Got to love your "initial justification" post.
(but you believe in grace)
For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained
- Thread starter chickenman
- Start date
Got to love your "initial justification" post.
(but you believe in grace)
JosephR
New member
Does Acts 2 say that all people in the world ,no matter where, if God calls on them may be saved by Grace?
BTW I dont see anything wrong with MAD believers, its the same Gospel just more realistic at how it is applied to the Gentiles. And I think we need to know what is written to us as Gentiles afar off but called by God.So we dont try to keep the 613 Laws and many things some try to incorporate.Like some good God fearing people do. Is there a thread with dos/donts for Gentiles living under grace, customs,traditions, feast ect ect?Or does not to esteem one day over another literally mark out all religious dogma/traditions/customs. Most of the world at that time kept holy days at some time or another.
BTW I dont see anything wrong with MAD believers, its the same Gospel just more realistic at how it is applied to the Gentiles. And I think we need to know what is written to us as Gentiles afar off but called by God.So we dont try to keep the 613 Laws and many things some try to incorporate.Like some good God fearing people do. Is there a thread with dos/donts for Gentiles living under grace, customs,traditions, feast ect ect?Or does not to esteem one day over another literally mark out all religious dogma/traditions/customs. Most of the world at that time kept holy days at some time or another.
Got to love your "initial justification" post.
(but you believe in grace)
You fail to distinguish my views on justification, sanctification, glorification, perseverance, etc. Your hyper-grace error is the problem, not my biblical, balanced view of grace.
So go ahead and distinguish between divorce and....whatever.
It says nobody is saved by grace. Peter says nearly the opposite, and he says the messiah was raised up to sit on David's throne.
Peter and Paul both preached grace/faith. Peter talking about other aspects of the ultimate session of the Messiah in the future is of interest to a Jewish audience, another subject, not evidence of two gospels.
Are we still waiting for Slick Willie to prove Peter preached grace as Paul dd?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
We have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about God's "grace" and there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross.
Why should anyone believe that Peter preached the "gospel of grace" on that day, that believers are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," despite the fact that Peter said nothing about any of the essentials of the gospel of grace?
Let's not throw the baby out with the water - in Acts 2 and 3 Peter IS preaching ISRAEL'S Prophesied Grace, 1 Peter 1.
At the same time, its NOT Paul's/THE BODY'S Kept Secret/Mystery Grace, though, Gal. 2, in light of Romans 11; in light of Israel's fall.
Of course, our enemies will read that, as they do all else - they will find holes they perceive in it and not ask about said perceived holes. Instead, they will post the basis of their error.
As a result, round and round we go...
Missing in such is a willingness to deal with passages that APPEAR a contradiction with one another.
Said willingness replaced by "well, if I look at this passage from this angle, and that passage from this other angle over here, voila, they are really saying the same thing. Therefore, these Mid-Acts people are wrong - hah, I got em, think I'll post, what the Lord showed me..."
The guideline is Ephesians 2's Time Past, But Now, Ages to Come.
Wherever you note in Scripture that God is dealing with men on the basis of circumcision, promises and or instruction in righteousness based on Israel's Law Covenant that their New Covenant promises it will enable them to keep with the blotting out of their sins one day, you know you are dealing with instruction for its believing remnant or royal priesthood, etc, Acts 3.
When that is not the basis, you know you are dealing with instruction in righteousness this side of Israel's temporary fall - instructions for Jew and Gentile alike, this side of said fall, as a member of the Body, our sins already blotted out, Romans 5.
The dividing line between the two - Romans 11:25-29.
i'm glad you know the Bible so well. tell us where Peter or the other Apostles preached Paul's gospel before Paul. keep reading -
atrol:Depends on what one thinks they are looking at, in contrast to what closer examination might reveal - the latter of these two of which is how Mid-Acts re-emerged.
For example, a quick glance at your picture might lead some to conclude you are flashing gang signals. While, a closer glimpse would reveal that you are not; that, actually; you are holding up some fish
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I miss
heir
TOL Subscriber
me too!
Ditto.
I miss him too.
Acts 17:11 KJV
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Was this happening before or after Paul preached to Thessalonia (epistles to Thessalonians)?
The reason I ask is because he states that searching the scriptures is the way to know for certain if what Paul is teaching at the time is true or not.
Searching the scriptures at that time would have been the OT.
So, if at this time Paul is already preaching the gospel of the mystery that was hidden in the OT ....... then what would be the point of searching the OT for it?