You're in denial about me.
I believe that about you.
I also believe that about me.
I also believe that about Bob.
Mid Acts Disponsationalism
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
I also believe that about me.
I also believe that about Bob.
If you are not born again you do not have the Spirit of God dwelling in you so you are not saved and not a member or part of the body of Christ.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Was Jesus born again?
There is another verse where Paul uses the term new creature as well.
Galatians 6:15 KJV - 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
If you are a new creature, you have been born again.
Another term is born of God. But does this apply to Jesus?
1 John 3:9 KJV - 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1 John 4:7 KJV - 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1 John 5:1 KJV, 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:18 KJV - 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. ... 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. ... 18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
Does born of God mean born again?
Was Jesus born of God but not born again? Was Jesus born of God / born again?
heir
TOL Subscriber
LOL! Then you should have no problem showing where Bob preaches the gospel of Christ as declared by our apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. It's not on his websites. Where is it? If he is striving for the faith of the gospel, where is it?
I get it now. All the baiting for me to get into a conversation about homos was because you have a personal axe to grind against Bob Enyart.
Wow, what to flake you are. I hope you had fun!
Any enemy of Bob Enyart's in an enemy of mine.
This is true in a dispensation of grace. Law destroys grace in a dispensation of grace but the reverse is not the case.
If you hire someone to do a job and they do it then you owe them a wage. This is law. If you, in addition to the wage give them extra, perhaps a lot extra, the extra is grace and the grace does not diminish the law, nor does the law diminish the grace. This is how grace works in a dispensation of law but as your post correctly points out, law mixed into a dispensation of grace doesn't work at all.
Let's say, for example (an example of Bob Enyart's incidentally) that the pastor of your church needs a new roof on his house and that you happen to be a roofing contractor and decide that you're going to donate both the materials and the labor and give your pastor a new roof. You show up one Saturday with a truck load of supplies and some helpers and get to work. Lunch time roles around and your pastor shows up with some McDonald's hamburgers for the whole crew. You eat and enjoy a lunch break and then get back to work. By the end of the day, the work is done and everybody is happy happy happy!
Then Sunday morning roles around and you're sitting in church and just before the service ends the pastor explains to the congregation how blessed he was yesterday because brother Shugart came and replaced his roof and then he says that "all it cost me was a sack of McDonald's hamburgers!"
If you're understanding of grace is accurate at all, you should immediately understand that in such a circumstance your heart would sink. The pastor just cheapened a multi thousand dollar roof job down to less than twenty bucks. You'd be insulted if you weren't so hurt and dismayed. It was a gift, not a cheap contract! It was not done in exchange for anything and certainly not in exchange for a cheap, not to mention, unhealthy lunch. You probably wish you hadn't even bothered.
This is what happens when someone under grace tries to follow the law rather than simply loving God. We, under grace, do rightly because we love God and our neighbor, not because anyone, including God, said we have to or because there is a list of rules on the wall. Every act of legalism ruins grace in a dispensation of grace.
The Jews however, were not under grace, they were under law. Under law you follow the law. God knows the heart and judges rightly and knows that man cannot follow the law perfectly and He looked forward to the cross and was therefore able to under-gird the law with the grace. And so yes, in the end, even Jews were indeed saved by grace but that by no means made the law optional nor does it mean that it played no role in the salvation process for the Jews. it did and will do so again.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The following words of the Lord Jesus were addressed to the Jews who lived under the Law and He makes it plain that "works" were not needed for salvation:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
In this verse the Greek word translated "believes" and the Greek word translated "has" are both in the "present" tense.
In The Blue Letter Bible we read the following meaning of the 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."
Therefore, at John 5:24 the Lord is saying that those who were believing at the time the Lord Jesus spoke those words had already received eternal life. That is what is meant as something being "viewed as occurring in actual time."
That means that the only requirement for salvationfor the Jews who lived under the law was "faith." And the Lord makes it plain that it was His word which brought life to the Jews who lived under the Law:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).
Also, these words also makes it plain that "whosoever" believes is saved:
"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).
The evidence is overwhelming that the Israelites who lived under the Law were saved by faith alone.
James chapter 2
Which is it...
Jesus and James are in contradiction to one another.
Jesus and James do not contradict each other but Jerry misunderstands the difference between law and grace.
It would seem it's one or the other.
Resting in Him,
Clete
heir
TOL Subscriber
No, your not having a conversation that becometh the gospel of Christ/nothing nicer to say to a "homo" than what you are on record saying is a direct result of being a follower of an enemy of the cross such as Bob Enyart, instead of our apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV). I used to be just like you. You better start looking on what foundation you are building as it's not the one a wise master builder Paul laid.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, the Lord Jesus and James do not contradict each other because according to James the Jew is saved just like the Lord Jesus said:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).
Why did you not even address the words I quoted of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the Law?:
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
All you have proven is the fact that you just refuse to believe what the Lord Jesus said to the Jews who lived under the law.
I don't need to address every point directly. James chapter 2 is ALL ABOUT salvation. In fact its not about anything but salvation and it destroys your entire thesis. Faith without works is dead according to both Jesus and James. It is only Paul that teaches otherwise. Jesus and James taught Jews under law, Paul taught those under grace. Gal. 2:9.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You failed to address any of the verses which I quoted which prove that the Lord Jesus made it plain that the Jews who lived under the Law were saved by faith and faith alone.
And you failed to address James' words where he makes it plain that the Jews were saved by faith and faith alone:
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).
Now you want us to believe that even though James made it plain that faith is all that is needed to be born of God he contradicted himself in the very next chapter!
You fail to understand the obvious about what James is talking about in the 2nd chapter. He is speaking about what one man can know about another man's faith:
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (Jas.2:18).
This is speaking about one man showing another man his faith by his works.
A man can only judge whether or not another man has faith by seeing his works. If he sees no works then as far as he is concerned then the other man's faith is dead or nonexistent.
Sir Robert Anderson, the father of systemized Mid Acts Dispensationalism, wrot the Following:
"Paul's Epistle (Romans) unfolds the mind and purposes of God, revealing His righteousness and wrath. The Epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground. The one deals with justification as between the sinner and God, the other as between man and man. In the one, therefore, the word is, 'To him that worketh not, but believeth'. In the other it is, 'What is the profit if a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' Not 'If a man have faith', but 'If a man say he hath faith' proving that, in the case supposed, the individual is not dealing with God, but arguing the matter with his brethren. God, who searches the heart, does not need to judge by works, which are but the outward manifestation of faith within; but man can judge only by appearances...He (Abraham) was justified by faith when judged by God, for God knows the heart. He was justified by works when judged by his fellow men, for man can only read the life " [emphasis added] (Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, [Kregel Publications, 1978], pp.160-161).
Even though James makes it plain that a person is born of God by the word of truth alone you insist that James contradicted himself in the next chapter by teaching that the Jews could not be saved by faith alone!
And then you refuse to even attempt to address the words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the Law where He made it plain that they were saved by faith and faith alone!
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
I agree. God gave the Jews the law, and he expected obedience. They were His chosen people. The law alone was worthless, and their trust in the law was faithless. They needed both. When people say the Jews "under the law" could be saved when they believed, they seem to think that being "under the law" doesn't even exist. They trusted in the law even while they believed. It seems like that must make some kind of difference. Unlike the gentiles who only believed and were not under the law and didn't trust in the law. Am I making any sense? I'm asking you, STP, because you're so nice, and won't rag on me.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm kind of surprised at the animosity I'm seeing, so I'd like to join you in the referee corner for a moment. Does the hand say to the foot, "Stop kicking"? Does the foot say to the hand, "Stop stroking."? Some people are led to speak harshly and others aren't. Some people need to be hit upside the head with their sin before they can even begin to be reconciled to God. God, Himself, uses both methods on man to get his attention.
God did His part in the reconciliation process (the enmity is ended from His side)...I agree with Heir on that, but each man must still be reconciled to God. Some respond to one approach while others respond to the opposite approach. I, for one, know people who have needed smacked and stroked. I know kids that need the same.
I certainly won't go to a gay pride parade and speak softly to the poor little nudies flaunting their perversion in the faces of regular folks. On the other hand, I've spoken quite softly to a guy who is crying because his boyfriend is looking at another guy. It's called good old common sense.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:first:
Sounds to me like you're on the right track!I agree. God gave the Jews the law, and he expected obedience. They were His chosen people. The law alone was worthless, and their trust in the law was faithless. They needed both. When people say the Jews "under the law" could be saved when they believed, they seem to think that being "under the law" doesn't even exist. They trusted in the law even while they believed. It seems like that must make some kind of difference. Unlike the gentiles who only believed and were not under the law and didn't trust in the law. Am I making any sense? I'm asking you, STP, because you're so nice, and won't rag on me.