For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[MrDeets]

Nick you are so wrong

Do I have to quote scriptures that are obvious

Miracles are never performed by the flesh but by the Holy Spirit, thus you do not witness miracles

Do you need the scripture for that too?

How's this for obvious... James 2:24-25. It doesn't matter how obvious you say something is. If you can't/don't back your thoughts about scripture with scripture, they mean squat to most God fearing Christ serving members of the Body of Christ.

In Pauls letter to Titus he says we learn to maintain good works so that we aren't unfruitful. Titus 3:14.

Good works are simply fruit. If an apple tree won't make apples, its not much of an Apple tree, but it is still an Apple tree. On the other side of that coin, if I stick apples on a cherry tree, its still not an apple tree. That is why works are simply the fruit. The roots and trunk make the tree, its fruit just tells me what it is.

 

[Livelystone]

How's this for obvious... James 2:24-25. It doesn't matter how obvious you say something is. If you can't/don't back your thoughts about scripture with scripture, they mean squat to most God fearing Christ serving members of the Body of Christ.

In Pauls letter to Titus he says we learn to maintain good works so that we aren't unfruitful. Titus 3:14.

Good works are simply fruit. If an apple tree won't make apples, its not much of an Apple tree, but it is still an Apple tree. On the other side of that coin, if I stick apples on a cherry tree, its still not an apple tree. That is why works are simply the fruit. The roots and trunk make the tree, its fruit just tells me what it is.

Mr Deets

The fruit you are using to compare to the works James speaks of that proves his faith, is comparing apples to oranges.

James speaks of proving his faith with works and the only way faith can be proven is through divine works. If that is not a known fact in the BOC here at TOL it is the fault of those here who claim to have such knowledge but have yet to learn how to lawfully prove any doctrine true or false. In other words, teachers who still need to be taught that just so happens to include Nick.

John 10: 32-38 and John 14: 10-12 gives examples of faith being proven by works.

However your passage in Titus is only speaking of "nice guy works" and have nothing to do with proving the presence of true faith that can be proven only through divine works that can only be done by the Holy Spirit.

Nick is not alone in this transgression but it his attitude of superior knowledge that if it was true should not have made posting references necessary of what should be common knowledge to anyone possessing knowledge of the Holy Spirit.

That is the difference between respectfully asking someone versus doing what he does by accusing others of thinking carnally and how their limited knowledge is not even worth posting here. On the other hand the truth is when it comes to the things of God, it does not appear that Nick knows his left hand from his right hand given evidence because he has no works to prove his faith. What he has in their place is a condescending attitude that he displays towards all those outside of his MAD clic, that BTW defies the commandments of Jesus.

Back to "faith works"

Gal.3:5 and 1Cor. 12: 9-11 are more examples of faith being proven through divine works. Through three separate witnesses that back James's "works that prove faith" that I have now given you proves my point lawfully and not just by opinion.

However amongst learned people who already know the truth and have witnessed miracles, those three witnesses are simply foundational "foolishness of God" knowledge, albeit that is far beyond the wisdom of carnal men.

Blessings

LS

 

[MrDeets]

Lively... I will respond ASAP, just very busy right now. Thank you for your response!!

 

[Livelystone]

Lively... I will respond ASAP, just very busy right now. Thank you for your response!!

No problem, take your time.

If the thread moves on rather than disrupt it we can still have a dialogue "off thread"

Meanwhile I did think of those who proved their faith without a divine work seen done through them while alive, but believing in Him to do a divine work through the resurrection gave up their lives.

Certainly some of those of Heb.11 qualify for that or when Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice when through him the promise was to continue.

Blessings

LS

 

[chickenman]

Please go ahead and take it offline, lively, or maybe to another thread. We're working hard to keep this thread on track with the purpose stated in the OP.

Hopefully you understand.

Thanks,

Randy

 

[Choleric]

Hey, bro. We don't cross paths much. Glad to see you over in this neck o'...

