churches that subscribe to the Acts 2 Dispensationalism taught by Dallas Theological Seminary?

What is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

Can you give me examples of Acts 2 Dispensationalists saying you must obey the law? Such examples could be the exception rather than the rule.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
lightninboy said:
Dear Lighthouse,
Thank for your reply.
You're welcome.

If you go to an Arminian Assembly of God, of course you are going to hear that message sooner or later. But what about churches that subscribe to the Acts 2 Dispensationalism taught by Dallas Theological Seminary?
I don't know what they preach, but Acts 2 requires water baptism. There's no way around that. Acts 9 does not.

What is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?
It's still applicable. Why?

Can you give me examples of Acts 2 Dispensationalists saying you must obey the law? Such examples could be the exception rather than the rule.
Like I said, they may never say it, but it eventually comes to that, whether they admit it or not.
 

lightninboy

Member
Lighthouse said:
I don't know what they preach.
Find out.
Here is their website:
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/


Lighthouse said:
Acts 2 requires water baptism. There's no way around that. Acts 9 does not.
Look up baptism in the Wikipedia. There is a chart comparing denominations on baptism.

Lighthouse said:
It's still applicable. Why?
I got into this debate over a disagreement with Bob Hill on the applicability of John 3:16.

Lighthouse said:
Like I said, they may never say it, but it eventually comes to that, whether they admit it or not.
Please give examples.
 

lightninboy

Member
Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

Do you go to a MAD church?

If salvation must be by grace through faith plus nothing in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace, does it not make sense that salvation has always been by grace through faith plus nothing?

Show me where it is said that salvation won't be by grace through faith plus nothing in the Great Tribulation.

I suspect that Acts 2 Dispensationalism can answer your questions satisfactory.
 

patman

Active member
lightninboy said:
Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

Do you go to a MAD church?

If salvation must be by grace through faith plus nothing in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace, does it not make sense that salvation has always been by grace through faith plus nothing?

Show me where it is said that salvation won't be by grace through faith plus nothing in the Great Tribulation.

I suspect that Acts 2 Dispensationalism can answer your questions satisfactory.

No, I do not attend church. Most of the ones around here are calvinistic at best.

Remember the verse I showed Jerry a while back? About Jesus telling the rich man he needed to follow the law and follow him to be saved? And as I pointed out, Jesus was teaching to the tribulation people, only that God later decided not to go through with it right now.

It is not accurate to say that Act 2 saints were freed from the law. The idea of total grace didn't even come to Peter until Acts 10.

Look at Peter's reaction to the vision about Grace only in Acts 10:
17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there.
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.”

Look at Peter's reaction to God telling him to abandon the law:

But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

If grace were really Jesus message, why did God wait several years to correct him?

His very reaction, the confusion he experienced, the "what the heck?" Peter went through. Acts 2 is not the best answer.

It tries to bundle things together that don't fit.

In Acts 2:38 (Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”) is being baptized as a requirement to salvation grace or law?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
It is possible for them to say that, yes. However, they always, every one I've been in, end up teaching that salvation is lost every time you sin, and so you must confess and repent every time, or go to hell. They ultimately preach works salvation without admitting they do. Much like godrulz.

What kind of sect or cult were you in. Unless you can find a hyper-Arminian church (good luck), no church teaches that you lose your salvation every time you sin. Only the sin of persistent, godless unbelief would lead to eventual loss of right relationship with God.

I am familiar with many evangelical, Pentecostal, nominal, etc. churches. You do not know what you are talking about.

I do not preach works salvation. One of your points of confusion is that you seem to think that faith or continuance in the faith is a work. Calvinists say the same nonsense to justify their omnicausal view of God. Faith is NOT a work. Unbelief is the antithesis of faith. Based on Jn. 3:16, 36, do not tell me that it is possible to be an oxymoronic 'believing unbeliever'.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
lightninboy said:
Dear Lighthouse,
Thank for your reply.

If you go to an Arminian Assembly of God, of course you are going to hear that message sooner or later. But what about churches that subscribe to the Acts 2 Dispensationalism taught by Dallas Theological Seminary?

What is your opinion of John 3:16 being applicable to people in The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace?

Can you give me examples of Acts 2 Dispensationalists saying you must obey the law? Such examples could be the exception rather than the rule.


I am part of the sister organization (PAOCanada) to AofG. I was a credentialed pastor and studied their statement of faith/essential truths (see their website). If anyone teaches what you think they do, then they are out of step with the fellowship. You are simply misinformed and misunderstand classical Pentecostal beliefs that are not hyper-Arminian.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
You're welcome.


I don't know what they preach, but Acts 2 requires water baptism. There's no way around that. Acts 9 does not.


It's still applicable. Why?


Like I said, they may never say it, but it eventually comes to that, whether they admit it or not.


I was ordained with AofG sister organization. They categorically deny that water baptism is required for salvation (baptismal regeneration is heretical).

Acts 2 does not require baptism just because they were baptized in Acts 2 (remember Acts 16 baptism after Paul's conversion?).

