Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Conclusion to my post on other thread


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Peter added in the works of baptism...

Nonsense, you folks are not rightly dividing the word.  You do violence to the Word of God by proclaiming that ma'am.  Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin, that is what is necessary for salvation.  When Peter said, "and be baptized" that was a passive act.  Repent is a universal command to all men everywhere and baptism is for believers only.  In Acts 2:38, Repent is second person plural and baptize is third person singular.  

Your position mirrors the Mormons.  Nowhere in the bible does it say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not (AND IS NOT BAPTIZED) shall be damned "  

On 1/10/2016 at 11:04 AM, Ronda said:

And that in several cases Paul admonishes us (the church age believers) to follow him and what he, himself, calls "my gospel"?

More violence and heresy!  Who wrote Corinthians, Thessalonians and Ephesians?  

"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;" - Ephesians 5:1

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” - 1 Corinthians 10:4

 

This one too shows that someone does not know how to rightly divide God's Word.  For the command to follow Paul and not Christ makes God a liar and the bible to none effect.  Context!  Context!  Context!

 

I'm out too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 1/10/2016 at 11:04 AM, Ronda said:

And that in several cases Paul admonishes us (the church age believers) to follow him and what he, himself, calls "my gospel"?

"Swathdiver" states: "More violence and heresy!"

Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,"

Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began"
 

What? You've never heard that preached on in church? Look in the book.. It's in the Bible, and the words were Paul's. He calls what he teaches "my gospel". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

Sister Ronda,

If you are unwilling to consider being wrong, then you are putting yourself on a level above all other humans, because all humans can be wrong.

I caution you to stop and pay close attention to what has been presented, especially since a good portion of it has been presented to you by Preachers.

And remember that "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek", and "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Remember, "if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

And most of all, remember, "I am the Lord, I change not". 

First let me say I am not unwilling to consider I am wrong. You are 100% correct that humans CAN be wrong, and often are.
Are you also willing to consider YOU could be wrong as well? (many may SAY "yes", but in all honesty, I don't believe the answer will truly BE "yes")
I feel led of the Holy Spirit in this understanding (I am sure my opponents in thought would say the same, but many SAY they've had that tugging, compelling feeling of the Holy Spirit to dig deeper on particular verses... but then I don't see many of them posting these verses they SAY they've felt this guidance in)

Next, let me say that I am well aware that there are no differences 
(as far as salvation is concerned) in regard to the Jews and the Gentiles
 in the eyes of God during this dispensation of grace. Whether a person is a Jew 
or whether a person is a Gentile (in this current dispensation of grace) makes
 not a bit of difference to God. Either one can be saved (whether Jew or 
Gentile) in this dispensation of grace. However... how can a person (whether Jew or Gentile) be saved during this time period?
GRACE by faith in Jesus Christ, and NOT by works of any kind.

How LONG does this period of grace last (toward the Gentiles)?
Romans 11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
 mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part
 is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Why were the Gentiles even allowed to be part of God's plan of salvation?
First of all God foretold it would happen... there are other mentions but one is

Way back in Hosea 1:10 "... and it shall come to pass, that in the place 
where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said 
unto them, Ye are the sons of the  living God."

Again we are reminded (by Paul) of these verses in Romans 9:22-24
 22 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"
 23 "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
 24 "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
 25 "As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved."
 26 "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."

So God has had this dispensation planned all along...his plan for the church age and the Gentiles as well. He showed them a few clues in the verses of the OT, but not enough to grasp the enormity of the fact that the church age would be (predominantly) for the Gentiles.
God never showed the old testament prophets this plan... the church age plan...why? Because this period didn't DIRECTLY pertain to Israel, it would pertain to the Gentiles!
He did give them some clues about His prior plans when he foretold in a few verses, but they didn't understand the scripture pertaining to this at all.

Now before you stop me and say "OH NO... Jews can be saved as well, there is no difference betwen the Jew and the Gentile!"... let me agree!
Back to Romans 11:25, did it say that ALL of the Jews would be "blind" (blind to the gospel of grace)?
NO NO NO, it said "IN PART", so that tells us right away that there certainly are PART of the Jews who have (and still do continue to) come to the knowledge of the saving grace of the faith in Jesus Christ.
He knew that Israel (as a whole) would reject their Messiah, Jesus. There is much OT scripture to confirm that as well.
The Jews (of Jesus' time) were fully expecting a Messiah who would bring in a kingdom of peace! 
They didn't "get it" that Jesus would in fact fulfill those OT prophesies as well, but that it wasn't going to happen right then!!! (But will happen in the future).

