dodge
New member
Dan P , I am a Christian by faith and a baptist by the leadership of God.
ECT Paul said the Apostles were in Christ before Him. Paul brought no new message.
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
Dan P , I am a Christian by faith and a baptist by the leadership of God.
Christians are those who have the Holy Spirit. Moses had the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: "Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them?"
Isn't the latest always the greatest? New is improved? The next is always better than the last?
What did that gospel contain?
dodge
New member
dodge
New member
The gospel was, is ,and will always be GRACE ! Even though Madist have about 20 pages of scripture they go by and ignore ALL the rest that does not change the truth.
Rev 14:6
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Many translations render everlasting eternal, and FYI, everlasting means just that !
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
No, Paul did not bring a new message. Paul brought clarity to the one gospel message of Jesus Christ. (It has always seemed silly, the very notion there's some gospel of Christ and another of Paul, when Christ gave Paul His gospel to give to the world, in the first place, Galatians 1, without the likes of parables, is all. Paul refuted such notions himself, 1 Corinthians 1:12-13, as, two millennia later, we nonetheless wallow in the -isms of man. Ecclesiastes 1:9.)
Faith, atonement by faith in the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the new birth and coming of the Spirit, that all men would be drawn to the cross and gospel of Christ, the second coming, even the church in His parables: Christ taught all these things. Christ taught the same eschatology, simply expanded upon after the four gospel books and, ultimately, in Revelation.
I would not trade coming to the place in life of a peace that is beyond sublime, every day, to understand that the Bible, from cover to cover, is Jesus Christ, an unfolding, harmonious, consistent unfolding of one message and revelation of one God, in three Persons. I sincerely feel sorry for anybody who doesn't see the remarkable, supernatural unity of God's word down the ages, or the unity of God, the clarity and peace of that harmony, and it's sorry to see so many, filled with devilish venom and rancor, who claim they're "rightly dividing" the word of God who are, in fact, taking an assembled puzzle and scattering the pieces, slicing and dicing until there's even no whole Bible, no whole gospel, context left.
Hence the endless disputes and confusion, all the -isms of man, where nobody agrees and everybody is right, at the same time, et al, as if there are conflicting truths, as if the Bible doesn't contain John 16:13, begging, screaming the question as to where the Holy Spirit is failing many of you, claiming conflicting truths? And, of course, this a rhetorical question, as the Spirit does not fail, leave it to each to come to their own conclusion, therefore.
Have any of you noticed how many great, Christian men of God there have been, down the generations, who, in fact, agree on truths you're disputing every day? Is there anybody here who has seen the supernatural harmony among those truly of the Spirit? Granted, they are not as many as in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of the world, or as there are Catholic, Mormon, Adventist, Armstong, Hebrew roots, Calvinist functionaries, whatever, ad infinitum, at least names in the public eye, but I could fill a large room with men, many gone on to be with the Lord, some still living, largely sincere seminarians, dedicated to a life pursuing the truth of the Lord, who weren't educated in scripture on a message board, by a cult denomination, by a deceiving tare or conspiracy website, who'd agree on each and every fundamental point of the gospel, and complexities less fundamental, which most all of you disagree on. They of peace and one message, you all over the place, at each others’ throats, for page after page, every day.
Just a thought that, sorry, is sure to get a lot of knees jerking, albeit this the stark truth, proven in something called a thread around here. Also sorry, but the fact is, I could find a long list of real theologians of spotless reputations who agree and would all dispute most of what you see here, as to dispensations, starting with Harry Ironside, who, himself, was a dispensationalist. To whit:
H. A. Ironside, a strong dispensationalist himself, wrote a good booklet outlining some of the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. In it he says that he has "no hesitancy in saying that [ultra-dispensationalism's] fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views [sound familiar, TOL?]; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth" (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, chapter 1, Loizeaux Brothers, 1938).
In fact, the only use of dispensations is that of a tool to divide the unfolding revelation of God to man, His progressive program, in time, solely like making a diagram, proper use of dispensations doctrinally neutral of the truths of scripture. Dispensations are not and have never been their own cult, as they were conceived. You are no more true dispensationalists than cults are true Christianity.
Faith, atonement by faith in the flesh and blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the new birth and coming of the Spirit, that all men would be drawn to the cross and gospel of Christ, the second coming, even the church in His parables: Christ taught all these things. Christ taught the same eschatology, simply expanded upon after the four gospel books and, ultimately, in Revelation.
I would not trade coming to the place in life of a peace that is beyond sublime, every day, to understand that the Bible, from cover to cover, is Jesus Christ, an unfolding, harmonious, consistent unfolding of one message and revelation of one God, in three Persons. I sincerely feel sorry for anybody who doesn't see the remarkable, supernatural unity of God's word down the ages, or the unity of God, the clarity and peace of that harmony, and it's sorry to see so many, filled with devilish venom and rancor, who claim they're "rightly dividing" the word of God who are, in fact, taking an assembled puzzle and scattering the pieces, slicing and dicing until there's even no whole Bible, no whole gospel, context left.
Hence the endless disputes and confusion, all the -isms of man, where nobody agrees and everybody is right, at the same time, et al, as if there are conflicting truths, as if the Bible doesn't contain John 16:13, begging, screaming the question as to where the Holy Spirit is failing many of you, claiming conflicting truths? And, of course, this a rhetorical question, as the Spirit does not fail, leave it to each to come to their own conclusion, therefore.
