Theology Club: Why Will No One in the Neo-MAD Camp Address John 3:16?

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why? Why am I to please give you my interpretation?

Jerry and I probably agree on 90-95% of doctrines, but he will not be satisfied until I am ground into powder and bowing in submission.

I cannot understand that.

 

[glorydaz]

Salvation:

1. Blotting out of sins
2. Resurrection


In the Body of Christ we have both of these now. We were crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, forgiven, and risen with Christ. We are saved now. It cannot be lost.


The little flock, that church of Acts 2, had remission of sins. They looked to the 2nd coming for the blotting out of sins and being raised. This is when they are saved. They could not lose salvation, as they were still looking ahead to it. They could lose their position and miss out on being saved at the end.


If everyone understood this, TOL would be a much happier place. Mix it all together and you have arguments, backbiting, accusations, name calling.

:e4e:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Accept that Andersen and O'Hair might be wrong.

Why do you want to change the subject? It is obviously because you are unable to defend what you said here:

The twelve and their followers had no reason to expect the Atonement and their salvation until the Second Coming. It was in full accord with prophecy.

So we are supposed to believe that Peter did not think that he or those to whom he wrote his epistles had received the blessings of the atonement and wouldn't receive it until the Lord Jesus' second coming even though he wrote the following?:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.18-19).​

Certainly those who had received Peter's first epistle had received the blessings which flow from the atonement because Peter told them that they were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. Peter also told them this:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (1 Pet.2:24).​

Why in the world would Peter be telling the Jews that they have already received the blessings which flow from the atonement if you are right and they will not receive the atonement until the Lord Jesus returns to the earth?

Of course you will not answer!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why? Why am I to please give you my interpretation?

Who says? Who are you? Everyone's parent?

I knew that you wouldn't because all you do is run and hide from the verses which prove that your ideas are in error.

I want others to see that all you do is to make excuses why you will not give your interpretation of the meaning of those verses.

Geez, what a pest of a husband, father, friend, neighbor, employee, client, shopper, driver - all around pain - you must be.

When you are not making excuses you are attacking me personally.

You seem to think that if you assassinate my character enough then those verses will just go away. But I got bad news for you sister, they will never go away.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

:e4e:

So you agreed with what STP said here:

The little flock, that church of Acts 2, had remission of sins. They looked to the 2nd coming for the blotting out of sins and being raised. This is when they are saved. They could not lose salvation, as they were still looking ahead to it. They could lose their position and miss out on being saved at the end.

Since he refused to defend his position after what I said perhaps you will do it for him?

So even though the Lord Jesus told them this they were not saved when they believed?:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Of course the Jewish believers who lived under the law were saved since they received eternal life upon belief. And those who believed will never perish, meaning that they possessed eternal security:

"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).​

It is ridiculous to argue that the Jews who lived under the law would not be saved until sometime in the future. Here the Lord Jesus told a woman that she was already saved:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).​

Peter also knew that he was already saved and that his salvation was on the principle of "grace":

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).​

Those who lived under the law were 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; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Since the Jews who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith it is evident that "works" played no part in their salvation:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).​

I've read before that he who has the Son has eternal life.
And if they did not continually abide in the Son?

Here is what the Lord Jesus Himself said about those to whom He had given eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

 

[Danoh]

Jerry and I probably agree on 90-95% of doctrines, but he will not be satisfied until I am ground into powder and bowing in submission.

I cannot understand that.

Yeah, likewise on my end; but Jerry has been to the Holy Grail, spoken to the Yeti about the Missing Link; that remaining 5-10%, lol

Though, I suspect I probably agree more with Dan P then with most others on here.

But, so what; who cares "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

I remember once during a visit at an Acts 9 assembly that is KJVO, etc., this one person comes up after the service to ask their famous pastor about some passage. The pastor grabs the guy's Bible, and shows him a few other passages that tie things together, smiles, and they talk a minute.

And that was that.

The guy puts the Bible on a table, I look over at it, curious as to whether he uses a study Bible, and it turns out the guy was using an NIV.

