ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bob Hill]

GeneMBridges,

The only ones whom Christ was speaking to at the time of the true vine statement were the eleven apostles.
John 15:1-16 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 “No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

According to the bold statements, they could lose their salvation.

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

If we let the first and second chapters of Galatians set the stage then the issue in Galatians was the disagreement between Paul and Peter, James, and John. The Judaizers are never mentioned in Galatians, but Paul recounts that he rebuked Peter to his face.




Jesus taught that salvation came through keeping the law (Luke 18:18-25), and never mentions grace. Jesus did teach faith and love, but to say he did not teach works is foolish. Did Jesus not say that the Pharisees were wrong because they tithed only, when they should have DONE more important matters of justice AND still tithed. Jesus clealy taugh works. Perhaps you are the one with the colored glasses on?

Paul, in Galatians, said that those who preach a false gospel (heteros= another of a different kind vs allos= another of the same kind) were to be cursed (cf. Catholic/Gk. anathema in Gal. 1). Peter and John did not preach a false gospel worthy of damnation did they? The historical background related to Judaizers that said salvation involved faith + works/law.

Paul's disagreement with Peter was not an affirmation that they both had two legitimate gospels for two dispensations. It was a rebuke of erroneous thinking on Peter's part (Gal. 2:11 he was in the wrong). He emphasized grace and reminded Peter that the law was not necessary for salvation (Rom. 4 makes a case that it never was necessary, even back in Abe's days).

 

[godrulz]

GeneMBridges,

The only ones whom Christ was speaking to at the time of the true vine statement were the eleven apostles.
John 15:1-16 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 “No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

According to the bold statements, they could lose their salvation.

Bob Hill

There is no reason to think that we are unconditionally saved, even if we blatantly renounce Christ and His finished work. Jesus and Paul are in agreement on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. There is always a conditional element in contexts about eternal security. The grace and work of the Spirit can be rejected or resisted (in all dispensations).

 

[Bob Hill]

godrulz, wrote:

Paul likely did baptize at times, even as he was baptized following in the footsteps of His Master. He left the time consuming baptizing and discipleship to other leaders so he could move on and preach the Gospel of Christ. Baptism is a step of obedience/discipleship subsequent to salvation. It is not necessary for Paul to baptize his own converts anymore than Jesus or John did when they preached the Gospel. Billy Graham preaches Christ and encourages baptism. He does not baptize those who come to Christ under his ministry. Do not read more into one text than is merited.

But Paul wrote in 1 Cor 1:13-17 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 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.

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

godrulz, wrote:





But Paul wrote in 1 Cor 1:13-17 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 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.

Bob Hill

The context affirms that Paul DID baptize, contrary to Mid-Acts views. The immediate context is about divisions in the church and personal preferences. Various divisions were arising as different believers preferred and exalted one leader or ministry over others. Paul reminded them that some of them had come to Christ under other leaders. He was turning the focus to Christ and His gospel, not Paul's supposed superior spirituality. He baptized some, but not all. Perhaps the reason he moved on was so cliques would not build around his personality with everyone thinking Pauline preaching or baptism was the only way to go (exclusive vs personal preferences are wrong). He was not against baptism, but focused on the heart of the Gospel, the person and work of Christ. Others in Corinth and other churches took care of the normative baptism and discipleship so Paul could focus on itinerant preaching and training leaders for local churches. This is not a proof text for or against believer's baptism (though the fact that Paul baptized is more problematic for your view than mine cf. Lydia in Acts 16...post Mid-Acts).

 

[Bob Hill]

godrulz,

Before Paul came on the scene, water baptism was part of the salvation requirement.

The gospel started with the ministry of John the Baptist. His message was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat 3:2)! He preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:3). He preached that a person had to be baptized to be saved.

Let’s remember the proper procedures for good Bible study: 1. Find out who is speaking. 2. Find out to whom they are speaking. 3. Find out what dispensation it is being said under. 4. Observe the passage in its context.

