The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[godrulz]

That tea and milk are both liquids do not make them the same thing. Two things may have a great number of similarities and still be different.

Mark 16 shows Jesus did teach faith+works. You must believe and be baptized to be saved. The same was according to Peter (Acts 2:38). But Paul states that he didn't really keep track of baptism because God did not call him to baptize!!! Did God call the apostles to baptize? Of course he did.

Since baptism was never a condition or essential for salvation, it does not matter that Paul did not always personally baptize his converts. Billy Graham preaches the gospel to the masses, but does not personally baptize them, yet many go on to local churches and do obey the Lord as an act of discipleship. I suggest you are arguing from silence and proof texting (Acts 16 Pauline era baptism; Paul was baptized).

Mark 16 has been answered elsewhere. I would also not build a doctrine on a passage that has textual criticism issues. Baptism was a normative outward expression of inward faith in the early church. It should not be confused with repentant faith that is a condition of salvation. Acts 2:38 is a normative pattern, as is speaking in tongues when one receives the fulness of the Spirit. It does not mean that tongues is a condition of salvation either.

Paul did not rescind baptism just because it was never salvific or that he was itinerant, rather than doing the follow up as a local pastor who could and would baptize Paul's converts.

 

[Clete]

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.

Not without contradicting themselves it isn't, no.

I mean they give this doctrine all the lip service in the world but the deeper you dig the more legalistic Acts 2 churches turn out to be.

Further, it isn't just salvation (i.e. justification) that is by grace through faith plus nothing, it is sanctification as well. The entire Christian life is lived by grace though faith plus nothing. It is nearly impossible for any Acts 2 church to understand this important aspect of the Gospel according to Paul, never mind teach it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Acts 2 does not lead to legalism. You wrongly assume that we make baptism or communion, etc. essential for salvation. My own daughter has not been baptized though the rest of us have. We are equally saved. Some sects may be guilty of what you say, but the vast majority of evangelicals are Acts 2, not Mid-Acts. It would be unfair to say the vast majority of the Body of Christ is legalistic or self-righteous in justification or sanctification issues. Just because we read our Bible and pray and obey does not mean we are legalistic, necessarily.

 

[Clete]

Acts 2 does not lead to legalism. You wrongly assume that we make baptism or communion, etc. essential for salvation.

No I don't.

My own daughter has not been baptized though the rest of us have. We are equally saved. Some sects may be guilty of what you say, but the vast majority of evangelicals are Acts 2, not Mid-Acts. It would be unfair to say the vast majority of the Body of Christ is legalistic or self-righteous in justification or sanctification issues. Just because we read our Bible and pray and obey does not mean we are legalistic, necessarily.

You are legalistic, Godrulz whether you acknowledge it or not.

This is actually a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Acts 2 believers give lip service to the gospel of grace but they ignore more than half of what it teaches. Salvation is only the beginning, not the end!

Acts 2 believers teach works first and blessing as a result (i.e. the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, etc). Paul taught the reverse. We are to be a blessing BECAUSE we have been blessed and are seated with Christ in the Heavenly places in spite of ourselves because of grace through faith plus nothing at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Teaching that salvation in every dispensation was by faith alone with out faith-works, is wrong.

What I believe we are really discussing is the answer to the question, What Must I Do to Be Saved? It is not just that Christ died for our sins, because that is not the answer in every dispensation even though that is the reason God will forgive those who keep their own dispensational position, depending on what it is.

Also, what must they do to make sure they are saved in Old Testament dispensations, which include Matthew - John?

For instance, in other dispensations, if they fall away, can they be saved? If they are depending on what the Bible says in Heb 6:4-6, for instance, the answer would be, No! Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

In contrast to the Dispensation of Grace, other dispensations say things quite different.
Eph 1:4-14 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

We cannot lose our salvation in this Dispensation of Grace.

Do we have to confess our sins to have them forgiven? Under the gospel given to the circumcision apostles, the answer is yes. 1 Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

In the present dispensation of grace, we do not have to confess our sins.

In answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved? We look to Acts 16:30-31 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” No confession is needed.

