Stop the presses, call the White House, Jerry has announced a first, lol
He means he hasn't found the answer in any of his books.
ECT 3 Questions for my MAD and YEC friends
- Thread starter patman
- Start date
Stop the presses, call the White House, Jerry has announced a first, lol
He means he hasn't found the answer in any of his books.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The mystery was that the access to the promises to Israel was in the Gospel. This was not understood beforehand. Even afterward and in Dispensationalism, it appears that the promises are to be taken matter of factly rather than in Christ.
Hi , and just where is this MYSTERY THAT are promised to Israel ??
Since it can not be Eph 3:9 or Col 1:25 , what are you talking about ??
dan p
Last edited:
He used your approach; he said so.
way 2 go
Well-known member
deductive reasoning
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply
:think:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Patman, I asked you:
Evidently you do because you said the following about those who lived under the law:
You do not understand the meaning of the verses which you cited. After all, we read the following about "whosoever" believes:
According to this anyone who believes has salvation. But your idea contradict this because according to you the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. Besides that, Paul says that those who lived under the law are saved by grace through faith:
Of course if it is of works then it cannot be said that it is of grace (Ro.4:4).
Again the Scriptures contradict your idea that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.
Now please address these two verses which I quoted. Next, I will address this verse which you quoted:
First of all, before anyone could be baptized with water they had to first believe (Acts 8:36-37). By the time a person believed he was already saved (Jn.3:16).
Those who had already believed had already had their sins forgiven for salvation (Acts 10:43). The forgiveness of sins which come as a result of being baptized with water is in regard to " fellowship" and not salvation. In the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society David R. Anderson writes:
The gift of the Holy Spirit spoken of at Acts 2:38 is a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. The "gift" spoken of in that verse is the ability to speak in tongues:
Those who submitted to the rite of water baptism on the day of Pentecost received a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit--the ability to speak in tongues.
So we can see that those who were baptized with water were saved before a drop of water even touched them. Now I await your interpretation of the meaning of John 3:16 and Romans 4:16.
Do you believe like those in the Neo-MAD camp that the Jews who lived under the Law could not be saved apart from works?
Evidently you do because you said the following about those who lived under the law:
You do not understand the meaning of the verses which you cited. After all, we read the following about "whosoever" believes:
"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 this anyone who believes has salvation. But your idea contradict this because according to you the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. Besides that, Paul says that those who lived under the law are 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" (Ro.4:16).
Of course if it is of works then it cannot be said that it is of grace (Ro.4:4).
Again the Scriptures contradict your idea that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.
Now please address these two verses which I quoted. Next, I will address this verse which you quoted:
First of all, before anyone could be baptized with water they had to first believe (Acts 8:36-37). By the time a person believed he was already saved (Jn.3:16).
Those who had already believed had already had their sins forgiven for salvation (Acts 10:43). The forgiveness of sins which come as a result of being baptized with water is in regard to " fellowship" and not salvation. In the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society David R. Anderson writes:
"We are suggesting that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter had dual ministries. One was to call the nation of Israel back into fellowship with Yahweh. The covenant relationship had long since been established. The nation of Israel did not need a new relationship with God. But they were sorely lacking in fellowship...John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter were all trying to persuade Israel to repentance and turning that would bring them back to a refreshing fellowship with God...Now as a nation they needed to repent and turn (Acts 3:19) in order to have fellowship with God" [emphasis added] (Anderson, "The National Repentance of Israel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1998, Volume 11:21).
The gift of the Holy Spirit spoken of at Acts 2:38 is a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit. The "gift" spoken of in that verse is the ability to speak in tongues:
"...no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines" (1 Cor.12:3-4, 8-11).
Those who submitted to the rite of water baptism on the day of Pentecost received a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit--the ability to speak in tongues.
So we can see that those who were baptized with water were saved before a drop of water even touched them. Now I await your interpretation of the meaning of John 3:16 and Romans 4:16.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
JerryS,
you're missing something here about the day of Pentecost. it wasn't the people who believed and were baptized who spoke in tongues. And in fact, the people who did didn't know it. They spoke the Gospel, but the listeners heard that message in their own language.
the important thing was that unbelieving Jews saw this happen. it was proof to unbelieving followers of Judaism that God was indeed on a mission to the nations now.
you're missing something here about the day of Pentecost. it wasn't the people who believed and were baptized who spoke in tongues. And in fact, the people who did didn't know it. They spoke the Gospel, but the listeners heard that message in their own language.
the important thing was that unbelieving Jews saw this happen. it was proof to unbelieving followers of Judaism that God was indeed on a mission to the nations now.
