Lordship Salvation

UZThD · May 31, 2005

Originally posted by ituttut:

[/qb]I’m little behind on my posting. Was on another board and also I sometimes have to make time to get on my computer. Sorry ‘bout that. My above did not address your 10 reasons. However I just answered your “10 reasons” May 30th. Busy schedule, but I’ll try to catch up down the line.

===

Bill replies:

Thanks. As I'm retired with limited activities, I sometimes get in a rush. We certainly can slow down.

====

Are you denying”If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”?

===

Bill replies:

No. I am not denying that Paul was given grace to preach to the Gentiles. I am denying that Paul preached to them a new Gospel.

The dispensation is that Paul should preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:17).

Paul defines the Gospel he preached as "Christ died for our sins and was resurrected." (1 Cor 15:1-4).

That SAME Gospel was preached by Jesus in John and by Peter in Acts.

The "dispensation" is not a new Gospel.

===

But I see Paul’s gospel is different and new to the Gentile for Jesus says He did not come for me, then James and Peter say the church at Jerusalem will not preach to me, and Paul and Barnabas shook hand with the leaders of the church of the circumcision, they Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentile. That’s me. My friend I say this is a New gospel, otherwise all we heathen would have no other choice than to become a proselyte of the Jewish religion.

===

Bill replies:

And I agree that the Gospel was new to THE GENTILES (in general!! The Samaritans in Acts 8 were not Jews and Cornelius was not and Philip's Ethiopian was not and etc ). But I agree that Paul was the designated apostle to the Gentiles.

But a missionary may go to a foreign field, my friend. He may preach the Gospel. It may be quite new to his hearers. But that does NOT mean it is a NEW Gospel!

===

(Bill had said)

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!

But this is the gospel of Paul. Those in chapter 16 were saved by Paul’s gospel, and some had traveled to Rome, and a number lived there; noticing Priscilla and Aquila had returned, and all would be spreading the Word of the Body of Christ to all nationalities in Rome which spread to the whole known world at that time.

===

Bill replies:

But you are assuming that the Gospel referenced is a different, new Gospel. It is not as Rom 1:1-6 shows.

Lok at Rom 1:16. Only one Gospel for both Jew and Gentile.

===

Then you believe that Damascus Road did not happen? Paul is the first and only heavenly appointed Apostle to the Gentile. This is a first, and this was not prophesied, that as we are saved, so now can the Jew. ” Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting”, I Timothy 1:16.

===

Bill replies:

You really should stop jumping to conclusions which are not warranted by what I say. Paul had many occasions where things were revealed to him. Suggesting that not everything was revealed at once "on the Damascene Road" does not in any manner imply that I deny the events in Acts 9.

I am saying that you read things into texts which are not there.

===
You’ll have to show me that quote where I say Peter doesn’t preach the resurrection. The Bodily resurrection is believed by both the Jerusalem church, and the Christian church in Antioch, and all believers of both of those churches.

===

Bill replies:

If I misrepresented you, sorry.

===

Bill had said:

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.

===

Regardless of how you see it, it is a direct command in the “great commission” to the Jew.

====

Bill replies:

But I deny that the Great Commission was only intended for the Jew. If it were, then why would the apostles to the Gentiles baptize Gentiles?

===

Bill had said: 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).

Yes Peter does, as Peter is an Apostle to the Jew. And Paul is also. We see in Romans 10:1 to whom Paul is speaking to, ”Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Paul, along with Joel is talking to the “remnant”.

===

Bill replies:

My point was that "calling on the Lord" is something WE do. Being baptised in water is something WE do. If the former is not a work, why is the latter?

===

]Peter presents an IF you Repent, and……Then ye shall receive the gift. Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”[qb] Paul says no such thing – believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

===

Bill replies:

Paul also preaches repentance as a condition of salvation: Acts 20:21`;26:20; Rom 2:4,5;2 Tim 2:25 etc. !!

===

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

Yes and this is after Damascus Road, and God put these words into the mouth of Peter, and then God stopped Peter’s tongue. Without Peter mentioning the “great commission” of repent and be baptized, the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost. No wonder Peter and those that came with him were beyond belief.

===

Bill replies:

My friend. You read into Scripture so very much what is not there!

Where does it say, "God stopped Peter's tongue from saying repent and be baptised"? Peter CLEARLY says in 1o:43, "ALL who BELIEVES in Him receives forgiveness" !!

Where does it say that Paul on the Damascene Road had any effect on Peter with Cornelius?

===

Bill had said: 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)

Yes they now can for this secret in the mysteries of God has become known. It was announced on Damascus Road that the Gentiles now had their own heavenly Apostle, so God sent Peter to the first Gentile to be preached to and Peter saw how the Gentile was being saved, and that is by Believing on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let’s give Peter some credit here, and Paul had talked to Peter about this matter also.

===

Bill replies:

Acts 15 clearly bases the words of Peter and James on what Peter did and on OT prophecy. NOT on Paul.

Show me where it says differently.
Click to expand...

UZThD · May 31, 2005

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
OK Carl

Let's stop playing "he said/he said."

If you claim that Paul taught things which Jesus in John did not, and that Paul said those very things were part of his "Gospel ," then name those things and give the texts where Paul says they are part of his Gospel.

EVERYTHING Paul taught was not " the Gospel." He defines his Gospel in Gal 1 and 1 Cor 15.

Read it. Then read John. Then, tell me the difference!

Blessings,

Bill
Click to expand...

Doctor Bill,

We're NOT going to leave so quickly. I produced VERSES which SHOW the 12 DURING THE GOSPELS did not preach the D,B, and R, YET they preached the gospel of the kingdom was "at hand" DURING THE GOSPELS. Those gospels are different.

Now, AGREE with the TESTIMONY of those verses. We can then move on to others.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl [/QUOTE]===

To be clear, THIS is my proposition: The content of what Paul calls his Gospel is not different than what Peter preached in Acts and Jesus taught in John.

Now to your arguments:

1) You say the Gospel of Paul was not the Gospel of the Kingdon (Mt 10)

But Mt 10 may not be what Christ in John and Peter in Acts taught.

2) You say that before His resurrection the 12 did not believe in His d, b, and r. (Lk 18, 24, Jo 20).

Perhaps so, but I don't think that disproves my proposition.

3) You say that the 11 learned the Gospel of God after His res. (Lk 24)

It may be but these things were taught in the OT and by Jesus too before His death.

4) You say they learned of Paul's Gospel in Acts 15 and Gal 2.

But it does not there say Paul's Gospel was different from Peter's in Acts or Jesus' in John.

5) You say they perceived the grace given Paul (Eph 3 ;Rom 15)

But it does not say they perceived he preached a different Gospel.

6) You say the two Gospels are different (1 Cor 2)

But it does not here say that Paul's Gospel was diff from Peter's in Acts or Jesus' in John.

7) You say Paul's Gospel was subsequent rev ( Gal 1,2)

Indeed it was--to him. BUT it does not there say that what was revealed was a different Gospel.

8) You say Paul's Gospel was revealed first to him then to others (Eph 3, Jo 14)

Those texts do not indicate that sequence.

9) You say the former Gospel concerned works to get saved (Gal 2-3; Rom 11).

If you mean by "former" what Peter preached in Acts and what Jesus taught in John , then you are wrong.

Peter veered in Gal 2 from what he , himself, preached . That veering was not a Gospel. What the Judaizer's were teaching the Galatians was not what Peter taught.

Perhaps now you'll show what things Paul taught AND called his GOSPEL which Peter in Acts and Jesus in John did not teach.

Grace to you,

Bill

[ May 31, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

ituttut · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted 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

I agree with your assessment that John agrees with Paul. But we must take into account that John preached as Peter after Pentecost, and that was the “great commission”. We see in Acts 7-9 the word of God increased Jewish disciples in Jerusalem greatly. Then the wisdom of Stephen overpowered the Jews of synagogues of other cities. There is no Gentile here. As we read on we see God made covenant with Abraham, a blood covenant, and this covenant is with those coming through Jacob’s seed, the twelve patriarchs. Promises were made to these, and only these.

Jesus was in the church in the wilderness, and later brought it in with Jesus to the land of the Gentiles, and God then drove out the Gentile until the time of David, then Solomon built God a house. But God does not dwell in houses made with hands. So we know Stephen had much wisdom of God, showing God is a Spirit, and Israel always resist’s the Holy Ghost. They resisted God the Father, the Son of God, and then the Holy Spirit. This is the unpardonable sin, for when you resist the Holy Spirit, your have already resisted the Father and the Son.

How wonderful that we Christians have accepted into our heart the Father, the Son and now sealed by the Holy Spirit. What a baptism into the Body of Christ, awaiting our new Bodies to go with our soul and spirit that is dead in Christ, making the law of none effect.

This remnant of Israel, those of Pentecost understand the Spirit, but Israel did not, and they would not “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins”. They sealed their doom, and what Christ had warned the house of Israel in a parable happened, when they killed Stephen. They were cut-off. And nowhere do I see any mention of the heathen included in any shape or form, other than coming as proselytes, and being servants of the Jew forever, as the Jew served their God and King.

So ask yourself, if the house of Israel had accepted the “kingdom at God at that time”, would there have been any need for Paul, the one Apostle to the Gentile? And so very many say “there is nothing new under the sun”. Are they right? Under the “Son of God”, in this dispensation of God in His grace through the faith of Jesus Christ all can be saved in this manner, which was not known before Damascus Road. But this I do realize only makes sense if we believe the gospel of Paul.

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

Yes, Yes! Now put it together. Verse 11 …in time past Gentiles. 12. …In that dispensation, without Christ, not in the “commonwealth” of Israel, strangers to covenants, no HOPE, and without God. 13. ”But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” 14….We Now know for the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, and no one else explains “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”[/I] I believe Paul the heavenly Apostle for Christ Jesus appointed Him as such from heaven as He sits on right hand side of His Father.

SAME Gospel, friend It., SAME Gospel!

It is the SAME Gospel UZ, with New information from heaven that in this dispensation God is reconciling the world unto Himself, which was not so before Israel refused Messiah, their King. We were lost and without hope. At least that is what His Word informs.

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

But John wrote his books after the death of Paul, and I would say all of the other Apostles. The Temple had been destroyed approximately 30 years before John wrote his books. How in the world could John continue in the gospel of the Temple of sacrifices, feasts and all the rest that were now dead? So John was then allowed to preach to all the Christian message of Paul by way of Christ Jesus.

Who, and what church today carries on the Pentecostal gospel of Peter, claiming right as successor to Peter? What do they believe, and they do correctly read it. Peter preached the “great commission” and that church does spread that word of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Are they right?

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

The Catholic’s believe the gospel of Peter, and of James. I’ll believe Christ from heaven, for we die in Christ but are alive forever with Him. Paul says we no longer know Jesus as man – II Cor. 5:16.

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

You don’t find it odd that no other Apostle was given the secret? Why didn’t they tell us about salvation by grace, through faith, without works, and our One Hope, our One Baptism, our One Faith? How about the rapture? How about the Body of Christ? The list goes on.

Until years later they had not preached their gospel to the Gentile; not until Peter was sent to Cornelius. We only know these things because Christ revealed it the Apostle to the Gentiles. Why does that always upset people that claim to believe every word in the Bible? People say this, but do they? I cannot judge on this matter, but for me, I believe His Word, rightly divided.

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

Thanks,

Bill
Click to expand...

Didn't Jesus tell Peter "...If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Peter could preach no other gospel, but Christ Jesus has come for all of the world in this dispensation, and John tarried beyond the Temple, for Jesus Christ came and started His church, and John was honored to Preach to all, just as did Paul. This is the reason I believe John was the last Apostle of Jesus Christ to die. He tarried, and knew Paul and must have read all Paul’s writings, for that is what Peter says. John fully understood the secret that Christ gave to Paul. John keeps his distance from "water baptism" and "repentance" as understood by the Jew. If these were important in this dispensation of Grace, surely John would made effort to include them in his writings. It wasn't the will of the Holy Spirit for John to do so.

I believe I have accommodated, and answered as best I can, for I can say no more than what God allows. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

ituttut · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by ituttut:

Does not John mirror Paul in many of his pronouncements, such as John 3:16?

===

Bill replies: Excuse me, but John is quoting what Jesus said to the Jew Nicodemus.(v10) John got his Gospel from his Lord not from Paul!
Click to expand...

Did all the prophets understand what they prophesied? Nicodemus didn’t understand, Philip didn’t (John 14:8). Jesus before His ascension tells the little flock when the Holy Ghost came, they would understand what He preached to His People, and how they would be saved, and things would be brought to mind. The Gentile was not included, for Christ spoke to Paul a good number of years later. The earthly Apostle understood the kingdom of God, but not the kingdom of Christ, which knowledge was given to Paul.

Nicodemus (and those apostles before Paul) heard from the lips of Jesus what Paul's Gospel consists of. So, Paul preached nothing new! And that sinks your ship!

You keep saying that. Why won’t you believe Christ from heaven. Those are the last words of Christ on the matter of Salvation. If you wish to come as the Catholic, that is your choice, but it is not mine.

===

Why should anyone think that you are closer to understanding Paul than is Ryrie ?

I’m doing your homework for you. Ryrie seems to be close to your belief of Acts 2, connecting with the Pentecostal church. Baker does not, as Paul does not for the Gentile. Do you along with Ryrie claim clarity of scripture. Well so do I, and others that understand Paul’s gospel.

===

Bill replies:

Let me help you out with your homework:

Baker thinks that the Scriptures are clear to him. Ryrie thinks that the Scriptures are clear to him. But Ryrie says that Baker's position , and yours, is "erroneous," "extreme," and "unBiblical." seeispensationalism Today, chap 10!!

So much for your " clarity of Scripture"!

That is not a valid argument, for none in any belief believe exactly the same. But we are clear as to how we are saved, that is very clear, and we know we are not looking for the “kingdom to come” as peace comes to this earth, for we will have been raptured by then. Does Billy Graham believe everything, as did Dr. W. A. Criswell, or you? No body does, but do you not believe you can clearly see the Word of God? We are not to see and believe everything some man believes, even Paul, but when we understand his gospel the Word becomes clear to us.

===

Those that correctly divided the Word of God agree, that there is only “One Baptism, which is without the hands of man.

===

Bill replies:

Sigh. But friend it. Your saying it does not make it so.

So you are saying you don’t believe in the One Spiritual Baptism, but two Baptism to save, or one to just make sure if the real one doesn’t take?

===

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

Do you see what you are saying? I thought you were Baptist, but you are saying the One Baptism that saves is “water baptism”. This is what the Catholics believe, is it not? I’ll wait for an answer before responding with proof. I never thought a Baptist would need proof of saving baptism.

===

Bill replies:

Where did I say ," the one baptism that saves is water baptism"?

Where does Eph 4:5 say that any baptism saves?

You need to read more cafefully.

On believing are we not immediately saved being baptized into His death. Of course baptism saves for if we do not die with Him we have no part of Him. How did you enter into the Body of Christ, if not through His death?

===

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.

Can you find any verse that speaks of our spiritual baptism? Are you a Baptist not believing in our one saving Spiritual Baptism?[qb

===

What's "Spirit baptism"?

You don’t know, so you Do come as the Catholic, and that is by “water baptism” for you salvation.

There are lots of views on "Spirit Baptism. I'll do your homework for you:

1) RA Torrey--a second blessing which some Christians experience giving them power to witness.

2) HO Wiley--a second blessing which some Christians experience giving them sanctification.

3) Riggs-- a second blessing which some Christians experience , the evidence of which is spealing in glossolalaia .

4) BH Carroll, former pres of a SB seminary, no one experiences a Spirit Baptism today! (see also Mullins in ISBE)

5) Unger and Chafer- all Christians experience the Spirit baptism, it places them into the spiritual body of Christ.

It seems that water baptism is not the only baptism that divides---right?

You have a problem with how men believe, but evidently none of them believe as you. I can’t help what some man believes, for I can only believe as God wishes me to believe. He is the one that has placed men into His church, and it is a diversified church of many different believers, but Then we will all be like Him, and yet we will not be Him, for we will still have our personalities, and no two of us will be exactly alike.

Why don't you prove which view is correct since ALL the Word is clear to you, then we'll see which verses are about Spirit baptism, which are about water, and which are about both!

BUT, before you do, PLEASE, answer my 17 points.

Why not begin with #17 first?
Click to expand...

They have been answered, and please answer back scriptural on your 17 points. When you do it will contradict the Word of God, unless you agree with His Word as presented. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12
Click to expand...

carlaimpinge · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by UZThD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
OK Carl

Let's stop playing "he said/he said."

If you claim that Paul taught things which Jesus in John did not, and that Paul said those very things were part of his "Gospel ," then name those things and give the texts where Paul says they are part of his Gospel.

EVERYTHING Paul taught was not " the Gospel." He defines his Gospel in Gal 1 and 1 Cor 15.

Read it. Then read John. Then, tell me the difference!

Blessings,

Bill
Click to expand...

Doctor Bill,

We're NOT going to leave so quickly. I produced VERSES which SHOW the 12 DURING THE GOSPELS did not preach the D,B, and R, YET they preached the gospel of the kingdom was "at hand" DURING THE GOSPELS. Those gospels are different.

Now, AGREE with the TESTIMONY of those verses. We can then move on to others.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl [/QUOTE]===

To be clear, THIS is my proposition: The content of what Paul calls his Gospel is not different than what Peter preached in Acts and Jesus taught in John.

Now to your arguments:

1) You say the Gospel of Paul was not the Gospel of the Kingdon (Mt 10)

But Mt 10 may not be what Christ in John and Peter in Acts taught.

2) You say that before His resurrection the 12 did not believe in His d, b, and r. (Lk 18, 24, Jo 20).

Perhaps so, but I don't think that disproves my proposition.

3) You say that the 11 learned the Gospel of God after His res. (Lk 24)

It may be but these things were taught in the OT and by Jesus too before His death.

4) You say they learned of Paul's Gospel in Acts 15 and Gal 2.

But it does not there say Paul's Gospel was different from Peter's in Acts or Jesus' in John.

5) You say they perceived the grace given Paul (Eph 3 ;Rom 15)

But it does not say they perceived he preached a different Gospel.

6) You say the two Gospels are different (1 Cor 2)

But it does not here say that Paul's Gospel was diff from Peter's in Acts or Jesus' in John.

7) You say Paul's Gospel was subsequent rev ( Gal 1,2)

Indeed it was--to him. BUT it does not there say that what was revealed was a different Gospel.

8) You say Paul's Gospel was revealed first to him then to others (Eph 3, Jo 14)

Those texts do not indicate that sequence.

9) You say the former Gospel concerned works to get saved (Gal 2-3; Rom 11).

If you mean by "former" what Peter preached in Acts and what Jesus taught in John , then you are wrong.

Peter veered in Gal 2 from what he , himself, preached . That veering was not a Gospel. What the Judaizer's were teaching the Galatians was not what Peter taught.

Perhaps now you'll show what things Paul taught AND called his GOSPEL which Peter in Acts and Jesus in John did not teach.

Grace to you,

Bill [/QUOTE]Doctor Bill,

You speak JUST LIKE the scribes and Pharisee's of Christ's time. Your points are nullities, which AGAIN DENY what YOU READ IN THE VERSES. Your evasion of truth is manifest Doc. (It does not say, may, perhaps, etc....)

Again for the simpleminded.

Paul DID NOT PREACH the gospel of the kingdom was at hand. He preached the gospel of the grace of God, which was CONNECTED to the DISPENSATION OF GRACE given unto him concerning the MYSTERY. The mystery and HIS GOSPEL are connected by revelation of Jesus Christ. (Eph.3,6, Gal.1)

JESUS CHRIST appeared to Paul and gave him HIS GOSPEL. (Gal.1)

You SAID the gospel was the DB and R, BUT IT WAS NOT PROCLAIMED for salvation DURING THE GOSPELS. Nobody UNDERSTOOD it, even his own apostles. The gospel of God was the message which was taught in Luke 24, NOT PAUL'S GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD. (Rom.1:1-4, Mark 1)

The mystery was by revelation to Paul, and OTHER APOSTLES AND PROPHETS got it by the Spirit. IT DOES SAY THAT. It is CORROBORATED by Gal.2. They PERCEIEVED THE GRACE which was given unto Paul AFTER HIM!

Yes, IT WAS SUBSEQUENT REVELATION (Gal.1), and IT WAS A DIFFERENT GOSPEL. He went up to Jerusalem COMMUNICATE it to them. (Gal.2) Do you understand what that means? Doc, you can't read the verses DUE TO YOUR FALSE BELIEF.

I certainly can't make you BELIEVE them, but I certainly can POINT OUT your UNBELIEF of them.

The salvation preached by Jesus Christ AND Peter was CONNECTED to water baptism. (Mark 16, Acts 2)

That is NOT ACCORDING to Paul. (Rom.1, 1 Cor.1, Eph.1)

The gospels are different.

The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.-John)
The gospel of God (Mark 1, Luke 24)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Gal.1)
The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

In Christ Jesus,
Carl

OldRegular · Jun 1, 2005

For those who remain confused about what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the one and only Gospel, I suggest they read Romans1:16.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
[/qb]
Click to expand...

Doctor Bill,

Again for the simpleminded.

===

Bill replies:

Too bad you resort to name calling when you are unable to prove your points.

===

The mystery was by revelation to Paul, and OTHER APOSTLES AND PROPHETS got it by the Spirit. IT DOES SAY THAT. It is CORROBORATED by Gal.2. They PERCEIEVED THE GRACE which was given unto Paul AFTER HIM!

===

Bill replies:

Ryrie denies that Eph 3 says the "mystery" was first revealed to Paul(Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 201).

But then, since Ryrie disagrees with you, he also must be feebleminded.

Your texts do not prove what you teach. It is a leap of illogic to say that "grace" means a new Gospel.

You patch together poor pictures of what Scripture says and then you heap insults upon any who question your unfounded conclusions.

Like some grammar school boy who curses for lack of meaningful words you call people names because you lack the meaningful evidence for your errors.

I'm sure your congreants are impressed by such displays of argumentation, but your style would be laughed at in Western Seminary.

I'm also expecting you to call me more names as I continue to find your points quite unconvincing.

[ June 01, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

carlaimpinge · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by UZThD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by carlaimpinge:

Click to expand...

Doctor Bill,

===

Bill replies:

Too bad you resort to name calling when you are unable to prove your points.

===

The mystery was by revelation to Paul, and OTHER APOSTLES AND PROPHETS got it by the Spirit. IT DOES SAY THAT. It is CORROBORATED by Gal.2. They PERCEIEVED THE GRACE which was given unto Paul AFTER HIM!

===

Bill replies:

Ryrie denies that Eph 3 says the "mystery" was first revealed to Paul(Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 201).

But then, since Ryrie disagrees with you, he also must be feebleminded.

Your texts do not prove what you teach. It is a leap of illogic to say that "grace" means a new Gospel.

You patch together poor pictures of what Scripture says and then you heap insults any who do not see in that inaccurate representaion what you do. [/QB][/QUOTE]Allright Doc,

So you're going to go back to your same ole stuff again I see. You're going to whine. I've read your other posts to others WHO YOU DON'T AGREE with. (Insults?) If that's the way you want it, I can oblige.

I proved my points. The Book NAILED you to the wall, and I won't let you get loose.

You STILL EVADE the statement of the verses.

You're absolutely right. I could care less what Ryrie "thinks" about the passage. He's just as wrong as any Jehovah Witness about John 1:1.

It's NOT a leap in logic, but SIMPLE READING which states that Paul went to Jeruslaem to COMMUNICATE his gospel unto them which HE RECEIVED by revelation. It's NOT a leap in logic to READ that they PERCEIVED the grace which was given to Paul, which concerned THE MYSTERY and THE GOSPEL which it concerns. (Eph.3,6) They PERCEIVED it AFTER it was revealed to him. That's called SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE comparison for interpretation.

Good day.

[personal attacks and insults have been edited]

[ June 03, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

HankD · Jun 1, 2005

Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Carl has used the phrase "progressive revelation" at least once in this thread.

From a singular revelation to the final capstone.

From Genesis 1 (The Seed of the woman) to Isaiah 53 (Man of sorrows) to Revelation (The Alpha and The Omega), the "good news" is all about the salvation of mankind through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the second Person of the Trinity (veiled and shrouded in mystery at first). From beginning to end, it's all about Him.

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,

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Beginning: Genesis.
End: Revelation.

From the "good news" promise to Adam and Eve, to Abraham, to Israel, and finally to all the nations, directly or indirectly, it's all about HIM and His salvation fully revealed in these "last days" through Jesus Christ and His apostles.

And it's not over yet.
We shall yet share in His resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

...Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by ituttut:

Originally posted by UZThD:
[qb] 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
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment that John agrees with Paul. But we must take into account that John preached as Peter after Pentecost....

.. John wrote his books after the death of Paul,

===

Bill replies:

You concur that John and Paul agree in regard to what is the Gospel.

Then you say that John agrees with Paul because John wrote after Paul died.

But, what John wrote, those texts I reference above, is what John claimed that Jesus said BEFORE Jesus died!