To whom was John the Baptist sent? It says in John 1:31 that John was sent to Israel: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” Well, that’s pretty clear. John came to Israel to show that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ. It was at a time when God was only dealing with the Jews. The method of salvation was repent and be baptized for your sins. This was the message of the kingdom gospel. Luke 16:16 shows when the kingdom gospel started: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”

Did Christ and the apostles preach the same gospel that John preached? Yes, for it says that they did in Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 1:14,15. Now, notice the context. Baptism was linked with the message of the kingdom promised to David. This was the good news of the circumcision.

When John began his ministry there was only one baptism, water. It was necessary for salvation. We even find Jesus saying to Nicodemus in John 3:5 that if a man wants to enter into the kingdom of God, he must be born of water and of the Spirit. This requirement of water baptism fits the context of John’s message. John began baptizing, and the apostles continued after the resurrection and the day of Pentecost.

Christ commanded the Eleven in Mark 16:15-16, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Peter insisted on the same requirement ten days later on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. “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.” Here we see that water baptism was necessary before Holy Spirit baptism would take place. So, now for the first time, we have two baptisms. Water baptism was necessary for salvation. Then, Holy Spirit baptism took place. From the context of verses 22 and 39 we see that this happened while God was still dealing with Israel. Peter was only speaking to Israel in 22, and he was referring to the promise made to Israel in 39.

Next, something very important happens. The Apostle Paul is saved. We will not go into the differences in Paul’s salvation, although it appears that Paul was saved under the same message Peter preached in Acts 2. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Since God had started a new dispensation with Paul (Gal 1:11-2:9; Eph 3:1-9), all kinds of different things began to happen.
1. Peter got a vision in Acts 10 which showed that Israel had been set aside. They were no longer God’s special people. This was shown by the vision given to Peter when the law of clean and unclean animals was set aside (Lev 20:24-26).
2. Peter was sent to a Gentile and told by the Holy Spirit to doubt nothing (Acts 10:20).
3. The most significant event happened when Peter went to the Gentiles. When they believed, the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter’s message before he could tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. In fact, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles while Peter was still preaching. The Jews who accompanied Peter were amazed. This, indeed, was a dispensational sign from God that something had changed.

What had changed? God had started a new program when He saved Paul. However, since God would only reveal the new message to the Apostle Paul, Peter was still preaching the same message he had always preached (Acts 10:34-43).

1. At first there was only one baptism, John’s. It was necessary for salvation.
2. Then things started changing when Paul was saved.
3. The Holy Spirit fell on Gentiles before they were water baptized. Remember, water baptism was a sign to Jews to show Christ to them.

Sometime during his second missionary journey the Apostle Paul told the body of Christ about the baptisms which they knew of, in this manner: 1 Cor 1:14,17 “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius . . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”. From this we see that Paul was not under the great commission which was given to the circumcision apostles.

In the same epistle, he wrote, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks” (1 Cor 12:13). So, water baptism had changed from being the only baptism, and necessary for salvation, to a ritual which had faded away.

Next, another very important incident happened. God finished showing Israel that they had been set aside. He had done this in a progressive manner which reached its conclusion in Acts 28:28. It started in Acts 13:46, continued in Acts 18:6, and was concluded in Acts 28:28.

After Israel had been shown that they had been set aside, Paul was inspired by God to write Ephesians. In Ephesians 4:3-6, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians today. He wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” It doesn’t say two baptisms. It says there “is one baptism”? Which one is it then? It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

We can see that the gospel message started out with one baptism, water. This was necessary for salvation.

It progressed to two: water first, then, Holy Spirit baptism. The water baptism was still necessary for salvation.

Finally, in this dispensation, it returned to one, Holy Spirit, which is now necessary for salvation. After the rapture of the body of Christ, the circumcision gospel will be in place again. Water baptism will become necessary for salvation again according to 1 Pet 3:18-22.

Therefore, we must always search the Scriptures to see what is right dispensationally.

Bob Hill

 

[patman]

Godrulz

Godrulz

hello Godrulz

I am new to this thread, so forgive me for not having must history in your arguments as I respond to you. And Forgive me if I misrepresent your thoughts here if I do.

As I read your posts here and in other places, I gather you to be an open theist, and you know that the future is open to change.

And you said sometime ago "Take off the Mid-Acts glasses."