You can ignore Galatians 2 with Peter to the circumcision and Paul the gospel of uncircumcision and just go with their actual content and see it is not the same. Which you clearly do. Paul went to the Jew first. Peter went to the Jew first. Their message is different, not the audience.
The circumcision is bound by an everlasting covenant. God's words. They will be saved by grace because they do not deserve life. The same as all of us. Everlasting means everlasting.
I see everybody is coming out of the wood work.
Interplanner
Well-known member
This is pretty confusing. The content of the Gospel was the same. The grammar of Gal 2 is not about the content of two gospels but the target audiences.
Paul does appeal to Jews first many times for the reason given in Rom 11: to spur or prod them into the same mission in which he is working.
Circumcision does not obligate God eternally if that is what you mean. Neither circ nor uncirc means anything, but rather, the new creation (Gal 6). There are many times when 'everlasting' in the OT means a very long period, but is finite. At least, I think you think it is infinite. It is not the same as eternal in the NT, which is actually the life of the Messianic age.
Considering the Lord Jesus Christ called it "paradise", it can't be all too bad.
That is impossible according to the Bible. The DBR and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and its meaning was hidden from the 12, yet they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. James said Abraham was justified by offering up his son Isaac. The Lord Jesus Christ in his ministry to Israel said to enter into life keep the commandments. Is that was Paul preached?
It was already shown many times in the first page this isn't true. Peter went to Jews first, then gentiles. Paul went to Jews first, then gentiles. So why did you say the same thing when shown wrong?
Then why did you say otherwise in this post? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
re the appeal to the Jews:
He can still make that appeal and then spend most of his time going to the Gentiles. There are such things as generalizations, you know, and they imply exceptions. Look at the end of Acts: the last appeal is to the Jews because he still wants them in the mission--a mission to the nations.
re the 70. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Do you think they forgot that electrifying line of John's? Do you think they did not know what a Lamb was. The problem with hanging around any nice, charismatic leader is you get attached to the leader not the message. The disciples did and it made it hard to accept his death as his destiny.
Further re the 70: he preached forgiveness in his own authority and name and credentials many times, from the first set of miracles onward. It is all through the account. Even before he is born he is named Joshua who will save us from our sins.
However, we are not talking about the 70 when we are talking about Peter and Paul are we? By the time we are talking about P&P, the content of the Gospel is very well known. Acts 2 lines up very nicely with Acts 13. On the ancient promise, on David, on forgiveness, on justification.
There is no separate gospel of the kingdom, because there is no kingdom separate from the power or force of the Gospel. It always was a message about that for it has a power over men that is distinct from what a state or theocracy can impose.
James was explaining that faith has to have action with it. duh. It is not a separate Gospel.
Sometimes, like with the rich young ruler and 'keep the commands and you will enter life', you have to show the truth of the Gospel by an extreme or hyperbolic illustration. The whole law did need to be fulfilled by Christ (Rom 10), but here was a person who was very sure of his own righteousness. How do you get him to see that he is not righteous? You tell him a command that is his favorite not to keep, or favorite to ignore. The Gospel is just as much for the high rollers and for those in the gutters.
Again, the usual audience for Peter was Jews and for Paul it was not. This was due to each one's commission. There were significant exceptions.
I will review the supposed two gospels in the grammar of Gal 2 from this thread's page 1. The last one was a hoot.
He can still make that appeal and then spend most of his time going to the Gentiles. There are such things as generalizations, you know, and they imply exceptions. Look at the end of Acts: the last appeal is to the Jews because he still wants them in the mission--a mission to the nations.
re the 70. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Do you think they forgot that electrifying line of John's? Do you think they did not know what a Lamb was. The problem with hanging around any nice, charismatic leader is you get attached to the leader not the message. The disciples did and it made it hard to accept his death as his destiny.
Further re the 70: he preached forgiveness in his own authority and name and credentials many times, from the first set of miracles onward. It is all through the account. Even before he is born he is named Joshua who will save us from our sins.
