ECT The Gospel in Romans 10

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, you are the perfect example of an educated idiot.

Every time you are proven to be wrong you start calling others names. You are so predictable.

If you think that your childish action of name calling will intimidate me then you are sadly mistaken.

I use this chapter all the time to preach the Gospel.

What verse out of the tenth chapter of the book of Romans can you quote to an unbeliever which will let them know that Christ died for their sins?

After all, you said that the gospel if found in Romans 10. So which verse exactly says that Christ died for our sins in chapter ten apart from any commentary from you?

 

[musterion]

What verse out of the tenth chapter of the book of Romans can you quote to an unbeliever which will let them know that Christ died for their sins?

Fair enough, but would you agree Paul assumed they already knew and believed it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You know, of course, Glorydaz, that you are wasting your time where JS is concerned.

He is a know it all based in other's labors in the Greek, together with other's external writings, together with his being stuck in Mid-Acts views long ago further refined to what turned out was A9D, which he is unable to make any sense of giving what are obviously mediocre study skills outside of those earlier, Mid-Acts understandings that still hold

Of course we all know that those in the Neo-MAD crowd say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. But this verse by itself prove that you and the rest of the Neo-MAD group are sadly mistaken:

"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's time for you to run and hide again.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Fair enough, but would you agree Paul assumed they already knew and believed it?

That is what I said. The epistle of Romans was written to those who are already saved and would know the meaning of the things spoken of in the tenth chapter.

But the gospel is preached to unbelievers and there is nothing in the tenth chapter which would teach unbelievers that Christ died for our sins or that we are redeemed by His blood.

 

[musterion]

Of course we all know that those in the Neo-MAD crowd say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.

C.R. Stam made basically that point and, as far as I know, never varied from it:

The opponents of dispensationalism have often charged us with teaching, for example, that under the Old Testament men were saved by the works of the law, whereas today they are saved by grace through faith.

This charge is at least misleading, for no thinking dispensationalist would teach that the works of the law in themselves could ever save, or even help save, anyone. . .

But this does not alter the fact that God's dealings with men and the stated terms of acceptance with Him have changed again and again down through the ages and that faith in Him would therefore be expressed in different ways. Hebrews 11 also bears consistent testimony to this fact.

Faith would most assuredly approach God in God's way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will. Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith.

I bring this up because I think I saw you distinguish between Stam and neo-MADs. So given the above, was Stam a neo-MAD?

 

[StanJ]

The gospel, IS the good news of Jesus Christ, so indeed it is in ALL of Paul's writings.
In Rom 10, Paul is teaching the hearers that the zeal of the Hebrews was NOT based on real knowledge of God but only on technical knowledge of the written laws, and is why they were missing out on Jesus.

 

[glorydaz]

Of course we all know that those in the Neo-MAD crowd say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. But this verse by itself prove that you and the rest of the Neo-MAD group are sadly mistaken:

"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's time for you to run and hide again.

What are you claiming they must believe? Are unbelievers supposed to figure that out for themselves?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

C.R. Stam made basically that point and, as far as I know, never varied from it:

I bring this up because I think I saw you distinguish between Stam and neo-MADs. So given the above, was Stam a neo-MAD?

Yes, he was. Let us look at other things he taught:

In the book Things that Differ we can find Pastor Stam's basic teaching in regard to his ideas of how a sinner obtained salvation in other dispensations. He writes:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved " [emphasis added] (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

In other words, according to him the only thing that is "essential" in order to be saved is faith. But then he says:

"Note carefully that while God refuses works for salvation today, He required them under other dispensations" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.21).​

The word "require" means "to demand as necessary or essential" (Merriam-Webster Online).

Therefore Stam is saying that in other dispensations works were "essential" in order to be saved. That idea directly contradicts what he said earlier, that only "faith" is essential for salvation.

Even though I learned a lot from Stam's books he did make mistakes, mistakes which the giants of MAD did not make. And these giants are Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair.

