PDA

View Full Version : ll Tim.2:12 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth



grams
Apr 23rd 2013, 03:52 PM
This is from the Web of our church.
Tom our teacher explains this more in detail then I can , so I figure it would be better to
have you take a look, instead of my mixing you all up. Because what I think and understand, never comes out of my mouth on to the keys of the computer.
Please take a glance at least ! Thank You !

http://www.rightlydividing.org/secondarypages/rightlydividing.html

Indueseason
Apr 23rd 2013, 04:32 PM
This is a widely debated subject and is better suited to Bible Chat. I'll move it there.

Meditator
Apr 23rd 2013, 05:56 PM
Wow, that must be studied. I quickly scanned it and I agree with what I saw so far. Gave me an idea for another thread :D

Vakeros
Apr 23rd 2013, 07:13 PM
Just to say that this time of Grace is for those of Israel too, but that I agree there is a time for Israel coming. Good points though on the whole and how I approach all prophecy if I can.

RabbiKnife
Apr 23rd 2013, 07:16 PM
I disagree with a dispensational hermeneutic.

God's plan has always been faith, and faith alone.

Old man
Apr 23rd 2013, 08:05 PM
I agree with RabbiKnife's disgreement. In fact there is much there that I would say is questionable at best.

Vakeros
Apr 23rd 2013, 08:18 PM
God's plan has always been faith, and faith alone.
Completely agree with this. Don't know what a dispensational hermeneutic is.

Brother Paul
Apr 23rd 2013, 09:01 PM
I triple the sentiment...salvation has always been by grace through faith...and I also do not believe the dispensationalist hermeneutic is sound...

Walls
Apr 23rd 2013, 09:41 PM
This is from the Web of our church.
Tom our teacher explains this more in detail then I can , so I figure it would be better to
have you take a look, instead of my mixing you all up. Because what I think and understand, never comes out of my mouth on to the keys of the computer.
Please take a glance at least ! Thank You !

http://www.rightlydividing.org/secondarypages/rightlydividing.html

There are some examples in this discourse that show that the author did NOT divide the word of God correctly. Example;


In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it. For example, the law required every male child to be circumcised, but that is not God's requirement today.

The LAW says: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14.
But GRACE says: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...Col. 2:10,11.

But if you read these two scriptures carefully you will at once see that the believer IS required to be circumcised. Just the mode of circumcision is different - one with hands and one without hands.

Then, later, the author talks of Paul's gospel being different to the twelve Apostles as directed by Jesus. But the author immediately shows two different gospels. One of the kingdom, and one of the substitutionary death of Christ for sins. It is not that Paul's gospel was different. It is that there is a "good news" that Christ died for sins, and there is a "good news" that when a man takes Christ's substitutionary death into account, he becomes eligible for the kingdom.

The gospel of Christ's death is a matter of faith.
Romans 3:25; "whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousnes because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,..."

The gospel of the kingdom is a matter of works and suffering.
2 Peter 1:10-11; "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

And

Acts 14:22; "strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, 'We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.'”

So, in a sense, the link, and the author, are a good demonstration of how NOT to cut the Word of God.

Vakeros
Apr 23rd 2013, 09:46 PM
Good points Walls.

percho
Apr 23rd 2013, 10:29 PM
Tim.2:12 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth


Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2:14,15
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, silver and gold, from your vain conversation by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18,19

Now I am going to rightly divide the word of truth and show all just what, grace through the faith, is by which we will be able to receive salvation, the gift of God.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:19,20 --- Christ in obedience of faith died for our sins on the cross. The faith. Slain from the foundation of the world Rev. 13:8
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2 --- The grace of God that brings salvation was the Father raising the Son from the dead with new life. Regeneration.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18


God is in the saving business and he does not need us to do anything or to believe anything, in order to receive and or take from him salvation.

That is/was the plan and it began before God created Adam in his own image and it was the plan before Adam sinned.

God before he said, "Let there be light," had a plan to destroy Satan and the works of Satan, the devil.

A good question might be. Had Satan already fallen from the grace of God before it was said, "Let there be light"?

