Featured The Calvinist Gospel

the question is, is repentance necessary for a sinner to be saved, or, is just faith enough?

 

Yes, I understand. The answer depends on the dispensational context.

 

Now, in New Testament times?

 

The gospels are not New Testament, they are Old Testament (according to Jesus Christ and Paul):

 

Interesting how you reply with a long video? Why can't you give answers like the rest of us do?

You say that the Four Gospels are OT? For this to be true they must be in the OT Canon, in which case the Jews would have accepted them, and Jesus as their Messiah!

 

You're still looking at this from the point of view of the gospels being N.T., which is understandable.
What the Jews rejected was in effect part of the O.T., just as they had rejected Moses himself (Jn.5:46, Acts 7:38-39).

Ok, I'll quote one passage about this if you prefer not to watch the video, but I do the videos because the same issues always come up and it's great to simply link people to a video. Anyway, here it is:

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force AFTER men are dead: otherwise it is of NO strength AT ALL while the testator liveth (i.e. the gospels).

 

all this means is that the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ, also covered the sins of those believers who dies under the Old Testament. This does not say in any way that the NT belongs to the OT, they are very distinct!

 

Your comment only covers this part: for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

You ignored everything else, like Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force AFTER men are dead: otherwise it is of NO strength AT ALL while the testator liveth (i.e. the gospels).

The New Testament was not of force during the gospels while Christ lived.

It's only AFTER his death that the veil was rent.

 

The only thing I would add, for the sake of our culture, is the beginning of the story. Why did Jesus need to come in the first place? Where did sin and death come from? What was the world like before sin (Gen. 1:31)? The Fall and Curse set the stage for the Gospel.

I would also add the end of the story. Christ's return is the culmination of the Gospel.

IOWs tell the whole story. Don't skip the beginning and end. Our evolutionary culture is confused about sin and death, and thus very likely confused about the One who was prophesied to conquer them (Gen. 3:15).

 

Perhaps you could post that part. I'd like to see how they handle it.

Reformed seminaries, today, have generally botched the creation account. Very few uphold biblical creation. (though Calvin, to his credit, was a biblical creationist)

 

well, one can be a dispy per eschatology, and yet calvinist in regards to salvation, see Dr Mac!

 

ONLY way to be right in the sight of God would be to be in Chrsit, regardless of their works and lifestyle!

 

many have seemed to buy into the junk of either theistic evolution, or else a creation myth, or else not real special creation of humanity!

 

Dispensationalism = different plans of salvation in different ages
Calvinism = same plan of salvation in all ages
So, no, one cannot.

 

well, Dr Mac, James M Boice, JO Buswell, and others would disagree with you about that!

 

Jonah 3 is Old Testament Gentiles matching Romans 2, not New Testament Gentiles matching Romans 3.
Dispensationalism, as always, unties the Gordian knots.

 

Some of the theological aspects of dyspism problematic. MacArthur sticks to the basics. Israel is not the Church and the Church is not Israel. There is a national plan for Israel, and a redemptive plan for all individuals. We are all saved by Christ and the Cross. OT saints did not get saved apart from the Cross.

This, BTW, is a bit of a thread hijack. Perhaps you or someone can start a fresh thread.

 

Yes, they would indeed. But Dr. Ruckman, Dr. Sam Gipp, Dr. William Grady, Jonathan Marshall, and Peter Kyriopoulos would disagree with them back.