On request, Different Gospels -#2.

[ituttut]

Part 1

Originally Posted by ituttut
Dear Havensdad a good question, and I will endeavor to answer. But first, may is ask a Question? Why didn't you take a swing at disproving what I presented? Is it too much trouble to find in His Word where I am wrong?

Havensdad: Because what you presented is not only insanely wrong, but written in such a way that it is extremely difficult to comprehend exactly what you are saying.

I agree the difficulty you have in comprehending is partly due perhaps to my inadequacy in presentation, combined with the difficulty of ones understanding the gospel of Paul, of which Peter informs. Perhaps using more scripture to tie things together will help, but I endeavor to consider length in a reply, where possible. I'll not be doing too much of that here, but for special emphasis, as I believe you know your bible, with views of your own. But in going over this post I see it may require more than one page.

However, in your first post, you seem to be indicating that people were saved differently (Able vs. Noah, etc.). This is not true. Hebrews 11, James 2:22, and MANY other verses tell us explicitly that salvation has always been exactly the same: Saved by faith in God alone.

It could very well appear that way (Able vs. Noah), but we can note as you say, and reference, they are saved By faith bythe Grace of God, and they each had to combine that Faith with work asJames fully agrees.So I consider your statement "Saved by faith in God alone to be in error.

I do not consider James to be writing to me, and am so glad he doesn't try to. He tells us at the beginning to whom he is writing. To those wishing to be of the Faith of James, which is of Israel, do err failing to properly correlate what he says, and completely ignore to whom it is that he directs his book. People fail to see how they are being justified. I personally am justified through faith, and James was personally justified by faith. I'll stop here and let James speak for himself. James 2:21-22, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? Does not this understanding lean toward Catholic belief, and not Baptist belief? It would be nice if you would answer of what you Really Believe.


I contend along with Paul that today Faith is made perfect by the works of My Lord Jesus Christ. God required all before Jesus Christ died, and now being alive settled in next to His Father, to Do A Work/s. As they lived they obeyed God as to these works required by HIM. No where in His Word can we find today we are to depend on any of our work/s, for Christ Jesus did it all, and He did it all for us. Please show me the error in this thinking.

To the difference between Abel, and Noah was not how they were justified in the sight of God, but a change in the workload that Noah was required to do. Then reaching to Moses more work and responsibility was put on all Israel with the coming of the Law. This progresses to the Gospel of John the Baptist's gospel for all Israel to Repent, and be Baptized for the Remission of their Sins. None of this, not one iota is left for we in the Body of Christ to do, for all Works are contained in HIM. When we stick our nose into what does not pertain to us, believing God still requires of us the same as David, or John the Baptist, we are doing works of those in another Dispensation of God.

I believe such a belief will show up in our awards Ceremonies, and will be thrown into a great bon fire of dead, and uncalled for, works. Do I know it all, or anyone else? All I know is that I know more than I did when I first joined the church, and learned how to stand in Him, knowing He speaks to me Through the gospel of Paul, and of that one He allowed to Tarry, i.e. John.

However knowing what I know, and also what others know, many of us could very well be close to nakedness when He has finished with us.

What you are failing to distinguish, is the proper relationship between faith and works. When the Israelites were told to do something in the Old Testament, like sacrifice an animal, they were not saved by the work: they were saved by the faith, that caused them to perform the work.

I completely understand what you say, for it is by that faith you show they are justified, and scripture verifies they had to do a work. Again I am not justified as they, and this is the reason I believe the "dispensational gospel of Paul" who explains such things to us. Through Faith could not be accomplished until Jesus spilled His Blood.

 

[ituttut]

Part 2

Havensdad:
True faith, ALWAYS causes works. Any time when God tells us to do something, and we do not do it, that is unbelief, or a lack of faith. Anytime God tells us to do something, and we do it, that is faith that is demonstrated in our actions. We are not saved by works: we are saved by grace, THROUGH the faith that caused us to do the works.

You last sentence is full of understanding as told to us by Paul. But the rest of the paragraph where God tells us to do something, is without merit today. What you say sounds acceptable to just about all denominations, but tell me where you find him addressing a Gentile to do any type of work. To broaden that out further please tell me where, as He speaks to us Through His Word, where He commands us to do A Work. Those that do believe Him, He asks for only one thing we are physically to do, and in this He does not command that WE MUST DO IT, and if any consider it a command, it is not a command of WORK. It is a blessing, a celebration of Love and Thanks. All He asks of us is to remember Him, as we find in I Corinthians 11:23-27.

I hesitate here to add more, but it is in connection with this request of Christ in which I find where all have taken up the cause as presented to us by the Catholic church, and do add to the Word of God. This reference that He wishes for us to do, is just not enough for Christians today, for now we are told by our Catholic friends we are to observe a day chosen by pagans to remember Him, and that is (we are told) December 25, Is His birthday. Oh how far we have fallen from what Jesus Christ asked of us. Are we not saying we are going to fall into line with otherReligions, and just about the whole world and add to the Word of God.