Do we have to be water baptized to have our sins forgiven? Even in early Acts, when the 11 were presenting the message to the Jews after Christ’s resurrection, but before the body of Christ started with the salvation of Paul, Peter said they had to be water baptized to be saved.
Act 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.”

That is not what we believe under Grace.

The 12 apostles under the gospel of the circumcision preached that you had to be water baptized to be saved.

Paul wrote in 1 Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

We see that the Bible teaches that you have to live according to God’s law to be saved.

Do you have to do works of the law to be saved? It says you do in the book of James, which is written to the 12 tribes in the dispersion. Jam 1:25; 2:6-12,14,24 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

But in the dispensation of grace which God gave to Paul, works are not a necessary part of the redemptive process.

Rom 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

However, I believe the Bible shows us that the salvation of a believer has always been through faith or belief in what God said. The Bible shows a progressive revelation over many dispensations and many years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

What people had to believe has changed from dispensation to dispensation (different house rules).

For instance, we see in the Old Testament that There are, basically, two kinds of covenants that God made with Israel: conditional and unconditional. In a conditional covenant the benefits of the covenant depend upon each of the covenant makers, not upon just the one who is most powerful. Certain conditions must be fulfilled by the receiver of the covenant before the other is obligated to fulfill what he promised.

The conditional covenant, obviously, is one with conditions. In an unconditional covenant what is covenanted depends only on the one who makes it. It’s a covenant with no ifs attached.

The promises God made to Abram were unconditional. I think a good name for them is the covenant of promise. This covenant was unconditional because God said He would fulfill the promises of the covenant. Abram had no conditions to perform before God would fulfill the promises.

After he had expressed his faith in God’s word and had been justified by God, this covenant was confirmed with Abram (Gal 3:17). This confirmation showed vividly the unconditional nature of the covenant because Abram was put into a deep sleep and did not accompany God as He passed through the covenant animals in solemn ritual (Gen 15:17,18).

I call the way that God was dealing with Abram at that time the dispensation of promise. Later, in Romans one, I believe God was referring back to the time just prior to this event when God had given up the whole world (Rom 1:24,26,28). With Abram, He was calling out a new people for Himself. Therefore this was the beginning of a new dispensation. He was dealing with a new people in a new way.

They would be His people in a special relationship. No other people had experienced this kind of relationship with God. Under this dispensation, Abram was justified while he was uncircumcised on the basis of his faith. In other words, the method God had for salvation was faith alone. However, we see later, Abram’s salvation was not secure, since the covenant of circumcision, (Acts 7:8 Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs) was a conditional covenant.

The land, specifically, was given for an everlasting possession. Gen 17:8 “Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

The most important point and the heart of that covenant was circumcision. In fact, God made circumcision the only condition, at that time, for Abraham and his posterity to keep. He said in Gen 17:10,11 “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.”

A faith-work, circumcision, was required by God to partake of the blessings of this covenant.

I define a faith-work as follows: the work which God requires, done by faith, in obedience to His commands. This faith-works concept is the unifying theme of all the subsequent dispensations, which many of us agree, are associated with the covenant nation, Israel.

It sounded severe when God required circumcision, but if a child was not circumcised, no salvation, he would “be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (17:14).

God established circumcision as the sign of the covenant made between God and Abraham. This sign dramatically showed there was no confidence in the flesh (Phi 3:3). Abraham had tried to produce the promised offspring by his own fleshly efforts. But Ishmael, the child of the flesh (Gal 4:29), was rejected by God.

I call the method that God used at this time the dispensation of circumcision. The unconditional promise was still firm. However, to partake of the promise one would have to be part of the covenant nation. Therefore, we can see that a conditional aspect was added to the unconditional covenant. A conditional covenant is a bilateral agreement. There are responsibilities for both parties in the agreement. Simply put, faith-works, that is, covenant keeping was required.

Just as the dispensation of grace has different names, we can call the covenant of circumcision the covenant of works and use the names, “circumcision” and “covenant of works” almost interchangeably. Regardless of the name, an Israelite had to conform, by faith, to the conditions God laid down, in order to remain in the covenant relationship.

