Books for the church [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Books for the church

Iosias

30th July 2004, 02:04 PM

seebs

30th July 2004, 02:07 PM

It seems to me that a church which did not derive some teachings from the Gospels would be a poor church indeed.

Ebb

30th July 2004, 03:44 PM

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I Timothy 3:15-17

When Paul wrote this epistle, the Old Testament was "the holy scriptures". He frequently refers to the Old Testament scriptures in his epistles. The New Testament was assembled and added later, and is now part of the recognized "holy scriptures".

bleechers

30th July 2004, 04:04 PM

AV, I see you've got a picture of Darby there... very nice. My youngest daughter is named "London Darby".

Anywho, even the mid-Acts dispensationalists start their doctrinal beliefs somewhere in the Book of Acts. Just to clarify for the non-dispys, we don't discard the rest of the scriptures, the concetration here is where does "Church" doctrine derive its authority. That is, do Jesus' statements in Matthew 25, for instance, have any binding on the church, etc.

The easy way to look at it is this: we obviously don't go to Leviticus when we are establishing a New Testament assembly of believers. Jesus came "under the Law" and fulfilled the Law... so where does the church derive its doctrines of itself. We know that the Covenanters don't even accept the basics of dispy theology, so arguing those points would be fruitless here.

I have a great deal of empathy for the Mid-Acts and Epistle-only dispys, but I believe there are guidelines that Christ began to outline in the gospels that came into fruition in the church age... but the foundations were laid in the gospels.

One example would be the foundations expressed in Matthew 16 and 18. Also, to understand the parables of Matthew 13 (even in their mostly Jewish context) one has to see the church in its "Kindom of the Heavens" form (and compare such with the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3.

Read Gaebelien's commentaries on Matthew and Revelation. He strongly argues a Jewish/Kingdom context for Matthew, but he also finds nuggets to for the church (particularly dispensational types and truths) in the acts and sayings of Jesus.

This is purely a question for avowed dispys, I'd suggest that the Covenanters take a pass on this one! :)

@@Paul@@

30th July 2004, 04:25 PM

Speaking from a Late-Acts dispy POV. ;)

Of course i feel only 7 books of the NT were specifically written to the church as we know it today. i.e. The last 7 epistles of Paul;however, I do not feel the rest of the NT is "irrelevant".

........As long as we do not twist the "guidlelines and nuggets" to fit within our calling. Like say, the absolute necessity of Water Baptism...... :P

I know the original question was regarding "doctrine", but i'm wondering at what point a "guideline" or a "nugget" found in say the gospels, becomes doctrine? Or can it?

SumTinWong

30th July 2004, 04:49 PM

Which books of the Bible are doctrinally relevant to the church? Why?

My opinion is thus: The church should take its teachings from only those epistles that are specifically for the church. These are: Romans; First and Second Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; First and Second Thessalonians; First and Second Timothy; Titus; First, Second and Third John and First and Second Peter. Answer: I believe all of scripture is.

Reason: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Ebb

30th July 2004, 04:53 PM

@@Paul@@

30th July 2004, 06:03 PM

So even when you show an ultra-dispensationalist what Paul has said about "all scriptures" being profitable for doctrine, in an epistle that they themelves recognize, they still don't recognize all scriptures as being doctrinally relevant.
:confused:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
Do you really thing ALL scripture is profitable today for doctrine?

How about this one written by Paul himself...
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them (Jews) verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their (Gentiles) duty is also to minister unto them (Jews) in carnal things.
Is it our "DUTY" to minister to Israel in financial donations?

Come on now...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine G1319, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

G1319
didaskalia
did-as-kal-ee'-ah
From G1320; instruction (the function or the information): - doctrine, learning, teaching.

All Scripture is there for learning, teaching, and for "instruction in righteousness", but it is not all "present truth" AND directly applied, today... unless you don't eat shellfish, pork and keep the sabath??

please, lets nix the insults....
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22 :sick:

and PS i am not ULTRA,, I'm HYPER. ;)

Iosias

30th July 2004, 06:46 PM

Iosias

30th July 2004, 07:01 PM

AV, I see you've got a picture of Darby there... very nice. My youngest daughter is named "London Darby".
:blush: Good name that!! BTW I am slowly working my way through his Synopsis of the New Testament. Absolutely fantastic!! Can be found here: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?Version=DRBY

Anywho, even the mid-Acts dispensationalists start their doctrinal beliefs somewhere in the Book of Acts.
I am a classical dispensationalist (says so next to my Darby pic;) ) and I certainly do start my doctrinal beliefs within the TIME-FRAMEWORK of Acts but I do not see that the Book of Acts contains any doctrinal truths for the church. It is a narrative Book rather than doctrinal.

