Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
JUST how JEWISH was Jesus?
Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
Then shall they also answer
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or…
RichardAnna Boyce
‘Pentecostal’ Acts was all about Israel up to chapter 13.
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce maybe the Bible wasn’t written to Christians. Do you see any promises given in that book to Christians? But are you a follower of the Gnostic Marcion?
Varnel Watson
would this denote Hagees dual covenantism – I dont see nothing prompting here except the separation of Church and Israel Billy Monroe Poff Philip Williams
Louise Cummings
He had a Mother , that was fully Jew. But His Father was Fully God. The way I see it. God that preceded and His Father , made him Jew from his Mother’s side. But fully God from His Father God Coming From God is still God. I was born in the Puckett family. So when I was born , I was fully Puckett.
Philip Williams
Do you have a copy of Hagee’s book ‘In Defense of Israel’ where he denies Jesus as the Jewish Messiah? Horrific to see people in this forum supporting an apostate like that. Are Pentecostals going headfirst to Hell. God’s wrath is going to be upon them for scorning the blood of his Son.
Philip Williams
The more relevant question is how Christian were the Jews at the time of Jesus. Did they worship their Creator and Heavenly Messiah, the King of Israel who from the time of the OT Prophets had sought to gather them in order to save them (Matthew 23)? Or did they seek to be rid of him in order to run their affairs as pleased themselves?
Varnel Watson
were the jews Christians at all till Acts 11?
Louise Cummings
The Jewish laws was given by God. Some God Breathed. Some Spoken by God Himself. The whole Word Of God is Truth. But Jewish people themselves had the same Word , but lived way from it. Worshipping idols. Doing terrible things God wasn’t pleased with. Jesus had an earthly father , Joseph which wasn’t His his real father.His real Father was God. But His Mother was fully Jewish.
Louise Cummings
Very few believed In Jesus. They believed in God , but not Jesus. Not until this day. It will take the Tribulations , to make them understand. They picked the the wrong one. They believed the wrong one. The Gospel going around the world. Many has excepted Jesus Christ as Savior of the World. Read about the parable of the man that fell among thief’s. If you understand it as I read , and it was explained.
???️
RichardAnna Boyce
the Book of Acts is a transitional book between two dispensations — Israel’s Kingdom program and the Age of Grace, the present day of the church (Paul refers to as the mystery).
Since Acts is a history book, specific events that are like mileposts in this transition.
— the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the establishment of the Jerusalem church,
the martyrdom of Stephen as Israel’s official and final national rejection of Jesus as Messiah,
and the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.
Up to the beginning of the 13th chapter, the good news of Jesus Christ has gone out in the hands of Peter and the other eleven apostles under the Great Commission given to them.
Their audience, up until Peter’s visit to Cornelius, has been almost exclusively Jews.
The message has been one of repentance (for murdering their Messiah) in order to receive the promise of the restoration of David’s kingdom. This is the message that Christ prepared these twelve men to proclaim, in anticipation of the whole earth being blessed through Israel’s rule over the entire world.
Philip Williams
It was first the liberals who claimed that Paul created Christianity. The Jews also believe this. But it is very sad to see Pentecostals taking such an unbelieving position.
The truth is, the Kingdom of God that Paul preached is the same Kingdom of God promised by the OT Prophets and most certainly by Jesus,
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams Bible verse reply please
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce yes, please show the Biblical justification for that theological construct that you are imposing on the Scriptures. That is called eisegesis. God is articulate. He doesn’t need your help in writing to his church.
RichardAnna Boyce
Acts 18:4 Acts 1-17 was principally about Israel with applications for the church today. …….. Paul’s response was strong, clear and final — a response that would be essentially repeated to the Jews of Rome within three verses of the end of the book of Acts. He shook out his garments before them (a Jewish custom tantamount to “washing his hands of them” and breaking fellowship with them), and said,
“From now on I shall go to the Gentiles.”
This is the very essence of Acts, and is the most important lesson modern believers should learn.
As Paul wrote later in several letters,
Israel was being set aside while God ushered in a new era — the unprophesied Age of Grace.
No doubt Paul meant that he would no longer come to the synagogue in Corinth to argue the point.
Instead he would minister among the gentiles who had believed.
To underscore his intentions he left the synagogue and moved his center of operations to the home of a
God-fearing gentile, Titius Justus, right next door to the synagogue.