We see Jesus Himself answering the questions about the kingdom...
Acts 1:6 "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"
 7 "And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

They were concerned about the kingdom... VERY CONCERNED! You would think those who knew Jesus prior to his death, burial, and resurrection would have been MORE concerned about the meaning of THAT!
But no, they were more concerned with knowing about the kingdom. WHY? They were thinking Jesus would fulfill that prophesy right then...

Does He say "No, it's not going to happen"??? NO! God forbid!
No, Jesus says "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons"
So Jesus is confirming that there WILL be a time and a season when the kingdom will be brought in
He doesn't tell them WHEN it will happen. Why? Because it's in God's hands to determine that time and season: "the Father hath put in his own power".

The amazing thing here is that early on it STILL had not yet been revealed to them the plan for the Gentiles. 
Jesus was speaking to them in His resurrected, glorified body and yet He didn't reveal it to them (it wasn't yet time).

It isn't until Stephen is stoned to death (Acts 7), that the Jews again rejected Jesus and we see the gospel start to go to the Gentiles.
God picked a special man for that particular job... Paul!
Why is that important? Because God already had the Jews being taught by Peter and the others. We realize (by Paul's writing) that there would, in fact, be Jews come to salvation in Christ (only part of the Jews would be blind to the gospel and part would not).

But now God specifically designates Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. He is to be the one to teach the Gentiles (not the others) he is specifically designated for this job by God Himself.  If it weren't important information to know (that Paul was commissioned by God to be the apostle to the Gentiles), it would not have been mentioned in scripture so very many times!
Paul exhorts us to follow him in this age of grace... Paul was specially chosen to receive the mystery of the church age, the mystery of the body of Christ, and the mystery of the rapture.

Now you will say... but Peter (and some others) also taught the gospel to the Gentiles, right?
Yes they did (as did Paul teach the gospel to the Jews as well).
But why does Paul make such a big deal about being chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles? 
Because Paul had to admonish Peter for WRONGLY teaching the Gentiles. (Gal. 2:14)
What was Peter wrongly teaching the Gentiles? "to live as do the Jews".
Which is why it's important to follow Paul's teaching for this dispensation.
We want to make sure we are only teaching the gospel Paul taught.

And again... there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile for SALVATION in this current church age. What's the big deal in differences? That the gospel of grace, faith in Jesus Christ alone is what the gospel IS! Nobody is telling Paul to "stop teaching people to "live as the Jews"... but the Holy Spirit made sure to bring that point of contention out in the scripture in reference to anyone who would attempt to compel gentiles to "live as the Jews" Why? So we would be SURE that the gospel IS only grace, faith in Jesus Christ, and that is why, also, that Paul brings out in numerous references that he is the apostle to the gentiles, (he doesn't go on about it because he's conceited, he goes on about it to make sure we get the point), he is the only one to whom the mystery of the church age was revealed, the mystery of the body of Christ, the mystery of the rapture. We (in the church age) are not looking for the kingdom to be brought in (as the disciples were asking of Jesus after His resurrection)... we are looking for the blessed hope (which Paul describes as the rapture).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Ronda said:

"Swathdiver" states: "More violence and heresy!"

Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,"

Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began"
 

What? You've never heard that preached on in church? Look in the book.. It's in the Bible, and the words were Paul's. He calls what he teaches "my gospel". 

Well ma'am, you've changed subjects on me but I'll bite.  My answer is, so what?  It's my gospel too.

Are you a member in good standing with a New Testament Church? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When Paul states, "my gospel" it's simply his way of pointing out that the Gospel he is preaching is the one true Gospel as taught by Christ and taught by the other Apostles, and not a phony "gospel" which some others were trying to spread.

Paul's gospel is THE Gospel, not his personal gospel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 hours ago, Ronda said:

You continue to contend that these verses (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:45-48, 1 Pet.3:1, James 2:14, James 2:24, et al) mean something other than what they literally SAY!!!

Well now, Sister Ronda, this is not an accurate statement.  I have NOT continued to contend such concerning those verses, for in fact I have not engaged in a precise, "jot and tittle," "in depth" discussion concerning any of those verses within any of my responses to you throughout this thread.  This does not mean that I stand in agreement with you handling of these passages; however, it does mean that it is inaccurate for you to make claims about what I have said concerning those passages, since I have not actually engaged in any direct discussion concerning them.  Indeed, every single one of my responses toward you in this thread are as follows:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 10:56 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

First, I will present my belief that you have made a number of false steps in your "rightly dividing" of God's Word as presented above.  Indeed, I believe that you have not been completely precise concerning the wording, grammar, and context of various passages and points that you have presented.

Second, with that in mind I present a question -- Are you at all willing to consider the possibility that your understanding and/or conclusions may be faulty in any fashion, so that a gracious engagement with you on the matter might be of value; or are you determined to hold unto your position "no matter what"?