This conditional covenant and the land that goes with it are declared to be for Israel forever. We must be careful when we think about this covenant. It is never put aside except when God deals with the body of Christ in our present Dispensation of Grace. It is eternal for Israel. In other words, from the time of its inauguration onward, God would always be dealing with Israel under the covenant of circumcision.

This is true unless God would abrogate His covenant promises. However, we know from Heb 6:17,18 & Gen 22:16 that is impossible. Therefore, salvation for the nation, corporate Israel, will always be unconditional (Rom 11) but conditional for the Israelite individuals (Heb 3).

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[lightninboy]

For Clete:

Examples?

Like I said, the Southern Baptist Church may be rather Calvinistic.

 

[lightninboy]

Quotes from Mid-Acts Dispensationalists:

Didn't Peter say that the "last day" began in Acts 2:16, 17? Isn't Peter speaking as the Spirit gave in utterance (2:4)?
You see, I do believe that God set Israel, as a nation, aside after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7, which was approx. 1 year after Pentecost. At that event Israel has now rejected God the Father, God the son, and now the Holy Spirit. God then raised up Saul/Paul in Acts 9.
With the setting aside of Israel, God stopped the prophetic timeclock pertaining to Israel. That also put a hold/pause in the Tribulation, and the dispensation of the Law.
With the raising up of Saul/Paul, God ushered in this dispensation of Grace, which was kept secret since the world began. Also, with the raising up of Paul, God made "a new creation," called "the one new man," known today as "the Body of Christ" (see Eph. 2:13-18).
Paul and we are given a greater commission then that was given to the 12 disciples. Our commission is found in Ephesians 3:9 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20.
At the close of this dispensation of grace, with the rapture of the Chruch, the Body of Christ, the prophetic timeclock, pertaining to Israel, the Tribulation, and the Law, will again resume. So you see, this dispensation of Grace in which we now live, is a "(parenthetical)" period within the dispensation of the Law.

IMHO the 12 disciples of Jesus are not members of the Body of Christ. They were saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." All those saved under that gospel will inherit the kingdom. At the Lord's second coming, all the deceased that were promised an earthly kingom will be resurrected with natural resurrected bodies. The 12 will be resurrected and sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, just as Jesus promised them.
Members of the Body of Christ are promised a heavenly hope/home and will obtain glorified bodies upon our resurrection.

God wanted Israel to be without excuse so the Kingdom was "expounded and testified to" all through the Acts period, even by Paul. Some say that the Kingdom was no longer offered after Acts 7, but I believe the offer was implicit in Paul's addresses to Jews in Acts. I believe even as late as Acts 28, if the Jews as a nation repented and called on the name of the Lord, Christ would have returned then and established the Kingdom. Because of the outward distinction, I believe the general epistles are still not "about the Body" but they were for Jewish believers in the first century and will again apply directly to saints in the tribulation period.
You said the 12 would be resurrected in natural resurrection bodies. What about what Jesus said about resurrected saints being like angels in Heaven? Matt. 22:30. And will they be without sin? I'm assuming they would be but I'm just having a hard trying wrapping my brain around the concept of people in natural mortal bodies yet without the stain of sin. Another question: will it even be possible for them to sin?

 

[lightninboy]

The opinion of a former pastor of mine:

You asked,
Will the Old Testament saints be living on the earth during the Millennium in earthly bodies?

No, I do not believe so. I take the view that all believers of all previous ages will receive their resurrection bodies at the time of the rapture.

You asked,
Will the Jews have to obey the Law, etc., for salvation during the Great Tribulation?

Based on Galatians 3, my conclusion is that eternal salvation was and will be the same for every age in the plan of God.

You asked,
How confident are you about Acts 2 Dispensationalism eschatology compared to preterism, amillennialism, postmillennialism, etc.?

Quite confident.

 

[Clete]

For Clete:

Examples?

I gave a couple in my last post.

Acts 2 Dispensationalists won't hesitate to apply the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount directly to members of the Body of Christ as well as the entire book of James and any other teaching in the New Testament whether it was intended for the Body of Christ or not. They completely gloss over the fact that Jesus and the twelve were teaching Jews under the previous dispensation.

