Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#301 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:37 PM

Fred, Aye aye, Sir. I stand corrected. You're right. False prophet is a bit over board. UD, I retract that statement. But............................ No ifs, ands, or buts.

I am bowing out though. Promise. When you replied that Paul claiming that he was the "first" did not really mean he was the first, I threw in the towel.

May God shine His light of truth into your heart,

TeeJay

#302 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:06 PM

This thread has been hard, fast, and bloody. It's unreal. Seems like every time I checked back in there for two weeks another page had been added. I will probably have to reread from the start to get the meat of the arguments once again. Hard to wrap my head around this topic still. I know that no one argument will sway me, I just need some time to study it and to pray about it. Please pray that God give me discernment concerning this. Thanks to both sides for all of your hard work seeking out the answers and posting them here. God bless!

#303 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 25 March 2012 - 08:15 PM

Read the chapter headings in Romans. :)

#304 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 - 08:22 PM

I think I could easily say, "However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me FIRST Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, AS A PATTERN." Because of friends and family members who are following my example out of the cult.

Oh, and my question as to which parts of the New Testament shouldn't apply to me as a member of the Body of Christ... was never answered.

#305 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 25 March 2012 - 08:46 PM

Oh, and my question as to which parts of the New Testament shouldn't apply to me as a member of the Body of Christ... was never answered.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


All scripture is good, but you must divide it carefully.

#306 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 March 2012 - 12:06 AM

Fred, Aye aye, Sir. I stand corrected. You're right. False prophet is a bit over board. UD, I retract that statement. But............................ No ifs, ands, or buts.

I am bowing out though. Promise. When you replied that Paul claiming that he was the "first" did not really mean he was the first, I threw in the towel.

May God shine His light of truth into your heart,

TeeJay


Teejay, sorry for calling you a liar. I have been informed that I should have said "you are being intellectually dishonest, here's why" although I'm not sure if it applies because what I was referring to was the fact that you said you would stop debating me several times and kept on anyway.

However, I did overreact by calling you a liar.. my apologies with no buts. :rolleyes:

#307 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 March 2012 - 01:21 AM

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! :)


Fred, boot me if you want. That's what you are itching to do anyway, and at this stage I don't really care, I'm just trying to polish off in this thread and trying to clear up some missunderstandings, as I see it.

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, here's something you wrote in the "Time" thread that I remember you saying since I thought was good:

"the best way to do exegesis is to first lean on the plain rendering of scripture, and where there are apparent contradictions, find an explanation that accommodates all verses"

And that is exactly what I try to do. I study the context and try to balance things in a way that makes sense. Simply focusing on part of what Paul wrote while ignoreing others is not a good thing to do. The greatest danger in this is when we turn our itching ears to what they want to hear.

Now, Paul wrote about our liberty in Christ and freedom from the law and people just stop there and don't seem to notice the rest of what Paul wrote, such as:

"if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." Gal 5:18

Obviously there is more to being a Christian that saying "Lord, Lord".

We are free from tediouly searching through the OT laws and trying to follow written rules, but we are still under an obligation to obey God.

Read post 283 and tell me whether or not our faith should be accompanied with actions.

#308 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:09 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1332732136' post='82429']
I think I could easily say, "However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me FIRST Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, AS A PATTERN." Because of friends and family members who are following my example out of the cult.

Oh, and my question as to which parts of the New Testament shouldn't apply to me as a member of the Body of Christ... was never answered.
[/quote]

ME, I agree with Stripe. All Scripture is beneficial. But, when it comes to getting saved (Rom. 10:9-10), and your guide to living in the Spirit so that you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, Paul is your apostle, "the apostle to the Gentiles." Here are your choices or where you must rightly divide: Peter or Paul, Israel or the Body of Christ, law or grace, works or no works. In all these, choose the latter. One can't put him or herself under a "dispensation" that is not in effect. Israel was cut off and that dispensation that was given to Abraham is also cut off (temporarily). Israel will be grafted in again.


Also recall what I wrote: In the Garden there was only one law: Do not partake of the Tree for in the day that you do so, you will die. Today in the Body of Christ there is only one law: Do not partake of the law, for in the day that you do so, you will die. The Tree and the Law are synonyms.

TeeJay

#309 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:25 AM

[quote] name='JayShel' timestamp='1332727618' post='82423']
This thread has been hard, fast, and bloody. It's unreal. Seems like every time I checked back in there for two weeks another page had been added. I will probably have to reread from the start to get the meat of the arguments once again. Hard to wrap my head around this topic still. I know that no one argument will sway me, I just need some time to study it and to pray about it. Please pray that God give me discernment concerning this. Thanks to both sides for all of your hard work seeking out the answers and posting them here. God bless!
[/quote]

JS, What I'm sure both sides would appreciate is for you to get back with us after you have carefully read the posts. I know I would. Let us know if you've been persuaded by either side.

I made a challenge way back. I listed ten of the most common doctrinal debates that plague the Body of Christ today. I challenged UD to pick one and I would show him that the only way to resolve these doctrinal disputes was to rightly divide between Peter and Paul, Israel and the Body, Law and grace. The debate started out with Ikester and I debating OSAS (a doctrinal debate today). Ikester listed all his scriptural verses that showed conclusively that we can lose our salvation. But they were all written by circumcision apostles. A carefull reading of Paul on this subject proves conclusively that we can't lose our salvation. Who's right, Peter or Paul. Both are. Peter was right for following what Jesus taught him. Paul was right for following what Jesus gave to him. The problem for us is that some Christians unwittingly place themselves under the wrong apostle. We are not under Peter. The Catholic Church does that to their detriment.

This is not only Scriptural, but logical. If you are saved by keeping the law plus works (Peter), then your salvation can't possibly be assured. It's future and contingent on how well you keep the law and produce fruit. On the other hand, if you are saved by faith plus nothing (Paul), then there is nothing you can do to get saved nor is there anything you can do to lose your salvation. It's a free gift of love. Trying to pay Someone for a free gift of love is an insult to the Giver.

TeeJay

#310 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 26 March 2012 - 02:34 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1332732136' post='82429']
I think I could easily say, "However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me FIRST Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, AS A PATTERN." Because of friends and family members who are following my example out of the cult.

Oh, and my question as to which parts of the New Testament shouldn't apply to me as a member of the Body of Christ... was never answered.
[/quote]

ME, on another note, I hope you realize that while you may have been the first in your family, Paul writes here that he was the first person saved by this new grace gospel and he was the first "member" of the Body of Christ. He claims he is the "pattern." He writes, "Follow me as I follow Christ." He calls it "my gospel." And in many verses he writes that this Dispensation of grace was a "mystery," "kept secret," "never before revealed" until Paul was called on the Road to Damaskas. Until Pauil, there was no "Body of Christ" for us to be members of.

TeeJay

#311 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 26 March 2012 - 07:14 AM

“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)

Let's let scripture speak. Scripture and the Holy Spirit is all we need. That is why I quote scripture so often with so little commentary.
  • Salsa likes this

#312 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 26 March 2012 - 01:15 PM

Fred, boot me if you want. That's what you are itching to do anyway, and at this stage I don't really care, I'm just trying to polish off in this thread and trying to clear up some missunderstandings, as I see it.


I have not been itching to ban you. All the issues I have had with you in this thread have been easy for me to ignore given how passionate you are on this topic, but I could not ignore your calling another Christian a liar without cause.

Fred, here's something you wrote in the "Time" thread that I remember you saying since I thought was good:

"the best way to do exegesis is to first lean on the plain rendering of scripture, and where there are apparent contradictions, find an explanation that accommodates all verses"

And that is exactly what I try to do. I study the context and try to balance things in a way that makes sense. Simply focusing on part of what Paul wrote while ignoreing others is not a good thing to do. The greatest danger in this is when we turn our itching ears to what they want to hear.