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:31 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

First, I wish to thank you for the recognition and respect that you have expressed above concerning my regard for "jot and tittle" precision in Bible study.
 

Second, I can certainly appreciate your greater desire for Bible study and your spiritual growth and improved walk thereby.  I would never desire that anyone turn back from the desire and diligence of daily Bible STUDY, or that anyone turn back from genuine spiritual growth in their daily walk with the Lord.
 

Third, I do not at all view you as mocking me or my beliefs.  However . . .
 

However, by placing this in the realm of that which the Holy Spirit has taught, you DO place this in the realm of truth and falsehood in Bible study and understanding.  Now, this is not at all inappropriate; for in Bible study contradictions in position really are in the realm of truth and falsehood.  If indeed the position that you hold is that which God the Holy Spirit taught unto you, then it is THE truth of the matter; then it is the same truth that God the Holy Spirit desires to teach EVERY believer in the matter; and then any contradictory position that I or another might hold IS falsehood.  On the other hand, if some contradictory position that I or another might hold is ACTUALLY that which God the Holy Spirit has taught, then IT is the position of truth; and then your position is actually that which is false, having not actually been taught by God the Holy Spirit, but having been developed through your own misunderstandings.  This IS the nature of Bible study -- A position is either accurate to that which God the Holy Spirit teaches in the Scriptures that He Himself inspired, and is thereby the very truth; or a position is not accurate, and is therein false.

 

Fourth, it appears to me that THE foundational premise of your position is that of the "division" that you have come to "see" between the teachings of the apostle Paul and the teachings of the other New Testament epistles.  Indeed, it even appears that this may be the one point of your position about which you will not even consider the possibility that it could be incorrect.  Yet this would indeed be one of the very points which I would engage as being a false step in your understanding.  I do not present this to disrespect or deride you (any more than I believe that you are seeking to "mock" me); rather, I present this in order that you might know the direction from which I would engage your position if I did so.

Finally, if I did choose to engage various individual points of your position, I would do so in the "other" thread, since that is the location of your entire article (all four parts).

Sister, it truly is my desire ever to engage with truth and grace; however, in the realm of Biblical disagreement, I am quite firm in my presentation (as I believe you have probably observed already through other discussions in which I have been engaged).

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 11:48 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

I thank you for your response, and from it I conclude that I was correct in my comment, as follows:

________________________________________________

Now, please understand that I do not say anything that follows to be mean, but simply to bring forth some clarity.

Yet I have not even presented my position on any of the given points, other than to express that I have some disagreement with some of your points.  So then, are you expressing your respectful disagreement with my position (having not even yet "heard" it) simply on the grounds that it is in disagreement with your own?
 

Actually, having not yet "heard" my position, I am not certain that you can know how "firmly convinced" of it I am (other than your observation of my character in other discussions on other matters).
 

Due to your expressed "attempt to digress" from this matter, I will not pursue the individual points of disagreement in this thread.  I may also not do so at all on the "other" thread.  However, I do wish to warn you that I MAY engage some of these points individually on threads that I may generate specifically for that purpose.  If I do so, I will not engage these points initially as being directly against you, but simply as presenting a position on the matter.  If in those cases, you desire to engage the discussion; then the issue can proceed from that point.  However, I do not know that I will do this at all; and I also do not know how soon I would do this if I choose to do so.  At the moment, I wish to concentrate the majority of my energy in the forum toward the Bible study on 2 & 3 John.

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 10:22 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

Sister Ronda,

As I (and I believe, others) read through your article, it does NOT appear that you are attempting to show how "the same gospel" was "presented differently" unto two different audiences.  Rather, it appears to me (and I believe also, to others) that you are attempting to show that because of the two different audiences, there were actually TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS, one gospel concerning salvation by God's grace through faith alone, without any works, and the other gospel concerning salvation by God's grace AND human merit through faith AND works.

 

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 8:43 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

I did indeed understand your presentation concerning the differences in audience between the apostle Paul and the other apostles, and concerning your application of Paul's epistles to the New Testament church and of the other epistles to the Jews during "other" times.  Although I most certainly do not agree with your premise of "divisions," and thus also do not agree with your restrictive application for the non-Pauline epistles, I could actually grant some amount of "agree-to-disagree" room unto your position.

Furthermore, if the following statement was truly what you had done in relation to the gospel --

Then there would not have been any real contention concerning the matter of the gospel.