TrustGzus
Apr 23rd 2013, 11:35 PM
But if you read these two scriptures carefully you will at once see that the believer IS required to be circumcised. Just the mode of circumcision is different - one with hands and one without hands.

Do you think it's possible that you might be being a bit nit-picky? Circumcision is obviously literal in one sense and metaphorical in another. So there's a bit of a equivocation going on here by Paul. Let me illustrate with another passage. So Paul says in Colossians 2:10-11 that we are all circumcised. But then in Galatians he says . . .


Galatians 5:2–3 (NIV)
2*Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3*Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Apply your line of thought here. So now is Paul contradicting himself? He says in one passage we are circumcised but then in another if your be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all! This Galatians passage agrees with the author of the article, but does not contradict Colossians. Why? As previously stated, Colossians is equivocating by using the term metaphorically.

Let's give the author a break.

Noeb
Apr 24th 2013, 12:37 AM
grams, good article (with an exception I'll get to later). Thanks.

People that say they "disagree with a dispensational hermeneutic" acknowledge the dispensations.

Some complain, "it's always been by faith" and the article says so
"In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it."
"Remember, righteousness comes by believing what God says (i.e., what God is saying to us in this age of Grace) and acting on it. That is what faith is: believing God; trusting Him and His Word."

Then, another says the writer is in error because they didn't specify that circumcision is still required, while quoting they did!
It's like these haven't read it.

grams, the gospel of the kingdom included everything in the scriptures, even the suffering Messiah and resurrection. As it unfolds in 'beginning of the gospel' we never even get to first base. Meaning, the bridegroom's (Jesus) best man (John) is thrown in prison and killed and the bridegroom/Messiah is rejected by the leaders of Israel. So instead of Jesus going to the cross as the accepted King of the Jews at the hands of the Romans, he goes as the mocked and rejected king of the Jews at the hands of the Jews. There are 'different aspects' and 'realizations' of the gospel of the kingdom. Right now we have a small taste of the spiritual and look forward to the kingdom coming to earth in fullness, which will be both spiritual and physical. Jesus talked of both, but did so knowing it was to be partial because he was rejected. So in reading the 'beginning of the gospel' when Jesus sent the disciples to offer the kingdom ONLY to Israel, put yourself in the mindset of an Israelite that knew the scriptures and was looking for 'the kingdom'. Messiah came offering both the physical and spiritual blessings promised to Israel -'the kingdom', otherwise he did not come. This would include forgiveness of sin and his spirit in them. Which required the shedding of blood and resurrection etc..... So, just because the details and hows were not completely understood, doesn't mean it wasn't spoke of and offered to Israel as promised. God is not a liar and manipulator.

Walls
Apr 24th 2013, 02:50 AM
Do you think it's possible that you might be being a bit nit-picky? Circumcision is obviously literal in one sense and metaphorical in another. So there's a bit of a equivocation going on here by Paul. Let me illustrate with another passage. So Paul says in Colossians 2:10-11 that we are all circumcised. But then in Galatians he says . . .



Apply your line of thought here. So now is Paul contradicting himself? He says in one passage we are circumcised but then in another if your be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all! This Galatians passage agrees with the author of the article, but does not contradict Colossians. Why? As previously stated, Colossians is equivocating by using the term metaphorically.

Let's give the author a break.

You might have done more damage to the author's cause than me with that last request. The fact that you think he needs a break speaks volumes. But, OK. Let's give him a break. But I thought that grams wanted an analysis.

TrustGzus
Apr 24th 2013, 02:58 AM
You might have done more damage to the author's cause than me with that last request.

How is the comment damaging? By saying give the author a break, all I'm implying is let's be as fair to his thoughts as you would like people to by with yours and as I would like people to be with mine. Or in other words, let's give what he said a fair evaluation. The golden rule of apologetics. Treat other peoples arguments like we'd like ours to be treated. Thus, I brought up a passage from Paul that supports his point and the fact of the difference in how circumcision is used in the passages (literal v. metaphorical).