But in spite of the localized nature of this instance, Paul’s statements to them are prototypical
of a more universal application that comes fully to pass by the end of Acts.
Philip Williams
What kind of nonsense are you teaching? James, and Peter wrote to the twelve tribes, the exiles. Are you suggesting they weren’t writing to Christians. Peter specifically mentions the exiles as being Christians.
RichardAnna Boyce
Jewish disciples making Christian disciples (after evangelism) of Jews dispersed into all nations of the earth.
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce Wrong! Peter was a Christian. King David was a Christian. Christ was his Heavenly Messiah. “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Philip Williams
Jesus had been the Heavenly King of Israel from the time he called Abraham.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: Was there any means for a gentile to become accepted among Jews prior to these events of Acts 1-2?
If so, what was it and what were its terms? (Were gentiles included in the events of Pentecost?
If so, how were they characterized by Luke?)
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 2:10, 8:27
Answer: Gentiles could be accepted as Jewish worshippers (with the exception of entrance into the Temple itself) by adopting Jewish customs and following the Jewish rites, including circumcision. This effectively made them Jews according to the Law of Moses. Proselytes were present at Pentecost, and the Ethiopian eunuch was probably already a proselyte when he met Philip, since he was in Jerusalem “to worship.”
Philip Williams
Not the case! Any who were circumcised were reckoned as Jews. Uncircumcised Gentles could come to the Court of the Gentiles, but the circumcision gave one all the religious privileges of being a Jews. God fearers were uncircumcised Gentiles who attended synagogue meetings as observers.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: How long had Peter and the Jerusalem church held this attitude toward gentiles?
(Was it something that developed recently, or was it in effect from the very beginning of Acts or before?)
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 10:14, 10:28, 11:2-3
Answer: This was nothing new, it was part of their Jewish cultural heritage. It was commonly known among both Jews and gentiles. It had been in effect since the days of Moses.
Question: Given this attitude, who would the apostles and those who had been scattered into Samaria and beyond have preached to?
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 11:19, 8:25
Answer: Only to Jews, and perhaps some Samaritans (who were half-Jews). More likely they were preaching only to Jews who happened to be in Samaria. Luke seems insistent in 11:19 that as a result of the persecution (which included Philip) the gospel was preached to Jews only, regardless of location.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: Prior to these events, what was Cornelius seeking, and how did he hope to attain it? (Compare this to the expectations of the Ethiopian eunuch ministered to by Philip.)
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 10:1-2
Answer: Luke makes it clear that Cornelius was not already a proselyte. Perhaps he lacked the knowledge of how to become one, and was seeking someone to help him in this process. He had a long familiarity with the God of the Hebrews, and a strong desire to be approved by Him. Given the only avenue that was known at the time, his expectation was probably to become a proselyte. His desire is similar to that of the Ethiopian eunuch, but differs in that he was not yet a proselyte and the eunuch probably was.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: What specific attitude in Peter’s thinking did God intend to change through the vision?
Did God succeed? How significant a change was this for Peter?
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 10:15, 20, 23, 28-29; Galatians 2:11-13
Answer: God showed Peter that He had cleansed what formerly was unclean, and Peter should not refuse it. Peter understood that the vision referred specifically to gentiles as soon as Cornelius’ emissaries arrived at the house in Joppa. God succeeded for the moment, but many years later Peter returned to this error on a visit to Antioch. This was a huge change for Peter, and we should not be surprised at Peter’s later problem when the lesson had faded in immediacy and Peter had been under the influence of persistent members of the Jerusalem fellowship who were still insisting on circumcision for new gentile believers and eating separately from them.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: These events begin with an angelic appearance to Cornelius and a thrice-repeated vision to Peter, both miraculous. The timing of these miraculous events is miraculous in itself, and serves to authenticate them. The Holy Spirit miraculously interrupts Peter’s message and miraculously falls on gentiles without being conferred on them by Peter. Why did God use miracles to accomplish this?
Scripture Reference Evidence: I Corinthians 1:22
Answer: We have previously addressed the importance of miracles — they are God’s way of certifying authenticity to Israel. To drop a cliche, to convince lifelong Jews (even though they were believers) that God had cleansed the gentiles too, well… “it would take a miracle!” (Several, in fact…)
Question: Luke suggests that the Holy Spirit fell upon these gentile believers in the same way that He had upon those gathered at Pentecost, and Peter confirms it in his defense before the Jerusalem church. What does Peter mean when he says “… just as He did upon us at the beginning”? Compare this event to Acts 2. Is anything missing? Is anything added? What apparently was the same? (What did Peter and his companions see and hear that indicated this?)