However, what you actually presented in your article was something altogether different, as is revealed by the following portion of your article --

You see, what you ACTUALLY taught by you article was NOT that Peter and Paul preached "the same gospel," although with different emphasis to different audiences, but WAS that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE GOSPELS."  You taught that Peter and Paul were NOT "teaching the same message," but that each "had a DIFFERENT doctrine."  You taught that Peter's doctrine of the gospel was for "people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins," but that Paul's different doctrine of the gospel was simply "that salvation comes by 'believing on' the Lord Jesus Christ," without including the requirement for "baptism or repentance."  You taught that although water baptism was required by the gospel that was for before, water baptism is "no longer required" for salvation by the gospel that is for NOW.

If words mean anything, then you DO NOT believe in only one gospel, but ACTUALLY believe in two different gospels.  Yet you also express distress if someone points out the fact that members may perceive you as "messing" with THE gospel.

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:21 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, Sister Ronda,

1.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that in YOUR OWN original article YOU YOURSELF said the following:

2.  Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the gospel, THE ONE AND THE ONLY gospel"?

3.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel, then the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is a faulty claim?

4.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since YOU YOURSELF made the faulty claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels," then you did indeed "mess" with the doctrine of the gospel that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel specifically by making that faulty claim concerning "TWO SEPARATE gospels"?

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 1:26 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmmm.  Yes, you are correct.  When it comes to the doctrine of the gospel, I definitely tend to engage in "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  I do this because I believe that the doctrine of the gospel it is so very, very important that is worthy of "rightly dividing" through "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.  However, maybe you yourself do NOT believe that the doctrine of the gospel is important enough for such a "legalistic," "jot and tittle" precision.

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 1:34 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, what I am trying to do is help you to acknowledge the direct contradiction that you have presented in your own position of belief concerning the gospel, as is revealed in the following two statements that you yourself have made:

You see, the claim that there were "TWO separate gospels" and the claim that there was "the ONE and the ONLY gospel" are directly contradictory claims.  Yet you have claimed both of these statements as a part of your own position of belief concerning the doctrine of the gospel.  So then, which is it -- Do you believe in "TWO separate gospels," or do you believe in ONE and ONLY ONE gospel?

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 1:42 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the statement of Galatians 2:7 is the most foundational passage for you to support your "two separate gospels" position.  However, since you honor the very words of Scripture so highly, I wonder if you are willing to consider the Holy Spirit inspired explanation for the statement of Galatians 2:7, that God the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to include in Galatians 2:8, and that grammatically is actually a part of the very same sentence as Galatians 2:7?

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 2:46 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Contradictions, contradictions.  I am quite certain that God the Holy Spirit is NOT the Source for these contradictions.

First, you indicated that there is "the ONE and only gospel," which the apostle Paul taught ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ"), and that the other apostles taught "the same One and only gospel" ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ").  Yet then you further indicated that the other apostles "ADDED to the one true gospel . . . with baptism and other works."  This IS a Biblical contradiction.  In his teachings on the doctrine of the gospel, the apostle Paul placed great emphasis upon the truth that the gospel of grace does NOT include any human works whatsoever at all (See Romans 3:20, 28-30; 4:1-8; 9:30-33; 11:5-6; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:10-14; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).  Indeed, in Romans 11:6 the apostle Paul under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit clearly revealed that it is spiritually IMPOSSIBLE before God to mix grace and works in the same gospel, saying, "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."  Even so, if the apostle Peter or any other apostle ADDED ANY works to the gospel, then that apostle did NOT teach the SAME gospel as the apostle Paul; and then that apostle taught a gospel that was NOT at all a gospel of God's grace.

Furthermore, with the conclusion of your statement above, you proceeded to indicate that "the Bible itself" called the gospel which Peter taught "a different gospel" than the gospel which Paul taught.  Indeed, you indicated that "the Bible calls them 2 separate things."  This IS a doctrinal contradiction within your own position of doctrine.  First, you claim that they all taught "the same ONE and only gospel;" but then you claim that "the Bible itself calls them 2 separate things."  Either they were "the same ONE," or they were "2 separate things."  However, it is self-contradictory to claim that they were both.  Now, if "the Bible itself" really does call them "2 separate things," then it is a doctrinal falsehood (even for you) to claim that they were "the same ONE."

Now then, from all that you have presented throughout your postings, it appears that you really do believe that Paul and Peter taught "two separate gospels," even as you originally presented in your original article as follows:

Furthermore, it appears that you have attempted to use "one and only one" and "one and the same" language with regard the gospel that Paul and Peter taught respectively, in order to appease the controversy that you have stirred up with the majority of the membership on the forum.

_____________________________________________

Early within the discussion of this thread, I presented the following:

I believe that the answer to my question above has now been clearly revealed, especially considering that you have remained unwilling even to acknowledge the direct contradiction in your own claim that Paul and Peter taught "the same ONE and only gospel," yet also "two separate gospels."