I appreciate that, we simply see this issue differently. What you have not noticed throughout this thread is that I never gave even the remotest inkling that I wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater as far as our disagreement went; that is, there are far too many other doctrines we agree on, that I’m not going to view you as some raving heretic because you don’t accept two gospels! If I ever gave that impression, I would like to know where I did so. I again ask you to consider that you take things too personally, so much to the point that it causes you to make wild, speculative assumptions of your opponent based on extremely little data to go on.

Read post 283 and tell me whether or not our faith should be accompanied with actions.


This is where your position is so confusing for the reader, that I’ve even lost track of what you posit. Don’t you agree we are saved by faith alone? Now you are saying it must include “actions”? How are actions separate from “works”?

To answer your question, faith should be accompanied with “actions”, but the actions are voluntary, they play no role in salvation. I should do “actions” out of love for my Creator first , then my fellow man, not to earn salvation since it’s already taken care of. As TeeJay noted, all these disputes clear up when we recognize who the audience is regarding Peter and Paul’s gospels (plural :)).

Fred

#313 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 26 March 2012 - 06:28 PM

To answer your question, faith should be accompanied with “actions”, but the actions are voluntary, they play no role in salvation. I should do “actions” out of love for my Creator first , then my fellow man, not to earn salvation since it’s already taken care of. As TeeJay noted, all these disputes clear up when we recognize who the audience is regarding Peter and Paul’s gospels (plural :)).

Fred

Okay, if we assume that this is correct, then who is the audience for Luke, Acts, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Romans, Jude, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter? How do we know who the audience is?

And if we recognize the audience, what kind of dispute is put to rest and why?

#314 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 26 March 2012 - 11:18 PM

Okay, if we assume that this is correct, then who is the audience for Luke, Acts, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Romans, Jude, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter? How do we know who the audience is?

And if we recognize the audience, what kind of dispute is put to rest and why?

Whom did Jesus say He came for?

#315 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:41 AM

This is where your position is so confusing for the reader, that I’ve even lost track of what you posit. Don’t you agree we are saved by faith alone? Now you are saying it must include “actions”? How are actions separate from “works”?


I see by your last comment that we are in agreement about "actions". I will nevertheless present it the way I see it, not as some kind of strawman suggesting that you are in disagreeent with everything I write, but just to clarify my position so that no one is "confused" about that. :P

We don't need to follow a list of instructions in order to attain righteousness, but we do need to obey the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The difference is that the Spirit works through our consciences - which was a "new way of serving God". The old way failed because it wasn't conscience-based and therefore possible to follow the rules and yet have your heart far from God.

I think it's the motives of the heart, rather than the "works" themselves that God is interested in. As we can see from the gospel accounts where Jesus confronted the scribes and Pharisees, it is possible to perform "righteous acts" and still have wrong motives.

Only a lawbreaker needs a law. Someone who by nature loves his neighbour as himself, does not need to look up written rules that tell him not to abuse anyone. Someone who by nature loves God with all his heart does not need special days and seasons set apart for him to worship God.

If we have been given the opportunity to partake in the perfect nature of Christ, then it follows that our words and actions will automatically be "righteous". We don't need to look them up in a long list and "try" to adjust our actions in order to become righteous - because if we walk the walk with Christ then we will automatically be doing the right thing.

If on the other hand our lives are dominated by the sinful nature then that indicates something is seriously wrong. That's when we need to question whether or not we are being led by the Spirit or led by the flesh. And don't get me wrong, I have enormous problems with this myself, but I cannot adapt my theology due to my own failings. The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit so whatever we do in life we will be subject to an inner conflict of desires. However "if we are led by the Spirit were are not under law".

Salvation, in my book, is living according to the nature made available to us. Does that mean that if we don't live accordingly we are no longer saved? I honestly don't know, but what I often see in scripture is things like this:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" Rom 2:7

#316 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 27 March 2012 - 07:06 AM

To answer your question, faith should be accompanied with “actions”, but the actions are voluntary, they play no role in salvation. I should do “actions” out of love for my Creator first , then my fellow man, not to earn salvation since it’s already taken care of. As TeeJay noted, all these disputes clear up when we recognize who the audience is regarding Peter and Paul’s gospels (plural :)).


