Mid Acts Disponsationalism

[Clete]

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.

I agree with every syllable of this post.

 

[Tambora]

I'm kind of surprised at the animosity I'm seeing

What do ya think of Bob Enyart?

 

[glorydaz]

What do ya think of Bob Enyart?

I've only listened to him a few times, but I liked his well thought out answers. I think it was a debate he was having with some guy. I heard nothing that gave me pause of any kind. :idunno:

 

[glorydaz]

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

I just can't stop thinking about this post....especially the parts in yellow. And what a perfect illustration that was about the roof. I can only say WOW and AMEN. :thumb:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

So you believe that the law did in fact play a role in the salvation process despite what is written here:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:4).​

I don't need to address every point directly.

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).​

James chapter 2 is ALL ABOUT salvation.

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!

 

[Danoh]

Speaking of gays, we should all ignore Jerry, his several decades old incessant need to hound Mid-Acts people into not only believing exactly as outdatedly as he does, but to also lay out exactly why they agree that he is right, is such a rectal pain.

Perhaps if we ignore him, he will go away.

I doubt it, though, as he is very creative at weaseling this two-fold narcissistic intent of his into any subject.

One of those people who people turn and head the other way from whenever they see him coming.

You'd think the Cross would hold the solution for such types, but apparently it does not; not as far as their own willing and running is concerned...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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.

Does Enyart preach the Grace Message? (Paul's Gospel?)
Does he believe we're living in "The Dispensation of Grace?"
Does he believe, a sinner should first, hear Paul's Gospel,
place their faith in Christ as their Savior, be sealed/ indwelt,
and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ, by the
Holy Spirit?
Does he believe in, Once Saved Always Saved?
Does he believe that the unsaved will be judged by their works?
Does he believe The True Believers will stand before Christ and
be given rewards?
Does he consider himself a "Mid-Acts Believer?"

Do you say yes to all of these questions?

 

[Clete]

Does Enyart preach the Grace Message? (Paul's Gospel?)

Oh yes!

Does he believe we're living in "The Dispensation of Grace?"

Entirely

Does he believe, a sinner should first, hear Paul's Gospel,
place their faith in Christ as their Savior, be sealed/ indwelt,
and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ, by the
Holy Spirit?

Quite

Does he believe in, Once Saved Always Saved?

Well, mostly yes. Its sort of a complex issue.

Does he believe that the unsaved will be judged by their works?

According to the law, yes.

Does he believe The True Believers will stand before Christ and
be given rewards?

Absolutely

Does he consider himself a "Mid-Acts Believer?"

He believes that the Body of Christ began with Paul's conversion of the road to Damascus in Acts chapter 9. That sounds like a yes.

Do you say yes to all of these questions?

Yes, yes I do.

Not only does he believe all that but he really does an excellent job of teaching it and firmly establishing it scripturally.

Why do you ask?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I just can't stop thinking about this post....especially the parts in yellow. And what a perfect illustration that was about the roof. I can only say WOW and AMEN. :thumb:

Have you ever read this....

You Cannot Live the Christian Life by Bob Hill

If not, you should!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Speaking of gays, we should all ignore Jerry, his several decades old incessant need to hound Mid-Acts people into not only believing exactly as outdatedly as he does, but to also lay out exactly why they agree that he is right, is such a rectal pain.

I said I wasn't going to respond to anything which you said but I never imagined that you would stoop so low.

A am not a homosexual and any insinuation on your part that I am proves that you are the sleaziest person on this forum.

You are an embarrassment to Christianity.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who would dare disagree with the ideas of Danoh.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

So you believe that the law did in fact play a role in the salvation process despite what is written here:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:4).​

I don't need to address every point directly.

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).​

James chapter 2 is ALL ABOUT salvation.

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!

 

[Clete]

So you believe that the law did in fact play a role in the salvation process despite what is written here:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:4).​

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!

Jerry,

I am not going to get into a proof texting contest with you. I have no problem texts! They are all proof texts for MY postilion, all of them.

You fail to convince anyone because you insist on scratching at the surface and ignore the underlying presuppositions that form the foundation of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and to which those who hold to that doctrine tie their mooring lines. The more you quote Romans and James and Jesus the more you bury any chance of convincing me that I'm wrong because I fully understand the context of any passage you might care to throw at me that, to your ears, might somehow sound like its teaching that Law and Grace and effectively the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

I am not going to get into a proof texting contest with you.

Of course you wouldn't touch the verses which I quoted with a ten foot pole. Those verses prove that your idea that the Jews who lived under the Law could not be saved apart from works is a gigantic blunder.

And by running from those verses you also prove that you refuse to defend your idea that the Jews who lived under the Law could not be saved apart from works.

You also prove that your ideas cannot be true unless you just eliminate certain verses from the Bible. I addressed the points which you made but you refuse to address even one verse which I quoted.