Did this famous, Acts 9 KJVO pastor - able to fly through Scripture like few - get on the guy about it? Nope.

Some people apparently actually do believe in practicing the following towards others - 2 Corinthians 1: 24's "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand."

 

[musterion]

I just got off work after severe storms here last night, so couldn't post. Unless I missed it, Jerry, you did not respond to this:

1. To practice 1 Jn 1:9 for the reason John said to (conditional forgiveness and cleansing) is to put oneself back under a principle of law and is a fall from grace by denying God's provision for the Body, and so is itself sin.

2. To practice 1 Jn 1:9 despite the reason John said to (purportedly, in order to "maintain fellowship," which John did not say and which we of the Body cannot even break) STILL doubts God's provision for the Body AND twists His Word, so is still sin.

Either way, practicing 1 John 1:9 today is dispensational error.

If I am wrong, show me.

PS

I am all for confessing to our Father when I allow the old man off his leash, but I do not do so for the reasons John gave (forgiveness and cleansing) nor for the reason human tradition gives (to stay in fellowship with our Father).

 

[patrick jane]

I just got off work after severe storms here last night, so couldn't post. Unless I missed it, Jerry, you did not respond to this:

Either way, practicing 1 John 1:9 today is dispensational error.

If I am wrong, show me.

PS

I am all for confessing to our Father when I allow the old man off his leash, but I do not do so for the reasons John gave (forgiveness and cleansing) nor for the reason human tradition gives (to stay in fellowship with our Father).

good post, me either -

 

[musterion]

Also...

I think I recall reading that O'Hair and Stam eventually buried the hatched on the 9/13 issue. I personally don't have much of an opinion on it because I don't see that I need to have one. Similarly, I don't very much care to contemplate the workings of salvation in prior dispensations; such discussion can only be purely academic because it really has no impact on us today, and so ends up unprofitable disputation as abundantly proven by this very thread.

Where I take issue is when someone tries to transfer doctrine that is specific to a prior dispensation into the current one, and implies or states that believers today should be practicing it. That's what you're doing with 1 John 1:9, seems to me. Paul said NOTHING about our confessing our sins to our Father. Is that an argument from silence? You betcha, and it's a valid one. What you're doing re: confession amounts to Galatianism.

 

[patrick jane]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
It is obvious that your ideas are contradicted by the verses from the Scriptures which I quoted. And you did not even attempt to reconcile any of those verses to your theology.

Instead, you decided that you would attack me personally. I bet you are proud of yourself!

It isn't worth the effort. I'm not changing my mind.
You aren't changing yours.

We shall find out at the judgment seat which is correct.

i remember how you told me that you were proud of yourself STP !

remember ?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just got off work after severe storms here last night, so couldn't post. Unless I missed it, Jerry, you did not respond to this:

Either way, practicing 1 John 1:9 today is dispensational error.

I already addressed that and I am still waiting for your response to what you said here:

Paul nowhere told us to "keep our feet clean" or "keep short accounts" by confessing our sins.

He told us to judge ourselves, and that is exactly the same thing as confessing our sins to ourselves:

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor.11:29-32).​

If we fail to judge ourselves or confess our sins then we will be chastened of the Lord. Do you ever "judge" yourself and what is it that you are judging yourself about?

If you believe confession maintains that forgiveness and cleansing (and if you are honest and take John at his word, you have to) then not only are you using the same logic of Lordship Salvationists but are preaching salvation conditionally obtained/maintained by the work of confession.

That's a false gospel.

1 John 1:9 is not about salvation and you have offered no proof that it is about salvation. Do you tell the unsaved that if they will confess their sins then those sins will be remitted and they will be cleansed from unrighteousness. Here is how Peter said that the remission of sins happens for the unsaved:

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).​

So the words at 1 John 1:9 are written to those who are already saved.

So how about entry into the earthly Kingdom = entry into life? You going to keep ignoring that?

I have already addressed entry into the resurrection of life. And in order to enter the earthly kingdom one had to be born again (Jn.3:3-5) and Peter says that one is born again by the word of God, the gospel:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God...And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23-25).​

The Jews to whom those words were addressed were born again by the word and no works were involved.

I have answered many of your points so please answer my question concerning these words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Do you agree with me that the Lord was telling them that if they "believed" then they would be saved.

If your answer is "no" then tell me why you don't agree.

John gives us the proof; he did not say "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to keep us in fellowship with Him."

The "context" where those words are found is in regard to "fellowship."

The issue isn't fellowship but FORGIVENESS AND CLEANSING, whereas Paul says we're 100% forgiven and clean in Christ -- as righteous before God as the Son is.

Again, you confuse our "standing" with our "walk." And these words refer to our "walk":

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor.7:1).​

In our "standing" before God we are risen together with Christ and are sitting together with Him in heavenly places and our life is hid with Christ in God. We are completely identified with the Lord Jesus in our "standing.

Our actual "walk" is a different matter altogether. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between the two.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Where I take issue is when someone tries to transfer doctrine that is specific to a prior dispensation into the current one, and implies or states that believers today should be practicing it. That's what you're doing with 1 John 1:9, seems to me.

Let us look to see to whom 1 Corinthians was addressed:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

Paul's words in 1 Corinthians were addressed not only to those in the church at Corinth but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

Since all of the Jewish believers in every place called on the name of the Lord Jesus then it cannot be denied that what is said to the saints apply to all the Jewish believers and tis is what Paul told them all:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is 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).​

Paul certainly believed that all the Jewish believers in every place were members of the Body of Christ. But you do not! Tell me why you think that Paul was in error.

 

[Danoh]

I just got off work after severe storms here last night, so couldn't post. Unless I missed it, Jerry, you did not respond to this:

Either way, practicing 1 John 1:9 today is dispensational error.

If I am wrong, show me.

PS

I am all for confessing to our Father when I allow the old man off his leash, but I do not do so for the reasons John gave (forgiveness and cleansing) nor for the reason human tradition gives (to stay in fellowship with our Father).

Couldn't agree more. But then, I don't subscribe to the school of basing a thing on one or two passages taken away from their whole setting, scope, and context.

John's sense is the same throughout all three epistles, and the issue he is addressing is the same throughout.

No, Jerry, sort it out yourself; know it all.

As for the acknowledgement of sin per Jerry's Galationist Kool-Aid, what the heck was wrong with the Apostle Paul that when he had a great opportunity to address this very issue in Romans 5 thru 8, he blows it?

Might it be that "follow me" actually means follow Jerry?

Is this the issue? That we are actually Muslims, Paul was not the last - the Lord was actually seen last, by Jerry?

That is how absolutely ridiculous his insistence that he be completely agreed with, repeated back to him in his exact words, please... is.

Lol, the Apostle Jerry and his - "Let us look at" some hot air...

 

[musterion]

Let us look to see to whom 1 Corinthians was addressed:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

Paul's words in 1 Corinthians were addressed not only to those in the church at Corinth but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

Since all of the Jewish believers in every place called on the name of the Lord Jesus then it cannot be denied that what is said to the saints apply to all the Jewish believers and tis is what Paul told them all:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is 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).​

Paul certainly believed that all the Jewish believers in every place were members of the Body of Christ. But you do not! Tell me why you think that Paul was in error.

Are we of the Body required to confess sins in order for them to be forgiven and ourselves kept clean before our Father, per 1 John? Yes or no.

That's the only issue here worth discussing, in my opinion. Nothing else directly impacts us, as far as I can see.

He told us to judge ourselves, and that is exactly the same thing as confessing our sins to ourselves:

John told his readers to confess their sins to themselves in order to be forgiven and cleansed?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Are we of the Body required to confess sins in order for them to be forgiven and ourselves kept clean before our Father, per 1 John? Yes or no.

That's the only issue here worth discussing, in my opinion. Nothing else directly impacts us, as far as I can see.



John told his readers to confess their sins to themselves in order to be forgiven and cleansed?

