ECT How is Paul's message different?

[turbosixx]

By "them" I assume you mean unbelievers and not already believing converts of the Twelve.

For now lets forget the 12 and stick with Paul and those he preached to and converted.

I think we can agree on this but if there is something you don't agree with please point it out.
Paul received the gospel of grace from Jesus and not man. He went on 3 journeys proclaiming this gospel. Those that heard the gospel he received from Christ and believed were added to the body.

I agree there is a lot to the gospel of grace and I am more than glad to discuss what Paul wrote in his epistles but he is writing to those who have already heard the gospel of grace and were added to the body.

What I would like to establish is, what exactly did Paul first proclaim to these people for them to believe and be added?

 

[musterion]

Hi Jerry and the FUTURE TENSE is used , because Israel has been set aside as 2 Cor 3:13-15 has SAID !!

1 John 3:2 is NOT SPEAKING about the MYSTERY , as did Paul !!~

Do you have a verse where John preached the MYSTERY and where John is the apostle to the Gentiles as Paul IS !!

i see you did not address the AOTIST TENSE VERB , HE SHALL APPEAR / PHANEROO and 1 John 3:2 is a ONE TIME thing that only happens ONCE !

So where in the FUTURE does it happen ??

dan p

Jerry is on it.

 

[DAN P]

Jerry is on it.

Hi M , and what will he say about the AOTIST TENSE , ONE TIME HAPPENING and why the FUTURE TENSE does not mean IMMINENT !!

Maybe tomorrow ??

dan p

 

[glorydaz]

For now lets forget the 12 and stick with Paul and those he preached to and converted.

I think we can agree on this but if there is something you don't agree with please point it out.
Paul received the gospel of grace from Jesus and not man. He went on 3 journeys proclaiming this gospel. Those that heard the gospel he received from Christ and believed were added to the body.

I agree there is a lot to the gospel of grace and I am more than glad to discuss what Paul wrote in his epistles but he is writing to those who have already heard the gospel of grace and were added to the body.

What I would like to establish is, what exactly did Paul first proclaim to these people for them to believe and be added?

I always thought we see it starts here.

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.​

 

[Danoh]

Never even heard of J.C. O'Hair.

Pretty sure Stam is Acts 9, not Acts 28 (I could very easily be wrong about that - I can't see how it matters). Regardless, I didn't learn a syllable of my last post from reading Stam, which is not to say I couldn't have. Stam was brilliant. His book "Things That Differ" is one of my favorite books.

The only writings of Bullinger's I've read are "The Witness of the Stars", which has nothing at all to do with dispensationalism, and I've read the writings contained in the appendixes of the Bullinger Study Bible and I don't recall a syllable about Acts 28 Dispensationalism in there. And even if there is, so what? He never made an argument based on himself or his own authority. Every stance I've ever seen him take has been based biblical data. Bullinger had more information about the bible in his little finger than you'll ever know.

Having said all that, I doubt that there is a thimble's worth of difference between the so called "Acts 28 camp" and what I believe. The point is that you've never once see me make an argument where I've quoted any of these authors as the basis for the argument. You're tendency towards making such unsubstantiated and frankly irrelevant and irrational statements is one of the major reasons you are on my ignore list. And that's just where you'll stay until you figure out that no one cares about your personal opinions.



Clete

Speaking of noting the things that (actually) differ - actually, Clete, you have heard of J.C. O'Hair - but forgot you did.

"We gratefully acknowledge the help of others in the preparation of this volume. Of these, three have submitted doctrinal criticisms: Pastor Charles F. Baker of Milwaukee and Pastor Donald Elifson of Chicago; both well qualified to deal with dispensational matters, and Pastor J. C. O'Hair of Chicago, who has probably contributed more to the recovery of dispensational truth than any man living today...."

Things That Differ, p.10

Cornelius R. Stam
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 1, 1951

Here is a thimble-full of the great man's contribution to the re-emergence of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism...

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/j-c-ohair-online-library/

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/introduction-to-j-c-ohair-online-library/

An aside...

Once, while tracking down the history of various Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Pastor-Teachers, I visited the enormous assembly where O'Hair had been Pastor.

A Baptist group that had long since taken it over was then in the midst of their various renovations on that old building.

When I informed the Pastor who I was and why I was there, he allowed me to look around.