Have any of you noticed how many great, Christian men of God there have been, down the generations, who, in fact, agree on truths you're disputing every day? Is there anybody here who has seen the supernatural harmony among those truly of the Spirit? Granted, they are not as many as in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of the world, or as there are Catholic, Mormon, Adventist, Armstong, Hebrew roots, Calvinist functionaries, whatever, ad infinitum, at least names in the public eye, but I could fill a large room with men, many gone on to be with the Lord, some still living, largely sincere seminarians, dedicated to a life pursuing the truth of the Lord, who weren't educated in scripture on a message board, by a cult denomination, by a deceiving tare or conspiracy website, who'd agree on each and every fundamental point of the gospel, and complexities less fundamental, which most all of you disagree on. They of peace and one message, you all over the place, at each others’ throats, for page after page, every day.
Just a thought that, sorry, is sure to get a lot of knees jerking, albeit this the stark truth, proven in something called a thread around here. Also sorry, but the fact is, I could find a long list of real theologians of spotless reputations who agree and would all dispute most of what you see here, as to dispensations, starting with Harry Ironside, who, himself, was a dispensationalist. To whit:
H. A. Ironside, a strong dispensationalist himself, wrote a good booklet outlining some of the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. In it he says that he has "no hesitancy in saying that [ultra-dispensationalism's] fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views [sound familiar, TOL?]; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth" (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, chapter 1, Loizeaux Brothers, 1938).
In fact, the only use of dispensations is that of a tool to divide the unfolding revelation of God to man, His progressive program, in time, solely like making a diagram, proper use of dispensations doctrinally neutral of the truths of scripture. Dispensations are not and have never been their own cult, as they were conceived. You are no more true dispensationalists than cults are true Christianity.
THIS witness is NOT true.
Fact of the matter is that right about the same time Ironside wrote his slanderous booklet; the very individuals he wrote it specifically against both PUBLICLY proved Ironside not only wrong, but a liar through and through.
As regrettable, as it is; it is a matter of public record.
dodge
New member
Lets see to be a Madist I have to IGNORE, pervert, take out of context all but about 20 pages of scripture( probably even less than 20 pages ) .
My vote is YOUR witness is not true.
Hi and it depends on who you talk to and one Pastor said that Dr Ironsides left dispensationalism , when he wrote his booklet Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth < only God knows the truth !!
dan p
No need to talk to anyone.
Ironside began to hold to the Mystery ala Mid-Acts in his earlier writings.
Later, he not only denied his earlier assertions (despite their plain evidence in his earlier books) but attempted to shift the focus on O'Hair and Stam as heretics.
Both of whom, after going back and forth privately with Ironside, had had no choice but to finally have to step up to the plate to publicly prove him dishonest in his very assertions.
He should have simply stated that he had once believed in The Mystery as they did, but now no longer did.
Instead, he pulled a Hilary/Trump - ever asserting - against the witness of his own earlier writings - that he had never taught such a thing.
It is all in public record in written form, written during the very time all three men were alive and publicly going back and forth in written form, about who had taught what when.
Reminds me of that letter the publishers of the NIV used to send various assemblies, when it first came out.
In which the assemblies were offered a cut of the profit depending on how many NIVs they sold.
Religion is...an ugly business.
Lol - read Ironside's earlier writings - they're more Acts 9 than Acts 2 :chuckle:
Hi and my Pastor , knew of him and J DWIGHT PENTECOST was the one to teach R C BROCK how to translate !!
dan p
We don't ignore the rest, liar.
We also don't claim grace was not always part of the gospel. You and your ilk are the only ones to say that. So that's another lie from you. Your father must be so proud.
And yet you still cannot tell us what that gospel contains.
Here we are, weeks into this and still none of them can explain why the Great Commission didn't apply to Paul.
dodge
New member
Sure you do you just sugar coat it with Jesus taught the law and was sent only to Israel, which of course is a lie as John 3:16 and other verses prove.
I understand that not all Madist agree within that cult. Some say there are 2 gospels which is clearly a lie.
The 4 Gospels are ALL about grace YOU just cannot or will not see it. Your loss not mine.
Do you want your version of the gospel= Ignore Jesus' teachings, the OT, the Prophets,and every Apostle except Paul.
The scriptural version is that ALL mankind are sinners and God in His infinite love sent His Son to pay a sin debt that He did not owe to receive a punishment ( cross ) that we not HE deserved, and if we admit we are sinners to God and accept the gift that He provided in Christ Jesus. Put our faith only in Him and His sacrifice ( Finished work of Jesus ) for us to be bought with His blood we become His sons/daughters. EXACTLY like Jesus and ALL the Apostles taught.
But He answered and said, [Jesus]“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 15:24
There is currently only one. There have been many. There is usually some overlap as a new one begins, so there were two [2] at one time. That's how dispensations work.
I've never said they weren't. The entire Bible is about grace.
Stop being an idiot for once.
Show the gospel that was preached by Jesus and the 12 prior to the cross. Compare it to the gospel preached by the 12 after the cross and show me there are no differences. And for good measure do the same with the gospel Paul preached.
Then show them teaching it. Cite actual Scripture instead of just demanding that it's in there without providing proof.
Interplanner
Well-known member
LH,
if you don't know the Scriptures well enough to know that is the Gospel... start over.
Loan him some of your ever endless books "about" :chuckle: