|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2019 22:19:48 GMT
Hello to all, I wanted to say first before I respond to this review that I welcome both positive and negative reviews here, so hopefully, if there are others that have a negative view of the book, and more importantly, the doctrine of the book, that this might encourage them to post them on the Forum. Our positions are only as strong as they stand up before our brothers and sisters, and stand up before the very Word of God.
And now, a response to Steve's review:
Thanks for the kind words here, Steve. Particularly in saying that the arguments presented are easy to follow. That was a goal from the beginning, because it is difficult for many to get into a Doctrinal Study when it is cumbersome.
One of the negative responses I received was from a local radio show (which I will not mention by name) host, that I only communicated with on the phone. His conclusion was that the book was teaching Eternal Security, hence he would not present it on his show. That a Dispensational view is seen by the reader doesn't surprise me either, seeing that it is simply a basic Biblical Truth that Biblical History differs in terms of dispensations. For example, few would argue that while men were under the Law they were not benefiting from the grace which is now revealed to us. Likewise, before the Law was established few would argue a correlation between the Age before the Law and the Age after. Or, for that matter, the Age following the Age of Law.
So a rejection of a Dispensational view has never really made sense to me.
Let's take a look at an explicit demonstration of two differing dispensations (administrations):
Galatians 3:21-28 King James Version (KJV)
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Hebrews 11:13 and 39-40 teach us that the Old Testament Saints died not receiving the promises. So at the very least, if one rejects differing dispensations they are hard pressed to reconcile the time before the Promises of God were fulfilled and the time when they have been. One such promise is spoken of early in this chapter, v. 8, "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." How is this promise of the Gospel fulfilled? It is fulfilled by Christ and through His Work. And we will see an explicit reason why we would differentiate between the period in which this promise was unfulfilled and the current Age we now live in as we go through this passage.
I would also point out that Paul is stating in v.21 that the Law...did not give life. Most of us would agree with that, no? But, what we see is that within the Age of Law (which would include all Ages prior)...all are by Scripture concluded as under sin. Abraham was declared righteous, but, Abraham is not excluded from "There is none righteous, no not one." That is because we have two contexts, one which is temporal, and one which is eternal. Did those who were declared righteous in Old Testament times need the righteousness of Christ imputed to their behalf? Yes, most assuredly.
Lastly, we note Scripture concludes all under sin that the promise might be given to them that believe.
Believe what? Paul will tell us:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Again, a distinction concerning the differing dispensations. There is that time before faith came, and during that time men were kept under the Law. Two distinct Ages. Secondly we note the absence of this "faith" because it is said specifically to be something that "should afterwards be revealed." What does he mean "afterwards?" After what? After the Age of Law ends. Again, two distinct dispensations. Anyone teaching that men placed faith in Jesus Christ specifically are going to have some trouble with numerous passages. They are not going to even get out of the Gospels before they meet their first issue that cannot be reconciled, which is that not even the disciples of Christ were believing on Christ according to the dispensation given to Paul. Chapter One of the Magnitude of the Cross makes that fairly simple to understand. John 20:9 makes the statement "...they knew not the Scriptures that He should rise from the dead." Chapter Two deals with this issue, the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's simply not open for debate, it is a basic truth of Scripture, the Gospel was the Hidden Wisdom of God kept secret since the world began.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Again, two dispensations. One in which the Law showed men their need for salvation from God, and one in which men are no longer under the Law. It is not the Law that holds the role of school master, it is the Comforter Who speaks directly to the hearts of men.
We do not live in the Age before faith came, but in the Age in which faith has come.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
And there is the faith Paul is referring to: faith in Christ. Hebrews 6:2 teaches that men are no longer to lay a foundation of faith in God. In this Age it is specific faith in Christ.
Secondly, let's look at another issue seldom discussed, and that the fact that no man was born of God until Christ began baptizing men into Himself. One could argue Scripture teaches that Adam was the Son of God, but can I remind you that Adam was created, and that we are products of procreation? THat Adam was in direct physical relationship with GOd...and was thrust out of that relationship?
Lastly, on this verse, we see that becoming children of God is through faith in Christ. And that faith, according to the Holy Spirit Who inspired these teachings...did not exist while as yet the Law was in effect, but was meant to come afterwards.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
We have two primary dispensations in that we have one in which men are being baptized into Christ and are thus sons of God, and one in which this did not take place. If the faith Paul speaks about was not present (and that is what he clearly states), then by what means were men made sons of God. How were they born again? The question is...do you really want to argue two means of salvation?
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Two distinct dispensations in that prior to this Age men were not one in Christ. There was Jew and Gentile, this is just basic to the Old Testament. Israel was the created People of GOd, a witness nation, and while one could become a proselyte...neither were in Christ.
So again, I have a hard time understanding a rejection of a Dispensational view, and while I do not necessarily consider myself a Dispensationalist, I can easily say that to deny the distinctions between the Ages, again, astounds me.
And I think that is the problem: you have conluded erroneously that I am promoting a System of Theology, I am not. Because I am Trinitarian doesn't make me a Catholic. I think the charge of presupposition may likely be better viewed in your response, and the basis for it loyalty to your own System of Theology. As the radio show host rejected the book because of an element of a System that is not his own (Eternal Security), I think that you are doing the same thing.
You would need to present what you perceive as "assumption" and "presupposition." Every doctrinal element provided in the book is given a Scriptural basis. That men were not expressing faith in Jesus Christ is not open for debate:
Galatians 4:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Can you show me anywhere in Scripture that nullifies the truths stated in the above?
Was the Son of God sent before the fullness of time?
Did He not redeem them that were under the Law? Is there a distinction between people redeemed from the Law...and those who are not? Does this present two Dispensations of God? Two distinct Eras/Ages?
Can we nullify the teaching of Christ Who taught the disciples that the day was coming when the Comforter would come, and rather than the Spirit being with them...He would be in them, as He promised (Ezekiel 36:27)?
Were men receiving the adoption of sons prior to this statement that correlates this with the fullness of time in which the Son was sent?
Let me give one more relevant expression of differing dispensations:
John 7:38-39 King James Version (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
I ask you, Steve, Was there a time when Christ was not glorified and a time when He was? Was there a time when the Holy Ghost was not given and a time when He was? If so...when was He given? We are told by Christ in Acts 1:4-5, and see this fulfilled in Acts 2. And it is no coincidence that then, and not before...do the disciples begin preaching the Gospel of Christ.
So whether Scripture teaches differing Dispensations or not is not something open to debate, nor is it something we can nullify by promotion of a System of Theology.
The reason for this is not due to a promotion of Dispensationalism, but because the Scripture provided to support the points made indicate these differing Era/Ages, and the Ministry of God for each. One can call that Dispensationalism if they choose, just like one could call a Trinitarian Catholic, but neither refute the Doctrine supported by the Scripture given.
I hope so, lol.
Whereas I see a consistency in the Doctrine as presented. Of course, I am biased. 
Continued...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2019 22:23:02 GMT
I would ask you to show where in the book I argue "there is little continuity between the covenants." I ask you, did Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, Isaac, Jacob, or David...know the man Christ Jesus? Did they understand that God would manifest in flesh and die in their stead? If so, why is it that Christ only begins presenting the Gospel directly rather late in His ministry, and why it is His disciples rejected it?
Matthew 16:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
In keeping with the progressive nature of the Revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel we see that understanding was not given to the disciples during Christ's ministry. This is addressed in detail in chs.1-2, as well as pointed out throughout the book.
Again, I would ask that you present this "discontinuity." I will present what is found on page 65 (and I have to include a little of page 66 in order to maintain the context):
Page 65
Ephesians 3:1-5 King James Version (KJV)
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Again, we see the Mystery of Christ was not made known in other Ages, but, Paul states, is now being made known to His holy Apostles and Prophets...
...by the Spirit.
The Specific point in view in this passage is Gentile Inclusion. Under the Law, there was a general exclusion of Gentiles from the People of God. Israel who were
Page 66
the Old Testament type of the One-Fold God has always intended to draw unto Himself. Israel was not "chosen," but, like the Church-the Body of Christ-they were created. In this Age Gentiles are made one in Christ with Jews, thus are of the same body. Scripture makes it clear that it was not made known to the sons of men, which speaks of men in general, the World. That is all inclusive of men, and would include the Old Testament Saints, clarified in the fact that it was simply not made known in "other Ages."
What I would ask you to keep in consideration here is that again we see the Mystery is revealed by the Spirit. We see this same statement in 1 Peter 1...
1 Peter 1:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you
Page 66
by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
...in which we see that "the things now reported to men by them that have preached the Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven."
Now I believe I have maintained the context and the emphasis given in the book, and Steve...I don't know what "discontinuity" you are referring to.
In view is the Mystery and the fact that it is revealed by the Holy Spirit, and in particular by the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven. This is of course the Comforter Christ teaches of, He Whom Scripture teaches could not come until Christ returned to the Father's house and was glorified. While there is nothing in this that endorses Dispensational Theology, it is not surprising one would detect it...because it's right there in the Scripture itself.
Furthermore it in no way show a "discontinuity between the Covenants." So I am going to have to conclude this a false charge based on this proof-quote, lol. I would add that a "discontinuity between the Covenants" can be seen when we look at the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant from a practical standpoint. While all Covenants work towards that same goal, the One Fold referred to above, we do not make them the same Covenant.
