Featured Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

Okay, so what I am detecting, and what is primarily responsible for the things I've said to you up to this point, is a desire on your part to mix that which was (and will be again) for Israel under a dispensation of law, with that which is intended only for the Body of Christ. In short, I detect, although it is more implied that overtly stated, a failure to rightly divide the word of truth, keeping that which was for Israel apart from that which is for the Body.

It is just an intuition, however, and so I could be wrong. Let me ask you to answer the following four questions....

• Why did the Twelve ask their followers to sell their possessions and live in what we would call today a commune? (Acts 4:32 - 5:11)
  
• Why were James' followers "zealous for the law"? (Acts 21:20)
  
• What did James mean when he said "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)?
• What did Paul mean when he said, "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5)?

I'm happy to offer my own answers to those questions but so as not to muddy the water, I'd like to read your answers first.

Nice! I typically can't get anyone to read it at all!

 

I am not sure, CJP69, how you arrived at that conclusion from the things I said. I was careful to provide scripture reasoning for my conclusions. If you thought I had misapplied or misinterpreted the scriptures I quoted, you should point it out. I am fully capable of missing the meaning of a text, but not on purpose. I find the scriptures to be always logical and reasonable when accepting the words as inspired and by honoring context. I do understand Israel and the church and dispensational truth. I can recognize the pivot points of God in history and can pivot my own understanding by the help of the Lord.

I will answer your 4 questions in a short form and then provide some commentary.

Q1 - one would have to presume upon the text to understand that the communal idea was an apostolic doctrine. The book of Acts is first and foremost a history book and the historian, Luke, just wrote what happened. He did not comment on whether it was good or bad or even give the reason for it. The two verses you provided does not hint that it was a teaching of the 12.

Q2 - I will not take the space to fully answer this question in this comment. Let me just remind you here that Judah still maintained a national identity during the 40 years between the cross and their dispersion into the nations. The attitude of the Jews in Jerusalem whom James described represented the problem that led to their dispersion. They would not turn from what the scriptures calls the "weak and beggarly elements, and they would not fully embrace the Lord Jesus Christ because they desired to hold on to elements of the law of Moses and require it for salvation. You should read the 5 warnings to these people in Hebrews and note chapters 6 & 10 and 2nd Peter 2 and the epistle of Jude to understand that these people were under a 40 year probationary period. All 40 year periods in scripture are probationary. Read He 3 here and remember the Hebrews was written to the Hebrews in the mid 60's before they were dispersed by the Romans in 70 AD. This is very important. From this point in history the church became a gentile church after the figures of the 8 OT gentile women married to Jewish men.

Q3 - James wrote his letter to the 12 tribes of Israel scattered abroad. Where do you think he sent it? To Jerusalem? Not on your life. He sent it to Asia Minor where the strangers of Israel abode. This is the same place Peter sent his two letters. He did not write church doctrine. His was the first of the NT epistles and he wrote it in AD 45.To attempt to make his writings fit the church of Jesus Christ is a vain thing. The key to the question you asked are the words "ye see." Men cannot see the heart of another man but they can see his works. Those who call Jesus Lord and say they follow him should be able to point to their works and their obedience to Christ as evidence of their faith. This is James' point.

Q4 - Who would you say justifies the ungodly? It is God the Father. When does the Father justify men? When they believe from the heart. Who alone can know that? God alone. It does not matter whether it is before the cross or after the cross, it is the Father who justifies. The difference before the cross and after the cross is that before the cross God justifies the sinner when he believes what God says and his faith is counted (imputed) to him for righteousness. After the cross we receive Christ into our bodies by faith and he is our righteousness.

Ro 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

Here is a rather lengthy passage that shows justification before and after the cross.

16 Therefore it (righteousness) is of faith, that it (righteousness) might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it (his believing the promise God made to him ) was imputed to him for righteousness.

Check the therefore out. Abraham simply believed what God Jehovah promised him in his covenant that he and Sarah would have a son through which he would work out his plan of redemption. This believing God justified him according to the scripture.



23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it (righteousness) was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it (righteousness) shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Abraham did not not believe the same thing we are required to believe. He believed what God said to him and we are required to believe what God says to us. He says to us that he will justify us if we believe that God raised up Jesus from the dead. I am not making this up. I just quoted it from the KJV.

The common thing between us after the cross and those before the cross was our faith in what God said to us. This justified us. Faith in the testimony of God the Father is what justifies the sinner in any dispensation. It does not provide the righteousness that God requires. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his indwelling us provides the righteousness and our sins are washed away in his blood.

.Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

This is another way of showing that the resurrection of Jesus Christ must be a part of the gospel message for men to be saved. God the Father will not justify any sinner who does not embrace this gospel by faith.

Continued

 

Probationary time: The setting for the parable of Jesus, which is prophetic, that I am about to quote;

Lk 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


The parable:

6 He spake also this parable; A certain man (God the Father) had a fig tree (represents in type the nation Israel) planted in his vineyard (defined in Isa 5); and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard (our Lord Jesus), Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Does anyone doubt that our Lord was truly interested in making this fig tree productive?

The national rulers had not repented and were in danger of perishing, which they did.

The fig tree was removed from the vineyard in 70 AD.

I hope you are taking this conversation in the spirit it is given, CJP69. Thank you for the time you are taking to make your points and allowing me to make mine. I think we both can agree that our Lord Jesus Christ deserves all the glory we can give him and is worthy of our praise and adoration.

 

So for brevity's sake I won't respond to this or your other post point for point. I could do so but the length of it would make your eyes water.

First of all, I want to make clear that much of what I've said and the way in which I've responded to you has been sort of baffling to you because I'm doing quite a lot of reading between the lines, which I understand is not the safest course and can be frustrating. The problem is that it's either that or else getting bogged down almost instantly into a vast sea of weeds where virtually no substantive progress is made in the conversation. That isn't interesting for anyone, including the both of us.

My hope was that asking those four questions would help to clarify the differences in our doctrinal positions and I think it will have done precisely that. I submit to you that your answers were all very much more complex than is needed. The bible, as I'm sure you'll agree, is not written in any sort of code where it is required that one be initiated in order to read and understand it. There are some passage that are more difficult than others, to be sure, but for the most part, all one need do to understand God's book is to read it.

Here's how I would answer those four questions....

• Why did the Twelve ask their followers to sell their possessions and live in what we would call today a commune? (Acts 4:32 - 5:11)

Because the plan was for Jesus to return shortly. The commune was intended to be a short term situation.

Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.​

Incidentally, there isn't any way that this commune idea wasn't endorsed by God, which is why I included the story of Ananias and Sapphira in my scripture reference. In addition to the Holy Spirit striking them both dead for lying about selling their own property but Christ Himself had given the Apostles complete authority to act is His absence even to the extent of forgiving of sins - or not. (Matt. 16:19 & 18:18)

• Why were James' followers "zealous for the law"? (Acts 21:20)

Because they were still under the law. They were saved under the law and remained so until their natural death for the callings of God are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:29)

• What did James mean when he said "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)?

Because under the law, which James was saved under and taught, that was the truth! James chapter two means exactly what it says - period. The only thing one needs to do, is to understand that James was not writing his letter to the Body of Christ but rather to Kingdom believers who were saved under a gospel that had following the law as a required aspect of it.

• What did Paul mean when he said, "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Romans 4:5)?

Paul meant just precisely what he said, as you explained so well in your post, by the way. There is no contradiction between Paul and James, not because they are teaching the same thing but because they are teaching different things to different groups of believers who were under different dispensational rules. Context context context.


Now, isn't that so much easier? I don't have to twist myself into knots trying to figure out a way to make these passage mean or say anything other than what the plain surface reading of the passages would seem to mean. I can read the passage to any average home schooled third grade child and he'd be able to tell me what it means. He wouldn't need to know one thing about what year it was when any of it was written, nor would be need to know anything about theology in general. He could simply read it and tell you what it meant and and he'd totally get it right!

So, what is it that allows for this super simple way of understanding the New Testament? Timing! It's all about the timing of the cutting off of Israel and the beginning of the Body of Christ. If you get that wrong, the result is one level or another of confusion and needless complexity in one's doctrine. (A demonstration of which was the entire point of my asking the questions, by the way.) Confusion that is inevitable when one believes that the Twelve (and James) were ever members of, or ministers to, the Body of Christ.

The really beautiful thing about your posts is that you brought up one of the most important passages that exists when it comes to trying to nail down the timing of the cutting off of Israel. That passage being Christ's parable of the fig tree. Let's look at it again...

Luke 13:6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”
​

I submit that based on this passage as well as the fact that a commune wouldn't take years and years to run out of money and a few other things as well (like the fact that Pentecost was just the next feast day on the Jewish calendar that was due to be fulfilled as several others had been in the weeks prior) that Pentecost (i.e. the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Twelve - including Matthias, by the way) as well as the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was this "digging around and fertilizing" of the fig tree (a figure of Israel, by the way).