I know how this hurts, for it really stung my high-minded ego, and erroneous belief of what all of Christianity now teaches. It is heresy to be sure, today to go against the grain of the world belief of Christmas. But I will be as Paul and be called a Heretic without guilt, for the cause of Christ. How far we Baptist, and others have fallen.

Baptist's, and a few others did not observe this day to be the Birthday of Jesus Christ until somewhere close to the closing of the 19th Century. The New York Daily Times carried an article dated December 26, 1885, reading "The Churches of the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists were not open on December 25, except where some mission schools had a celebration. They do not accept the day as a Holy one, but the Episcopalian, Catholic, and German churches were all open. Inside they were decked with evergreens." Of course we can see the error of the Christian churches today with the evergreens by understanding Deuteronomy 12:2; I Kings 14:23-23, II Kings 16:3-4, and others. But this is just poppy cock the churches say, and has nothing to do with Christmas, for this is only applies to Idol Worshipers says the Christian today.

But let us add more to what is Idol Worship, as shown in Jeremiah 10:1-4, "Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 2. Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not". Are we really any different than the Idol Worshippers of Israel, as we follow what the world wishes us to do, yet we are told not to do it.

But you may say, as a "dispensationalist" don't you contradict yourself here, for this is addressed to the House of Israel, which we are not. And we are not, but being in the Body of Christ, we are not to do as the Idol worshippers do, as we find in Romans 2:21-22. " Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?”

Pardon me if I do not get into pagan Easter of the Catholic church.

So when Jesus said "Take up you cross and follow me", to the crowds, and He warned them that not doing so could forfeit their soul, He was NOT teaching a works righteousness. He was teaching salvation by faith. IF you had faith in God, you would be saved. You picking up your cross, and following Him, would simply demonstrate that you HAVE such faith.

Bless your heart Havensdad, for this is what I taught for many years, while in the Body of Christ. I believe every word Jesus spoke while He was on this earth. But He is not down here today, but UP THERE. When I came to see that God started out by dividing, as he created, I also found He brings back together. He wants us to Study to show ourselves approved, by bringing back together His Word. Such words, and thoughts scare people to death, until they find it to be true. I find The Word started out in heaven, came down here, and is now back in heaven.

When we come to the point of realizing our Vertical connection of Christ through the Cross is just that, upward, leaving the Horizontal behind - "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new", II Corinthians 5:15-17. How wonderful, and rewarding it is when we can follow Him into Heaven.

ituttut: Iwalked the aisle at age nine, and baptized the next week into that Baptist Church. But I was saved before I came forward. I was told I had to be baptized to be accepted by that church. This I did. As I grew older, and I began reading the Bible, there finding something did not quite mesh with scripture. What was that something? Why was it the church would not accept me (now a Christian), if I was not baptized. Can you see where this is going?

Havensdad:Sir, you say that you are part of an SBC church. Not a different Church. You are being dishonest, holding to such beliefs, while participating in a church which subscribes to the Baptist faith and message.

As far as Baptism, no, I don't have any clue what you are saying. You SHOULDN'T be allowed Church membership without Baptism. The Lord commanded you to be baptized. If you refuse, you are being disobedient, and we are commanded to not associate with disobedient persons who CALL themselves brothers.

I really don't believe you are normally this angered in your speech, nor am I, but I will be, but the "sun will not go down in my wrath (Ephesians 4:25-26). Therefore for the moment I say to you Sir, I can see your point if you do not recognize another to be in the Body of Christ. You seem to have some background on me, but not all. I have none on you, and have no desire to have. The church I now belong to splits the bill between SBC, and GBC. What is important to me is I stand on the foundation laid down by Paul on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and not any denomination. But I was brought up, and understand the Baptist, and know surely they are in the Body of Christ, but am beginning to wonder about you.

I find you to be very confusing, with a closed mind, and not being honest for You Say you don't know what I'm talking about as to being baptized into a Baptist church, when you repeat what I said. Are you being honest, pretending to read and try to understand what I say? Above you even reposted word for word what I said, and you say you completely agree with me, yet condemn me, not even noticing I was water baptized. What gives you the idea it is your place to condemn another "water baptized Christian" into a Baptist church that you are not a member of? Do you really understand your Baptist Faith. Are we as Baptist's not to be autonomous? Let's make a deal. You come to my church, and I will come to yours, and see if we cannot try to have them Kick Us Out because as you say, those obedient ones are not to "associate with disobedient persons who CALL themselves brothers". I see you are most likely one of those who believe drinking wine is a sin, because you believe what the world tells you, and not what God tells you, so I'll not ask you to have a cup of the fruit of the vine to make up.

Before I leave with anger now leaving me, and prayer of reconciliation with a brother in Christ, I really wish you would look closing at what you have posted, to wit "The Lord commanded you to be baptized. If you refuse, you are being disobedient". I find this statement to be that believed of the Catholic church, and not the Baptist church.

 

[OldRegular]

Ituttut

I have said this earlier. I don't know whether you are a Christian or not. A Christian is a person who has been saved by the Grace of God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and who follows Jesus Christ as Lord. It seems from your posts that you glory in being a follower of the Apostle Paul.