Fred, I agree. Since there is so much confusion on this thread, I would like to expound upon this.

When saved, and submitting to God and yielding to the Holy Spirit, one is walking with the Spirit. One's outward appearance is radiating his inward condition and this manifested by good "actions" or good "works". The works are indeed voluntary yet the person is yielding and wanting to please God so the good works continue. The saved condition is what produces the good fruit when one is abiding in Christ.

There is a way to interpret the following passage, to consider how it may be harmonious under Paul's gospel of grace, as it relates to the above:

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Having been saved, if one is temporarily not abiding in Christ, temporarily not walking in the Spirit (yet remaining saved), they will not be producing good fruits. They have faith yet the faith is not yielding any good works, for they are not yielding to God, and they are much like a tree that is alive yet it is not producing good fruits. What good is the faith if it is not producing good works? What good is the fruit tree if it is not bearing good fruit?



This is why I love God's word so much. Here is a verse that is works based, often used by people to assert that the saved condition is contingent upon "grace plus works"; yet the same verse can be viewed in the light of abiding... to please God and have fruitful lives... not abiding may lead to shame for the child of God...

1 John 2:28
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
  • MamaElephant and Salsa like this

#317 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:18 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1332811738' post='82485']
Okay, if we assume that this is correct, then who is the audience for Luke, Acts, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Romans, Jude, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter? How do we know who the audience is?

And if we recognize the audience, what kind of dispute is put to rest and why?
[/quote]

ME, Matthew, Mark, Luke, all the John's, Hebrews, Jude, James, all the Peter's, and Revelation are written to Jews and for Jews. Only Paul's letters apply to us today. But please understand that Paul wrote to Jews and Gentiles. When Israel (and Peter's ministry) was cut off, any Jew saved was saved under Paul's gospel of grace. A Jew saved today is not under Israel's covenant of circumcision.

Romans is a bit puzzleing to most Christians. But we must realize that Romans is written to Jews (believers and unbelievers), to Gentiles (all believers who are members of the Body of Christ), and to the unsolicited (those who have never heard of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus Christ). The unsolicited is saved by believing in the Creator God if that's all he has knowledge of. "To whom much is given, much is expected." And, basically, Paul is laying the groundwork to show that Israel has been cut off and the Gentiles grafted in to Jesus. I could do a 5 hours Bible study on Romans. Most Christians do not understand Romans. But still, Paul is your apostle and not Peter, and you are saved by Paul's gospel of uncircumcision (no law or works required for salvation) and not Peter where failure to circumcise or keep Israel's perpetual laws was a loss of salvation and a death penalty.

TeeJay

#318 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:25 PM

[quote] name='Remnant of The Abyss' timestamp='1332857201' post='82501']
Fred, I agree. Since there is so much confusion on this thread, I would like to expound upon this.

When saved, and submitting to God and yielding to the Holy Spirit, one is walking with the Spirit. One's outward appearance is radiating his inward condition and this manifested by good "actions" or good "works". The works are indeed voluntary yet the person is yielding and wanting to please God so the good works continue. The saved condition is what produces the good fruit when one is abiding in Christ.

There is a way to interpret the following passage, to consider how it may be harmonious under Paul's gospel of grace, as it relates to the above:

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Having been saved, if one is temporarily not abiding in Christ, temporarily not walking in the Spirit (yet remaining saved), they will not be producing good fruits. They have faith yet the faith is not yielding any good works, for they are not yielding to God, and they are much like a tree that is alive yet it is not producing good fruits. What good is the faith if it is not producing good works? What good is the fruit tree if it is not bearing good fruit?

TeeJay



This is why I love God's word so much. Here is a verse that is works based, often used by people to assert that the saved condition is contingent upon "grace plus works"; yet the same verse can be viewed in the light of abiding... to please God and have fruitful lives... not abiding may lead to shame for the child of God...

1 John 2:28
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
[/quote]

Rota,

I am going to post this again, and I hope somebody reads it. Keeping the law and doing good works was not optional for a Jew under the covenant of circumcision. It was a loss of slavation and a death penalty. Please read this whole thing just once, and it will become clear:


PETER CAN’T BE POPE

God Calls Abraham

God made two covenants with Abraham. Under the first covenant in Genesis 15, God put Abraham to sleep. While asleep, Abraham could do nothing except believe. “And he believed God; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Fourteen years later, in Genesis 17, God commanded Abraham to circumcise. This is the second covenant.

The first covenant is the Covenant of grace which Paul would preach. Paul would also refer to it as the Gospel of Uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7 & 9). The command to circumcise is the second covenant or the Gospel of Circumcision (works plus faith). The Gospel of Uncircumcision is justification by faith alone. The Apostle Paul would write of this in Romans 4:

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin. Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of the circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised”

Circumcision is the cutting off of the flesh or foreskin. Why did God give this strange ritual? Circumcision is a synonym for the Law. Israel had to circumcise and keep the law, as the effort to keep the law is a “cutting off of the flesh.” Paul wrote, “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit [God], and the Spirit against the flesh…” (Gal. 5:17-19).

For Israel, the Law Was Not Optional

Jesus Christ was born a Jew under the Covenant of Circumcision, and He was circumcised strictly according to the Law on the eighth day after His birth (Luke 2:21). The thought just occurred to me that Jesus (God) made a contract with Abraham. Then He came and fulfilled Abraham’s obligation of the contract. Wouldn’t it be nice to make a contract with a car dealer and have the dealer pay for the car?

“And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off [killed] from his people; he has broken My covenant.” Gen. 17:14

And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him [Moses] and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” So He let him [Moses] go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision…. Ex. 4:24-26

Moses learned firsthand how serious God was about circumcision. After working with Moses for eighty years, God sought to kill him because he failed to circumcise his son by his Midianite wife Zipporah. And his pagan Midianite wife did not take kindly to having to cut off the foreskin of her perfectly healthy son. But had she not, God would have killed Moses. Under Moses, Israel would learn also that failure to obey some of these commands meant a death penalty, even though some laws were symbolic and not moral nor immoral. The first man to violate the Sabbath law was executed (Num. 15:33-35).

Perpetual Laws for Israel

We have already seen that Abraham and all his descendants had to circumcise (Gen. 17:10). God said that circumcision is ”an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:9, 13). Now while the New Testament uses “circumcision… of the heart” (Rom. 2:29) as a metaphor, the Old Testament does so three times (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4). But such usage does not negate the requirement for Israel to obey God’s command to circumcise in either testament. God gave many commands to Israel as “perpetual statutes” which He withheld from the Body of Christ. While He made circumcision an “everlasting covenant” for Abraham and his descendants “throughout their generations” (Gen. 17:9, 13), He forbids circumcision for Christians today as a religious rite (Gal. 5:2-3; 3:10; Acts 15:24).

He also told Israel to observe the Day of Atonement forever: “It [the Day of Atonement] is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you…. It is a statute forever” (Lev. 16:31).

The Lord gave many symbolic commands including circumcision, the feasts, and the Sabbath to Israel as “everlasting statutes.” But none of these apply to us, today, in the Body of Christ. Note the Jewish purpose of the Sabbath:

”’Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath… throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever…’” Ex. 31:16-17.

But Paul writes, “Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow [sign] of things to come, but the substances is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17). And many mistakenly think that Israel was no longer under the law after the Cross. While this will be addressed in detail later, consider what Jesus warned about the Tribulation which is after the Cross: “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath [after the Cross]” (Mat. 24:20).

