Sunday, August 24, 2008

Basic Grammar...continued

Ok, so let's see how far I can get with this.

Samer is a guy I've known for quite a while. I don't mean to smear him, though I probably could rather easily, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a little blunt about him. He doesn't like me. He finds every possible excuse that he can to disagree with me. And now he's deleted a thread with my previous article on it. AFTER he found out that the owner of the site had ok'd the post. If that's not abusing one's power, then I don't know what is!!

So every time I bring up Biblical Dispensationalism, he immediately quotes the whole of Romans 4 and expects all the Dispensationalists to drop dead on the spot. Strangely enough they don't, which I'm sure is a bit of a quandary to him. I'm going to try to clear up any questions that he may have about the issue here and now.

"is" denotes being, in the present. "The pizza IS cold" meaning the pizza currently is cold.

"was" denotes past tense, as in a past point in time. "The pizza was hot" meaning the pizza at one point was hot, and by implication is no longer hot.

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Ok, good verse. Now let's see what it says. " the reward not reckoned of grace...." Notice the tense? That's an important word: "Tense."

tense 2 |tɛns| |tɛns|
noun Grammar
a set of forms taken by a verb to indicate the time (and sometimes also the continuance or completeness) of the action in relation to the time of the utterance : the past tense
Ok, so a tense denotes in which time or times a certain occurrence...occurs. Simple enough, right? Ok so I'm going to throw a few things out here and see what happens.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Always watch those slippery tenses. Is, are, etc. are rather complicated unless you pay close attention. Notice that Paul in Romans 4 is making a comparison, using Old Testament occurrences and making them fit the doctrine that he is teaching right now. Let's see something else that gets changed to fit what the author needs it to say!

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Heb. 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Good verses! These verses, or at least the first two, show that we are to live by the faith of Christ, which faith is really the gift of Ephesians 2:8-9, if you pay attention. The third verse is applicable to the HEBREWS in the Tribulation (does His soul really have no pleasure in you if you draw back??) and therefore is not DOCTRINALLY applicable to us.

The funny thing about these passages is that they're quoting an Old Testament verse. Wanna' see what it is?

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Cool! See what a little Bible, wait a second...reread that verse. Another time. Once more for good measure. Look at the word ALL THREE of the NT verses leave out!! The OT passage that's being quoted says that a just man lives by HIS faith, speaking of his own, while the NT verses say that a just man shall live by CHRIST'S faith!! Rather interesting predicament, eh? PAUL JUST MISQUOTED THE BIBLE!!!

So? Ok, so Paul misquoted the Bible to make a point. Your problem? See, the Bible doesn't have to make sense to you. The authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, didn't have to wait for your opinion to write what they did. They just did it and God blessed it. No, that missing word isn't a scribal error. It's missing on purpose.

So, what have we learned from this? That God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on men, can write what He wants to, to make what points He wants to, and it doesn't matter a bit what you or anyone else thinks about it. Ok, hopefully that's clear enough.

Next point: debunking the myth that Romans 4 proves that everyone got saved by repenting of their sins and trusting Christ. Sorry, but that in and of itself is laughable! If the DISCIPLES didn't know that Jesus was going to rise again, then how on God's green earth could DAVID have known? Or anyone before the actual resurrection?? Come on now, use that brain God benevolently placed within your skull!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Quick question: does this passage say that Abraham was not justified by works? Yes or no answer; it's really quite simple. In fact, if you pay attention, Paul's making a rather misleading question here. He asks if Abraham was justified by his works, and then instead of answering the question, he turns it around and talks about glorifying before God, when that wasn't even part of the original question! In fact, Paul just avoided answering his own question, because it would have totally messed up his point! Don't believe me? Well read the next verse.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Everyone likes to try to do away with this little problem to their theology by making this "justification before man," but they don't realize that it's their theology at fault. Abraham WAS justified by his works. He was NOT sanctified by his works, but he WAS justified. That verse says so. So basically, Paul's premise in Romans 4:1 is correct, just misleading. He WAS justified by his works, but he does NOT have whereof to glory before God. See? Again, simple English grammar. An understanding of the difference between Sanctification and Justification helps too.

See, the simple explanation is that Paul is writing to one group of people, namely the Church, of which you and I are a part, and James is writing to someone else, or a group of someone elses. Which theory makes sense, since Paul addresses all of the letters with "To the church which is at (insert city here)" and James starts his epistle with "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." See, when viewed from a literal, grammatical, logical perspective, the Bible makes complete and perfect sense.

It just doesn't agree with you.


Rachel said...

I just wanted to let you know that you're wrong about my husband. He doesn't try to disagree with everything you say because he doesn't like you...He disagrees with you because what you're promoting is wrong. It's taught all through Scripture that the people in the Old Testament only did the works because of their faith. THe did what GOd required because of their faith. They were saved by their faith, not by their works. Anyways I don't plan on checking this blog anymore to see what hurtful things you're gong to say next, but I felt I should stand up for my husband since he was being wrongly accused by you. What's new. I really care about you and Kathie and I would never try to hurt you or smear your name online. Thankfully salvation has always been by grace through faith...if it were ever of works it would never have been grace. Christ would never have had to die on the cross if man could ever get to heaven by works. I know there's no point in talking with you about this because you refuse to see it any other way.I'm not going to keep up with it since we've run this path before. Anyways I hope you have a good day and keep healing after your surgery. :)

Rachel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachel said...

He wasn't the one who deleted the thread btw...just your post since it was heretical.

Vince LaRue said...

I'm sorry you feel that way, Rachel. I've gone to great lengths, multiple times, to show Samer where he is wrong. See, I came from where he is; I grew up believing what he teaches, and I know it to be wrong. How can you reconcile things like "him will I deny before my father" and "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" with the Gospel of the Grace of God? How can someone look at the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the Gospel of the Grace of God, and think that they are all three the same?

I don't mean to say things about your husband that will make you angry, defensive, or worse doubt him, so I won't even go into some of the things that have transpired between him and I. But I will say this: I've studied this issue much, and I can say with absolute certainty that the Bible is right, and your husband's view is wrong. No one in the Old Testament had any idea of who the Messiah was, and there are but two or three places in the OT that refer to the Messiah being killed! The Messiah was supposed to be a king, like Christ at the Second Coming, which is why He was rejected. He didn't fit the profile!

If someone doesn't think that the Jews were required to keep the Law in order to get to Heaven, then someone that person hasn't been paying much attention to their Bible. The Law was a requirement. Wearing the skins was a requirement. Building the Ark was a requirement. Sacrificing Isaac was a requirement. Without performing these WORKS, those people would have died in their sins and gone to Hell. God required WORKS at certain points, and you'll find nothing in Scripture to refute that. I even put Samer's favorite passage to right in this blog post; Romans 4 does nothing to disprove what the rest of the Bible says about OT "salvation."

Thanks for reading this, and I hope you don't take it personally. I'm just rather disgusted that Samer would take the time to argue with me, when my doctrine, were it wrong, would only confuse people, while leaving the Church of Christ heretic unscathed, and he's sending people to Hell! I've dealt with Samer for over two years, and he has NEVER agreed with me. EVERY time he gets a possibility, he disagrees with me and argues against me. That's a FACT. I don't know whether it's just because he doesn't like me, or whether he's mad that I got Kathie after he and Mike almost dragged her over to their side, but whatever the case, he has something personal against me, and it's sad that it shows up on OB, where he appears to be using his authority as a tool to argue against me.

I don't know who did delete the thread, but I do know that he deleted the post. And the thread got deleted AFTER Kathie said that Bro. Matt gave her permission. So something's fishy, and someone's abusing their power as a moderator. Well that wouldn't be the first time...

Well, thanks again for reading the blog, and I hope you'll change your mind about not reading it in the future. I intentionally tried not to be mean toward Samer, as it's a public blog and like I said, I don't want to smear him. But I won't hold back from telling the truth, and that's what I did. Neither him nor anyone else can disprove my blog, because it's truth from the Bible.

God Bless. :)

Mrs W said...

I thought that if someone was to pronounce a teaching or teacher as heretical, then they had to provide Biblical proof of the heresy. You can't because it's not heresy. The Bible is NOT and never has been "clear that they did the works because of their faith". It's just that it's the interpretation YOU want it to have.

Rachel said...

If the people in the Old Testament had the ability to keep the law in order to get to heaven then why would GOd set up the need for sacrifices? It was to show them that they couldn't keep the law and that they needed a sacrifice for their sin..thus pointing toward the Messiah (just as Abraham saw that God would provide HIMSELF a Lamb--He would be the Lamb). The Law has always been a man can keep it.

ANYWAYS is there any point in us talking about this issue. We've all argued it before, and we get nowhere.

I just want you to understand that Samer is NOT the kind of person to do things because he doesn't like someone...actually I don't think he dislikes anybody. You just don't know the kind of person he is (probably because pretty much all you two have ever done is argue Ruckmanism). He knows that Kathie has a mind of her own and made her own choice to be who she is today and to believe what she believes. He wouldn't post against you for any other reason than that he doesn't believe the way you do.

To tell me not to take it personally is not really fair. Your own wife would take something said against you very personally...and I think that's the way it should be. Samer doesn't need me to defend him, but I couldn't help it because I'm his wife.

I too have studied out this issue and can't see it the way you do. I'm just simply reading the Bible and believing what I believe the Bible is saying.

There were a ton of people involved in the Church of Christ thread...Samer just happened to get on OB yesterday after not being on there for a long while. It's not his fault if you don't feel the Church of CHrist guy was dealt with early enough or in the right way. Perhaps that's something Kathie should take to the mods since you are banned from OB. You KNOW Samer and I don't agree with CHurch of Christ doctrine and yes, that doctrine sends people to hell. YOu know OB, Vince, you've been on there long enough that you don't need me to tell you that Ruckman doctrine isn't appreciated there. I think you should feel free to post there, but just leave the Ruckman stuff out. I don't go over to your Ruckman boards and argue against you guys. KNowing how OB is, you shoud just understand that, and not stir up controversy there. If people want to learn more about RUckmanism then there are plenty of places on teh web that they can go to read about it. You know that.

I think Kathie should go ahead and refute that CHurch of CHrist guy with all she's got. Keep it Scriputrally based and Ruckmand-doctrine free. Of course I'm not a mod on OB so I'm just speaking from my personal opinion.

I'm afraid that this could escalate into the same hurtful thing that happened last year on xanga. There's no need for it. So, I think the personally stuff toward Samer should stop. He was acting as a mod representing OB. Brother Matt had not read your blog post when he gave Kathie permission to post it. Samer was acting on what he knew to be OBs (and his own) stand on your blog post.

ANyways I think you're man enough not to keep taking this to a personal level with Samer.

I don't plan on continuing this discussion any further. I dont' want to hurt you or Kathie because I believe you are my brother and sister in Christ.

Mrs W said...

I think Samer should stop going against the ADMIN of OB who said that post could be posted. Samer is just a mod, not an admin, but acts like he's an admin. He did it to me too and I couldn't see any reason for it except for him to be a jerk. Bro Matt had approved something of mine too and Samer knew that and banned me for a day or a week or whatever it was over it anyway. Samer's not some poor little innocent guy.

I do understand you standing up for him though Rachel, you should as his wife. We can't help it if he's lied to you.

Rachel said...

For your information, Katy-Anne, Kathie herself told me that Brother Matt hadn't even read Vince's post when he said Kathie could post it. YOu know Brother Matt doens't agree with RUckman doctine! Samer deleted the post before he even knew that Bro Matt had given his permission.

Get the facts straight yourself before you accuse someone of lying.

And by the way it's really weird to post something like "I do understand you standing up for him though Rachel, you should as his wife. We can't help it if he's lied to you." That's a very subtle way of trying to hurt me and my husband. That's not CHrist-like at all.

I really don't even know why you're in this discussion. It really has nothing to do with you at all.

Vince LaRue said...

I think you're going a little far, Mrs. W. Calm down a little ;).

Like I said, Rachel, I wouldn't want to go into detail on some of the things that have transpired between Samer and I, because I would never want to do anything to cause a problem between you two.

I got banned from OB NOT because I was discussing Dispensationalism (which has nothing to do with Ruckman; Schofield and Larkin taught it years before Doc was born), but because I made a comment to Jerry in a PM. I said that Kitagirl should not be allowed to moderate the forum (not in so many words, but you get the picture), and he subsequently banned me without warning. This was against the rules of OB, yet for whatever reason, Bro. Matt let it stand.

The point is that no mod should go against the admin's authority for any reason. Regardless of the content of the post, other than obvious profanity or illicit content, it should have been left alone until Bro. Matt had a chance to read it.

Until now, there still has not been anything refuting the CoC heretic. Unfortunately, there never will be, since the view that the majority of IFBs on OB take cannot explain verses like Acts 2:38, James 2:24, Hebrews 6:4-6, Matthew 10:33, Mark 16:16, etc. The heretic will run circles around everyone there because they don't Rightly Divide the Scriptures, as commanded in 2 Timothy 2:15. That's just the sad truth of the matter.

Again, it has nothing to do with Ruckman. Samer just sees it that way, especially since I sent (for Kathie) a book by the Doc on Dispensationalism. Obviously he approached it with a negative attitude, and as such didn't get a thing out of it. But this is about the Bible, and Rightly Dividing it, not some man from Pensacola. I love Dr. Ruckman, and I hope to see him again sometime, but as far as I'm concerned he has nothing to do with this subject. He has as much to do with it as Sam Gipp, Bro. DeMichele, Bro. Camillary, Bro. Armistead, Mike Roberts, Greg Estep, James Knox or Bro. Vance. All of those men believe the Bible the same exact way as Dr. Ruckman, so perhaps calling it "Ruckmanism" should be rethought. :)

Rachel said...

Thank you, Vince for standing up for right attitudes in posts on this blog. :) I feel very hurt that another CHristian could say something as untrue as what was posted previously and not even feel bad about trying to divide a man and wife.

I do know the things that have transpired between you and Samer. I was there through all of it really...talking with Kathie and Samer on IM the whole time.

I'm not trying to say you only follow Ruckman. I realize that you really do believe what you are saying to me not just because a man teaches it. I get a lot of good information from Larkin's books (thought I don't agree with all he says) and Schofield has a lot of excellent things to say.

As I was telling Kathie earlier I believe that the King James BIble is perfect, inerrant, inspired, the complete Word of God. I trust it with my whole heart. I just happen to believe that the translators weren't inspired, but the GOd preserved HIs WOrd perfectly for usin the English language in the KINg James Bible.

OH well...I think I'm going to go for now.

And Katy-Anne just know that I love you in the Lord. I hope you have a wonderful week with your husband and 2 little boys. I'll be praying for you..I Know you're going through a rough time right now, so I'm not going to judge what you said to me as something you really meant to hurt me like it did. God bless you, sister.

Vince LaRue said...

Like I told Kathie, Rachel: if Samer could find it in himself to fellowship with us "heretics," I wouldn't have a single problem getting together with you all for dinner sometime when we're in the area on deputation. I like you, and though I'm a little aggravated with Samer, I think if he would lay off, we could get along just fine. I've gone out of my way not to antagonize him in the last several months for this very reason: you are a sweet young lady, and Samer and you both really love the Lord, and there's no reason that we couldn't serve the Lord together, though we may disagree on few things.

God bless you two, and I really appreciate your attitude on this issue. :)

Rachel said...

The funny thing husband has a sweeter disposition than I do, even. He truly loves people.

Anyways Iknow that he was concerned about how youir surgery went. I know we'd be fine getting together ifyou were ever out here or we were out there.

I believe we're all Christians and as such should treat one another withcharity.

Pardon the bad typing. I'm composing with a Dove ice cream bar in one hand. LOL

Rachel said...

BTW..what you said about serving the LOrd is right. Our whole purpose on this earth as Christians is to bring glory to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

NOthing should get in the way of that. :)

BTW...chocolate and ice cream cure all ills. :)

and cinnamon rolls apparently. :P

Vince LaRue said...

Ice Cream craving? :P I know my mom craved the weirdest things when she was pregnant...I guess Ice Cream's not such a weird thing to crave though. :D

Rachel said...

Ice cream, pizza, tomato-onion-and pickle sandwiches, and the occasional Cinese food craving. :P

I feel like I'm eating like a pig, but I'm not really gaining any weight. SO I guess it's just the LOrd's way of telling me to go ahead and eat what I want! :P

Vince LaRue said...

Chinese food is awesome :D I was kinda' craving it right before my surgery, but of course the doctors said I couldn't have anything spicy or greasy, and Kathie decided she was going to pay attention to them.

She does that at the most inopportune times!! :D

Mrs W said...

Rachel, I truly don't understand how you thought I wanted to divide you and your husband out of my comment. It is good and right for a wife to stick up for her husband. I would have done it for Jordan, even if I disagreed with him. I'm not trying to divide you at all, I was commending you. I think that nobody paid too much attention to that part of my comment because of what I said about Samer. I don't know him like you do, but I do know what he has done to me. I'm sorry I didn't sugarcoat it, maybe I should have just for the sake of keeping the peace a little. I just know what I know from my experience, and I'm glad yours has been so much better. So much so, that you married him. I'm truly happy for you. You are equally yoked.

I will apologize for the comment about the lying. Although it is true I should have kept that thought to myself because it is obvious that you would perceive the situation differently because you married him.

I hope that God blesses your marriage even further and am glad He has blessed you with a child.

I will say though to anyone against the Biblical truth of different ways of salvation in different time periods...I would not be saved if I had not learned the differences. I grew up in many churches that taught many wrong things about salvation because they did not rightly divide the Word. So while this subject is of course not the be all and end all of Christianity, I am pretty passionate about it.

Rachel said...

DOntcha know? That's what wives are for. Gotta take care of our hubbys.

How long before you can have CHinese food?

I'm really concerned...because you know, I can't go without it for more than a week at this point! :P

I feel for anyone who can't have it. :P

Rachel said...

DOn't really know how you couldn't see that as a divisive comment.

ANyways thanks for the apology...or at least the sort of apology. I understand it's a major step for you to even say it. You are totally forgiven...and all is forgotten.

I'd stand up for anyone who was being wrongly accused whether I was married to him or not.

I've never met anyone who really knows Samer that doesn't see he's a man among men. He wouldn't want me to brag about him like that...but he really is a wonderful man who loves God with all of his heart.

GOd bless you, Katy-Anne, as you continue growing in the LOrd and serving HIm with your beautiful family.

Vince LaRue said...

Oh we had Chinese the day after the surgery...I conned her into getting it for me :D I'm good like that :P

I'll be back to normal pretty soon...I'm just not supposed to shower for 5 days after the surgery grrr...oh well, I'll just get duct tape and plastic and cover the dressing so it doesn't get wet :D

Redneck style!

Terry, Ornament of His Grace said...

Not trying to pick a fight here, but Galatians 3:6 reads as follows concerning Abraham:
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

And concerning the Children of Israel, Hebrews 4:2 reads thusly:
"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

So it stands to reason that salvation has never been by works ALONE, am I correct? If not, please elaborate.

Even under grace, the Bible makes it clear that we are saved unto good works. Not that we are saved by them; we are saved by grace alone though faith in the Messiah. However, James makes it clear that our faith is demonstrated outwardly by our good works. Despite the current heresy being propagated by many in the modern church (and I don't include you in that, don't misunderstand, please) the fact remains that though our works cannot save us, they are, whether good or bad, inextricably linked to our faithfulness, or lack thereof. And that was true even under the old covenant. The difference is that we now have the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who endows us with power to do the good works that the Father would have us to do. I hope my post makes sense in the context of this current discussion.

Vince LaRue said...

Thanks for your input, Terry. "Salvation," as it were, has bever been solely by works, because man's works could never please a Righteous God. However, in certain times, God did require works, but His Grace was required because our works are as filthy rags. God had to accept them, through His Grace.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. However, Abraham obeyed God by offering Isaac, and by those works he was justified. He was sanctified because of his faith, simply believing God, but he was justified by his works. That's what I dealt with in the first section of this blog: "If Abraham were justified by his works he hath whereof to glory..." etc. Paul was drawing a parallel to show us that we have no place to Glory before God, because as it says in many other places in Scripture, we are Justified through HIS BLOOD!! AMEN! We don't HAVE to do works to be Justified, He did that for us! (I'm getting excited typing this!!)

Anyhow, it's sometimes the hardest thing to help someone understand that the different positions really aren't that far apart: it has always been by grace through faith, but it's obvious that sometimes God required other things. Noah would be in Hell if he didn't build the Ark. The Jews would have died in their sins if they hadn't offered sacrifices to cover their iniquities. But we have direct access to Jesus Christ, because of His blood, the one thing that no one else in history had! God is GOOD!!

Well, I hope that made sense to you. If not I'll try to clarify after I settle down. :D