Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Its very simple, Jerry's "original" was found off-base decades ago.
Prove it. You talk big but talk is cheap.
Its very simple, Jerry's "original" was found off-base decades ago.
Prove it. You talk big but talk is cheap.
No again , Jerry. I have no problem with understanding that eternal life is always by the grace of God through faith. And yet I can see that the faith's have differences. Faith under the law and faith NOT under the law are definitely different.
Maybe Danoh is "all hat and no horse"?
No again , Jerry. I have no problem with understanding that eternal life is always by the grace of God through faith. And yet I can see that the faith's have differences. Faith under the law and faith NOT under the law are definitely different.16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
So when Jerry says the Jews that "lived under the law" are saved by faith only, does that make any sense to you? It seems to me, a person is under the schoolmaster or NOT.
So you want me to read someone else's mind?Since you understand that salvation has always been by grace then how can you explain the teaching within the Neo-MAD camp that declares that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?
I've already shown you that I do understand this. You have a real comprehension problem.Are you not even aware that if it is of works then it cannot be of grace:"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).
Why do you insist on falsely associating me with this belief?In fact, in the same chapter Paul made it plain that David, who lived under the law, was saved apart from works:"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:5-8).If you are not aware of these foundational truths then your growth has been stunted. You need to flee the teaching which comes out of the Neo-MAD community.
Once again you prove that you are ignorant of the principles of being saved by grace.
That is correct. I follow the original MAD teaching of Sir Robert Anderson, the father of systemized Mid Acts Dispensationalism. In the original teaching, both Anderson and J.C. O'Hair taught that throughout history men have been saved in only one way--by grace through faith apart from works.
Both men also taught that the TWELVE are members of the Body of Christ and that the doctrine found in the epistles beginning at Romans through Jude are for those in the Body of Christ.
The gospel which Paul peached prior to the one he preached at Acts 13 to the Gentiles was this one and he preached it to the Jews:
"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).
The gospel which was first preached to the Gentiles at Acts 13 is this one:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you...For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:1,3-4).
lol,no actually the verse is the preterits go to in defense of one Gospel/ect. you must feel fairly confident in being able to preach the sermon from the inside of the box out to even mention it,,,
Great....you've proven I'm ignorant. I'll admit that, and you can move right along proving you are.
So when Jerry says the Jews that "lived under the law" are saved by faith only, does that make any sense to you? It seems to me, a person is under the schoolmaster or NOT.
To agree with Jerry is to affirm he has been right to hound after others attempting to force his view on them all these decades.
The issue is not whether he is right or wrong in his beliefs but that he is dead wrong in what he has done with it.
What is your point, if you actually have one?
it just made me wonder why you chose that particular verse
Jerry how can someone be offered something "first" and then it be given to someone else "second" unless they are the "same thing"?,,,,but as dispies we rather see them as "two things"?,,,
Good news (gospel) was given to the Jews first but the "good news" (gospel) which was given to the Gentiles afterwards was not the same "good news."
Again if there are two then the 12 and the 3000 who believed,and the 70,and those who believed in the first Gospel are of those who believed in the first and then not of the body of Christ as sir Anderson said.