Your next example of discontinuity between the Covenants is found on page 75, you said, so not seeing support from your argument from the first quote, let's look at the next (and I will pick up the context on page 74):
Page 74
Because we have seen the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery hidden in God and from the world from before the world began, we can understand why the Disciples were scattered, rather than making the bold stand they will after Pentecost. We
Page 75
find no reason to hold them in contempt, because we understand it was not meant for them to understand the Gospel until the appointed time.
.....The Gospel of Christ must be distinguished from a general reference to a Gospel-such as the "Gospel of the Kingdom," which deal primarily with the context of the Millennial Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament-for we see several uses and must determine if they are identical regarding revelation.
Consider:
Romans 10:13-18 King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Page 76
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Of course we would need to keep reading but this is enough to show there is no teaching of "discontinuity between the Covenants."
I will say that many might reject the distinction between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Christ. The argument usually presented is "You are creating two Gospels!" The fact is that Scripture teaches more than one Gospel, in the sense that the "Gospel of Christ" is understood by those of us in this Age, however, Israel did not understand that the "rest" God promised in a physical land ultimately referred to the Rest of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:1-8). So two "Gospels," the Old Testament promise of rest, and the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ as the Rest which speaks from an eternal perspective.
Last proof-quote:
Page 92
of God. There are three primary "Kingdoms" we could consider in Scripture which are relevant to the texts we will be looking at, the first being the temporal Kingdom established in the hearts of His people (which is exampled in the Nation of Israel), and speaks of the rule and reign of God in the hearts of those who believe in Him. The second being the Kingdom which shall be established in the Millennial Kingdom. And the greatest of these being the Realm of God which we know as
Page 93
Heaven, which is the abode of God (which I would view to include the new heavens and Earth He will create after the Millennial Kingdom, or, the Eternal State). We can see that the first, which is the Kingdom established in the hearts of the faithful, has always existed here on earth. Hebrews 11 testifies of the faithful, and while they were of the household of faith, we are told those Old Testament Saints did not receive the promises, and they were not made "perfect," or, complete without us. The promise in our current text has, I believe, several applications we can understand. God will first bring His people back into the land, and the Prophecy of Revelation confirms that there will b e Jews in the land at the time of the Tribulation. But, we can also see another fulfillment at the end of the Tribulation, at which time the nations are gathered, and the sheep (believers till physically alive) are separated from the Goats (unbelievers, still physically alive). The Goats are physically destroyed and enter into everlasting punishment-though they are not cast into Hell at this time, but into Hades-and the sheep will enter into that Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:33-34). This is the physical kingdom that the disciples of Christ were expecting to be established when He ministered among them. So we can expect both to be fulfilled, because that is how God has always fulfilled has always fulfilled Prophecy, to the jot and tittle. Here is the basis for the expectation of Israel as
Page 94
they sat under the domination of Rome, that the land be restored to them as it was in her glory days and they were a powerful nation.
Again, not only do I not see "discontinuity between the Covenants" I don't see any discontinuity at all. You would have to point out where it is you are seeing this.
Continued...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2019 23:28:33 GMT
The "result" you speak of is based on this "radical discontinuity" has not been established, which calls the result into question. I am happy to address the "confusion" about faith, though:
Page 9
basis. Salvation in Christ is not a religion, or a process of religious activity, it is wholly the work of Holy Ghost. This work begins in our lives when the Comforter, God Himself, reveals to us the truth of the Gospel when we are exposed to it. The natural man-those not yet saved and not having Eternal Union with God-has no ability to understand the spiritual things of God, and is dependent on God's intervention that he might see the truth. The centuries old debate about "Free Will" would end for those caught up in it if they would simply recognize this one truth. It is only when God enlightens them that they recognize those truths the Comforter seeks to convict them of: sin (that they are in fact sinners (against God)), righteousness (that Christ alone is righteous), and judgment (that their separation has them bound for eternal separation, or, Eternal Judgment). And this is precisely the consistent method of God, through all Ages, of enlightening men to spiritual truths. The only thing that has changed, due to the progression of Revelation, is the extent of the knowledge being revealed.
The Gospel is simple enough for a child to understand, and what the Comforter will make us understand is this: we are sinners, and have violated God's will. We recognize that Christ, being Holy and blameless, died the death that looms in our future when we are judged. And we recognize the reality of Hell, and I don't mind saying that fear of Hell is a valid and healthy
Page 10
fear.