Good question. Of course, old Jerry won't have an appropriate answer.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We of the Body of Christ, HAVE the righteousness of Christ. We have
forgiveness of ALL sin. We CANNOT lose our position in Christ.

 

[Danoh]

Are we of the Body required to confess sins in order for them to be forgiven and ourselves kept clean before our Father, per 1 John? Yes or no.

That's the only issue here worth discussing, in my opinion. Nothing else directly impacts us, as far as I can see.

Exactly!

Time to shut that clown up!

The issue is Galatianism thru and thru!

Galatians 5: 6's "...in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

Get that - neither a work [back then it was circumcision] nor uncircumcision [the absence of a work] availed anything.

Rather, resting by faith out of gratitude.

Rather:

1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The sense is that of Romans 5 thru 8, Col. 2, etc., is that of a; this issue is no one's business but the believer's and the Lord's, b; the way it works this side of Mystery Grace some insist on fusing with Prophesied Grace, is very simple:

When you screw up, you stop, remind yourself that is not who God has made you in His son, that is not the liberty He has called you unto; thank the Lord out of gratitude - "faith which worketh" is empowered "by love" grace motivation - for His Son's sacrifice and get on with life.

That is what Paul is asserting in Galatians two when Peter; and even Barnabas turned from the truth of the gospel of God's grace they well knew Paul had communicated unto them "that I preach among the Gentiles," Gal. 2:2-9.

This, when Peter and company put the Gentiles back under Israel's Performance Based Acceptance System: the Law for righteousness, that Paul describes in Romans 2; Romans 9; Romans 10; Galatians 3, etc., and that he asserts in Romans 3 was superseded by "BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the Law is manifested," Rom. 3:21.

Paul's response to the fool notion of Performance Based Acceptance for a Body Member in Galatians 2?

Romans 5 thru 8's basic - That's not who I am in Christ! - all over again, and again and again - til that understanding of who you are in Christ be formed in you once more - ye are fallen from an understanding of this grace wherein ye stand, justified by faith, and therefore at peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ!.

Galatians 2's:

19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20. I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

If righteousness come by the Law's Performance Based Acceptance System then Christ is dead in vain - let's all follow Jerry down to the local bar and drink up on pride, we are wasting our time.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are we of the Body required to confess sins in order for them to be forgiven and ourselves kept clean before our Father, per 1 John? Yes or no.

Why didn't you respond to the verses which I quoted from Paul at 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 12:13?

If you would believe those words of his then you would know that not only was John a member of the Body of Christ but those who received his epistles were also members of the Body of Christ.

Therefore, what is said at 1 John 1:9 is doctrine for those in the Body of Christ.

Why did you just ignore what Paul said in the two verses?

That epistle was written to all those in every place who call on the name of the Lord Jesus and that has to include all the Jews in every place. And here is what he told them:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is 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).​

I can understand why you refuse to deal with the words of Paul at 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 12:13 but they are not going away. Those verses prove that every single believer living in the first century, whether they be Gentiles or Jews, were members of the Body of Christ.

Not only that, but you failed to address anything which I said to you in post #151.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yeah, likewise on my end; but Jerry has been to the Holy Grail, spoken to the Yeti about the Missing Link; that remaining 5-10%, lol

I suspect a big part of the issue is that if Jerry would to agree with me on a few of these things, he would have to take a sobering hard look at the past 30, 40, or 50 years and admit to being wrong for so long.

If Andersen and O'Hair are removed from the pedestal, how depressing that would be.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I say let the Twelve and the Little Flock receive the atonement when the Lord returns, let them be Kings and Priests, let them inherit the City, let them judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

I say let the Body of Christ, having already received the atonement, seated already in Christ in God, inherit the heavens forever, judge angels, and be trophies of God's grace for the ages to come.

I say let the old testament saint be resurrected at the Second Coming and go into the promised land, let them be the head of the nations, let all nations flow to them. Let them administer God's Law to the nations in it's perfection for 1000 years.

As it is written, just let it be so...