Lordship Salvation

His Word has deflected your arrows. I shot humbleness to you that believe all must be humbled by you. If you wish to discuss His Word, then get down here with me on your knees, before you fall from that high perch. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Biblical truth to you is spiteful? Strange sayings from one who claims superiority over the humble.

I understand you are most likely looking for “numbers’ on your post, to gain the One Thousand Mark. If so, why don’t you just make nice little comments instead of contentious statements? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Ituttut:

I think I am on a high perch?

But you are the one who says you judge Liz. You are the one who says not many churches "have the rest correct."

You are the one who about me says:


strifeful engagement oozes out of me...Biblical truth to me is spiteful...I claim superiority over the humble (that's you--right? How very humble of you to say that)...I make contentious statements...I may disagree with Paul... I am on a slippery spot... .

You know , friend, ituttut, it really seems to me that um..er.. YOU are the one on that perch.

It so often is the case that one makes ad hominem attacks when that is all he can do.

But let's leave off with such distractions and get to the issue of whether or not dispensationalism makes ALL His Word VERY CLEAR.

So, let's get down to the nitty-gritty: Rom 6/Baptism.

Of this you say, "No one can miss what this Scripture says." Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally?

I guess that is quite in line with your statement on 5-17, "When we put together His Word it AAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL becomes VEEEEEERY CLEEAAAAAR." uh huh.

I understand that IYO what brings this extreme clarity is your dispensationalism as you say "We see CLEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAARLY by the dispensational Gospel of Paul" (5-21). right...uh huh.

Let's examine that proposition using Rom 6/Baptism as the test. Does dispensationalism make it ALL CLEAR or not? If it does, then, dispensationalists should agree among themselves about Rom 6/Baptism. But DO they? nope, nope, nope!

All of the six authors I reference have advanced degrees in Bible/Theology. Of course, in the eyes of some here that DISQUALIFIES them from knowing ANYTHING about the Bible or Theology.

How do we learn? Why, by NOT learning of course!

However, these six authors have a trait that makes it almost a sure thing that they "Understand the Word VEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRT CLEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRLY!"

What is that magical trait you ask??? Are they apostles? nay! Are they prophets? Oh, no.

Well, then , how do they understand it ALL so CLEARLY??? How are they so assured that they are NOT missing what this Scripture says? HMMMMMMMM?

Why, why they are ALL DISPENSATIONALISTS, wowsie! And THAT qualifies them as seers (oops) , I mean, seeing so VERY CLEARLY...yeah!


DISPENSATIONALISTS GET CLOUDY ABOUT ROM 6/BAPTISM

1) BAPTIZE OR NOT?

a) naaa.. dumb idea it was just for the Jews . These Covenant guys just can't understand anything! **(Baker, 557)

b) clearly we should . Unger, 32


2) IS ROM 6 SPIRIT OR WATER BAPTISM

a) dumb , question, SPIRIT, of course. How could anyone be such a bo bo as to not see that?**(Chafer 6:142,145)

b) obviously water, (Saucy, 211)


3) WHAT DOES WATER BAP MEAN?

a) It is only a symbol otherwise its WORKS WORKS WORKS!!!**(Unger, 32)

b) It is not just a symbol, it is a part of the conversion process. (Saucy, 195,202).


4) WHAT DOES WAT BAP PICTURE?

a) It DOES NOT, of course, picture our death and resurrection w-Christ (Chafer 6:142)

b) Obviously it pictures our death and resurrection w-Christ.(Erickson, 1101,04)

** I represent opinion correctly but elaborate how that opinion is expressed a teensy bit.

CONTINUED AS AOL BEEPS ME OFF.

[ May 22, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

really I do these in two posts so that as itututt accuses I can reach 1000 posts... o boy, that will be glory for me !

5) WHAT SHOULD BE THE MODE OF WAT BAP?

a) who knows? The word baptizo doesn't prove it and neither do the Scritures involved. (Chafer, 7:38)

b) why, immersion, of course as shown by the Greek words and the Scriptures involved.
(Erickson, 1104).


6) IS IMMERSION EQUATED WITH DIPPING?

a) no, immersion cannot mean dipping. (Baker, 547)

b) Bap may mean dip or immerse. (Saucy, 208).