Rejecting the Master's teaching in John 3:16 is a grievous consequence of this Mid-Acts nonsense. Gutting half the NT as directly applicable to the Church Age is further proof this heresy does not know what it is talking about. :noid:

I am going to go out on a limb: The OT and certainly Jesus are full of grace. Grace predates the conversion of Paul, for Pete's sake (pun intended).
 

lightninboy

Member
Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

patman said:
No, I do not attend church. Most of the ones around here are calvinistic at best.
Gee, if I knew where you lived, I could try to find you one like I did for Lighthouse.

patman said:
Remember the verse I showed Jerry a while back? About Jesus telling the rich man he needed to follow the law and follow him to be saved?
In the account of the RYR, we see that Jesus was attempting to correct some faulty understandings that formed a barrier to a true understanding of the gospel message. The first misunderstanding relates to the RYR’s concept of goodness; the second to his view of Jesus; the third to who he was in the sight of a holy God; and the fourth to what was required for obtaining or inheriting eternal life.
Jesus could have used a frontal approach by lecturing the RYR on the four misconceptions that were obstructing his entrance into the kingdom. Instead, He used a more subtle approach—one intended to promote self-discovery.
Theoretically, a man could inherit eternal life by keeping the law (cf. Luke 10:28; Rom 10:5).
The reason for the Lord’s answer was to make the young man, and those around who could hear, understand that no one is capable of earning eternal life.
Sensing for the first time that the way of salvation in which he was trusting was too hard for him, the young man became downcast and left very grieved “for he was one who had great possessions.”
Jesus’ requirement for the RYR did not go beyond the law; His words were actually a fulfillment of it.
Hence, Jesus tested him on his perfect obedience to the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” Jesus knew beforehand that he would fail the test.
The disciples understood that the Lord was saying that it is impossible for anyone who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom—unless God intervenes and offers a way of salvation that is unrelated to human resources and abilities.
If only the RYR had confessed his failure and simply cried out, “What must I do to be saved?” He would have been told, as the apostle Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Some might say, “You mean that’s all you have to do?” To whom the reply would be, “That’s all you can do” because it is impossible any other way.

patman said:
And as I pointed out, Jesus was teaching to the tribulation people, only that God later decided not to go through with it right now.
Any more evidence of no salvation by grace alone in the Great Tribulation?


patman said:
If grace were really Jesus message, why did God wait several years to correct him?
Was it several years? I recently read on Christian Forums that there was about one year between Pentecost and the stoning-of-Stephen/Saul-called time.
patman said:
In Acts 2:38 is being baptized as a requirement to salvation grace or law?
Water baptism has never been a requirement of salvation.
 

patman

Active member
lightninboy said:
Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.


Gee, if I knew where you lived, I could try to find you one like I did for Lighthouse.


In the account of the RYR, we see that Jesus was attempting to correct some faulty understandings that formed a barrier to a true understanding of the gospel message. The first misunderstanding relates to the RYR’s concept of goodness; the second to his view of Jesus; the third to who he was in the sight of a holy God; and the fourth to what was required for obtaining or inheriting eternal life.
Jesus could have used a frontal approach by lecturing the RYR on the four misconceptions that were obstructing his entrance into the kingdom. Instead, He used a more subtle approach—one intended to promote self-discovery.
Theoretically, a man could inherit eternal life by keeping the law (cf. Luke 10:28; Rom 10:5).
The reason for the Lord’s answer was to make the young man, and those around who could hear, understand that no one is capable of earning eternal life.
Sensing for the first time that the way of salvation in which he was trusting was too hard for him, the young man became downcast and left very grieved “for he was one who had great possessions.”
Jesus’ requirement for the RYR did not go beyond the law; His words were actually a fulfillment of it.
Hence, Jesus tested him on his perfect obedience to the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” Jesus knew beforehand that he would fail the test.
The disciples understood that the Lord was saying that it is impossible for anyone who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom—unless God intervenes and offers a way of salvation that is unrelated to human resources and abilities.
If only the RYR had confessed his failure and simply cried out, “What must I do to be saved?” He would have been told, as the apostle Paul told the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Some might say, “You mean that’s all you have to do?” To whom the reply would be, “That’s all you can do” because it is impossible any other way.


Any more evidence of no salvation by grace alone in the Great Tribulation?



Was it several years? I recently read on Christian Forums that there was about one year between Pentecost and the stoning-of-Stephen/Saul-called time.

Water baptism has never been a requirement of salvation.

Hey lightinboy,

Interesting stuff. I am not going to say some of what you said is wrong, I just do not think it suffices to refute MAD.

The RYR is a very simple story. He just wants to know how to get saved. He starts off by calling Jesus Good, yes. And Jesus calls him on it, and basically says "You are calling me God," yet doesn't correct him.

Then he plainly says "Follow the law" to get saved. You said the one law he couldn't follow was coveting. True, and Jesus tells him to follow it to by following him and selling it all. So still, he needs to follow the law...

Do you see that? The law must be followed, Jesus is speaking clearly.

The law was required until Paul.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The cross, not Paul, is the end of the law issue. There are not two NT gospels after His resurrection and Pentecost.
 
Top