Today is

RIGHTDIVISION.COM DISCUSSION FORUM Login as administrator
 Subject: RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3
 
Author: Joyce
Date:   7/25/2009 12:59 am CDT
Darryl,

Thank you for addressing my question, even if it was not a direct answer.

But before I respond to your answer I would like to address the fact that Peter said in Acts 10;28, "ye know how it is an UNLAWFUL thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation.....". (Good point, by the way, I'm glad you brought that up. It does seem to suggest that God had been a respecter of persons in the OT)

In point of fact, however, the Mosaic law does not have one single word about Jews not keeping company with Gentiles. Look for it, as I have, you will not find one word about not keeping company. Because the Law of Moses does not say anything about Jews not keeping company with Gentiles, I am in agreement with the note in the CB on the word "unlawful" which reads, "....."Themis, is that which is established by custom or usage". In other words, God never told Jews to not keep company with Gentiles, that was a purely man-made custom.

Having established that it was not God's commandment that Jews not keep company with Gentiles, I would like to ask a few questions that you never did address. Because the preaching of the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles is a major point of your dispensational views, I would hope that instead of just re-stating your point of view, you would address these questions directly.

1) If God was a respecter of persons in the OT as you believe, how would you answer the following:

a) God sent His Son to the WORLD. If God didn't care about the salvation of Gentiles until the dispensation of grace, why did He send Christ to the entire world, and not just to Israel at the beginning of the Gospel period? (Your previous point about Gentiles as dogs etc. does not answer this question as that passage does not come in the context of salvation, and it does not answer the question, it only dodges it.)

b) Can you honestly say that God who loved the world so much as to send His only begotten Son to die for it, that He did not care enough in OT times to make it possible for about 90% of that world to acepet His gift of salvation?

c) If your answer to that question is that He did not care, doesn't it seem to you that, at the very latest, He showed that love to the Gentiles at the time He sent His Son to them, i.e. the beginning of the Gospel period?

d) If Christ is drawing ALL men to Himself from the time of His ascension (Matt. 12:34) doesn't that show that God cares about the salvation of Gentiles every bit as much as He cares about the salvation of Jews from the point of His ascension.

2) You wrote that I was in error and did not understand Rom. 1:19-20 correctly. I believe that Paul is saying here that those Gentiles who did not know of Israel or the Law could be made righteous by acknowledging God's eternal nature. My question is then: how then do you understand this passage, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".

3) Your previous answer to that passage was that there is only one message of salvation and the acknowledging of God's eternal nature is not one of them. So I would like to know how you account for the fact that Abram was made righteous when he believed that God would make of him a great nation (Gen. 15), and that Noah was made rightous when he believed God's message to him about buidling the ark (Heb. 11). Doesn't that prove that those who believe the message God had for them, and act on that belief, are made righteous?

4) Now back to Peter's statement in Acts 10. You wrote in a previous message that God became no respecter of persons at the beginning of the dispensation of grace. Then you wrote in your last message that God became no respecter of persons when He sent Peter to the Gentiles, i.e. when the change of dispensation "was about to take place".

Given that your dispensational view has the message of salvation being sent to the Gentiles as THE most important change from the previous to the present dispensation, how is it that THAT change happened PRIOR to the change of dispensations , as your last message suggests?

5) If, as you say Eph. 3 speaks of only one mystery, how do respond to the fact that one mystery both fulfills and does not fulfill the Word of God?


In Christ,
Reply To This Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Joyce 7/22/2009 4:44 pm CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Darryl 7/23/2009 11:05 pm CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Darryl 7/23/2009 11:05 pm CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Darryl 7/23/2009 10:44 pm CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Darryl 7/23/2009 11:13 pm CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Joyce 7/24/2009 4:54 am CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3   new  
Darryl 7/24/2009 9:45 am CDT
 RE: The Two Mysteries Of Eph. 3    
Joyce 7/25/2009 12:59 am CDT
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 64 - 15? *  
* indicates required field