You obviously do not believe what is written here:

"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).​

According to you the Jews who lived under the law could have "faith" but unless they had "works" they could not be saved.

Your petty ideas are easily proven to be false and that is why you run and hide from the verses which prove you are wrong. You prove that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion on this subject.

 

[Clete]

Of course you wouldn't touch the verses which I quoted with a ten foot pole. Those verses prove that your idea that the Jews who lived under the Law could not be saved apart from works is a gigantic blunder.

Blah blah blah.

And by running from those verses you also prove that you refuse to defend your idea that the Jews who lived under the Law could not be saved apart from works.

Yeah because I'm such a runner.

You also prove that your ideas cannot be true unless you just eliminate certain verses from the Bible. I addressed the points which you made but you refuse to address even one verse which I quoted.

Its reactions like this that have taught me not to engage you directly.

You obviously do not believe what is written here:

"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).​

Obviously!

According to you the Jews who lived under the law could have "faith" but unless they had "works" they could not be saved.

Your petty ideas are easily proven to be false and that is why you run and hide from the verses which prove you are wrong. You prove that you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion on this subject.

Your belief that my refusal to engage you in a proof texting context is somehow proof that you're right is proof that my decision was a wise one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your belief that my refusal to engage you in a proof texting context is somehow proof that you're right is proof that my decision was a wise one.

Of course in your mind your decision to refuse to address any verses which I quoted is a right one. After all, what could you possibly say about this verse and my comments about it?:

"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).​

According to you the Jews who lived under the law could have "faith" but unless they had "works" they could not be saved.​

You can run and attempt to hide from the plain teaching found at John:16 but you cannot hide from the LORD!

I would not want to be in your shoes when you come face to face with Him.

 

[Danoh]

I said I wasn't going to respond to anything which you said but I never imagined that you would stoop so low.

A am not a homosexual and any insinuation on your part that I am proves that you are the sleaziest person on this forum.

You are an embarrassment to Christianity.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who would dare disagree with the ideas of Danoh.

Now why am I not surprised you misunderstood my words to mean I was calling you a homosexual?

Why am I not surprised?

Because, unless you have a mansion room full of "the Greek" dictionaries, together with another room full of "the better translation is," a third room full of the notions of men, together with another three rooms containing your massive ego and its notions, you are clueless as to the intended sense of another's words.

I never called you a homosexual, rather; a rectal pain, you "surface level" reader.

 

[Danoh]

Of course in your mind your decision to refuse to address any verses which I quoted is a right one. After all, what could you possibly say about this verse and my comments about it?:

"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).​

According to you the Jews who lived under the law could have "faith" but unless they had "works" they could not be saved.​

You can run and attempt to hide from the plain teaching found at John:16 but you cannot hide from the LORD!

I would not want to be in your shoes when you come face to face with Him.

I can just see "that day."

"My son, why did you not - not only agree with Jerry 100% every time on every issue? Did you not know I sent him to hound you all for decades? Did you not know that the Cross was not really enough; that 'faith' includes kow-towing to Jerry?"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now why am I not surprised you misunderstood my words to mean I was calling you a homosexual?

Why would I understand that you are calling me a homosexual?

You started your post in this way:

Speaking of gays, we should all ignore Jerry...

All you do on this forum is to attack those who do not agree with your ideas and to give excuses why you refuse to address verses which contradict your ideas.

 

[Danoh]

Why would I understand that you are calling me a homosexual?

You started your post in this way:

In other words, you did what has been asserted about you - you read into the rest of my words from that initial, surface level reading of those first few words.

All you do on this forum is to attack those who do not agree with your ideas and to give excuses why you refuse to address verses which contradict your ideas.

Nonsense, you are one of two within Mid-Acts I go against as to this incessant, decades old quest of yours to glory over other Mid-Acts brethren, in your equally decades old, and outdated notions - because - you - surface - level - read - things, and insist others not only agree with you, and not only continually, but insist they lay out exactly why they believe you are right, should they happen to step on the land mine you have made of any agreement with you.

There is no joy in exploring issues with you. None. I give you the open result you bring on yourself - open rebuke.

You need to leave your nonsense at the Cross.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In other words, you did what has been asserted about you - you read into the rest of my words from that initial, surface level reading of those first few words.

So you will not even apologize for what you said here:

Speaking of gays, we should all ignore Jerry...

, you are one of two within Mid-Acts I go against as to this incessant, decades old quest of yours to glory over other Mid-Acts brethren, in your equally decades old, and outdated notions -

Outdated notions?

I say that the Jews who lived under the Law were saved by faith and faith alone, and this idea is supported by what is said here:

"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).​

Your ideas are directly contradicted by those words because you say that the Jews who lived under the Law could "believe" but they were still not saved until they believed.