The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[sentientsynth]

According to Bob Hill and his elk I can through out almost all of the Bible. It wasn't written to me since I am a gentile.

Wrong, E4E. Try reading your Bible sometime. You AREN'T a Gentile.

I can get red of 3 of the 4 gospels. I can get rid of Hebrews,James, the 2 letters of Peter,the three letters of John,Jude, Revelation and the entire Old Testament. A a matter of fact the first 8 chapters of Acts I can get rid of even though it was written by a Greek doctor. Those 8 chapters are for Jews and do not pertain to me . I am a gentile you see and only Paul has the mystery revealed to him so all before Paul is worthless. What a moron. :rotfl:

E4E, the more I read of your posts, the more I'm convinced you are unregenerate. In any case, you are a heretic because you will not acknowledge the distinctiveness of Paul's ministry versus the ministry of the Twelve.

 

[elected4ever]

sentientsynth, Do you make a diet of stupid pills, I think you are makeing up theology out of whole cloth. :rotfl:

 

[sentientsynth]

sentientsynth, Do you make a diet of stupid pills,

Oh crap. You can tell I'm a fiend just by my posts? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

I think you are makeing up theology out of whole cloth. :rotfl:

The little voice in my head tells me what to think. "More pills! More Paul!"

 

[godrulz]

According to Bob Hill and his elk I can through out almost all of the Bible. It wasn't written to me since I am a gentile. I can get red of 3 of the 4 gospels. I can get rid of Hebrews,James, the 2 letters of Peter,the three letters of John,Jude, Revelation and the entire Old Testament. A a matter of fact the first 8 chapters of Acts I can get rid of even though it was written by a Greek doctor. Those 8 chapters are for Jews and do not pertain to me . I am a gentile you see and only Paul has the mystery revealed to him so all before Paul is worthless. What a moron. :rotfl:

He is not a moron, but gutting much of the NT for the Church (Jew/Gentile) is highly problematic in my mind.

 

[godrulz]

However, to attempt to clear things up for you (godrulz) let me ask you a question. Prior to Paul's ministry, what would have happened to a person who believed in God (like Moses for example) but who refused to get circumcised or to circumcise their male children? If they died in such rebellion to the law, would they go to be with God or not?


The Pharisees obeyed the law feverishly but did not mix their obedience to the law with faith. If a person died in such a state would they have been saved or not?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Why could a female believer be saved without circumcision? If someone called on the Living God, without opportunity to be circumcised, they would not be rejected. Grace and faith trump outward expressions of obedience. Before circumcision, men walked with God. In the NT, it was not foisted on people. Likewise, water baptism never saved anyone. The thief on the cross went to paradise without circumcision or water baptism. A normative expression of love, obedience, faith should not be confused with the grounds of salvation (grace). If someone rebelled against God and His law, they were not His people. The outward ritual was important, but not a condition for eternal life.

The Pharisees rejected the Messiah and true faith in God. Obedience to the law never saved anyone. It condemns us as sinners in need of a Savior. It shows us how to live subsequent to conversion, but does not save us.

 

[Clete]

Why could a female believer be saved without circumcision?

The point wasn't about circumcision but about the law. Put observing the Sabbath in place of getting circumcised if you like. It doesn't matter.

If someone called on the Living God, without opportunity to be circumcised, they would not be rejected.

This also ignors the question.

Would David have gone to heaven when he died if he had rejected the law and refused to obey it? Yes or no? (The answer to that question is 'no' and you know it. Just admit it and try to keep you eye on the ball here.)

Grace and faith trump outward expressions of obedience.

This is not in dispute but that doesn't mean that those outward expression of obedience were any less mandatory. If Moses had not circumcised his son God would have killed him and he would have not been saved, period.

Before circumcision, men walked with God.

No kidding. Answer the questions!

In the NT, it was not foisted on people.

Nor in the OT! Why all the obfuscation godrulz? Do you really not understand the point of my questions? Come on already. This has nothing to do with the topic of our discussion.

Likewise, water baptism never saved anyone. The thief on the cross went to paradise without circumcision or water baptism. A normative expression of love, obedience, faith should not be confused with the grounds of salvation (grace). If someone rebelled against God and His law, they were not His people. The outward ritual was important, but not a condition for eternal life.