 

[glorydaz]

Every time you are proven to be wrong you start calling others names. You are so predictable.

You haven't proven anything, but you are "predictable" when you claim you have. :chuckle:

If you think that your childish action of name calling will intimidate me then you are sadly mistaken.

I've never heard a child use the term "educated idiot". That is pretty much reserved for those who have been exposed to college professor types who have big heads from being crammed inside of books. Those without a lick of common sense. And I'm not the least bit interested in trying to "intimidate" you, Jerry, that's your MO, not mine.

What verse out of the tenth chapter of the book of Romans can you quote to an unbeliever which will let them know that Christ died for their sins?

After all, you said that the gospel if found in Romans 10. So which verse exactly says that Christ died for our sins in chapter ten apart from any commentary from you?

If I see a dog scratching and fleas jumping, I don't need to take him to the vet for an ultra sound. It's clear.

What I find odd is that you have had lots of chances to explain what Paul is saying that excludes Christ's dying for sin from what is written there concerning the law and being raised from the dead, but you refuse to do so. There is no other explanation which is why you keep trying to put the ball back in my court. As I said, it's hiding in plain sight. You have to actually look, but if you don't think of it, you won't accept it. That, too, is your MO.

"You SHALL BE SAVED" rules out your claim this is written to believers.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What are you claiming they must believe? Are unbelievers supposed to figure that out for themselves?

What I said there had nothing to do with the tenth chapter of Romans. Instead, it was in reply to this which was said to me:

You know, of course, Glorydaz, that you are wasting your time where JS is concerned.

He is a know it all based in other's labors in the Greek, together with other's external writings, together with his being stuck in Mid-Acts views long ago further refined to what turned out was A9D, which he is unable to make any sense of giving what are obviously mediocre study skills outside of those earlier, Mid-Acts understandings that still hold.​

To that I said:

Of course we all know that those in the Neo-MAD crowd say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. But this verse by itself prove that you and the rest of the Neo-MAD group are sadly mistaken:​

"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's time for you to run and hide again.​

Now that I have your attention do you think that the Jews who lived under the law could be saved apart from works?

 

[patrick jane]

Because they did.

[B]It was a pagan practice[/B].

Notice that Paul does not say that "we" (the faithful) are baptized for the dead, but that "they" do it.

oh, pagans - they baptized themselves for dead folks ?

as Johnny Carson used to say - "I DID not know that . . . I DID not know that "

those crazy pagans - :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

What I said there had nothing to do with the tenth chapter of Romans. Instead, it was in reply to this which was said to me:

So, you refuse to answer my question and instead throw the ball back in my court. Now you have two questions you have chosen to ignore.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You haven't proven anything, but you are "predictable" when you claim you have.

Let us look what you said to my question here:

What verse out of the tenth chapter of the book of Romans can you quote to an unbeliever which will let them know that Christ died for their sins?

After all, you said that the gospel if found in Romans 10. So which verse exactly says that Christ died for our sins in chapter ten apart from any commentary from you? ​

Here is your answer:

If I see a dog scratching and fleas jumping, I don't need to take him to the vet for an ultra sound. It's clear.

What I find odd is that you have had lots of chances to explain what Paul is saying that excludes Christ's dying for sin from what is written there concerning the law and being raised from the dead, but you refuse to do so. There is no other explanation which is why you keep trying to put the ball back in my court. As I said, it's hiding in plain sight. You have to actually look, but if you don't think of it, you won't accept it. That, too, is your MO.

"You SHALL BE SAVED" rules out your claim this is written to believers.

First of all, you say that the truth that "Christ died for our sins" is hidden in plain sight. That might be true for those who were already saved and had already read the epistles. But that truth would not be seen by unbelievers who knew nothing about what is written in the tenth chapter.

Secondly, I find it impossible that the epistle to the Romans was written to unbelievers, as witnessed by what Paul says here:

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Ro.1:7-8).​

The phase "You SHALL BE SAVED" is referring to the fact that our earthly bodies will be delivered from infirmity which come on it when we will put on glorious bodies just like the Lord Jesus' glorious body.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, you refuse to answer my question and instead throw the ball back in my court. Now you have two questions you have chosen to ignore.