Therefore, Paul's Gospel agrees with the pre-crucifixion teachings of Christ!

Therefore, Paul's Gospel is neither new nor different.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

I do not deny "progressive revelation," I do deny that what Paul defined as his Gospel is different than what Jesus taught in John and Peter preached in Acts. ALL revelaqtion is NOT the GOSPEL!

And THAT is the problem for some!

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
your lies... your infidelity, incompetence, illiteracy, ignorance, and irrationality ... your own arrogance and ignorance.

===

Bill replies:

And the schoolyard adolescent unable to earn the respect he thinks he deserves in impotent bluster and frustration shouts , "X*!!X**!!XX."
Click to expand...

HankD · Jun 1, 2005

I'm not laying the blame on anyone but everyone including myself.

The problem is semantics.

Often times we can still say "...the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light"

Jesus used parables.

Remember the world's "parable" of the 5 blind men who tried to figure out what an elephant "looks" like.

Concerning God's revelation, we all begin blind and end up with sight (hopefully).

The collective description of the parts equals the whole.

HankD

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by HankD:
I'm not laying the blame on anyone but everyone including myself.

The problem is semantics.

Often times we can still say "...the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light"

Jesus used parables.

Remember the world's "parable" of the 5 blind men who tried to figure out what an elephant "looks" like.

The collective description of the parts equals the whole.

HankD
Click to expand...

===

If you are writing to me, then I'm sorry I don't quite get your point

My point is this: Paul defines the Gospel he preached in Gal 1 and 1 Cor 15 as constituting the vicarious deathh and resurrection of Christ. THAT is Paul's Gospel.

Paul also preached and taught as recorded in Acts:forgiveness by belief (13);Kingdom of God (14); repentance, His death and resurrection, belief,(17(; belief and bap (18);bap and Kingdom of God (19)'His death and reser., repentance (26)' Kingdom, Jesus, OT (28). ALL of these things are also preached and taught by Christ in John and Peter in Acts.

YES! Paul DID have revealed to him the mystery of the unity of the Jew and the Gentile. And he did expound that mystery of unity more completely than any other.

BUT that unity :

1) Is said to be THROUGH the Gospel, NOT BE the Gospel. (Eph 3:6),. The Gospel is the WAY to that unity. But that does not make equivalents the way and the destination! They are not identical.

2) Jesus ALSO taught that unity in John 10, 15, and 17 !

Bill

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by ituttut:

[/qb]So you are saying you don’t believe in the One Spiritual Baptism, but two Baptism to save, or one to just make sure if the real one doesn’t take?[qb]

===

Bill replies:

IT, howabout I start a new thread on the ONLY text where Paul mentions "Spirit baptism: : 1 Cor 12:13. We can discuss it there, ok?

I need to take my diabetic walk first.

No, I do not believe that water baptism is salvific.

===

You have a problem with how men believe, but evidently none of them believe as you. I can’t help what some man believes, for I can only believe as God wishes me to believe.

===

Bill replies:

No, no "problem." I just feel that it is valuable to understand why godly men believe differently than I do. I like to test the strengths of my positions instead of thinking that God only talks to me (not saying you do).
Click to expand...

carlaimpinge · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by UZThD:

Bill replies:

And the schoolyard adolescent unable to earn the respect he thinks he deserves in impotent bluster and frustration shouts , "X*!!X**!!XX."
Click to expand...

deleted for insulting tone of language

[ June 03, 2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

"asses"

sticks and stones.

REV carl.

ituttut · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by UZThD:
Hi It.

Actually before you prove that any Pauline text does not refer at all to water baptism, and before you prove which of the five views about Spirit Baptism I tossed out to you is correct, and before you respond to my 17 points, beginning with #17, could I not ask you to first address a new point?

#18-- The Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15.

As I understand you, correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that Paul's Gospel given him in prison included new and distinctive elements not parts of Peter or James' Gospel, namely, (1) salvation by grace (2) through faith (3) unto the Gentiles.

Hello UZ. Didn’t mean to leave that impression that is where I am coming from, i.e. after his imprisonment. I only stated, Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s may have merit, as far as I’m concerned, but that is not where I am coming from. But I am connected to such men as the "program for this dispensation is not the “great commission”, but the “grace commission”, regardless of where one thinks it started.