I have a great deal of empathy for the Mid-Acts and Epistle-only dispys, but I believe there are guidelines that Christ began to outline in the gospels that came into fruition in the church age... but the foundations were laid in the gospels...One example would be the foundations expressed in Matthew 16 and 18. Also, to understand the parables of Matthew 13 (even in their mostly Jewish context) one has to see the church in its "Kindom of the Heavens" form (and compare such with the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3.

I would have to agree up to a point and your position seems to be somewhat Scofieldian which is great as my main Bible is the First Scofield yet in reading some of Bullinger's notes on Matthew 13 it shew it in a new light. e.g. the Parable of the Sower with the seed being the word concerning the kingdom. The first sowing being by the wayside (John the Baptist), the second by Christ Himself and the seventy, The third by Peter and the 12 during the dispensation of Acts, and the fourth is in the future immediately preceeding and during the great tribulation...but I digress )we could start a new topic on the parables!)

bleechers

30th July 2004, 10:37 PM

but i'm wondering at what point a "guideline" or a "nugget" found in say the gospels, becomes doctrine? Or can it?

I never said it was the sole source of doctrine on its own. I said that the foundations of church truth were hinted at by Christ particularly in Matthew 16 & 18. Let me be clear, I firmly believe that applicable church doctrine is taught in the epistles, but prophesy concerning the church and mystery-church evidence can be found in the gospel and in the Book of Acts.

Christ gave some pre-Pentecost instruction that was not fully understood until post-Penetcost (prinmarily by Paul to whom the full mystery of the church was revealed).

I agree that Acts is an historical book and not necessarily designed to teach NT assembly structure. But we can see what the post-Pentecost church thought was the function of the local Body (Acts 2:42) and we saw the council at Jerusalem declare that the Law was not to be placed on believers (particularly gentile believers who were never under the Law).

We're all probably pretty close on these things. When I read the gospels, I certainly read them in their prophetic and Law context. I would just take a more Gaebeleinian view that Christ began to reveal the church after Israel had rejected the Kingdom offer (again, not fully understood, realized, or explained until Paul did so in his epistles).

SOOOO, I guess I can accept the premise that the epistles are the final word on any NT doctrine with an asterisk stating that the revelation started after Israel rejected the Kingdom. The church is certainly pictured dispensationally by Christ as well.

So even when you show an ultra-dispensationalist what Paul has said about "all scriptures" being profitable for doctrine, in an epistle that they themelves recognize, they still don't recognize all scriptures as being doctrinally relevant.

Once again... Nobody is saying that the scriptures are irrelevent. Dispys spend many hours pouring over the dispensational truths and typology of the OT. We see salvation truth on just about every page of the OT... BUT we do not look to the OT for doctrine to create a NT local church.

Even if you ascribe that view to the ultras, I don't think it's fair to attach that view to anyone here.

I'll say it again, if you were going to plant a NT local church, you wouldn't start by referencing the tabernacle in the Book of Exodus or by trying to emulate the sacrifices of Leviticus. These are but shadows and pictures. The church has made some horrendous errors by mixing and matching dispensations. The church is an entity that learns from Leviticus in types and shadows, but we don't create doctrine from the Book.

This is not a thread for non-Dispys. You're certainly welcome to visit, but since you keep equating our belief that the church gets its doctrine from the Epsitles with us somehow discarding the OT and the gospels, you're not really participating.

I think I say correctly :) we love all the scripture and we believe it is all profitable... but we don't teach church doctrine from it. We can learn from it, we can meditate on it, we can study prophesy (which we find more relevant than Covenanters do, by the way), but we don't structure our local assemblies based on the OT. Nobody is discarding it. I just don't study Abel and start teaching my people to start emulating his sacrifice.

By stating that the Law is not binding on the church, does not make us lawless... I say that just in case anyone wants to go there next. ;) We have a much higer law, the law of liberty and the law of Christ.

zoomie71

31st July 2004, 02:15 AM

Do you really thing ALL scripture is profitable today for doctrine?

How about this one written by Paul himself...
Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them (Jews) verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their (Gentiles) duty is also to minister unto them (Jews) in carnal things.
Is it our "DUTY" to minister to Israel in financial donations?

(remainder snipped)

Hi Paul...