Noeb
Apr 24th 2013, 03:44 AM
that you think he needs a break speaks volumesThat you don't, says more
"In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it. For example, the law required every male child to be circumcised, but that is not God's requirement today.

The LAW says: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14.
But GRACE says: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...Col. 2:10,11."

Dani H
Apr 24th 2013, 03:46 AM
Completely agree with this. Don't know what a dispensational hermeneutic is.

I draw the limit at "propitiation" when it comes to multi-syllabics. Anything more than 5 syllables -- fuhgeddaboutit. :lol:

Faith and grace aren't supposed to be complicated. We've just made it this way, and sometimes I wonder if we're just repeating terms and swallowing these complex issues as "truth", going further and further into complexity without actually arriving anywhere, because the true meaning of the simple and straightforward escapes us.

percho
Apr 24th 2013, 04:18 AM
That you don't, says more
"In every dispensation, righteousness before God has always been achieved by believing what God has said and acting upon it. For example, the law required every male child to be circumcised, but that is not God's requirement today.

The LAW says: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Gen. 17:14.
But GRACE says: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands...Col. 2:10,11."

Is this speaking of God circumcising their heart without hands or themselves circumcising their own heart without hands by believing something and or exercising their faith in someone?

Noeb
Apr 24th 2013, 04:44 AM
Is this speaking of God circumcising their heart without hands or themselves circumcising their own heart without hands by believing something and or exercising their faith in someone?neither. It's Christ cutting off flesh by the cross and making us alive by the resurrection. It's what he did.

grams
Apr 24th 2013, 10:33 AM
Well I am glad I did not try to explain this. Because I would have mixed some of you up more then you are.
May I try some........
We have every thing upon Belief ! - of course understand & FAITH

Who is talking and to whom are they talking to ? US / or time past / but now/ ages to come .....

If I try to say more I will mix every one up ......

boangry
Apr 24th 2013, 01:26 PM
Hi grams, I just had a glance like you suggested and to be honest it sounds good but sets off huge warning bells, the bells may or may not be misunderstandings and my wishful thinking reaction is that what is written is not what is meant but my gut tells me it is.

re-read this, it seems to be contrasting verses that are not there to contrast...


The ultimate example of the difference between law and grace is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. The law required annual blood sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, which we now understand were but a foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice Christ Jesus would make for the complete payment for all of our sins.

The Law says: The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifiethto the purifying of the flesh. Heb. 9:13

But GRACE says: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:12

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8,9)

Taking this and the rest of the article into context, there seems to be two roads to salvation one way in the old testament and a different way in Pauls gospel(which I on the other hand think is exactly the same gospel as in the old testament and not a different gospel) two different kingdoms and end objectives for the now differing groups and anyway I basically disagree...

anyway before I comment how about you say whether or not you agree with this statement I believe just to clarify

No amount of sacrificing of bulls and blood on any alters in the Old testament could save anyone, just the same for us today no amount of sacrificing or blood can wash away our sins, because grace operated the same way in the old and new testament times.

Because as Paul tells us
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8,9 applies to us and it also applies to Joshua, Moses and Abraham and David. They could not do any works to merit any salvation what soever. I repeat the law condemned them therefore could and can not give them forgiveness or righteousness from sin, there righteousness is in Christ, in His works not theirs or ours.

So tell me you agree and then Ive totally got the wrong end of the stick :)

Walls
Apr 24th 2013, 02:36 PM
How is the comment damaging? By saying give the author a break, all I'm implying is let's be as fair to his thoughts as you would like people to by with yours and as I would like people to be with mine. Or in other words, let's give what he said a fair evaluation. The golden rule of apologetics. Treat other peoples arguments like we'd like ours to be treated. Thus, I brought up a passage from Paul that supports his point and the fact of the difference in how circumcision is used in the passages (literal v. metaphorical).