I believe that any honest reading of my postings above will reveal that the focus of my discussion has been concerning the matter of "two separate gospels" or "one and only one gospel."  Indeed, I did ask a question of you concerning the contextual explanation of Galatians 2:8 for the statement of Galatians 2:7.  However, everything else that I have posted has directly related to the confrontation of your contradictions concerning the gospel -- (1) That "Peter and Paul preached two separate gospels;" (2) That "Peter and Paul preached two separate gospels," but also preached "the one and the only [same] gospel;" (3) That Peter and Paul preached "the one and the only [same] gospel," but that Peter added works to that gospel.  Any claims concerning any specific thing that I have said concerning those various passages that you listed is simply inaccurate.

 

20 hours ago, Ronda said:

So let me respectfully put forth a question to YOU, Pastor Markle, if I may?  What role do you believe YOU will play in the millennial kingdom?  It's unfair for me to assume I know the answer to the following questions (below) ,and to be honest, I think I DID assume I knew what your answer would be, but I now do NOT assume the same thing at all... as I think we may also be looking at the millennial kingdom in the form of a different people group altogether... I come to this new conclusion because I saw you "liked" Invicta's comment in regard to the book of Revelation above).

Indeed, I have "like" two of Brother David's ("Invicta's") posting within this thread, as follows:

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 1:13 PM, Invicta said:

Peter was the first to preach to the gentile Cornelius and his family;

Paul regularly preached in the synagogue 

Acts ¶  Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2  And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3  Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4  And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

 

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 0:24 PM, Invicta said:

Acts 4:8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9  If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;10  Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 16:28  But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29  Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

From that we see that the message is the same belief in Christ.  Because they use different phrases, doesn't mean it is a different message. The gospel writers often describe the same event with different phrases.  And it is absolute nonsense to suggest that John didn't write to the church, the book of Revelation was written to the (gentile) churches.

Not a single word that Brother David presented in these two postings had anything to do with prophetic matters or with the Millennial Kingdom.  In fact, the ONLY comment that he even made concerning the book of the Revelation was, "And it is absolute nonsense to suggest that John didn't write to the church, the book of Revelation was written to the (gentile) churches."  I certainly CAN agree with that statement in accord with the very words of Scripture, as per Revelation 1:4a & Revelation 1:11.  "John to the seven churches which are in Asia."  "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 hours ago, Ronda said:

Please forgive my impassioned writing here, I cannot help but become fervent in this discussion. It's so clear for me to see... with the dispensations.  So let me respectfully put forth a question to YOU, Pastor Markle, if I may?  What role do you believe YOU will play in the millennial kingdom?  It's unfair for me to assume I know the answer to the following questions (below) ,and to be honest, I think I DID assume I knew what your answer would be, but I now do NOT assume the same thing at all... as I think we may also be looking at the millennial kingdom in the form of a different people group altogether... I come to this new conclusion because I saw you "liked" Invicta's comment in regard to the book of Revelation above). You may wonder what your eschatological standpoint has to do with my stance on the dispensation of grace... but I think it has a lot to do with it actually.

#1: Do you believe that the millennial kingdom is a period of 1000 years? #2: The millennial kingdom will be on earth? #3: The people who have gone through the time of Jacob's trouble (in human bodies, I am NOT including the tribulation martyrs/saints nor anyone killed during that time in this question... just those remaining alive in human bodies at the end of the Daniel's 70th week) and have NOT worshiped the beast, have NOT worshiped his image, have NOT taken his mark, nor the number of his name, but who HAVE accepted Jesus as their Messiah (whom they will look upon Him who've they've pierced and mourn)... these people left in human form at the end of the tribulation (with the qualifiers I gave) will be entering the millennial kingdom? #4  Will they then also be the ones who re-populate the earth (via procreation)? OR #5 do you believe some OTHER people group will re-populate the earth (via procreation)? #5 And one more question in particular, do you think glorified bodies (which we will receive during the rapture) will be capable of procreating?

Sister Ronda,

Although I do not believe that my position on the doctrine of future events has any relevancy to the controversy over "two separate gospels" versus one and only one gospel ever for all peoples in any place at any time, I shall provide my answer to your above questions.

#0:   What role do you believe YOU will play in the millennial kingdom?  I believe that I will be in resurrected form to rule with Christ at whatever level of "rulership" He rewards me in accord with my faithfulness unto Him during this life time of service.

#1: Do you believe that the millennial kingdom is a period of 1000 years?  Yes, literally.

#2: The millennial kingdom will be on earth?  Yes, physically.