I have repeatedly said that the dispensation of law was undergirded by grace because of people inability to follow the law perfectly or in some cases at all but this does not mean that following the law was optional. Had the theif on the cross had an opportunity to be circumcised and to follow the rest of the law and he refused to do so he would have lost his salvation.

Following the law was NOT optional but as I pointed out in my second question following the law is not what saved you.

The Pharisees rejected the Messiah and true faith in God. Obedience to the law never saved anyone.

Which was precisely the point of my asking the second question.

It condemns us as sinners in need of a Savior. It shows us how to live subsequent to conversion, but does not save us.

The law does not show us how to live subsequent to salvation. That is not in the Bible and it is not true! We cannot live according to the law, it is impossible. The law does not apply to people which the law has crusified. If we have died in Him the law has no place whatsoever in our lives. The law convicts the lost and kills them once that death is accomplished, the law no longer has any ministry. Your attempt to resurrect yourself to the law has resulted in failure your entire Christian life. Whatever progress you think you've made has actually served only to strengthen your flesh because the law is of the flesh not the Spirit. The law kills but the Spirit (not the spirit (small 's') or intent of the law but the Spirit of God) gives life and is the only source of the Christian life - the only source.


Now please just answer the questions directly....

Prior to Paul's ministry, what would have happened to a person who believed in God (like Moses for example) but who refused to get circumcised or to circumcise their male children (or refused to obey some other aspect of the law)? If they died in such rebellion to the law, would they go to be with God or not?

Next question,

The Pharisees obeyed the law feverishly but did not mix their obedience to the law with faith. If a person died in such a state would they have been saved or not?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Prior to Paul's ministry, what would have happened to a person who believed in God (like Moses for example) but who refused to get circumcised or to circumcise their male children (or refused to obey some other aspect of the law)? If they died in such rebellion to the law, would they go to be with God or not?

Next question,

The Pharisees obeyed the law feverishly but did not mix their obedience to the law with faith. If a person died in such a state would they have been saved or not?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Since no one could obey the Law perfectly, why are you making their salvation dependent on obeying it? How much of it? Fail on one point= go to hell? I disagree with your assumption that keeping the law saved them. This is exactly why Christ came. Obedience was evidence of their faith in God and looking ahead to the Messiah, but no one obeyed the law sufficiently to be saved on that basis.

If refusing to obey circumcision was a reflection of a godless, faithless heart, then they would not be saved. Some evangelical groups still teach that water baptism is essential for salvation. Just because someone is not water baptized (Denver Church), does not mean they are not saved. If someone in the OT did not have opportunity to be circumcised, you seem to say they go to heaven. If they willfully did not, you seem to say they did not. If someone's heart was toward God, but they were not circumcised (a myriad of possible reasons), I do not believe they are automatically hell bound. God does not save on the basis of outward ritual or religion. He saves on the basis of heart faith. This faith should be expressed by loving obedience, but I will not play Judge and assign destiny based on whether they did outward acts (if a female can get to heaven without circumcision, so can a male...you think this is not relevant, but I think it exposes the fallacy of your assumptions).

A person who obeys the Law without faith in the person and work of Christ is religious and is not saved. The Pharisees rejected Christ. This is the problem, not how much or little of the Law they tried to keep. Jesus dealt with their self-righteous motive, but did not teach that the Law was bad.

When I say that the Law is societal or personal guidelines for believers, I mean that the Law of love was not rescinded. Because we are in Christ and He is in us, we will not worship idols, hate parents, steal, commit immorality, murder, etc. Sinless perfectionism and antinomianism are both heresies.

 

[Clete]

Since no one could obey the Law perfectly, why are you making their salvation dependent on obeying it? How much of it? Fail on one point= go to hell? I disagree with your assumption that keeping the law saved them. This is exactly why Christ came. Obedience was evidence of their faith in God and looking ahead to the Messiah, but no one obeyed the law sufficiently to be saved on that basis.