There are individuals I know of who are exceptions to this but they are very few and far between. In fact, M.J. Stanford is the only one that comes to mind right now.

Like I said, the Southern Baptist Church may be rather Calvinistic.

Some are some aren't. This doesn't have anything to do with their dispensational position though. Most baptists wouldn't know the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism anyway. As a general rule, they only believe what they've been taught to believe from the pulpit.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lightninboy]

Gee, Clete, it looks like you are defenseless.

 

[godrulz]

No I don't.


You are legalistic, Godrulz whether you acknowledge it or not.

This is actually a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Acts 2 believers give lip service to the gospel of grace but they ignore more than half of what it teaches. Salvation is only the beginning, not the end!

Acts 2 believers teach works first and blessing as a result (i.e. the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, etc). Paul taught the reverse. We are to be a blessing BECAUSE we have been blessed and are seated with Christ in the Heavenly places in spite of ourselves because of grace through faith plus nothing at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sounds like a straw man? I fail to see the lip service conclusion just because we are not antinomian/lawless/license (either are you, huh?).

I affirm what you think Paul says, but Paul builds on the foundation of Christ's teachings, not contradicts them. He even repeats the principles of the Decalogue in Eph. 4-6.

 

[godrulz]

Gee, Clete, it looks like you are defenseless.

I think he begs the question/circular reasoning. If Mid-Acts assumptions are incorrect, then their conclusions will also be flawed.

 

[lightninboy]

Acts 2 Dispensationalism should know about the Sermon On The Mount. I already pointed that out to Jerry Shugart.

James and the rest of the Bible is taught in Acts 2 Dispensationalism churches, and I don't see why not if properly interpreted.

Acts 2 Dispensationalism knows that Matthew, Mark and Luke are the Synoptic Gospels.

The majority in most all churches could be fickle. If you go to Sunday School and Bible Study, you can be smarter than the fickle bunch.

Abandoning a perfectly good Acts 2 Dispensationalism for an Acts 9 Dispensationalism built on falsehoods is not the answer for being an idiot in a church full of idiots.

 

[godrulz]

The Sermon on the Mount may have been given before the full institution of the New Covenant, but it is universal in its principles and applications. Even secularists recognize its depth and profound teaching.

Why is it so hard to accept the teachings of the greatest Teacher, God incarnate? He was talking to His disciples who would later go on to form the early church. The principles are reiterated in Pauline teaching, not contradicted or refuted. Jesus promised to build His church. His teachings were not just for Israel, though He came to Israel first (they rejected their Messiah, so the Gentiles had to pick up the slack for universal salvation...Jn. 3:16; Rom. 9-11). His teachings are certainly applicable to all generations, including the Church Age.

It is hard to imagine a view that dispensationalizes away the teachings of Christ and much of the NT as not directly applicable to the Church Age. Paul would be aghast. This is not to dimension the differences between Israel/Church or pre vs post-resurrection of Christ.

Unless you think murder, adultery, hatred, etc. are acceptable for the Church Age, there is no reason to dismiss Christ's teachings that do not contradict salvation by grace through faith alone.

The more I study Christ's teachings in comparison to Johannine and Pauline thought, the more Mid-Acts lacks credibility.

 

[patman]

Gee, Clete, it looks like you are defenseless.

Hey lightinboy,

I am bias, but his arguments are deeper than you may realize. I can see no problem with his words and they seem to present solutions yet problems for Acts 2.

Anyway....

Thanks for going through those posts for me. I apologize I did not have time to do it myself.

I do not understand why you do not find it interesting that it was only until Acts 10 that Peter was told about the Law being undone for Gentiles. God told him then to eat unclean foods, if Grace were really the rule, he would have followed Gods commands and not called that food unclean. But he said it was unclean, wouldn't eat, and God pretty much told him to do it and not say that.

Then Peter was confused and couldn't figure it out. Paul tho, got it, and went back and told Peter years later, then Peter was like, "ooooh yeah, i remember a vision about that." Then Paul later had to rebuke Peter in front of everybody because he trying to get Gentiles to follow the law.