I see no statement of "faith following regeneration." What is said is that men come to know truth through the enlightening process God performs. This does not impose nor preclude faith. We have numerous instances of men knowing God's will and rejecting it. And unlike the error of Calvinistic doctrine, if men were regenerated in order to have faith then we must equally conclude that men can lose their salvation, which of course comes into conflict with another basic truth of Scripture...the Eternal Security of the believer. Again, I am not seeing the basis for the charge of "confusion" being supported with the proof-quote. Nothing in this states that "faith follows regeneration. It is dealing with how men receive the truth. Not by "free will," another erroneous doctrine we can thank the Reformers for, lol. but as John write...by the will of God.
Let's see if we see "faith following regeneration" in the other proof-quote:
Page 178
Paul makes it clear that the New Birth is something man can effect:
Titus 3:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
When did "the kindness and love of God our Savior" appear? When He began saving men by the washing of of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. This does not imply that God was unkind prior to this Age, or had no love for man, but our recognition of God's work on our behalf in Redemption is now being understood as it was not in past Ages. That which wa as Paul states "hidden" has been revealed unto men.
In v.5 we see two phrases, "the washing of regeneration" and "the renewing of the Holy Ghost." The first is easy enough to understand. In view we have the cleansing of new birth, and we look back to the promises of God in regards to redemption. We are washed with pure water, which is the Word of God. Christ told the disciples
Page 179
they were "clean through the Word He had spoken to them (John 15:3)," w3hich gives us an example of of this process.
I see nothing in either quote that supports the charge, so I think I can say that the confusion, so far, is not my own.
And there is no way I am going to write all of these out, lol, nor do I need to, because you did not establish a basis for a contrast with the first proof-quotes.
I will do one, though:
Page 43
In the next section we will look at the Mystery of the Gospel, another compelling reaon why we cannot impose saving faith in the Risen Lord which accompanies New Covenant conditions into the Old Testament. But I would just ask that you give thought to what has been thus far presented. If we were transported back in time, knowing what we know, could we rebuke Christ for stating He was going to die, and go so far as
Page 44
to try to prevent His capture with a sword? Not even in our weakest moment would we give consideration of preventing the one thing that could save us from Eternal Separation and Judgment. While we understand that the Disciples were indeed men of faith and believing within the capacity of the Revelation provided to men at this point, we must not impose the very conditions which allow for Regeneration and Eternal Salvation into past Ages. These conditions did not arise and were not bestowed unto men until the New Covenant is established by Christ. Again, the Gospel of Christ is simple enough when viewed in its basic elements: Man is separated from God at birth, and the remedy for Reconciliation lies in Christ dying in the stead of the sinner. That is what men are called to place their faith in, rather than a general faith in God. While the Old Testament Saint was justified through faith, we distinguish between being justified according to our actions, and being justified based on Christ's shed blood (death). And in seeing the unbelief of the Disciples, even after the Lord has risen from the dead, we can see that they were not trusting in Christ as their Savior. They were in fact despondent because the hopes they did have, which were based on a physical understanding...were dashed when Christ died on the Cross and was buried.
Or so they thought at the time. They would not have to entertain that despondency for very long.
I do have to admit confusion, brother: I am confused at why you have given these as contrasting and contradictory teachings about faith before and after regeneration. Faith follows belief, and it is just my view that when God reveals truth to the hearts of men they believe. But the important issue to keep in mind, which our "free will" brethren do not, is that belief follows the Ministry of God in enlightening the natural mind to those truths he cannot understand apart from that enlightening. The natural man will believe, in my view, but that does not mean he will place faith in Christ. And we do not divorce these elements one from the other: When the believer responds in saving faith both faith and belief are simultaneous.
As to the rest of the proof-quotes, you will need to actually find a quote that has me contradicting something that I have been teaching on for quite some time. It makes little sense that I would confuse what I myself believe and teach. But if you can find just such an example, I'll be happy to address it. When I edited the book I did find errors that created a conflict. Some of these can be seen in the thread showing the revisions. THat just happens when one is doing a lot of typing. We can insert things unintentionally.
Continued... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2019 1:11:37 GMT
We have an entire Old Testament full of men and women who responded in faith and were not yet made alive in Christ.
Consider:
John 6:49-53 King James Version (KJV)
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
The Jews were well aware of the fact that the fathers were physically dead. The Lord is not speaking of physical life.
And I ask you again, as I did in the beginning of this response, where would you support the True Bread from Heaven coming down...in the Old Testament? This refers to the Incarnation. The "bread" Christ would give was His flesh. When did that flesh come into existence? When God created it in the womb of Mary.
The Lord makes clear what provision the fathers had, and it did not give them eternal life. One can argue out of silence and impose the idea that they received eternal life from some other source...but it was not from Jesus Christ dying on the Cross. Christ told Nicodemus how "these things could be," that is, how one could be born from above, and born of the Spirit:
John 3:9; 14-16 King James Version (KJV)
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The Son was given that we might have eternal life. The Son gave His flesh that we might have eternal life. Simply not available to the Old Testament Saint. They would not be eternally redeemed and receive remission of sins until Christ died in their stead and it was then that they received the promises, and were made perfect "with us."