It appears to me that you may have missed the context of this verse entirely. It has nothing to do with "ministering to Israel" (meaning political Israel). When Paul spoke of "The Jews" in this case, he was speaking quite specificaly of the church in Jerusalem (from which all other churches at the time had their origin) - the Jewish Christians, for whom he was encouraging contributions by the young and vibrant church in Rome (and elsewhere - see I Cor. 16:1-4) to help them in their time of need (as you no doubt remember from church history, they were under extreme pressure from the local authorities). What He was doing was encouraging the principle that when one portion of the body is hurting, all hurt, and when one portion of the body is in need, it's encumbant on the other portions to help meet that need.

Paul, just a caution, I think there's a danger from over-analysis when you seperate a verse from the narrative of the passage like this and draw an unsupported conclusion from it. Take some time and step back and look at the big picture and see where the beauty of a verse like this lies in painting that picture.

Like so much else in the NT, the Apostle Paul's encouragement here re-enforces that our saving relationship to Christ is not as a result of our performance, but that our performance ought quite properly to flow from the recognition of and thankfulness for our relationship to Christ.

One element that is part and parcel to this performance is how the extended church relates to itself. The principle is illustrated in this verse (John 13:35 KJV): "By this shall all men KNOW that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (emphasis added).

So, to answer the question you asked - no, the Apostle Paul wasn't mandating a contribution to Israel (in fact, the verse in the AV doesn't even contain the word "Jews" in it.) He's pleading for contributions for the church there. He specifically mentions in verse 25 that he was planning to go to Jerusalem "to minister unto the saints." Narrows the application of the donation a bit, don't you think?

I would suspect from your passion for the Scriptures that you probably belong to a church that has a good missions program. If this is the case, there are probably examples in your own fellowship's history of assistance to struggling churches in other parts of the USA and the world. If so, you're following the wonderful example set by Paul a couple millennia ago in the very passage you cite.

In a related vein - it seems as if the argument about all scripture being doctrinal in nature (or not) is a bit of a red herring. Looking only at the verse (II Tim 3:15 - though the context supports it as well), the only all-encompassing adjectives that St. Paul uses for Scripture are "God-breathed" and "profitable" he further subdivides the applications of God-breathed, profitable Scripture into: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. He's speaking broadly of the entire corpus of Scripture (both written and spoken at that time). He's not saying that each and every passage has ALL of the applications.

I trust this will help in some small measure.

Blessings,

Zoomie :cool:

Iosias

31st July 2004, 07:03 AM

I agree that Acts is an historical book and not necessarily designed to teach NT assembly structure. But we can see what the post-Pentecost church thought was the function of the local Body (Acts 2:42) and we saw the council at Jerusalem declare that the Law was not to be placed on believers (particularly gentile believers who were never under the Law).

We're all probably pretty close on these things. When I read the gospels, I certainly read them in their prophetic and Law context. I would just take a more Gaebeleinian view that Christ began to reveal the church after Israel had rejected the Kingdom offer (again, not fully understood, realized, or explained until Paul did so in his epistles).

SOOOO, I guess I can accept the premise that the epistles are the final word on any NT doctrine with an asterisk stating that the revelation started after Israel rejected the Kingdom. The church is certainly pictured dispensationally by Christ as well.
I have no problem with what you have said above. Could you expand on the quotes below? Its not that I disagree but I have been so surrounded by ultras/hypers recently...

Christ gave some pre-Pentecost instruction that was not fully understood until post-Penetcost (prinmarily by Paul to whom the full mystery of the church was revealed).

I firmly believe that...prophesy concerning the church and mystery-church evidence can be found in the gospel and in the Book of Acts.

TSIBHOD

31st July 2004, 03:20 PM

bleechers

31st July 2004, 04:09 PM

Your interpretational method is, "This verse seems to say this, and since we know that God wouldn't tell us to do that, we just won't do it."

Actually, that ain't a bad way to put it.

Just one of a thousand possible examples:

Exodus 12
3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

OK, well since I know that God wouldn't tell us to do that, I just won't do it."

Works for me. :)

=============================================

On a related note, verse 3 has a very significant phrase in it: "speak ye unto all the congregation of ISRAEL..." The Law was given to Israel. Jesus came to His own (Israel) and offered them the Kingdom ("Go not into the way of the Gentiles... But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.")

When interpreting scripture, we must know to whom God is speaking and why He is speaking. Otherwise, the scriptures will be a big mess.

So now you feel that you must cast it out as unnecessary to obey, since you certainly do not want to obey it. Right?

It's not a question of wanting or not wanting to obey... it's a matter of whether the command was ever written to me in the fisrt place. Why judge someone's motives rather than look at what God is saying and to whom He is saying it?

In fact, "obeying" a command given to someone else most likely will result in disobedience to a command we've been given. Just one example:

Galatians 5:2
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

But wait, I thought circumcision was a "command"? It was... to Israel under the Law, never, NEVER to the church.