7) IS 'BAPTIZE' THE RIGHT WORD?

a) using Dr. Bob's fifth def of KJVOnly in the Translations forum , I take it that some KJVO folks feel it (and every) MUST be the right word AND that some of the good KJVO folks are dispensationalists.

b) "Baptize" reflects the personal opinion of the KJV translators...the original Greek should determine what is true (Chafer, 7"37). "Baptize" is NOT a translation but a transliteration. McGee (4:682).


The two posts have examined your claim that dispensationalism makes God's Word ALL VERY CLEAR.

It obviously does not since dispensationalists cannot even agree about baptism and the meaning of Rom 6 despite your other erroneous claim that "NNE CAN MISS WHAT THIS SCRIPTURE SAYS."

You are now in a position where you MUSt disagree with much opinion expressed by your fellow dispensationalists.

So must I. But the difference between you and me, friend itututt is that I don't claim to see it ALL SO VERY CLEARLY because of my dispensationalism.

I do have three masters degrees in Bib/THE0 and one ThD. I did the study for these degrees [ because I so love His Word ] while teaching Learning Disabled junior high students in public school to earn a living.

But the effect of these degrees has not been to make me think I understand so much better than others. Degrees do not prove one right. That requires convincing evidence. [even with such evidence those who sure they cannot be wrong will never change] The effect rather is that I question and test my own convictions often.

That is what I meant by saying that if one chops himself he will not by another be chopped!


Bill


............


Works Cited

Baker, A Dispensational Theology
Chafer, Systematic Theology, vols 6,7
Dr. Dob, Baptist Board
Erickson, Christian Theology
McGee, Thru the Bible, vol 4
Sauch, The Church in God's Program
Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the HS

[ May 22, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

You have a hard time keeping to the subject . You joust in all directions, or “bat the air”, for who can tell what you wish to talk about. You answer my first post to you with “My present issue in this thread is not dispensationalism...harp on about that to your heart's content, and I will not care.” And now, since I have made everything clear by scripture, and you have no counter, all you can fall back on is making an invalid argument unworthy of one of higher learning, as the comparison above is without proof that all are of Paul’s dispensational gospel.

You are a dispensationalist, and evidently don’t know it. If you are Christian you must believe there is an Old Testament (covenant), and a New Testament (covenant), and a hidden agenda that God had from the beginning. Are these all the same? You must believe in God’s dispensations, for if not then there is no belief in His sacrifice, His shed blood, the Cross, and His resurrection, the kingdom of God, the Body of Christ, the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of the Apostles.

What you said was, you wanted to be made Clear on His Word. I have given you some of the “clear” gospel of Paul, but it is still not “clear” to you. So it is “clear” you refuse to believe the gospel of Paul, for the secret is hidden.

Do you have what it takes endeavoring to disprove Paul’s gospel? Some think they do, but get “cold feet” when they began to see it refutes what they have been told all their life, and all their studious “theological” concepts begin to fall.

If you wish to enlighten me as to His Word, then give it a shot. You will find, if you believe His Word, then it will be I that will enlighten you, for you do not understand the gospel of Paul.

If you don’t know where to start, may I suggest, Ephesians 3:2, ”If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”. What is your take on this verse? Perhaps I misunderstand, and you can enlighten me. Please note, this is one of the clear you wanted evidence of. It is clear to me, but if you believe I (Paul) am wrong, then it is you duty as a Christian to set me straight, and say Christ Jesus did not give a dispensational gospel to Paul. I will listen and read, and will understand what you say. I won’t try to change the subject and will agree with your understanding, or I will show you more of the Word of God, rightly divided.

But I must warn you, I have an advantage. I know what foundation I am on. It appears to differ from the foundation you have decided to build on. I have no intention of going through the tribulation. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Ituttut: "I have no intention of going through the tribulation. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12"

Amen, Brother Ituttut -- Preach it!!

I'll not be going through the tribulation with you

 

You present an impressive list of dedicated and knowledgeable men in the Word of God. Mark me with the likes of Charles Baker. The Body of Christ has room for us all that believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our Salvation. Why not add your name to this distinguished list? Christian faith, ituttut – Retired PhD, College of HK Galatians 1:11-12

 

I see we believe alike in a number of areas. Christin faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

So, if you believe re water baptism as does Chas Baker, then you do not believe in wat bap.? So, are you a Baptist? I thought Baptists believed in baptism.

I will respond to the other later, but first tell me Ituttut: ARE YOU A BAPTIST?

 

I think I am on a high perch?

But you are the one who says you judge Liz. You are the one who says not many churches "have the rest correct."

===

You need to make distinctions. I don’t judge a person’s salvation, but their understanding of the Word. Aren’t you doing the same of me?


===

But It. , if you judge my understanding and I yours, why am I on a perch but you are not? You are assuming that!

===

I know after my salvation, it is worked out according to the gospel of Paul, and not Peter or James.

===

So, you think these others are not preaching Christ's Gospel ? A second assumption.

===


I regret I hurt your feelings,

===

I didn't say my feelings are hurt. A third assumption. But if you were attacking me because I was attacking you, have you never heard of "turn the other cheek"? Oh, I forgot, wrong dispensation!
===







[/qb]But what am I to do UZThD? You make personal attacks, and then do not allow for corollary in like?[qb]

===

Please me where I attacked your person. I attacked your position.




dispensationalists should agree among themselves about Rom 6/Baptism. But DO they? nope, nope, nope!


===

And now, since I have made everything clear by scripture,

===


Where did that happen?

===


and you have no counter, all you can fall back on is making an invalid argument unworthy of one of higher learning,


====
invalid?

If you say on 5-17 that dispensationism makes everything in the NT clear, and I show that dispensationalists disagree about the meaning of major sections and topics of Scripture, then that is a valid argument and shows that dispensationalism does not make everything clear.

===
without proof that all are of Paul’s dispensational gospel.

===


Oh, I see. I must show that one perfectly agrees with your brand of "dispen-- sensationalism " or else my argument re dispensationalism not making everything clear is unsound.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is not following Paul. And your evidence for that is that they do not agree with you. Let's syllogize that:

Premise: All who disagree with Ittutut do not follow Paul.

Premise: Saucy and Chafer and Erickson and etc (save Baker) disagree with Ittutut.

Conclusion: Therefore, Saucy and Erickson and Chafer etc do not follow Paul.

You know, the difficulty with syllogistic logic is that the conclusion is only good if both premises are. And, I think the first premise is about as good (or as bad) as a trout left in the sun all day.

Hmmm..., say, IT. doesn't that logic seem just a teensy weensy bit circular to you?

===

You are a dispensationalist, and evidently don’t know it.


===


evidently I don't know it? Another assumption.

===

I have given you some of the “clear” gospel of Paul, but it is still not “clear” to you... you refuse to believe the gospel of Paul...

===

You see IT., my friend, you may be suffering from what is medically termed "egoinflatitus." "

It is quite preposterous for you to claim that if I do not accept you, then I do not accept Paul.
====

.

If you don’t know where to start, may I suggest, Ephesians 3:2, ”If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”. What is your take on this verse? Perhaps I misunderstand, and you can enlighten me. Please note, this is one of the clear you wanted evidence of.

===

Hokay. Eph 3:2. Ummm...let me think. Don't rush me now. Zowie, that's a toughie!!


oo...ooo.. I know! It means that Paul was one of those , along with others, of course, to whom God revealed some things. So what?

[if you think my view on this verse is wrong, then prove it)

===


It is clear to me, but if you believe I (Paul)

===


You are Paul? Hold the phone a sec. Why do you think you are Paul?

===


am wrong, then it is you duty as a Christian to set me straight, and say Christ Jesus did not give a dispensational gospel to Paul. I will listen and read, and will understand what you say.


===


OK. I just set you straight on Eph 3:2, didn't I?

===

But I must warn you,


===


oh, oh...now I'm really scared. Especially if you are really Paul.

===


I have an advantage. I know what foundation I am on. It appears to differ from the foundation you have decided to build on.

===

That's right. IYO, your opinion=Paul. IMO, it does not.

[ May 25, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

5) WHAT SHOULD BE THE MODE OF WAT BAP?

a) who knows? The word baptizo doesn't prove it and neither do the Scritures involved. (Chafer, 7:38)

b) why, immersion, of course as shown by the Greek words and the Scriptures involved.
(Erickson, 1104).

===

Is the mode important to us today? For what purpose does it serve other than to divide the denominations? They all believe, to a fault that they are correct. We have One Baptism that counts, and it is Spiritual.


===

If you do not think that water baptism is for today, then it is not important. However, it my understanding that Baptists believe in water baptism. Are you a Baptist?

===


6) IS IMMERSION EQUATED WITH DIPPING?

a) no, immersion cannot mean dipping. (Baker, 547)

b) Bap may mean dip or immerse. (Saucy, 208).

[/qb]Why should these two agree? I know of no one that agrees with another on every aspect presented.

===

If it is thought that dispensationalism makes everything clear, then why would this not be clear to dispensationalists?

Or, if dispensationalists are wrong on this, why can they not be wrong about other things too--like dispensationalism?

===


7) IS 'BAPTIZE' THE RIGHT WORD?

a) using Dr. Bob's fifth def of KJVOnly in the Translations forum , I take it that some KJVO folks feel it (and every) MUST be the right word AND that some of the good KJVO folks are dispensationalists.

b) "Baptize" reflects the personal opinion of the KJV translators...the original Greek should determine what is true (Chafer, 7"37). "Baptize" is NOT a translation but a transliteration. McGee (4:682).

===

Neither of these two good men embrace (McGee embraced) the whole of Paul’s gospel.

===

They think that they do ; if you say they do not, then, IMO, it's up to you to prove that.

===




The dispensational gospel of Paul opens up (makes clear) the Word of God as to the Body of Christ, not before presented as such, and until Saul/Paul, the Gentile was without hope. Once we understand God is a God of division, it is possible to understand Paul.


===

You say you and Baker understands Paul. Ryrie , another dispensationalist, says that Baker and you are much mistaken. Why should anyone think that you are closer to understanding Paul than is Ryrie ?


==


===

[/qb]All above are not of the whole “dispensation of Paul’s gospel”. Those that correctly divided the Word of God agree, that there is only “One Baptism, which is without the hands of man.

===

OK. IMO Eph 4:5 refers to water baptism. Prove me wrong. There's your challenge!

===


Those agreeing water baptism is not necessary, need not agree to any mode down here, why it is done, when, where, who does it, or what the purpose.

===

IT: would you please tell me in your next post whether or not you are a Baptist?

==


you are not of the dispensation of the gospel of Paul. We have to understand Paul, as Peter informs us.[qb]

===


Just when I thought we were getting somewhere, you come up with that for you say, "Agree with me or you are disagreeing with Paul."

But I think I agree with Paul, and you do not.

===


I do not hold any of the degrees you possess, and I commend you. I love the Word also, but have never had the desire to study “Theory”, for I prayed for understanding His Word, with His interpretation.

===

Yes, but I pray too.

IMO Rom 6 and Eph 4:5 and 1 Cor 12:13 and the two baptismal texts in Gal and Col all refer to water baptism.

If you are the Pauline scholar, and I am not, prove me wrong. It should be easy for you.

one text at a time, please.


Thanks,

Bill

 

Baptists I know do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation, even though many of the churches and many members believe in the "great commission". Of course believing in the "great commission", yet not believing water baptism is for remission of sins, is in contradiction wouldn’t you say? Many of the churches and the members have not clearly delved into this matter of conflict for understanding.

Baptist from the age of 9, and saved even before I walked the aisle. Saved by the Grace of God through faith that Jesus Christ would save me from going to hell. That was all I needed to know from what I had been told to be with Christ. The Preacher was right, the teacher was right, and my family was right. I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. Baptized into the church the next week, a formality (as far as I am concerned) that was necessary for me to be able to worship with my family and friends. You know most Baptist churches won't let you join their church unless you let them baptize you, or rebaptize you.

Are you Baptist? Were you saved any differently, or baptized for any reason other than to be able to associate with the members in the Baptist community? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

===

Baptists I know do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation, even though many of the churches and many members believe in the "great commission". Of course believing in the "great commission", yet not believing water baptism is for remission of sins, is in contradiction wouldn’t you say? Many of the churches and the members have not clearly delved into this matter of conflict for understanding.

Baptist from the age of 9, and saved even before I walked the aisle. Saved by the Grace of God through faith that Jesus Christ would save me from going to hell. That was all I needed to know from what I had been told to be with Christ. The Preacher was right, the teacher was right, and my family was right. I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. Baptized into the church the next week, a formality (as far as I am concerned) that was necessary for me to be able to worship with my family and friends. You know most Baptist churches won't let you join their church unless you let them baptize you, or rebaptize you.

Are you Baptist? Were you saved any differently, or baptized for any reason other than to be able to associate with the members in the Baptist community? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12 </font>[/QUOTE]===

Thanks

I guess you are saying that you are a Baptist who does not believe in water baptism. Thanks for that explanation.

As I understand your posts in this thread, you are believing something like:

a revelation was made to Paul during his imprisonment which was not made to others as Peter, that this revelation, the Mystery, is the referent in Eph 3:2, that it made Paul's Gospel different from Peter's and the others, and that consequently only the Prison Epistles clearly represent this new form of Paul's Gospel.

I hope I do not misrepresent you.

I suppose you deserve from me a more complete definition of my view on Eph 3 as that affects our differences on water baptism.

My opinion re Eph 3:2 , in contradiction to yours , is that Paul is not saying that he received a revelation not known by others and that this revelation causes him to preach a Gospel different than what he and others before preached!

Here are some reasons for my opinion:

1) Paul does not say that he was the first to receive the revelation of the mystery as he defines it. But if he were not the first to receive it, then, it would likely have been a part of the Gospel preached before Paul's imprisonment.

2) The context plainly says that not only Paul, but also, "apostles and prophets" received that revelation.

3) In referencing his reception of it he does not use the emphatic "emoi" but only "moi."

4) In Gal 1 Paul under inspiration curses anyone who would preach another Gospel, therefore, it is unlikely that a new Gospel would later be revealed to Paul which is different than the one he preached to the Galatians. Paul's teaching the Galatians ,according to 3:26,27, included the topic water of baptism as the symbol of salvation and as the expression of saving faith.

Neither do the Prison Epistles forsake the issue of water baptism as shown by Eph 5:26.

5) The mystery in Eph 3:3,4 is defined in 3:6 as, "the Gentiles shall be fellow heirs with and of the same body as, and fellow sharers in the promise in Christ."

But these are not new issues to the Gospel of Christ:

BEFORE his imprisonment Paul taught that Gentiles were heirs (Rom 4:17; Gal. 4:1-7).

BEFORE Paul's imprisonment,

1)) Christ taught that saved Gentiles and saved Jews would be one

2)) and the Jerusalem Council also taught that the Gentiles would be saved too, just as the Jews,

3)) and Paul, himself, before his imprisonment taught the one body concept and water baptism as the symbol of this and the occasion for uniting with that visible body.

(
Jo. 10:16; Acts 15:11,14,17; 1 Cor 12 :13).

Eph 3:3,4, therefore, does not reference a revelation made during his imprisonment which effectively modifies the Gospel!

continued

 

===

continued:

6) In Acts 20:27 Paul tells the Ephesians that he had taught them "The WHOLE counsel of God."

This included water baptism (Acts 19:2-5).

Now, as I understand, you are saying that Paul did NOT, in fact, teach the Ephesians the WHOLE counsel of God and that the water baptism he required for them was all vanity.

Shall I believe you over Paul's instruction to the Ephesians? nope!!

7) In Rom 16:17 Paul tells the Roman church that other doctrine must not conflict with what they had already been taught. What they had been taught included the topic of water baptism (6:3,4).

Now, you seem to be saying that Paul after his imprisonment is teaching new doctrines which go beyond what the Romans were taught. But the Romans would not accept any doctrine in conflict to the body of truth they had received and so would not accept Paul's new teaching.

shall I believe you over Paul's instructions to the Romans? nope!!

8) According to Jude 3, the Faith was ONCE delivered...not twice! It does not say that the Faith was first delivered to Peter and then, later, in Paul's imprisonment, it was delivered in a somewhat altered form to Paul.

shall I believe you over Jude? nope!!

9) Jesus said that He would build His church on the truth of the confession by Peter (Mt 16:18).

Now, as I understand you, you are saying that it rather was on some new mystery revealed to Paul in prison on which that the church is to be built.

shall I believe you over Jesus? nope!!

10) Christ, Himself, said that water baptism was to be part of the discipling process and that statement was qualified by Christ's assurance that while they were discipling He would be with them "unto the end of the age." (Mt 28:20)

He did not say,"Oh, I really mean only until Paul's imprisonment when you can stop teaching them 'whatsoever I have commanded you' and start teaching them 'Paul's Gospel' instead!"