If refusing to obey circumcision was a reflection of a godless, faithless heart, then they would not be saved. Some evangelical groups still teach that water baptism is essential for salvation. Just because someone is not water baptized (Denver Church), does not mean they are not saved. If someone in the OT did not have opportunity to be circumcised, you seem to say they go to heaven. If they willfully did not, you seem to say they did not. If someone's heart was toward God, but they were not circumcised (a myriad of possible reasons), I do not believe they are automatically hell bound. God does not save on the basis of outward ritual or religion. He saves on the basis of heart faith. This faith should be expressed by loving obedience, but I will not play Judge and assign destiny based on whether they did outward acts (if a female can get to heaven without circumcision, so can a male...you think this is not relevant, but I think it exposes the fallacy of your assumptions).

A person who obeys the Law without faith in the person and work of Christ is religious and is not saved. The Pharisees rejected Christ. This is the problem, not how much or little of the Law they tried to keep. Jesus dealt with their self-righteous motive, but did not teach that the Law was bad.

When I say that the Law is societal or personal guidelines for believers, I mean that the Law of love was not rescinded. Because we are in Christ and He is in us, we will not worship idols, hate parents, steal, commit immorality, murder, etc. Sinless perfectionism and antinomianism are both heresies.

Would you please stop trying to read a bunch of nonsense that I haven't said and don't believe into these questions and just answer them? Why are you afraid to answer simple, straight forward questions? It is not like you to be this intellectually dishonest. Simply answer the questions as asked.

Prior to Paul's ministry, what would have happened to a person who believed in God (like Moses for example) but who refused to get circumcised or to circumcise their male children (or refused to obey some other aspect of the law)? If they died in such rebellion to the law, would they go to be with God or not?

Next question,

The Pharisees obeyed the law feverishly but did not mix their obedience to the law with faith. If a person died in such a state would they have been saved or not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

I have answered the questions twice. Yes and no requires qualification since the questions are not black and white. You have a preconceived answer in your mind, so anything more or less than this seems objectionable. I am laying out principles and examples rather than playing God the Judge.

Pharisees were legalists without faith and rejected the Messiah. They were not saved because they rejected the Messiah. Circumcision did not save them. Faith vs unbelief is the criteria....NO.

The OT scenario...maybe...maybe not. It is possible to have heart faith without outward ritual and be saved. If they were not circumcised because they did not have love, faith, and obedience toward God, they were not saved. If they were female, did not have opportunity, did not see the need, etc., they could be saved by trusting and loving God and looking forward to the coming Messiah. Outward ritual simply cannot save or damn anyone.

Out of curiosity, could anyone of your so-called circumcision NT gospel group be saved without water baptism? Any exceptions? Did baptism save or damn them (see Jn. 3:16, 36)?

 

[Clete]

I have answered the questions twice. Yes and no requires qualification since the questions are not black and white. You have a preconceived answer in your mind, so anything more or less than this seems objectionable. I am laying out principles and examples rather than playing God the Judge.

Obfuscating is what you're doing godrulz; the answers are simple and obvious.

Had Moses or anyone else refused to obey the law they would have gone to Hell had they died in that state of rebellion.

Pharisees were legalists without faith and rejected the Messiah. They were not saved because they rejected the Messiah. Circumcision did not save them. Faith vs unbelief is the criteria....NO.

Precisely.

The OT scenario...maybe...maybe not. It is possible to have heart faith without outward ritual and be saved.

Not under the law it wasn't. If you refused to submit yourself to the Mosaic Law you were not saved - period.

If they were not circumcised because they did not have love, faith, and obedience toward God, they were not saved.

It makes no difference why. IF THEY REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW THEY WERE NOT SAVED!!! The law was not optional.

If they were female, did not have opportunity, did not see the need, etc., they could be saved by trusting and loving God and looking forward to the coming Messiah.

This has nothing to do with what I asked! I didn't ask if someone was UNABLE to obey the law whether they were saved, I asked if they REFUSED to obey, that is if they intentionally disobeyed the law. Any such person would not be saved during the previous dispensation. That cannot be denied godrulz.

Outward ritual simply cannot save or damn anyone.

Not in and of itself no. I never suggested otherwise. But such outward ritual was required in the previous dispensation. If a person refused to submit themselves to the whole law of God they very simply were not saved.