But the Grace of God, without works did start, and it started with Saul/Paul. Paul had to be taught by Christ Jesus, and the Old had to fade away making way for the New. Connecting “old cloth” with “new cloth” will soil the “New”, and it will not hold forever. I am of the belief closely resembling Pastors Ohair, Stam, and Sadler of the Berean Bible Society, which is very close to Baker’s belief.

However, it appears to me that Acts 15 shows that it is very questionable that these features are new and distinct elements in Paul's Gospel given him in prison!

For here, the inspired writer records,

(1) Peter as saying,

(a)The Gentiles are accepted by God (15:8),

(b) The Gentiles are saved by faith (15:9),

() The Gentiles are are saved by grace(15:11).

(d) These data are evident because of what God did through Peter--NOT Paul (15:7).

(2) Then, James is recorded as saying

(a) The Gentiles are turning to God (implying their inclusion) (15:19)

(b) The Gentiles do not have to keep the Law( 15:24-29).

(c) Peter's (not Paul's) declarations are correct because they match what the OT prophets (not Paul) said.

I really do not see here evidence for your view that Paul started some new thing.
Click to expand...

Without further detail, can you furnish information from scripture as given above that all this happened before Damascus Road? If not, to me the above spells New. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

ituttut · Jun 1, 2005

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by UZThD:
Hi It.

I really do not see here evidence for your view that Paul started some new thing.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head UZThD, Paul did not start anything new. There is only one Gospel, there has always been only one Gospel, and there will always be only one Gospel:the Power of God unto Salvation. [/QUOTE]I see the unlearned and unstable are still alive and well PUBLISHING "falsehood", CONTRADICTING Pauline testimony of SUBSEQUENT REVELATION. (2 Peter 3)

Paul's gospel IS NOT the gospel of the kingdom, which the 12 preached BEFORE his crucifixion. (Matt.10) They DIDN'T KNOW, UNDERSTAND, OR BELIEVE in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE his resurrection. (Luke 18, 24, John 20) They PREACHED the "gospel" BUT IT WASN'T the one we preach!

THEY LEARNED the gospel of God FROM the Lord Jesus Christ AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24)

They LEARNED Paul's gospel in Acts 15/Gal.2 after he COMMUNICATED it unto them. They PERCEIVED the "grace which was given unto him" by the HOLY SPIRIT. (Eph.3, Rom.15)

Anyone (and I say this with "charity") who reads those verses STATING there is only ONE GOSPEL can't read English and has no business AT ALL trying to EXPOUND "any verse" of scripture to anyone at anytime.

The gospels are DEFINED and they are DIFFERENT from each other by VIRTUE of the words of the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor.2) [/QUOTE]I Love to hear Christ's gospel from heaven preached to men on this earth. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

UZThD · Jun 1, 2005

But the Grace of God, without works did start, and it started with Saul/Paul.

Bill asks:

So, do you think that Jesus in John taught grace with works?

===

Bill had said:

For here, the inspired writer records,

(1) Peter as saying,

(a)The Gentiles are accepted by God (15:8),

(b) The Gentiles are saved by faith (15:9),

() The Gentiles are are saved by grace(15:11).

(d) These data are evident because of what God did through Peter--NOT Paul (15:7).

(2) Then, James is recorded as saying

(a) The Gentiles are turning to God (implying their inclusion) (15:19)

(b) The Gentiles do not have to keep the Law( 15:24-29).

(c) Peter's (not Paul's) declarations are correct because they match what the OT prophets (not Paul) said.

I really do not see here evidence for your view that Paul started some new thing. [/qb][/QUOTE]

===

Without further detail, can you furnish information from scripture as given above that all this happened before Damascus Road? If not, to me the above spells New. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12. [/QB][/QUOTE]

===

Bill replies:

It is not required as Peter and James base their sayings on what Peter did in Acts 10 and what the OT says and not on what Paul experienced in Acts 9.

Lordship Salvation

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

ituttut New Member

ituttut New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

UZThD New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

UZThD New Member

ituttut New Member

ituttut New Member

UZThD New Member

Useful Searches

Lordship Salvation

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

ituttut New Member

ituttut New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

UZThD New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

UZThD New Member

UZThD New Member

carlaimpinge New Member

UZThD New Member

ituttut New Member

ituttut New Member

UZThD New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter