Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#281 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:07 PM

I wouldn't say I've reached any sort of enlightenment just yet, but I do appreciate you taking time to answer a confused young man's question, Teejay. I have to read a thread like this a few times for things to fall into place in my mind.

Got to rewind this thread and start from square 1. And take notes! :D

#282 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:23 PM

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.


I'm not really sure why you posted this. The verses you quote have to do with trying to follow the written code of the law.

Following the guidance of the Spirit is not the same thing and is not what the Bible calls bondage. We have liberty in Christ, but we are still in bondage to the one we obey:

"..you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness" Rom 6:16

Now, notice that Paul mentions "obedience" here. Obedience to what?

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith." Rom 1:5

Obedience is a fruit of faith.

"Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else." 2 Cor 9:13

Obviously, it is not enough to simply say "Lord, Lord!". We must also obey the Lord.

"but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him" Rom 16:26

#283 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

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


"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. ' Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:8-12

"After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Acts 15:7-12

No one "preaches the law" by saying that it is a burden that no one is able to bear!!! And notice here that even realizes there that God made "No distinction between us and them".

Christ is not divided!

#284 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 - 01:04 PM

even realizes there that God made "No distinction between us and them".

Because of the teaching from Paul...

Christ is not divided!

That's nice. :)

#285 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:12 PM

Because of the teaching from Paul...


Sure, the revelation about the gentiles came primarily from Paul, I have never contested that, but the point is that Peter did not try to preach any "legalistic" gospel. The apostles preached a gospel of faith as did Paul.

#286 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 - 02:22 PM

They preached the gospel of circumcision..

#287 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:45 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1332580349' post='82328']
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.[/quote]

UD, I had to come back to force you to answer this post. You were conveniently ignoring it, hoping I would not notice. Now concerning my claim that you are a false prophet. When you rob a bank, you are called a bank robber. If you lie, you are called a liar. Today, Christians are trying to be nicer than Jesus Christ. You are representing God falsely by teaching a false doctrine; hence, you are a false prophet.

[quote]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?[/quote]

I claim in this post that the dispensation of the gospel of grace was given to Paul and that it was a mystery never before revealed, kept secret. Did I prove it with these verses? I did! Now it logically follows that if what Paul claims in these passages is true, then Peter received a different gospel. I did not think you would have the audacity to claim the opposite of what Paul claimed. But I was wrong.

[quote]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[/quote]

Why did you omit so much of what was important in my Post:

God’s people are frequently referred to as His house. The specific rules for His house, at any given time, are His House rules. The Greek language has a compound word pronounced oy-kon-om-ee’-ah which translates into English as economy. It can be understood better as “house rules.” Translators accurately translate it as dispensation. Strong defines oy-kon-om-ee’-ah, as used in the Bible, as “administration of a household or an estate, dispensation, stewardship.” Through the Bible, God has changed His house rules, or dispensation.

One can’t read the first two chapters of Galatians and not see that Paul claims that he did not get his gospel from Peter or any man. He got it directly from Jesus Christ. Paul is adamant that he did not get his gospel from men but from God. Does Paul make this clear in any of his other letters? Let’s look:



If Galatians 2:7-9 was the only verses that claimed that there were two gospels, then there would be room for doubt. But there is a ton of evidence to support this concept and it has been provided by me, Stripe, and Fred. If what Paul is claiming here is true, then we can expect one final conclusive piece of evidence: Paul should be the FIRST man saved under this new dispensation and he should be the first member of the Body of Christ. And this is what he claims:

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me FIRST Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, AS A PATTERN to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life” (1 Tim. 1:15-16)

The first man in the kingdom of God was King Saul OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. The first man in the Body of Christ was Saul (later Paul) OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. The first Saul started out under the law and ended up committing suicide and is in Hell. The second Saul started out under the law, but ended up being saved by grace and one of the most esteemed men in the Bible. Thank you, God, for delivering me from the law by which I was condemned.


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

All of them are irrefutable. Do you realize that you are no longer refuting me? You are now refuting Paul. In all the Scriptural passages above, Paul clearly claims that the "dispensation of grace was given to him." He calls it "my gospel."

In Col. 1:24-26, he writes, "but now has been revealed to me..." If it was "now" revealed, how can you claim that it was revealed before "now"? Pleaseanswer.

In Col. 6:19, Paul writes that the grace gospel was a "mystery never before revealed." In Rom 16:25, Paul says it was a "mystery which was kept secret."

Since the gospel of grace that was dispensed to Paul by Jesus Christ was "a mystery never before revealed" and was a "mystery which was kept secret," can we logically assume that it could not possibly been given to Peter or James? I want you to answer.

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

I notice that before you made this outrageous assertion, you conveniently omitted the main thrust of my arguments where I gave the Greek translation for "Dispensation."

[quote]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.[/quote]

Here you conveniently changed the subject. The main thrust of this post is:

Did Paul claim that he was the first man saved by grace?

Did Paul claim that the dispensation of grace was given to him?

Did Paul claim that the dispensation of grace was a mystery never before revealed?

Since the dispensation of grace was given to Paul, can you admit that Peter did not have it?

If it was a mystery never before revealed, can you admit that Peter could not have known about it?

Since Paul was the "first" member of the Body of Christ and the "first" man saved by grace, can you admit that there was no gospel of grace or Body of Christ before Paul was commissioned by God?

[quote]Until then I don't think you should go around boasting about any "checkmate"[/quote]

You're coming undone. You're now arguing with Paul. Yikes!

TeeJay.

#288 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 04:08 PM

UD, There is no getting around or behind this simple truth.

Circumcision required: Gen. 17:10; 17:1-26; 21:4; Ex. 4:24-26; 31:12-17; Lev. 12:1-3; Joshua 5:8; Ezek. 44:9; Mat. 5:17-19; 10:5-6; 19:17; 23:2-3; 23, 28:19-20; Mark 10:3; John 4:22; 7:22-24; Acts 15:1, 5; 7:8; 16:1-3; 21:20, 17:24.

Circumcision not required: Gal. 5:2; 2:7-9; 5:4-6, 11-12; 3:28; Col. 2:16-17; 3:11; Rom 4:2-5, 10; 7:4, 6; 1l:15-17; 14:5-6; Acts 10:44-48; 15:24; Titus 1:10-11. Every man who becomes circumcised is a debtor (Gal. 5:3).

TeeJay

#289 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 04:19 PM

UD,

Faith requires works: Mat. 6:14-15; 7:20-21; 25:30, 34-40, 45-46; 5:19; 18:32-35, 23:2-3, 23;24:13; 28:19; Mark 11:25-26. Luke 9:62; 10:25-28; John 15:2, 6. Acts 10:35; 21:21, 24. James 2:17; 20-21, 24-26. The Law: Lev. 18:4; Num 15:30-31; Deut. 6:25; 24:13; 27:10. The Prophets: Isa. 1:19; Ezek. 18:21-24; 20:13; Mal. 4:4. The Writings: Ps. 18:24-25; 106:30-31; 119:33-34, 92-93, 106.

Faith and no works: Rom. 4:4-5; 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; Gal. 3:2.

Being saved by faith with no law or works can only be found in Paul.

TeeJay

#290 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 March 2012 - 06:44 PM

UD,

Please read my post to ME (Post 278). This is what I wanted to get into on this thread which was the "meat" that Paul yeared to impart to the Corinthians. But they wanted to stay on the nipple and drink milk. I wanted to put some steaks on the BBQ for you and ME et.al. but you would not let me. Further proof for you:

Laws to keep the Sabbath.

I will omit referencing the OT verses, for they are too numerous. But there is no denying that for the nation of Israel God gave Sabbath law as "perpetual." Now you can deny that, but your refusal to accept God's word does not change things. So I will just reference NT verses:

Mat. 5:19; 23:23; 24:20; 28:20. Mark 1:21; 15:42. Luke 4:16, 31; 23:56. John 7:22-23; 19:31. Acts 1:12. Heb. 4:4, 9.

Now contrast this with Paul who forbids Sabbath keeping:



Rom. 14:5-6; 11:15, 17, 19; 11:20, 25-26. Col. 2:16-17. Gal. 4:10-11 (Also see Gal. 3:10 and 2:18-19).

TeeJay

#291 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 PM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1332619943' post='82347']
Sure, the revelation about the gentiles came primarily from Paul, I have never contested that, but the point is that Peter did not try to preach any "legalistic" gospel. The apostles preached a gospel of faith as did Paul.
[/quote]

UD, What you posted here is simply untrue. Even Peter and James would disagree with you: "[James talking to Paul at the Jerusalem Council], You see brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW..." (Acts 21:17-20). Peter and James were obeying Jesus.

Jesus told the apostles, of course, to obey the law (Mat. 5:19; 15:6; 23:23) and to teach others to do so (Mat. 28:19). Recall what King David wrote:

"The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul..." (Ps. 19:7).

God used the Mosaic Law to focus His revelations to Israel. Moses defined their nation's life. The law prescribed numerous details of their spiritual, personal, social, moral, and governmental existence.

While the Apostle Paul wrote that the ministry of the law ended for an unbeliever once he was justified (1 Tim. 1:8-10), this did not happen in the dispensation of the Kingdom (circumcision). For Israel, God told each believer to live every moment under the Mosaic Law:

"The Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to DO according to all that is written in it" (Josh 1:8. See also Lev. 18:5, 29; Ps. 1:2 and James 2:8-12).

But discouraging his converts from trying to keep any part of the law, Paul used a verse in the opposite sense in which Moses used it:

"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Gal. 3:10 from Deut. 27:26).

Moses wrote Deuteronomy 27:26 to encourage men to keep every single command of the law, but Paul uses the same words to discourage men from keeping even one tiny part of the law.

TeeJay

#292 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 01:46 AM

UD,

Faith requires works: Mat. 6:14-15; 7:20-21; 25:30, 34-40, 45-46; 5:19; 18:32-35, 23:2-3, 23;24:13; 28:19; Mark 11:25-26. Luke 9:62; 10:25-28; John 15:2, 6. Acts 10:35; 21:21, 24. James 2:17; 20-21, 24-26. The Law: Lev. 18:4; Num 15:30-31; Deut. 6:25; 24:13; 27:10. The Prophets: Isa. 1:19; Ezek. 18:21-24; 20:13; Mal. 4:4. The Writings: Ps. 18:24-25; 106:30-31; 119:33-34, 92-93, 106.

Faith and no works: Rom. 4:4-5; 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; Gal. 3:2.

Being saved by faith with no law or works can only be found in Paul.

TeeJay


This is sloppy work Teejay. Not one of these verses declares that faith requires legalism. The law was given as a shoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Are you trying to say that these verses:

Mat. 6:14-15; 7:20-21; 25:30, 34-40, 45-46; 5:19; 18:32-35, 23:2-3, 23;24:13; 28:19; Mark 11:25-26. Luke 9:62; 10:25-28; John 15:2, 6. Acts 10:35; 21:21, 24. James 2:17; 20-21, 24-26. The Law: Lev. 18:4; Num 15:30-31; Deut. 6:25; 24:13; 27:10. The Prophets: Isa. 1:19; Ezek. 18:21-24; 20:13; Mal. 4:4. The Writings: Ps. 18:24-25; 106:30-31; 119:33-34, 92-93, 106.

are all saying that the way to salvation is through the law? No Teejay, just as Peter said: "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved" and according to Paul: "no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law".

#293 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:13 AM

UD,

Please read my post to ME (Post 278). This is what I wanted to get into on this thread which was the "meat" that Paul yeared to impart to the Corinthians. But they wanted to stay on the nipple and drink milk. I wanted to put some steaks on the BBQ for you and ME et.al. but you would not let me. Further proof for you:

Laws to keep the Sabbath.

I will omit referencing the OT verses, for they are too numerous. But there is no denying that for the nation of Israel God gave Sabbath law as "perpetual." Now you can deny that, but your refusal to accept God's word does not change things. So I will just reference NT verses:

Mat. 5:19; 23:23; 24:20; 28:20. Mark 1:21; 15:42. Luke 4:16, 31; 23:56. John 7:22-23; 19:31. Acts 1:12. Heb. 4:4, 9.