Out of curiosity, could anyone of your so-called circumcision NT gospel group be saved without water baptism? Any exceptions? Did baptism save or damn them (see Jn. 3:16, 36)?

Water baptism was a part of the Mosaic Law and thus was a required ritual for kingdom believers prior to the Dispensation of Grace. The only exceptions would be for those who were for some reason unable to perform it. Those who refused to obey we not saved.

Out of curiosity, in your view has anything at all changed about what is and is not required for salvation since Moses? If so, what exactly? I mean if according to you people weren't required to follow the law and could disregard it and still be saved, then what's different? If a man could have gathered fire wood on the Sabbath during the time of Moses without worrying about the loss of his soul then what's the difference between law and grace?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Morpheus]

Obfuscating is what you're doing godrulz; the answers are simple and obvious.

Had Moses or anyone else refused to obey the law they would have gone to Hell had they died in that state of rebellion.


Precisely.


Not under the law it wasn't. If you refused to submit yourself to the Mosaic Law you were not saved - period.


It makes no difference why. IF THEY REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW THEY WERE NOT SAVED!!! The law was not optional.


This has nothing to do with what I asked! I didn't ask if someone was UNABLE to obey the law whether they were saved, I asked if they REFUSED to obey, that is if they intentionally disobeyed the law. Any such person would not be saved during the previous dispensation. That cannot be denied godrulz.


Not in and of itself no. I never suggested otherwise. But such outward ritual was required in the previous dispensation. If a person refused to submit themselves to the whole law of God they very simply were not saved.


Water baptism was a part of the Mosaic Law and thus was a required ritual for kingdom believers prior to the Dispensation of Grace. The only exceptions would be for those who were for some reason unable to perform it. Those who refused to obey we not saved.

Out of curiosity, in your view has anything at all changed about what is and is not required for salvation since Moses? If so, what exactly? I mean if according to you people weren't required to follow the law and could disregard it and still be saved, then what's different? If a man could have gathered fire wood on the Sabbath during the time of Moses without worrying about the loss of his soul then what's the difference between law and grace?

Resting in Him,
Clete

You're not legalistic, huh?

Nobody was ever saved by the law. Ever. Christ didn't die only for those who came after; he died for those who died before. The same criteria that saves us, saved them.

Ephesians 4
7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Hebrews 11
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

The law was never intended to save anyone; it was intended to show us that we are incapable of saving ourselves so that we would accept the help. It was designed to crush pride, not enhance it.

 

[elected4ever]

.Had Moses or anyone else refused to obey the law they would have gone to Hell had they died in that state of rebellion.

What A DUMB *** remark. I suppose you will now tell me that if Christian does something like committing adultery or murder and does not repent they will go to hell also. The same rules apply. I may have been better off under the old covenant in that we could have offered a new sacrifice for the new sin but today under the new covenant there is no new offering for the new sin so we would be excluded from the promise because Christ will not be crucified a second time. Your logic totally stinks and is unscriptural.

It makes no difference why. IF THEY REFUSED TO OBEY THE LAW THEY WERE NOT SAVED!!! The law was not optional.

If it is of law then there is no grace and if by grace then there is no law. We suffer in the flesh for things done in the flesh under the law and under grace but that does not mean automatic spiritual death. It can mean physical death even under grace.

1 Corinthians 3:10 *According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 *¶For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 *Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 *Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 *If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 *If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 *¶Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 *If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 *¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 *For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 *And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 *¶Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
22 *Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23 *And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

This has nothing to do with what I asked! I didn't ask if someone was UNABLE to obey the law whether they were saved, I asked if they REFUSED to obey, that is if they intentionally disobeyed the law. Any such person would not be saved during the previous dispensation. That cannot be denied.

What if you intensionally disobeyed Christ after receiving the knowledge of the truth? Wouldn't the answer be the same?

Hebrews 10:26 *For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 *But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 *He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 *Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Water baptism was a part of the Mosaic Law and thus was a required ritual for Kingdom Believers prior to the Dispensation of Grace. The only exceptions would be for those who were for some reason unable to perform it. Those who refused to obey we not saved.

Water was used to cleanse the vessel for service. Even the priest had to bathe in water before offering the sacrifices. did the water wash away sin of dedicate for service? If water was used to wash away sin then of what use was the sacrifice? Even the high priest had to offer sacrifices for him self after his washing. Baptism is the setting aside of the vessel for service and the only way you can justify not baptizing is to make null and void the scripture where Jesus commanded it. So every thing prior to Paul is voided by you to justify your theology of rebellion. Should God therefore count you as an unworthy thing that should be cast out? No, because the sacrifice of the blood of Christ even covers that sin.

Out of curiosity, in your view has anything at all changed about what is and is not required for salvation since Moses?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Nothing. Salvation is not the issue. What is at issue is how God has chosen to revel Himself to man through time.

Hebrews 1:1 *¶God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 *Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[Clete]

What A DUMB *** remark.

Watch your language.

I suppose you will now tell me that if Christian does something like committing adultery or murder and does not repent they will go to hell also.

No. A Christian today cannot lose their salvation under any circumstances whatsoever.

The same rules apply.

No they don't. That's just the point.

I may have been better off under the old covenant in that we could have offered a new sacrifice for the new sin but today under the new covenant there is no new offering for the new sin so we would be excluded from the promise because Christ will not be crucified a second time. Your logic totally stinks and is unscriptural.

My logic? I didn't say anything like this, you dork. :kookoo:

If it is of law then there is no grace and if by grace then there is no law.

The latter is true but the former is not. Grace is compatible with a dispensation of law but law is not compatible with a dispensation of grace.

Here's a good way to see what I mean. Let's say you hire someone to paint your house. When the job is done you owe him his pay. But if he didn't do a great job and you choose to pay him his full wage anyway, that's grace + law. Or if his job was as expected and you paid him his wage plus 20%, that too is grace + law. That is, his wage which he earned was law and that which he got but didn't earn was grace. The two are totally compatible in such a situation.

But now lets reverse it. Let's say you volunteered to paint your neighbor's house as a free gift just because you loved your neighbor and the need was there (in fact we'll presume that you neighbor was completely unable to afford to get the work done any other way). Let's say also that while you were working your neighbor made sure to keep a full class of cool lemonade ready for you to drink at a moments notice. Now, how would you feel if a week later your neighbor was almost bragging to a mutual friend of yours about how you had painted his whole house and all it cost him was a couple gallons of Kool-Aid! If you wouldn't be insulted you're more stupid than I supposed. If your neighbor had given the lemonade to you just to be kind then that would be fine but the moment he gives it to you out of a feeling of obligation as though he owes you something it turns into an insult because paying for a gift doesn't work.

This latter example is precisely what we do as Christians when we try to please God by obeying the Ten Commandments or some other set of rules. Our entire relationship with God including both our salvation and our sanctification is based entirely on grace and nothing else. Anything else we attempt to add to it cheapens what God did at the cross and insults the work accomplished there. No wonder any such works will be burned up on the Day of Judgment.

We suffer in the flesh for things done in the flesh under the law and under grace but that does not mean automatic spiritual death. It can mean physical death even under grace.

Of course! Our actions have real consequences including actions like cussing on public forums and teaching people that God decrees sin.

1 Corinthians 3:10 *According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 *For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 *Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 *Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 *If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 *If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 *Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 *If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18 *Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 *For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 *And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 *Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
22 *Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23 *And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Amen!

What if you intensionally disobeyed Christ after receiving the knowledge of the truth? Wouldn't the answer be the same?

It would have been the same in the previous dispensation yes. That's why Peter James and John and the author of Hebrews all teach that one must persevere to the end.

Hebrews 10:26 *For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 *But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 *He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 *Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I jus love being able to read such a passage and take it to mean precisely what it says.

Water was used to cleanse the vessel for service. Even the priest had to bathe in water before offering the sacrifices. did the water wash away sin of dedicate for service?

No it didn't, it was symbolic. It was nonetheless required.

If water was used to wash away sin then of what use was the sacrifice?

Water was not used to wash away sin. I never suggested otherwise. Please try to stay on the same page as the rest of us.