Again, God enlightened men to His will and they responded. Do not forget that the Holy Spirit was "with them." He has empowered believers since the beginning for those ministries GOd intended for them.
So we don't have a people of faith completely lacking in spiritual things. But what we distinguish is that eternal life is the very means of Regeneration and that began when the Comforter, the promised Spirit...was given. They did not have GOd in them, but with them. So we don't overlook what they did have, but we don't impose elements of Promise before they are given.
I do? I think I make it pretty clear that they had faith in the Revelation provided for them. Even as the Gospel progressed we see something new: faith in the coming Messiah. The woman at the well is a great example of this. She knew he was coming, but, like the disciples, she did not know the Scriptures that He should rise from the dead.
Again, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear there is a distinction between faith in God, which they are commanded not to lay again (this being a foundational principle of the Hebrew Scriptures), and specific faith in Christ, and the Doctrine of Christ
That does not exactly represent my position. I don't argue they had faith in the revelation provided for them, there is no argument. Look at Abraham, what did he believe? That God would give him a son of his own bowels and that all families of the earth would be blessed through him. Because of that he was justified, but...
...he was not yet eternally redeemed.
And as far as understanding...the Gospel was not revealed at all. Again, John 20:9 speaks of disciples who had walked and ministered with Christ for some three years and "they knew not the Scriptures that He should rise from the dead."
There is no argument, it's just a basic truth of Scripture.
I do not view it as "pentecostal new birth." I am not Pentecostal, nor is my doctrine (though I do appreciate the zeal many of them have for the Lord, a stark contrast to some).
As far as someone not "fully understanding the Gospel," I am going to view this as a false argument as well. This suggests that the Gospel is hard to understand and the reality is it is man that makes it difficult because they impose their conditions into what it means to be saved. Just how hard is it to admit before God, when He is the One showing this to you...that you are a sinner and that only Christ can save you?
Not hard at all.
So my basic answer is no, being born again does not demand doctrinal flawlessness, simply simple faith in Jesus Christ the Risen Savior. A child understand that and be born again.
And I'll argue it here: the woman at the well had faith in Messiah but was not trusting Christ nor was she privy to the Mystery of the Gospel. Just a basic truth. I am sorry for those whose Systems of Theology come into conflict with Scripture and thus must reject these simple truths, but, I am not the one that makes men understand them. Only God can do that.
The disciples had it revealed to them that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living GOd, but we can see that does not equate to believing that Jesus died (would die) in their stead and rise again the third day:
Matthew 16:15-17 King James Version (KJV)
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Here we see the revelation that Jesus is the Prophesied Messiah. They were okay with that. And it wasn't a conclusion they drew based on what they witnessed, but it was, as I have been saying all along, revealed to them by God. That is the only way any man or woman, saved or unsaved...understands the spiritual things of God.
Now let's see Peter's reaction to the Gospel, which I will emphasize:
Matthew 16:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Peter could know Jesus was the Christ...but he didn't want Him to die. And this is the very reason Christ came. You know it, I know it, but Peter did not.
Let's see the Lord state they were unbelieving:
Mark 16:9-14 King James Version (KJV)
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
As I said, this isn't open to debate, it's just a basic truth of Scripture and is seen in all four Gospels.
Here's another example:
Mark 9:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
Only because Scripture does. The second half of 1 Corinthians 1 and the first half of Ch.2 deal with the hidden wisdom of God.
Shame on the teacher that teaches this...
1 Corinthians 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
...as referring to "how great Heaven is going to be." To date that is how every preacher and teacher has used it in their sermons/lessons.
Christ is the Wisdom of God, Hidden since the Word began. Not open to debate.
Arbitrary? lol
The reason for that is that many teach that Ephesians 3 makes the Mystery in view to be the Mystery of Gentile Inclusion, when in fact Paul simply teaches that his ministry is towards the Gentiles in regards to the Mystery of Christ. Some people simply have a hard time comprehending the passage, and this is primarily due to the fact that there is so little teaching about the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.
But I invite you to show what is "arbitrary."
It would take some work to understand, my friend.
That is never called in question in the book. We have prophecy concerning Gentile Inclusion just a we have Prophecy of the Gospel. Neither creates a support for negating the Mystery of Christ.
Here is an example:
Isaiah 42:6-7 King James Version (KJV)
6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Steve, all were Gentiles until Israel was created, lol.
Of course God planned to include them.
And you are drawing from but one Dispensation...the Age of Law.