Why the problem? Why didn't the ROCK, Peter, the foundation of the church for Israel totally not get this? Because he was taught, by Jesus, and by Jesus' example, to follow the Law. And he got everyone to do that.

Grace requires no law.

Saul lost his salvation because he wouldn't follow an order from God through Samuel. There is no grace, it was depending on his works.

So did Judas. He wasn't saved by grace after Jesus' death.

Jesus failed to tell the RYR, "just wait another year. Grace is comin' my friend and you dont have to worry about these commands."

Paul tho preached and preached and preached grace, no works, no Law. He started the new dispensation of Grace.

I would say, that from Moses there was a Dispensation of Law. After Jesus Death there was a Dispensation of Fulfilled-Law, then after the faliure of Israel to convert to Christianity, there was, and still is, a Dispensation of Grace.

Hope this compels you some.

 

[lightninboy]

Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

You said you used to go to a Christian church. What denomination was it, may I ask?

You are a tough nut to crack. Yeah, if the Law was impossible to keep, could they ever slack off?

See if this article summary makes sense.

Salvation in the Book of Acts

The Book of Acts, like the Gospel of John-and all Scripture-teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. This can easily be shown.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Peter strongly defended the Gospel message of "faith-alone" as preached by Paul and Barnabas. He reminded the council that he was chosen by God to be first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10).
The position of Peter and Paul was upheld by the Jerusalem Council (vv 13-29). Salvation by grace through faith was officially established by the apostles as the one and only Gospel. Nothing could be added to faith in Christ as a means of obtaining eternal salvation.

The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16)

Cornelius (Acts 10)

The conversion of Cornelius is a spike in the heart of the argument that baptism, turning from sins, and confessing Christ are requirements for salvation. Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. Peter required only one condition: "…whoever believes in Him receives the remission of sins" (Acts 10:43; compare Acts 11:14). At that moment Cornelius and his household believed in Christ (compare Acts 11:17; 15:7-11). The result? "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). Cornelius and his household were speaking with tongues and magnifying God (v 46). Peter then asked, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (v 47).
Cornelius received the Spirit when he simply believed. Those who say that Acts 2:38 teaches that eternal salvation requires water baptism and repentance overlook Acts 10:44-47. Cornelius didn't have to submit to water baptism in order to receive the Spirit. In fact, Peter commanded him to be baptized specifically because he had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What, then, do Acts 2:38 and 22:16 mean?

Acts 2:38 and 22:16

Neither Peter in Acts 2:38, nor Ananias in Acts 22:16, was referring to eternal salvation. Rather, they were speaking of fellowship with God and inclusion in the Body of Christ.
It must be remembered that Acts reports a transitional time. The Church was born in Acts 2. However, for a short time after the birth of the Church, people were not baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ at the moment they believed. New believers in Samaria (Acts 8) and believing disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ well after they were born again. Only in Acts 10 and the conversion of Cornelius do we see the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurring at the moment of faith.
Did you ever wonder why Peter didn't call his listeners in Acts 2 to believe in Christ when they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (v 37)? The obvious reason is missed by many. Peter had just proclaimed that Jesus, whom his listeners had personally helped to crucify, was both Lord and Christ (vv 22-36). They believed Peter. In that moment they believed that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who gives eternal life to those who believe in Him (compare John 11:25-27 and 20:31). They weren't asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were already saved. They were asking, "What shall we do to escape the terrible shame and guilt of having crucified the Messiah?"
Palestinian Jews who had helped crucify Christ had to repent and be baptized to be included in the Church and have fellowship with God. (The forgiveness spoken of in v 38 is fellowship forgiveness, just as we see in 1 John 1:9.)
Ananias commanded Saul to be baptized so that he might receive the following: (1) forgiveness of his sins (Acts 22:16), that is, the same fellowship forgiveness seen in 1 John 1:9; (2) restoration of his eyesight (Acts 9:17); and (3) the filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).
This explains why Ananias called Saul, "Brother Saul," and why he didn't command him to believe in Christ. Saul already believed in Christ for eternal life.

I don’t think the Old Testament Saul lost his salvation.