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 2:2-5, 10:44-46
Answer: The rushing wind and the “tongues of flame” are apparently absent (or maybe not and Luke just didn’t mention it). Other than that, the outward evidence of the Holy Spirit “falling” on Cornelius and the others — the speaking in foreign languages, the praises — were the same. In any case, it was plainly evident to both Peter and his companions. Notably, this is still different from the way in which the Holy Spirit indwells believers today.
Question: Peter faithfully reports these miraculous events while defending his actions before the Jerusalem church. Given the attitude and background of the Jerusalem church, his audience, why was this important?
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 11:5-16
Answer: Without an accurate account of the miracles that had taken place, the Jerusalem church would not have accepted Peter’s conclusion in v17. We must remember that the church in Jerusalem, unlike our churches today, was entirely Jewish, and required signs to authenticate the work of God.
Philip Williams
Gentiles could become members of Israel under both Old and New Covenants, the Old Covenant through circumcision and the New Covenant through belief in Jesus and being baptized by the Spirit.
RichardAnna Boyce
Question: Was the Great Commission in force from Acts 1:8 through Acts 11:22?
Scripture Reference Evidence: Acts 1:8
Answer: Certainly. Nothing was ever said to direct Peter and the other Apostles otherwise.
Question: Under what constraint, either by human inadequacies or by Divine design, was the Great Commission operating under until these events?
Scripture Reference Evidence: Matthew 15:24, Acts 1:8 (note the order of progression), Acts 11:19
Answer: It’s scope was limited to Jews, and gentiles were excluded.
Question: If this constraint was due to human inadequacies, why did God wait so long to correct it?
Scripture Reference Evidence: (same as above)
Answer: That’s a good question! In current orthodox theology, human lack of understanding limited the gospel’s promulgation to Jews only, and the Apostles were operating in error until the time of Peter’s visit to Cornelius. One of the reasons I disagree with this interpretation is the fact that God did nothing to correct it for nine chapters!
Question: If this constraint was NOT due to human inadequacies, how can we reconcile this attitude of the Apostles and the Jerusalem church, and the time period over which it persisted, with the notion that Christ died for all, not just for Jews?
Scripture Reference Evidence: (same as above)
Answer: If the Great Commission was tied to Israel’s Kingdom program, where “good news” for gentiles would consist of the benefits they would receive when ruled over by Israel, this lack of gentile scope would be perfectly in keeping. The absence of any efforts by God to change this thinking through the first nine chapters of Acts suggests they were doing and thinking what God expected and approved.
Philip Williams
Not so. Before his death Jesus sent his disciples only to the lost sheep of Israel. After his resurrection, the Father granted him authority over all nations, thus he sent them to the ends of the earth. Moreover, he specifically told them to begin in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then to the ends of the earth. They followed this precisely.
RichardAnna Boyce
How important is the Kingdom to Israel? …. Verse 7 Jesus did not correct the disciples for believing that the messianic kingdom would come. He only corrected their assumption that they could know when the kingdom would begin and that the kingdom would begin in a few days. So Jesus did not correct the Apostles view that the Kingdom was important to Israel.
“Jesus” answer to the question about restoring the reign to Israel denies that Jesus” followers can know the time and probably corrects their supposition that the restoration may come immediately, but it does not deny the legitimacy of their concern with the restoration of the national life of the Jewish people.
How did Jesus answer them? Describe His answer…..
The Acts narrative begins with an absolute assurance from Jesus regarding the future realization of the kingdom (cf. Acts 1:6-8).
RichardAnna Boyce
Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were Jewish areas and Peter’s ministry in Acts 1-12. Antioch and the uttermost parts of the earth were Gentile and Paul’s ministry in Acts 13-28.
RichardAnna Boyce
Acts 1:6. On the occasion of His ascension (see v. 9), when they had come together the Eleven inquired, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Their question both affirms and summarizes the essential teaching on the kingdom: The Lord Jesus would in the future establish an earthly kingdom centered in Israel. And in v7 …. 1:7. God the Father—in His administrative function as the Planner in the Triune God—sets the times and seasons for the future establishment of the kingdom in Israel. Both lay under God’s sovereign control.