As I walked around, every now and then I'd lift up some debris, or walk into what remained of one old study room or another and find an old copy one of O'Hair's many booklets.

Very moving moments...being in the presence of our Mid-Acts history...

Later, the workers broke for lunch. Most were professing Believers. We opened lunch with prayer.

At one point, the person leading the prayer uttered the words "Lord, we don't know what your will is..." etc...

I drifted off to imagining what O'Hair's preaching on that very issue "the mystery of his will..." (Eph. 1:9) must have been like, all those years ago.

He passed away in 1958.

Here is a history on our past, then, in pdf form, from ggfusa.org - enjoy...

http://ggfusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/OHair-Into-the-1930s-web.pdf

Rom. 14:5 - in memory of Rom. 5:6-8 - in each...our stead.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi M , and what will he say about the AOTIST TENSE , ONE TIME HAPPENING and why the FUTURE TENSE does not mean IMMINENT !!

Are you actually arguing that those who received the Hebrew epistles were not looking for an imminent appearance of the Lord?

Let us look at what James wrote here:

"You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near" (James 5:8).​

The Greek word translated "is near" at James 5:8 is eggizo and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).

In an article found on the "Pre-Trib Research Center" web site Dr. Renald E. Showers writes:

"In light of James' statements C. Leslie Mitton wrote, 'James clearly believed, as others of his time did, that the coming of Christ was imminent.' On the basis of James' statements we can conclude that Christ's coming was imminent in New Testament times and continues to be so today, and that this fact should make a difference in the way Christians live" [emphasis added] (Showers, The Imminent Coming of Christ).

Again, only those in the Body of Christ were waiting for an imminent appearance of the Lord Jesus and those who received the Hebrew epistles were waiting for that appearance.

 

[Tambora]

Bob Hill's little booklet on the Rapture (long lost but reacquired last year thanks to Tam or Glory, or both) is for me the single best book on why the Rapture is true and why it has to be pre-trib.

The Pretribulation Rapture - by Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?4440-REPORT-The-Pretribulation-Rapture-by-Bob-Hill



And other works by Bob Hill ....

Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...s-dispensation

The transition from Israel to the Body
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?37126-The-transition-from-Israel-to-the-Body

The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?28166-The-Wonderful-Dispensation-of-Grace

ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...ns-By-Bob-Hill

REPORT: Water Baptism, what is its place today?
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?566-REPORT-Water-Baptism-what-is-its-place-today

REPORT: Our Passionate God - by Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?5479-REPORT-Our-Passionate-God-by-Bob-Hill

The Absolute Foreknowledge of God - by Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?7002-The-Absolute-Foreknowledge-of-God-by-Bob-Hill

REPORT: Testing the things that differ - By Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?440-REPORT-Testing-the-things-that-differ-By-Bob-Hill

REPORT: Does God repent?
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?455-REPORT-Does-God-repent

Assurance of Salvation
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...ick-11-02-2005

Second Coming Confusion
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...ming-Confusion

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're tendency towards making unsubstantiated and frankly irrelevant and irrational statements is one of the major reasons you are on my ignore list.

Irrelevant statements? Even though I am addressing what you think is revelant when you said the following?:

This is Paul's Gospel (Romans 2:16 & 16:25; II Timothy 2:18). It does not exist outside of Paul's epistles and if Paul's epistles did not exist we would all be Messianic Jews or the equivalent.

Clete, open your eyes because it is obvious to anyone who will use his brain that the following words found in Peter's first epistle is in fact the same gospel which Paul preached:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1:18-19).​

The same can be seen in Peter's words here:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet.2:24).​

It is your statement about Paul's gospel not being found outside of his epistles which is unsubstantiated and demonstrates that you really have no clue about what is written in the Hebrew epistles!

Or perhaps you want to argue that these passages I quoted from the pen of Peter has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel which was first given to Paul, the gospel he called "the preaching of the Cross"?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

ARCHIVE: The Twelve Dispensations - By Bob Hill
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...ns-By-Bob-Hill

Let us look at what Bob Hill said about the sixth dispensation:

The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping. ​

Law keeping?

