That's absolutely correct. I've often said that this topic is not one which is well suited to discussion on a web forum. It's just too big.
The best I can really hope for is to pique someone's interest enough to motivate them to read the book.
ECT Works of Law and Works of Grace, Is That Biblical?
- Thread starter iamaberean
- Start date
That's absolutely correct. I've often said that this topic is not one which is well suited to discussion on a web forum. It's just too big.
The best I can really hope for is to pique someone's interest enough to motivate them to read the book.
Right Divider
Body part
I've not yet read Bob's book, but I would point out that there are lots of great right dividing resources on the Internet. The biggest problem is the one that we have both been trying to get T6 past.... he and many like him are stuck in the myths of Churchianity and cannot break free from that bogus paradigm. They are Bible blenders and simply will not see the truth that is right in front of them.
I recommend getting the audio series, that way you can listen to it without having to dedicate X amount of hours to just reading, you can do other things while listening.
I got the audio series because I literally do nothing but drive for work (95% of my job), so I was able to listen through the whole Plot seminar while rolling down the road.
[MENTION=16603]turbosixx[/MENTION], I recommend you read or listen to "The Plot: An Overview of the Bible is the Key to its Details" by Bob Enyart.
You can find the first chapter and links to the store links for both the book and seminar on audio versions here:
https://kgov.com/plot
I've read several books on the subject of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Bob is by far the best. It is extremely thorough and makes several connections that I've not seen in other works. Things That Differ by C.R. Stam is very good and you can actually find it for free in PDF form on the internet but I think it works better as a supplement to The Plot. It's just not as persuasive and is a much dryer kind of read as are most of the other books on the subject. You should do whatever is necessary to get a copy of The Plot, which I know isn't exactly an inexpensive book.
If you're not a big reader, Bob has done seminars are practically everything under the Sun and has them available for purchase as well. The series they made on The Plot is just excellent and worth every dime they charge for it.
As for those who can't be made to see it, I think the first hurdle to overcome is getting them to see the need. The problem with that is that I don't think that most people approach doctrine from the perspective of trying to resolve doctrinal conflicts in a systematic way. They often do theology in a systematic way but whether or not that system resolves conflicts between seemingly unrelated issues while preserving the plain meaning of the text doesn't register as a attribute that their system needs to have nor that one which does have it would necessarily be superior.
For example, no Calvinist would likely ever be persuaded about anything by Bob's book because allegiance to the plain reading of scripture plays no role at all in their theological paradigm. They'll turn anything into a figure of speech if that's what it takes to preserve their doctrine. It is very nearly the opposite kind of attitude toward the reading of scripture and for any of them to accept a Mid-Acts paradigm would be just an enormously gigantic, almost miraculous paradigm shift.
T6, on the other hand, is already a dispensationalist and while it would still be a significant paradigm shift, it wouldn't be the deep Earth seismic variety. He, for example, already understands that the Church and Israel are not the same thing. That alone brings him more than half way to the goal line. I think that all that would be required to bring him the rest of the way is two things. First, he has to be willing to entertain the truth of it as at least a possibility and second, the case for it has to be presented to him in a manner that is very much more thorough and detailed than is reasonable to present on a web forum.
Clete
I really like this so i will quote it again..
“The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:
“To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
“To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
“To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
“To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…
“Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:
“To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
“To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
“To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
“To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
“The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
“To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure.”
It took me to the cross again and brought out emotions I haven't felt in a while. Thanks
“The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:
“To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
“To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
“To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
“To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…
“Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:
“To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
“To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
“To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
“To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
“The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
“To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure.”
It took me to the cross again and brought out emotions I haven't felt in a while. Thanks
way 2 go
Well-known member
I have the book and audio series
really liked the audio series for the drive to and from work.
sample 1st hour
https://kgov.com/bel/20141204
[MENTION=16603]turbosixx[/MENTION]
turbosixx
New member
I know how you feel. I feel the exact same way. I wish I could say the right thing to help you see. I'm afraid we are so far apart it's near impossible. Especially on a forum.
I would suggest you haven't totally got me figured out. If I remember right you only had 2 or 3 out of the 5. Don't forget, I'm a dispensationalist.