:)

TSIBHOD

31st July 2004, 05:55 PM

Circumcision was a type of baptism. We are told elsewhere in the NT that circumcision or non-circumcision makes no difference now. If we rely on circumcision, then we are relying on the wrong thing, and Christ profits us nothing.

God did not give bad commands to the Israelites. It is just that some of His commands were shadows of the real thing. It is not like things that were bad then are okay now. It is not okay to steal or commit adultery now.

Anyway, the words of Jesus should not be cast aside, just because "they were for someone else." Maybe if I don't want to do what the rest of the NT says, I should just say that it also is in a previous dispensation. Can you disprove that? No, you cannot. It can be very hard to prove a negative, such as that the rest of the NT is not in a separate dispensation.

However, if you will just open your mind, I think you'd see that Jesus spoke word of spirit and life, and though heaven and earth pass away, his words will not, and they are still applicable today, and they are to be obeyed in the present day.

The dispensational line of interpretation seems to me to be wishful thinking by those who don't want certain scriptures to apply to them.

bleechers

31st July 2004, 08:37 PM

Circumcision was a type of baptism.

I hope you mean that in the symbolic way and not eqauting infant baptism with circumcision. I hope baptism is not the same as circumcision:

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Prove from scripture that circumcision is a type of baptism, and if so, in what way?

Anyway, the words of Jesus should not be cast aside

Who said anything about casting anything aside? There is a difference between reading something for personal profit and reading something as a direct command. Jesus commanded John the Baptist to baptize Him... was that meant for anybody but John? No. If we acknowledge that Jesus was not speaking to us, does that necessarily mean we are "casting His words aside"? Of course not.

Jesus told the gentile woman that His ministry was to Israel and not to gentile "dogs". I quoted Jesus Himself where He commanded the disciples not to go to anyone but to Israel. Do you witness among gentiles? Jesus commanded not to! Are you casting His words aside?

Maybe if I don't want to do what the rest of the NT says, I should just say that it also is in a previous dispensation. Can you disprove that?

Your logic makes no sense. Do you go to the temple to offer a sacrifice? Of course not. Does that mean that you "don't want to do what the rest of the Bible says"? Is that a fair conslusion? No. Neither is it fair for you to say that we just "don't want to do what the rest of the NT says".

I can then assume that you believe in at least two dispensations. Did Abraham go to the Temple? No. So now we're up to three dispensations... etc. There is a command to "Rightly divide the Word of truth."

Let me ask you this: Did Jesus fulfill the Law or not? If so, when?

However, if you will just open your mind, I think you'd see that Jesus spoke word of spirit and life, and though heaven and earth pass away, his words will not, and they are still applicable today, and they are to be obeyed in the present day.

OK... I wanna see you obeying the following:

Matthew 16
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Jesus commanded this!

Matthew 10
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Call back those missionaries!

Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

How're you doing observing the scribes and the Pharisees? Jesus commanded it!

And a note for medical missionaries to lepers in India:

Matthew 8:4
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Don't forget to offer the gift commanded in the Law after visiting the high priest. Jesus commanded it!

Jesus fulfilled the Law. The law is dead and we are married to another. We now have a high priest in heaven who ever lives to make intercession for us. When Jesus was here, He was not our high priest, the Holy Spirit had not been given, the Law was not satisfied.

The dispensational line of interpretation seems to me to be wishful thinking by those who don't want certain scriptures to apply to them.

Tell me, how's that tabernacle coming? Are you obeying all the Sabbath laws? You quoted from the 10 commandments, if you wanna apply them to the church, you must then apply all the exposition of them in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Or do you teach that "certain scriptures don't apply to you"?

The Law is not divisible. It is either all binding or not binding... or do you just pick and choose what parts of the Law you want to obey? Did Jesus come under the Law to those under the Law (Israel) or not?

Galatians 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Don't pretend that you obey all the scriptures as given. You know that is nothing but high-minded pretense. Sorry to be so direct, but I hate when anyone tries to put Christians back under the Mosaic Law in part or in whole.

Why do you equate our freedom from the law as a desire on our part to sin? That is insane. We seek to walk in the Spirit for we know that sinning is slavery.

Galatians 2
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

When Jesus died, he nailed the Law to His cross.

Colossians 2
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Before the cross, nothing was "blotted" out. We must read the offer of the Kingdom and Jesus' ministry before Calvary in that light. As with all dispensations, there was a transitional period, that is why we need to be careful when applying Jesus' words to the church (which did not exist in the gospels).

