Open Dispensationalism

[GODISNOWHERE]

A few years ago I coined a term called Open Dispensationalism.

The joining of Open Theism and Dispensationalism seems to me a match made in heaven.

I have written an article that I would very much like reviewed by all you half-baked theologians and full fledge letterlings. Your challenges are deeply appreciated and asbestos is a friend of mine so feel free to go full throttle.

Open View Debate (http://www.godisnowhere.org/Articles/Openness%20debate2.1.pdf)

I wrote this article as a lay person who has studied these independent views for several years.

Lastly, Dispensationalism with the addition of the open view is preferable to me because as most are aware whether their be 7 or 12 or 9999 dispensations they are all typically marked by the failure of man.

I believe it is abhorrent to hold to a view that God predetermined that His Elect would fail, and fail miserably over and over again.

Lastly, it is my presupposition that the future is not knowable because the future does not exist. Another term that more accurately describes my metaphysical view is "Divine-Human Simultaneity".

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org

[Philemon]

GINH,
Glad to see ya hear bro. Lets get it on!!! Owwwww! :yipee:

YFS,
Phi

[Hitch]

Well its a match alright.

Take care

Hitch

[joelkaki]

I doubt you would want my commentary, since I am opposed to both Open Theism and Dispensationalism. Open Dispensationalism would just be a double tackle for me.

Joel

[GODISNOWHERE]

I am quite sure I would enjoy your response no matter how ill founded it may be.

Daniel

[Daywalker]

A few years ago I coined a term called Open Dispensationalism.

The joining of Open Theism and Dispensationalism seems to me a match made in heaven.

I have written an article that I would very much like reviewed by all you half-baked theologians and full fledge letterlings. Your challenges are deeply appreciated and asbestos is a friend of mine so feel free to go full throttle.

Open View Debate (http://www.godisnowhere.org/Articles/Openness%20debate2.1.pdf)

I wrote this article as a lay person who has studied these independent views for several years.

Lastly, Dispensationalism with the addition of the open view is preferable to me because as most are aware whether their be 7 or 12 or 9999 dispensations they are all typically marked by the failure of man.

I believe it is abhorrent to hold to a view that God predetermined that His Elect would fail, and fail miserably over and over again.

Lastly, it is my presupposition that the future is not knowable because the future does not exist. Another term that more accurately describes my metaphysical view is "Divine-Human Simultaneity".

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org
What do YOU mean by "Open Dispensationalism"? I take it you mean dispensationalism PLUS Open View Theism. Am I correct. As an Acts 28 dispensationalist I would say that the Open View fits PERFECTLY with my form of dispensationalism for one reason...I believe that the "church, which is his body" began THROUGH Acts 28:28 (the setting aside of Israel). Unlike the Acts period, I don't see us as grafted into Israel at all.
Additionally, I don't think that every dispensation ends in judgement, per se. I just think that at times, God was ready to move on and change things around simply because "it was his good pleasure" to do so. I realize that there are some fine lines.
Have a great day and stay OPEN :P
-Mike

[themuzicman]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael
How is that?

[Solly]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael
Since even God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future, how can you possibly say that? This might be plan C. :lol:

[themuzicman]

Well, that's where I differ from other OVTists. I don't think there is a plan A and a plan B and a plan C.

This is all plan A, and there will be no other plan.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Well, that's where I differ from other OVTists. I don't think there is a plan A and a plan B and a plan C.

This is all plan A, and there will be no other plan.

Michael
Well, the way I see it, personally...is that this is all PLAN A in the sense of what took place in Ex.4. Plan A was for Moses to confront Pharoah and tell him to let Israel go. HOWEVER, there were other vairables that God was working with. God altered everything else all around that decision to accomplish his will. At first, there would have been no Aaron. BUT, God knew that it would be needed to work with Moses on that one-so here comes Aaron. Israel SHOULD NOT have needed a whole bunch of signs, BUT God worked with Moses and gave him a couple of signs just in case they did not believe. "In fact, if THESE signs did not work, then they MIGHT believe THESE OTHER signs.." That is a HUGE paraphrase, but you get the point.

I see dispensationalism like that. God's ULTIMATE PURPOSE will be to bring in the RECONCILLIATION OF ALL THINGS. I SEE THIS as being in the dispensation of the fullness of times (Rev.21-22). The way I view it, God is working the time periods TOGETHER. It is like a DOMINO effect , SORTA. God is using a series of changes that are set up SINCE the WORLD BEGAN to accomplish his ULTIMATE GOAL which was his goal from BEFORE the world began. To me, it is symantics. I know that you believe in different Covenants. Do you believe that they are plan a, b, c? With ME, this is basically how I view the dispensations.

[themuzicman]

I think you need to go back and read the story, because clearly God harded Pharoah's heart (in a free will kind of way) so that he would NOT let the Israelites go, and ultimately God's judgement would fall on them. If you read the story as a whole, it's pretty clear that the way it happened was God's will from the beginning.

Also, I think scripture pretty clearly shows that Jesus was at least the option for the atonement of sins from the beginning (lamb selected from the beginning), and in an OV sense, God said that if Adam chose to reject God, that Jesus would be the atoning sacrifice.

The rest of the OT is God's setting things up for Christ to come.

Michael

[Daywalker]

I think you need to go back and read the story, because clearly God harded Pharoah's heart (in a free will kind of way) so that he would NOT let the Israelites go, and ultimately God's judgement would fall on them. If you read the story as a whole, it's pretty clear that the way it happened was God's will from the beginning.
I really was not dealing with Pharoah. I was dealing with the children of Israel and their following of Moses. I was also dealing with how God did not ORIGINALLY plan for Aaron to join Moses. I did not mention anything about the hardening of Pharoah. The signs in Ex.4 was to get the children of Israel to believe Moses. Perhaps you should take a second glance at what I wrote..? I think you missed my point. No offense intended. :thumb:

[themuzicman]

I really was not dealing with Pharoah. I was dealing with the children of Israel and their following of Moses. I was also dealing with how God did not ORIGINALLY plan for Aaron to join Moses. I did not mention anything about the hardening of Pharoah. The signs in Ex.4 was to get the children of Israel to believe Moses. Perhaps you should take a second glance at what I wrote..? I think you missed my point. No offense intended. :thumb:

Yup. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the plagues as signs.

It is possible that God's plan doesn't happen directly as He intended, and some reroutes occur, but doesn't indicate that God gives up on a plan to start a new one. In fact, I don't have any doubt that God figured Israel would walk away from its covenant many times and need to be judged. I think He knows enough about man to know what will probably happen.

That's still not evidence that God abandons a plan, tho.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Yup. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the plagues as signs.

It is possible that God's plan doesn't happen directly as He intended, and some reroutes occur, but doesn't indicate that God gives up on a plan to start a new one. In fact, I don't have any doubt that God figured Israel would walk away from its covenant many times and need to be judged. I think He knows enough about man to know what will probably happen.

That's still not evidence that God abandons a plan, tho.

Michael
I hear what you are saying. It sounds to me like we are dealing with how we are expressing this, more than anything else. If you call the covenants PLAN A, PLAN B, PLAN C but all are ONE-then I call the dispensations PLAN A, PLAN B, PLAN C-but all are ONE. If we call God sending Aaron for Moses and giving extra signs "God changing his dealings", then I call the dispensations "God changing his dealings". It all comes out the same no matter what words are picked. If you say that there is REROUTING with the giving of Aaron, then I say there is rerouting with the Covenants (Old Cov't, New Cov't, etc.). You know where I am going. :smile:
Have a great day!
-Mike

[themuzicman]

Well, I think you first have to show how ANY covenant besides the New Covenant were designed to redeem man.

Even in Genesis, it's clear that Satan would be destroyed by the seed of the woman, and that atoning sacrifices were already started. In fact, if you go over to Hebrews, you find that Abel, Abraham, and David were all given "the promises", and none recieved them before they died! Abraham's covenant was a promise of a people, not redemption. Israel's covenant was for them to be God's people in the earth. Again, no salvation mentioned. Even Paul showed the Jews of his time that the OT pointed to Christ, because he proved that Jesus was the Messiah from the scriptures. Clearly all men were waiting the same promises from the time of Abel until Christ came and died, and we now walk in the receipt of the promise they never got.

Furtheremore, scripture tells us that Jesus was the lamb to be slain before the foundation of the world! Now, in an OV sense, we can say that Jesus was selected if atonement would be necessary for mankind, but clearly that was the plan all along if Adam sinned!

So, I don't see any plan B at all.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Christ was the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Galatians 3:13-16 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

When Christ died he brought the Abrahamic Covenant into a NEW COVENANT.
Galatians 4:26-31 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Abraham's covenant INCLUDED a plan of redemption, I would say...
Galatians 3:6-9 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 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. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
I guess we may have to agree to disagree on this one, but I don't see how this changes things.
To be very technical...I see the dispensations in the bible as God simply (tongue in cheek) making his program into another vessel (end of tongue in cheek). I believe that GOD takes the "goodies" from what he HAD been doing and fortifies THAT SAME VESSEL that was MARRED and remolds it into something better. I am FULLY AWARE that the ref. is to NATIONS, but the way I view it (a little DaywalkerOLOGY here-LOL) is that GOD's personality is to do just that. The Abrahamic Covenant as it was ORIGINALLY GIVEN was to EXCLUDE other nations UNLESS they proselyted. BUT, that was only for a season till the promised seed should come, Jesus Christ. Once he died on the cross the nations were reconcilled and the opportunity for the other nations to be a PART OF GOD'S GOVERNMENT was open to them. NOW, Abraham could be truly "THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS". NOW, kings COULD come from Abraham (THROUGH CHRIST) out of these OTHER NATIONS. Basically, the way I see it is that God would save men out of the nations by grafting them to the Israel of GOD BY FAITH. When this was accomplished, thanks to the New Covenant (transformed Abrahamic Covenant), GOD could place saved Gentiles as divinely appointed KINGS in those other nations.
Jeremiah 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Grace,
Mike :hi:

[Daywalker]

FYI...Just for the record. Once the NEW Covenant came into being...those who were unbelieving Jews were CAST OFF during the Acts period. They would not be allowed to be a part of the TRUE ISRAEL since they were not IN ISAAC. They would be regarded as CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN (Gal.4). In the end, only those that had been ushered into the New Covenant from the Abrahamic COvenant (as far as the Jew goes) could be a part of GOd's actual government. Obviously, the believing JEWISH REMNANT of the Acts period will be resurrected to enjoy this kingdom.

The promise in Heb. 11 was the Heavenly CIty as well as other things for the physical, spiritual kingdom in this world. That will come down AFTER this age when God makes his enemies his FOOTSTOOL...is how I personally view it. That is when David and others will get promises that they had looked forward to.

[themuzicman]

Exactly. Plan A from the beginning. I'd even contend that the curse on the Serpent was a promise of a messiah.

Also, Hebrews says "Heavenly country", not earthly.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Exactly. Plan A from the beginning. I'd even contend that the curse on the Serpent was a promise of a messiah.
Agreed

[themuzicman]

So, I don't think there was a plan A and plan B and Plan C. It was just Plan A from the beginning. Whether the Jews came along with the plan or not was what was open.

Michael

[Daywalker]

So, I don't think there was a plan A and plan B and Plan C. It was just Plan A from the beginning. Whether the Jews came along with the plan or not was what was open.

Michael
Okay. I would agree with that. It is just hard FOR ME to sometimes to lay out what I want to convey. But yeah...plan A from the beginning, in that sense. All of those things that God did was him working TOWARD his goal, not in spite of his goal-ultimately. Just like God giving Aaron to Moses was God working TOWARD his goal, not him giving up on his goal for something totally different and unrelated.

[themuzicman]

Well, are all people in all times saved by grace through faith?

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Well, are all people in all times saved by grace through faith?

Michael
I'm an "Open Dispensationalist" and I say..... of course they were! :doh:

But were they justified by faith without works? :nsm:

[themuzicman]

Aren't grace and works incompatible?

[Xmansmommy]

Jim which is it? Were old testament saints saved by grace alone through faith alone or not? Here you say yes and turn right around and ask "were they justified by faith without works? What did OT saints have to do to be saved? :dizzy:

[bar Jonah]

:doh:

You guys are confusing being saved with being justified. We are saved by faith alone. But people at some times have been justified by faith and works, as James makes explicitly clear as he talks about justification NOT before men but in the eyes of God, as a sin issue, as an issue of God's law, the works of the Law.

Buying a lottery ticket doesn't "earn" a million dollars. That million dollars is a gift from someone else, who earned it by whatever they do as a job. But if you have the right numbers, you are justified in receiving the million dollars because you did what was required. It didn't earn a million dollars. It simply met a prescribed requirement. We have requirements today; they just don't include works of the law. We must have faith that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. Does that save us? Heck no! Christ saves us through His faith and His sacrifice and His resurrection. THAT'S what saves us. But we access that through meeting God's expectation for us during this particular dispensation of God's grace. Just as a lottery may dispense their prizes differently at different times, but it's still a gift unearned -- grace.

Don't confuse being saved by something... with being justified by something. I keep saying men were justified by ______ and you guys turn right around and act surprised that I supposedly said men were saved by _____. That's just not true.

:nsm:

[themuzicman]

What is salvation, if not justification? What are we being saved from and how, if not by justification?

[Daywalker]

To answer Music Man: Men have always been saved by grace through faith PLUS NOTHING. Scofield, Darby, Bullinger, and the other dispy's all taught this. There are some facets of dispensationalism that teach otherwise, but I don't see it that way. It has always been by grace and always will be. Everything after that is a matter of what it takes to get CROWNS, not to KEEP CHRIST.
GRACE,
Mike

[themuzicman]

Well, Mike, then what's the point of dispensationalism?

[Daywalker]

Well, Mike, then what's the point of dispensationalism?
The TRUE point of dispensationalism is similiar to that of the Open View, to note how God deals with men in a dynamic give an take situation. Basically, just like Jer.18 God HAD dealt with nations in a different way than today. I believe it depicts how God had dealt with his PEOPLE as a WHOLE in different ways. Dispensationalism, in a broad sense, deals with MANY topics. For instance, the reason that I do not believe in SIGNS for today is because of DISPENSATIONAL reasons. You MIGHT hold to that view for OTHER reasons. I don't know. I would say that signs were used to show the Jews during ACTS that the New Covenant had COME (in addition to other things) and that the unbelieving Jews needed to know this in order to know to believe on Christ. It was a "wake up call", AMONG OTHER REASONS, to show the Jew that it was time to stop hanging on to their self righteousness and believe on Christ.
I would say that TODAY we do not have signs because Israel HAD BEEN GIVEN a chance to hear about the New Covenant and now God has let moved past that stage.

There are a LOT of other things that this ties into. For instance, a saved Jew today can eat pork and be in the will of God according to I.Tim.4. NOTHING is to be refused, because it IS sanctified by the word of God and prayer. But in Lev. 11 such was not the case. There was a different ADMINISTRATION (okoinamia?-dispensation/adminstration) for a believing Jew. He could not eat some things because they were regarded as unclean. BUT, when did this all change? In Matt? In Acts? etc etc etc. What dispensationalism does is it seeks to find SPECIFIC answers to these and OTHER questions while not WRESTING the scriptures. But WHEN IS "today" to be found in scripture? Again, that is where dispensationalism comes in. I know that you might disagree with some of the things that I am saying, but at least you know SOME of the reasons why dispensationalism is "dispensationalism".

FOR THOSE READING:
The story of how "dispensational salvation" came into being is a wild one. Our "Founding Fathers" (so to speak) never taught it. If any of them DID, I have yet to find the books on it. The main camp that teaches dispensational salvation ON PALTALK came of Ricky Jordan's camp. His roots for this teaching can be traced to a man name E.C.Moore out of Pensacola FL. E.C. is nothing like the dispy's in his area. They all believed in grace alone for every dispensation. I am not sure WHERE he got it from, but one of his home churches (actually, the only one I know of) REJECTS this idea. Anyway...Jordan taught it and HIS ministry GREW. Those who come out of Grace School of the Bible came on paltalk and started teaching it and it grew some more. It is sad. If Charles Welch, E.W.Bullinger, Scofield, Larkin, and others could see what they are doing today they would roll over in their graves. In our area, we pretty much regard E.C. Moore as a cultic person...his followers have this mindset. I don't know why.
Another, NON-KJV Only camp, comes out of Bob Hill. Bob Hill produced Bob Enyart and others. They too espouse the same views of dispensational salvation. Again, I don't know where they got it from.

I know that ALL of these guys will claim that "they got it from Paul" and even though I have no qualms with many of these guys personally (especially Bob Hill-a solid OVT) they do not represent the majority of dispyville.

[bar Jonah]

Muze, c'mon, are you serious? You actually believe that the two words "salvation" and "justification" have identical meanings?

:doh:

To declare just. I just gave an explanation of what "justification" means in contrast to "salvation." Justification is part of the salvific process. It is not synonymous with salvation, and I challenge you to find any Twebber with formal training or education in theology who believes they are.

The meaning of the word "justify" is quite simple and very common knowledge. If I make a contract with you that if you recite the alphabet backward, I'll give you a million dollars.... If you then do so, you haven't earned anything. You haven't done anything worthy of a million dollars. But you are justified in expecting a million dollars from me, because you met the requirement. Employees are sometimes asked to "justify their existence" at a company. They may or may not be objectively worth keeping around, but if they meet the requirements of the company (has attended 3 sexual harassment seminars, for example), they are justified in expecting continued employment.

Alister McGrath's Christian Theology, Second Edition provides a glossary which defines justification by faith as:

justification by faith, doctrine of
The section of Christian theology dealing with how the individual sinner is able to enter into fellowship with God.

This is not salvation itself, but the path to it on our end. (We all agree here that God takes the first step toward us.) This is the key to accessing that reconciliation so that one may have eternal life. It is not salvation itself. What must happen on our end for us to be justified in God's eyes? Have faith in two things? Have faith and build an ark? Have faith and circumsize? Can anyone really, honestly claim that circumcision was "voluntary" for Moses the way water baptism is, today? Just a profession of faith, but not absolutely necessary? In light of the fact that God was killing Moses for not doing this, can anyone really expect us to believe it was optional for the believer, in any sense of the word?

:nsm:

In the salvific process, there are a number of steps.

Election (God desires for all men to be saved, and reaches out to us)
Justification (We respond or not, on our end)
Reconciliation (Entering into relationship with God)
Salvation itself (Faith of Christ, possible because of His death and resurrection)
Sanctification (God remakes us in His image because we are saved)

Because one is elected, he can be justified.
Because one is justified, he can be reconciled.
Because one is reconciled, he will be saved.
Because one is saved, he will be sanctified.

[themuzicman]

No, I don't think they are the same. I just don't see how one can receive grace through faith for salvation, and not have as a necessary component justification.

What did Christ come to die for, if not atonement and justification? What are we saved FROM, if not the coming judgement against us for our sins?

As for your example, regardless of whether you or ANYONE thinks what I did was worth a million dollars, performing an act to gain a result is earning it. So, if justification must be the result of works, then it is, in fact, justification by works, regardless of whether you or I think it really covers the debt.

As for your process, it appears that justification preceeds salvation itself, so if those in the OT were living in faith, they must have already been justified, right?

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

Jim, can a person be saved and not be justified or justified and not saved? :hrm:

[bar Jonah]

What is salvation, if not justification? What are we being saved from and how, if not by justification?
Michael, c'mon... right here, you obviously inferred that salvation is justification. Now you're backing out of it. If you mistook it, just say so; it's not the end of the world.