#3: The people who have gone through the time of Jacob's trouble (in human bodies, I am NOT including the tribulation martyrs/saints nor anyone killed during that time in this question... just those remaining alive in human bodies at the end of the Daniel's 70th week) and have NOT worshiped the beast, have NOT worshiped his image, have NOT taken his mark, nor the number of his name, but who HAVE accepted Jesus as their Messiah (whom they will look upon Him who've they've pierced and mourn)... these people left in human form at the end of the tribulation (with the qualifiers I gave) will be entering the millennial kingdom?  Yes, absolutely.

#4:  Will they then also be the ones who re-populate the earth (via procreation)?  Yes.

#5: Or, do you believe some OTHER people group will re-populate the earth (via procreation)?  No.

#6: And one more question in particular, do you think glorified bodies (which we will receive during the rapture) will be capable of procreating?  No, certainly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Waiting patiently........:coffee:

Brother "Jim_Alaska" (and this should also answer "swaths" repeated jibes in reference to my not leaving the house except for medical necessity:

As for why I don't leave the house:  I've ignored this mostly because it is truly none of your business... but since some snide remarks in this regard are not likely to abate, let me state that every time I leave the house it requires other people to physically lift me, move me, and position me in a vehicle. Before that happens I have to put braces on my body to support my spine and a cervical collar to support my neck, this also requires help from others to get the braces on.
The only brace which is soft is the cervial collar, and the velcro on it usually rips out hair when I take it off.
The body brace is extremely painful to "wear", it is rigid, it leave bruises, sore spots, skin abrasions and truly doesn't support my body in a natural way. These sore spots and abrasions are not just in one area, but in multiple areas of my body wherever it rubs against skin.
When I get to the doctor's office, my wheelchair then has to be loaded and unloaded, a person (usually more than one) then has to assist me into and out of it, and put the straps on.
On the occassions when my medical appointments are more than a half an hour away (which would be any specialist I see, as none of them are any closer, most of them are much further) it then requires an ambulance to transport me since I cannot sit upright for that long of a period in a moving vehicle, even with braces.
So instead, they load me into an ambulance with a reclining bed and strap me into that. When I arrive at the specialist, They then transfer me to my wheelchair and straps are again applied.

At home I have a reclining/tilting chair which best supports my body at a tilt where there is less strain on my spine.
I spend most of my day in that chair studying the Bible, listening to sermons, and conversating online in study groups. I do occasionally play an online crossword, online jigsaw puzzle, and do other things online such as pay bills and buy groceries. But the majority of my time is spent devoted to God's word and not to worldly things.
When I can no longer "sit" (it's not truly sitting) in that chair, I transfer to the bed, where I listen to the KJV audio Bible, pray, and sleep.
Even in a sedentary, unmoving position there is constant pain involved. Out of all the "inconveniences" of these health problems, I admit that pain is by far the worst problem.
Maybe the next time you run out to your car, hop in and out of it, walk up and down the grocery aisles, etc. without a thought to the blessing of a fully functioning physical body... you will give a moment's thought to others who don't have that same ease of physical motion. Then again maybe not.

I have home health which come in to help with transferring me, personal care, loading/unloading the dishwasher, doing laundry, preparing meals (if you can call it that), and other essential things I can no longer physically do.
I don't think you have any idea how degrading it is to have complete strangers come into your own home and be at the mercy of what someone (paid minimum wage or close to it) will or won't do. The humiliation of personal care is an issue I won't discuss, but next time you take a bath be thankful you have privacy. I have a couple "regular" ladies who are truly there to help, but the majority of the aides they send are lazy, uncaring, worldly people who cuss, lie, and steal from me.
There are many reasons why I do not wish to go to a nursing home (none of which I feel like divulging to you).

So do I tell you this for sympathy? Nope, sympathy can't change one thing and I could care less what any human thinks at this point. I tell you these things first to let you know why (as a courtesy because I am not obligated to divulge) I do not currently attend an IFB church... the nearest one being in the bottoms of "Quaker City" which... if it sounds like an oxymoron it is... it is a "one-horse-town", anyways... it requires an ambulance and attendants for transport... if it's not a medical necessity it isn't covered under my insurance. AND I tell you these things because I hope that before you judge others (without knowledge of their circumstances) you might consider that everyone in the world doesn't have use of the things you take for granted on a daily basis.