OK. Here's the problem. God made a covenant with Abraham for the inheritance, first of the Good Land of Canaan (Gen17:8-14), and later the whole earth (Rom.4:13). It embraced ALL male seed from Abraham. From our text in Genesis 17 the requirement for ANY seed of Abraham for this birthright was circumcision. The term "cut off from his people" means death AND it also means that he would not partake of the inheritance. Later we see that Esau despised his birthright and God hated him for it (Gen.25:34; Mal.1:3; Rom.9:13). So circumcision is a serious matter TO ALL SEED OF ABRAHAM.

Now Galatians 3:15-18 says that the covenant made with Abraham cannot be annulled (even if the covenant of Law is annulled), so this covenant is still in effect. Ephesians 3:6 confirms it. Then Galatians 3;29 goes on to say to Christians; "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." So all Christians fall under this covenant. So the matter of circumcision is a serious matter for Christianity - whether it be that made by hands or that made without hands. It involves;

The Christian's inheritance or birthright
God's pleasure or hate


So when grams asked for an appreciation of what a certain brother in a leading position was teaching his flock, and I point out that this leader has said "that is not God's requirement today", don't you think that I did him a service? His leader is telling him to break his side of the covenant, and I am saying; "beware of cutting the word this way."

Now the question remains; Why do put the feelings of such a Church leader, who leads his flock to break their side of the covenant, before truth, especially when grams asked for it?

grams
Apr 24th 2013, 03:54 PM
God has made thing quite easy for us in these days............

If we were born before Jesus went to the cross , our salvation would be different then it is now.

People keep bringing in works.

And there is no works in this time. But when and after the calling away, ....... it will be different again.
As were we will be and were the people in the time past will be.
We will be in the new heaven. I believe we will be replacing the fallen Angles .
They will be on the new earth.
Am I mixing ever one up ? I am very good at that. Sorry.

Walls
Apr 24th 2013, 06:47 PM
God has made thing quite easy for us in these days............

If we were born before Jesus went to the cross , our salvation would be different then it is now.

People keep bringing in works.

And there is no works in this time. But when and after the calling away, ....... it will be different again.
As were we will be and were the people in the time past will be.
We will be in the new heaven. I believe we will be replacing the fallen Angles .
They will be on the new earth.
Am I mixing ever one up ? I am very good at that. Sorry.

Grams, everybody has to start somewhere. It is modest of you to admit that, but don't be sorry. Just ask questions - any question.

To answer this one - Yes... and .... no. If you read Genesis 1:26-28 you will see what God wanted from man. He wanted man as the new governor, or king of the earth. The previous one, Satan, an angel, had failed in governing the earth and caused it to suffer (Isa.14:12-17). He is to be replaced. But Adam was led to throw in his lot with Lucifer and the rest of our sad history is the rest of the bible. But God cannot be thwarted, and so He hatched a magnificient plan to deal with both man's offenses against Him, and restore man back to the original purpose. That is the glorious story of the rest of the bible.

We will not replace fallen angels. They are headed for the Lake of Fire (Matt.25:41). We are a new and special creature. Even our Lord Jesus did not take the form of an angel, but of a man (Heb.1:5-13). Angels populate heaven, but man is for the earth. We will only replace the ruling angels, the original principalities that rule the earth (Eph.3:10, 6:12; Col.2:15). Notice how God said both to Adam and Noah that he was to be fruitful and fill the EARTH.

While angels are spirits, and God is a Spirit (Ps.104:4; Heb.1:7; Jn.4:24), angels are not reported to be in the image and likeness of God. That priviledge is given to men. Once you have believed on the finished work of Jesus Christ, and recognise Him to be the Son of God, and say so out loud, God comes to dwell in your Spirit and starts a work of restoring you to His image (2nd Cor.3:18) and rulership (Lk.11:11-19)

Isn't this much higher than just replacing angels?

boangry
Apr 24th 2013, 11:06 PM
God has made thing quite easy for us in these days............

If we were born before Jesus went to the cross , our salvation would be different then it is now.

I dont understand! please give more detail, everyones salvation is in Jesus Christ those before born the cross(believers) God was able to look forward in time to Christs atoning work on the cross. Those who believe after the cross and before still walk in the will of God (obey his word) its just we have more knowledge and Gods permanent residence within us when I look at believers in Israel I see infants without knowledge, I see them as not being mature so God likewise nourishes them as loved children, now we have knowledge/revelation and we are mature all grown up, this is why God taught us through the law to now the same way we treat our own kids we put boundaries in place for their own protection and let them do as they have learned when they become adults ( I realise faith of individuals can gain wisdom) but is this what you mean by different salvation? Im just taking stabs in the dark please explain!


People keep bringing in works. The bible tells us people do either good works or bad works, those who believe do good works (but this does not earn salvation) by their fruits you will know them. good works=walking(following) in Gods word


And there is no works in this time. But when and after the calling away, ....... it will be different again. no works in this time? please give me an example of what you think works is? I think if I saw someone in need and helped them because I know thats what God wants me to do then according to the bible I have done a good work!

yep after the calling away it will be different but it will still be the same gospel being preached so the same


As were we will be and were the people in the time past will be.
We will be in the new heaven. I believe we will be replacing the fallen Angles .
They will be on the new earth.
Am I mixing ever one up ? I am very good at that. Sorry.

Two different roads and now two different heavens, one on earth and one in heaven, ok maybe I am mixed up! If you think this is so just say so, just read on this forum there are stranger conclusions out there muhahaha. Being different or wrong will attract resistance but at the end of the day its submission to the word and I will have look to see how you reach your conclusions, I think I can already see, but I think Israel had jumped to the wrong conclusions to think they were to inherit a physical kingdom as an eternal kingdom, oh and by the way I am a dispensationalist that believes in a future 1000yr reign for Israel.

But really you need to work out what Christs gospel is? and follow his gospel just as Paul and the apostles did, make Christs gospel your gospel, as Paul and the apostles did.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Notice the church Paul joined was in existence before he was converted, notice Paul was part of the Jews religion, when he persecuted the church.

What church was the church Paul persecuted before he was converted? Ill answer it for you :) it was those who were followers of the way, it was those who departed from the Jewish religion, it was those who followed the gospel of Christ, the one and only the same gospel that Paul preached :)

keck553
Apr 24th 2013, 11:09 PM
Completely agree with this. Don't know what a dispensational hermeneutic is.

Sounds like something the Dr. needs to prescribe some kind of salve for.....

Noeb
Apr 24th 2013, 11:16 PM
No matter, it was just smoke blown.......

TrustGzus
Apr 25th 2013, 01:18 AM
So the matter of circumcision is a serious matter for Christianity - whether it be that made by hands or that made without hands. It involves;

The Christian's inheritance or birthright
God's pleasure or hate



The matter of circumcision is a serious matter for Christianity? So what do you think Paul meant when he said . . .


Galatians 6:15 (NIV)
15*Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

?

percho
Apr 25th 2013, 01:38 AM
The matter of circumcision is a serious matter for Christianity? So what do you think Paul meant when he said . . .



?

TG, Here is what I believe it to mean.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Circumcision and Uncircumcision are both currently flesh and blood.

we shall all be changed, dead or alive, all.

Walls
Apr 25th 2013, 01:52 AM
The matter of circumcision is a serious matter for Christianity? So what do you think Paul meant when he said . . .



?

I will gladly answer, but first answer my argument regarding the covenant.

mailmandan
Apr 25th 2013, 11:53 AM
This is from the Web of our church.
Tom our teacher explains this more in detail then I can , so I figure it would be better to
have you take a look, instead of my mixing you all up. Because what I think and understand, never comes out of my mouth on to the keys of the computer.
Please take a glance at least ! Thank You !

http://www.rightlydividing.org/secondarypages/rightlydividing.html

I was introduced to dispensationalism many years ago on this website here - http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispensa.html

I actually have and read the book "Things That Differ" by C. R. Stam which was recommended to me by Matthew McGee. From what I have observed, people who believe OSAS are more likely to agree with dispensationalism and those who believe NOSAS are usually quick to reject dispensationalism.

RabbiKnife
Apr 25th 2013, 01:27 PM
I was introduced to dispensationalism many years ago on this website here - http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispensa.html

I actually have and read the book "Things That Differ" by C. R. Stam which was recommended to me by Matthew McGee. From what I have observed, people who believe OSAS are more likely to agree with dispensationalism and those who believe NOSAS are usually quick to reject dispensationalism.

From my observation, just the opposite is what I have seen.

mailmandan
Apr 25th 2013, 02:40 PM
From my observation, just the opposite is what I have seen.

Hank Hanegraaff is one of the few exceptions that I've come across who believes OSAS that rejects dispensationalism. Do you reject dispensationalism yet believe in OSAS? Just recently in a discussion with John 146 (who believes NOSAS) in the "Are those in Christ still under the law that says, "You sin, you die"? thread, I asked him to read an article that I cited from the "Through the Bible with Les Feldick" website which discussed Romans 11 from a dispensational point of view, but he said, "I'm not a dispensationalist so I have no interest in this. Sorry. All I'll say is that I'm sure I would disagree with pretty much everything he says since I completely disagree with that point of view." This is one of many examples of people who believe NOSAS who told me they reject dispensationalism, but I know it can go both ways.

Noeb
Apr 25th 2013, 02:48 PM
What does one have to do with the other?

RabbiKnife
Apr 25th 2013, 02:53 PM
Hisotrically, mainstream Protestant denominations (Presby, Congregationalists, etc) were OSAS and postmillenial or amillenial.

Dispensationalism was seen mostly in Baptists (which could go either OSAS or NOSAS), Methodist, and charismatic/Pentecostal groups.

TrustGzus
Apr 26th 2013, 02:20 AM
Hank Hanegraaff is one of the few exceptions that I've come across who believes OSAS that rejects dispensationalism. Do you reject dispensationalism yet believe in OSAS? Just recently in a discussion with John 146 (who believes NOSAS) in the "Are those in Christ still under the law that says, "You sin, you die"? thread, I asked him to read an article that I cited from the "Through the Bible with Les Feldick" website which discussed Romans 11 from a dispensational point of view, but he said, "I'm not a dispensationalist so I have no interest in this. Sorry. All I'll say is that I'm sure I would disagree with pretty much everything he says since I completely disagree with that point of view." This is one of many examples of people who believe NOSAS who told me they reject dispensationalism, but I know it can go both ways.

Depending on what meaning you pack into the phrase OSAS, all Calvinists believe we are eternally secure and few of them are dispensationalists.

I too am a non-dispensationalist that believes we are eternally secure.

mailmandan
Apr 26th 2013, 11:50 AM
Depending on what meaning you pack into the phrase OSAS, all Calvinists believe we are eternally secure and few of them are dispensationalists.

I too am a non-dispensationalist that believes we are eternally secure.

I mean that a TRULY saved person will not lose their salvation. I believe in eternal security of the genuine BELIEVER but I don't believe in eternal presumption. I didn't realize that few Calvinists are dispensationalists. I don't know very many Calvinists. So you are a non-dispensationalist that believes we are eternally secure? My how the tables have turned.

grams
Apr 26th 2013, 01:11 PM
One more thing may help ? I hope.........

When reading the bible you need to understand who is talking !
And to whom they are talking.

Time Past- Eph. 2:11,12
But Now Eph. 2:13
Ages to come Eph. 2:7

Doing works is always good !
But is not for your salvation!

Jesus Christ , took care of our Salvation at the Cross.

luigi
May 22nd 2013, 07:26 PM
While dividing the word gives the immediate impression of taking a verse apart; when reading the following corresponding verse where individuals should shun profane and vain bablings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness (II Timothy 2:16); I thought rightly dividing the word of truth meant coordinating scriptures together correctly in context, and not incorrectly putting them together out of context.

awestruckchild
May 22nd 2013, 10:25 PM
Hello grams,
I have been reading many of your posts the past few days and have been really enjoying them!
I read what your preacher posted and I think it was just really, really fine!
I agreed with it and the Holy Spirit agreed IN me!
It is good to meet you!