I believe Abram did have a work to do. It was necessary for him to sleep with Sarai in order for this covenant to be fulfilled. God did what Abram and Sarai could not do and they did what they could do.
I'm not sure what you mean by "in order to prevent yourself from SOUNDING like your condoning sin so that grace may abound"
I would never condone sin.
I would suggest you haven't totally got me figured out. If I remember right you only had 2 or 3 out of the 5. Don't forget, I'm a dispensationalist.
I believe Abram did have a work to do. It was necessary for him to sleep with Sarai in order for this covenant to be fulfilled. God did what Abram and Sarai could not do and they did what they could do.
I'm not sure what you mean by "in order to prevent yourself from SOUNDING like your condoning sin so that grace may abound"
I would never condone sin.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Talk about not seeing!
As Clete has told you, he used to believe what you believe. Most of us have until we learn the truth.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Clete, the following verse speaks of "grace" in regard to those who lived under the law:
"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).
Did the Jews who lived under the law receive the gift of salvation apart from works?
Thanks!
Sure they did but they did not receive eternal life or become a member of the body of Christ.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So they did not receive eternal life even though the Lord Jesus told them the following?:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (Jn.6:47).
Besides that, the Apostle Paul spoke of Jews becoming members of the Body of Christ:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
Jerry, the Lord works in hearts. It's about what they ( assuming you mean before Paul was blinded and delivered the gospel to the Gentiles) believed. It's one thing to believe he was the messiah that was resurrected and another to have faith that His death for our sins grants eternal life, even Abraham descended.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Paul didn't believe that Jesus is the Christ before he was blinded on the road to Damascus. He didn't believe that until His encounter with the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus. Then later he was baptized with water and after that he himself preached that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He was born of God as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:
"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. 2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).
It's not the same. I have already been were you are. I was just as convinced as you are that my theology, which I'd bet was extremely similar to what yours is now, was at least mostly true. I completely, 1000% bought the notion of lordship salvation. I completely understand why you believe it and would, with only a little bit of practice, likely be able to do just as good a job of defending it as you do.
I now KNOW that I was wrong. It isn't merely that I believe differently. It is that I know, for a fact, that my doctrine was flatly wrong. I know that it was wrong and I know why it was wrong and I know that you are utterly and completely and totally blind to the reasons because I was too.
There is, in fact, very little in common with the way you and I feel in this regard. You're simply convinced that you're right. I know for a fact that your wrong because I used to be in your shoes. That's quite a lot different.
I haven't forgotten. The fact that you're a dispensationalist doesn't help your case. It explains why I missed as many as I did (if in fact I did - your silence on which I missed makes me wonder) but it only adds to the incongruity of your doctrine and should make it much easier for you to see where you went off the path into error. Your blindness isn't as much about a paradigm shift as it is about the fact that you're entrenched in your doctrine. You've spent so much time, energy and money learning your doctrine and teaching it to others that for you to make any major alterations would be personally costly to you in the extreme. (That is not an insult, by the way. This is just human nature. You're no different in this regard than pretty much any pastor of any church (or even most Sunday School teaches for that matter) any where in the world. It's just the way human beings work.)
Of course you do. The text doesn't support it but your doctrine demands it.
The fact that your wrong is flatly and unequivocably proven by the fact that he wasn't even conscious when the deal was cut.
This might well be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.
Stop rationalizing. You're embarrassing yourself. People sleep with their wives all the time. The bible specifically tells us what God credited to him as righteousness. It wasn't having sex with his wife!
This is inches, just inches away from blasphemy.
Do you even think through the things you say and what they imply?
You need to slow down and read more carefully.
No one could ever accuse you of ever preaching that we ought to sin that grace may abound or even that your doctrine implies such a thing. It would never in a thousand years occur to anyone to make such an accusation against your doctrine. Your entire lordship salvation doctrine is specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever getting that idea. You squeeze and twist and jump through whatever theological hoops that are necessary in order to make sure that no one ever makes that accusation, including going so far as to suggest that Abraham was made righteous by, of all things, having sex with his wife.