So, you want us to believe that Noah could have refused to build the ark but still have eternal life? That God was so wrathful against Moses for not circumcizing his son that He was killing him.... but Moses still had a promise of eternal life at that moment? Abraham could have refused to circumcize and still have eternal life? Adam and Eve could have refused to "be fruitful and multiply" at all, but still have eternal life? Joshua could have refused to go into battle, but still have eternal life?

King Saul was elected by God Himself, to be king of Israel, to be His top representative on Earth. Saul did refuse God's requirements, and as a result, he was cast down, and God regretted making him king. Now, King David is considered the first righteous king of Israel, and Jesus is heir to the throne of David and not Saul. God "would have" blessed Saul and made Saul's throne forever, instead of David's. But Saul didn't do what God required of him, and as a result, he could not be justified in the eyes of God.

Justification by works? Absolutely! IF accompanied by faith. The requirement of faith has always existed. But faith cannot simply be potential. It can't simply be abstract. But in different circumstances, faith must manifest itself in different ways according to the situation. Thus, in that light, ask yourself:

Could Moses have been right in God's eyes by confessing and believing that Jesus Christ rise from the dead? No...

Could Abraham have been right in God's eyes by observing the Law of Moses? No...

Could Noah have been right in God's eyes by circumcision? No...

Could Adam have been right in God's eyes by building a boat? Of course not.

Circumcision avails you nothing, today. But it availed Moses everything when God was killing him. Today, can you refuse to confess and believe Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead, and still have eternal life? What is the nature of that free gift, Michael?




If you confess and believe that Jesus is Lord and God rose Him from the dead, have you earned your salvation? And yet, if you don't do that, will you have eternal life? You tell me...

[bar Jonah]

Jim, can a person be saved and not be justified or justified and not saved? :hrm:
If a person is justified, they will be saved.

But that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

If you confess and believe... you will be saved. But confessing and believing doesn't save you. Jesus' faith in His predestined and elect Body saves us.

The Body is saved, is being saved and will be saved. By being justified, you today become part of that Body. Because you are part of that Body, His faith saves you.


Analogy -- The president today intends to send the 51st Infantry into N. Korea in 6 months. They are predestined. You join the Army and the 51st Infantry. You are sent to N. Korea.

You didn't send yourself to Korea. You joined the Army. The Army went to Korea. One follows the other. There are different words for different parts of the salvific process for a reason. It isn't just a big, amorphous, homogeneous blob.

I would ask you the same question with which I ended my previous post to Michael.

[themuzicman]

Michael, c'mon... right here, you obviously inferred that salvation is justification. Now you're backing out of it. If you mistook it, just say so; it's not the end of the world.

No, I've said that justification is integral to salvation. There is obviously MUCH MORE to salvation than justification. However, you cannot have salvation without justification.

So, you want us to believe that Noah could have refused to build the ark but still have eternal life?

Why not?

That God was so wrathful against Moses for not circumcizing his son that He was killing him.... but Moses still had a promise of eternal life at that moment?

Why not?

Abraham could have refused to circumcize and still have eternal life?

Again, why not?

Adam and Eve could have refused to "be fruitful and multiply" at all, but still have eternal life?

Why not?

Joshua could have refused to go into battle, but still have eternal life?

King Saul was elected by God Himself, to be king of Israel, to be His top representative on Earth. Saul did refuse God's requirements, and as a result, he was cast down, and God regretted making him king. Now, King David is considered the first righteous king of Israel, and Jesus is heir to the throne of David and not Saul. God "would have" blessed Saul and made Saul's throne forever, instead of David's. But Saul didn't do what God required of him, and as a result, he could not be justified in the eyes of God.

Oh? Scripture cite? I didnt' realize that Saul had ever been justified or that it changed.

Justification by works? Absolutely! IF accompanied by faith.

So, if we believe, we still have to earn it? That's unscriptural.

The requirement of faith has always existed. But faith cannot simply be potential. It can't simply be abstract. But in different circumstances, faith must manifest itself in different ways according to the situation. Thus, in that light, ask yourself:

Could Moses have been right in God's eyes by confessing and believing that Jesus Christ rise from the dead? No...

Could Abraham have been right in God's eyes by observing the Law of Moses? No...

Could Noah have been right in God's eyes by circumcision? No...

Could Adam have been right in God's eyes by building a boat? Of course not.

Circumcision avails you nothing, today. But it availed Moses everything when God was killing him. Today, can you refuse to confess and believe Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead, and still have eternal life? What is the nature of that free gift, Michael?

However, all of these were involved in one item in common: Atonement sacrifices. All made sacrifices to God. These sacrifices were all made in anticipation of the atoning sacrifice promised to them.

THey all responded in faith, but it was thier faith that saved them, not their action. Paul makes this VERY clear when talking about Abraham.

If you confess and believe that Jesus is Lord and God rose Him from the dead, have you earned your salvation? And yet, if you don't do that, will you have eternal life? You tell me...

"Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." That's a quote of the Old Testement. They all called upon the name of the Lord, they all offered atonment sacrifices in anticipation of THE atoning sacrifice.

Their deeds had no bearing on their salvation.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Michael, if you seriously and honestly believe that...

Adam could have refused to be fruitful and multiply...

Noah could have refused to build the Ark...

Abraham could have refused to circumsize...

Moses could have refused to observe the Mosaic Law...

King Solomon could have refused to build the Temple...


... and yet all would receive eternal life????

Then I frankly don't even know what else to tell you. :doh:

Except that Paul said no such thing. He spoke of ABRAM before the call for circumcision, when Abram was justified by faith without works. But James rightly speaks of ABRAHAM later, after the demand for works, and how Abraham WAS justified by faith and works together, at THAT time.

Apples and oranges. As Abraham, he WAS justified by works + faith. As Abram, he was justified by faith without works.


Edit:

I take that back. You have still sidestepped the question, Michael. You said:


"Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." That's a quote of the Old Testement. They all called upon the name of the Lord, they all offered atonment sacrifices in anticipation of THE atoning sacrifice.
So if they call upon the name of the Lord, they will be saved? But then you turn around 180 degrees and say:


Their deeds had no bearing on their salvation.
Which is it??? Are you now saying that people can never call on the name of the Lord, but have eternal life? People today can REFUSE to confess and believe that Jesus is Lord and that God rose from the dead, and yet still be saved?

Can they? You said that list of people above could have refused to do those things, and still have been saved. Can we refuse this today and still be saved? Well?

[themuzicman]

Michael, if you seriously and honestly believe that...

Adam could have refused to be fruitful and multiply...

Noah could have refused to build the Ark...

Abraham could have refused to circumsize...

Moses could have refused to observe the Mosaic Law...

King Solomon could have refused to build the Temple...


... and yet all would receive eternal life????

Then I frankly don't even know what else to tell you. :doh:


You need to show this from scripture.

Except that Paul said no such thing. He spoke of ABRAM before the call for circumcision, when Abram was justified by faith without works. But James rightly speaks of ABRAHAM later, after the demand for works, and how Abraham WAS justified by faith and works together, at THAT time.

Apples and oranges. As Abraham, he WAS justified by works + faith. As Abram, he was justified by faith without works.

They aren't two different people, RI. Either he was justified by faith, or he wasn't.

You need to consider the context of that portion of James, and see that James isn't talking about salvation, but is talking about the Christian walk and what our faith should result in.


So if they call upon the name of the Lord, they will be saved? But then you turn around 180 degrees and say:



Which is it??? Are you now saying that people can never call on the name of the Lord, but have eternal life? People today can REFUSE to confess and believe that Jesus is Lord and that God rose from the dead, and yet still be saved?

No. They must call upon the Lord (and The Lord refers to God, not Christ specifically) in order to be saved.

Can they? You said that list of people above could have refused to do those things, and still have been saved. Can we refuse this today and still be saved? Well?

First, we are not called to works for salvation. Everyone still has to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, whether OT or NT.

Seems to me that each was found to be believing before they were asked to do anything. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord before he ever chopped a single gopher tree.

Abram was walking with God before he was called to go to a land that God would show him.

So, their works were simply the results of the faith they had already shown, and had NOTHING TO DO with their justification.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

You need to show this from scripture.
I need to? :doh: You're the one who said it, not me! :lol:


They aren't two different people, RI. Either he was justified by faith, or he wasn't.
Oy vay... You don't honestly think I believe they were two different men, do you? :ahem:

Michael, why are you making this so incredibly difficult? You know darn well that I said Abram was justified in the eyes of God by faith apart from works, as scripture explicitly states. And that later (after having fallen away from God's grace by defying Him, thus making circumcision a necessity), Abraham was justified by faith AND works... again, as scripture explicitly states in James.


You need to consider the context of that portion of James, and see that James isn't talking about salvation, but is talking about the Christian walk and what our faith should result in.
James says NOTHING about this being an accountability issue, and I challenge you to show where he does so. This is a sin issue. This is about being justified by the works of the law, which Paul explicitly states we are not. But James says a believer is. He's not stupid, and he doesn't anticipate that his audience is stupid, either. He means what he says. Now, you're suddenly backtracking again and claiming that "justification" isn't a part of salvation, but only when it's inconvenient to your case? It's great when Paul talks about it, but when James talks about justification, gosh, he just must have been talking about something else, even though the context James provides is Sin. The Law.

"If you show partiality [by not fulfilling the Royal Law according to scripture], you commit sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressor!"

You are convicted by the Law as a transgressor! How much more clear can James be? This has nothing to do with "walking the good walk" after receiving a promise of eternal life. He's talking about getting to that promise, to begin with. Or not getting there, as the case may be. This has everything to do with salvation.

I suppose "convicted by the Law as a transgressor" means that we didn't live as righteous a life as we could have, but we're still saved? Still saved, even though we didn't meet God's requirement, as you said over and over and over?