I do know this on the word of the Apostle Paul; there is only one Gospel, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as Paul states in Romans 1:16. The Apostle Paul is not ashamed of that Gospel; but it seems you are since all we hear from you is about some other gospel given to Paul. You would have us believe that there is confusion in the Triune Godhead.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 1:6-9 that ANYONE, ANYONE who preaches/teaches a different/another Gospel [which is actually not another gospel, since there is only one Gospel] or perverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ: LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

I don't say that. The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, states that and most forcefully.

 

[ituttut]

Missed this one Pilgrim

Hyper-Dispensationalism is Les Feldicks Gospel not the Gospel of Christ.

Les Feldick teaches that all a person has to do to obtain everlasting life is just believe in Jesus Christ and your saved.

Hello Pilgrim2009. If what you say is true of Les Feldick believing Acts 16:28-31, is it not you that doesn't believe our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven?

Many others teach the same by quoting John 3:16 as their proof text.This verse quoted alone without considering the verses before and after it,seems to say that there is another way,apart from repentance,by which one can obtain everlasting life.

You are right, in part, for there is another way. But it is not apart from Repentance, for we find our Repentance In Him, when We turn to Him as we change our minds (repent). When we believe on Him (FAITH) it is not our repentance of changing our mind about Him that saves us, for we can change our mind about Him, and still not be saved. In itself, Repentance is not Salvation. We may turn to Him saying how sorrow we are for our sins, but if we don't have faith IN HIM to save us, all the twirling around we can do will get us nowhere. Only when we believe He can save us, just by believing on His Name for our Salvation, and acknowledging our sins, then our salvation becomes complete as we are circumcised, and baptized without the hands of man, and sealed into the Body of Christ. This has nothing to do with our sorrow that we sinned, but to acknowledge our sins, knowing He Has Forgiven us.

I believe I see where you are coming from and that is God will not forgive the unrepentant, with which I agree. However I see you saying we must do penance as in the gospel of John the Baptist. When we go this route are we not frustrating the Grace of God of coming through the faith of Jesus Christ, and doing as all before had to do, and that was they were justified by faith, and had to do a work? If today we look to repenting first in order to be saved, how do we know we have repented for every sin we have ever done. No one is perfect in any way, and every one of us that try to come this way will miss at least ONE sin. If it is left up to us to repent of all our sins, there would be no one saved today.

After we come through His Faith, and His Blood, we have ample time to feel sorry, and tell Him how much we Love Him for forgiving us of all our sins.

But never,in any of His teachings,did Jesus say that the only thing a person has to do to obtain everlasting life is believe.A statement like this would be contradicting His main message-REPENT.

But don't you believe what you put forth above in verses that comes before John 3:16? "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Repentance on our part is nowhere in sight, and it is only in him.

I see again here you are basing your salvation as presented by John the Baptist's gospel to Israel of Repentance first and then do the work of baptism. Today it is faith alone that saves us. Romans 11:13, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:"

Then knowing to whom He is speaking we need to look at what Christ has revealed to Him, and we find this in Romans 11:19-20. "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest BY faith. Be not highminded, but fear:" If we stand by faith, as does Israel, then we had better fear.

So Men of Today, what are we to do? Romans 28."As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31. Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy."

So it is not by faith we are justified, but through His faith. Romans 11:36, "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." It is all about what He did for us, and not what we do that saves us.

(snipped)
If people would repent about their sins they would come to the light in other words they would receive faith and believe in Jesus Christ.

Just saying I believe or hey I accept Jesus is not biblical salvation because this is not being born again which is a condition of salvation.

Pilgrim just reading what you say here looks as if you don't believe Paul, or John, in their writings. The repentance you are referring to is evidently that repentance offered as National Repentance for Israel of that kingdom that was at hand. It is to them, and them alone who are told to Repent, and be Baptized for the Remission Of their sins. These people made covenant with God, and them alone. They did not hold to that covenant, and then they rejected and had their Messiah crucified. They had to REPENT first, and then do a work.

John the Baptist, Jesus, nor any of His earthly Apostles ever preached such a gospel to a Gentile. Jesus said He came for his sheep, and not any of we Gentile Dogs. But take notice this is what He said, and preached only while on this earth. What does He say to us today as He sits alive by His Father.

 

[ituttut]

We see here that error begets error and eventually heresy. The error of Darby/Scofield is the father of the heresy of ultra dispensationalism. I feel sorry for anyone caught up in this heresy.

Galatians 2:1-9, " Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision "

Paul did go overboard for His Lord Jesus Christ. I do too, and also some others. Why don't you come along with us and follow Him into Heaven? You are certainly welcome, and the offer is made.

 

[OldRegular]

Galatians 2:1-9, " Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision "

Paul did go overboard for His Lord Jesus Christ. I do too, and also some others. Why don't you come along with us and follow Him into Heaven? You are certainly welcome, and the offer is made.

So what is your point in quoting the passage from Galatians. Are you foolishly stating this proves that Peter preached only to Jews and Paul preached only to Gentiles. Or are you saying that the Gospel Peter preached was different than The Gospel which Paul preached. If you are then I remind you what Paul says: "LET HIM BE ACCURSED".

 

[HankD]

1.There is only one gospel because there is only one Christ.
2. The Bible is a progressive revelation of that one Christ and His Blood Atonement.