I posted links about Judas in The Exchanged Life.

Jesus wanted the RYR to see his need for the grace that was already available to him.

 

[patman]

Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

You said you used to go to a Christian church. What denomination was it, may I ask?

You are a tough nut to crack. Yeah, if the Law was impossible to keep, could they ever slack off?

See if this article summary makes sense.

Salvation in the Book of Acts

The Book of Acts, like the Gospel of John-and all Scripture-teaches that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. This can easily be shown.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Peter strongly defended the Gospel message of "faith-alone" as preached by Paul and Barnabas. He reminded the council that he was chosen by God to be first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10).
The position of Peter and Paul was upheld by the Jerusalem Council (vv 13-29). Salvation by grace through faith was officially established by the apostles as the one and only Gospel. Nothing could be added to faith in Christ as a means of obtaining eternal salvation.

The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16)

Cornelius (Acts 10)

The conversion of Cornelius is a spike in the heart of the argument that baptism, turning from sins, and confessing Christ are requirements for salvation. Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. Peter required only one condition: "…whoever believes in Him receives the remission of sins" (Acts 10:43; compare Acts 11:14). At that moment Cornelius and his household believed in Christ (compare Acts 11:17; 15:7-11). The result? "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). Cornelius and his household were speaking with tongues and magnifying God (v 46). Peter then asked, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (v 47).
Cornelius received the Spirit when he simply believed. Those who say that Acts 2:38 teaches that eternal salvation requires water baptism and repentance overlook Acts 10:44-47. Cornelius didn't have to submit to water baptism in order to receive the Spirit. In fact, Peter commanded him to be baptized specifically because he had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What, then, do Acts 2:38 and 22:16 mean?

Acts 2:38 and 22:16

Neither Peter in Acts 2:38, nor Ananias in Acts 22:16, was referring to eternal salvation. Rather, they were speaking of fellowship with God and inclusion in the Body of Christ.
It must be remembered that Acts reports a transitional time. The Church was born in Acts 2. However, for a short time after the birth of the Church, people were not baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ at the moment they believed. New believers in Samaria (Acts 8) and believing disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ well after they were born again. Only in Acts 10 and the conversion of Cornelius do we see the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurring at the moment of faith.
Did you ever wonder why Peter didn't call his listeners in Acts 2 to believe in Christ when they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (v 37)? The obvious reason is missed by many. Peter had just proclaimed that Jesus, whom his listeners had personally helped to crucify, was both Lord and Christ (vv 22-36). They believed Peter. In that moment they believed that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who gives eternal life to those who believe in Him (compare John 11:25-27 and 20:31). They weren't asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were already saved. They were asking, "What shall we do to escape the terrible shame and guilt of having crucified the Messiah?"
Palestinian Jews who had helped crucify Christ had to repent and be baptized to be included in the Church and have fellowship with God. (The forgiveness spoken of in v 38 is fellowship forgiveness, just as we see in 1 John 1:9.)
Ananias commanded Saul to be baptized so that he might receive the following: (1) forgiveness of his sins (Acts 22:16), that is, the same fellowship forgiveness seen in 1 John 1:9; (2) restoration of his eyesight (Acts 9:17); and (3) the filling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).
This explains why Ananias called Saul, "Brother Saul," and why he didn't command him to believe in Christ. Saul already believed in Christ for eternal life.

I don’t think the Old Testament Saul lost his salvation.

I posted links about Judas in The Exchanged Life.

Jesus wanted the RYR to see his need for the grace that was already available to him.

Hey lightinboy,

Acts 9-12 are the starting of MAD, they will refer to grace.

And in Acts 2, Peter said to be baptized for the remission of sins. That is not grace, a work for forgivness, is never grace.

 

[lightninboy]

Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

Did you read those old posts I referred to or the summary of them I posted?

If MAD is right, please refute them.

The article I just posted said that the Israelites at Pentecost had already believed in the promised Messiah for eternal life, and the remission of sins was not for salvation but for reconciling them with God for crucifying the Messiah. Note that they didn’t ask “How may we be saved?”