"Convicted by the Law as a transgressor" = still saved?

:nsm:


No. They must call upon the Lord (and The Lord refers to God, not Christ specifically) in order to be saved.
Which brings me back to my question, which you still haven't answered:

By calling on the Lord, have you earned your salvation? :nsm:


First, we are not called to works for salvation. Everyone still has to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, whether OT or NT.
Amen! I categorically reject any notion that we are called to perform works as part of our justification in the eyes of God. They were... but we are not. Some common ground, for which I am thankful.


Seems to me that each was found to be believing before they were asked to do anything. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord before he ever chopped a single gopher tree.
They were found to be believing? That's why God was killing Moses? Why Moses was on his death bed... until his son was finally circumcized? And even then, not even by Moses? Isn't it interesting that it was an unbeliever who completed the necessary work, to save Moses, because Moses was unable to? His wife circumcized their son, not him. And only then did God relent and no longer seek to kill him. Imagine... just imagine... if she had not given in?

Moses dead. After being called to lead the Exodus, but before he ever reached the Pharaoh. Pretty wild to consider...


Abram was walking with God before he was called to go to a land that God would show him.
Exactly. Thank you! Justified by faith apart from works, at that time in his life, before he fell away from God's will.

[themuzicman]

I need to? :doh: You're the one who said it, not me! :lol:

Already did. That was the promise. They all believed.

Oy vay... You don't honestly think I believe they were two different men, do you? :ahem:

If he was justified twice, you gotta wonder....

Michael, why are you making this so incredibly difficult? You know darn well that I said Abram was justified in the eyes of God by faith apart from works, as scripture explicitly states. And that later (after having fallen away from God's grace by defying Him, thus making circumcision a necessity), Abraham was justified by faith AND works... again, as scripture explicitly states in James.

Actually, Paul refers to Abraham, too. Youcan check the greek, if you want. Abram would be spelled differently.

James says NOTHING about this being an accountability issue, and I challenge you to show where he does so. This is a sin issue. This is about being justified by the works of the law, which Paul explicitly states we are not. But James says a believer is. He's not stupid, and he doesn't anticipate that his audience is stupid, either. He means what he says. Now, you're suddenly backtracking again and claiming that "justification" isn't a part of salvation, but only when it's inconvenient to your case? It's great when Paul talks about it, but when James talks about justification, gosh, he just must have been talking about something else, even though the context James provides is Sin. The Law.

I never changed my position.

Go read chapter two. James talks about not treating the poor poorly. James 2:8 cites "Love your neighbor as yourself". James 2:15 talks about a brother who is homeless and hungry, and we do nothing but wish him well, and compares that to faith that doesn't act, and says that faith is dead. Now, James isn't talking about salvation, but about how we live.

Now, look at verse 22:

You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

So, James is talking about the perfecting or maturing of faith, not our initial salvation, and then launches into the Abraham example, where it is affirmed that righteousness was creditted to him.

Now, in verse 24, "justified" is in the present tense. Now, present tense in the greek is continuous action, not completed action. So we need to understand that verse as "You see that a man is [being] justified by works and not by faith alone."

Thus, we see another example of the now and not yet. We are justified when we receive salvation, and yet we are being justified as we work out our salvation.

"If you show partiality [by not fulfilling the Royal Law according to scripture], you commit sin and are convicted by the Law as transgressor!"

You are convicted by the Law as a transgressor! How much more clear can James be? This has nothing to do with "walking the good walk" after receiving a promise of eternal life. He's talking about getting to that promise, to begin with. Or not getting there, as the case may be. This has everything to do with salvation.

I suppose "convicted by the Law as a transgressor" means that we didn't live as righteous a life as we could have, but we're still saved? Still saved, even though we didn't meet God's requirement, as you said over and over and over?

"Convicted by the Law as a transgressor" = still saved?

:nsm:


James 2:12 clears this up for us: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."

The implication being that we won't be.

Which brings me back to my question, which you still haven't answered:

By calling on the Lord, have you earned your salvation? :nsm:

No. That's an act of faith, not an act of earning.

They were found to be believing? That's why God was killing Moses? Why Moses was on his death bed... until his son was finally circumcized? And even then, not even by Moses? Isn't it interesting that it was an unbeliever who completed the necessary work, to save Moses, because Moses was unable to? His wife circumcized their son, not him. And only then did God relent and no longer seek to kill him. Imagine... just imagine... if she had not given in?

You think God doesn't punish those who are saved? Go read Heb 12.

Moses dead. After being called to lead the Exodus, but before he ever reached the Pharaoh. Pretty wild to consider...[/qouote]

One reason to be Open View. (But it didn't happen, so...)

FYI, circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, not evidence of salvation.

[quote]Exactly. Thank you! Justified by faith apart from works, at that time in his life, before he fell away from God's will.

You'll need to cite some scipture to show that he fell away, because Hebrews is pretty clear that you can't fall away and come back.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Already did. That was the promise. They all believed.
If you say so. :ahem:


If he was justified twice, you gotta wonder....
Gotta wonder what? Assured salvation wasn't for them. It is for us today. Saul was elected by God Himself, but fell away. So did others.


Actually, Paul refers to Abraham, too. Youcan check the greek, if you want. Abram would be spelled differently.
Okay, many of these points are debatable and we know that... but I have you dead to rights on this one, Michael, and I would really like you to concede this point. There is no differentiation in the Greek for Abram and Abraham. There's no such thing in biblical Greek. BUT... please please go back and read Romans 4 again. Paul explains very specifically that he is talking about "Abraham" before the circumcision, before any covenant, before any expectation of works. When "Abraham" was still Abram! Paul says so! I can post it here, but I really would like for you to go read it yourself, right from the page.


I never changed my position.
If you say so... :ahem:


Go read chapter two. James talks about not treating the poor poorly. James 2:8 cites "Love your neighbor as yourself". James 2:15 talks about a brother who is homeless and hungry, and we do nothing but wish him well, and compares that to faith that doesn't act, and says that faith is dead. Now, James isn't talking about salvation, but about how we live.

Now, look at verse 22:

You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

So, James is talking about the perfecting or maturing of faith, not our initial salvation, and then launches into the Abraham example, where it is affirmed that righteousness was creditted to him.

Now, in verse 24, "justified" is in the present tense. Now, present tense in the greek is continuous action, not completed action. So we need to understand that verse as "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Thus, we see another example of the now and not yet. We are justified when we receive salvation, and yet we are being justified as we work out our salvation.



James 2:12 clears this up for us: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."

The implication being that we won't be.
*sigh*

Michael, James didn't say it would be as if you were "convicted by the Law as transgressor." He said the believer will be. He said such a person is convicted by the Law as a transgressor. But that is not us! You and I are not convicted by the Law when we sin, are we? James even says "sin!" This is breaking the Law, and as a result, being convicted by the Law as a transgressor. You can't get around that. There's just no way.



No. That's an act of faith, not an act of earning.
Exactly! So why can you say that it's something you do have to do... but it's not an act of earning? Yet, I can't say building an Ark is an act of faith, but not an act of earning???

:nsm:

That's what I'm saying. Building an Ark (or circumcision or respecting the Sabbath or being fruitful and multiplying) was an act of faith, but not an act of earning. But they were things they had to do, just as you and I had to confess and believe that Jesus is God and rose from the dead. We had to do that. We didn't do works of the Law. But we did have to do something.

You told me that if you have to do something in order to have eternal life, that it is earning it. But now you're saying that we -- you and I -- have to do these things, but we're not earning anything. What I'm saying is, the same goes for the Ark and the "snip snip."


You think God doesn't punish those who are saved? Go read Heb 12.
How does Hebrews 12 equate to killing the man God has picked to lead the Exodus, but killing him before he gets there? LOL


Moses dead. After being called to lead the Exodus, but before he ever reached the Pharaoh. Pretty wild to consider...

One reason to be Open View. (But it didn't happen, so...)
That's right. And why didn't it happen? Because of the work of an [b]unbeliever. Not even Moses, but his pagan wife did it on his behalf! That's how mandatory that work was.


FYI, circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, not evidence of salvation.
And because Abraham had faith in that promise from God and did as God required, it was fulfilled. But Jer. 18 and Ezek. 18 state that if people turn away from God, that He will relent of the blessings He had planned for them, and start planning a destruction. In response to our actions and decisions, when we execute them. Moses turned away, and God planned a destruction for him, even though Moses had been elected to the purpose of leading the Exodus.

You'll need to cite some scipture to show that he fell away, because Hebrews is pretty clear that you can't fall away and come back.
On the contrary, Michael... Hebrews says that someone who has been saved and then falls away... can never be saved again.


Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

[themuzicman]

Gotta wonder what? Assured salvation wasn't for them. It is for us today. Saul was elected by God Himself, but fell away. So did others.

Ah, but none of them ever came back... (Heb 6 again?)

Okay, many of these points are debatable and we know that... but I have you dead to rights on this one, Michael, and I would really like you to concede this point. There is no differentiation in the Greek for Abram and Abraham. There's no such thing in biblical Greek. BUT... please please go back and read Romans 4 again. Paul explains very specifically that he is talking about "Abraham" before the circumcision, before any covenant, before any expectation of works. When "Abraham" was still Abram! Paul says so! I can post it here, but I really would like for you to go read it yourself, right from the page.

However, Paul's point is that circumcision isn't what saved him. He was creditted with righteousness before circumcision, thus removing circumcision as a basis for salvation.

In fact, in verse 22, Paul reiterates that righteousness was creditted to him because he believed, and after he was able to fulfill what God had promised him (having a son through Sarah. And don't try to tell me that Abraham made that pregnancy happen, and that was his "work".)

So, IF Paul is addressing two justifications (which I would dispute), then both are addressed in chapter 4, and both are creditted on account of faith, and NEITHER had to do with circumcision or works.

Michael, James didn't say it would be as if you were "convicted by the Law as transgressor." He said the believer will be. He said such a person is convicted by the Law as a transgressor. But that is not us! You and I are not convicted by the Law when we sin, are we? James even says "sin!" This is breaking the Law, and as a result, being convicted by the Law as a transgressor. You can't get around that. There's just no way.

Here's where the greek helps us out again. "Convicted" does NOT mean "Judged", here. The word that is convicted has the connotation of "rebuked", "reproved" or "told one's fault." It does NOT imply in ANY way that we are under the law, or that we are judged by the law. It simply says that the law exposes this glaring sin. IT would be in the same way that the Holy Spirit continues to convict us of sin. He isn't judging us, but simply prodding us regarding having sinned.

Which makes the context of verse 12 MUCH clearer, since the CLEAR implication is that we aren't under the law: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."

Thus, this is us, because our sins are exposed by the standard of the law "Love your neighbor as yourself", and the verse is clearly NOT referring to judgement under the law.

Exactly! So why can you say that it's something you do have to do... but it's not an act of earning? Yet, I can't say building an Ark is an act of faith, but not an act of earning???

Go read the story of Noah. Noah found favor in God's eyes before God ever told him to build the ark. Noah was already in faith, he had already called on the name of the Lord.

Noah's work of building the ark was AFTER he found grace in God's eyes. He already believed. He already called on the name of the Lord. God remembered that Noah served Him, and decided to preserve him. Nothing in that story indicated that building the ark had ANYTHING TO DO with his salvation.

That's what I'm saying. Building an Ark (or circumcision or respecting the Sabbath or being fruitful and multiplying) was an act of faith, but not an act of earning. But they were things they had to do, just as you and I had to confess and believe that Jesus is God and rose from the dead. We had to do that. We didn't do works of the Law. But we did have to do something.

Except that building the ark and circumcision and sabbath keeping have NOTHING TO DO with their salvation. Building the ark and circumcision followed creditting of grace and righteousness, rather than preceeding them.

Also, circumcision was the sign of the covenant between Abraham and his descendents and God, just as the Sabbath was the sign of the covenant between the children of Israel and God. Neither covenant was directly salvific. Both existed as a promise of the covenant under which all who believed would be saved, namely the new covenant, but these covenants were not salvific in and of themselves.

So, none of those acts were part of those persons' salvation.


How does Hebrews 12 equate to killing the man God has picked to lead the Exodus, but killing him before he gets there? LOL

God disciplines His people.

That's right. And why didn't it happen? Because of the work of an unbeliever. Not even Moses, but his pagan wife did it on his behalf! That's how mandatory that work was.

But it was never about his eternal life, just his bodily life.

On the contrary, Michael... Hebrews says that someone who has been saved and then falls away... can never be saved again.

Exactly.

Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Greek grammar helps us out, here, since the "sin willfully" is a continuous action, and not a one time event, so we understand this as "continue on sinning willfully."

and if we read the following verses for context:

Hebrews 10:27-29but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

We see that it isn't merely that we sin occasionally, but that we actively mock the new covenant and insult the Spirit of grace, by just saying that we can go on sinning, because we are no longer under the law.

I think that makes this portion clearer.

Michael

[themuzicman]

:bump:ski

[Daywalker]

:bump:ski
Hey, one other thing about this...Dispensationalism largely centers around the setting aside of Israel. As a 28er I would argue that it was not until Acts 28:28 that God paused his Mosaic Covenant relationship with Israel. A MidActs person would put it in MidActs, and an Acts 2 dispy, the same.
My understanding is that in Covenantal Theology God will never go back to the Mosaic Covenant for any reason?

[themuzicman]

Well, I'm not a covenantal theologian, since I don't buy into the whole "We are Israel" thing, but I believe the purpose of the Mosaic covenant wasn't to provide salvation for anyone, but to create the setting in which the Messiah could come and bring the atonement for all men, past, present, and future, who believed the promsies of salvation. (Heb 11)

Now that Christ has come, the purpose of the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled, and is no longer necessary from that standpoint. Whether it has any part of eschatology is another matter.

[Daywalker]

Well, I'm not a covenantal theologian, since I don't buy into the whole "We are Israel" thing, but I believe the purpose of the Mosaic covenant wasn't to provide salvation for anyone, but to create the setting in which the Messiah could come and bring the atonement for all men, past, present, and future, who believed the promsies of salvation. (Heb 11)

Now that Christ has come, the purpose of the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled, and is no longer necessary from that standpoint. Whether it has any part of eschatology is another matter.
The Mosaic covenant was never a part of spiritual salvation. I agree on that. I just have to wonder HOW it came into being that dispys ever bought into that to begin with. Like I said, the early dispy's rejected it. They said that it played a role in the restoration of Israel in national dealings and it even was used to CHASTEN Israelites, etc.

I know that dispensational salvation is BIG with the MidActs crowd, but not the other two versions.
WEIRD.

[themuzicman]

I guess I don't see the point of dispensationalism that believes grace by faith for everyone ever born beyond being able to ignore the entire OT, the gospels, Acts, James, the Peters, the Johns, Hebrews, Jude and half of Paul's writings as relevant for doctrine to us today.

(Yes, another dispy, I assume a 28er, said that only 9 of Paul's epistles were relevant to us today, because only those 9 were written after some point in time. And then they cited "rightly dividing the Word" as though "dividing" meant literally figuring out what segments applied to us... :doh: )

Is there another point?

Michael

[Daywalker]

I guess I don't see the point of dispensationalism that believes grace by faith for everyone ever born beyond being able to ignore the entire OT, the gospels, Acts, James, the Peters, the Johns, Hebrews, Jude and half of Paul's writings as relevant for doctrine to us today.

(Yes, another dispy, I assume a 28er, said that only 9 of Paul's epistles were relevant to us today, because only those 9 were written after some point in time. And then they cited "rightly dividing the Word" as though "dividing" meant literally figuring out what segments applied to us... :doh: )

Is there another point?

Michael
DO you really believe that we ignore the gospels, Acts, etc? Your question seems a little difficult for me to discern. I just want to read you right.
Thanks
Mike

[themuzicman]

Ignore is probably the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one... Set aside? Declare as for another dispensation? Not use? I'm not sure what terminology to use here.

All I know is that the person said that only 9 of Paul's epistles were for this dispensation. (I think it was 9...)

Michael

[Daywalker]

Ignore is probably the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one... Set aside? Declare as for another dispensation? Not use? I'm not sure what terminology to use here.

All I know is that the person said that only 9 of Paul's epistles were for this dispensation. (I think it was 9...)

Michael
Okay, lets start with this since it is easier to demonstrate than to explain in this case...
Do you do this today? And if not, why not?>>
Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Do you own personal property or do you say not that "it is your own"?

[themuzicman]

Okay, lets start with this since it is easier to demonstrate than to explain in this case...
Do you do this today? And if not, why not?>>
Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Do you own personal property or do you say not that "it is your own"?

Well, hermeneutically, Acts is a narrative. Inherently, it's a description of what happened in a given time and place, and not necessarily a doctrinal statement of what must happen in every church at all times, especially without further didactic support elsewhere in scripture, which this clearly does not.

That doesn't mean we cannot draw anything for us from Acts, and, in fact, we should be envious of the kind of unity of purpose that existed in those days, but that doesn't mean we have to duplicate their practices.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Well, hermeneutically, Acts is a narrative. Inherently, it's a description of what happened in a given time and place, and not necessarily a doctrinal statement of what must happen in every church at all times, especially without further didactic support elsewhere in scripture, which this clearly does not.

That doesn't mean we cannot draw anything for us from Acts, and, in fact, we should be envious of the kind of unity of purpose that existed in those days, but that doesn't mean we have to duplicate their practices.

Michael
But it was a command given in the Church at that time, Muze. That's the point. Thus, it is doctrinal.

[themuzicman]

But it was a command given in the Church at that time, Muze. That's the point. Thus, it is doctrinal.

It was? Where?

Michael

[Daywalker]

Well, hermeneutically, Acts is a narrative. Inherently, it's a description of what happened in a given time and place, and not necessarily a doctrinal statement of what must happen in every church at all times, especially without further didactic support elsewhere in scripture, which this clearly does not.

That doesn't mean we cannot draw anything for us from Acts, and, in fact, we should be envious of the kind of unity of purpose that existed in those days, but that doesn't mean we have to duplicate their practices.

The answer that you meant was "no". "No", you do not do this today.

1. Okay, so far you are reasoning SIMILIARLY to a dispensationalist. You have said that dispy's "ignore" Acts because we treat it like it is "not for today", yet you have acknowledged that even though it is PROFITABLE for us, not everything in that book is directly APPLICABLE TO us. You stated that it was for "a given time and place". This is how we view the bible. Although all books have some DEVOTIONAL application, MOST books have an application which was FOR THAT TIME.

2. If I could show you that IT WAS the practice of the gospels and the Acts period and was commanded FOR GOD'S PEOPLE to obey (have all things common), what would you do?

Grace,
Mike

[themuzicman]

The answer that you meant was "no". "No", you do not do this today.

1. Okay, so far you are reasoning SIMILIARLY to a dispensationalist. You have said that dispy's "ignore" Acts because we treat it like it is "not for today", yet you have acknowledged that even though it is PROFITABLE for us, not everything in that book is directly APPLICABLE TO us. You stated that it was for "a given time and place". This is how we view the bible. Although all books have some DEVOTIONAL application, MOST books have an application which was FOR THAT TIME.

Except that you ignore didactic teaching, as well.

2. If I could show you that IT WAS the practice of the gospels and the Acts period and was commanded FOR GOD'S PEOPLE to obey (have all things common), what would you do?

Grace,
Mike

I'd consider how we as a church should implement said doctrine.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Except that you ignore didactic teaching, as well.
How so?

[themuzicman]

How so?

James, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude... (Not sure what Pauline epistles are included or not...)

Michael

[Daywalker]

James, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude... (Not sure what Pauline epistles are included or not...)

Michael
LOL . Honestly, I had to look up didactic. My dictionary defined it as moral teaching. So, since you have presupposed to know dispensationalism enough to REJECT it, perhaps you could enlighten me on what MORAL instructions I denounce??? So far, I have not brought up MORALS, so??? I am afraid that you lost me.
Thank you,
Mike

[themuzicman]

I guess I meant 'didactic' in the sense that (dispensationalists that I've talked to) reject these books as relevant to this dispensation, and the doctrine therein not for us in the dispensation of grace. So, not morals per se, but doctrine. Not true again?

Michael

[Daywalker]

I guess I meant 'didactic' in the sense that (dispensationalists that I've talked to) reject these books as relevant to this dispensation, and the doctrine therein not for us in the dispensation of grace. So, not morals per se, but doctrine. Not true again?

Michael
Although I have not heard what men have said to you from the various dispys out there, I think that what they meant is what you have meant about Acts. There are some things that are NOT RELEVANT to today IN THE SENSE THAT we are not commanded to do it. In fact, identical to yourself, there are SOME THINGS that saints would be out of God's will for doing-such as demanding that Christians be killed for not observing the Sabbath,etc.
But are we on the same page thus far?

Grace,
Mike

[themuzicman]

Although I have not heard what men have said to you from the various dispys out there, I think that what they meant is what you have meant about Acts. There are some things that are NOT RELEVANT to today IN THE SENSE THAT we are not commanded to do it. In fact, identical to yourself, there are SOME THINGS that saints would be out of God's will for doing-such as demanding that Christians be killed for not observing the Sabbath,etc.
But are we on the same page thus far?

Grace,
Mike

But those are things we are specifically told in the NT don't apply to us, such as the sabbath (and, in fact, the entire OT covenant.)

As for Acts, we aren't commanded NOT to follow that example. We're just not commanded TO follow it, either. If a group of Christians wanted to live with all things in common, it certainly wouldn't be wrong, would it?

So, we may reach the same conclusion, but for a different reason.

Michael

[Daywalker]

But those are things we are specifically told in the NT don't apply to us, such as the sabbath (and, in fact, the entire OT covenant.)

As for Acts, we aren't commanded NOT to follow that example. We're just not commanded TO follow it, either. If a group of Christians wanted to live with all things in common, it certainly wouldn't be wrong, would it?

So, we may reach the same conclusion, but for a different reason.

Michael
IF a person wanted to live in a commune, that is there business...as far as whether or not it was a command for that period or not, I have not gotten to that point in this thread yet.

You mentioned something that I found interesting though, you had said that the entire Old Covenant does not apply to us. Well, I agree with that statement, but why do YOU say it? If you recongnize a NEW SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for God's people (be they modified or altogether new) that would constitute a new "house management"-A new way of governing God's people. I agree that the Old Covenant does not apply to us today, but who is the "us". With Christ as the High Priest during the Acts period, he changed the law...but does that prove that he all together got rid of it? If that were so then I should not be able to find them practicing the actual Law of Moses during the Acts period. Here is why:

Christ, the greatest teacher that ever walked the earth, had just finished instructing the apostles regarding their ministry. Surely, they would know precisely what was required of them, especially with the aide of the Holy Ghost. We have emphasized Acts, so I will try to stay in Acts.

But did this happen. I would argue that Christ was too wise to allow his men to go off with their gun only half cocked. Notice this:

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The context was God's dealings with BELIEVING JEWS:
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The elders all recognized that the believing Jews were ZEALOUS of the law. What SHOULD have happened "if those things were not to be in force", is that they should have moved on and disregarded the legalism that the Jews clung to. NOBODY has the right to expect me to do what Paul just did in Acts 21. In fact, that is the same type of thing like the sabbath-its Old Covenant in ORIGIN.

So (lets just say we are Jews), WHERE are WE specifically told to NOT do this?
Because you said we are told to NOT do the Sabbath, but Acts 21 (NT) is just the opposite of what you said.
vs.
Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Agree so far? The reason that I am asking is because, YES, there actually WAS a command to have all things common from the Gospels up through Acts...
Grace,
Mike

[themuzicman]

IF a person wanted to live in a commune, that is there business...as far as whether or not it was a command for that period or not, I have not gotten to that point in this thread yet.

You mentioned something that I found interesting though, you had said that the entire Old Covenant does not apply to us. Well, I agree with that statement, but why do YOU say it? If you recongnize a NEW SET OF INSTRUCTIONS for God's people (be they modified or altogether new) that would constitute a new "house management"-A new way of governing God's people.

Actually, the Old Covenant was between God and the descendents of Israel. It would never have applied to us. (Unless you're Jewish....)

I agree that the Old Covenant does not apply to us today, but who is the "us". With Christ as the High Priest during the Acts period, he changed the law...but does that prove that he all together got rid of it?

Huh? He is the mediator of the NEW Covenant. It didn't change the old one. Jesus fulfilled the old one. There was a change in which covenant we should follow. So, no, Jesus didn't get rid of the old covenant. What purpose it may serve in the future, I'm not sure of. Jesus remains the High Priest day.

If that were so then I should not be able to find them practicing the actual Law of Moses during the Acts period. Here is why:

Christ, the greatest teacher that ever walked the earth, had just finished instructing the apostles regarding their ministry. Surely, they would know precisely what was required of them, especially with the aide of the Holy Ghost.

Huh? All they knew when Jesus was taken up was to wait for the power of the HS to fall on them. Doesn't sound like they knew exactly what was going to happen, much less what was required.

We have emphasized Acts, so I will try to stay in Acts.

But did this happen. I would argue that Christ was too wise to allow his men to go off with their gun only half cocked. Notice this:

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Um... This is quite some time after the church got started, and when Paul RETURNED to Jerusalem. So, this isn't quite in the time frame what Christ "let" them do.

The context was God's dealings with BELIEVING JEWS:
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The elders all recognized that the believing Jews were ZEALOUS of the law. What SHOULD have happened "if those things were not to be in force", is that they should have moved on and disregarded the legalism that the Jews clung to. NOBODY has the right to expect me to do what Paul just did in Acts 21. In fact, that is the same type of thing like the sabbath-its Old Covenant in ORIGIN.

So (lets just say we are Jews), WHERE are WE specifically told to NOT do this?

We aren't. Paul explained his actions when he said, "To those under the law, I became like one under the law, to win those under the law." He didn't HAVE to be under the law, but he did so, in order to win them, which is what they were doing, in large numbers!

Because you said we are told to NOT do the Sabbath, but Acts 21 (NT) is just the opposite of what you said.

Actually, I said that we didn't HAVE to follow the sabbath, not that we may not follow the sabbath.

vs.
Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

So, the sabbath isn't required, and we should judge people as to whether they follow them or not. You're assuming that I mean that observing a sabbath would be sin. It would NOT, even today.

Agree so far? The reason that I am asking is because, YES, there actually WAS a command to have all things common from the Gospels up through Acts...
Grace,
Mike

I guess I don't totally agree with what you've said, per my responses.

Michael

[Daywalker]

:mm: : Actually, the Old Covenant was between God and the descendents of
Israel. It would never have applied to us. (Unless you're Jewish....)

Daywalker: But even THEN you would HAVE TO ADMIT that it was not TO YOU. Again, this his been your initial complaint about dispensationalism, yet here you are doing it, aren’t you? :bonk: :wink: One might say that they could go to Leviticus and understand God’s nature, but not what he wants out of their lives today. This begs the question, "to WHOM do we turn for these instructions"? Who has a set of writing that gives us “truth for today” without having to constantly weed out things that COULD NOT apply to us today? And when I say “TRUTH FOR TODAY”, you know what I mean. You have already recognized that Lev. is NOT YOU. It was never written for your obedience. You admitted that, whether you will choose those words or not, the moment you stated that “It would never have applied to us. (Unless you're Jewish....) “There MUST be SOME set of writings for a final authority for matters of faith and practice. So where are they? I submit that that answer is found in Paul’s latter writings (post Acts 28:28). Christ taught his disciples to keep the law.
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Vs.
1 Timothy 4:3-5 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

This could not have been said during the Acts period or the gospels (ESPECIALLY not to the Jews). Paul would have been contradicting the very Mosaic law that was upheld throughout the Exodus-Acts 28:28.

Either Paul is teaching people to act outside of Christ’s will, or God changed his dealings with mankind. Paul, of Jewish descent, BROKE the Mosaic diet and would have rebuked men for commanding men to abstain from meats, something that WOULD have been done in Christ’s day. God commanded Israel to NOT eat certain things, and yet Paul negates that, contrary to Matt. A new set of instructions that CONTRADICTED GOd's previous orders DID come in. The Jews were to follow Paul.

:mm: : Huh? He is the mediator of the NEW Covenant. It didn't change the old one. Jesus fulfilled the old one. There was a change in which
covenant we should follow. So, no, Jesus didn't get rid of the old covenant.
What purpose it may serve in the future, I'm not sure of.

Daywalker:
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Hebrews practiced the law. They did have earthly priests. Paul even recognized the High Priest as being the RULER OF GOD’S PEOPLE.
Acts 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

God still recognized him as the ruler of God’s people or else Paul could not have quoted the law in this text.

:mm: : Huh? All they knew when Jesus was taken up was to wait for the power
of the HS to fall on them. Doesn't sound like they knew exactly what
was going to happen, much less what was required.
:stop:
Daywalker: How so? There is no grounds for that accusation other than pure tradition. Where does the bible state what you just said? I would argue that they DID know what to do which is exactly why they are waiting for the Holy Spirit to come. Sounds like they knew everything that they needed to know when the issues came up. Yes, Jesus had instructed them well. Remember, God was teaching leaders to LEAD others. God forbid that God sent them out in ignorance.

:mm: : Um... This is quite some time after the church got started, and when
Paul RETURNED to Jerusalem. So, this isn't quite in the time frame what
Christ "let" them do.

Daywalker: Christ did not LET them do this. It was a requirement of the Mosaic law. That is what they were to follow. You saw the text in Matt.5 about the commandments. Acts 21 stands as is. The problem is that people force Acts to be more of a transitional book than what it is. It was written to show the continuation of Christ's kingdom program.
:mm: : We aren't. Paul explained his actions when he said, "To those under
the law, I became like one under the law, to win those under the law."
He didn't HAVE to be under the law, but he did so, in order to win them,
which is what they were doing, in large numbers!
:stop:
Daywalker: In this text, Acts 21, we have no ref. to Paul’s motives to WIN THE LOST. Quite to the contrary, actually. Ironically, you moved out of that text very, very quickly. :wink: If the text were allowed to speak for itself, then there is no way that Paul did what he did to win the lost…they were already SAVED. They were not UNBELIEVING Jews, they already WERE BELIVERS. You had "called" me on this before (you said) "We really need to stuck with the text and words that are there."
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17871
Mike, why didn't you stick to the text that was there? :whack:
Again, Acts 21 stands as is. :glare:


:mm: :Actually, I said that we didn't HAVE to follow the sabbath, not that we
may not follow the sabbath.

So, the sabbath isn't required, and we should judge people as to
whether they follow them or not. You're assuming that I mean that observing
a sabbath would be sin. It would NOT, even today.

Daywalker: If they do it for spiritual reasons, we SHOULD judge them. Warn them first, but judge them if they persist. Would you truly want a brother to err from God’s direct will? What was regarded as a mandate from God became a mere doctrine of man at the setting aside of Israel.
Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Let no man judge for NOT observing the law, not FOR observing the law. The Col. had people that wanted to get involved with the Mosaic law after Acts 28. That was forbidden because it had become a doctrine of man.
Colossians 2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

:mm: , seriously, you DON’T know that people are to NOT observe the law today? That they would be in direct violation of God’s declared will?
Put it this way, HOW would Col.2:16-22 need to be altered to teach men to NOT observe the law today. Or even I.Tim.4? I mean, what would God need to say differently?
Grace,
Mike

[yxboom]

egad man just use the quote tags

[themuzicman]

:mm: : Actually, the Old Covenant was between God and the descendents of
Israel. It would never have applied to us. (Unless you're Jewish....)

Daywalker: But even THEN you would HAVE TO ADMIT that it was not TO YOU. Again, this his been your initial complaint about dispensationalism, yet here you are doing it, aren’t you? :bonk: :wink:

Except that it's not arbitrary, but clearly taught in scripture.

One might say that they could go to Leviticus and understand God’s nature, but not what he wants out of their lives today. This begs the question, "to WHOM do we turn for these instructions"? Who has a set of writing that gives us “truth for today” without having to constantly weed out things that COULD NOT apply to us today? And when I say “TRUTH FOR TODAY”, you know what I mean. You have already recognized that Lev. is NOT YOU. It was never written for your obedience. You admitted that, whether you will choose those words or not, the moment you stated that “It would never have applied to us. (Unless you're Jewish....) “There MUST be SOME set of writings for a final authority for matters of faith and practice. So where are they? I submit that that answer is found in Paul’s latter writings (post Acts 28:28). Christ taught his disciples to keep the law.
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But that wasn't an instruction for His disciples to follow the law. Jesus was clearly saying that HE came to fulfill the law, and Paul follows this up by telling us that He fulfilled the requirements of the law in us.

So, the only one that could follow the law and not be condemned is Christ.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Vs.
1 Timothy 4:3-5 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Jesus is clearly talking about His fulfilling of the law, and the inability of anyone else to do so. Read Matt 5:20: "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

IF we read on, Jesus says the same thing about rich men, to which his apostles ask, "Who then can be saved?" Their question is interesting, because the implication is "If the rich can't get in, who can?" Jesus responds by saying "With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

Jesus is portraying the standard that men must meet in order to avoid condemnation, which, of course, we cannot do.

Clearly, once you read this in context, Jesus is NOT instructing them to follow the law.

This could not have been said during the Acts period or the gospels (ESPECIALLY not to the Jews). Paul would have been contradicting the very Mosaic law that was upheld throughout the Exodus-Acts 28:28.

That's funny... God told Peter in a dream to get up and eat the unclean animals. That took place before Acts 28.

Either Paul is teaching people to act outside of Christ’s will, or God changed his dealings with mankind. Paul, of Jewish descent, BROKE the Mosaic diet and would have rebuked men for commanding men to abstain from meats, something that WOULD have been done in Christ’s day. God commanded Israel to NOT eat certain things, and yet Paul negates that, contrary to Matt. A new set of instructions that CONTRADICTED GOd's previous orders DID come in. The Jews were to follow Paul.

Well, your foundation is a bit sticky, here. Even in Acts 15, the apostles told the gentiles that they didn't have to follow the law, and Paul went out from them and began to teach this before Act 28.

In fact, they were all free from the law from the moment of Christ's ressurrection. It just took some time for them to realize and explore this freedom. Even Peter had to be rebuked for acting hypocritically in this matter, living in his freedom for a time, but then falling back into the law, and judging others by it.


:mm: : Huh? He is the mediator of the NEW Covenant. It didn't change the old one. Jesus fulfilled the old one. There was a change in which
covenant we should follow. So, no, Jesus didn't get rid of the old covenant.
What purpose it may serve in the future, I'm not sure of.

Daywalker:
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Hebrews practiced the law. They did have earthly priests. Paul even recognized the High Priest as being the RULER OF GOD’S PEOPLE.
Acts 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

God still recognized him as the ruler of God’s people or else Paul could not have quoted the law in this text.

Or maybe Paul recognized that he was among Jews, and needed to respect them. Just because he cited OT law to the Jewish leaders doesn't mean he was required to live under them.

:mm: : Huh? All they knew when Jesus was taken up was to wait for the power
of the HS to fall on them. Doesn't sound like they knew exactly what
was going to happen, much less what was required.
:stop:
Daywalker: How so? There is no grounds for that accusation other than pure tradition. Where does the bible state what you just said? I would argue that they DID know what to do which is exactly why they are waiting for the Holy Spirit to come. Sounds like they knew everything that they needed to know when the issues came up. Yes, Jesus had instructed them well. Remember, God was teaching leaders to LEAD others. God forbid that God sent them out in ignorance.

You're arguing from a lack of evidence. The council of Jersalem CLEARLY shows that they were not prepared for followers of Christ who didn't abide by the Mosaic covenant. The complaints about the neglecting of widows and the resulting appointment of Stephen and other men to oversee this ministry shows a lack of foresight. The fact that most of them hung around Jerusalem and Samaria, rather than going into the world to preach shows a lack of direction for each of them.

Clearly they had a lot of experience watching and obeying Jesus while He was on earth, but just as clearly, they didn't know what to expect when the Holy Spirit came and the church was started, either.

:mm: : Um... This is quite some time after the church got started, and when
Paul RETURNED to Jerusalem. So, this isn't quite in the time frame what
Christ "let" them do.

Daywalker: Christ did not LET them do this. It was a requirement of the Mosaic law. That is what they were to follow. You saw the text in Matt.5 about the commandments. Acts 21 stands as is. The problem is that people force Acts to be more of a transitional book than what it is. It was written to show the continuation of Christ's kingdom program.
:mm: : We aren't. Paul explained his actions when he said, "To those under
the law, I became like one under the law, to win those under the law."
He didn't HAVE to be under the law, but he did so, in order to win them,
which is what they were doing, in large numbers!
:stop:
Daywalker: In this text, Acts 21, we have no ref. to Paul’s motives to WIN THE LOST. Quite to the contrary, actually. Ironically, you moved out of that text very, very quickly. :wink: If the text were allowed to speak for itself, then there is no way that Paul did what he did to win the lost…they were already SAVED. They were not UNBELIEVING Jews, they already WERE BELIVERS. You had "called" me on this before (you said) "We really need to stuck with the text and words that are there."
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17871
Mike, why didn't you stick to the text that was there? :whack:
Again, Acts 21 stands as is. :glare:

OK, hold on. What was the purpose of Paul's purification? To follow the OT law, or to prevent division in the NT church and a stirring up of the city? There is no mention of Paul's requirement that he obey the law. In fact, the context shows that he had no intention of doing the purification when he arrived, but only did it at the suggestion of James and the apostles. Why? Because it was required? NO! If it were required, James wouldn't have had to tell him to do it.

But, if we read into the text a bit, we see that new coverts became zealous for the law. James mentions this, because he knows that they instructed the gentiles that they aren't under the law, any longer, and that Paul HAS been teaching this. So, in an attempt to avoid a major conflict in the church, James asks Paul to placate these Jews by engaging in the purification rights.

As we read on, it didn't work, and Paul was almost killed. But that is the only motivation that we can see for the text as it is written! Like I said, if Paul was under the law, he wouldn't have needed to be told what to do.

:mm: :Actually, I said that we didn't HAVE to follow the sabbath, not that we
may not follow the sabbath.

So, the sabbath isn't required, and we should judge people as to
whether they follow them or not. You're assuming that I mean that observing
a sabbath would be sin. It would NOT, even today.

Daywalker: If they do it for spiritual reasons, we SHOULD judge them. Warn them first, but judge them if they persist. Would you truly want a brother to err from God’s direct will? What was regarded as a mandate from God became a mere doctrine of man at the setting aside of Israel.
Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Let no man judge for NOT observing the law, not FOR observing the law. The Col. had people that wanted to get involved with the Mosaic law after Acts 28. That was forbidden because it had become a doctrine of man.
Colossians 2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

:mm: , seriously, you DON’T know that people are to NOT observe the law today? That they would be in direct violation of God’s declared will?
Put it this way, HOW would Col.2:16-22 need to be altered to teach men to NOT observe the law today. Or even I.Tim.4? I mean, what would God need to say differently?
Grace,
Mike

Your clarification is interesting, because you skirt the real issue.