Paul was given the task of dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s concerning the final revelation of that one gospel.

He calls it "my" gospel in the same way that we are all able to make it our own personal possession given to us as a gift from our father in heaven.

HankD

 

[DHK]

Paul did go overboard for His Lord Jesus Christ. I do too, and also some others. Why don't you come along with us and follow Him into Heaven? You are certainly welcome, and the offer is made.

There is only one gospel.
I find it odd that you never responded to my post in the other thread "A Question. Here is the link:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1426177&postcount=112

The same gospel is put forth by the OT prophet Habakkuk, and by the unknown author of the book of Hebrews. "The just shall walk by faith."
This can only result from the premise that the man is justified by faith which Paul elaborates on. Way back in the OT the prophets knew this.
This is no different than the gospel Jesus preached "you must be born again, or what he said in John 3:16, or what Peter said about the new birth in 1 Peter 1:23.

 

[ituttut]

So what is your point in quoting the passage from Galatians. Are you foolishly stating this proves that Peter preached only to Jews and Paul preached only to Gentiles.

Do you disagree with scripture? I'm saying Peter, along with John, and James made agreement the Jerusalem church would not preach the circumcision gospelto those of the Christian churchs in Antioch, Syria, or Cilicia. And Paul would not go to Jerusalem to preach the Christian Gospel. Scripture shows some members of the Jerusalem church, they being the "troublers" did just that, i.e. went to these places and told the Christians they were not really saved, and in the will of God until they were circumcised, and do what is required of the Jew, and that is to be under the Law, and their ordinances.

For your benefit, as you do not seem to be able to find this information in your Bible, I'll quote it here. Acts 15:22-24, "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" Are we not supposed to believe Scripture, and no what man would have us believe? If you continue to deny such scriptures, then you not only disbelieve Paul, but also Peter, James, and John. What can you have left if you don't believe either camp?

Or are you saying that the Gospel Peter preached was different than The Gospel which Paul preached.

Friend OldREgular, I am simply telling you what Scripture says, so it is not I telling you, but The Holy Spirit. I am sorry that you have not yet been able to "rightly divide the Word of Truth, realizing the difference between the gospel of Grace, and the gospel of the Kingdom, pointed out to us in II Timothy 2:15 -- "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

I use scripture to find the truth, so I believe you also need to use scripture to Disprove Scripture. Please show me where John the Baptist preached to kingdom is at hand gospel at, or to a Gentile, and they are to Repent, and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Proselytes could come if they wished, but that gospel was not pointed to them. The Proselyte can never be in the Inner Court. It is not there for the Gentile, as God never asked them to make covenant with Him.

If you are then I remind you what Paul says: "LET HIM BE ACCURSED".

And I agree with what you say Paul says, and believe it will be so. However you have not determined to whom Paul is speaking about to be accursed? Do you know of any other Gospel of Jesus that you can move to, other than the Gospel to that of the gospel of the circumcision? Peter was given a gospel to preach to the men of Israel, and this gospel is laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

Whether you like it or not Paul was also given a gospel he laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and Paul said he laid a foundation on the foundation of Jesus Christ, just a Peter had done. Paul also said he would not build on another man's foundation, and that means Peter's foundation, that of the Gospel of the Kingdom that is offered those Circumcised that made covenant with God.

I suggest you please read your scripture with understanding to see that Paul is speaking to those of the Pentecostal Jerusalem church, that is another gospel (of Christ), but not of by the grace of God you are saved through faith, without any works. With understanding we can see There Are Two Gospels in the Gospel of Christ. And That Other Gospel, if presented to a Gentile, perverts the gospel of Christ given from heaven. Why does it pervert the Gospel of Christ to the Gentile? Because that other Gospel that Jesus preached to HIS People, The Covenant People, would bring the Gentiles into Bondage of the Law.

Please read Galatians 1:6-9 again, and see to whom Paul is speaking. It can't be to me for I am of the GRACE OF GOD NOT UNDER BONDAGE. Apply this to whom you will, but not to any that by the grace of God, through faith, Without Any Works, are Justified. I have accepted the GIFT, and have no desire to be connected to those of the covenant, the TROUBLERS, THAT PAUL SPEAKS OF.

Galatians above quoted, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Any one who preaches to a Christian, trying to bring them to BONDAGE, Paul says "let him be accursed.

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus Christ Himself was the first to preach the Gospel to other than the Jews after the beginning of His ministry as shown in the following passage from the Gospel of John.

John 4:4-42
4* ¶ And he must needs go through Samaria.

Now why did Jesus need to go through Samaria? Simply because He was going to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Samaritans.

5* Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6* Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
7* There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8* (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9* Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10* Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11* The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12* Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13* Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14* But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Now what was Jesus Christ talking about? He was talking about the Unmerited Gift of Salvation. I believe that is called Salvation by Grace.

15* The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16* Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17* The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18* For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19* The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20* Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21* Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22* Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23* But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24* God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25* The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26* Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

We see here that this woman knew something that you apparently don't. That the Christ and the Messiah are the same.