Clete
turbosixx
New member
You're right, it is a lot different. I grew up in the belief that I have and that is why I have sought to challenge that belief to be sure I'm not blindly following like I see others do.
No offense taken. I am trying to see past my doctrine but there are big problems with what I'm hearing.
It proves my point and I don't see how this argument disproves my point. God made a covenant with Abram and he needed to WALK in accordance with God's will in order for it to be fulfilled. I know husbands sleep with their wives but if he had not slept with Sarai would it not have affected the outcome? It absolutely would have.
I cannot understand how we can believe the gospel and willingly continue in sin and expect God to gift us salvation.
Grace teaches us to live godly lives. If we do not obey grace, have we really received grace.11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
I appreciate what you're doing here. I know your getting tired of dealing with me but I am trying to see it from your perspective but accusing me of near blasphemy doesn't move me because I see holes in your doctrine that I can't get past.
I've been thinking about Paul dealing with all the Corinthians problems. His language isn't consistent with OSAS. Here's one example.
At the end of 1 Cor. 9 he says I discipline my body and keep it under control so that even after preaching the gospel to others he himself will not be a castaway. He then gives the Corinthians an example of this from the OT. He uses the example of the Israelites who were saved from their enemy the Egyptians. He says they ate and drank from Christ. They were partakers of Christ just as the Corinthians are but God was not pleased with them and they did not make it to the promised land. Although they were partakers of Christ they didn't make it because of their continued practice of sin. They fell in the wilderness and did not enter God's rest. Paul says 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
I fail to see how that can be an example for us today if God's grace is different. The difference I understand is the sacrifices before could not remove sins but Christ's sacrifice can. We still have to live according to God's will and not our own in order to be faithful.
Last edited:
The letter of the law and grace given for salvation do not go hand in hand they are opposites . Those who believe in the finished work of Christ are no longer under the law. I don't completely understand what you trying to convey and not sure that Sir Robert Anderson, your avatar would agree with you.
Last edited:
Your argument presumes that he wouldn't have had sex with his wife anyway.
People have sex with their spouses, T6! It doesn't take any faith in anything for that to happen, whether the wife is barren or not.
Because our salvation is not based on our righteousness but on Christ's!
Romans 5:1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Your objection rests on the resurrection of the law and places us back under it.
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Does our sin negate Christ's righteousness? Certainly not! For were the is no law, sin is not imputed.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Obey grace"?
You have, perhaps more than anyone I've ever discussed this with, turned "grace" into a synonym of "law". As a result, you keep conflating salvation with sanctification. Under the law, salvation and sanctification were the same thing. You were saved because you had faith in God and lived a righteous life. I don't think there is any one anywhere that would deny that much. But your doctrine is no different than that! You have quite literally turned grace into law.
So, is this you stating bluntly that law and grace are not different, that they are, in fact, effectively synonymous?
Interestingly, your doctrine would be spot on and exactly correct if God had not cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul. When God did that, He didn't simply take the same program and move it over to a different set of people. Had he done so, He'd have ended up with the same result. On the contrary, the Body of Christ is not simply a reincarnated version of Israel. Rather, it is the revelation of a mystery that had been kept secret since the world began (Romans 16).
Indeed, if your doctrine was correct, all we would need of the New Testament would be the Gospels and the book of Hebrews and maybe James. The Twelve had already been trained by Christ and had received the great commission. There would be no need at all for Paul whatsoever.
Clete
P.S. Why did you ignore this point?....
No one could ever accuse you of ever preaching that we ought to sin that grace may abound or even that your doctrine implies such a thing. It would never in a thousand years occur to anyone to make such an accusation against your doctrine. Your entire lordship salvation doctrine is specifically designed to prevent anyone from ever getting that idea. You squeeze and twist and jump through whatever theological hoops that are necessary in order to make sure that no one ever makes that accusation, including going so far as to suggest that Abraham was made righteous by, of all things, having sex with his wife.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I am saying that the saved who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith just like those who are saved now.
"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).
Sir Robert Anderson agrees with me.
Maybe Sir Robert did.
Isn't it true that those saved today are not under the law as they were bound under the contract?