It fits so well with the rest of the bible that something happened with Paul that never happened before. Before Paul, the entire bible preaches "Repent, follow the rules and be saved." and "If you do not continue to follow the rules, you will no longer be saved"

Bob Hill's post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=951210&postcount=981 shows that pretty well. But Paul says that grace alone saves us. No requirement to follow the law as we are dead to it.

How can both Christ's message of "saved by following the law" and Paul's message of "saved by grace alone" be both true at the same time? Something must have changed somewhere, right?

As an Open Theist, It shouldn't be that farfetched of an idea, that circumstances change requiring a new dispensation to come about.

So I guess that's my question. Is it that hard to believe for you, even considering the otherwise apparent contradictions of scripture that would seem to exist with out the idea?

Thanks, godrulz
-Patman

 

[Bob Hill]

godrulz,


We must study the history of water baptism in the Scriptures to come to the vital understanding of its relationship to the covenant of circumcision. We know that a number of baptisms are mentioned in the Old Testament.

Numbers 19:9-21 shows that a water rite was necessary for salvation under the law. Num 19:9-21 Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. 10 And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. 11 He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. 12 He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him. 14 This is the law when a man dies in a tent: All who come into the tent and all who are in the tent shall be unclean seven days; 15 and every open vessel, which has no cover fastened on it, is unclean. 16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by a sword or who has died, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. 17 And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave. 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water of purification shall wash his clothes; and he who touches the water of purification shall be unclean until evening.

Today, we can see that Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, is the antitype of the red heifer. So it’s easy to see why the Jews disputed with John the Baptist’s disciples about purification when he was baptizing the multitudes who came to him. This dispute probably arose because John was baptizing with authority. Yet, they seemed to think that he was not in compliance with the statutes of Numbers 19. Questions were asked. Why are you baptizing? Who are you? What is your authority? He gave his credentials by quoting the scriptures about the forerunner of Messiah. John had a commission to the nation. I believe the Scriptures show his purpose was to bring Israel back into covenant relationship with God. This would be accomplished by purification and remission of their sins.

Zacharias’ prophecy in Luke 1:67-77 established this. Luke 1:67-77 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying: 68 Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people, 69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of His servant David, 70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began, 71 That we should be saved from our enemies And from the hand of all who hate us, 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers And [notice] to remember His holy covenant, 73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham: 74 To grant us that we, Being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, 75 [notice] In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. 76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people By the remission of their sins.

In a future day, God said He would baptize (wash away the filth of) all Israel (Isa. 4:3,4). God would also judge at that time. Isaiah’s prophecy seems to be pointing to the time of the tribulation. This and similar passages may explain why the whole nation was in expectation (Lk. 3:15) and went out to John wondering if he was the Messiah.

It’s interesting to see that under the law, the priests were baptized when they were thirty years old (Num. 4:2,3,23; 8:6,7; 1 Chr. 23:3) in preparation for their consecration as priests (Ex. 28:41-29:9). The anointing with oil during this consecration may represent the Holy Spirit. Since Peter’s message was a Jewish gospel (Acts 2:22,36), water baptism preceded Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 2:38).

God promised to make Israel a kingdom of priests in Exodus 19:5,6 and Isaiah 61:6.

Ex. 19:5,6 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

Isaiah 61:6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, they shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast”.

I believe John the Baptist baptized Israel in fulfillment of Exodus 19:5,6 and Isaiah 61:6. He baptized great crowds for the Lord from all the tribes, not just from the tribe of Levi, according to Matthew 3:5,6, “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” Apparently John sprinkled them with water just as Moses confirmed the old covenant with Israel using blood (Ex. 24:3-8). Remember, in Ezekiel 36 God had promised to sprinkle them with water to make them clean. Again, it appears that John was preparing them to be a kingdom of priests.

In Acts 2:38, Peter was doing the same thing. In fact, the circumcision believers were later called a royal priesthood by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5,9 You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

John baptized Jesus when He was about 30 years old (Lk. 3:23), possibly for His priesthood. This baptism was for the sins of the world just as His death baptism (Lk. 12:50) was. That’s why He told John, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mat. 3:15). Christ was also baptized with the Spirit (Jo. 1:33). These three baptisms witness to Christ’s provision of eternal life according to 1 John 5:8-11 There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood 9 . . . . for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son . . . . 11 And this is the witness: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

John the Baptist explained why he baptized Christ. It was to reveal to Israel that Jesus was the Messiah: Jo. 1:31 “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water”.

John preached a baptism for the remission of sins in Matthew 3:1-6 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.’” 4 And John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

John preached a baptism for the remission of sins in Luke 3:3,8 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, 8 “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

This baptism was referred to as “a baptism of repentance” in Luke 3:3 and Acts 13:24 because the people confessed their sins while he was baptizing them (Mat. 3:6). This is why John castigated the Pharisees and lawyers when they came to his baptism but were not willing to submit to this aspect of its meaning (Lk. 7:30).

This baptism for repentance would be too humiliating for them. They preferred to resist the counsel of God for themselves. God’s counsel is that all have room for repentance 2 Pet. 3:9.

In Matthew 3:11, John said, “I indeed baptize you with water for repentance.” Their sins were forgiven when they submitted to this baptism while confessing their sins. This is why John’s baptism is also referred to as “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” in Lk. 3:3.

John 3:25 shows the Jews understood that the biblical purpose of baptism was purification. Whether or not they based their dispute directly on the purification of Numbers 19:9-21, we can see that John’s ministry was to bring “knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins to His people,” Israel according to Lk. 1:76,77.

Therefore, we can draw the following conclusions concerning water baptism:
1. It is Jewish, based on Mosaic law.
2. It is an initiatory rite for the priesthood.
3. It accompanied true repentance and confession of sins.
4. It resulted in the remission of sins.
5. It is associated with the Messianic Kingdom and the new covenant.

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

hello Godrulz

I am new to this thread, so forgive me for not having must history in your arguments as I respond to you. And Forgive me if I misrepresent your thoughts here if I do.

As I read your posts here and in other places, I gather you to be an open theist, and you know that the future is open to change.

And you said sometime ago "Take off the Mid-Acts glasses."

It fits so well with the rest of the bible that something happened with Paul that never happened before. Before Paul, the entire bible preaches "Repent, follow the rules and be saved." and "If you do not continue to follow the rules, you will no longer be saved"

Bob Hill's post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=951210&postcount=981 shows that pretty well. But Paul says that grace alone saves us. No requirement to follow the law as we are dead to it.

How can both Christ's message of "saved by following the law" and Paul's message of "saved by grace alone" be both true at the same time? Something must have changed somewhere, right?

As an Open Theist, It shouldn't be that farfetched of an idea, that circumstances change requiring a new dispensation to come about.

So I guess that's my question. Is it that hard to believe for you, even considering the otherwise apparent contradictions of scripture that would seem to exist with out the idea?

Thanks, godrulz
-Patman

There was a change from the old covenant (shadow/types) to the new covenant (reality in Christ). The OT saints looked ahead by faith to the promised Messiah. Animal sacrifices were obedience until the fulfillment came in the Lamb of God. We now look back to the cross and know the reality of Christ crucified, risen from the dead. An old covenant believer would cease to be saved if they reverted to unbelief. This may be evidenced by not following the rules since faith and obedience are linked (in both covenants). Jesus showed that following the rules (Pharisees) never saved anyone. He was full of grace and truth (Jn. 1) and simply called men to believe (follow, love, trust, obey) Him (Jn. 1:12; 3; 14:6; etc.).

I do not see two gospels post-resurrection of Christ. "Apparent" contradictions are resolvable without a Mid-Acts template.

Jesus did preach a kingdom message. This was postponed when the King was crucified and rejected by the Jews. From Acts 2 forward, Christ crucified and risen was preached. The heart of both messages was faith in Christ. Rom. 4 shows that grace/faith was even the heart of OT salvation (Abe). This faith was demonstrated differently in different dispensations, but it was still the grounds of grace and conditions of repentant faith/continuance in the faith that saved all saints.

 

[godrulz]

Bob:

There is a difference between baptisms in Scripture. The baptism of John Baptist was not identical to early OT rituals, nor latter Pauline believer's baptism. Regardless, baptism never saved anyone. Anyone who calls on the name of YHWH will be saved (people do not go to hell if they die before they find water?!).

We should not confuse Jewish rituals with NT believer's baptism (that was not limited to a short period of church history). We preach the gospel, disciple and teach, and baptize. Most believers today do not dispensationalize away significant amounts of NT teaching to support a preconceived template.

 

[patman]

There was a change from the old covenant (shadow/types) to the new covenant (reality in Christ).

.....

Rom. 4 shows that grace/faith was even the heart of OT salvation (Abe). This faith was demonstrated differently in different dispensations, but it was still the grounds of grace and conditions of repentant faith/continuance in the faith that saved all saints.

Thanks, godrulz.

I used to think that the change happened at the cross too. But after consideration of the messages of Paul, apparent time frames that things happened, I now think that it happened later than what you do.

God's grace was always a factor for sinners who were saved. But the difference is that back then grace came from faith and faith was dead without works. But as Paul starts preaching, faith does not require works.

Paul was a very different character. Everyone who followed Christ in his ministries, John, Peter, James, all preach the same "works" based message. Paul, who wasn't there for Christ's ministries, and who almost never associated with the 12, (I believe Paul said they wouldn't even know his face if they saw it) didn't have that works based message at all.

Instead he talks about being the first to receive the message of grace only as he talks about the mystery. I am sure you have read this before, and been told about it.

So, considering Paul's message is so different, he was the new guy, and he had the mystery, why wouldn't the dispensation have shifted later in the Bible, more towards the beginning of Paul's evangelical ministry?

Even though there was obviously a big change after the resurrection in their understanding of what Christ was there to do, they still preached faith-works. Paul was the only one not to do that.

 

[godrulz]

Paul did not preach 'easy believism'. Inherent in the NT concept of faith is a type of faith that is not mere mental assent. It is evidenced by works (James). This does not mean we are saved by works, but that saving faith (root) has works (fruit).

Ephesians 2:8-10 (Pauline) is the balance between grace, faith, and works (v. 10).

Acts 26:20 (post Mid-Acts) "I preached that they should repent and turn to God (repentant faith) and prove their repentance by their deeds (cf. James/works)." The Jews did not like this message (they should have if they thought works were salvific).

Acts 13:46 This gospel was preached to the Jews, but they rejected it. Paul now turned to the Gentiles with the same gospel. If they would have received the gospel, they would have been added to the church, just as many were as Peter preached this gospel of the risen Christ. This does not mean there were two gospels in the early church (two covenants=OT/NT; one gospel with two target audiences= Jewish/Gentile to form one in Christ).

 

[patman]

A little more wood for the fire

A little more wood for the fire

One more thing, godrulz,

Galatians 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul speaks of the himself having the gospel of the circumcised and of the uncircumcised. I.E. The gospel of the jews and gentiles. It sounds like two different things from this reading.

Paul preaches to the gentiles that grace alone saves, no works. The rest of them decide to go to the Jews with the message of grace-faith-works save. It sounds like all along, the 12 were preaching this other message while at the same time Paul isn't.

Pauls message is different from the 12, as he said, he didn't get it from them, but from God

Galatians 1
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It all seems so right to put the split in the middle of acts. Because all along the message has been faith-works.

The following show works are required:

Matthew 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

James 2:17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

The following both contradicts the previous, but is of Paul.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in 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.

It's just so different. And it is only different with Paul. The dispensation we are under relates to Paul's message. We should live our faith according to what Paul says, through Jesus, in this new dispensation.

That is why I think Mid-Acts is the place to be.

 

[elected4ever]

Hebrews 4:3 *For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

 

[godrulz]

One more thing, godrulz,

Galatians 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul speaks of the himself having the gospel of the circumcised and of the uncircumcised. I.E. The gospel of the jews and gentiles. It sounds like two different things from this reading.

Paul preaches to the gentiles that grace alone saves, no works. The rest of them decide to go to the Jews with the message of grace-faith-works save. It sounds like all along, the 12 were preaching this other message while at the same time Paul isn't.

Pauls message is different from the 12, as he said, he didn't get it from them, but from God

Galatians 1
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It all seems so right to put the split in the middle of acts. Because all along the message has been faith-works.

The following show works are required:

Matthew 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

James 2:17
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

The following both contradicts the previous, but is of Paul.

Galatians 2:16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in 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.

It's just so different. And it is only different with Paul. The dispensation we are under relates to Paul's message. We should live our faith according to what Paul says, through Jesus, in this new dispensation.