Thanks for taking the time. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you as well.

Is this the passage to which you're referring?

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29
​

If so, it doesn't say "only" work. However, regardless of the dispensation in which one lived, believing in God was fundamental. Under the Mosaic law, if one performed all the sacrifices religiously yet had no faith, his sacrifices were irrelevant. God desired a broken and contrite heart over sacrifices and burnt offerings (Ps. 51:16-17). So Jesus can say:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
​

...because that work ("and is baptized") was required as a demonstration of the fundamental requirement of faith ("he that believeth"). But without faith, then the work would be irrelevant. Hence...

...but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mar. 16:16
​

The one who had faith would do that which was required by God. So a sacrifice done by the faithful man was an act of believing God. Loving one's brethren, per Jesus' command, would be an act of "believing on Him whom He hath sent." Etc.

OK, I see your point, but (if I can play devil's advocate here) it seems like a perfect place for Jesus to lay out their duty.

Here is where I am: I understand the 70th week. I understand the kingdom was offered until at the very least Stephen's stoning. i understand that there will be a different program in the millennium, which is the kingdom of heaven offered to the Jews. I also understand that passages like Matt 25 are doctrine for that kingdom. My difficulty is in delineating between the kingdom offered to the Jews, and the doctrine of salvation by grace alone offered to the church and when that doctrine ceased and Eph 2:8-9 took root.

In CHrist, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Paul rebuked Peter for trying to live differently than the Gentiles. It seems, on face value, that there was a transition for all the early Jewish converts to life under the "law of liberty in Christ". It also seems that there is some doctrine for the Jews after the rapture in the NT Heb-Jude. I am just trying to sort through it. Hopefully that helps you see where I am coming from as you answer. thanks for that.

No. Hopefully the above addressed this adequately. Jesus' audience in the epistles were required to keep the commandments and to faithfully endure to the end. This would be their demonstration of faith in the Son of God, enabling them to inherit the promises. The Body of Christ, however, is not required to do any works in order to receive our inheritance (Rom. 4:5).

:thumb:

Can you elaborate? What do you mean with "how you deal with the gospels"?

well, Matt for instance speaks primarily of the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of Matthew is doctrine for the Jews in the kingdom of heaven which is the millennium. How do you address the gospels as a whole? Are they 100% for the Jews only or do you apportion them in some other way?

According to Jeremiah 31, it must apply to the houses of Israel and Judah. Looking at that passage and related passages, then I define the new covenant as:

• not according to the covenant God made with their fathers - Jer. 31:32
• the law will be written in their inward parts - Jer. 31:33
• He will be their God, and they shall be His people - Jer. 31:33
• They shall teach no more every m an his neighbor and brother to know the Lord, for they will all knw the Lord - Jer. 31:34
• God will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more - Jer. 31:34
• He will cleanse them - Ez. 36:25
• He will give them a new heart - Ez. 36:26
• He will put His spirit within them, causing them to walk in His statutes - Ez. 36:27
• [as a result] they will keep his judgments, and do them - Ez. 36:27
• He will finish the transgression - Dan 9:24
• He will make an end of sins - Dan 9:24
• He will make reconciliation for iniquity - Dan 9:24
• He will bring in everlasting righteousness - Dan 9:24
• He will seal up vision and prophecy - Dan 9:24
• He will anoint the most Holy - Dan 9:24

The new covenant with Israel and Judah would be entered into by those who would endure faithfully to the end. It will coincide with the giving of the land promise and the kingdom promise. Entering into His rest (Heb. 4) encompasses entry into the land, kingdom, and new covenant.

I see that and I think it makes a great deal of sense, which is where my "new heart" question comes from. I see verses that agree with this conclusion like Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

But how about these verses:

Gal_3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal_3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:



I don't see in the doctrine for the Body of Christ (Paul's letters) that we have a new heart, per se. However, having been placed into Christ, we have the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16). So in that sense, we definitely have a new heart.

Thanks for the questions, brother. I didn't elaborate with scriptures on too much. So let me know if you'd like me to zoom in on anything in particular, and I'll do a better job of laying out the biblical position on it.

Thanks,
Randy

I would like to drill down into the covenant mostly. I don't want to bog you down with too much work. I need to understand the convenants to Abraham better, as well as how they apply to the BOC and how the term "new covenant" applies in that context.

I really need to study this. :cheers:

 

[john w]

Thanks for taking the time. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you as well.



OK, I see your point, but (if I can play devil's advocate here) it seems like a perfect place for Jesus to lay out their duty.

Here is where I am: I understand the 70th week. I understand the kingdom was offered until at the very least Stephen's stoning. i understand that there will be a different program in the millennium, which is the kingdom of heaven offered to the Jews. I also understand that passages like Matt 25 are doctrine for that kingdom. My difficulty is in delineating between the kingdom offered to the Jews, and the doctrine of salvation by grace alone offered to the church and when that doctrine ceased and Eph 2:8-9 took root.

In CHrist, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Paul rebuked Peter for trying to live differently than the Gentiles. It seems, on face value, that there was a transition for all the early Jewish converts to life under the "law of liberty in Christ". It also seems that there is some doctrine for the Jews after the rapture in the NT Heb-Jude. I am just trying to sort through it. Hopefully that helps you see where I am coming from as you answer. thanks for that.




:thumb:



well, Matt for instance speaks primarily of the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of Matthew is doctrine for the Jews in the kingdom of heaven which is the millennium. How do you address the gospels as a whole? Are they 100% for the Jews only or do you apportion them in some other way?




I see that and I think it makes a great deal of sense, which is where my "new heart" question comes from. I see verses that agree with this conclusion like Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

But how about these verses:

Gal_3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal_3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:



I don't see in the doctrine for the Body of Christ (Paul's letters) that we have a new heart, per se. However, having been placed into Christ, we have the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16). So in that sense, we definitely have a new heart.



I would like to drill down into the covenant mostly. I don't want to bog you down with too much work. I need to understand the convenants to Abraham better, as well as how they apply to the BOC and how the term "new covenant" applies in that context.

I really need to study this. :cheers:

"I really need to study this."-Choleric

A refreshing statement-well done. We all do, especially me. I do know the basics, "the big picture," so to speak.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks for taking the time. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you as well.

Same here. Sorry for the long delay. I look at a thread sometimes without having time to do anything in it. Then it drops off my UCP radar, and I forget.



I wrote:

Is this the passage to which you're referring?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.*John 6:29
If so, it doesn't say "only" work. However, regardless of the dispensation in which one lived, believing in God was fundamental. Under the Mosaic law, if one performed all the sacrifices religiously yet had no faith, his sacrifices were irrelevant. God desired a broken and contrite heart over sacrifices and burnt offerings (Ps. 51:16-17). So Jesus can say:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
...because that work ("and is baptized") was required as a demonstration of the fundamental requirement of faith ("he that believeth"). But without faith, then the work would be irrelevant. Hence...
...but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mar. 16:16
The one who had faith would do that which was required by God. So a sacrifice done by the faithful man was an act of believing God. Loving one's brethren, per Jesus' command, would be an act of "believing on Him whom He hath sent." Etc.

To which you responded:

OK, I see your point, but (if I can play devil's advocate here) it seems like a perfect place for Jesus to lay out their duty.

There are certainly a lot of places like that in the scriptures – places where only faith or belief is mentioned. But that's not something new. Even in the prophetic scriptures that undeniably include the keeping of the commandments, it was said that “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4), with no elaboration on keeping the law. It was understood that faith in God meant doing what He said to do. And the faithful man under the law would keep the law. So every time Jesus spoke of “believing”, He wasn't required to spell out what the believing man would do. It was understood; it permeated their way of life, their history, their relationship with God, etc.

I addressed this very thing in a response to Jerry a while back. Click here for that post.

Here is where I am: I understand the 70th week. I understand the kingdom was offered until at the very least Stephen's stoning. i understand that there will be a different program in the millennium, which is the kingdom of heaven offered to the Jews. I also understand that passages like Matt 25 are doctrine for that kingdom. My difficulty is in delineating between the kingdom offered to the Jews, and the doctrine of salvation by grace alone offered to the church and when that doctrine ceased and Eph 2:8-9 took root.

I understand. Maybe this post will help a little. If not, then let's keep working through it together and see what happens.

In CHrist, there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Paul rebuked Peter for trying to live differently than the Gentiles. It seems, on face value, that there was a transition for all the early Jewish converts to life under the "law of liberty in Christ". It also seems that there is some doctrine for the Jews after the rapture in the NT Heb-Jude. I am just trying to sort through it. Hopefully that helps you see where I am coming from as you answer. thanks for that.

It definitely does help to know what you're working through. Keep bringing up specifics in this thread so we can discuss them and sharpen each other.

When you refer to the “law of liberty in Christ”, can you tell me where you're getting that phrase? Are you referring to the “law of liberty” that is in James? Or are you using the phrase generically of just the idea of our liberty in Christ?


I asked:

Can you elaborate? What do you mean with "how you deal with the gospels"?

To which you responded:

well, Matt for instance speaks primarily of the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of Matthew is doctrine for the Jews in the kingdom of heaven which is the millennium. How do you address the gospels as a whole? Are they 100% for the Jews only or do you apportion them in some other way?

The four gospel accounts are just like I Chronicles in the sense that they are simply a chronicling something. In the case of the gospels, they're chronicling [part of] the life of Jesus. So they're not like epistles that are written for the purpose of giving instruction/doctrine for living. They're simply accounts of His life (including Luke, a letter written to Theophilus). In them, it's easy to see that the time period represented in them was a time when Israel was definitely operating under the old covenant and awaiting the time of their people's restoration...being brought into the promised land and promised kingdom and promised new covenant.

The purpose of John is stated in John 20:31. Luke gives his purpose for writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:1-4. Surely all four accounts were written for similar purposes: to give any reader factual information about their Messiah so they could know what He did, what He preached, how He suffered, how He died and rose, etc. The accounts are necessary to be able to know the One Who is to be believed upon for salvation.

So that's how I take the gospel accounts. As true, inspired accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. They are for us all. But it's obvious that the time period in them was for Israel operating under the old covenant. So when we see doctrinal matters in them "(show yourself to the priest", "keep the commandments", "do what the Pharisees say because they sit in Moses' seat", "tithe", etc.), we have to simply accept that they pertained to Israel and not us who are in the Body of Christ.

I see that and I think it makes a great deal of sense, which is where my "new heart" question comes from. I see verses that agree with this conclusion like Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

But how about these verses:

Gal_3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal_3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

I'm not sure what you're asking me about these passages. Can you clarify?

I would like to drill down into the covenant mostly. I don't want to bog you down with too much work. I need to understand the convenants to Abraham better, as well as how they apply to the BOC and how the term "new covenant" applies in that context.

Okay. Fire away if you have any specifics, and I'll do my best. And if I don't know or am not sure, then I'll tell you. And maybe someone else can chime in if they have an answer.

I really need to study this. :cheers:

Amen, brother. :cheers:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I addressed this very thing in a response to Jerry a while back. Click here for that post.

Here is my response to Randy's post:

Let us look at the verse in question:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

You say that the words about receiving "eternal life" and "passed from death unto life" are in regard to a future resurrection:

With that in mind, the context of John 5:24 is, again, all about the resurrection. Verses 21, 25, 28, and 29 each speak very specifically about a future resurrection. And verse 24 speaks of "pass[ing] from death unto life", something which looks to me to be another way to put..."resurrection". Which makes sense, considering that the verse is surrounded by resurrection passages.

Since the Lord Jesus used the "present" tense when He says "hath eternal life" it is impossible that He was speaking of anything in the future. Here is a definition of the Greek present tense:

"The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense" (The Blue Letter Bible)

Also, the words "is passed from death unto life" are in the "perfect" tense:

"The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated" (Blue Letter Bible).

So again, the Lord Jesus is not referring to anything in the future, much less a future resurrection.

The Lord Jesus states that those who believe have eternal life. They have already been given eternal life. And here is what the Lord Jesus says about those to whom He has given eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn.10:28).

They shall NEVER perish!

That matches up perfectly with perhaps the most well known verse in the Bible:

"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).

Since this does not fit your ideas you just change the meaning of "believe" and make that word mean "abide":

Abiding in Him is what defines true belief.

Faith or true belief is never defined as "abiding." Just as you attempt to change the tense in regard to receiving eternal life now you must change the very meaning of "believe." The Greek-English Lexicons will be searched in vain for any definition where the Greek word translated "believe" is said to mean "abide." Faith is defined in the following way by the author of Hebrews:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb.11:1).

There is nothing here that even hints that "belief" is defined as "abide."

So when we peel away your errors we are then left with the fact that the Lord Jesus told those who believe that they HAVE eternal life and He also says that those to whom He has given eternal life SHALL NEVER PERISH!

Salvation by faith alone.

Next let us look at the following verses again. The Lord Jesus told the woman:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

To this you never deny that she was saved by faith and faith alone:

Until then, she was saved in the same way that a drowning man is saved when he is pulled into a boat. But can he ever fall out of the boat and start drowning again?

The drowning man is actually saved when he is pulled into a boat. You liken his salvation to her salvation. So in effect you are admitting that the woman was saved by faith and faith alone--only, according to you, she did not possess eternal security.

Nonetheless, you admit that she was saved by faith apart from any works. You just made my case!

I just want to be crystal clear that the passage has been addressed. So I hope you won't say, again, that no one has ever answered your question about John 5:24. Accept it or not, it's been addressed.

Yes, it has been addressed but unfortunately your answer depends on changing the tense as to when believers receive eternal life. You also must change the meaning of the words "eternal life" into "the resurrection." Then to top it off, you have to define "faith" as meaning "abide" despite the fact that that definition is not valid.

If this is your final answer then fine. But I would think that you would want to clear up your mis-statements. However, that is up to you.

 

[chickenman]

I've no need to attempt to clear anything up with you, Jerry. You can play your games with someone else. But..oh joy...what a pleasure it is to have you back.

:wave:

 

[Tambora]

Let us look at the verse in question:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

You say that the words about receiving "eternal life" and "passed from death unto life" are in regard to a future resurrection:

Since the Lord Jesus used the "present" tense when He says "hath eternal life" it is impossible that He was speaking of anything in the future. Here is a definition of the Greek present tense:

"The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense" (The Blue Letter Bible)
​

It is in the Present Active Indicative form (action at the present time).

Also, the words "is passed from death unto life" are in the "perfect" tense:

"The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated" (Blue Letter Bible)
​

It is in the Perfect Active Indicative form (completed action in the past but has continuing results in the present).


However, you must also take into consideration the beginning of the verse which sets the mood of the verse:

"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me".
​

"heareth" & "believeth"
Both are in the Present Active Participle form (an open ended action, continuing action).


What the verse is saying is that he who CONTINUES to hear and believe has everlasting life.


Which corresponds to Jesus saying that he who endures to end will be saved.



Matthew 24
(13) But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I've no need to attempt to clear anything up with you, Jerry. You can play your games with someone else. But..oh joy...what a pleasure it is to have you back.

If it is a pleasure to have me back then why do you insult me by saying that I am playing games?

You think that you are entitled to insult anyone who disagrees with your views. That attitude certainly does not match the behavior which characterizes a Christian:

"therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph.4:1-3).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is in the Perfect Active Indicative form (completed action in the past but has continuing results in the present).


However, you must also take into consideration the beginning of the verse which sets the mood of the verse:

"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me".
​

"heareth" & "believeth"
Both are in the Present Active Participle form (an open ended action, continuing action).

According to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment)" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).

The Lord was not telling anyone that they must continue to hear Him speaking in the distant future in order to be saved. Instead, those who were believing Him as He spoke His words were at that moment passed from death unto life and will not come into judgment.

If the present tense in those verses demands a continuous action into the future the erse world say that the "will receive eternal life" and not that they "have eternal life."

Which corresponds to Jesus saying that he who endures to end will be saved.

Matthew 24
(13) But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

So the woman to whom the Lord Jesus addressed the following words was not yet saved since she had not yet endured to the end?:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven...And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48,50).

The Christian already possesses "eternal life" (1 Jn.5:11) and here is what the ord Jesus says about those to whom He has given eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).

Matthew 24:13 is not teaching doctrine but instead is speaking about how believers will be treated with the "great tribulation" in view. The Greek word translated "saved" can mean "deliverance" and by the context we can see that the reference to "salvation" is in regard "deliverance" from persecution and murder:

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake...But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mt.24:9,13).

Those who endure to the end of the "great tribulation" will be saved or delivered in the following way:

"On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem...On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8-9).

Nothing you have said here even comes close to defending Randy's idea that the following verse is speaking about a "future resurrection":

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

Here we can see that the refence is in regard to things which has already happened:

"hath everlasting life"

"is passed from death unto life."

There is nothing in this verse that even hints that a "future resurrection" is in view.

 

[Tambora]

Don't get so cocky with me.
I took Greek.
You don't have to be an 'expert scholar' to know Greek.
You can learn it yourself.

I was not "defending" a future resurrection view.
I said absolutely nothing about a future resurrection.

I simply gave the Greek syntax of the one verse.

In Greek, 'present' is not limited strictly to the present time, anymore than 'masculine' is strictly limited to male.

It is equivalent to saying in English, "While you love me, I love you".

"I love you" in that sentence is written in present tense, but it is qualified by the beginning of the sentence "While you love me".

The qualifier is implying:
while you loved me in the past, I loved you
while you are loving me in the present, I am loving you
while you are going to love me in the future, I will love you

In other words, it is implying that I only love you while you are loving me; and does not imply that I have, do, or will love you while you didn't, don't, or will not love me.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Don't get so cocky with me.
I took Greek.
You don't have to be an 'expert scholar' to know Greek.
You can learn it yourself.

I was not "defending" a future resurrection view.
I said absolutely nothing about a future resurrection.

I did not get cocky with you. If you were not defending something "future" then you could have fooled me since you were trying to prove that the salvation only came after enduring to the end.

I simply gave the Greek syntax of the one verse.

You had no answer to what I said.

 

[chickenman]

If it is a pleasure to have me back then why do you insult me by saying that I am playing games?

You think that you are entitled to insult anyone who disagrees with your views. That attitude certainly does not match the behavior which characterizes a Christian:

"therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph.4:1-3).

You and I have been around this block many times before, Jerry. You're cocky (as tambora clearly sees), you're patronizing, you're pushy, and you can't stomach the idea of someone disagreeing with you, so you act this way. You certainly don't exemplify Eph. 4:1-3.

I honestly don't care if someone disagrees with me. Most people don't agree with me. But most people don't handle themselves in their disagreements (with me) in the way you do.

You're welcome to post your views in this thread, Jerry. As a MidActs believer, then it's fair that others see how you differ from me and some others. I think that's a great idea. What's not a great idea is for you to disrespect the request of the OP and repeated throughout by coming on this thread with your superior and patronizing attitude. So please either be respectful and simply share your view...or leave.