Even the high priest had to offer sacrifices for himself after his washing. Baptism is the setting aside of the vessel for service and the only way you can justify not baptizing is to make null and void the scripture where Jesus commanded it.

When Jesus was on Earth it was already a command. Jesus followed that command and repeated the command, but the symbolic commandments given to the nation of Israel are not binding on those who are not members of that nation. And even if they were (which they aren't) the law was nailed to the cross and is quite completely null and void for those who are in Christ.

So every thing prior to Paul is voided by you to justify your theology of rebellion.

No not everything just the requirements of the law.

Should God therefore count you as an unworthy thing that should be cast out? No, because the sacrifice of the blood of Christ even covers that sin.

Allowing yourself to be placed under the law is a sin e4e. It won't keep you out of heaven but it will make your daily walk a complete failure by cutting you off from the power of Christ's resurrection.

[quote[Nothing. Salvation is not the issue. What is at issue is how God has chosen to revel Himself to man through time.

Hebrews 1:1 *God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 *Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;[/QUOTE]
Somehow this answer from you doesn't surprise me a bit.
If nothing has changed then what was the purpose of Paul? Were Peter's legs broken? Could James not speak? Was John unable to write? Why Paul? Why not use Matthias or Mathew or any one of the other twelve apostles?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Watch your language.[

I do. That is why i used the Astrix. That doesn't keep it from being a dumb *** remark.

No. A Christian today cannot lose their salvation under any circumstances whatsoever.

Right, so why the dumb remarks?

No they don't. That's just the point.

Yes it does because salvation came the same way; by grace through faith. You are so dense.

My logic? I didn't say anything like this, you dork. :kookoo:

You may not have said it but your logic demand it. You must be in denial of your own logic or to stupid to recognize it.

The latter is true but the former is not. Grace is compatible with a dispensation of law but law is not compatible with a dispensation of grace.

The law is incompatible with grace, nitwit. Don't you get it.

Here's a good way to see what I mean. Let's say you hire someone to paint your house. When the job is done you owe him his pay. But if he didn't do a great job and you choose to pay him his full wage anyway, that's grace + law. Or if his job was as expected and you paid him his wage plus 20%, that too is grace + law. That is, his wage which he earned was law and that which he got but didn't earn was grace. The two are totally compatible in such a situation.

So now salvation is earned and not a free gift. You are so totally convoluted. If salvation came by law then it was not of grace. Even Paul, whom you say you admire, says that and not only did he say that but he also said you cannot maintain salvation. Man, are you confused.

But now lets reverse it. Let's say you volunteered to paint your neighbor's house as a free gift just because you loved your neighbor and the need was there (in fact we'll presume that you neighbor was completely unable to afford to get the work done any other way). Let's say also that while you were working your neighbor made sure to keep a full class of cool lemonade ready for you to drink at a moments notice. Now, how would you feel if a week later your neighbor was almost bragging to a mutual friend of yours about how you had painted his whole house and all it cost him was a couple gallons of Kool-Aid! If you wouldn't be insulted you're more stupid than I supposed. If your neighbor had given the lemonade to you just to be kind then that would be fine but the moment he gives it to you out of a feeling of obligation as though he owes you something it turns into an insult because paying for a gift doesn't work.

This latter example is precisely what we do as Christians when we try to please God by obeying the Ten Commandments or some other set of rules. Our entire relationship with God including both our salvation and our sanctification is based entirely on grace and nothing else. Anything else we attempt to add to it cheapens what God did at the cross and insults the work accomplished there. No wonder any such works will be burned up on the Day of Judgment.

There are only two reason's why we obey God. The first is from fear. We are afraid that if we do not then God will punish us. That is a valid reason for obeying God. Hebrews 12:6 *For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 *If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 *But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 *Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 *For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11 *Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
The second is love 1 John 4:9 *In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 *Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

We do because we love. We love because God first loved us.

In your example, what does it matter what the receiver of the gift does? The motivation is love, not reward. What does it matter what others think of you act of love even when others think you a fool for your act of kindness.

Of course! Our actions have real consequences including actions like cussing on public forums and teaching people that God decrees sin.

Romans 8:1 *¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,.
2 *For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 *For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 *That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 *For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 *For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 *Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 *So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 *But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 *¶And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 *But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

No it didn't, it was symbolic. It was nonetheless required.