That is why I think Mid-Acts is the place to be.

There was a difference in messages. The disciples did not preach that Christ had risen from the dead while He was still alive!

Galatians 2:7 is more easily understood (grammatically and contextually) as two ministries taking the one gospel to two different target audiences. Virtually no commentators see it as a Mid-Acts proof texts (two gospels after the death and resurrection of Christ is not self-evident).

At the root of keeping commandments is the initial faith and trust (John 3) that makes one part of the people of God. As a modern Christian, do you endorse adultery and murder? Our obedience flows out of our love relationship with Christ (no different than OT saints).

 

[godrulz]

Hebrews 4:3 *For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

I'm on your side, but this verse is talking about God's work of creation being finished on the 7th day of creation week (see v. 4). The passage is talking about the Sabbath and Christ's fulfillment of it. It is not a proof text for or against good works (see other contexts for this).

 

[RobE]

The fact that we will disobey, or fall short, is knowable.:doh:

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

e4e-
If God knew who would and would not accept Jesus, why did Jesus die for all people? Why would Jesus have died for people who would not accept Him anyway?

And why would He [God] create Adam and Eve if He knew they were just going to fall, and He would have to send His Son? What sense does that make?

Lighthouse,

In effect Jesus did not die for those who reject HIm, but His death was sufficient for all.

My question to you: Why does it matter when He found out (1)at the cross or (2) before He made Adam that some would not avail themselves? And why would it matter whether He knew Judas would fall (1)at the Last Supper or (2)before He made Adam and that Judas would go to hell? After all, Judas always had the ability 'to do or to do otherwise'.

When you find out doesn't matter if you're going to allow it anyway, does it?

Friends,

RobE

 

[docrob57]

Lighthouse,

In effect Jesus did not die for those who reject HIm

Isn't this the same as limited atonement?

 

[Delmar]

Isn't this the same as limited atonement?

Does limited atoenment mean that Jesus died so that all men would have a chance for salvation, but he also understood that many would rejcect it? If that's what it means then I accept limited atonement as truth!

 

[RobE]

We are in agreement here if and only if you can agree to the following...

"Necessarily (i.e. it is a logical necessity), for any human agent S, action A and time t, if S performs A freely at t, then the history of the world prior to t (including S's upbringing, friends, society, church or other outside influences), the laws of nature, and the actions of any other agent (including God) prior to and at t are jointly compatible with S's refraining from performing A freely."

Can you agree with that or not? If so, then you believe in free will.

I've always believed in free will just as Augustine did. The problem is I don't believe that free will precludes foreknowledge as you do. Foreknowledge(as in accurate predictions) does not preclude free will in any way. The relevence?..........

How do you want me to answer this question. I would say very accurately. I'm not sure I understand the point of such a question. Even if it were perfectly, which it isn't, by the way, but even if it were, as long as it is still simply predictions and not foreKNOWLEDGE then my free will would remain intact.

I honestly don't know how to answer other than to say, very accurately. God has access to all of the available information that is knowable which pertains to any prediction He might want to make. And so just as the weather man can make better predictions about the weather with more information, God also can make a better informed and therefore more accurate prediction than would be possible for any other being. So God can be as accurate as it is possible to be, given the nature of His creation.

Am I making myself clear at all about the difference between "predicting" and "knowing"? If not, please say so because it is a crucial issue and we won't make any progress until we get that straight.

Psychology can accurately predict many behaviors. What if there was someone with a perfect understanding of this science? Could He predict every behavior of a human being? Would that make the human un-free? What if we stretched this out logically and could say that this scientist could also predict how parents(A) would influence and raise child(B)? More? Child(B) and parents(A) come into contact with neighbor(C) who is also known by the scientist......Could the scientist accurately predict what actions persons A, B, and C would engage in at anytime(t)?

Why do you trust God? Is it because God cannot do other than what is good or because God will not do other than what is good?

As I've stated in the other thread: God can do anything He wants to do; but doesn't need to. This is the same question as Can God change? Of course, but to say God must change is logically absurd.

I need to ask you something: Do you think that God had anything to do directly with your conception(as in birth)? If so, what?

Thanks,

Rob