Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#261 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:45 AM

I think this is quite clear. If we want forgiveness from Him, then we are to forgive those who trespass against us... Rebuking is one thing. I agree with rebuking. This has gone beyond rebuking as it has dragged out over the course of several days. If one believes in forgiveness they might as well forgive now, rather than later, for the longer they wait in this pursuit, one that does not bring Glory to God, the more damage that is done.



RoTA, I truly do appreciate the support! I do have to admit though, that regarding "forgiveness" I have to agree with TeeJay. We have a thread on this, feel free to weigh in if you like: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4431

It's sort of a Mexican standoff with UD. Of my two "offenses" to him, I apologized and admitted that "mumbo jumbo" was not an ideal choice of words, I truly did not mean it to be taken the way UD took it. Regarding the video clip, I think there is something far deeper bothering UD (I actually thought it would alleviate some of the tension in the thread , something I voiced to an admin, which at least shows my intent was not to tick him off). Regardless, I still think it's a valid analogy from my POV, I'm not going to apologize for it, nor apologize for being "childish" and "inconsiderate". I wouldn't hold it against him if he stuck to his guns because he truly believed he was right on some analogy he used against me. Maybe I'll get to see a video clip posted by UD where I get to assume the role of Jim Carrey. :gigglesmile: He thinks he's been wronged, I'm unrepentant for it, so he shouldn't have to forgive me for this.

TeeJay worried in a recent post in this thread that I would kick him off because he could not help but take the gloves off with UD. I don't view TeeJay's comments even in the remotest vicinity of such an action. I only recall personally booting two Christians from the Bible section since I started this forum 8 years ago (I might be forgetting some examples because my brain is under severe influence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Of those two, one was banned from the entire forum for posting slanderous claims against a major creation ministry for which they refused after numerous attempts (privately) to see their error. This individual was eventually re-instated 6 months later, thankfully, after changing their view and agreeing to remove the false charges from their website (in this case the wisdom of 1 Cor 5:11-13 prevailed). The 2nd individual was booted because they continued, despite numerous warnings, to ascribe a certain legalistic view on other Christians that simply was not true. It became too tiring to continue to correct and warn this person, so they were kicked out of the Bible section (but was still allowed access to the C vs E section). Given these two examples, its a little ironic that UD forgets that he hasn't recanted from his unsubstantiated accusation that I only keep Christians around who agree with me. Given his anger and rile against me, I have recused myself as a moderator to handle it (though I will only be pushed so far). Or maybe I don't want to boot him to give him the satisfaction that I fulfilled his accusation. :)

Fred

#262 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:51 AM

So what is written in the Bible cannon that was written under the "gospel of circumcision" that we need to separate out and realize does not apply to us?


Essentially yes. Is this such an unprecedented thing for the Bible to do?

Fred

#263 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:02 AM

If you are not led by the Spirit then you are still under the law and will be condemned as a lawbreaker. If I was constantly breaking these commandments then I would certainly question whether or not I am in Christ. Paul challenged us to test this:

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?" 2 Cor 13:5

UD: A good tree cannot produce bad fruit. Anyone who is in Christ will produce friut in keeping with righteousness.


Wow, this sounds pretty legalistic to me, and you wonder why we submit you ignore our arguments to separate Paul and Peter's message? You left out an important part of 2 Cor 13, the very next verse:

"But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified." (2 Cor 13:6)

I trust and know this, even though I continue to do things I shouldn't. Are you saying I should not trust and know this? Sounds like you are preaching Peter's gospel now.

Fred

#264 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:06 AM

UD,

You can relax, I've given up on this debate with you. I admit that I am unable to convice you. But I must confess that I am in awe of you--awed by your imaginative skills at explaining away Scriptural verses to mean other than what they say. I am intriged as to how you are going to spin the verses in my Post 257. Now I'm not doubting your ability to imaginatively explain them away; rather, I am wondering what's the delay in your responding. Please induldge me. I can't wait to read your response.

TeeJay

#265 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:28 AM

Wow, this sounds pretty legalistic to me, and you wonder why we submit you ignore our arguments to separate Paul and Peter's message? You left out an important part of 2 Cor 13, the very next verse: "But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified."

I trust and know this, even though I continue to do things I shouldn't. Are you saying I should not trust and know this? Sounds like you are preaching Peter's gospel now.

Fred


Fred, I'm not sure what you consider to be "legalistic" about what I wrote. Legalism would be using human effort in order to obtain righteousness. Being led by the Spirit is not legalistic as far as I understand the word from scripture. If it was then Paul would have been a pretty legalistic guy, but perhaps I missunderstood you?