Jesus Came to Israel with the Law

Moses did not come down from Mount Sinai with Grace. He came down with two stone tablets of Law. Jesus did not come to Israel (the people of the circumcision) with Grace. He was a Jew, born under the Law, circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). And, most importantly, He kept the Law perfectly.

Jesus taught Israel obedience to the law. Whatever law Moses commanded was to be heeded:

And [Jesus] answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” Mark 10:3

It mattered not whether moral or symbolic. God’s commandments were to be obeyed:

And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” Mat. 8:4 from Lev. 14:1-32

Now one came and said to Him, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So [Jesus] said to him, “…if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Mat. 19:16-19 from Lev. 18:5

Moses’ law contained hundreds of commandments, some greater, and some lesser. Regardless, according to Jesus all must be taught and obeyed.

“…one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great…” Mat. 5:18-19

Moses had to be obeyed even if espoused by hypocrites:

[Jesus said] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do…” Mat. 23:2-3

Not one law, no matter how small, could be disobeyed:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cmmin, and have neglected the weightier matters of he law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” Mat. 23:23

Both Groups Saved by Grace

We must understand that both the circumcision and the uncircumcision are saved by grace. Peter verified this at the Jerusalem Council when he was defending Paul’s Gospel of Grace or uncircumcision: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (Acts 15:11). In today’s vernacular it would read: “Let’s face it, guys. Ain’t none of us goin’ make it unless God cuts us a little slack.”

God can add grace to works, but He will not permit adding works to grace. Under the Gospel of Grace, God offers a free gift of love—His sacrifice on the Cross. You can only repay a gift of love with love. If you give your wife a diamond because you love her, and she attempts to repay you with money, you are hurt deeply. She can only repay you for this with her love. So too, under the Gospel of Grace, God does not want you repaying Him because some law requires it. Flowers for your wife every Friday would mean little if your motivation was a State law. On the second Friday, the flowers would go in the trash instead of a vase.

But the Twelve were not given a Gospel of Grace. They were given the Gospel of Circumcision and keeping the Law. They had to be profitable servants, forgive to be forgiven, take the plow and not look back, visit the sick, visit prisoners, have faith, tithe, get circumcised, be baptized, preach the gospel, love Jesus more than their mom, heal the sick, be merciful, give to the poor, give to those who ask, keep the law (the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone), observe various feasts and Sabbaths, if asked to go one mile, go two,(add to the list). And if they had been previously forgiven by God but did not forgive future, then the previous transgressions would be put back on them. And any tree that did not produce fruit was cast into the fire. Such is life under the Gospel of Circumcision (law). If a Jew gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant….” Understand, also, that under the law, one did not ever know if he was saved. His salvation was not assured as it is under the Gospel of Uncircumcision or grace.

Jerusalem Council

Paul mentions the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2. Paul “went up [to Jerusalem] by revelation [commanded by God] and communicated to them [Peter and James et.al.] “that gospel which I [Paul] preach among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 2:2) Why would Paul have to explain to the Twelve his gospel IF IT WERE THE SAME GOSPEL AS THEY PREACHED?

The reason is that Paul was given new marching orders. Paul was given the gospel of uncircumcision or grace with no works required for salvation. Paul would establish a church and believing Jews, saved under Peter’s gospel of circumcision or law, would come to Paul’s people and tell them they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. But Paul would go postal and warn his followers: “…if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED” (Gal. 1:8). And, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth… Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh [law]?” (Gal. 3:1-3).

In Chapter 1 of Galatians, Paul makes it crystal clear that he did not get his gospel from Peter or any man but from Jesus Christ. When he went to the Jerusalem Council, what convinced the Twelve that his gospel was sanctioned by God? Tongues and miracles! Tongues and miracles were God’s stamp of approval on Paul, for “Israel requires a sign.” Notice too that Paul bragged that he did not have to circumcise Titus (Greek) when he attended this Council (Gal. 2:3). If the Twelve were not under the Gospel of Circumcision, why would Paul have been concerned about circumcising Titus?