Again, I've not interest in playing your games. So please take them to one of the other ten million threads where your mess will fit in.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I honestly don't care if someone disagrees with me. Most people don't agree with me. But most people don't handle themselves in their disagreements (with me) in the way you do.

Randy, you say that you do not care if someone disagrees with you. But your actions tell a different story.

When you cannot answer the message you attack the messenger. In my case, you did not even attempt to defend your ideas but instead you attack me by saying that I am playing games.

Again, I've not interest in playing your games. So please take them to one of the other ten million threads where your mess will fit in.

Let me see. You give a link to your response to what I said earlier:

I addressed this very thing in a response to Jerry a while back. Click here for that post.

But when I decided to show exactly how I responded to your response you accuse me of playing games.

 

[chickenman]

I don't care that you disagree. I care HOW you disagree. HUGE difference.

Hopefully you'll refrain from any more of your Jerryatrics (in this thread, at least). From this point forward, I'll certainly refrain from any more of this pointless exchange with you, Jerry. If you want to respectfully contribute in this thread, then please do so. Otherwise, please leave so that those who have said they like having a non-debate thread can actually have it.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[john w]

Time Past/But Now/Ages to Come

underline/bold is my emphasis:

"That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:7


"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:11-13

"...in time past..."

The LORD God will bless all on-Jews through the nation of His own creation Israel. Israel is created as God’s chosen people, His "elect" for service(holy/sanctify=to be set aside, separated, "severed" for God's use/purpose). God created the nation Israel to have a privileged status before Him as a "peculiar", "different", separated("holy"=sanctified) people:

"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Exodus 11:7

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ..." Exodus 19:5

"For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." Exodus 33:16

"But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people." Leviticus 20:24

"For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Numbers 23:9

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6

"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Deuteronomy 10:15

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2

"Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken." Deuteronomy 26:17-19

"And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods." 2 Samuel 7:23/2 Chronicles 17:21

"And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant." 2Kings 5:15

"For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure." Psalms 135:4

"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalms 147:19,20

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." Amos 3:2

In time past, Gentiles are blessed through Israel's rise to kingdom glory(Isaiah 49:6, Luke 2:30-32) as "...the Priests of the LORD....", "...the Ministers of our God:..."(Isaiah 61:6), "...as His "... messenger..."(Isaiah 42:19), His "...servant..." He has "chosen..." as His "...elect...(Isaiah 41:8, 44:1, 45:4, 54:17, 65:9). Israel was to become the LORD God's witness to the unbelieving world of the promised seed , the Lord Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:16), that there is one true and living God(Isaiah 43:1, 10-12; Matthew 24:14; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8; 10:41,43):

" But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine......Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God." " Isaiah 43:1, 10-12

And thus, Israel was to be the LORD God's vessel(Jeremiah chapter 18, 19:11; Isaiah 52:11) by which "all families of the earth(shall) be blessed"(Genesis 12:2,3) through the Lord Jesus Christ. Israel was to be the appointed channel and were to be delivered from the curse of the law in order that the blessing of Abraham might come through the Lord Jesus Christ:

References: Genesis 12:1-3, 22:16-18, 49:10; Exodus 19:5,6; Psalms 67:2, 96:3, 98:1-3; Isaiah 41:8, 42:6,7, 44:1, 49:6, 56:6-8, 60:3, 61:6-9; Jeremiah 33:9; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Zechariah 8:13-23; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Matthew 5:16, 28:18-19; Mark 16:15; Luke 2:30-32, 24:46,47; John 4:22; Acts 1:8, 3:25; Romans 3:1,2, 9:4, 15:8; Galatians 3:16

This explains the Holy Bible's John 4:22, w/o spinning it.

Pick it up, man of chicken.

 

[Bright Raven]

What is it that you do not understand Jerry? This thread is not open for debate. It is for those who wish to learn about what MADists believe. See post #1. Ask valid questions or leave the thread alone.