27* ¶ And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
28* The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29* Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30* Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
31* In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
32* But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33* Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34* Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
35* Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
36* And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
37* And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
38* I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.
39* And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40* So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41* And many more believed because of his own word;
42* And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Now show me in the above passage where anything is required for salvation other than faith. There is no mention of repentance, no mention of baptism. This is the same Gospel that Paul preached. It is the same Gospel that Peter preached as clearly shown in the following passage.

Acts 15:7-11, KJV
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Peter tells the Jews in the Church that God put no difference between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2 states the same thing. It is apparently useless to show you Scripture that proves there is only one Gospel. You are so steeped in the heresy of ultra dispensationalism that you simply will not believe. You continue to spout the heresy of two Gospels.

I will, as Jesus Christ told his disciples [Luke 9:5]: shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. I say again, God have mercy on you.

 

[gb93433]

The above bolded is incorrect and your usage of the BFM2000 was improperly quoted as if to discredit a presumption that the SBC sees the church (at all times) to be all the redeemed from all ages.

I have had a problem with the BF&M for a long time in what it states about the church.

The website for the SBC does say under VI.The Church, "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation"(http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#vi).

 

[ituttut]

excellent Post

1.There is only one gospel because there is only one Christ.

Hi Hank. I'm sure we don't agree alike in all things in Christ Jesus, but I certainly do agree with you, there is only One Gospel as therre is only one Christ. And as there is only One Word, and there is only One Son of God, and One Son of man, coming through the Line of David.

In the One Gospel of Jesus Christ is one gospel as Jesus Christ the man, and one gospel as Jesus Christ the God, and they are one, viz. "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven", Matthew a 16:13-17.

2. The Bible is a progressive revelation of that one Christ and His Blood Atonement.

You and I believe the same thing. Does not the above prove us right? We can see the Progression of the Word becoming the Son of man, and onto the Son of God. How much more progression can He show us?

What did Jesus do as the Son of man but preach to His People And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. Matthew 4:23

Matthew 9:35, "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

In order to see the progression of the two gospels within the Son of God, we must start at the beginning of the Gospel of Jess Christ, The Son of God. In rightly dividing the Truth, we must Study our Bibles, and not any Closed Denominational Books. Foolishness, Absurd, Ignorant, and heretical most will say. But to Prove what the Bible says, let's just quote this information that is there for all to see, but impossible to see if we will not let the Holy Spirit INTERPRET SCRIPTURE FOR US.

If we don’t' succeed, we must try, try, and try again. Mark 1:1-4, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Do we see a Gospel here? Is it not the gospel of John the Baptist that the Son of man preached while on this earth? Will any in the Baptist denomination say AMEN Brother, this is exactly as I believe, and that is exactly how I did receive the Remissions of My Sins?

Paul was given the task of dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s concerning the final revelation of that one gospel.

May I again complement you on your insight into knowing Paul was given a further revelation on the One Foundation He laid on the Foundation of Jesus Christ. We saw the Gospel of the Son of man as He preached to His earthly people. And now, just as you say We have the Gospel of the Son of God, the "final revelation of the Everlasting Gospel to Fear God. However we are to realize the gospel is not the same gospel as from the beginning.

God shows us all through His Word a belief of A Trinity. This is another Trinity He wishes us to see. In the Godhead there is the Gospel of the Fear of God, the Gospel of the Son of man, and the Gospel of the Son of God. Are there three gospels contained in the ONE GOSPEL? You bet, but did God just say Fear Me? Did He also not say Believe the Son of man. If we only believe what the Son of man tells us, can we ever know of The Body Of Christ Church? If we stop at Acts 2:38, then all is lost for Israel refused Peter's offer of the Kingdom.

Why do the denominations embrace Paul, quoting him when it fits OUR Purpose, but then push him away when we run into a belief such as, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

The Vertical was established at the Cross, but it was not accessed until after the revelation we find on Damascus Road, and as Paul began His education at the feet of Christ Jesus in Heaven, in that Arabian Desert. Paul's education continued to progress, and then as You Put it, "the final revelation of that one gospel". We can see this as God secluded Paul in Prison In Rome to put the finishing touches on the Ever Lasting Gospel of God.

He calls it "my" gospel in the same way that we are all able to make it our own personal possession given to us as a gift from our father in heaven.

Oh, if only others could see what you do.

 

[ituttut]

There is only one gospel.
I find it odd that you never responded to my post in the other thread "A Question. Here is the link:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1426177&postcount=112

Well DHK, it is now my turn to say I find it very odd that you have not answered, to date, my reply to you dated May 7 which required more than one (1) page to give you more light into His Word.

Patience we are told is a virtue.

 

[DHK]

Well DHK, it is now my turn to say I find it very odd that you have not answered, to date, my reply to you dated May 7 which required more than one (1) page to give you more light into His Word.

Patience we are told is a virtue.

From the other thread:

On Damascus Road we know Who is involved, Where on the Road it happened, When it happened, Why it happened, What was said, and How it came about. Not until after Damascus Road can we find through faith justification to salvation. If we would only believe Paul we will see God had hidden from man, certain things. Peter in Acts 10 is the first to actually see this justification through the faith of Jesus Christ, for the remission of our sins. Peter, and those others with him of the Pentecostal faith saw with their own eyes a gospel that greatly differed from that of John the Baptist, of you men of Israel, you must repent, and you must be baptized for the remission of your sins. To believe any other things we do contradict His Word, and twist His Word to conform to our own religious belief.

Different audiences--different way of putting essentially the same message.
In Acts 2 who was Peter speaking to? He was speaking to primarily if not exclusively Jews--people that were gathered there for the feast of Pentecost. Among them Peter testifies that they were the very ones that had crucified Christ. For this abhorrent and evil sin they needed to repent and they needed to show that deep sorrow and repentance by baptism. In no other place in the Book of Acts is the message of salvation worded in such a way. There is a reason for that. The message hasn't changed. It is worded differently because of the audience.
Salvation is by faith in Christ.

Acts 10:43 states the same very clearly:
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--This is Peter's message; this is Paul's message; this is Christ's message. It is the message of the Bible--the gospel message. It changes not--that whoso believes on him shall receive remission of sin. It is taught from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. It is not exclusively taught by Paul, though Paul teaches it as well.

Please notice that John wrote all of his books about 30 years after the death of Paul.

This is your problem, not mine.

You will not find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or James such a remark or understanding of what Jesus said in John 3:16.

That makes no difference.

Scripture tells us they understood very little of what Jesus was talking about while He was with them on this earth.

Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus was saying either.

It is only after Pentecost He tells us the Holy Ghost will give them understanding of what He said, before being taken into heaven.

I believe Nicodemus came to that understanding before Pentecost.

But even then they did not come to the full knowledge of all that Jesus said, for it was a "secret" of God that could not be understood until God revealed to man the meaning of John 3:16.

Even before the resurrection many believed on him. Mary and Martha are good examples of that.

Pau taught, andl wrote this same thing in different wording long before Christ allowed John to write his books.

That makes no difference at all. Your inference is that no one was saved before Paul. That is ridiculous. Christ told the thief on the cross: "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." You infer that Christ lied, for he didn't preach the gospel of Paul.

 

[pilgrim2009]

What a book by this brother.


AW Pink


A Study of Dispensationalism

Chapter 2


Some Dispensationalists do not go quite so far as others in arbitrarily erecting notice-boards over large sections of Scripture, warning Christians not to tread on ground which belongs to others, yet there is general agreement among them that the Gospel of Matthew—though it stands at the beginning of the New Testament and not at the close of the Old!—pertains not to those who are members of the mystical body of Christ, but is "entirely Jewish," that the sermon on the mount is "legalistic" and not evangelistic, and that its searching and flesh-withering precepts are not binding upon Christians.

Some go so far as to insist that the great commission with which it closes is not designed for us today, but is meant for "a godly Jewish remnant" after the present era is ended. In support of this wild and wicked theory, appeal is made to and great stress laid upon the fact that Christ is represented, most prominently, as "the son of David" or King of the Jews; but they ignore another conspicuous fact, namely that in its opening verse the Lord Jesus is set forth as "the son of Abraham," and he was a Gentile! What is still more against this untenable hypothesis—and as though the Holy Spirit designedly anticipated and refuted it—is the fact that Matthew’s is the only one of the four Gospels where the Church is actually mentioned twice (16:18; 18:17)!—though in John’s Gospel its members are portrayed as branches of the Vine, members of Christ’s flock, which are designations of saints which have no dispensational limitations.

Equally remarkable is the fact that the very same Epistle which contains the verse (2 Tim. 2:15) on which this modern system is based emphatically declares: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (3:16,17). So far from large sections of Scripture being designed for other companies, and excluded from our immediate use, ALL Scripture is meant for and is needed by us.


First, all of it is "profitable for doctrine," which could not be the case if it were true (as Dispensationalists dogmatically insist) that God has entirely different methods of dealing with men in past and future ages from the present one.

Second, all Scripture is given us "for instruction in righteousness" or right doing, but we are at a complete loss to know how to regulate our conduct if the precepts in one part of the Bible are now outdated (as the teachers of error assert) and injunctions of a contrary character have displaced them; and if certain statutes are meant for others who will occupy this scene after the Church has been removed from it. Third, all Scripture is given that a man of God might be "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"—every part of the Word is required in order to supply him with all needed instructions and to produce a full-orbed life of godliness.

When the Dispensationalist is hard pressed with those objections, he endeavors to wriggle out of his dilemma by declaring that though all Scripture be for us much of it is not addressed to us. But really, that is a distinction without a difference.

In his exposition of Hebrews 3:7-11, Owen rightly pointed out that when making quotation from the Old Testament the Apostle prefaced it with "the Holy Spirit saith" (not "said"), and remarked, "Whatever was given by inspiration from the Holy Spirit and is recorded in the Scriptures for the use of the Church, He contrived to speak it to us unto this day. As He liveth for ever so He continues to speak for ever; that is, whilst His voice or word shall be of use for the Church—He speaks now unto us . . . .Many men have invented several ways to lessen the authority of the Scriptures, and few are willing to acknowledge an immediate speaking of God unto them therein." To the same effect wrote that sound commentator Thomas Scott, "Because of the immense advantages of perseverance, and the tremendous consequences of apostasy, we should consider the words of the Holy Spirit as addressed to us."

Not only is the assertion that though all Scripture be for us all is not to us meaningless, but it is also impertinent and impudent, for there is nothing whatever in the Word of Truth to support and substantiate it. Nowhere has the Spirit given the slightest warning that such a passage is "not to the Christian," and still less that whole books belong to someone else. Moreover, such a principle is manifestly dishonest.

What right have I to make any use of that which is the property of another? What would my neighbor think were I to take letters which were addressed to him and argue that they were meant for me? Furthermore, such a theory, when put to the test, is found to be unworkable.

For example, to whom is the book of Proverbs addressed, or for that matter, the first Epistle of John? Personally, this writer, after having wasted much time in perusing scores of books which pretended to rightly divide the Word, still regards the whole of Scripture as God’s gracious revelation to him and for him, as though there were not another person on earth, conscious that he cannot afford to dispense with any portion of it; and he is heartily sorry for those who lack such a faith.

Pertinent in this connection is that warning, "But fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve . . . so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3).

But are there not many passages in the Old Testament which have no direct bearing upon the Church today? Certainly not. In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11—"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples [margin, "types"]: and they are written for our admonition"—Owen pithily remarked: "Old Testament examples are New Testament instructions." By their histories we are taught what to avoid and what to emulate. That is the principal reason why they are recorded: that which hindered or encouraged the Old Testament saints was chronicled for our benefit. But, more specifically, are not Christians unwarranted in applying to themselves many promises given to Israel according to the flesh during the Mosaic economy, and expecting a fulfillment of the same unto themselves?

No indeed, for if that were the case, then it would not be true that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). What comfort can I derive from those sections of God’s Word which these people say "do not belong to me"? What "hope" (i.e. a well-grounded assurance of some future good) could possibly be inspired today in Christians by what pertains to none but Jews? Christ came here, my reader, not to cancel, but "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy" (Rom. 15:8,9)!

 

[pilgrim2009]

Pink continued

AW Pink continued chapter 2 of a study in dispensationalism.

It must also be borne in mind that, in keeping with the character of the covenant under which they were made, many of the precepts and the promises given unto the patriarchs and their descendants possessed a spiritual and typical significance and value, as well as a carnal and literal one. As an example of the former, take Deuteronomy 25:4, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," and then mark the application made of those words in 1 Corinthians 9:9,10: "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope."

The word "altogether" is probably a little too strong here, for pantos is rendered "no doubt" in Acts 28:4, and "surely" in Luke 4:23, and in the text signifies "assuredly" (Amer. RV) or "mainly for our sakes." Deuteronomy 25:4 was designed to enforce the principle that labour should have its reward, so that men might work cheerfully. The precept enjoined equity and kindness: if so to beasts, much more so to men, and especially the ministers of the Gospel. It is a striking illustration of the freedom with which the Spirit of grace applies the Old Testament Scriptures, as a constituent part of the Word of Christ, unto Christians and their concerns.

What is true of the Old Testament precepts (generally speaking, for there are, of course, exceptions to every rule) holds equally good to the Old Testament promises—believers today are fully warranted in mixing faith therewith and expecting to receive the substance of them.

First, because those promises were made to saints as such, and what God gives to one He gives to all (2 Pet. 1:4)—Christ purchased the self-same blessings for every one of His redeemed. Second, because most of the Old Testament promises were typical in their nature: earthly blessings adumbrated heavenly ones. That is no arbitrary assertion of ours, for anyone who has been taught of God knows that almost everything during the old economies had a figurative meaning, shadowing forth the better things to come.

Many proofs of this will be given by us a little later. Third, a literal fulfillment to us of those promises must not be excluded, for since we be still on earth and in the body our temporal needs are the same as theirs, and if we meet the conditions attached to those promises (either expressed or implied), then we may count upon the fulfillment of them: according unto our faith and obedience so will it be unto us.

But surely we must draw a definite and broad line between the Law and the Gospel. It is at this point that the Dispensationalist considers his position to be the strongest and most unassailable; yet nowhere else does he more display his ignorance, for he neither recognizes the grace of God abounding during the Mosaic era, nor can he see that Law has any rightful place in this Christian age.

Law and grace are to him antagonistic elements, and (to quote one of his favorite slogans) "will no more mix than will oil and water." Not a few of those who are now regarded as the champions of orthodoxy tell their hearers that the principles of law and grace are such contrary elements that where the one be in exercise the other must necessarily be excluded. But this is a very serious error.

How could the Law of God and the Gospel of the grace of God conflict? The one exhibits Him as "light," the other manifest Him as "love" (1 John 1:5; 4:8), and both are necessary in order fully to reveal His perfections: if either one be omitted only a one-sided concept of His character will be formed. The one makes known His righteousness, the other displays His mercy, and His wisdom has shown the perfect consistency there is between them.

Instead of law and grace being contradictory, they are complementary. Both of them appeared in Eden before the Fall. What was it but grace which made a grant unto our first parents: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"? And it was law which said, "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."

Both of them are seen at the time of the great deluge, for we are told that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen. 6:8), as His subsequent dealings with him clearly demonstrated; while His righteousness brought in a flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Both of them operated side by side at Sinai, for while the majesty and righteousness of Jehovah were expressed in the Decalogue, His mercy and grace were plainly evinced in the provisions He made in the whole Levitical system (with its priesthood and sacrifices) for the putting away of their sins. Both shone forth in their meridian glory at Calvary, for whereas on the one hand the abounding grace of God appeared in giving His own dear Son to be the Saviour of sinners, His justice called for the curse of the Law to be inflicted upon Him while bearing their guilt.

In all of God’s works and ways we may discern a meeting together of seemingly conflicting elements—the centrifugal and the centripetal forces which are ever at work in the material realm illustrate this principle. So it is in connection with the operations of Divine providence: there is a constant interpenetrating of the natural and supernatural.

So too in the giving of the sacred Scriptures: they are the product both of God’s and man’s agency: they are a Divine revelation, yet couched in human language, and communicated through human media; they are inerrantly true, yet written by fallible men. They are Divinely inspired in every jot and tittle, yet the superintending control of the Spirit over the penmen did not exclude nor interfere with the natural exercise of their faculties.

Thus it is also in all of God’s dealings with mankind: though He exercises His high sovereignty, yet He treats with them as responsible creatures, putting forth His invincible power upon and within them, but in no wise destroying their moral agency. These may present deep and insoluble mysteries to the finite mind, nevertheless they are actual facts.

In what has just been pointed out—to which other examples might be added (the person of Christ, for instance, with His two distinct yet conjoined natures, so that though He was omniscient yet He "grew in wisdom"; was omnipotent, yet wearied and slept; was eternal, yet died)—why should so many stumble at the phenomenon of Divine law and Divine grace being in exercise side by side, operating at the same season? Do law and grace present any greater contrast than the fathomless love of God unto His children, and His everlasting wrath upon His enemies? No indeed, not so great.


Grace must not be regarded as an attribute of God which eclipses all His other perfections. As Romans 5:21 so plainly tells us, "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness," and not at the expense of or to the exclusion of it. Divine grace and Divine righteousness, Divine love and Divine holiness, are as inseparable as light and heat from the sun. In bestowing grace, God never rescinds His claims upon us, but rather enables us to meet them. Was the prodigal son, after his penitential return and forgiveness, less obliged to conform to the laws of his Father’s house than before he left it? No indeed, but more so.

That there is no conflict between the Law and the Gospel of the grace of God is plain enough in Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Here the Apostle anticipates an objection which was likely to be brought against what he said in verses 26-30. Does not the teaching that justification is entirely by grace through faith evince that God has relaxed His claims, changed the standard of His requirements, set aside the demands of His government? Very far from it.


The Divine plan of redemption is in no way an annulling of the Law, but rather the honoring and enforcing of it. No greater respect could have been shown to the Law than in God’s determining to save His people from its course by sending His co-equal Son to fulfill all its requirements and Himself endure its penalty. Oh, marvel of marvels; the great Legislator humbled Himself unto entire obedience to the precepts of the Decalogue. The very One who gave the Law became incarnate, bled and died, under its condemning sentence, rather than that a tittle thereof should fail. Magnified thus was the Law indeed, and for ever "made honorable."

God’s method of salvation by grace has "established the law" in a threefold way. First, by Christ, the Surety of God’s elect, being "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4), fulfilling its precepts (Matt. 5:17), suffering its penalty in the stead of His people, and thereby He has "brought everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24). Second, by the Holy Spirit, for at regeneration He writes the Law on their hearts (Heb. 8:10), drawing out their affections unto it, so that they "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom. 7:22).


Third, as the fruit of his new nature, the Christian voluntarily and gladly takes the Law for his rule of life, so that he declares, "with the mind I myself serve the law" (Rom. 7:25). Thus is the Law "established" not only in the high court of heaven, but in the souls of the redeemed. So far from law and grace being enemies, they are mutual handmaids: the former reveals the sinner’s need, the latter supplies it; the one makes known God’s requirements, the other enables us to meet them. Faith is not opposed to good works, but performs them in obedience to God out of love and gratitude.

Source:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/disp_02.htm

 

[Allan]

A.W.Pink was correct on many things and wrong as many as well. This is just one of the many he was wrong on :thumbs:

 

[pilgrim2009]

A.W.Pink was correct on many things and wrong as many as well. This is just one of the many he was wrong on :thumbs:

Perhaps he was he was not infallible.I would like you to point out what you think he is wrong about?

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

[Allan]

Perhaps he was he was not infallible.I would like you to point out what you think he is wrong about?

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

Almost all it, but to do so would take pages upon pages. All the information however is out there for any one to call up on line or to buy a multitude of books on the subjects.

 

[pilgrim2009]

Almost all it, but to do so would take pages upon pages. All the information however is out there for any one to call up on line or to buy a multitude of books on the subjects.

Ah.I believe you are a dispensationalist by being SBC.Well this system is built upon the foundations of Scofield`s interpretation of the bible and he is analyized below.Pink is way closer to the target than Scofieldism.

Scofield Analyzed.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/scofield.htm

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.