But you have not shown that, Steve. Not a single "proof-quote" examined actually supports the charges made.
And I am sorry that the book did not benefit you. The one thing I would ask is this: are you quite sure that your own System of Theology doesn't prevent you from acknowledging these basic truths? You are more than welcome to show that the disciples believed the Gospel and understood it. You are more than welcome to show that men received regeneration or eternal life apart from Christ being lifted up. You won't show this in Scripture though. You are more than welcome to explain why Paul teaches the Gospel of Christ as a Mystery yet you say it was not. You might research what a Mystery in the First Century referred to. Not a who-dun-it, but a Who-will-do-it.
And I would ask how it is you see these basic truths minimizing the Cross of Christ? On the contrary, but for the believer to know that he/she doesn't pattern their lives after Abraham or David, but after Christ...magnifies the Cross. To know when men began to be made sons of God and receive life only helps them to understand their own regeneration.
But, again, a I said, I am a little biased in my own views.
Again, thanks for the review.
God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 22, 2019 15:50:07 GMT
Having responded to the review as a whole, I thought I might go through and address some of the issues that seem to hinder the reviewer. I'd like to take a look at the charge of Dispensationalism, which is not an element of the book as a System of Theology. I do not embrace any of the modern Systems of Theology available today, though there are aspects of certain Systems that may seem to apply. Because I teach Eternal Security and total depravity of man I am constantly labeled as a Calvinist. Because the Calvinists detest my views on regeneration, as I do theirs, lol, I am sometimes mistaken as a "free will" promoter, which I am not. Because I reject free will as it is taught today (as well as the teachings of Jacobus Arminius himself, though he was close with Prevenient Grace (he only misapplied this as a universal blessing to all men within their nature)) I am labeled a Calvinst. And because I am fond of RC Sproul I am constantly charged with holding to Reformed Theology. So I must object to being labeled a Dispensationalist because I acknowledge the varying administrations we see throughout Scripture (Judges, Prophets, Apostles; No Law Eras contrasted with the Age of Law which itself is contrasted with the Age of Grace, etc.), just as I would protest being called Catholic because I am Trinitarian, or Reformed because I teach Eternal Security and the depravity of man. I am simply a Christian Bible Student. No more, no less. And I have no problem being called an evangelical Baptist. John was a Baptist, the Apostles were Baptists, Jesus Christ is a Baptist, lol...so I am a Baptist too.
But the truth is, there are errors in all of these systems. Free Will, while it is true in the natural sense (men decide what shirt to wear, whether to be kind or evil, etc.), has no application in a salvific context. Calvin's teaching that men are regenerated in order to have faith is also false (there are men who have received the truth and turned from it and were never regenerated). Dispensational Theology is probably going to lead the student in a better path than these others, and I would say of all Systems probably the one closest to my own views would be Mid-Acts Dispensational Theology. They rightly place the Mystery of Christ in a proper context and recognize this very important Biblical Doctrine, but I depart from those who teach that the Mystery was only revealed to Paul and then by Paul to the Gentiles. One gentleman I debated with took the position that the disciples, on the day of Pentecost, were not preaching the Gospel, but a baptism unto repentance like as John the Baptist did. Of course this is error, because the elements of the Gospel are certainly preached, and understood by the Disciples/Apostles prior to Paul's conversion and God's revelation of the Mystery to him in particular.
So let's look at just one passage where we see the distinction made between Eras/Ages, and recognize the varying administrations of God and those who were empowered to minister under Him. If anyone would like to critique the following that would be great.
Before I post our passage, can I ask...do I really need to post Scripture to show that while man was in the Garden that God's ministry towards man was different? I didn't think so, lol. Adam was in direct physical relationship with God, Who walked with Him and directed his paths. All Ages that follow are going to be impacted by his sin and things will never be the same again in this current physical universe. Not even in the Reformation coming in the Millennial Kingdom. We shall simply utilize Paul's commentary on the three differing Ages in view in the following:
Romans 5:12-18 King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
One important issue that must be understood is that it is death (v.12) that entered the world as a result of Adam's sin, not sin itself. It is a given that sin was already in the world...because Satan was in the world.
Secondly, losing everlasting life is not what happened to Adam, losing the opportunity for everlasting life was taken away from him when he was thrust out of the Garden whereby he lost access to the Tree of Life. Adam did not lose everlasting/eternal life when he sinned, for if he lost it...it wasn't eternal life to begin with. Christ contrasts the death Adam was told he would die if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil with not dying, not perishing...if one believes on Jesus Christ.