Now contrast this with Paul who forbids Sabbath keeping:



Rom. 14:5-6; 11:15, 17, 19; 11:20, 25-26. Col. 2:16-17. Gal. 4:10-11 (Also see Gal. 3:10 and 2:18-19).

TeeJay


What does post 278 have to do with what we are discussing? And I am well familiar with the verses that have to do with keeping the Sabbath, and all I can say is that your conclusion that Paul forbade sabbath keeping is totally wrong, and I will use the very scriptures you provided to point it out to you.

"Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." Rom 14:5-6.

This verse shows clearly that Paul did NOT forbid keeping the sabbath. In fact he sanctifies it by letting each mans conviction determine whether or not a certain day should be set aside to give thanks to God.

11:15, 17, 19. 11:20 25-26 What book are these verses referring to? Romans doesn't seem to fit in anyway.

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. "

No forbidding here... just a little advice concerning the judegement of those who are not familiar with the "realities in Christ".

You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. Gal 4:10-11

The Galatians were obviuosly having problems with legalsim and were trying to follow the literal traditions of the Jews rather than being led by the Spirit of Christ. Paul did not "forbid" them from celebrating them, but was "fearful" that they had not grasped the message of liberty and grace. We also have days that we choose to celebrate and worship. Should Paul be "fearful" about us? That depends on whether we do so "legalistically" or not.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

This is an excellent verse, because it illustrates why "ALL" who "rely on observing the law" are under a curse. The fact that one celebrates the Lord on specific days has nothing to do with "relying on the law". It COULD do, but not necessarily. It depends on whether you are following the inspiration of the Spirit to do so, or whether you are doing so on your own accord, in order to win points.

Finally, how do you interpret Hebrews 4:4-9:

For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his." ;

#294 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:30 AM

UD, What you posted here is simply untrue. Even Peter and James would disagree with you: "[James talking to Paul at the Jerusalem Council], You see brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW..." (Acts 21:17-20). Peter and James were obeying Jesus.


Teejay, dear brother! You are assuming that Peter and James were exhilerated because these Jews were zealous for the law, rather than the fact that even those who were TYPICALLY IN STRONG OPPOSITION to the gospel message were now GETTING SAVED through the gospel of grace!

If Peter and James were so overjoyed by those who were zealous for the law then they would have been jumping up and down every time they came in contact with the scribes and the pharisees!!!

Jesus told the apostles, of course, to obey the law (Mat. 5:19; 15:6; 23:23) and to teach others to do so (Mat. 28:19). Recall what King David wrote:

"The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul..." (Ps. 19:7).

God used the Mosaic Law to focus His revelations to Israel. Moses defined their nation's life. The law prescribed numerous details of their spiritual, personal, social, moral, and governmental existence.

While the Apostle Paul wrote that the ministry of the law ended for an unbeliever once he was justified (1 Tim. 1:8-10), this did not happen in the dispensation of the Kingdom (circumcision). For Israel, God told each believer to live every moment under the Mosaic Law:

"The Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to DO according to all that is written in it" (Josh 1:8. See also Lev. 18:5, 29; Ps. 1:2 and James 2:8-12).

But discouraging his converts from trying to keep any part of the law, Paul used a verse in the opposite sense in which Moses used it:

"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Gal. 3:10 from Deut. 27:26).

Moses wrote Deuteronomy 27:26 to encourage men to keep every single command of the law, but Paul uses the same words to discourage men from keeping even one tiny part of the law.


All of this is in perfect harmony with what Paul wrote about the law, so what is your point?

"So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." Rom 7:13

However:

"no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

So Teejay, will anyone be declared righteous by observing the law?

#295 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:55 AM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1332619943' post='82347']
Sure, the revelation about the gentiles came primarily from Paul, I have never contested that, but the point is that Peter did not try to preach any "legalistic" gospel. The apostles preached a gospel of faith as did Paul.
[/quote]

UD, your assertion that "the apostles preached a gospel of faith [apart from works] as Paul" is simply not true. If you would just read your Bible and interpret it clearly for what it says, you can't possibly come to your conclusion. Just look at the interaction between James and Paul:

"On the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done amond the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW, but they have been informed about you that you teach ALL the Jews who are among the Gentiles to FORSAKE MOSES, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that tose things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,...'" (Acts 21:18-25)

Now does this sound like James was not under the gospel of circumcision? It is beyond undeniable. Paul, as a former Jewish Pharisee, had to walk a tight-rope so to speak to keep peace between his ministry and Peter and James' ministry. While Paul would go postal if his converts put themselves under the law, Paul, with his special dispensation from Jesus, could fulfill James and Peter's request here to calm the Jews who were saved under the gospel of circumcision under Peter and James.

But to say what you said above is simply untrue.

TeeJay.

#296 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:05 AM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1332664762' post='82377']


Why God would treat a born-again Jew differently than a born-again gentile. WHY Teejay? WHY???[/quote]

Now you are asking questions that will require you to get off of milk and learn to digest meat. But when I try to give you a little meat (Post 278), you're not ready to let go of the bottle. You rejected my meaty post 278 out of hand. I can't really answer you here until you admit that there were two different "dispensations." This you heart will not allow you to do, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.



[quote]I have never robbed a bank, and since it is you who has lied in this thread then I will leave it up to you to bear that lable. A false doctrine is not false simply because YOU claim it is. And a false doctrine is not false simply because someone disagrees with YOU. You have constructed an interpretation of certain verses that I do not find convincing and disagree with. That does not make me a false prophet.[/quote]

One of us has to be a false prophet, because what you teach and I teach is contradictory. The laws of logic which come from the mind of God will not allow both of us to be right. So, if you are teaching a doctrine that is contrary to what God says in His word, then, by definition, you are a false prophet.

[quote]And what exactly have I "prophecied"? Nothing! So don't lie, dont' slander me, and don't distort things![/quote]

There is so much to teach you. A prophet is not necessarily one who predicts the future. You prophesy when you speak the word of God. We in the Body of Christ are ambassadors for Christ. If so, if we speak anything that Christ has not said, then we are false prophets.



[quote]The "mystery" part of what Paul talks about is the availabilty of salvation to the gentiles. Grace had been around a long time before that![/quote]

You can say that, but saying it without referencing God's word does not make it so. Since Paul clearly calls his gospel a "mystery, never before revealed," then by definition, it could not have been around for a long time. Your arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. I am embarrassed for you. If this were a boxing match, the crowd would be screaming for the ref to stop the fight.



[quote]You were wrong but not because of any claim that I have made. You are wrong because you are "logically" wrong about what you "logically" claim is right. A "dispensation" is not a "gospel". If you disagree then please explain what a "dispensation of the gospel" is. A gospel of the gospel?[/quote]

Now you're arguing with what Paul clearly says. He calls it "my gospel." He says, "Follow me as I follow Christ."



[quote]Since you made a big deal about scriptural references I thought I would be good to examine YOUR references and see exactly what you think they prove. Now suddenly it isn't the scripture that you have a problem with, but he other stuff that you claim i omitted! What game are you playing at Teejay?

And since you brought it up, let's look at what power of conviction the "omitted" material has:



I've been throught this before Teejay. How many times has there been a change in "house rules"??? How many Teejay? You count them for me and explain how many "gospels" you come up with![/quote]

Be glad to: Until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree, there was only one law: Do not eat from the Tree, for the day that you partake of it, you will die.
From Cain to Noah, God allowed man to live governed only by his conscience. Theologians call this the "Dispensation of Conscience."
Allowing man to live governed only by conscience was a disaster. God had to flood the earth and start over
When Noah got off the Ark, God gave His first law: Put murderers to death. Theologians call this the "Dispensation of Law or Government."

From Noah to Paul, God allowed men to live governed by law. Israel did not fair well under this Dispensation either. Israel, the people of the Circumcision or law, totally rejected their risen Messiah.

God takes Paul and gives him the "Dispensation of grace" where we are saved by faith plus nothing. The only law in the Garden was do not partake of the Tree for the day that you do you will die. The only law in the Body of Christ is that there is no law, and Paul warns that the day that you partake of it you will die. Paul wrote, "I was alive once without the law. But the law came and I died. When was Paul alive without the law? There is only one answer: When he was too young to be under its condemnation (Deut. 1:39).

Why all the dispensations? I will be glad to teach you, but you'r unteachable. I'll try anyhow.

Paul writes: "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: 'That You [God] may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged" (Rom. 3:3-4, referencing Job 40:8; John 3:33; Ps. 62:9; Ps. 51:4). The first time I read this, I was shocked and asked myself, "Who would have the audicity to judge God? The answer is all those who are in Hell awaiting judgment day. They will accuse God with the following arguments: "If you had only let us live governed by our conscience." "If only you had not given us your oppresive law." "If only you had not put that Tree in the Garden." "If only you had not given Paul that dispensation of grace." "If only you had not given us free choice to accept or reject You." "If only...." But all will be without excuse.

[quote]No, it hasn't! Neither you, Stripe or Fred have EVER provided anything of the sort. Differences between the revelations and writings of different apostles is not "tons of evidence" of multiple gospels. In order to prove that then you will need to explain exactly where one gospel distinguishes itself from another. Neither you, Stripe or Fred have done that, despite the fact that I have raised this question several times before in this thread. You all seem to CLAIM that there is a gospel that demands circumcision, and although there is evidence that Peter WRONGLY tried to impose circumcision apon believers, he seems to have recanted his position and realized (which you don't seem to be able to do) that it was a burden that "neither we (the Jews) nor our fathers have been able to bear". That is the "checkmate" Teejay. Admit it and move on.[/quote]

Be glad to. But if I post a Scriptural reference, you deny what's written. So I will let you look it up yourself.

James teaches that we are justified by faith plus works. Right?

Peter says, "whoever works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:35. Right?

But Paul teaches that you don't have to circumcise, keep the Sabbath, be concerned about eating meat sacrificed to idols, worry about feasts, or any law keeping. Right?


[quote]Paul NEVER claimed that he was the first man in the Body of Christ. That is what you have added to scripture hoping that no one would notice. Paul was the FIRST man to be a "model" for those who had a disgraceful record of hate crimes and showed us that even a hateful killer can be saved. Do you really think that NONE of the apostles were saved? I guess so, since you seem to think they hated Jesus![/quote]

This is becoming increasinly embarrassing. After this post, I am going to leave you in your confusion. Even Don Corleone would not deem you a "serious man to be respected."

TeeJay

#297 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 09:32 AM

UD, your assertion that "the apostles preached a gospel of faith [apart from works] as Paul" is simply not true. If you would just read your Bible and interpret it clearly for what it says, you can't possibly come to your conclusion. Just look at the interaction between James and Paul:

"On the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done amond the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, 'You see brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW, but they have been informed about you that you teach ALL the Jews who are among the Gentiles to FORSAKE MOSES, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that tose things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,...'" (Acts 21:18-25)

Now does this sound like James was not under the gospel of circumcision? It is beyond undeniable. Paul, as a former Jewish Pharisee, had to walk a tight-rope so to speak to keep peace between his ministry and Peter and James' ministry. While Paul would go postal if his converts put themselves under the law, Paul, with his special dispensation from Jesus, could fulfill James and Peter's request here to calm the Jews who were saved under the gospel of circumcision under Peter and James.

But to say what you said above is simply untrue.

TeeJay.


Teejay, I have addressed this passage of scripture several times, but I'm going to carefully go through it again with you and explain the way I interpret it, and why I interpret it the way I do.

The first thing you need to realize is that this is an historical account depicting an episode during the development of the church. And why do I think that is significant? Because there is a correct sequence in which we should evaluate scripture in order to build doctrine. For example, if we are confronted with two passages of scripture, one being clear doctrine, as is layed out in the epistles and the other being an historical account such as in Acts then it is the clear doctrine that should outweigh the historical account.

Historical accounts cannot be directly converted into doctrine. They require that the interpreter draws the correct conclusions from what the account describes. And that is where the problems start.

You assume that whatever the Jews were hearing about Paul's message was true, such as the fact the fact that he was teaching anyone to "FORSAKE MOSES". This is where we need to look into clear doctrine and see whether it was based on the truth, or whether it was a distortion of Paul's doctrine, which we KNOW from scripture was something that was happening.

Paul NEVER told anyone to "forsake Moses". The truth of the matter is that he quotes the law quite a few times in his letters. He did not attack the law and he did not teach anyone to disobey the law. We are free from the requirements of the law, not because the law was abolished, but because we are exempt from the law. That means that whatever Moses wrote was still in effect for those who choose to reject the gospel.

However, no matter how anyone looks at this matter, it was a deeply disturbing issue for the Jews because most of them were extremely zealous for the law and could not handle this kind of doctrine straight away. Things were starting to get dangerous for Paul and for the Jewish believers. That is why James asks Paul "What then?" In other words, what should we do about this sensitive situation?

Neither Paul NOR James suggested that anyone be circumcised, but what they did was compromise by carrying out a few rituals so that the Jews would think that Paul was "following the law". In fact, isn't that in line with what you are saying yourself? Appart from claiming that James "undeniably" was preaching a gospel of "circumcision" which cannot be found anywhere in that passage.

#298 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:23 AM

Now you are asking questions that will require you to get off of milk and learn to digest meat. But when I try to give you a little meat (Post 278), you're not ready to let go of the bottle.


Teejay, instead of making silly comments like that why don't you just present the so-called "meat". You have been using insults through this entire thread. I have not responed by insulting you. You don't need to attack those who disagree with you. Just present your arguments and leave out the childish rhetoric, OK?

You rejected my meaty post 278 out of hand. I can't really answer you here until you admit that there were two different "dispensations." This you heart will not allow you to do, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.


I have never denied that there are different dispensations. The "management of a household or of household affairs" is a "dispensation". An "administration" is a "dispensation". A gospel is neither of these. Now please answer the question and stop trying to wiggle your way out if it by playing on words.

One of us has to be a false prophet, because what you teach and I teach is contradictory. The laws of logic which come from the mind of God will not allow both of us to be right. So, if you are teaching a doctrine that is contrary to what God says in His word, then, by definition, you are a false prophet.


Even Fred made a comment in this thread that he was not sure if he agreed with you about everything. Does that make him a false prophet? But before you put labels on me then go ahead, show me where anyhing I said is contrary to what God says in his word.

Now, I have pointed out things that you have said that are not scripturally correct, but I don't call you a false prophet just because you are mistaken about something.

You can say that, but saying it without referencing God's word does not make it so.


Teejay, the ASSERTION was made by you. You claimed (incorrectly) that Paul was the first man who was saved. Don't try to shift the burden of proof on me. I presented scriptural evidence that the way to salvation was known BEFORE Paul's revelation. So who is the "false prophet" here? So if you want to assert that there was no one saved before Paul then present it rather than trying to weasle out of this.

Be glad to: Until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree, there was only one law: Do not eat from the Tree, for the day that you partake of it, you will die.
From Cain to Noah, God allowed man to live governed only by his conscience. Theologians call this the "Dispensation of Conscience."
Allowing man to live governed only by conscience was a disaster. God had to flood the earth and start over
When Noah got off the Ark, God gave His first law: Put murderers to death. Theologians call this the "Dispensation of Law or Government."
From Noah to Paul, God allowed men to live governed by law. Israel did not fair well under this Dispensation either. Israel, the people of the Circumcision or law, totally rejected their risen Messiah.
God takes Paul and gives him the "Dispensation of grace" where we are saved by faith plus nothing. The only law in the Garden was do not partake of the Tree for the day that you do you will die. The only law in the Body of Christ is that there is no law, and Paul warns that the day that you partake of it you will die. Paul wrote, "I was alive once without the law. But the law came and I died. When was Paul alive without the law? There is only one answer: When he was too young to be under its condemnation (Deut. 1:39).
Why all the dispensations? I will be glad to teach you, but you'r unteachable. I'll try anyhow.
Paul writes: "For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! ! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: 'That You [God] may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged" (Rom. 3:3-4, referencing Job 40:8; John 3:33; Ps. 62:9; Ps. 51:4). The first time I read this, I was shocked and asked myself, "Who would have the audicity to judge God? The answer is all those who are in Hell awaiting judgment day. They will accuse God with the following arguments: "If you had only let us live governed by our conscience." "If only you had not given us your oppresive law." "If only you had not put that Tree in the Garden." "If only you had not given Paul that dispensation of grace." "If only you had not given us free choice to accept or reject You." "If only...." But all will be without excuse.