So maybe you can see why I am not a member "in good standing" of a church at the present time.
In years past I was a member of a good IFB church, that same church pastor baptized me (of my own consent and free will) many years ago. I'm sure I have the baptism certificate somewhere in my filing cabinet... even though baptism is in NO WAY a contingency of salvation. I also don't believe that membership was ever revoked or cancelled, even though the pastor went on to be with the Lord a couple years back. So, YES, I am a member of an IFB church. As far as "good standing" that depends on what YOU use as a qualifier. I don't do ANY "standing" these days. Just so you know, I don't go anywhere anymore except for medical appointments, and many of those professionals actually come to my house.
When our family moved to a different area of the state (due to the lack of decent wage jobs) there was not a "good" IFB church in the area to which we moved.
Even if I were still healthy I would not become a member of the local IFB church, since it's pastor tried to teach many doctrines to which I did not agree, one of which was his multiple attempts to promote "replacement theology", which, to my knowledge, is not a doctrine in an IFB church. His "sermons" were what I consider to be "micro-sermons" since they were so short in length, and were of the weak milk variety. And the pastor did ask me several times to join in church membership, I declined.
Before I became so disabled, I did consider moving to another part of the country and finding a good IFB church to attend, where there also were decent wage jobs. But God had other plans. And while I still struggle with pain, I also thank the Lord for these physical problems. Why? Because had I not become disabled I would likely have much less time to devote to the Lord. If my body was still "normal" I would probably still be working full time, using much more time in worldly concerns like that than in the real thing that matters... time devoted to the Lord.
What do YOU suppose is more imprtant to the Lord? Being a member in "good standing" of a physical church? (which as far as I'm concerned, I still am) Or being a member of the body of Christ?

1 Cor 12:12 "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."

And which is more important... attending a physical structure church or recognizing that my body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?

1 Cor. 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
 20 "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

(also 1 Cor 1:10-13, is Christ divided?)/ Eph 5:23 the church HIS BODY

15 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Waiting patiently........:coffee:

I'm waiting patiently for more remarks... maybe when you are in a nursing home, or in a similar situation health-wise (and I don't wish it on ANYONE) then someone can ask you the same questions and place judgment on YOU.  I have (on numerous occasions here) divulged that I was home-bound except for medical necessity, but I guess that wasn't a good enough "qualifier". 

Edited by Ronda
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Well now, Sister Ronda, this is not an accurate statement.  I have NOT continued to contend such concerning those verses, for in fact I have not engaged in a precise, "jot and tittle," "in depth" discussion concerning any of those verses within any of my responses to you throughout this thread.  This does not mean that I stand in agreement with you handling of these passages; however, it does mean that it is inaccurate for you to make claims about what I have said concerning those passages, since I have not actually engaged in any direct discussion concerning them.

"Pastor Markle": You are correct... you (personally) did not contend on some of the verses I brought forth (on this thread) as well as brother "NN's" original thread. However you did "like" other posts to which I assumed you agreed. And so forgive me for believing that when you agreed with those posts (on this thread as well as the original thread) that you were not in fact contending (as I added the "bold"in your statement above). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Contradictions, contradictions.  I am quite certain that God the Holy Spirit is NOT the Source for these contradictions.

I'm quite certain the Holy Spirit brought these very contradictions forth to show that they were not teaching the same thing as Paul:

Paul stated that we are justified by faith without works... James stated a man is justified by works and not faith only. 

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

In comparison with:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only"

AND then in regard to eternal security:

Hebrews 6:4 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," 
5 "And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come", 6 "If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

in comparison with:

Ephesians 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" 14 "Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory". AND  Ephesians 4:30 "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

I've already brought out SEVERAL references to Peter commanding baptism... and Paul rebuking Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. I guess none of that matters?

The statements in the Bible show a clear contradiction, and  prove to me that they were speaking to 2 different audiences.  These apparent contradictions cause so much confusion in churches today... and even MORE confusion when the congregation is given an excuse for the contradiction... explaining away the contradiction. Would it not be much easier to recognize who the particular verse/epistle was written to and if you see that, you also see (quickly) there aren't any  more contradictions, but instead there is harmony. Another big problem are the many churches who claim Israel's blessing for themselves.

I will further state they we agreed on more than I (newly) thought we would in regard to the millennial reign... so with that said, I can't understand why you can't see God has a plan for that kingdom for Israel... both the martyrs/saints of the trib and the 1/3 remnant who live to the end in human bodies. (Each of those will have separate roles).  Although I am not sure what you believe (still) in regard to your role in the millennial kingdom... I am pretty sure we would disagree in that respect, since I feel confidant that God's plans for the trib martyrs/saints (those resurrected in Rev. 20:4 and further defined in Rev. 20:6) are different that His plans for the bride of Christ (us...those of us saved by grace in faith in Jesus Christ in this dispensation)... 

Those same (1/3 remnant of Israel who live through to the end of the "time of Jacob's trouble) are also the ones to whom I believe must "endure unto the end" which Matthew 24:13-14 are referencing.

Matthew 24:13 "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." 

The gospel of the kingdom (Israel was waiting for when their Messiah came the first time, and they couldn't understand, even after Christ was resurrected, why He didn't bring it in right away then) is  the millennial kingdom (nor could they understand why He didn't also bring peace in right away and that it would also be a future fulfillment) .  I was going to ask if you agree with ...(Matthew 24 as well as Rev 20:4, 20:6) but to be honest, I don't see how it even matters now... why am I wasting my time? I personally don't "think" you see the different (end result) of the trib saints in comparison with the bride of Christ in  our roles during the millennium , both in resurrected/glorified bodies.  (or so I assume... you haven't postulated fully, and so I shouldn't just assume, as I am sure you will point out). .. Why bother..at this point... I don't care to even know your answers now, since you still won't (likely) see how it has anything to do with the gospel of the kingdom being mixed into the gospel of grace by churches today.  It would just be another round of dispute, and I've had enough of dispute. I'd like to end on this note: Our differences come from the matter of dispensation... where I (and some others) see a rightly divided line in content, you (and others) do not.  There's no way I can "make you see" what I feel is clear, and there's no way you (and others) could make me "unsee" this method of dispensationalism with which has clarified so many different apparent contradictions, as well as a clarity to the different plans I believe God has for Israel in comparison to the bride of Christ (those of us saved by grace in faith alone in Christ Jesus during this dispensation, without works of any kind). So I will AGAIN attempt to disengage in this conversation,   I give up... 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Ronda said:

I've already brought out SEVERAL references to Peter commanding baptism... and Paul rebuking Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. I guess none of that matters?

Ronda, it isn't that it doesn't matter. Pastor Markle has explained why he hasn't discussed your references so far. The reason is that to discuss in detail whether he (or anyone) thinks your position is true, he (or anyone) first needs to know what your position is.

Now on the one hand you say this:

"SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL." (Emphasis is yours.)

So if there is a "one and only gospel" then by definition that gospel must be the only true gospel that has ever existed for anyone, anywhere, ever. That's what "the one and the only" means in English.

But on the other hand you say that there has been more than one gospel. You say that in the past Peter (for example) preached a Gospel that wasn't grace through faith alone. It may have included faith, but it wasn't faith alone. And that to at least some of his hearers it was true: to be saved they needed to get baptised.

So you are saying two things at once:

--there has only ever been one gospel;

--there has been more than one gospel.

Those are mutually exclusive positions that can't both be true at once. If you think Peter taught a different gospel to Paul and you have your reasons why then that's great--it's something that can be discussed. But it can't be discussed if you simultaneously say that there has only ever been one gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Person A: "This entrance to this building here--is it the only way in?"

Person B: "Yes, it is the only entrance to the building."

Person A: "Oh, so the building has just one entrance."

Person B: "Yes, this one and the entrance to the side."

Person A: "So this isn't the only entrance?"

Person B: "No, no. This is the one and only entrance. But in addition to this one and only entrance, there is an entrance to the side."

Person A: "But if there is an entrance to the side, how can this be the one and only entrance??"

Person B: "Because it is the one and only entrance. It's just that there is also an entrance to the side." Etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:43 PM, Ronda said:

First let me say I am not unwilling to consider I am wrong. You are 100% correct that humans CAN be wrong, and often are.
Are you also willing to consider YOU could be wrong as well? (many may SAY "yes", but in all honesty, I don't believe the answer will truly BE "yes")
I feel led of the Holy Spirit in this understanding (I am sure my opponents in thought would say the same, but many SAY they've had that tugging, compelling feeling of the Holy Spirit to dig deeper on particular verses... but then I don't see many of them posting these verses they SAY they've felt this guidance in)

Yes, I have studied this particular subject in depth. You see, I lived in Pensacola, FL and worked in the construction crew. As a result, I had a lot of contact with students from Pensacola Bible Institute (Dr. Ruckmond's school). Seeing as he takes this same stand, I have had this position proposed to me several times. As a result, I had to take my Bible and find out what God says about it.

Let me ask you a question, what is a dispensation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:43 PM, Ronda said:

Now you will say... but Peter (and some others) also taught the gospel to the Gentiles, right?
Yes they did (as did Paul teach the gospel to the Jews as well).
But why does Paul make such a big deal about being chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles? 
Because Paul had to admonish Peter for WRONGLY teaching the Gentiles. (Gal. 2:14)
What was Peter wrongly teaching the Gentiles? "to live as do the Jews".
Which is why it's important to follow Paul's teaching for this dispensation.
We want to make sure we are only teaching the gospel Paul taught.

If you will look at Galatians 2:11-13 you will see that this has absolutely nothing to do with Salvation, whatsoever.

Paul was telling Peter that he was wrong for fearing the circumcision and withdrawing himself from the Gentiles.

And then Paul goes on to say that those "we who are Jews by nature", specifically he and Peter, know that a man is not justified by the works of the law. If Peter taught a different Gospel, Paul didn't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...