Third, we note that here we have two distinct Ages mentioned, the time when the Law had not yet been established, and the time when it had. Verse 13 does not say sin was not punished because the Covenant of Law (and its distinct commands) had not yet been established, that is evident in the destruction of all living (save eight) from the world. But one truth I see as a consistent pattern in God's dealings with men is that He justly holds men accountable for what they do have revealed to them. In Hebrews 10:26-29 we see that those who rejected the Covenant of Law (Moses' Law) will not be held to as severe a degree of punishment as those who reject Christ, His Sacrifice, His Covenant, and the Ministry of the Comforter (the Spirit of Truth and Grace. The reason is because the revelation provided to men is not only now a distinct revelation of the Gospel of Christ (the only means by which man can be saved)...but it is delivered to men directly by God Himself, therefore the Messenger differs in this Age. We might understand a man rejecting another man telling him what he must do to live (and the Old Testament primarily speaks of physical life and death), but when God speaks to man there is no excuse. Even during the Age of Law Gentiles received revelation from God in their hearts, and were justified according to their response.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Here Paul distinguishes three periods: from Adam to Moses (and this does not nullify the distinction of the Age of Creation and the Garden), the Age of Law, and the Age in which Jesus has come. Men died, not because of Adam's sin, as is popularly taught, but because of their own sin. Not because they were born with a disease called sin, but because they were born separated from God Who is the only One that can instruct men concerning living according to His will.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Another issue we see spoken to here is the issue of life and death. Death is the condemnation men are born into. All men die because of the one offense, Adam's sin, which separated man from God. Abraham was not born into relationship with God, but God sought him out and initiated that relationship (as He does all relationships). But the Good News is this: the Righteousness of Christ brought about the free gift that is made available to all men, and this because God seeks to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
Concerning justification unto life by and through Christ, a few correlating passages that distinguish a contrast between having life and not having life:
Romans 3:20-26 King James Version (KJV)
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
You might ask yourself why it is that we are told Abraham was justified by performing works, or, that Gentiles were justified by performing the works of the Law written on their hearts. The answer is simple: this is speaking in a temporal context. In this passage we see "But now" and "at this time" in vv.21 and 26, distinguishing a different Justification, justification freely given by the grace of God through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus. If men interpreted Romans 4 and the example given to show precedence of justification by grace through faith, instead of this passage being interpreted by Romans four...we would have far less confusion among Theologians today. But Romans 4 is taken as meaning...Abraham received the same thing we do through Christ. The popular pulpit mythology that the Atonement was bestowed upon the Old Testament Saints prior to the Cross has not a shred of evidence in Scripture yet is embraced by most. So they can reconcile Abraham being declared righteous and "There is none righteous...no not one." They can reconcile how Gentiles were justified by performing the works of the Law and "Therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified." It's a matter of context, One is speaking temporally, one is speaking on an eternal basis. Just as the sacrifices of the Law were temporal and temporary and contrasted with the Sacrifice of Christ which brings Atonement and remission of sins on an eternal basis (Hebrews 10:1-18).
In the previous posts above (in this thread) I mention that Paul teaches a time when there was faith in Christ and a time prior to that faith having come. Here we see another great distinction between justification by the works of the Law (temporal) and being justified through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Not based on what men do, but based on what Christ did.
Acts 11:13-18 King James Version (KJV)
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is taught by most Systems of Theology that this is a subsequent event of empowerment in the life of a believer already indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
That is error.
Peter speaks the words (the Gospel, see Acts 10) by which Cornelius and his house were...saved.
He correlates the "Holy Ghost falling on them" to being baptized with the Holy Ghost.
He states the Gentiles received the same...gift. That Gift is salvation through Christ.
And He states God has granted repentance unto...
...Life.
The implication being that before being saved through Christ they did not have life. That is the very teaching of Christ here...
John 6:49-53 King James Version (KJV)
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
The Lord does not say "Your father that sinned are dead," He says "...your fathers (which would include Moses) ate manna and are dead." They died not receiving the Life of Christ, because they did not receive the Holy Ghost promised in the Old Testament and taught of by Christ (Acts 1:4-5). They were not baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Christ teaches here that men must eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, so to illustrate what this is speaking of simply consider Communion. We memorialize what? His death. His flesh and His blood is a reference to His death, which men are commanded to look to just as they looked to the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:9-16). And what He teaches is that those who do eat and drink of His flesh and blood (believe in His death, not partaking of Communion as some teach)...
...will never die.
And this is a familiar teaching of Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God:
John 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So I will end with this, and invite anyone that does not see differing dispensations (administrations) of God in Scripture to a discussion in which we can go in more detail.
God sent His Son at the appointed time to redeem men from the Law, and commands men to believe on His Name. Those who do receive the Eternal Life He came to give. They shall no longer be dead, which is the state all men are born into. They shall never perish.
God bless.
|
|
steve
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by steve on Feb 3, 2019 2:09:43 GMT
Thoughtful responses. But since you said in numerous places that your arguments are not up for debate, I will not debate them. Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 3, 2019 19:33:33 GMT
Thoughtful responses. But since you said in numerous places that your arguments are not up for debate, I will not debate them. Steve lol Not my arguments, Steve, simply basic truths from Scripture. I would seriously recommend that you try to refute the arguments provided in the book. Discussion and debate helps all of us to be held accountable to our brethren, and to test the views we hold to. There are numerous popular Systems of Theology and basically most people have embraced one of them. Why they will not acknowledge the errors of their System is beyond me. As Christians are we not called to a higher standard of truth based on Scripture? I think the real question we need to ask is this: is the Doctrine we hold to actually based on Scripture? Or the teachings of men? But in regards to the review, I was not able to find one objection to be based on what is actually in the book. I mention in the forward that my intent was to stay away from terms coined (and familiar to, really) by Systems of Theology, yet you charge me with standing on a platform of a Dispensational Theology. I'd suggest you think about that: if the teaching makes you think of Dispensational Theology and no mention is made advocating that system, maybe it would be a good idea to test your own (implied) rejection of it. In regards to the "discontinuity" of the Covenants you see me presenting, again, I have no idea how that conclusion can be made if the book has been read. Consider: Page 31
Israel had long sat under the oppression of invading countries, and their hearts yearned for the glory days of Israel, yet their sin is the very reason conditions arose that would lead to GOd giving the Promise of the New Covenant. And I will point out that this is not an afterthought on God's part, because we see the elements of the New Covenant in all of the Covenants. One we have already seen is God's promise that "...all families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham," which is fulfilled in the New Covenant in that all families of the earth have an opportunity to be in relationship with God through Christ. This is contrasted to the exclusive nature of the Covenant of Law, in which relationship was through Heritage (being born into Israel).In the editing process I found numerous mistakes (some of which have been corrected from the first printing of the book and are listed on this forum, I don't try to deny errors I made) and there are probably others to be found, but, if I am going to be charged with error I would at least appreciate my accusers being straight-forward with me and allowing me the chance to address them in discussion. That a charge of "discontinuity between the Covenants" is unlikely (unless created by a typo, which easy enough to do in a work larger than a few paragraphs (there were two of these that have been corrected which actually impacted the Doctrine (though I doubt few would even notice))) because I do view all Covenants as inter-related though we must distinguish the distinctive revelation of each. Paul makes a clear distinction between that time when faith in Christ was not here and that time when it was here... Galatians 3:21-28 King James Version (KJV)
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.Again, a time before faith came, and a time after faith came. And it is after faith came that men received the Promise (v.22) which is itself Eternal Life. And that eternal life is accomplished by a man being baptized into Christ and being made one in Christ, which itself did not take place prior to Pentecost. These are the "arguments that are not open to debate." One can try to deny what should seem fairly basic, but we cannot change what Scripture teaches. So I am disappointed, of course, but overly surprised at your rejection. What does surprise me are the bases for the rejection. As I said in the earlier response just because a System's teaching might be seen in my own views doesn't make me a member of that System of Theology. I am no more a Dispensationalist because I recognize the various dispensations taught in Scripture than I am a Catholic because I recognize the Trinity. I do not teach a discontinuity between the Covenants because I view all Covenant as being progressive stages that lead to the New Covenant and ultimately the One Fold of the Eternal State. All contain Promise, even the New Covenant, which hold the Promise of the Eternal State and our glorified state and of eternal dwelling with God Himself. So all I ask is that you give thought to the bases of rejection and just consider the arguments presented from Scripture. A few questions you might ask yourself is how are you going to present the Disciples as having saving faith in the risen Lord when we see very clearly they did not have faith because they knew not the Scriptures that He should rise from the dead. How can you impose Regeneration when not a single one of them had received the Comforter? How can you impose Eternal Redemption into the Old Testament when we are told that Jesus Christ is the means of Eternal Redemption and the only means? Is the rejection based on reason and careful examination of Scripture? Or loyalty to your own System of Theology? Because that is the reason most reject the Doctrine presented in the book...because it comes into conflict with their System of Theology. The last thing I would ask is how you can possibly see the book "diminishing the magnitude of the Cross?" As with the other arguments presented, I would ask a little bit more than just the statement. If you choose not do respond, I will respect your decision, but...it is a heavy charge and one that few people that have read the book would agree with. And with that I close this with a hope that you will support your charges with more than the statements. I have addressed most of the proof-quotes given in the review and cannot find them supporting the charges, so if you want to show how you concluded what you did based on the proof-quotes that would be great. God bless. |
|