I didn't "leave out" anything from 2 Cor 15. It seems you are just trying hard to find faults in everything I write and frustrate me as much as possible. I don't see what Paul being confident that the Corinthians had passed the test has any bearing on what I wrote in my post?

#266 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:11 AM

UD,

You can relax, I've given up on this debate with you. I admit that I am unable to convice you. But I must confess that I am in awe of you--awed by your imaginative skills at explaining away Scriptural verses to mean other than what they say. I am intriged as to how you are going to spin the verses in my Post 257. Now I'm not doubting your ability to imaginatively explain them away; rather, I am wondering what's the delay in your responding. Please induldge me. I can't wait to read your response.

TeeJay


Teejay, I don't think it's a good idea answering you, because I know what will happen.

If I do answer you and disagree with what you read into those verses, which I do, then you will just get angry and insult me. If I don't answer you then I am "ignoring" your arguments. I can't win. I have done my best so far to answer all your questions and arguments to the best of my ability, and what did it get me? Two full-grown men jumping up and down and ranting "We are righ! We are right!"

You and Fred just cannot take anyone disagreeing with you. And I don't want to keep on with this indefinitely. There is nothing in post 257 that gives the slightest piece of evidence that there was ever was a "works gospel". That Paul received a new, powerful revelation has never been the point of contention for me in this debate. The core truth of the gospel has been available since Abraham became the father of faith, but it was not fully "made know" to mankind until Paul received his revelation. He took that revelation to Jerusalem and presented it to the other apostles, who at first were very suspicious about Paul and had a hard time adjusting to what he had recieved.

If you plant a seed in the ground and water it it remains hidden for a period of time. Then it springs up out of the ground, and sprouts leaves. That's the way I see the gospel - the eternal gospel made known to us through the one who was crucified before the foundation of the world, and who's "grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time".

If you are so very intent to see the leaves as being separate from the roots and the stem then go ahead. This whole issue has gone too far, and it seems to have cost the participation of a precious, hard working moderator who I think has been here since 2005. I think I too will resign from this thread, and perhaps from this forum with also is hard for me since I have also been around for several years. But if Ike is gone then I don't think it will be the same place.

I am sorry for my part in all this. I am sorry I entered this discussion at all, because what has it gained any of us? ...

#267 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 23 March 2012 - 09:38 AM

Of course. Both are true statements, and the one does not nullify the other.

Nope. Paul makes it explicitly clear that if you try to obey the law you bring yourself into condemnation.

And if you're not going to accept that there is a difference, are you going to insist that there is no difference between the situation we face today and the situation Moses faced when given the law?

If someone obeys the law it will save him.

Romans 7

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.


Obviously, until Jesus died and was resurrected it wouldn't make much sense for him to demand of someone that they "believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead", and that I think answers your question as to what changed - Jesus died and was raised from the dead.

OK. Can you show us the teaching that made clear this is where the change happened? :)

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." Gal 5:18
This indicates that "faith plus nothing" is not entirely correct. We are justified "apart from the law" by being led by the spirit.

We are not under the law. Something changed. And Paul is the one who teaches that change. :)

#268 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:07 AM

RoTA, I truly do appreciate the support! I do have to admit though, that regarding "forgiveness" I have to agree with TeeJay. We have a thread on this, feel free to weigh in if you like: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4431


Well, as if you don't have enough on your plate right now, I thought I'd place more on it LOL. No need address this now, but I just want you and everyone to know that I've posted on the above thread and it's coming from my viewpoint of how I've posted here in regards to "forgiveness". ;)

#269 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:33 PM

Teejay, I don't think it's a good idea answering you, because I know what will happen.

If I do answer you and disagree with what you read into those verses, which I do, then you will just get angry and insult me. If I don't answer you then I am "ignoring" your arguments. I can't win. I have done my best so far to answer all your questions and arguments to the best of my ability, and what did it get me? Two full-grown men jumping up and down and ranting "We are righ! We are right!"

You and Fred just cannot take anyone disagreeing with you. And I don't want to keep on with this indefinitely. There is nothing in post 257 that gives the slightest piece of evidence that there was ever was a "works gospel". That Paul received a new, powerful revelation has never been the point of contention for me in this debate. The core truth of the gospel has been available since Abraham became the father of faith, but it was not fully "made know" to mankind until Paul received his revelation. He took that revelation to Jerusalem and presented it to the other apostles, who at first were very suspicious about Paul and had a hard time adjusting to what he had recieved.

If you plant a seed in the ground and water it it remains hidden for a period of time. Then it springs up out of the ground, and sprouts leaves. That's the way I see the gospel - the eternal gospel made known to us through the one who was crucified before the foundation of the world, and who's "grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time".