You based your question on a false premise. When I used that verse I was not addressing an unbeliever, as you imagine:

What are you claiming they must believe? Are unbelievers supposed to figure that out for themselves?

 

[Danoh]

Glorydaz, don't you see what Jerry is actually up to?

It is called a double-bind... where an individual attempts to oppress another as the cause of what is really his own, self-induced irritation - the irritation that is said oppressor's focus...

...not on any hair in particular, rather, those never ending splits between hairs it is never really able to solve for because it itself is creating them...

The problem is never really solved by answering such an individual.

Even any answer "good enough" is not so, long enough...

Because the end to their never ending dissatisfaction with another's answer can not be found in that other's answer.

For the real issue is a never ending neurosis at work within said individual that is part of their basic personality...

....coloring like water as it runs across a floor, every answer it encounters, as having come up "short here, there, and there, and there, and there, and..."

Its madness never ending.

And a neurosis is also such that when its issues are dormant, it cannot but compel its sufferer to "start something."

Jerry S's decades old, "Hi, and we know, of course that...."

A never ending "Touch not; taste not; handle not;"

 

[StanJ]

What verse out of the tenth chapter of the book of Romans can you quote to an unbeliever which will let them know that Christ died for their sins?

The FACT is that the Bible in singular verses doesn't say much about any ONE issue, and is NOT meant to be taken as such. To make a logical fallacy out of A verse is not how one should practise proper hermeneutics.

Verses 5-13 give the context of this scripture, and knowing that, is how one relates the gospel to ANYONE who is an unbeliever. That you think an unbeliever would understand any particular verse to bring about his salvation, without proper exegesis by a believer, is just plain ludicrous.

 

[Danoh]

The FACT is that the Bible in singular verses doesn't say much about any ONE issue, and is NOT meant to be taken as such. To make a logical fallacy out of A verse is not how one should practise proper hermeneutics.

Verses 5-13 give the context of this scripture, and knowing that, is how one relates the gospel to ANYONE who is an unbeliever. That you think an unbeliever would understand any particular verse to bring about his salvation, without proper exegesis by a believer, is just plain ludicrous.

Despite that error on his part, he nevertheless repeatedly leaves you in the dust that is your overall confusion.

 

[StanJ]

Despite that error on his part, he nevertheless repeatedly leaves you in the dust that is your overall confusion.

Sorry, what are you confused about?

 

[glorydaz]

The phase "You SHALL BE SAVED" is referring to the fact that our earthly bodies will be delivered from infirmity which come on it when we will put on glorious bodies just like the Lord Jesus' glorious body.

I can't believe you can keep a straight face after that one. Come on, Jerry, admit you're :rotfl:


This

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.​

Is the same as this?

Romans 10:8-9 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.​ Romans 10:13-14 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?​

:mock: Jerry claims Paul is describing that groaning in greater detail.

 

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz, don't you see what Jerry is actually up to?

It is called a double-bind... where an individual attempts to oppress another as the cause of what is really his own, self-induced irritation - the irritation that is said oppressor's focus...

...not on any hair in particular, rather, those never ending splits between hairs it is never really able to solve for because it itself is creating them...

The problem is never really solved by answering such an individual.

Even any answer "good enough" is not so, long enough...

Because the end to their never ending dissatisfaction with another's answer can not be found in that other's answer.

For the real issue is a never ending neurosis at work within said individual that is part of their basic personality...

....coloring like water as it runs across a floor, every answer it encounters, as having come up "short here, there, and there, and there, and there, and..."

Its madness never ending.

And a neurosis is also such that when its issues are dormant, it cannot but compel its sufferer to "start something."

Jerry S's decades old, "Hi, and we know, of course that...."

A never ending "Touch not; taste not; handle not;"

Yeah, Jerry's a nut.