Iosias

1st August 2004, 10:13 AM

...
Good post!!

Iosias

1st August 2004, 10:32 AM

Anyway, the words of Jesus should not be cast aside, just because "they were for someone else." Maybe if I don't want to do what the rest of the NT says, I should just say that it also is in a previous dispensation.
Who is casting aside His words? Dispensationalists (myself especially) do not start out by saying "well what do I not want to do"? Rather we say "I want to do what Jesus wants me to do but I understand that not everything Christ commands is for me to do". A dispensation has to fulfil certain criteria in order for it to be a dispensation and so you cannot just make them up willy-nilly! To think that shews that youreally do not understand what a dispensation is.

However, if you will just open your mind, I think you'd see that Jesus spoke word of spirit and life, and though heaven and earth pass away, his words will not, and they are still applicable today, and they are to be obeyed in the present day.
Indeed His words are eternal and they shall never pass away yet they are not all for this present age.

@@Paul@@

2nd August 2004, 12:35 PM

It seems that you understand that verse a certain way since you find no other interpretation.

So now you feel that you must cast it out as unnecessary to obey, since you certainly do not want to obey it. Right?

Your interpretational method is, "This verse seems to say this, and since we know that God wouldn't tell us to do that, we just won't do it."
First off,, this verse DOES say that... :)
Rom 15:25-28 KJV
(25) But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
(26) For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
(27) It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.
(28) When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.
I don’t see how we can interpret this any other way. It’s those people who try to re-interpret these verse to actually mean something other than what it says based on the assumption that God would NEVER really mean for this to happen, who miss the point.

I accept the verse for exactly what it says… It’s OUR DUTY!! OR, it WAS our duty. So which is it?

Some Gentiles made a financial donation to poor saints at Jerusalem; Gentiles had been made “partakers” of “their” spiritual things (the poor saints at Jerusalem)…. Because of this (being partakers of their spiritual things),,,, it is the Gentiles DUTY to minister to them in carnal things.

It’s not a matter of interpreting whether or not I think God would make me do something,,, quite the opposite. Our Bible is a Jewish book, our Savior IS Jewish…… Everything bad thing that has happened to their nation is in fact partly linked to everything that YOU have been given through Israel.

It IS still our duty or it IS NOT. We should be circumcised or we should not, We need to be baptized in order to be “saved” or we do not, We need to have ALL things in common or we do not………

1) Do I believe it’s our duty to ‘be baptized’; NO.
2) Do I believe it’s our duty to ‘to tithe’; NO.
3) Do I believe it’s our duty to ‘make financial donations to poor Jews’; NO.

But that doesn’t mean there is no application for any of these ordinances today.

TSIBHOD

2nd August 2004, 01:45 PM

bleechers,

Since this seems to be turning into a debate, let's take it into the Non-denominational forum, where I can debate freely. Related thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t728762

@@Paul@@

2nd August 2004, 01:57 PM

First off,, this verse DOES say that... :)

P.S. I'm NOT trying to turn this into a debate. I was explaining my beliefs based on my previous posts...

I was answering the question:
So now you feel that you must cast it out as unnecessary to obey, since you certainly do not want to obey it. Right?

I, like the other Paul, do not want to be misunderstood. :D

bleechers

2nd August 2004, 07:39 PM

I've answered and asked a bunch of questions... like this:

Matthew 23
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

How're you doing observing the scribes and the Pharisees? Jesus commanded it!

Again, do you obey all that Jesus commanded or not?

:)

This particular thread was obviously meant for dispensational Baptists. In my first two posts I openly asked Covenanters to stay away to avoid the "debate" aspects of the topic... apparently, nobody listened. ;)

The "debate" has been weird... we've been acused of both not wanting to obey the gospels while also being charged with teaching a works salvation...?

How about a new thread: explain the difference between "The Covenant of Works" vs. "The Covenant of Grace". I've been there. I think I've given, at least, an adequate explanation of every charge leveled against dispensationalists (as have several other brothers more noble than I).

Where have I failed? What is still unclear about dispensationalism that has not been covered here (in basic)?

I teach. I preach. I refute. I defend... all as best as I can... What I don't do is debate endless geneologies and contentious questions. What I do in threads like this (and what I do in RC and EO threads) is to explain and refute not to change YOUR mind, but to teach those listening in... if I don't think that's happening, then I move on.

Hope you will understand and respect that. :cool:

==================================

Another command for you to ponder:

Matthew 19
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments...
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Now, you must see that in the Church age (the dispensation of Grace) that this answer has no place. You cannot possibly say that you obey all things that Jesus commanded. :)