If you are so very intent to see the leaves as being separate from the roots and the stem then go ahead. This whole issue has gone too far, and it seems to have cost the participation of a precious, hard working moderator who I think has been here since 2005. I think I too will resign from this thread, and perhaps from this forum with also is hard for me since I have also been around for several years. But if Ike is gone then I don't think it will be the same place.

I am sorry for my part in all this. I am sorry I entered this discussion at all, because what has it gained any of us? ...


UD, this is what I'm talking about. I thought Joseph Smith was imatinativfe. But he's got nothing on you. I read eveything you wrote and you made it all up out of whole cloth. Wow! I notice not one Bible reference to support anything you wrote. UD, you are your own witness. Did you know that even Jesus said that "If I bear witness of Myself, don't believe Me."

UD, I think it's chekmate and game. I didn't think you could answer Post 257 and refute the irrefuteable passages I presented. And I was right!

ME, take note of this. This is the man you had agreed with while fighting Fred, Stripe, and me at every turn. And it turns out that the man you've been agreeing with is a false prophet. But It's okay, ME, you are a new Christian and there will be many false teachers whom you will encounter that will require the Holy Spirit's gift of discernment. Pray that He gives you this gift to protect you.

You asked, "What has it gained any of us? Well there were a few that participlated in this that were enlightened. RoTA, JS, Chris, if my memory serves me correctly? And it exposed you to be a false teacher who is not teaching what the God's word actually says. Yet, ironically, you accuse Fred and me of twisting Scripture to justify our positions. And I know for a fact that we did not do that. We pretty much interpreted the passages as they were clearly wirtten. If nothing else, if ME realizes now that you are a false teacher, it's more than worth my time and I would do it again ten times over. to protect a new Christian like ME.

To prove me wrong that it is not checkmate and game, you can refute what Paul claims in my Post 257. We all anxiously await to see if you can do so.

TeeJay

#270 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:26 PM

ME, Please read my Post 257 carefully. The Scriptural verses I quote show conclusively that Paul claims that the Dispensation of grace was given to Paul and only Paul. And I also show that Paul was the first man saved under the gospel of grace and he was also the first member of the Body of Christ. I pray this helps you to see the truth.

Now I don't think UD will try to refute this post because his position is not based on God's word and is simply not true. It's not that Fred, Stripe, and I are great debaters; rather UD's arguments are coming undone because his teachings are not based on God's word.. And, if nothing else has been accomplished in this discussion, I pray that you now see that Galatians 2:7-9 means what it says and says what it means--that Peter agreed to preach the gospel "of" circumcision to the Jews and Paul agreed to take the gospel "of" uncircumcision to the whole world (Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves and freemen. Fred and I and Stripe have presented a mountain of evidence to prove this.

And I'm sorry I became impatient with you (a new Christian). Please forgive me. If you have any questions, I promise to answer them patiently.

TeeJay

#271 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:37 PM

Essentially yes. Is this such an unprecedented thing for the Bible to do?

Fred

I am sorry that my question was not worded clearly. I did not ask a yes or no question. What I mean is what part of the Bible canon are you saying does not apply to Christians today?

#272 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:38 PM

[quote] name='Remnant of The Abyss' timestamp='1332526065' post='82294']
Well, as if you don't have enough on your plate right now, I thought I'd place more on it LOL. No need address this now, but I just want you and everyone to know that I've posted on the above thread and it's coming from my viewpoint of how I've posted here in regards to "forgiveness". ;)
[/quote]

RoTA,

It's been a while since I looked in on that thread. And I will take another look at it tomorrow. I hope I answered your posts and did not ignore you? And if you care to discuss this subject further, I will be glad to oblige. But we have to keep it separate from this thread and move to the Forgiveness thread.

TeeJay

#273 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:11 PM

RoTA,

It's been a while since I looked in on that thread. And I will take another look at it tomorrow. I hope I answered your posts and did not ignore you? And if you care to discuss this subject further, I will be glad to oblige. But we have to keep it separate from this thread and move to the Forgiveness thread.

TeeJay


That sounds good. Yes, we can continue this discussion over there. :)

#274 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 23 March 2012 - 07:22 PM

I will get back to you all... I am dealing with my mother trying to shun me yet get visits with my kids. It has been a hard couple of days, but the Lord is taking care of me.

#275 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:36 AM

Nope. Paul makes it explicitly clear that if you try to obey the law you bring yourself into condemnation.


That's totally incorrect Stripe. Paul makes the point that the law was powerless to do anything because it was weakened by the sinful nature. If anyone has the ability to obey the entire law then that shows that they do not have a sinful nature and are therefore free from condemnation. The problem is that we do have a sinful nature, so rather than removing anything from the law we have access to the righteousness that comes through living by faith - i.e. being led by the Spirit, as opposed to trying to follow the written code of the law.

And if you're not going to accept that there is a difference, are you going to insist that there is no difference between the situation we face today and the situation Moses faced when given the law?


A difference between what?

OK. Can you show us the teaching that made clear this is where the change happened?


To start with, the very apostle who denied Christ three times before his resurection was suddenly was out in the streets and amazing the Jews by his boldness after the resurection:

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13

and as far as teaching is concerned:

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection". Phil 3:10

and

"Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. "

To me that suggests that we both died together with Christ and also have part in his resurrection.

We are not under the law. Something changed. And Paul is the one who teaches that change.


Things changed all throughout Jewish history. Does that mean that the truth about faith has changed?

Let me ask you this Stripe: Was Abraham "under the Law"?
  • MamaElephant likes this

#276 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:12 AM

UD, this is what I'm talking about. I thought Joseph Smith was imatinativfe. But he's got nothing on you. I read eveything you wrote and you made it all up out of whole cloth. Wow! I notice not one Bible reference to support anything you wrote. UD, you are your own witness. Did you know that even Jesus said that "If I bear witness of Myself, don't believe Me."

UD, I think it's chekmate and game. I didn't think you could answer Post 257 and refute the irrefuteable passages I presented. And I was right!

ME, take note of this. This is the man you had agreed with while fighting Fred, Stripe, and me at every turn. And it turns out that the man you've been agreeing with is a false prophet. But It's okay, ME, you are a new Christian and there will be many false teachers whom you will encounter that will require the Holy Spirit's gift of discernment. Pray that He gives you this gift to protect you.

You asked, "What has it gained any of us? Well there were a few that participlated in this that were enlightened. RoTA, JS, Chris, if my memory serves me correctly? And it exposed you to be a false teacher who is not teaching what the God's word actually says. Yet, ironically, you accuse Fred and me of twisting Scripture to justify our positions. And I know for a fact that we did not do that. We pretty much interpreted the passages as they were clearly wirtten. If nothing else, if ME realizes now that you are a false teacher, it's more than worth my time and I would do it again ten times over. to protect a new Christian like ME.

To prove me wrong that it is not checkmate and game, you can refute what Paul claims in my Post 257. We all anxiously await to see if you can do so.


Teejay, you told me to relax and said you were going to stop debating with me. And here you go again, breaking your word and insulting me once more by trying to imply that I am a "false prophet" on the same level as Joseph Smith.

If you can't keep your word then your word is worth water. I have contstantly given references to what I have said, and there is nothing in post 257 that proves anything in contrast to what I have verified by my references, so what is your point?

Here are the verses you claim are "irrefutable":

1)

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of THE DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME FOR YOU” (Eph. 3:12).

2)

“… for the sake of His Body, which is the church, of which I BECAME A MINISTER according to the stewardship from God [dispensation] which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now [NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW] has been revealed to His saints” (Col. 1:24-26). To show that Paul’s gospel was a mystery never before revealed, also see Col. 6:19.

3)

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to MY GOSPEL and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation OF THE MYSTERY WHICH WAS KEPT SECRET since the world began” (Rom. 16:25).

4)

[the law is not for believers vv. 8-10] according to the GLORIOUS GOSPEL of the blessed God which WAS COMMITTED TO MY TRUST” (1 Tim. 1:11).

5)

“Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL” 2 Tim. 2:8).

6)

“… God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL” (Rom. 2:16).

7)

“[Woe is unto me, if I preach not THE GOSPEL! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, A DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL IS COMMITTED UNTO ME” (1 Cor. 9:16-17

Now, which one of these verses are "irrefutable" evidence that you are "RIGHT!!!"???

Dispensation is not synonymous with gospel! If it was then reference 7 would not make sense!

Also you are ignoring the fact that what Paul wrote to Timothy harmonises with what James wrote about the law:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10

Do you really think that James was encouraging the readers of his letter to keep the entire law? No. James also speaks about grace:

"But he gives us more grace." James 4:6

Just as the other apostles also spoke about grace:

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you" 1 Peter 1:10

Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. 1 Peter 1:13

I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. 1 Peter 5:12

But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 2 Peter 2:18


No one was as focused on grace than Paul, but that is the way that it works in the body of Christ.

Each member of the body has different messages and revelations that God provides in order to give us nourishment. However, Christ is not divided.

Now I know that you are not denying that there was some king of grace given to the Christian Jews, but I leave it up to you to prove through scripture that it was not the same kind of grace that was given to the gentiles.

Until then I don't think you should go around boasting about any "checkmate".
  • MamaElephant likes this

#277 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 24 March 2012 - 07:08 AM

I am sorry that my question was not worded clearly. I did not ask a yes or no question. What I mean is what part of the Bible canon are you saying does not apply to Christians today?


ME, the law, symbolic, and moral, does not apply to Christians today. In the Garden, there was one law: Do not partake of the Tree of knowledge. In the Body of Christ today, there is only one law: Do not partake of the Law. Notice the simularities between the Tree and the Law:

The Tree is a ministry of death (Gen. 2:17). The Law is the ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7).

Do not partake of the Tree (Gen. 3:17). Do not partake of the law (Rom. 7:6; 10:4).

In the day that you partake of the Tree, you will die (Gen. 2:17). In the day you partake of the Law, you will die (Rom. 7:9).

By the Tree is the knowledge of sin (Ge. 3:22). By the Law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7).

The Tree's curse died on the cross (Rom. 5:18-19). The Law was nailed to the Cross (Col. 2:13-14, 16).

The Tree of Life is in the new heaven (Rev. 22:14), but not the Tree of Knowledge (Ezek. 31:15; [Rev. 22:14]). The Law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2) is in the new heaven, but not the Law of death (Rom. 8:2; 7:6).

So today, we have only one law: Do not partake of the law, just as in the Garden there was only one law: do not partake of the Tree.

In the Garden, Adam and Even had two choices: Either have a relationship with God based on love or a relationship based on law. Adam and Even chose law. But a relationship based on law does not work. So, to show that it does not work, God gave His law so "that the curse at the tree may abound" and teach us great truths. The first great truth is that unrighteous men can't live without the law, for the "law is not for the righteous but for rapists, kidnappers, murderers, etc." And the second great truth is that righteous men can't live under the law.

If men happen to keep a law, they become puffed up and proud, and they become self-righteous. A self-righteous does not need God.But when this same man breaks the law that puffed him us (which is enivitable), then the law serves up its main course. It condemns him and he runs from God. Recall that Adam and Even hid themselves from God when they ate from the Tree. So the righteous man can't live under the law and the unrighteous man can't live without it. What's are we to do. "When you walk in the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh," Paul wrote. Love for his wife and love for God will be much more successful in keeping a man from committing adultery than "Thou shall not commit adultery."

I pray this helps,

TeeJay

#278 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 24 March 2012 - 08:12 AM

Teejay, I just want you to know that I believe Post #257 is a scholarly exegesis and it does a great job in thoroughly convincing me. :)

#279 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 24 March 2012 - 09:40 AM

ME, the law, symbolic, and moral, does not apply to Christians today.

That's funny. I thought that you were arguing that things written in the NT did not apply today... like Jame's writings for example. I recall Fred mentioning how James is confusing and Luther wanted it ripped out of the Bible. Or Peter and John's writings since they were forever under the law.

#280 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 24 March 2012 - 11:03 AM

That's totally incorrect Stripe. Paul makes the point that the law was powerless to do anything because it was weakened by the sinful nature. If anyone has the ability to obey the entire law then that shows that they do not have a sinful nature and are therefore free from condemnation. The problem is that we do have a sinful nature, so rather than removing anything from the law we have access to the righteousness that comes through living by faith - i.e. being led by the Spirit, as opposed to trying to follow the written code of the law.


Galatians 5
Christian Liberty

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.


A difference between what?

Today. Moses' day.

Do you think there's a difference?

To start with, the very apostle who denied Christ three times before his resurection was suddenly was out in the streets and amazing the Jews by his boldness after the resurection: When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13 and as far as teaching is concerned: "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection". Phil 3:10 and "Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. "

Uh, yes. The disciples preached - the preached the law. They didn't change anything about how people were saved.

When you write all that stuff about the law passing away, you're quoting from Paul. :)

To me that suggests that we both died together with Christ and also have part in his resurrection.

Of course. All men throughout all history have always found their salvation made possible by having their part in Jesus' resurrection. But the point is that the instructions for how we must express our faith has changed. As it must have since people alive before Christ came could not very well be asked to accept their risen messiah now could they? They were taught that the law would save them. The law today has no power to save. Something changed. Paul teaches that change.

Things changed all throughout Jewish history. Does that mean that the truth about faith has changed?

The changes have been revealed to us by God. We still have not the full revelation. So, no. The truth will not change. But we will become more aware as more is revealed.

Let me ask you this Stripe: Was Abraham "under the Law"?

Yes (but obviously not the mosaic law).

Are you?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users