According to the Apostle Paul even those who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Peter certainly knew that his salvation was on the principle of grace:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).​

Bob Hill's ideas about salvation under the law are easily refuted and the Lord Jesus' following words to those who lived under the law makes it plain that works were not required for salvation for those who lived under the law:

"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).​

The great truth of Mid-Acts dispensationalism has been perverted by those who belong to the Neo-MAD camp when they teach that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works and that the doctrine contained in the Hebrew epistles is not doctrine for the Body of Christ.

 

[Clete]

For now lets forget the 12 and stick with Paul and those he preached to and converted.

I think we can agree on this but if there is something you don't agree with please point it out.
Paul received the gospel of grace from Jesus and not man. He went on 3 journeys proclaiming this gospel. Those that heard the gospel he received from Christ and believed were added to the body.

I agree there is a lot to the gospel of grace and I am more than glad to discuss what Paul wrote in his epistles but he is writing to those who have already heard the gospel of grace and were added to the body.

What I would like to establish is, what exactly did Paul first proclaim to these people for them to believe and be added?

Seems like I've answered this.

Why would you think that the gospel he received from Christ by revelation was any different that what he preached and then subsequently wrote down?

 

[lifeisgood]

Seems like I've answered this.

Why would you think that the gospel he received from Christ by revelation was any different that what he preached and then subsequently wrote down?

Because it is not stated the way I demand it to be. :idunno:

 

[Clete]

Speaking of noting the things that (actually) differ - actually, Clete, you have heard of J.C. O'Hair - but forgot you did.



Things That Differ, p.10

Cornelius R. Stam
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
February 1, 1951

Here is a thimble-full of the great man's contribution to the re-emergence of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism...





An aside...

Once, while tracking down the history of various Mid-Acts and Acts 28 Pastor-Teachers, I visited the enormous assembly where O'Hair had been Pastor.

A Baptist group that had long since taken it over was then in the midst of their various renovations on that old building.

When I informed the Pastor who I was and why I was there, he allowed me to look around.

As I walked around, every now and then I'd lift up some debris, or walk into what remained of one old study room or another and find an old copy one of O'Hair's many booklets.

Very moving moments...being in the presence of our Mid-Acts history...

Later, the workers broke for lunch. Most were professing Believers. We opened lunch with prayer.

At one point, the person leading the prayer uttered the words "Lord, we don't know what your will is..." etc...

I drifted off to imagining what O'Hair's preaching on that very issue "the mystery of his will..." (Eph. 1:9) must have been like, all those years ago.

He passed away in 1958.

Here is a history on our past, then, in pdf form, from ggfusa.org - enjoy...



Rom. 14:5 - in memory of Rom. 5:6-8 - in each...our stead.

Very cool!

I'll read that pdf and perhaps all sorts of things from him.

Maybe I should have started a whole separate thread with my reading list!

 

[Clete]

Probably because I was a Baptist, Stam's BAPTISM AND THE BIBLE is the one that put me over the top and into the MAD camp.

Bob Hill's little booklet on the Rapture (long lost but reacquired last year thanks to Tam or Glory, or both) is for me the single best book on why the Rapture is true and why it has to be pre-trib.

I have much of Miles Stanford's stuff; the reader just needs to carefully weed out the occasional Calvinistic comment or quote source. Other than that...gold.

How can I get a copy of that booklet of Hill's?

I agree with you about Stanford. Also, he was staunchly Acts 2. Years ago, I was in the process of writing him an open letter in response to one of his so called "Polemic Papers" on the subject of "hyper-dispensationalism" when I discovered that he had passed away. He agrees with us now - on both counts.

Clete

 

[musterion]

How can I get a copy of that booklet of Hill's?

I think Tam noticed a copy on Amazon, somewhere I never would have thought to look. There may be others available there now but when I bought this one last year, it was the only copy.

I agree with you about Stanford. Also, he was staunchly Acts 2. Years ago, I was in the process of writing him an open letter in response to one of his so called "Polemic Papers" on the subject of "hyper-dispensationalism" when I discovered that he had passed away. He agrees with us now - on both counts.

Clete

You can always write Dan S., the caretaker/curator (if he's still there). He and I communicated several years ago about MJS' misunderstanding MAD on some points but he really wasn't in the mood to listen. He is also as Calvinistic as Stanford was.

 

[whitestone]

Could you please rephrase the question? I want to be sure exactly what you're asking.

I'll try but bare in mind that if your mind is already made up that Paul is not saying anything different then you won't see what they were doing in Acts 15. That said Paul was separated out to do something,,,when he began to do so and it caused something to happen.

In Acts 15:6 KJV they met to look at the matter that came up. This is about 20 years after our Lord was crucified. In your mind Peter and the others had always taught something across those years that the scripture says they had to have a meeting over to figure out what was taking place and make a decision as to what to say about it.

So as to the question you want me to reword,,,can you see anyway possible for the 12 to have taught anything that they are trying to understand themselves in Acts 15:6 before this point in time(prior 20 years/approx.)? If not then what is being discussed in Acts 15 is different from what was taught by the 12 prior to that point and has just began to be taught.

 

[musterion]

Lest a dead man, Bob Hill, be misrepresented by someone above,

The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping.

I added bold to a key word the person above evidently ignores or did not see.

Was Israel required to faithfully keep Law, per God's will, in order to be considered His righteous people, when He was still dealing with them as His special people?

Yes they were. There was no exemption from doing so for Israel.

Where Israel went wrong was keeping Law for its own sake, faithlessly, as mere ritual...placing faith in Law itself...as many on TOL do.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Was Israel required to faithfully keep Law, per God's will, in order to be considered His righteous people, when He was still dealing with them as His special people?

Was the individual Jew required to keep the law faithfully to be saved?

No!

Bob Hill was in error when he said that works are required for the Jews who lived under the law to be saved.

Everyone who has ever been saved has been saved in only one way, by grace through faith. If it takes "works" of one kind or another then salvation cannot be described as being of "grace."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're tendency towards making such unsubstantiated and frankly irrelevant and irrational statements is one of the major reasons you are on my ignore list. And that's just where you'll stay until you figure out that no one cares about your personal opinions.

I noticed that you just ignored the fact that those who received the Hebrew epistles were taught to be expecting an imminent appearance of the Lord Jesus. And only those in the Body are taught to waiting for that appearance.

I also noticed that you did not address what John wrote here:

"
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

John told these believers that they were expecting to see the Lord Jesus appear while they remained alive and they were expecting that at His appearance they would be made like Him. There is no evidence that when the Lord Jesus returns to the earth to set up His earthly kingdom that living believers will be made like Him. Therefore, John's words can only be in regard to the "mystery" truth found here and only applies to members of the Body of Christ:

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Cor.15:51-52).​

The difference between us is the fact that my opinions are backed up by the Scriptures while yours are based on nothing but thin air.

Having said all that, I doubt that there is a thimble's worth of difference between the so called "Acts 28 camp" and what I believe.

Do you even know what determined the beginning of the present dispensation? I doubt it!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Never even heard of J.C. O'Hair.

Here is what we read of him on the Berean Bible Society site:

Pastor O’Hair was, without a doubt, the one person who, more than any other, was used of God to establish among believers what Paul, by inspiration calls, “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.” He knew that he had the Scriptural solution to the current theological confusion and preached the Word with great power. His oral ministry (including radio) and his many books had a profound effect on thousands here and abroad. As a gospel preacher and soul winner he was without a peer just because he understood so clearly the truth of the unadulterated “gospel of the grace of God.” The Church, all over the world, owes him much.​

And here is what he thought of your idea that the doctrine contained in the Hebrew epistles is not doctrine for the Body of Christ:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

 

[musterion]

Ah, the Shugart Straw Man is dragged out of the shed once again.

Was the individual Jew required to keep the law faithfully to be saved?

No!

Straw man. Hill didn't use the word "saved" in that context. Once again you dishonestly ignore context by superimposing a word someone did not use, then attack him for what he didn't even say.

Agree or disagree with many of his teachings, Hill was a very sharp and very precise teacher. Had he meant to use "saved" there, he would have done so.

Bob Hill was in error when he said that works are required for the Jews who lived under the law to be saved.

Straw man. You added that word to make a false point at Hill's expense. It was a completely different dispensation. Jews, when God was dealing with Israel, were not "saved" in the sense people are saved by the Gospel of grace. Faith was indeed required, but faithful covenant obedience was still in force for Israel. That is a fact.

Everyone who has ever been saved has been saved in only one way, by grace through faith. If it takes "works" of one kind or another then salvation cannot be described as being of "grace."

There's that word again. Straw man. You really are narrow and deceptive, even for an Acts 2 hybrid. Or perhaps you're just addled.