And so, at Pentecost water baptism was part of Peter's message (Acts 2:38).

And Philip baptised too (Acts 8:38).

And so did Ananias baptize Paul saying (much like Eph 5:26), "Be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord."

Of course, water did not save, it was the calling on the Lord that saved! BUT, the baptism was indicative of the salvific event!

So, when Cornelius and co. by receiving the Spirit showed that they were saved, water baptism would naturally follow (Acts 10:47.

Likewise, in the case of the Ephesians , the Spirit's reception, that is, salvation, closely was connected to the water baptism as a sign of and as an occasion to express faith (Acts 19:2-7)!

You, friend Ittutut, say that water baptism is an empty formality.

But should I belive you, or should I believe our Lord Jesus and His servants as Peter, Philip, and Paul?

If I am wrong, then I BREAK NO COMMAND;IF YOU ARE WRONG YOU DO!

"Go ye , Ittutut,

Go ye , Bill,

teach ALL NATIONS

ALL NATIONS!!!

(not just Jews or pre- Pauline imprisonment folks)

BAPTIZING THEM."

Shall I follow YOUR understanding instead of the COMMAND OF CHRIST?

nope!!

 

Opinions are a dime a dozen, but Paul has a gospel given to him by Christ Jesus, and I see you continue to not believe Paul, as you must believe he only preaches his opinion.

I wish you were able to discuss this subject, and others, but if not I really don’t see any sense of wasting our time just trading “barbs”. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

[ May 28, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

===

Ittutut replied:

You have no proof for your stance, for if you did then it would make Paul a liar, for the verse reads ”If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”. What is this dispensational gospel? Romans 16:25, ”Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”.

Consider and remember are two powerful words as Paul speaks to us in Romans 2:7-8, ” Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 8. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel”. What is Paul talking about here? Paul is talking about his (Paul’s) gospel to the Gentiles of the “good news” of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

Paul’s preaching differs from Peter’s and the others. Paul does not preach to we Gentiles of the son of David setting as King on David’s throne, but as our Lord Jesus Christ. In Acts 2:38 Peter admonishes the Jew of what they must do in works, but Paul and Silas in Acts 16:31 offer God’s grace by believing on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul brings in his gospel the preaching of the Cross, and the resurrection of Christ and His glorification to sit beside His Father awaiting His earthly reign as King on this earth, the King of the Jews.


I wish you were able to discuss this subject, and others, but if not I really don’t see any sense of wasting our time just trading “barbs”. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12 [/QUOTE]


====
====

Bill replies:

By way of discusion in two posts above I gave you 10 reasons , "proof," for my position and you did not respond. I don't think there was a barb in any of them.

1) you say: I make Paul a liar by thinking that Eph 3:2,3 means that it was not only to Paul that the mystery was revealed.

But Paul nowhere says it was revealed just to him or first to him. Paul there says it was revealed to , "Holy apostles and prophets."

Therefore, Eph 3 does not say that Paul was preaching any new Gospel.


2) you say Rom 16:25 refers to a dispensational Gospel which is Paul's (because) he says "MY Gospel" and refers to a something hidden but now revealed and made known."

But friend IT, Paul does not say in Rom 16 that it was revealed only or even first to him!

Paul there plainly says, "now revealed THROUGH PROPHETIC WRITINGS"!!!

The meaning is that those poorly understood promises which God deposited in the OT in reference to the Gentiles were now being made clear.

But Paul here in Rom 16 does not even say that only he understood them.

Paul clearly says that The Gospel which he proclaims is the VERY SAME GOSPEL promised by the OT prophets in the Scriptures ( Rom1:2)!!

In fact, Rom 1:1,8,9.16,,17 shows that Paul's Gospel was the very same Gospel which had been preached in Rome by another--not by Paul!

"MY Gospel" does not mean a new or different Gospel.

Therefore, according to Rom 16:25,26 Paul was not preaching any new Gospel.


3) You say that a distinctive of Paul's Gospel is that it includes the resurrection of Christ.

But that hardly is a distinctive as it was prevalent in Peter's preaching too (Acts 2:24-33).

Therefore, Paul by preaching the resurrection of Christ certainly does not preach any new Gospel!


4) You say that Paul does not preach the Son of David sitting as King on David's throne.

But it is rather the case that Paul does reference the lineage of Jesus (Rom 1:4) and does call Christ King ((1 Tim 1:17;6:15)!

In fact, WHILE IN PRISON Paul preached to Jews the Kingdom and said that he was imprisoned for (preaching) the hope of Israel. (Acts 28)

Therefore, Paul is not preaching any new Gospel!


5) You say that in Acts 2:38 Peter is preaching a Gospel of works (repent and be baptised).

It is unfortunate, IMO, that so many think of repentance and/or baptism as works to get savedbecause we do them. They are not works to get saved.

Neither is "calling on the Lord" for salvation (Rom 10:13) a work to get saved even if we do it. Yet Paul said it should be done, and SO DID PETER (Acts 2:21).

YOU may call Peter's proclamation at Pentecost a works Gospel, but the Holy Spirit says was is about a GIFT (Acts 2:38). That which is given is not earned by works!

Therefore, Paul is not preaching any new Gospel!


6) You say that Acts 16:31 shows that Paul preached a Gospel of belief which by that is different than a former Gospel.

But the KJV bases Philip's preaching on faith too (Acts 8:37).

And Peter preached, "Everyone who BELIEVES in Him receives forgiveness of sin... ." (Acts 10:43).

Before the assembled Council of Christian-Jewish elders Peter proclaimed re the Gentiles, "We believe it is through the GRACE of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, JUST AS THEY ARE"!!! (Acts 15:11)

So, Peter taught salvation BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH" just like Paul did (Eph 2:8,9) !!

Therefore, Paul did not preach any new Gospel! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Your argumentation is weak and breaks apart against the whole counsel of God!

[ May 28, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Could I make one more point, It.,then, you'll have seventeen of my points to counter (6 immediately above and another 10 just before your last post)?

#17, Paul preached the same Gospel in his Prison Epistle of Ephesians that John in his "Fourth Gospel" ,under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit you'll recall ,says that Jesus preached.

EG:

1) The Vicarious Death of Christ

a) John 3:14; 10:14
b) Eph 2:15

2) The Resurrection of Christ

a) Jo 10:17; 20:17
b) Eph 1:20

3) Salvation by Faith

a) Jo. 3:18; 11:25
b) Eph 2:8.

4) The Inclusion of the Gentiles

a) Jo 3:16 (whosever!!); 10:16
b) Eph 2:16


Paul preached what our Lord preached for Paul says of Jesus, "He came and preached peace TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY and peace to those who were near"!!! Eph 2:17

SAME Gospel, friend It., SAME Gospel!

But, your problem is that you say Paul preached some new, different Gospel. but the Apostle John has just shown you to be wrong .

And let's see...who was listening and learning the preaching of Christ recorded in John? Why, Paul's fellow apostles, like Peter!

In fact, they heard the Gospel of Paul from the lips of the Lord BEFORE Paul ever preached it! Imagine that!

I really would appreciate your careful response to the seventeen points I've made.

Thanks,

Bill

 

We are never commanded in Scripture to give birth to ourselves in the spiritual realm. That would be as impossible as giving birth to oneself in the natural realm, but we are commanded to maintain good works and walk worthy of our vocation. When a child is born into the world, that child is, through instruction and discipline, brought up and matured into an adult. Do children always act like they should? Of course not. Do adults always act like they should? An even bigger OF COURSE NOT!

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour." (2 Tim. 2:20)

There are some of God's children who by their walk dishonor God. Some children bring disgrace upon their parents by choosing a lifestyle contrary to what they have learned, just like their are some of God's children who bring discgrace to their heavenly father and the rest of the family by their conduct.

Teaching that folks must always at all times do what is required of them in order for them to "prove" that they are a child of God breeds fear and legalism. Certainly we do prove our faith by our works, but to say that is always the case, is simply wrong. That is not antinomianism, it's Scripture. We should always strive to live an obedient life before God, but we know that there are only a few who are walking the strait and narrow way and are enjoying the life of God. However, we know that the number of God's elect is an innumerable multitude which no man can number and as many as the stars of heaven and the sand of the seashore.

 

The text of my signature. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12