That's all very nice Teejay, but unfortunately you failed to explain 1) What a gospel actually is. and 2) where one gospel ends and another one begins.

James teaches that we are justified by faith plus works. Right?


Nowhere does James defend legalistically following the written code of the law in order to be justified. The very fact that he mentions faith indicates that he is well aware of the teaching about justification by faith, which is also quite evident by what he is saying. James teaches that works acompany faith, which is completely in line with what Paul writes.

Obedience is a fruit of faith, is it not? Please read post 283 and respond to the questions there! (along with all the other questions that you are not answering)

Peter says, "whoever works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:35. Right?


Also fully in line with what Paul says. Or are you trying to say "Let us do evil that good may result"?

Paul ALWAYS encouraged his readers to follow the path of righteousness. Being exempt from the law is not synonymous with doing evil. Quite the contrary:

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" Rom 6:15

The fact that we sin is an indication that we are not being led by the Spirit - we are drifting away from Christ and need to return to him.

But Paul teaches that you don't have to circumcise, keep the Sabbath, be concerned about eating meat sacrificed to idols, worry about feasts, or any law keeping. Right?


Neither Peter James, not Paul teach the "law keeping" of the OT. We serve in a new way, but what is consistent between both covenants is the requirement to love God with all our hears and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Anyone who doesn't understand this is in for a rude awakening.

#299 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 25 March 2012 - 11:44 AM

I am not easily swayed by false teachers. I have a lot of experience with them and intend to use that experience to strengthen my brothers and sisters against them.

#300 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 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 25 March 2012 - 12:15 PM

OK, I have to put the Mod hat back on for a moment. UD, calling another member an outright liar not just once, but on multiple opportunities simply will not be tolerated, its long been a big pet peeve of mine (the post, a lengthy one, without hesitation was deleted in its entirety as I have always done, I'm not in the business of line-item editing). There is a huge difference between intentional deception, and opinion. Sometimes the opinion turns out to be right, sometimes wrong, but it requires another standard to declare the opinion is designed to intentionallydeceive someone. I'll oftentimes tolerate "you are being intellectually dishonest, here's why", but not "liar", as there is enough of a gulf between the two. I would even tolerate "you're an idiot for thinking this", than "you're a liar". I'm even ignoring your amazing statement that you are above it all and not insulting TJ :gilligan: This is your only warning, I hate this type of false accusation, if it happens again you'll be booted out of the Bible section.

I'm not here to be politically correct and seek to look fair, not my style, but in this case it might appear that way, as I have to agree with UD that "false prophet" is going way too far. I know many otherwise solid theologians who have not grasped, and often never even heard of this exegesis. In that case I would have been a false prophet just a couple years ago! Instead, I believe I was mistaken and misled on this issue, so I would view myself more as someone who was ignorant of this topic, and hence engaged in some false teaching. Labels do have connotations, and I can't view UD, based on this one topic alone, as a "false prophet". To me, that label better suits a JW, Mormon, Binny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, TD Jakes, Oral Roberts. Even someone as boneheaded as Pat Robertson I personally don't view necessarily a "false prophet", but instead as a very bad teacher who is a poor representative of Christendom.

Mod hat back off. UD, you're an idiot! JUST KIDDING, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! :)


UD: James teaches that works acompany faith, which is completely in line with what Paul writes.



Let me put it this way, UD. You think you are addressing the issue in prior posts, but what you are "ignoring" is the plain meaning of the scripture and philosophizing to achieve your POV. Otherwise, how can you make the above statement given all the verses piled against your claim?

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users