Then why the rebellion when Christ commanded the Church to do it?Matthew 28:18 *And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 *Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 *Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Water was not used to wash away sin. I never suggested otherwise. Please try to stay on the same page as the rest of us.

Why don't you pay attention to the implications of what you say?

When Jesus was on Earth it was already a command. Jesus followed that command and repeated the command, but the symbolic commandments given to the nation of Israel are not binding on those who are not members of that nation. And even if they were (which they aren't) the law was nailed to the cross and is quite completely null and void for those who are in Christ.

Why call me Lord, Lord and do not those things I commanded you. It does not matter if it was part of the ceremonial law of Israel or not. Jesus had already risen and the whole law was fulfilled in Him. It is a matter of love and not salvation. Why should i even take you seriously when you will not do even the first thing He ask of you.

No not everything just the requirements of the law.

Baptism is not a requirement of the Mosaic law but the command of your King.

Allowing yourself to be placed under the law is a sin e4e. It won't keep you out of heaven but it will make your daily walk a complete failure by cutting you off from the power of Christ's resurrection.

You are the one who keeps calming sin as your on possession. Not me.

Somehow this answer from you doesn't surprise me a bit.
If nothing has changed then what was the purpose of Paul? Were Peter's legs broken? Could James not speak? Was John unable to write? Why Paul? Why not use Matthias or Mathew or any one of the other twelve apostles?

Resting in Him,
Colette

Well clete, it is because it is the truth. Why Paul? I don't know and further more I am not concerned about that. God chooses whom He will and for the purpose that he will and does not need instruction from you are me. That is just plan silly to wast time on.

 

[Clete]

E4E,

You aren't even debating against my position. It's like you took some LSD or something before logging on this morning. In any case I'm through discussing it with you. Believe what you want. It's all predestined anyway, right?

:wave2:

 

[elected4ever]

E4E,

You aren't even debating against my position. It's like you took some LSD or something before logging on this morning. In any case I'm through discussing it with you. Believe what you want. It's all predestined anyway, right?

:wave2:

:banned:

 

[Clete]

You're not legalistic, huh?

Nobody was ever saved by the law. Ever.

I never said they were. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?

Christ didn't die only for those who came after; he died for those who died before. The same criteria that saves us, saved them.

Everyone who has ever or will ever be saved will be saved by grace but God gets to decide who He will extend that grace too and who He will not and why. It is the why that has not always been the same. Before Paul people were saved by grace if they believed and did their best to obey the law. Now, people are saved by grace only. Not only is our following the law not required, it is expressly forbiden.

The law was never intended to save anyone; it was intended to show us that we are incapable of saving ourselves so that we would accept the help. It was designed to crush pride, not enhance it.

I agree completely but that doesn't change the fact that if a person in the previous dispensation refused to submit themselves to the law they were not saved. Following the law was required. Of course no one could keep the law perfectly and so grace was needed to make up for their inability but that grace would not have been available to anyone who either lacked faith in God (like the Pharisees for example) or refused to obey God's commands (like when Moses was almost killed for having not circumcised his son).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lowerlevel]

this may need to be booted to another post.....

I never said they were. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?

Before Paul people were saved by grace if they believed and did their best to obey the law. Now, people are saved by grace only. . . Following the law was required. Of course no one could keep the law perfectly and so grace was needed to make up for their inability but that grace would not have been available to anyone who either lacked faith in God (like the Pharisees for example) or refused to obey God's commands (like when Moses was almost killed for having not circumcised his son).

Resting in Him,
Clete

I still don't understand this mind set. You would say that OT saints were not saved by faith alone, correct? The answer seems obvious, but yall acts 9ers keep agreeing with me on points that seem to contradict where I thought you were coming from. honestly, did this position on acts 9 come up as just an answer as to what to do with the warning passages? It seems so to me.
does this doctrine have a reason that explains why God might have required OT saints to keep the law?
why must we always see God dealing with the obedience or disobedience of the israelites (in relation to mosaic covenant/law) in an eternal sense? Every promise or curse mentioned in the mosaic law/covenant is temporary. only the abrahamic covenant seems to convey eternal ends, and this was solely based on faith!

 

[Clete]

this may need to be booted to another post.....

I still don't understand this mind set. You would say that OT saints were not saved by faith alone, correct? The answer seems obvious, but yall acts 9ers keep agreeing with me on points that seem to contradict where I thought you were coming from. honestly, did this position on acts 9 come up as just an answer as to what to do with the warning passages? It seems so to me.
does this doctrine have a reason that explains why God might have required OT saints to keep the law?
why must we always see God dealing with the obedience or disobedience of the israelites (in relation to mosaic covenant/law) in an eternal sense? Every promise or curse mentioned in the mosaic law/covenant is temporary. only the abrahamic covenant seems to convey eternal ends, and this was solely based on faith!

Someone else want to give this a stab?

I'm sleepy! :yawn:

I gotta go to bed!

I should be able to respond to it myself tomorrow.

 

[Clete]

this may need to be booted to another post.....

I still don't understand this mind set. You would say that OT saints were not saved by faith alone, correct? The answer seems obvious, but yall acts 9ers keep agreeing with me on points that seem to contradict where I thought you were coming from.

First of all, and this might sound like I'm picking nits but nevertheless, we are not saved by faith, we are saved by grace THROUGH faith. There is a difference. Everyone who has ever been saved has been so by grace and grace alone. I do not believe nor does anyone I know of teach that anyone has ever earned their way into heaven by having faith or by works or by any other means. All salvation is of grace, period.
What I, and all dispensationalists, are saying is that the gospel message has not always been the same as it is today. In the previous dispensation, if you were preaching a message that left out the law of Moses then you were teaching something other than the gospel. But today if you include the law, or any aspect of it in your message you are teaching something other than the gospel. That's a change! The only difference between an Acts 9 dispensationalist and an Acts 2 dispensationalist is a disagreement about the timing of that change.

I'm curious though, which points (specifically) do we agree with you on, which surprise you?

honestly, did this position on acts 9 come up as just an answer as to what to do with the warning passages? It seems so to me.

This is an understandable reaction given the theological climate in the church today. People pretty much believe whatever they want in order to keep their pet doctrines intact. I assure you that no such theological gymnastics are going on here. Acts 9 dispensationalism couldn't be more straightforward than it is. It is born out of placing a very high priority on letting the Bible say what it seems to be saying whenever possible. We do, of course, acknowledge that there are figures of speech throughout the Bible but we do not relegate whole sections of Scripture into the figurative category in order to maintain our theology like the Calvinists (and most Arminians for that matter) do.

does this doctrine have a reason that explains why God might have required OT saints to keep the law?

Yes, although I think that this would take us even further off track than we already are on this thread and so I think I refrain from answering this specific question here.

why must we always see God dealing with the obedience or disobedience of the israelites (in relation to mosaic covenant/law) in an eternal sense? Every promise or curse mentioned in the mosaic law/covenant is temporary.

When the law was given to Israel there were about 2000 souls killed. Are you suggesting that those folks didn't go to Hell? When the man collected firewood on the Sabbath and God had him executed, do you suppose he was sending him to Heaven or Hell (presuming of course that he didn't repent before taking his last breath)? When God said that if you do not circumcise that you will be cut off, are you suggesting that such a person could still be saved if they never repented and submitted to getting circumcised? If so, I don't think you've got a single Biblical leg to stand on. I don't think it could be any clearer. If a person refused to obey the law, they very simply were not saved.

only the abrahamic covenant seems to convey eternal ends, and this was solely based on faith!

Yes! Grace through faith alone did come first! And now that the law has been removed grace through faith plus nothing is all that remains. As Paul says, Abraham was the father of TWO groups (Rom. 4), the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7-9) . If those in the first group were not required to follow the law but were save through faith only and the law only served to convict of sin and serve as a rule of life and you say that the same is true of us who are in the Body of Christ today, then how is there two groups? Why did James say that his followers where zealous for the law (Acts 21:18-20) and followed the dietary laws, while Paul insisted that his followers do no such thing (Gal. 2:11-13)?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I think I will ask Turbo or Knight to split this thread since we are so far off topic with this.