RichardAnna Boyce
Acts 2:36 Peter directs his witness of the Gospel message to “all the house of Israel”.
2:37. Lord and Christ, the last words the audience hears applied to Jesus, finally awaken them to the truth of His identity as the Messiah. Luke records that they were cut to the heart—a reaction that underscores their utmost conviction regarding Jesus as Messiah and their role in His death. Their sensitized conscience (borne from the conviction that they had crucified the Savior) leads to a question that reveals their belief in Jesus. They asked “Men and brethen, what shall we do?”
They unequivocally identified Jesus as the Messiah—and so believed in Him. Now they wanted to know what to do to reestablish fellowship with Him.
2:38. Repentance provided the answer to their dilemma. They needed to reestablish their relationship with the Messiah they had just believed in. Peter does not here require additional conditions for eternal life. Belief in Jesus counts as the singular condition for guaranteed eternal life in both the OT and the NT. Apparently in the case of those who had had the privilege of seeing Jesus’ earthly ministry (cf. v 22), and yet disbelieved both Him and John (cf. Luke 7:31-35), God required a public identification with Jesus by baptism (and a corresponding rescinding of participation in the sin of that generation). Much like the way God requires confession of sins in order for Christians to maintain and enjoy fellowship with Him, in these unique cases God required repentance and baptism for the initiation of the Christian life.
The Gentile Cornelius and those in his household who believed received the Holy Spirit before their baptism (10:43-48; 11:15-18). Palestinian Jews, however, believed in Jesus and received eternal life before receiving the Holy Spirit (2:37-39). The initial Samaritans who believed—after the Crucifixion—also received the Holy Spirit after their baptism as well as the laying on of hands by the apostles Peter and John (cf. 8:14-17). Repentance, although required for fellowship, did not constitute a condition for eternal life, since Peter recommended it to believers in Jesus already. Likewise, baptism was not a condition for eternal life.
Philip Williams
Where did Peter ever recommend repentance to those who believed in Jesus? Rather, he called on those who had crucified Jesus to repent.
Varnel Watson
typical dualism or dual covenant?
Philip Williams
Baptism is necessary for eternal life. The Holy Spirit of Jesus is Eternal Life:
“Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”
Philip Williams
Troy Day The Dispensationalism that RichardAnna Boyce is exposing here is indeed dualistic. But I don’t see him teaching dual covenant in the manner of John Hagee, which I trust he condemns.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams I wouldnt go as far but is there oneness theology expressed again in this discussion on the Jewish Jesus?
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams Mark 16:15-16 “Before He ascended, Jesus told the disciples, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; and he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Does not this passage teach that water baptism is necessary for salvation?
The answer is no. Several observations demonstrate that. In the first place, belief, not baptism, is the critical issue in this passage.
The passage says that those who do not believe will be condemned; it does 5 not say that those who do not believe and are not baptized will be condemned. Obviously then, the issue is faith.
Perhaps more importantly, it should be pointed out that
this passage does not say, “be baptized to be saved,”
nor does it say, “if you are not baptized, you cannot be saved.”
Neither does it discuss believing and not being baptized.
Therefore, it cannot be said that this passage demands baptism for salvation.
In other words, given the two items of belief and baptism, there are only four possibilities:
Believe and be baptized Salvation
Believe and not be baptized Not discussed
Not believe and be baptized Implied, but not discussed
Not believe and not be baptized Condemnation
Since this passage does not discuss the possibility of believing and not being baptized, it cannot be said that this passage teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.
To say that the passage teaches that one must be baptized to be saved is to add to the passage.
The apostle John gave a stern warning against doing such a thing (Revelation 22:18).
How does one then explain the statement He who is saved and is baptized will be saved?
The point, as Matthew 28:19 confirms, is that baptism is a part of the Great Commission.
As has been pointed out, Mark 16:16 does not say, “Be baptized in order to be saved”; it says, “He who believes and is baptized.”
Likewise, as we have seen, the critical issue in Mark 16 is faith. All a person has to do to get to heaven is trust Christ. That means one may believe, be baptized, and get to heaven, or one may believe and not be baptized and still get to heaven. What this passage definitely does not teach is that one must be baptized to receive God’s forgiveness.
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
I was addressing your ridiculous claim above that repentance isn’t a requirement for salvation. Jesus died to save us from our sins.
You pompously and hypocritically talk about Scripture rather than words. I reply only with Scripture and you go on and on like a big windbag, cloud without rain.
Varnel Watson
repentance isn’t a requirement for salvation ??? come again Philip Williams
Philip Williams
Troy Day I am addressing RichardAnna Boyce’s claim above which I will quote here:
“Repentance, although required for fellowship, did not constitute a condition for eternal life, since Peter recommended it to believers in Jesus already. Likewise, baptism was not a condition for eternal life.”
Granted that he uses so many words that it’s impossible to understand what he is trying to say. I think he is writing to himself, not appropriate for a dialogue forum.
Ministers who are accustomed to blabbing on and on as if they have a divine right to do so would benefit from a forum where they are held accountable for what they say. Otherwise they will keep on until they kill ever ounce of Spirit leading to dead churches.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams, “Repentance, although required for fellowship, did not constitute a condition for eternal life, since Peter recommended it to believers in Jesus already. Likewise, baptism was not a condition for eternal life.” is obvious in it’s meaning to me brother. JUSTIFICATION RELATIONSHIP is by believing only with no conditions as per John’s Gospel. SANCTIFICATION FELLOWSHIP is only possible by daily repentance 1 John 1:9.
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
First, thank you for responding to specific points, difficult enough to address in a single conversation.
Are you disagreeing with what Paul said, that all men have sinned (and thus need to repent) or what Jesus said, that repentance and forgiveness must be preached to all nations before the end shall come?
I think it likely that you are challenging the need for the born again experience that has been preached since the Great Awakening. That view is dangerous and leads to the same spiritual complacency as led to the Great Awakening and when the prophets preached on the dangers of an unconverted ministry.
For sure the only changes that occur that might transform one into a new man come through repentance.
If you are still ‘sinning a little bit every day,’ time to stop!
More likely, you need a born again experience.
Isara Mo
In every aspect except the blood
Varnel Watson
HOLD ON Philip Williams
Repentance, although required for fellowship, did not constitute a condition for eternal life, since Peter recommended it to believers in Jesus already.
was RichardAnna Boyce addressing JEWISH believers under covenant already baptized in John’s water baptism OR NT believers of the 21 century ?
Philip Williams
Troy Day Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams does AD 70 judgement happen today and forever?
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce yes indeed. The wrath of God is going to be revealed on the coming great and terrible Day of the Lord. That whole land will be among that which is burned up.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams will you be raptured with the rest of us and not have your judgements be burnt up?
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
Noah’s Ark was save during the first judgment. Those who call on the name of the Lord will thrive during the second judgment. He appears a second time not to bear sin but to bring salvation to those who are calling on him. Those who aren’t calling on him will be destroyed in the fires that accompany his return. Paul explains what happens to them in 2Thes 1.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams we are saved inside the Arc Jesus when we first believe in Him to receive guaranteed eternal everlasting LIFE. Jesus has already won the victory and will rapture His Bride, the Church, for our works to be judged and rewarded at the Judgement Seat of Christ. Are you saying you will be judged 1000 years later at the Great White Throne Judgement?
Philip Williams
“.. .This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.”
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce Why is a OSAS Baptist doing in a Pentecostal forum! Pentecostals know that people backslide and that you are teaching a damnable doctrine deceiving many.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams Are you saying you will be judged 1000 years later at the Great White Throne Judgement?
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce saved saints are being judged by their walk. If it’s hard for the righteous to be saved, what will it be for the unGodly and the sinner.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams Are you saying you will be judged 1000 years later at the Great White Throne Judgement?
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
You will appear before him to be judged for your pompous hypocrisy and for leading young believers astray.
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams Judgment Seat of Christ is for believers raptured anytime soon. All believers raptured go to guaranteed everlasting eternity. Will you be there with us brother?
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
Your smug complacency, pompous self-righteousness and hypocrisy is the perfect recipe for the fires of Hell.
RichardAnna Boyce
Philip Williams you are tempting me to be complacent, as every thing you say is abusive, showing you have no Biblical answers but i refuse to bite hehehehe
Philip Williams
RichardAnna Boyce
I think it best that I just block you. That way you can parade your doctrines to those more of your own kind. But I doubt that even they are more interested in them than I.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams I am still confused as what doctrine is that exactly? I’ve never heard of such one doctrine
Philip Williams
Troy Day
He espouses the Baptist ‘once saved always saved’ (OSAS) doctrine that Pentecostals condemn. It is contrary to the Holiness teachings of Pentecostals. Instead of seeing them as backsliders needing to be disfellowshipped, they allow adulterers, fornicators, swindlers, liars, drunkards, and drug users to believe they are saved. The Scriptures teach us to have nothing to do with such ones. If we do, we participate in their sins.
Due to the great influence of the Baptists, this doctrine has caused the morals of Christians and the nation to decline and have given us a bad name in the eyes of the world who can see such hypocrisy and become cynical concerning the faith.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams I’m curious as to your thoughts on backsliding. What scripture are you using to support the idea that a believer can backslide (in proper context)? Is it the devils pull that strong that it can cause a believe to walk away from God’s sovereignty and grace? Is the devil capable of pulling a believer out of the arms of God. If Jesus is continually making intercession for us is those prayers in vain? I’m asking question because in this post modern era more than throwing 19th century ideas will be needed to shape believers doctrinally.
Philip Williams
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
I respect your question due to the present situation, but an older Pentecostal would have asked whether you have ever read the Bible.
Backsliding is a constant theme of God’s dealing with Israel. Jesus and Paul point to these as examples and warnings for Christians. The book of Hebrews is famous for its very clear 4 admonitions concerning backsliding and the great danger that poses.
Jude and 2Peter mention it as like a dog returning to its vomit. John’s first letter mentions those who went out. Jesus warns many of the 7 churches of Asia of their situation, some for tolerating evil ones. The parable of the different seeds show that some don’t last. Jesus speaks of those faithful to the end as the ones who are saved. Paul writes to Timothy about the consequences of not remaining faithful.
Attendance at a church who allows wickedness and disbelief in the Scriptures is no sign of faithfulness. Wide is the way that leads to destruction and many go that way, but narrow is the door that leads to life.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams so as guy who grew up apostolic, served as a Pentecostal pastor for 15 years before going to a nondenominational church as pastor, hold one doctorate degree and finishing a second, I think I’ve read the Bible more than most people. I think you may have missed the core of my simple yet loaded question, which by the way is what most of us do because we are better at spewing doctrine than we are Bible. If we tackle your thought about Israel’s backsliding which I think is more of conjecture but I will proceed, it would demonstrate that God always come back to them not the other way around.
Each promise or covenant was given because Israel
Struggled to keep the previous. Examples would be the mosaic, Abrahamic, Davidic. Hebrews 4 does not address backsliding in fact he deals with Gods finished work and our ability to enter into the promise that was given unto us and not just Israel. 2 Peter address the authenticity of Scripture and combats misuse of it by false teachers. Those teachers who taught something different than “the way” to be clear. The book of Jude does not address any doctrine what so ever. He quotes non-canonical books and attempts to address character and Apostasy, thus I can see why you and others would consider it addressing backsliding.
The Bible has never been short on examples, thus is what most Protestants are asking when they challenge the idea of backsliding. What did Jesus say about backsliding? How do we become one with the father and then backslide? While discussing church history this has been a minor discussion over the centuries because mostly everyone else understood the ramifications of salvation. Jews didn’t understand salvation as we do and neither did the disciples thus creating the issue for us today. While I agree that many of us live unacceptable lives before God the question remains were they ever saved? The church fathers up to Martin Luther argued about predestination and salvation more so than backsliding. Why is that well my thought is because modern Pentecostal thought is only 200 years old. Thus why younger generations won’t just accept what we say with out Biblical proof. We are not on opposite sides of this subject by the way. We are just looking at it differently.
Philip Williams
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Why do you refer to me as ‘spewing doctrine’ when I only referenced various books of Scripture.
You are wrong about God saving those Israelites who rebelled against him. In the book of Romans Paul describes God’s judgment against them. Did you know that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed in AD 70? Only a remnant was saved. The Apostle Peter said that the Spirit of Jesus had the believers in mind concerning the promises and not those to whom the prophets were writing.
If you are teaching some type of Calvinism or OSAS, you can hardly be regarded as a Pentecostal.
BTW, where did you get your doctorate and what type? Was it some Apostolic seminary?
Varnel Watson
Michael Ellis Carter Jr. I know a feller with high school degree – barely – whos red the whole BIBLE 305 times in his life time I know several ordained preachers with MA and MDiv who has not yet ONCE read the WHOLE Bible
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Troy Day seems impossible to me that a person can pastor and pursue education and not read the Bible… seems more like conjecture or opinion ok not that bright and can be wrong… but nonetheless my point was made about backsliding… we have to come off company/denominational line and revisit what the Bible actually says. Use correct texts and when it’s our opinion just own it.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams I never once singled you out as spewing doctrine. I’m speaking more or less about just giving what’s been considered Pentecostal doctrine without pure scriptural reference. I didn’t take a Calvinist stance, OSAS, or any stance for that matter. I simply asked for an undeniable text that explains what it means for a believer to backslide. I asked for a reference. In Pentecostalism there is a lot of debate about things without solid scriptural support because the only time we take the Bible as final authority is when it fits our argument. It’s funny to me if I believe in Oneness I’m not Pentecostal. If I believe in father, son, Holy Spirit baptisms Then I’m not Pentecostal. If I believe women can preach then I’m not Pentecostal. If I believe in predestination then I’m not Pentecostal. If I believe in salvation apart from tongues then I’m not Pentecostal. Or if I believe in Third wave anointing or Apostles then I’m not Pentecostal. Before you attack those beliefs most of them are not mine I’m just making a point. Let’s be careful of condemning people to hell especially those who are believers trying to live right. The argument can be made that a true believer who walking in God who has be come one with him is incapable of backsliding. The question should focus on salvation not leaving it.
Philip Williams
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Maybe Jesus did get that message:
“At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,”
Matthew 24:10
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams so again while I understand your point and where you are trying to to lead us, that would actually be out of context. That text is dealing with the tribulation and should not be used to discuss us backsliding at this point. Plus as you know the text means stumble not fall away
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Again I understand your point I just don’t think we are making the argument in a convincing way.
Philip Williams
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
No, actually we see this happening today. But this refutes your point that backsliding is not possible.
I despise intellectual dishonesty!
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams I despise too and not what I’m doing neither am I trying to be intellectual. The text is out of context and neither is it the time he was referring to but I digress. The text actually does not mean or allude to backsliding. It goes to my earlier point of denominational positions. Are we saying that stumbling is backsliding now. Committing a sin while wrong is not backsliding right? Troy Day bring us clarity and give me a scripture for my backsliding state.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Keep in mind for the most part we share values and beliefs. The challenge is to provide clarity without proof texting that we all would give account for our beliefs.
Philip Williams
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Jesus isn’t referring to stumbling but to turning away from the faith.
You are so dishonest. I’ve had about enough of you. I see this in Apostolics. Often wrong, but never in doubt.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Philip Williams well here was interesting of you having about enough me ? so pompous and full of privilege with that statement. How can JESUS not be referring to stumbling when that is the word he used in the text. This is what frustrates me with Pentecostals. We like to claim that we are taking a text literal without literally knowing the the text. Look it up for yourself if you would like. The word in the text is stumble not fall away. He said “stumble” so how can it not mean that. Do t get mad at me for challenging your belief. We won’t always agree I don’t think any less or more of you. Here is what you are not going to do though is out me down, throw shade toward me, or accusing me of being to intellectual because you have not be able to present me with what I asked for. For to long we only want to accept doctrines that line up with what we choose to believe. This Troy Day is what the church is in decline, we can’t answer their questions. All i asked our brother for was proof. The same proof he can provide me for salvation he should be able to provide me about backsliding. Have a good night don’t worry about responding because I know you can’t without attacking me at this point.
Varnel Watson
Michael Ellis Carter Jr. I did 2 docs ones upon a time It proved to be a very expensive way to decorate my walls Why you doin it?
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Troy Day ha ha i feel that
RichardAnna Boyce
Michael Ellis Carter Jr. and i showed two different ways of uncovering the heart of P W 🙂
Varnel Watson
P W has a good heart and great passion which I’ve come to appreciate THOUGH he gets rough on me with his historical stuff We ALL need to learn from Philip Williams in this group and I dont say this lightly Alan Smith Anyone who was there when Moses landed the ark on Ararat with the help of Charles Page deserves my FULL respect
Varnel Watson
but HOW JEWISH was JESUS?
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams Hagee on JESUS and the dual covenant theology again
RichardAnna Boyce
Very Jewish. Acts is a transitional book between two dispensations — Israel’s Kingdom program and the Age of Grace, the present day of the church (Paul refers to as the mystery).
Since Acts is a history book, specific events that are like mileposts in this transition.
— the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the establishment of the Jerusalem church,
the martyrdom of Stephen as Israel’s official and final national rejection of Jesus as Messiah,
and the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.
Up to the beginning of the 13th chapter, the good news of Jesus Christ has gone out in the hands of Peter and the other eleven apostles under the Great Commission given to them (all Jewish).
Their audience, up until Peter’s visit to Cornelius, has been almost exclusively Jews.
The message has been one of repentance (for murdering their Messiah) in order to receive the promise of the restoration of David’s kingdom. This is the message that Christ prepared these twelve men to proclaim, in anticipation of the whole earth being blessed through Israel’s rule over the entire world.
RichardAnna Boyce
It was not until Acts 18:4-7 that Jewish Paul’s Ministry focused on Gentiles and no longer Jews.
Paul continued his normal practice of beginning in the synagogue, trying to persuade both Jews and Greeks that Jesus was the Christ.
Let us remember that the Greeks mentioned here were gentiles who adopted Judaism as proselytes, recognizing the God of the Jews as the one true God but pursuing a relationship with Him through obeying the Jewish Law.
They were just as unaware of the events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as were their Jewish counterparts.
When Timothy and Silas finally catch up with Paul, his spirits are raised and he has a renewed energy for ministering to the Jews and gentiles of the synagogue.
Luke says that “Paul began devoting himself completely to the word.”
Does this mean he ceased his tent-making activities with Aquila? Possibly.
But in any case his more intense message had a predictable effect on the Jews of the synagogue —
they “resisted and blasphemed.”
Paul’s response was strong, clear and final — a response that would be essentially repeated to the Jews of Rome within three verses of the end of the book of Acts. He shook out his garments before them (a Jewish custom tantamount to “washing his hands of them” and breaking fellowship with them), and said,
“From now on I shall go to the Gentiles.”
This is the very essence of Acts, and is the most important lesson modern believers should learn.
As Paul wrote later in several letters,
Israel was being set aside while God ushered in a new era — the unprophesied Age of Grace.
No doubt Paul meant that he would no longer come to the synagogue in Corinth to argue the point.
Instead he would minister among the gentiles who had believed.
To underscore his intentions he left the synagogue and moved his center of operations to the home of a
God-fearing gentile, Titius Justus, right next door to the synagogue.
But in spite of the localized nature of this instance, Paul’s statements to them are prototypical of a more universal application that comes fully to pass by the end of Acts.
Varnel Watson
not sure that Philip Williams will agree but lets see
Philip Williams
Pure God-hating idolatry.
More relevant is how Jesus is Judaism? Jesus is the one and only(!) thing that counts for anything with God, yesterday, today, and forever.
Varnel Watson
why is it getting so popular? Philip Williams I for one never heard of it until Billy Monroe Poff brought it up and always wondered about Tom Steele inclinations after such
Billy Monroe Poff
I had never heard of it either until I posted about it that one time ..
Varnel Watson
and you did well bringing dual covenant to focus
Billy Monroe Poff
Troy Day, is there any other prominent preachers that teach this beside Hagee?
Varnel Watson
Billy Monroe Poff I think Philip Williams mentioned a FEW but I dont know what exactly is prominent 🙂
Philip Williams
Billy Monroe Poff not to my knowledge except their association with Hagee shows them to be either ignorant or don’t care. Either way all who do are despising their Savior!
Philip Williams
Brothers, this Sunday night, Hagee was on Mark Levine’s show. It was clear that he was telling Jews that they don’t need Jesus!
Philip Williams
It’s wink, wink, to the Jews. That wicked hypocrite, John Hagee!
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams you like to call him names
Philip Williams
Troy Day No, that’s MB’s job. I will however let him know what he must do.
Charles Page
Church of God thinks the Jews don’t need Jesus. They raise missions money to save the Jews but only Arabs get saved. The COG is like John Hagee in their views. They get along with Hagee.
Philip Williams
It’s also time to put them on notice!
Robert Erwine
on this we agree Philip Williams , if dual covenant was true then Jesus died for nothing ! such blasphemy spews from John Hagee’s mouth and fingers , God have mercy on him on that day .
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams not responding?
Philip Williams
Troy Day what more can I say than did Robert Erwine.