However, we are not talking about the 70 when we are talking about Peter and Paul are we? By the time we are talking about P&P, the content of the Gospel is very well known. Acts 2 lines up very nicely with Acts 13. On the ancient promise, on David, on forgiveness, on justification.
There is no separate gospel of the kingdom, because there is no kingdom separate from the power or force of the Gospel. It always was a message about that for it has a power over men that is distinct from what a state or theocracy can impose.
James was explaining that faith has to have action with it. duh. It is not a separate Gospel.
Sometimes, like with the rich young ruler and 'keep the commands and you will enter life', you have to show the truth of the Gospel by an extreme or hyperbolic illustration. The whole law did need to be fulfilled by Christ (Rom 10), but here was a person who was very sure of his own righteousness. How do you get him to see that he is not righteous? You tell him a command that is his favorite not to keep, or favorite to ignore. The Gospel is just as much for the high rollers and for those in the gutters.
Again, the usual audience for Peter was Jews and for Paul it was not. This was due to each one's commission. There were significant exceptions.
I will review the supposed two gospels in the grammar of Gal 2 from this thread's page 1. The last one was a hoot.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I can't take this over Hebrews. It's too much of a stretch. Don't base anything on the Rev that is not clear elsewhere in an ordinary letter.
Interplanner
Well-known member
While I agree with the first paragraph, I also lean towards the second paragraphI'm always reconsidering where I stand as I learn more.
I think the idea of the "2 gospels" (which both had the same good news about eternity) is very plausible. I find it very difficult to unify many of the writings without recognizing the audiences without MAD (at least as I understand it). Do you have advice on how to unify the seemingly different messages?
The unity that Peter expresses in Acts 11 is all I need. God alone forgives sins of all mankind who call upon him. Peter need to realize that; it was something Paul already knew.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sorry NickM,
I don't see anything on page 1 about the grammar of Gal 2 and how it supports 2 messages. it does not. The Gospel Gal 2 refers to is one, is referred to singular, and follows a chapter where there is an "anathema" pronounced on any other Gospel.
If you're referring to the comment about Acts 15, 17, 18, 19, I already mentioned that in Acts 15 the question of one message of forgiveness (Gospel) is resolved. Then the 2nd question is 'how much of Judaism's law is needed to be performed by Gentiles to honor Christ?' The answer is very little. They were not talking about earning forgiveness at that point. If they were, the answer would have been the whole law, and would never have overlooked the Sabbath.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where is your evidence?
The events when Cornelius was saved prove that receiving "the gift of the Holy Spirit" is speaking of the gift to be able to speak in tongue:
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10:44-46).
The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household and those who had accompanied Peter were astonished "because that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." How did they know that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on Cornelius and his household?
Let us look at this passage again:
"...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God..."
Here the word "for" is translated from the Greek word gar, and the meaning of that word as used here is "it addresses the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding statement or opinion" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon).
The reason that they knew that Cornelius had received the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is because they heard him speak in tongues.
So when the ones who received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon being baptized with water they received the gift to be able to speak in tongues.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I was referring to Pentecost, of course, where it actually says the miracle was at the hearing end, not the speaking end. As for your passages, it is still at the hearing end. Luke lists the various nations in ch 2 and I assume he was continuing the same in 11; that those people heard the message in their native language (many of them were multi-lingual).
The important thing, as Paul shows in I Cor 14 from Isaiah, is that followers of Judaism saw this happen. That's the gift. It is not for personal growth; it doesn't seem to produce much, if you follow what I cor 14 says about childishness and maturity. The real gift is that people in Judaism get to see that God is seriously trying to get to the nations.
Peter knew that only those who were justified by faith could have this happen. They were justified from their sins by believing on Christ.
The important thing, as Paul shows in I Cor 14 from Isaiah, is that followers of Judaism saw this happen. That's the gift. It is not for personal growth; it doesn't seem to produce much, if you follow what I cor 14 says about childishness and maturity. The real gift is that people in Judaism get to see that God is seriously trying to get to the nations.
Peter knew that only those who were justified by faith could have this happen. They were justified from their sins by believing on Christ.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I showed you exactly what is meant by 'the gift of the Holy Spirit" and that is the gift mentioned here in bold:
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit...For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues" (1 Cor.12:4,8-10).
Those who were baptized with water certainly did receive the gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).