 

[lightninboy]

THE GOSPEL AND
WATER BAPTISM:
A STUDY OF ACTS 22:16

I. The Sacramentarian View

This view, while held by others, is best defended by apologists of the Churches of Christ.
This position teaches a regeneration by faith and works. This is a contradiction to the Gospel of John, which proclaims faith as the sole prerequisite to receiving eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-9 also prohibits a salvation of faith and works. Therefore, while this position does have strong grammatical support for its interpretation of 22:16, it has weak theological support.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Paul was regenerated on the Damascus Road.
(1) The Gospel was presented to him directly by Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), not later by Ananias. (2) Already (Acts 22:10) Paul said he had submitted in faith to Christ. (3) Paul was filled with the Spirit before his baptism with water (9:17-18).12
Given the unusual circumstances of the Damascus Road experience, it is difficult to reject the idea that Paul did believe then, and, therefore, did receive eternal life (as per the Gospel of John). While Toussaint holds that Paul was filled with the Spirit before he was baptized with water, one should note that 9:17-18 does not explicitly say so. It could be that, like the crowd at Pentecost, Saul did not receive the Holy Spirit until he was baptized. An instance like this should not be considered unlikely, given the transition between the two dispensations in the beginning of Acts and the case of OT saints who were also regenerated without possessing the Holy Spirit (cf. John 7:37-39). Thus, Saul's reception of the Spirit and the forgiveness of his sins would occur at his baptism and in accordance with Acts 2:38, even though he was regenerated on the Damascus Road.
Thirdly, this position fails to notice the unique setting of Acts 22:16. Luke records the conversion account of Saul three times in Acts (Acts 9, 22, 26). However, only once did Luke relate Ananias's demand for baptism with the washing away of sins. It is significant that the single occurrence was before a Jewish crowd in the Temple area in Jerusalem. Accordingly, the same general audience which heard Acts 2:38 also heard Acts 22:16. This writer failed to find a single defender of this view who produced a passage in Acts which addresses Gentiles with a demand to be baptized with the specific purpose of receiving the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Gentile Cornelius, in Acts 10, is promised the forgiveness of sins upon believing, and receives the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. There is nothing in Acts to contradict this as a pattern for Gentiles.13 Neither Acts 2:38 nor 22:16 is binding today. They are unique to the first century Palestinian. Only in this way can we take 2:38 and 22:16 at face value and yet avoid contradicting the Gospel of justification by grace through faith alone.

II. The Grammatical View

This view is held by such Bible scholars as James D. G. Dunn, Fritz Rienecker, and Stanley D. Toussaint.

III. The Ultra-Dispensational View Definition

This view has been defended by men like Charles F. Baker, E. W. Bullinger, A. E. Knoch, and Charles Welch.
As attractive as this view may at first appear to some, it requires two different ways for regeneration—one for the Jew and another for the Gentile. The Gospel of John and Paul in Romans 4 show that regeneration and justification always occurred at the moment of faith. The "ultra-dispensational" view also believes that the Church, which is the body of Christ, is not found in Acts. Arguments against this position are clearly articulated in Charles C. Ryrie's excellent book on the subject, Dispensationalism Today.
The "ultra-dispensational" view, therefore, is not without serious theological problems.

IV. The Transitional View Definition

Those who hold this view believe that the Church, the Body of Christ, was established on the day of Pentecost (unlike the ultra-dispensational view) and that regeneration occurs at the moment of faith (as per the Gospel of John). However, for certain Palestinian Jews, exposed to the ministry of John the Baptist and also having an extra degree of guilt for actually consenting to the murder of our Lord, the extra measure of public identification with the Lord in water baptism was the condition upon which they received the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This view has been espoused by S. Craig Glickman and Zane C. Hodges.
It attempts to take the grammar at face value and maintain justification by faith by recognizing three things:
(1) That the forgiveness of sins is not in all circumstances a synonym for justification or regeneration.
(2) That calling on the name of the Lord is something a believer, already regenerated, does.
(3) That Acts 2:38 and 22:16 are of one cloth, each reflecting a unique situation which is not duplicated today and which does not affect the message which Paul himself preached to the Gentiles: that justification is by grace alone through faith alone.