Contradiction?
- Thread starter Rightlydivided
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Rightlydivided, I don't know whether you have noticed, or not, but I refuse to comment to preacher4truth, because he is really not a preacher for TRUTH even though he went to PREACHER'S SCHOOL. I quit commenting to him because of his inhumane way he attacks people and applies demeaning names to them. I apologized to him for some revengeful things I said to him and ask for his apology with his remark being that he had nothing to apologize for.
I know that we interpret the scriptures differently, but I hope I never come across as hateful as preacher4truth. I apologized to him saying that the scripture says that I should defend the gospel in meekness and in truth, which he scoffed at.
I know that we interpret the scriptures differently, but I hope I never come across as hateful as preacher4truth. I apologized to him saying that the scripture says that I should defend the gospel in meekness and in truth, which he scoffed at.
-
2
- Show all
I'm going with 'all' rather than many. I don't see any reason why 'many' can't mean everyone. For example, there is one person in the world that received salvation. Then another, now a 'couple'. Still another, a 'few', all the billions born since, thus "many'. Something like that. This is one possible explanation to the seemingly contradiction.
Mat_4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mat_9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mat_11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Mar_1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar_8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Mar_13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
Mar_14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
Mar_16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
etc etc. That was just a sample.
Granted all the above are meaningless if one holds to the "two gospels" theory. Or however many they come up with in the future. Look. If gospel of the kingdom and gospel of grace are different, then we need to add "Gospel of peace" and "gospel of God" and "gospel of Christ" too. ALL THESE are different gospels...... NO, there is only ONE GOSPEL, its the same thing, good news about Christ, no need to over complicate things
Mat_9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Mat_11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Mar_1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar_8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Mar_13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
Mar_14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
Mar_16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
etc etc. That was just a sample.
Granted all the above are meaningless if one holds to the "two gospels" theory. Or however many they come up with in the future. Look. If gospel of the kingdom and gospel of grace are different, then we need to add "Gospel of peace" and "gospel of God" and "gospel of Christ" too. ALL THESE are different gospels...... NO, there is only ONE GOSPEL, its the same thing, good news about Christ, no need to over complicate things
Exactly, no need to complicate things:
2 Timothy 2:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Romans 2:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Nothing to see here folks....carry on
2 Timothy 2:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Romans 2:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Nothing to see here folks....carry on
Of course the test is if it's Scriptural, when I mentioned it being new and not found, I am speaking of among Biblical scholarly works, in other words via "Scriptural" means. Can we be on the same page here, and you just give the benefit of the doubt that I believe the test is with Scripture, without the assertions otherwise? The fact remains it is new, so beware.
Recent doctrines fall under the if it's new it isn't true; Dispensationalism, Open Theism, Hyper-Grace, Universalism, Hyper-Calvinism, Full Preterism/Preterism, Easy-Believe-ism, Believe-ism (in other words anti-Lordship teachings) &c. For the record, being a former IFB pastor, I was immersed in the errors of Dispensationalism from DTS, Ryrie, Chafer, Scofield, Irving, Hodges, Swindoll &c. It was what was taught along with if anyone held other views they were heretical. That's pretty arrogant concerning the teachings are new themselves.
The church knew nothing of this new error for some 1800 years. What does that tell you, brother? How long has this teaching been around? Since Clarence Larkin, John Darby, C I Scofield? Show me where their teachings were prior to them bringing it into fundamentalist Baptist churches, not that premillenialism was being taught but where Dispensationalism was being taught. Please show us the Dispensational view held by church fathers that proponents of the error hold to today. Not that they used the word "dispensation" in church history. Dispensationalsim itself.
There is safety in counsel from others; Dispensational teachings do not pass Biblical or historical test. It is not mentioned in works of the church, theologies, history, or by any godly men of the past in their works.
I'd dare say that none of these newer teachers were anywhere close to the scholarly level as others in the past, just read them and see. You'd know this simply by picking up some older works and reading them. You'd also note a vast difference in the Gospel as well, from then to today. That is what is really at stake here, by the way.
One problem of Dispensationalism is that it views others as heretical if they do not embrace their new views. Another issue is it assumes that God came up with "plan B" after the Jews rejected their Messiah. That is pure bovine scatology. Your'e aware of this, correct? It is an attack on the nature and attributes of God. God has had plan A from the beginning of time, to say otherwise is frankly foolish. The cross was not plan B, it was the original plan.
Yet another issue is with Dispensationalist soteriology. I'd advise you to look into the teachings of Zane Hodges on this soteriology, and how the church has embraced his teachings at least to some level. Still another is the treatment of Jewish people as if they are saved no matter what simply because they are Jews. None of these views are Biblical, and Dispensationalism doesn't pass the test against Scripture.
All of God's people, no matter the age, have been dealt with in the same manner concerning eternal salvation. There is not one plan for the Jew, and then another for the Gentile. This is proven by the fact that Paul preached the same message to the Jew that he did to the Gentile, so there is one Gospel to all. God doesn't have a backup plan, he has one plan. There is one covenant, not two. I see both Jew and Gentile as one body, not as 2 differing groups, and more importantly, it's Biblical;
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,d but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God bye the Spirit. -- Ephesians 2:11-22.
Now onto this that you brought up: Justification by faith alone was always the Gospel, just because Luther was made aware of this didn't mean it was new it just meant he was converted. Romans 4 teaches this as do the epistles, the OT, and Christ. Some Dispensationalists teach salvation in the old covenant was by obedience to the Law. This is utterly false, and it came from Darby and was passed along to others.
Nevertheless your Luther example falls quite a bit short of being evidence or proof of your argument. Did you really think this thing of justification by faith alone was "new" with Luther? It appears the answer is yes. If not, what then is you argument? That argument of yours right there is filled so full of problems and loaded with issues its remarkable. Really? That was something new, brother??? Wow.
Not sure where the question of "what is wrong with a literal approach to Scripture" came from? Where did I imply it was wrong? Are you accusing me of not believing in a literal interpretation? Just because I'm not a Dispensationalist doesn't mean I reject a literal interpretation of Scripture. But then again, many things in Scripture are figurative as well. Please keep the assertions truthful brother; don't make baseless false assertions.
My advice to you would be for you to read some older works to get a sense of the true Gospel, attributes of God &c because you're making some serious fundamental and classic mistakes as seen in your arguments and stance.
Recent doctrines fall under the if it's new it isn't true; Dispensationalism, Open Theism, Hyper-Grace, Universalism, Hyper-Calvinism, Full Preterism/Preterism, Easy-Believe-ism, Believe-ism (in other words anti-Lordship teachings) &c. For the record, being a former IFB pastor, I was immersed in the errors of Dispensationalism from DTS, Ryrie, Chafer, Scofield, Irving, Hodges, Swindoll &c. It was what was taught along with if anyone held other views they were heretical. That's pretty arrogant concerning the teachings are new themselves.
The church knew nothing of this new error for some 1800 years. What does that tell you, brother? How long has this teaching been around? Since Clarence Larkin, John Darby, C I Scofield? Show me where their teachings were prior to them bringing it into fundamentalist Baptist churches, not that premillenialism was being taught but where Dispensationalism was being taught. Please show us the Dispensational view held by church fathers that proponents of the error hold to today. Not that they used the word "dispensation" in church history. Dispensationalsim itself.
There is safety in counsel from others; Dispensational teachings do not pass Biblical or historical test. It is not mentioned in works of the church, theologies, history, or by any godly men of the past in their works.
I'd dare say that none of these newer teachers were anywhere close to the scholarly level as others in the past, just read them and see. You'd know this simply by picking up some older works and reading them. You'd also note a vast difference in the Gospel as well, from then to today. That is what is really at stake here, by the way.
One problem of Dispensationalism is that it views others as heretical if they do not embrace their new views. Another issue is it assumes that God came up with "plan B" after the Jews rejected their Messiah. That is pure bovine scatology. Your'e aware of this, correct? It is an attack on the nature and attributes of God. God has had plan A from the beginning of time, to say otherwise is frankly foolish. The cross was not plan B, it was the original plan.
Yet another issue is with Dispensationalist soteriology. I'd advise you to look into the teachings of Zane Hodges on this soteriology, and how the church has embraced his teachings at least to some level. Still another is the treatment of Jewish people as if they are saved no matter what simply because they are Jews. None of these views are Biblical, and Dispensationalism doesn't pass the test against Scripture.
All of God's people, no matter the age, have been dealt with in the same manner concerning eternal salvation. There is not one plan for the Jew, and then another for the Gentile. This is proven by the fact that Paul preached the same message to the Jew that he did to the Gentile, so there is one Gospel to all. God doesn't have a backup plan, he has one plan. There is one covenant, not two. I see both Jew and Gentile as one body, not as 2 differing groups, and more importantly, it's Biblical;
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,d but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God bye the Spirit. -- Ephesians 2:11-22.
Now onto this that you brought up: Justification by faith alone was always the Gospel, just because Luther was made aware of this didn't mean it was new it just meant he was converted. Romans 4 teaches this as do the epistles, the OT, and Christ. Some Dispensationalists teach salvation in the old covenant was by obedience to the Law. This is utterly false, and it came from Darby and was passed along to others.
Nevertheless your Luther example falls quite a bit short of being evidence or proof of your argument. Did you really think this thing of justification by faith alone was "new" with Luther? It appears the answer is yes. If not, what then is you argument? That argument of yours right there is filled so full of problems and loaded with issues its remarkable. Really? That was something new, brother??? Wow.
Not sure where the question of "what is wrong with a literal approach to Scripture" came from? Where did I imply it was wrong? Are you accusing me of not believing in a literal interpretation? Just because I'm not a Dispensationalist doesn't mean I reject a literal interpretation of Scripture. But then again, many things in Scripture are figurative as well. Please keep the assertions truthful brother; don't make baseless false assertions.
My advice to you would be for you to read some older works to get a sense of the true Gospel, attributes of God &c because you're making some serious fundamental and classic mistakes as seen in your arguments and stance.
THIS is THE Gospel unto Salvation.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 King James Version (KJV)15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Now I ask again, besides His inner circle and Nicodemus, when did Jesus preach THAT Gospel to the Jewish Nation?
The word Gospel, simply means "Good News". IF the Jews had accepted Him that WAS Good News to them.
But please answer. When did Jesus preach to the Nation that He was going to be crucified and die for their sin? I guess we COULD say this passage qualifies maybe:
The Scribes and Pharisees Ask for a Sign
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it,because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
I'd tend to agree with being wary about 'newness' but I tend to be wary of 'oldness' as well without Scriptural backing (think infant baptism).
I also agree that the hyper dispensationals can be quite arrogant (at least that has been my experience). I'll be interested to know your view on similar subjects. Are you of MacArthur's persuasion when it comes to Lordship salvation? (although he is also Dispensational).
Like I said, my criteria for accepting/rejecting a doctrine is not if it is old/new but if it is true to Scripture or runs contrary.
So you hold to Infant Baptism? That passes the history test.
I skimmed down and noticed this. I'm sorry but I don't care conversing with those that assume ignorance to their readers. You have no idea what I have read, what I know, what Churches I have attended. It really was a condescending and arrogant stroke on your part. And you claim to have been a pastor? Oy Vey.
I also agree that the hyper dispensationals can be quite arrogant (at least that has been my experience). I'll be interested to know your view on similar subjects. Are you of MacArthur's persuasion when it comes to Lordship salvation? (although he is also Dispensational).
Like I said, my criteria for accepting/rejecting a doctrine is not if it is old/new but if it is true to Scripture or runs contrary.
So you hold to Infant Baptism? That passes the history test.
I skimmed down and noticed this. I'm sorry but I don't care conversing with those that assume ignorance to their readers. You have no idea what I have read, what I know, what Churches I have attended. It really was a condescending and arrogant stroke on your part. And you claim to have been a pastor? Oy Vey.
-
4
- Show all
Or you could just read the truth:
Does Paul’s gospel exist? Of course, Christ showed him directly
Romans 2:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Interesting, according to who?
Again...
Romans 16:25 King James Version (KJV)
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,
Who’s gospel? Kept secret since when? Revealed when????
Peter preached the resurrection of Christ “before” Paul was saved, so how could Paul say this?
2 Timothy 2:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Who’s gospel?
NO ONE ELSE EVER CLAIMED “my gospel”
-
1
- Show all
More false assertions? Nowhere did I remotely suggest I believe in infant baptism, lol!!!!
You didn't "skim" you "skipped" past where I showed your error. But of course you'd skip right past your erroneous "new" teaching of Luther, right? Why not address your absurd evidence that falls short? Because you can't stand correction?
How convenient of you, and how wrong you are: Justification by faith wasn't a new teaching, that you've implied it was shows you don't know much and/or just made a serious error. This is why I conclude you haven't read much because that much is seemingly apparent. Then the name calling and ridicule on your part affirms it and is always the ploy of those who've lost an argument. You really should not have gone there brother.
I get it, you can't prove dispy leanings by any scholarly church teachings because it's not biblical, nor that Luther's teaching was new, so you resort to ad hominem tactics. Hmmmm. How sad. Anyhow, get your last word in, I'm done here.
You didn't "skim" you "skipped" past where I showed your error. But of course you'd skip right past your erroneous "new" teaching of Luther, right? Why not address your absurd evidence that falls short? Because you can't stand correction?
How convenient of you, and how wrong you are: Justification by faith wasn't a new teaching, that you've implied it was shows you don't know much and/or just made a serious error. This is why I conclude you haven't read much because that much is seemingly apparent. Then the name calling and ridicule on your part affirms it and is always the ploy of those who've lost an argument. You really should not have gone there brother.
I get it, you can't prove dispy leanings by any scholarly church teachings because it's not biblical, nor that Luther's teaching was new, so you resort to ad hominem tactics. Hmmmm. How sad. Anyhow, get your last word in, I'm done here.
Experience on Forums have taught me that I am wasting my time responding to those who continually assume wrong things about me. Such as this of yours...
It is usually a reflection of how they got into wrong doctrine in the first place.
btw, I ASKED if you held to infant baptism, I did not charge you with it. (another assumption) I asked, because it is an example of an ancient Church doctrine that many scholars hold, that's all.
It is usually a reflection of how they got into wrong doctrine in the first place.
btw, I ASKED if you held to infant baptism, I did not charge you with it. (another assumption) I asked, because it is an example of an ancient Church doctrine that many scholars hold, that's all.