Posted on 11/21/2013 11:02:12 AM PST by redleghunter
Paul calls for an examination in another passage and I want you to notice this. It's the last chapter of II Corinthians, Chapter 13, and verse 5, I want you to note what it says, Il Corinthians 13:5, just the first sentence, "'Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; (prove it, is what he's saying) prove yourselves." You say to someone "are you a Christian?" 'Yes.' What do you base that on? 'Well so many years ago I made a decision.' That means nothing. The Bible never verifies anybodies salvation on the basis of the past, It's always on the basis of the present, And if you don't have the evident proof of real salvation in your life now, there's a very real possibility you're not a Christian at all, no matter what happened in the past. So examine yourself, to se whether you are in the faith prove yourself. You say John' how do do that? How do I know if I'm really a Christian? I believe! (Maybe you've even been baptized.) I go to church, I, think I'm a Christian.' Look with me Matthew Chapter 5 and let's find out. When Jesus had arrived on the scene, the Jews had already decided what right-living was all about. They had already built their own code. They had already developed their own system, and they had it pretty cu and dried and pretty well laid out that this is what it was to be holy, and it was all external, it was all self-righteousness and works, and Jesus came and shattered that thing and He said I want to give you a new standard for living.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
Do you really see those two as consistent?
Yes, as i explained more than once, if you read them thru. There is no real difference as both are a confessional response, rather than being saved while comatose. And neither is salvation by works even though man makes a response, as the response does not earn them salvation, while it is God who draws them, opens the heart, grants repentance and faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) so that a convert has done what he could not and would not otherwise do.
And yet, everytime you see a painting of Noah's Ark, there they are marching up the plank two by two. No groups of seven. It doesn't seem like a big deal here, but just taking God's Word from someone else is how we get things so messed up. Instead of READING FOR OURSELVES IF THESE THINGS ARE SO.
True, and the evangelists always tailored their presentation of the gospel in accordance with the hearers, such as using Scripture for Jews and Gentile proselytes of them, and natural revelation with pagans.
And there are sometimes other variations in conversion accounts that some could assert constituted different gospels, but in essence they are the same, all calling both Jews and also to the Gentiles to "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21) With faith appropriating justification of the unGodly, but a faith that is expressed in conversion, as in baptism, and results in Godliness.
Or that Peter was different from Paul bcz he did preach repentance and did not preach that, faith in the shed Blood of Christ saves, while Paul did the latter and not the former, but both taught repentance and faith in the sinless shed blood of Christ to save, and confessing Him as Lord in conversion.
Amen brother.
Yep, and Franklin is a great guy also, I like that Franklin says it like it is, no worries about people liking him
I have to add there is a lot of assuming there are two Gospels in Acts. We do not have an account of Peter, James and others submitting to Paul. At the Jerusalem council all were unified in Peters proclamation that the Gentiles received Christ the same way they did.
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION was COMMITTED UNTO ME, as the GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION was UNTO PETER: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the APOSTLESHIP OF THE CIRCUMCISION, the same was MIGHTY IN ME TOWARD THE GENTILES:)" Gal. 2:7,8.
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED the GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE should GO UNTO THE HEATHEN, and THEY UNTO THE CIRCUMCISION". Gal. 2:9.
“rather than being saved while comatose”.??? Do you really need to go there? Are we having an intelligent discussion between saved brothers or not?
Indeed we do need to go there, as the case against Peter included that "repentance unto salvation is preached" by him.
And which was not directed toward the nation at large to repent, but to the audience and all, for such did the Lord command:
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:39)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)
But if conversion excludes making any response of repentance, that of confessing one's justifying faith in the Lord Jesus, which faith-confession baptism is (versus the act saving one or otherwise earning justification), then salvation must occur when man cannot make any choice.
But both Paul and Peter preached repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus who died for us and rose again, as has been shown and will be.
Tomorrow, by God's grace. Have a God night again.
What does the word comatose mean to you?
I didn’t see any “saved while comatose” in that post or any other. That statement by you looks to me like a snarky remark and I typically stop any discussion with someone gets snarky.
But which was not what you said . "Pleas show the Old Testament scripture that shows the Holy Spirit dwelling within those OT believers as opposed to just speaking to them."
Yes indeed, the Holy Spirit did work through selected individuals for periods of time in the Old Testament.
Not simply "did work through," but was in selected individuals.
In the New Testament He indwells ALL believers permanently.
Which is the distinction that i made, "in the general sense that that the Holy Spirit was not poured out upon all believers."
Yes I realize that is not what my original words conveyed now that I look back at them and I apologize. The premise still holds. His work is different in individual believers during this age than it was then.
It is different, besides in scope of possessors, as the writers of Holy Writ had unknown content of Scripture provided directly thru them, while the Holy Spirit brings to remembrance what the Lord taught for believers today, besides leading and subjectively speaking to them as subject to Scripture, which perhaps even the most fundamental Baptist hopes will happen - during the offering at least!
I have already shown you this, but will add more by God's grace.
No death for our sins, and no grace message? This makes Christ's death and resurrection as related to forgiveness to be superfluous, and gained by merit, which is in contrast to what is preached. The devout Jews certainly understood what substitutionary atonement was, and Peter clearly stated that by slaying Christ and His resurrection then He became Lord and Savior. (Acts 2:36) The Lord's death and res. and forgiveness go together, as in Lk. 24:47; Acts 5:30,31, 13:26-39, and thus the promise of forgiveness and the Spirit was given, upon repentant faith, confessed in baptism. (Acts 2:38)
And which does not make this salvation by works anymore than a "sinner's prayer" does, not teach that the act is what makes one just.
And rather than Peter "preaching no sort of grace(!)," this is offered as unmerited favor to a people who were fit to be made the Lord's footstool and all that means - not a good place to be for eternity!
They were looking for Christ to return to set up the Kingdom, where they would be seated on 12 thrones, judging THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL, that is what Christ told them they would be doing during the Kingdom reign (Matt. 19:28).
And yet this required repentance and faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the promise here is fulfilled in the church, as the apostles are part of the general priesthood, of which shall judge angels and reign with and under Christ 1k years. (Rn. 20:4,6)
). Where Israel would be a Nation of Priests to the Gentiles, as promised to Abraham. THAT is what they were doing on the day of Pentecost.
Not quite, but rather since Israel overall had rejected their King, redemption was offered to all, even "to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call," Acts 2:39) "and whosoever among you feareth God;" (Acts 13:26)
and thus the souls at Pentecost were part of a remnant exhorted to "Save yourselves from this untoward generation," which most of Israel consisted of.
So Peter could preach that "Christ died for our sins"? That wasn't even revealed until Paul was saved, when it was first revealed to HIM. That is Acts, Chapter 9.
Frankly, i see that as absurd and another example of not examing Scripture objectively. Was the Peter of Acts 2 the same apostle as the one in the gospels? If so then he surely knew that the Lord taught,
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
Which is what Paul preached:
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:6)
And thus, just as in Peter's initial sermon in Acts 2,since the prophesied death and resurrection took place, it followed that this provides for redemption for all, without need for making temple sacrifices:
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:30-31)
The two obviously go together, the former providing for the latter, and while redemption was first offered to the Jews first, so that a remnant would not follow the path of their leaders, yet the idea that Christ is offered as Messiah who did not die for our sins, and that redemption is offered by a works-based gospel, and not that of grace as Paul preached, is contrary to what was preached, and is forcing a hyperdispensational construct into the texts.
None of the rest of your proof texts support this two gospel premise.
There was ALREADY A CHURCH IN EXISTENCE on the day of Pentecost- a PROPHESIED CHURCH. Acts 2:47(In order for something to be "added to" it HAD to have ALREADY EXISTED).
The text there is simply referring to even more being added to the church which had its formal beginning at Pentecost, beginning the church age, although in essence, the church might be said to have begun with the calling of the apostles.
Early Acts is a record of the "Pentecostal Era."
And is seen at the end of Acts (28:3-9) and later as well. (Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 12; Gal. 3:5)
Thanks for the thanks.
The inability to anything responsive, such as repent, which along witn baptism was made to be a gospel contrary to salvation by grace through faith, which appropriates purifying and justification, as Peter theologically testified to (Acts 15:7-9) in the dispute with the Judaziers (which he is made out to be like), but which is a faith that manifestly confesses the Lord Jesus. (Rm. 10:10) The one gospel preaches both.
Why was Paul made an Apostle by the risen Christ?
then please show me where anyone said that could result in salvation which would precipitate your comment.
Luke 24:
“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
I do have to confess I had to go back to the dispensational books I have read over the past few years. Again, they were from Darby, Dwight Pentecost, Ryrie, Ironside, and Walvoord. If there are those of us to take our eschatology in the dispensational form, then these names above should be very familiar.
I looked in each book on their views for the doctrine of salvation through the various dispensations. Salvation is by grace through faith they all state in every dispensation. All of the above have one dispensation for the church. The church dispensation is not divided by phases in Acts in any of the above gentlemen's works. It is one sole dispensation.
In fact three of the gentlemen mentioned above had whole chapters of refuting critics who claimed they were purporting different salvation plans.
I must say the division of Peter vs. Paul one of baptismal regeneration vs. grace by faith is something I have never heard of before. If this is coming from the dispensational "community" I am unaware of it and I am very familiar with the traditional works. Perhaps linking a theologian or book would help me understand where this is coming from.
Probably the same reason God leads us to salvation. We really can only speculate what God was thinking. I will not contend with the decision:) Using observation, we had a murderer who was literally hell bent on destroying the church. Saul was doing the work of Satan. Paul ended up being the greatest example in the NT of an evil destitute sinner not even looking or seeking for Christ. Yet God chooses him to do His work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.