The real issue isn't whether you do no work (rest) from sundown friday to sundown saturday, but to focus your "spiritual reasons" further, if someone was placing their faith in their works of following the law for salvation. THEN there would be a problem, which is the problem that Paul is talking about. He's telling the Collosians not to fret people who condemn them for not obeying the OT law, and by implication not to judge people if they do or not.

So, whether they do them or not is no big deal. No one should be condemning another for not doing so, because these things don't save us.

Paul tells people not to follow the OT law, because we are FREE from the law. It has been fulfilled in Christ, and we can live in liberty from it!

FYI, I don't treat the book of Acts as transitional, although I do see that the early Jews were going to endure a transition from their lifelong training as under the law, to their freedom in Christ, and this is something of an underlying theme. But Act 15 clearly shows that those who accepted Christ were no longer under the requirements of the law.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Except that it's not arbitrary, but clearly taught in scripture.

Which would go back to what I have been saying about dispensationalism...its clearly taught in scripture.

But that wasn't an instruction for His disciples to follow the law. Jesus was clearly saying that HE came to fulfill the law, and Paul follows this up by telling us that He fulfilled the requirements of the law in us.
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
THAT is not keeping the law?? :lol: Dang...it even looked forward to the future too. :eek:


So, the only one that could follow the law and not be condemned is Christ.

Then I guess Christ must have gotten some people in trouble with the Father>>>Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. :ahem:

Jesus is clearly talking about His fulfilling of the law, and the inability of anyone else to do so. Read Matt 5:20: "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."...
IF we read on, Jesus says the same thing about rich men, to which his apostles ask, "Who then can be saved?" Their question is interesting, because the implication is "If the rich can't get in, who can?" Jesus responds by saying "With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."...
Jesus is portraying the standard that men must meet in order to avoid condemnation, which, of course, we cannot do...
Clearly, once you read this in context, Jesus is NOT instructing them to follow the law.

Without running into a series of rabbit trails, let me state this...
I have made my case clear that I do not believe in dispensational salvation...
However, in response to whether or not Christ told men to keep the law and had the people in Acts keep it, I will use the Holy Spirit's comments:
Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

End of quote.

That's funny... God told Peter in a dream to get up and eat the unclean animals. That took place before Acts 28.
Here is what is even funnier than that...IT was JUST IN TIME for the situation with Cornelias. :teeth: Again, they were not sent out in ignorance. The funny thing is, it never changed what God was doing FOR THE JEWS as pertaining to dietary laws. The exception to the rule, PROVES THE RULE-that is why it IS an exception.
RULE: Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
EXCEPTION: Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Did the Jew dump the dietary law? NO! In fact, the Holy Spirit IN Acts 15 not only VINDICATED the law for Israel, he even GAVE 4 ordinances (BASED ON the Law) TO THE GENTILES...see my comments below...

Well, your foundation is a bit sticky, here. Even in Acts 15, the apostles told the gentiles that they didn't have to follow the law, and Paul went out from them and began to teach this before Act 28.

The Gentiles did not have to keep the law, minus four ordinances. The JEWS DID.
Acts 15:19-21 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Acts 21:24-25 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Not to observe the law, huh??? Christ was the only one that was to do that? It was JUST to win the lost??? Maybe if you have to reach OUTSIDE of Acts to "doctor up" the book of Acts... :b_rotten:
"And now you know, the REST of the story" :b_mickey:

In fact, they were all free from the law from the moment of Christ's ressurrection. It just took some time for them to realize and explore this freedom. Even Peter had to be rebuked for acting hypocritically in this matter, living in his freedom for a time, but then falling back into the law, and judging others by it.

Dang. "JUST TOOK SOME TIME TO REALIZE and EXPLORE this freedom"??? Yes, I do hold to the OPEN VIEW, but I don't think it took God THAT LONG to make up his mind as to when to give his OWN PEOPLE the instructions that they need and want. I have NO DOUBT that they prayed and asked God for guidance in their ministry. :b_lame:

Or maybe Paul recognized that he was among Jews, and needed to respect them. Just because he cited OT law to the Jewish leaders doesn't mean he was required to live under them.

Orrrr... maybe Paul meant what he quoted because he was a law abiding Jew himself? :doh:

You're arguing from a lack of evidence. The council of Jersalem CLEARLY shows that they were not prepared for followers of Christ who didn't abide by the Mosaic covenant. The complaints about the neglecting of widows and the resulting appointment of Stephen and other men to oversee this ministry shows a lack of foresight. The fact that most of them hung around Jerusalem and Samaria, rather than going into the world to preach shows a lack of direction for each of them.

:carrot: Well, I do want to avoid a rabbit trail here...I would argue that that the council was there because God WAS working through them AS NEEDED. Remember, as an Open View Theist we both know that God does not have to EMPHATICALLY KNOW EVERY DETAIL THAT WILL occur in order to assist his people with what DOES occur. God had sufficiently prepared them for the "might determinants" by HAVING those men around. When a problem came up, it was worked out. Again, these were the 12 apostles, not the 3 stooges.

Clearly they had a lot of experience watching and obeying Jesus while He was on earth, but just as clearly, they didn't know what to expect when the Holy Spirit came and the church was started, either.

:huh:

OK, hold on. What was the purpose of Paul's purification? To follow the OT law, or to prevent division in the NT church and a stirring up of the city? There is no mention of Paul's requirement that he obey the law. In fact, the context shows that he had no intention of doing the purification when he arrived, but only did it at the suggestion of James and the apostles. Why? Because it was required? NO! If it were required, James wouldn't have had to tell him to do it.

My answer is: BOTH. Because he wanted to prove that he was NOT telling JEWS to forsake Moses (HINT :ahem: ), he was obeying the practice of purification to PROVE that he TOO was still a LAW ABIDING JEW.
Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

But, if we read into the text a bit, we see that new coverts became zealous for the law. James mentions this, because he knows that they instructed the gentiles that they aren't under the law, any longer, and that Paul HAS been teaching this. So, in an attempt to avoid a major conflict in the church, James asks Paul to placate these Jews by engaging in the purification rights.

Again, I want to avoid a rabbit trail...but...
I would argue that there is a DIFFERENCE between being UNDER the law versus God writing the law in their heart so that they can KEEP it. The Holy Spirit came and, through this NEW COVENANT, was giving men POWER TO KEEP THE LAW. Hence, it WAS INDEED written in their heart.
:mm: "But, if we read into the text a bit"... MM, I would rather let it speak for itself, amen?

As we read on, it didn't work, and Paul was almost killed. But that is the only motivation that we can see for the text as it is written! Like I said, if Paul was under the law, he wouldn't have needed to be told what to do.

The fact that it was attempted but did not please SOME of the people did not prove that it did not serve its purpose for ALL of the people. Also, why in the world would you use the UNBELIEVERS OF ASIA as a proof text AGAINST the Believing Jews that were zealous of the law?! :stop:

Your clarification is interesting, because you skirt the real issue.
The real issue isn't whether you do no work (rest) from sundown friday to sundown saturday, but to focus your "spiritual reasons" further, if someone was placing their faith in their works of following the law for salvation. THEN there would be a problem, which is the problem that Paul is talking about. He's telling the Collosians not to fret people who condemn them for not obeying the OT law, and by implication not to judge people if they do or not.

:mm: says: He's telling the Collosians not to fret people who condemn them for not obeying the OT law, and by implication not to judge people if they do or not.
Dang, you really :read: into that one, brother. Then paul really dropped the ball on that one. Cause he judged them!
Colossians 2:20-22 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

So, whether they do them or not is no big deal. No one should be condemning another for not doing so, because these things don't save us.

The issue was not ONLY the fact that the law did not SAVE them in Col., it was that it was to NOT BE PRACTICED.

FYI, I don't treat the book of Acts as transitional, although I do see that the early Jews were going to endure a transition from their lifelong training as under the law, to their freedom in Christ, and this is something of an underlying theme. But Act 15 clearly shows that those who accepted Christ were no longer under the requirements of the law.Michael
VERSUS Ezekiel 36:26-28 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Grace, :pray:
Mike
FYI, this will be my last detailed post on this thread. I think that we have reached the "agree to disagree" point.
Thanks for the discourse! :thumb:

[Daywalker]

I will say this...
It is a very interesting position that you have Christ and the apostles in, to say nothing of Israel.
You have said that Christ came to FULFILL the law, which alone indicates that the law was to be practiced-no questions asked.
You then stated that the only Christ had to keep it...nobody else had to keep it. The question that everybody is left with is "what does it mean then, to be UNDER the law"?

Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
1.If you make "under the law" to be SPIRITUAL condemnation then Christ would have been condemned before he got on the cross as well as the rest of Israel.
If you make "under the law" to mean that the law must be kept, then that means that Christ and Israel was to keep the law-thus cancelling out everything that you have previously stated about the Christ's earthly ministry.

[themuzicman]

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
THAT is not keeping the law?? :lol: Dang...it even looked forward to the future too. :eek:


You deleted verse 20, which explains verse 19. The Pharisees were considered the most righteous, yet not even they could keep all the commandments. Jesus was expressing the impossibility of keeping the law, not instructing people to do so. This is called 'creating urgency'.

[quote]Then I guess Christ must have gotten some people in trouble with the Father>>>Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. :ahem:

Well, that man WAS still under the OT covenant, which required him to do just as it commanded. That doesn't imply that Jesus thought the man could keep the whole law and be sinless.

Without running into a series of rabbit trails, let me state this...
I have made my case clear that I do not believe in dispensational salvation...
However, in response to whether or not Christ told men to keep the law and had the people in Acts keep it, I will use the Holy Spirit's comments:
Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Acts 15:28-29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves,