Is following Paul's Gospel alone heretical to some ?

[70C20]

Peter Ruckman stated in one of His Newsletters that to Preach eternal security of the Church age Believer is to preach the ''Truth"' undisputable if one rightly divides the scripture (2 Ti.2:15 ), but...that he would not preach this openly from the pulpit. Why ? Because in Acts9:15.."for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto Me, to BEAR My name before the GENTILES (primary mission),and kings, and the children of Israel(secondary mission).v.16.."For I will shew him how great things he must SUFFER for My names sake.."v:22.."But Saul increased the more in strength and CONFOUNDED the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, PROVING that this is very Christ.." v.23.."And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took council to kill him.." Now ,why, if Paul was sent by Christ with a REVISED message of salvation, more merciful and full of compassion and liberty and Grace , would people reject anyone who stood soley on that grace,and call them heretical and cultic for preaching it ? Hmm? Pride ! self Justification ! :

 

[Ruth]

I have heard (though I have not met anyone personally) that there are some in the Christian faith (or claim to be) who fully reject Paul's teachings. I also would like to hear if anyone has any knowledge of people who reject Paul's epistles.

 

[paul&katie]

I have heard (though I have not met anyone personally) that there are some in the Christian faith (or claim to be) who fully reject Paul's teachings. I also would like to hear if anyone has any knowledge of people who reject Paul's epistles.

I’ll need to dig up my sources but most people I have heard of that think Paul’s Gospel is different from Jesus Gospel are nut jobs. foil

 

[Aliya]

I’ll need to dig up my sources but most people I have heard of that think Paul’s Gospel is different from Jesus Gospel are nut jobs. foil

Well, I would say we are certainly treated like nut jobs. But then, I guess we are blessed to experience this for Christ's sake. Paul certainly wasn't ashamed of the gospel he preached!

As to the OP's question, the reason the pastor likely did not is that one risks being called a heretic - and pastors have lost their positions. I would say better to preach the truth! If God is for us, who can be against us? Doing right before God is much more important than giving in to men. I am listening to some absolutely wonderful sermons by Herb Roush (http://www.jesuslovesme.org) preached in the 60's and 70's. He lost his position for preaching the gospel that Paul preached.

So who else teaches it? Well, Les Feldick might be the best known.

This is an excerpt from his teaching. Les is a great teacher (all of his teaching is free on his site).

http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesqa-b.html#2b

JC O'Hair (gone home to the Lord) here:

http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/GRACE WORKS IN ADOBE/ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN.pdf


Cornelius Stam (also gone home to the Lord):

http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1031594481.html

These godly men have been slandered as heretics and called "Bullingerites" - a common accusation of the usually ignorant but occasionally malicious. Judging by what the 'Bullingerites" teach, it is unlikely that Bullinger himself was a Bulingerite, but these men listed above do not teach "Bullingerism" nor did they ever promote it. They instead soundly refuted it.

The most amazing thing to me is that even though the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists etc can't agree on the method, meaning and purpose of water baptism, they can manage to come together to call those who believe water baptism to be a Jewish ordinace not part of the dispensation of grace a heretic.

Understanding the difference between Law/Prophecy/Earthly program and Grace/Mystery/Heavely program is to understand the full counsel of God, as revealed to us. And oh, what a blessing it is! And oh, how Satan does not want Paul's gospel of grace preached. So many denominational disputes are solved when one does see this difference, the church could actually act as the Body of Christ, as God intended, and turn the world upside down as Paul and Timothy and Titus and Silas and others did the Roman Empire. Sadly, Paul said all in Asia had turned away from his gospel - this even before his death.

Discernment is from the Holy Spirit.. He is the best teacher. If you discount these men outright, you gain nothing. If you prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to show you Truth, He will give you as much light as you wish.

God Bless,
Aliya

 

[BuzzardHut]

Paul & Peter preached the same gospel of Jesus

 

[Betty]

I came across a site a couple of years ago that tried to teach that Paul was trying to steal the Gospel from the disciples, but here is what Peter said about Paul:

Be Steadfast
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

 

[LivnForChrist]

Paul & Peter preached the same gospel of
Jesus

Amen! I have heard it some who claim that the message
for the Church started with the Pauline epistles and that Jesus'
message was for the Jews. They claim that only what Paul taught (and
the other books of the New Testament) applies to us. I reject that
teaching.

 

[Ruth]

I am not sure I fully understand the point of the OP but I can state how I understand the scriptures.

1. There is one gospel. Jesus died to pay the price of the sins of the whole world and for all those who repent and are born again by the Holy Spirit are a new creation and now restored as children of God. We are the body of Christ. Just as Adam was once a child of God and a direct creation of His hand, those who have been born again are no longer children of man but a new creation - a child of God. Dispensation from Adam to Abraham. From grace to a covenant(promise) and Jesus fulfilled the promise given to Abraham.

2. In the old testament, men and women were saved by faith alone as well, but their sins were not covered without the shedding of blood so they continued to visit the temple and perform those rituals. From covenant to an understanding of the gift that was coming in the forever sacrifice of Jesus blood

3. After Jesus died and rose - the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn for all mankind to never have to shed blood ever again as Jesus had opened the door for reconciliation with God through HIS shed blood. The dispensation of grace had begun – not just for the Jews or just for the gentiles but for all. (from the promise fulfilled to the hope yet to come in the rapture and future kingdom)

4. The tribulation is the final dispensation to bring wrath to those who rejected the reconciliation with God and to bring to fullness the reconciliation and promises with Israel.

I sincerely do not see a difference between what Peter taught and what Paul taught.
If there is a difference – then please help me to understand because to divide the two would mean that Jesus’ death had two meanings and I have never read any scripture that states that His death had two meanings.

 

[Ruth]

Further research - I went to one of my favorite teachers who seems to be as conservative as I am. I don't agree with him on everything, but when it comes to basic doctrines, it speaks true to my heart.

Making unnecessary and improper dispensations and making too sharp a division between them.

This is called “ultra-dispensationalism” or “hyper-dispensationalism” and is characterized by making a sharp division between the ministry of Christ and that of the Apostles, and of further dividing Paul’s teaching from that of Peter and the other apostles. Some of the well-known teachers of ultra- or hyper-dispensationalism are E.W. Bullinger, Cornelius Stam, J.C. O’Hair, Charles Welch, Otis Sellers, A.E. Knoch, and Charles Baker. There are many varieties of ultra-dispensationalism, but the following are some of the characteristics:

(1) The four Gospels are entirely Jewish and contain no direct teaching for the churches. Yet, the writer of Hebrews said that the same gospel of salvation that was preached by the apostles was preached by Christ (Heb. 2:3-4). Though we know that Christ presented Himself to the Jewish nation and we do understand that there are differences between the gospels and the epistles, yet in Hebrews 2 we do not see a sharp delineation between the gospel preached by Christ and that preached by the apostles who followed. In fact, the Gospel of John presents exactly the same gospel as that preached by Paul. Further, 1 Tim. 6:3 shows that Christ spoke directly to the church age.

(2) The book of Acts is also largely Jewish. Hyper-dispensationalists commonly believe that after Christ was rejected by Israel in the Gospels, that they were given a second chance to receive the kingdom in the first part of the book of Acts. Thus, they teach that there are two different churches viewed in the book of Acts, and the true Pauline church only started after Acts 9, 13, or 28. Thus, the church mentioned in the first part of Acts allegedly refers to a different church than that of Paul’s prison epistles. The earlier “church” in Acts is simply an aspect of the kingdom preached in the Gospels. Most of the book of Acts is therefore discounted as a guideline for the churches today. Yet, at the very end of the book of Acts we still find Paul preaching about the kingdom (Acts 28:23). In fact, he was still preaching about it in his epistles! (2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1). While we can see an obvious transition in the book of Acts, this does not mean that there are different gospels and different churches in various parts of Acts.

(3) The mysteries given to Paul contained a different revelation from that given to Peter and the other Apostles, and only Paul’s writings are for the church today. The other epistles, such as Hebrew, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and the epistles of John are not for us today. Yet, Paul himself said that the church is built upon the “apostles” plural and not merely upon himself (Eph. 2:20). And Peter also referred to the writings of Paul and made no distinction between Paul’s teaching and the teaching of the other apostles (2 Pet. 3:1-2, 15-16). Peter said Paul wrote to the same people and preached the same message.

(4) The gospel preached by Peter in the early part of the book of Acts is different from the gospel preached by Paul. Yet, there is actually no difference between the gospel preached by Peter and that which Paul preached. Peter preached salvation through the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:2), salvation by God’s free mercy (1 Peter 1:3), the new birth (1 Peter 1:3), eternal security because of the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet. 1:3-4). Further, Acts 15 plainly states that all of the apostles, including Peter and Paul, agreed on the gospel. And Paul states in Galatians 1, that anyone who preached a different gospel was cursed. If Peter were truly preaching a different gospel in those days, he would have fallen under this curse.

(5) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were given to Paul before he received the church age mysteries; thus they are not for the churches today. Dispensationalists differ about this point. Some accept both baptism and the Lord’s Supper; some reject water baptism and the Lord’s Supper altogether; while others reject only baptism and keep the Lord’s Supper.

Harry A. Ironside wrote a helpful little booklet about this problem called “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: Ultra-Dispensationalism Examined in the Light of Holy Scripture.” He deals largely with the error of Bullingerism. This is available on the Internet at http://www.brethrenonline.org/books/ultrad.htm.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/studybible-dispensation.html

 

[CountryBumpkin]

It is so convenient to lump dispensational teachers together and call them Hyper or Ultra. As in everything there are extremes and it would be prudent to know what the extremes are and who promotes them before calling the whole group heretical.

There is a group of extreme Ultra-dispensationalists that have even thrown out some of Paul’s epistles and adhere to Acts28 dispensationalism. They are Bullingerites (Michael Penny is one) and I do not share their beliefs – some of them that I know believe in universal reconciliation.

Over the past few years I have prayed constantly that God would show me the truth of His Word by the Spirit of Truth, that I would have spiritual understanding and that He would quicken it to my heart, that which is the truth. I have come to a dispensational (rightly dividing the Word) understanding of scripture and for me it has been like a key unlocking the door of so many mysteries and seemingly contradictions.

My prayers are different now, there is a closeness with God that I never knew before, my understanding of my position in Christ is complete and the peace that I have is indescribable.

It does not worry me when others attack my beliefs. It is settled in my heart. I choose not to argue with them because if they do not want to see it they will not and it just causes division and dissent in the body of Christ.
:

 

[CountryBumpkin]

Aliya 2:

70C20 y

 

[Ruth]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I believe in the dispensational teaching. I was simply posting about the hyper or ultra which further dileanates Peter and Pauls Gospels as separate and different. This type of dispensationalism does not follow the same thinking and rules as the one most dispensationalists hold to.

If any of you would like to clearly show what Peter's gospel is and how it is different from Pauls - I will be happy to listen. But based on what I have found so far and 70C asked for my opinion and I offered it based on what I had learned up until now.

 

[Aliya]

It is so convenient to lump dispensational teachers together and call them Hyper or Ultra. As in everything there are extremes and it would be prudent to know what the extremes are and who promotes them before calling the whole group heretical.

There is a group of extreme Ultra-dispensationalists that have even thrown out some of Paul’s epistles and adhere to Acts28 dispensationalism. They are Bullingerites (Michael Penny is one) and I do not share their beliefs – some of them that I know believe in universal reconciliation.

Over the past few years I have prayed constantly that God would show me the truth of His Word by the Spirit of Truth, that I would have spiritual understanding and that He would quicken it to my heart, that which is the truth. I have come to a dispensational (rightly dividing the Word) understanding of scripture and for me it has been like a key unlocking the door of so many mysteries and seemingly contradictions.

My prayers are different now, there is a closeness with God that I never knew before, my understanding of my position in Christ is complete and the peace that I have is indescribable.

It does not worry me when others attack my beliefs. It is settled in my heart. I choose not to argue with them because if they do not want to see it they will not and it just causes division and dissent in the body of Christ.
:

2: I am so glad to see you! Like you, it bothers me not one bit to be attacked so regularly. The Holy Spirit has convicted me of this truth, but also shown me so many glorious things in scripture I had never seen before. We should talk about Jonah sometime! There are types and shadows there that I think show these truths.

To Ruth: There is a beautiful bigger picture that Satan does not want you to see. If you really want to know, then pray that God will show you 1) when Israel was set aside 2) how law/prophecy/earthly program differ from the grace/mystery/heavenly program. The two gospels are both based entirely on the person of Christ - the difference can only be seen and understood (at least for me) when you look at law/prophecy/earthly vs grace/mystery/heavenly.

None of us are saying there are two distinct gospels by which men can be saved now. We are saying there was a transition when Israel was set aside - and when that transition happens shows you a great and wonderful truth that makes so much make sense. If you come with an open heart, you will see it. I know that, because many have.

To stimulate the thought, I'll pose one of things that God showed me was a problem.

In the dispensational position that believes the Body of Christ (the "church" or assembly of today) began in Acts 2 at Pentecost, they believe that this is when Israel was set aside. They say Israel was set aside for crucifying their Messiah. Based on that belief, Israel will find itself between a rock and a hard place. They were looking for the Messiah who would reign as king in the much prophesied earthly kingdom.

The logic of this position would say that if the nation of Israel had accepted Christ, and he had not died, then they would not have been set aside and 1) the earthly kingdom would have come in 2) the Jews would have brought salvation to the Gentiles with the Great Commission, and 3) Jesus would be seated on his throne in Jerusalem, not in heaven.

BUT, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam and all the Old Testament saints would still be in Paradise in Hades, still separated from God and eternally separated from God, because no sacrifice had been made that would make them righteous enough to stand in the presence of God.

Is that not a no-win situation? If one believes Israel was set aside for killing their Messiah, then they can have the kingdom or reconciliation with God, but not both.

So what position do we hold?

1) Israel had to reject their risen ascended Lord to be set aside. Read Acts 2 again - Acts 2:39 is about the promises. What promises? The kingdom. Peter is telling them (the Jews 'ye men of Israel) that they can still repent of killing their Christ and the promises will come to them.

Remember that Jesus, on the cross, said Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. He told the JEWS, when election belonged to the nation of Israel, that what God would not forgive was blaspheming the Holy Spirit. When did they blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Read the stoning of Stephen closer. Look for an Old Testament parallel - 2 Samuel has it and Chronicles. It was with Samuel that the Israelites rejected God the Father. They rejected Jesus in Jerusalem. They had to reject the Holy Spirit to be finally set aside. That happened with Stephen. Notice how he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Notice how they were convicted by his words. Notice how instead of repenting, they rejected him - thereby rejecting the Holy Spirit. And before anyone says we're reading into that, find it in the OT. When Samuel spoke to God about the people rejecting him, God said that was the people rejecting HIM, not Samuel.

2) In the prophesied, OT program, the Jews were to bring salvation to the Gentiles. I'm sure you know the verses. Gentiles were ALWAYS meant to be saved. The great commission (Luke) says to Jerusalem first, then the rest of the world. So what could (should) have happened to the Gentiles when the Jews were set aside?

First look at the position of the Gentiles in Ephesians 2:12. We are far away from the commonwealth of Israel, we are not part of the covenants of promise, we are without God and we are hopeless.

God concluded Israel in unbelief and set them aside. Now we are ALL in unbelief.

Would not God have been completely justified in leaving us all in our sinful, hopeless state? Yes, of course he would have.

So what does God do? He says he concluded the Jews in unbelief that he might have mercy on ALL!

That is Paul's mystery. The prophesied plan failed because the Jews didn't keep their end of the covenant. They were to bring salvation to us hopeless Gentiles. What does God do instead?

He ushers in a Mystery program.

3) We believe the dispensation of Grace, where Jew and Gentile are saved without difference, without the middle wall of partition (which keep in mind, GOD PLACED BETWEEN US), without having to approach God through the standards of the Law, and was given to Paul, by revelation from Jesus. Don't believe us - go look at Paul's claims! They are many and some find him very arrogant, but he is simply trying to get through everyone's head that the program had changed. Israel was set aside. The Jews were 'concluded in unbelief that God might have mercy on all.'

Do we believe in MORE dispensations than a traditional dispy? NO Simply move the current dispensation from Acts 2 to after the stoning of Stephen. Some people debate WHERE after Stephen, but it really doesn't' matter. It was a transition.

Do we say that Jews and Gentiles are saved by different gospels? NO

There were Gentile exceptions saved during the time of Israel's national election - when they were God's people. Gentiles would have been saved if the kingdom program had continued.

There are Jews saved during this dispensation of Grace, just as there are Gentiles. There are far less of them, but then, they are blinded in part.

Do we say that Grace is something NEW, that somehow God changed? Heavens, NO.

God doesn't change. Grace has always been a characteristic of God. Paul is the one who calls this is a 'dispensation of Grace' and says it was given to him to give to us. I'll put it this way:

There were two types of people during the days Jesus walked the earth - the Jew and the Gentile. The Gentiles were people who had been set aside by God - enemies, people in rebellion from him.

When the Jews rejected God (Holy Spirit, according to Jesus and the unpardonable sin) they essentially joined the Gentiles in rebellion against God.

God had no people anymore, except the little flock of the disciples and the 5000+ Jews (and a few Gentiles) who believed.

What did he do? He could have cast us all aside. Instead, He showed Grace at the most unbelievable scale we could imagine. He opened up salvation to all, made us part of the body of his dear son - the bride of Christ - and gave us full access to his throne. We are his sons and daughters, because when he looks at US he sees the righteousness of Christ. We don't have to approach him through priests or with sacrifice, we don't have to observe the sabbath and feasts. We don't need to follow the law when the Holy Spirit is available to us instead. That is not license, because the Holy Spirit would NEVER lead us into sin. When we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, we will be more outwardly conformed to Christ and more aware inwardly of how wicked we really are.

I could go on, because this is such a wonderful thing, but I'll stop here. I won't debate these issues, but any of us would talk to anyone who wished to know more. The Holy Spirit will show the truth to whomever wishes to know it.

I pray God richly blesses your study and the Holy Spirit convicts you of Truth.

Aliya

 

[Ruth]

Like you, it bothers me not one bit to be attacked so regularly

First, I don't believe anyone is attacking anyone here so not sure why you made that statement in the beginning. We are discussing.

Second, you have confused me with your many words. Can you just simply tell me what you believe is the difference in two or three sentences? The gospel is simple enough for a child to understand so when someone has to explain something with so many words - I get concerned.

Third, I seek the truth every day through prayer and letting the Holy Spirit teach me.

Fourth, why is this important to discuss? How will it further the gospel message?

thank you.

 

[Ruth]

Remember that Jesus, on the cross, said Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. He told the JEWS, when election belonged to the nation of Israel, that what God would not forgive was blaspheming the Holy Spirit. When did they blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Read the stoning of Stephen closer. Look for an Old Testament parallel - 2 Samuel has it and Chronicles. It was with Samuel that the Israelites rejected God the Father. They rejected Jesus in Jerusalem. They had to reject the Holy Spirit to be finally set aside. That happened with Stephen. Notice how he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Notice how they were convicted by his words. Notice how instead of repenting, they rejected him - thereby rejecting the Holy Spirit. And before anyone says we're reading into that, find it in the OT. When Samuel spoke to God about the people rejecting him, God said that was the people rejecting HIM, not Samuel.

Just reading through your post - I wanted to just comment on this section as it is as far as I got. This is adding human wisdom and dissecting something that is not necessary.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is rejecting the gift of Grace unto death. Meaning there is no second chance after death. There is no other sin that is not forgiven. Otherwise there would be TWO unforgivable sins.

It seems to me that it does not further the gospel message or bring unity to the body of Christ through man's effort to try to dissect and over analyze the scriptures. It really is a simple and beautiful love story and amazing message to all of mankind.

If we don't understand something - we can just put it aside and ask the Lord to reveal the understanding in His time and in His own way to each of us. Some things He will reveal and others He will reveal to us when we are with Him in heaven.
In the meantime - we simply trust in Him even when we may not understand something.

The gospel is to all men. Christ died for the sins of the world and all those who repent and accept the free gift are born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, through the Holy Spirit, we are being sanctified until we are taken home where we will be like Him.

Otherwise - I really don't see the point or how it brings glory to our Lord to try to cause any division in the body of Christ over such issues that are not salvation centered.

 

[CountryBumpkin]

Just reading through your post - I wanted to just comment on this section as it is as far as I got. This is adding human wisdom and dissecting something that is not necessary.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is rejecting the gift of Grace unto death. Meaning there is no second chance after death. There is no other sin that is not forgiven. Otherwise there would be TWO unforgivable sins.

Ruth, I would like to point you to the same site that you used earlier and show you that you are wrong in your interpretation of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/unpardonable.htm

"There are those who teach that REJECTING CHRIST is the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. For one to go through life rejecting Christ is to positively go to Hell, forever. And no one who ever committed the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost had not rejected Christ first. One who has trusted Christ as personal Saviour cannot commit the Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. If it were possible, how could one who has rejected Christ for 70, 80 or 90 years ever be saved? And, praise God some of them do get saved! Amen and Amen!!!! Those who say that rejecting Christ is synonymous with the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost qualify their statement by saying that rejecting Him over a long period of time is the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. They are very vague as to how long the time is before the rejection of Christ actually becomes the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Rejection of Jesus Christ is a terrible, terrible sin, and if one goes through this life rejecting Him, that one will definitely, dogmatically, and positively go to Hell. But, I am convicted that it is unscriptural to say that rejecting Christ is synonymous with the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost."

 

[Betty]

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
---------------
The reason it is so dangerous to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, is because without the Holy Spirit drawing us to God, we cannot be saved.
It is kind of like destroying the only door out of a burning building.

 

[Channa]

Law and Grace

Sometimes for me a word-picture helps. This one is quite simple, but enabled me, when I was a baby Christian, to understand the difference between Law and Grace.

Law; given to and for Israel alone by God through the mouth of Moses, is like a mirror.

Sin is dirt.

Grace; given for all (Jew and Gentile) by God through the mouth of Paul, is like a washcloth.

When you look into the mirror (Law) you may see the dirt (Sin) on your face, but without the washcloth (Grace) it cannot be removed.

The Law is only the means of showing us our sins; it does not fix the problem.

Law was not "new" but was not made plain until God gave the message to Moses. So also Grace is not "new" but merely revealed at last, by means of Paul, as the way of make us all, Jew and Gentile, clean before Almighty God. As God used one man, Moses to bring the Law, so He again used one man, Paul to reveal Grace.

But Grace had to be kept secret from Satan. Does anyone think that Satan would have been so delighted with the death of Jesus had he, Satan, known that this was the preliminary to the amazing wonder of Grace, which freed so many Jews and Gentiles from grasp of the Greatest Enemy of Man?

Blessings and Shalom (Peace)to All

 

[Ruth]

Ruth, I would like to point you to the same site that you used earlier and show you that you are wrong in your interpretation of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/unpardonable.htm

"There are those who teach that REJECTING CHRIST is the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. For one to go through life rejecting Christ is to positively go to Hell, forever. And no one who ever committed the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost had not rejected Christ first. One who has trusted Christ as personal Saviour cannot commit the Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. If it were possible, how could one who has rejected Christ for 70, 80 or 90 years ever be saved? And, praise God some of them do get saved! Amen and Amen!!!! Those who say that rejecting Christ is synonymous with the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost qualify their statement by saying that rejecting Him over a long period of time is the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. They are very vague as to how long the time is before the rejection of Christ actually becomes the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Rejection of Jesus Christ is a terrible, terrible sin, and if one goes through this life rejecting Him, that one will definitely, dogmatically, and positively go to Hell. But, I am convicted that it is unscriptural to say that rejecting Christ is synonymous with the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost."

What a perfect example of why we should check against scriptures - the teachings of men. As I said in my earlier post -

I don't agree with him on everything, but when it comes to basic doctrines, it speaks true to my heart

- as I do not agree with everything any human teaches.

Next - you neglected to include this part of his teaching where he says what he believes it is and that it cannot be committed today:

This greatly disturbed the Pharisees. They had seen and heard enough of our Lord's teachings and miracles to be convinced also that he was indeed the Messiah. But they had adamantly rejected Him and were determined not to acknowledge Him as the Messiah. They were frightened by this suggestion of the multitude of people; so they blatantly and blasphemously declared, "...This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (verse 24). It is simple enough to see what they did in committing the blasphemy of (against) the Holy Spirit. THEY ATTRIBUTED THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE MINISTRY OF OUR LORD TO THE DEVIL. THAT IS THE BLASPHEMY OF (AGAINST) THE HOLY GHOST!!!!
Having identified the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, we come immediately to the question, "CAN THIS SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?" There are teachers and preachers who answer, "Yes!" And some will give illustrations of those who have committed it. I do not believe that it can be committed today.

Again, I do not agree with his assessment of this issue.
In order for that teaching to be correct - there would have to be TWO unforgiveable sins (even when he believes it was possible) and that is not the case. There is only ONE sin that is unforgivable and that is to reject the Holy Spirit when He gives us the gospel - unto death.

Jesus also said that you should accept the gift in the light as when darkness comes (the Holy Spirit no longer shining the light of truth on the truth) how would a man be able to see it?

John 12:
35Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them.

If a man rejects the truth when it is given to him and the one giving him the truth departs - how can they see the light of truth any longer - as they are now in the darkness.

Rejecting the gospel is the only sin that is not forgiven. No one has a second chance after they are dead.

Hebrews 9:27
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

If what that link (wayoflife) showed was true
then Paul would have committed the unforgivable sin. Paul was a party to the stoning of Stephen and even Jesus said to Paul - "Why do you persecute me?"

Acts 9:4
He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Paul called what WAS of the Holy Spirit evil so according to that teaching - Paul would have committed it and it is clear that he was forgiven.

 

[paul&katie]

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/selah/tough-questions-answered/a-different-gospel/printer-friendly

I have no idea how many of you have run into this before, but the question was this: Did Peter and Paul teach the same gospel, or was the message Peter preached to Israel different from the one that Paul carried to the Gentiles?