A year or so later, we find Stephen using "irresistible wisdom" (a fulfillment of end times prophesy) in his testimony before the leaders of Israel. Their response to which was to both officially reject Jesus as their Messiah and to murder Stephen for his trouble. We see Saul standing in approval and God standing (a biblical posture of impending judgement) when these events took place. Then the transition away from Israel begins starting with the conversion of Saul to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) and then God practically having to twist Peter's arm off while communicating to him that Gentiles are no longer unclean (Acts 10).

Then, some fourteen years later, Paul after preaching a gospel that he received by direct divine revelation (Gal. 1:2), is told by God to go to Israel and explain "his gospel" to the Twelve (and James who seems to have become the leader of the church in Jerusalem.) The conclusion of this meeting results in Paul agreeing with "the pillars", that they (Peter, James and John) would minister to the circumcision (circumcision being THE ultimate symbol of the law, by the way) and he (Paul) would go to the Uncircumcision (See Eph. 2:11). (Galatians 2:6-10)

Thus, you are completely correct about who both James and John wrote their epistle to. All that is needed when reading them is to understand that you're reading someone else's mail and suddenly it's all as clear as can be and the bible stops being this confusing mess of contradictory teachings that so many understandably believe it to be.

CJP69

P.S. Holy smokes! Can you imagine how long this post would have been had I responded point for point! This was still way too long. I'll try to be more brief in coming posts.

 

Hmmmnnn, Interesting comment.

 

This is not what the KJV says. It says this is the age of "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" that must be specially revealed by the Spirit and that the natural man can not ever understand them by human logic and reasoning. Jesus called this age the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" and gave an overview of the whole age in 12 parables, beginning to end. He chose faithful stewards to manage his affairs while he, the King, is away.

The following words were spoken by Jesus during the last week of his earthly ministry.

Lu 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us..........

1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

This brings me to this:

We will never reach an agreement on these mysteries because we are not reading the same words. I am not sure what you are quoting but I have been taught by the same words from my beginning. God has admonished us to all speak the same things.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Satan has rolled out a philosophy of Bible translations for these end times that has divided Christians and has made them disobedient to the expressed will of God. If you present comments based upon , say 1 Cor 2:7, and quote it to me, my mind will immediately be drawn to certain passages in the scriptures because of the words in the text. I am so familiar with these words that I can know where the subjects are in my Bible. You, OTOH, would no doubt be drawn to completely different passages and the words we read would lead us into different ideas based upon those words because they are different.

Speaking of the "mind" that God the Father wants us to be join together with as per 1 Cor 10, we know what that mind is. Consider this;

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them (the deep things of God, the mysteries)) unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

He said that just after he said this:

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

One other thing in this strain; If Jesus Christ did not speak his own words but those given to him to speak from the Father, why would we have 100 different sets of words to choose from in the same language?

Consider these words of Jesus Christ carefully and believe them;

Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Ps 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

I am not guessing about these things. The mysteries of this age requires spiritual revelation through God's words for our understanding.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Ps 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

We have serious disagreements on fundamental things such as the gospel of Christ and to whom it applies because our source of knowledge is different and there will never be agreement between us as long as we are reading different words from different Bibles..

 

Good deal! Thank you.

 

Then let's just drop it.

As I said from the start, this is not a discussion that is conducive to web forums. You're far too invested in your doctrine to ever change it anyway, no matter how good the argument, which is what I meant several posts ago when I said it's just too much of a paradigm shift. People, like yourself, who are educated enough to participate in theology forums have (generally speaking) spent far too much time, effort and often money not only learning their doctrine but also teaching that doctrine to others. It's all but impossible to say or even do anything that would make it worth it to them to turn their back on such a colossal investment, which is totally understandable, by the way.

There is no requirement for us to agree on much of anything other than that God the Son became a man and offered His life's blood as an atoning sacrifice for the sins we are guilty of and that He rose from the grave three days later, according to the scriptures, (including all modern translations by the way). If we agree that far, then there will come a day when you agree with me fully!

P.S.

Just so you know, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is far older than the NKJV. Our differences have nothing to do with the translations we're using.

 

Feel free to actually read those essays and engage the discussion, if you'd like!

 

I would just say, CJP69, that I have enjoyed the exchange. I really have not invested much more than time in my view of the scriptures and the doctrines thereof. My convictions are, generally speaking, my own. I will agree that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation and a man will be saved if he never understands dispensational doctrines, the fact still remains that one of the favorite inspired sayings of the apostle Paul is, "I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren." His prayer for gentile Christians to whom he wrote is recurring and goes something like this;

Eph 3:13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

The cause is revealed in the previous verses.

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven (those who have died in Christ) and earth (those in Christ who are still living on earth) is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
21 Unto him (God the Father) be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

I say amen to that too.