Galatians 2:7-9 is proof positive that there were two covenants in effect in the last half of the Book of Acts:

“But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is the Gospel for the Body and the Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].

After the Cross

God had a plan that was prophesied from Genesis through Zechariah and corroborated in the New Testament, that Israel would be a light and a blessing to the Gentiles:

“As for Me,” says the Lord, “this is My covenant with them [Israel]:… My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart…” The Gentiles shall come to your [Israel’s] light… Isaiah 59:21; 60:3

“I will make [Abraham] a great nation… and in you all the families of the earth [Gentiles] shall be blessed.” Gen. 12:2-3 (See also Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 and 28:14.)

“You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” Acts 3:25

‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “In those days ten men from every language of the nations [Gentiles] shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, ‘Let us go with you for we have heard that God is with you.’” Zech. 8:23

As has been shown above, Jesus did not give His apostles a Gospel of Grace. The word “grace,” in the sense of a gospel message, can’t be found in any of the four gospels; neither can a grace message be found in the first half of Acts; and neither can a grace gospel be found in any of the circumcision epistles of James, Peter, John, or Jude. A grace gospel with salvation without works or law keeping can only be found in Paul’s epistles.

Further, James writes his letter “to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.” Peter writes his epistle to the “pilgrims of the dispersion [Jews].” John writes his epistle “to the elect lady [Israel]” or the chosen, and he deemed it proper to not take anything from the Gentiles (Third John 1:7). Also, it’s evident that Revelation is not written for Gentiles: “I [Jesus] know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say THEY ARE JEWS and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9). “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say THEY ARE JEWS and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (Rev. 3:9).

After His resurrection, Jesus said to His apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU; and lo, I am with you always…” (Mat. 28:19-20). A thorough reading of the four gospels shows that Jesus commanded them to keep the law—the “weightier matters of the law without leaving the lesser undone.”

There are some Christians today who think that the Twelve just didn’t have the brains to figure out that the law had been done away with after Christ’s resurrection. In other words, Jesus Christ picked twelve retards, schooled them for three years, and then it took Paul to try and explain it to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just before His ascension: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [Jesus] expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27).

To Israel First

Jesus lamented that the Gentile centurion showed more faith than His people Israel. In the parable of the fig tree Jesus alluded that He was disappointed with His people Israel and was ready to cut them off. “…Look, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree [Israel] and find none. CUT IT DOWN…” (Luke 13:7). But Jesus was persuaded, by the Holy Spirit perhaps, to give the fig tree [Israel] one more year: “And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down” (Luke 13:9). God had given a prior warning in the Old Testament: “And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I WILL RELENT CONCERNING THE GOOD WITH WHICH I SAID I WOULD BENEFIT IT” (Jer. 18:9-10).

While the Great Commission was for the apostles to go to the utter most parts of the earth, Jesus instructs the Twelve to first go to Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria (half Jewish), and then to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). God’s plan was for Israel to be His evangelical nation to the world. Thus, we see the Peter focusing on the men of Israel and then declaring the message to the leaders of Israel:

“You are sons of… Abraham… To you FIRST, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him…” Acts 3:25-26

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36

Then Peter said… “For the promise is to you [Israel] and to your children and to all who are afar off…” Acts 2:38-39

Notice that Peter addressed even those “who are afar off” referring to the settlements of Jews scattered in other countries (1 Pet. 1:1, James 1:1). Using the Temple, the seat of the nation and the identity of Israel, to preach their message, shows that the apostles were aiming for Israel’s collective repentance. Peter was most likely motivated by the fact that Jesus had promised Israel a kingdom with the Twelve sitting on twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes of Israel. So, it’s not surprising when we read Peter preaching:

“Repent therefore and be converted, that you sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that HE MAY SEND JESUS CHRIST, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” Acts 3:19-21

Peter here offered the Kingdom to Israel, if only the Jews would repent. The “times of restoration” [see also Isa. 49:6, 8; 58:12] and the “times of refreshing” (see also Isa. 28:11-12 with 1 Cor. 14:21-22) referred to the kingdom. At this point Plan A, God’s prophesied plan for Israel, was still on track.

“You [Israel] are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” Acts 3:25 based on Gen. 12:3

The same argument Jesus used to prove life after death proves that the Old Covenant was still in effect here in Acts. For Jesus said, “have you not read what was spoken to you by God saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham…’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mat. 22:31-32). So too here, the Jews “are sons of… the covenant which God made with… Abraham.” Thus Peter would not call them the sons of a dead covenant, but of a living one.

Peter also preached to the leaders of Israel (Acts 4:8, 10, 12). According to the Acts record, there was a total rejection by Israel’s leadership, from the high priest, to the captain of the temple, to the chief priests, to the Pharisees, to the scribes. The response from Israel’s leadership was intense persecution of Peter and his followers and eventually the murder of Stephen.

The Fig Tree Is Cut Off

I think we can all agree that Israel was finally cut off. God took Paul, gave him a gospel of grace, and bypassed Israel and went directly to the Gentiles. Israel’s plan for a kingdom is on hold “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Then God will resume His plans for Israel. He has a covenant with Abraham that He will honor. When Jesus returns, will He come to Israel with a Gospel of Circumcision or a Gospel of Uncircumcision? Circumcisin and I can prove it with Scripture.

God gave Paul the Gospel of Grace. Paul is our apostle, the “apostle to the Gentiles.” “If we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our hearts that He is risen, then we are saved” (Rom. 10:9-10). Peter can’t be our apostle nor can he be Pope. Peter was a citizen of Israel. When God cut off Israel for unbelief, Peter was cut off too. Peter is saved and with the Lord, but he was cut off along with all Israelites. But God told Paul, “I do not want you to ignorant brothers. God has cut them [Israel] off but He will graft them in again [paraphrased].” When the fullness of the Gentiles has come in to the Body of Christ, God will Rapture the Body out and resume where He left off with Israel 2,000 years ago (with the Gospel of Circumcision or law).

Israel will be keeping symbolic laws during the millennium. Israel “… shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall HALLOW MY SABBATHS” (Ezek 44:24). See also Ezek. 45:17; 46:1, 3-4 and 12).

Israel will also be keeping symbolic laws during the new heaven and the new earth. “’For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me,’ says the Lord, ‘so shall your descendants [who are Jews, vv. 8, 10, 21] and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and FROM ONE SABBATH TO ANOTHER, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,’ says the Lord” (Isa. 66:22-23).

Again, for Israel, the symbolic laws (Sabbaths, circumcision, feasts, etc.) are perpetual and everlasting.


#319 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:43 PM

To all,

Post 319 is what I use to teach this subject. If you all read it, this concept will become clear, and your doctrinal disputes will vanish. Promise! Fred, I cut and pasted this from word, but for some reason it comes out with small type. Ikester tried to explain to me what I'm doning wrong, but I'm a dinosaur. My wife has showed me so many times how to do this that I am afraid to ask her. Can you increase the tiype size so that it will be easier for all to read?

Today I had a revelation on how to best explain this. Here goes:

When I was in Vietnam, I had a will written up by a military lawyer. It was dated 1966.

Today, my wife, who is mentioned in that 1966 will is deceased. I am remarried, And I have numerous grand and great-grand children. They're multiplying like rabbits. So, I have a new will written up recently.

Now I'mm pretty sure that I have destroyed all copies of that 1966 will. But just suppose that after I die, they find that 1966 will. But then they also find my recent will.

Does family and the executor of the estate have to come on this website and debate UD as to which will is in force? No. Any person with Texas horse-sense could conclude that the 1966 will is no longer valid.

So I liken this to Peter verses Paul. When we read that Israel had a perpetual law of circumcision that they had to keep or be executed and sent to hell, and then we read that Israel was cut off, and then we read Paul writing that he received the gospel of grace from Jesus and that he does not want us to get circumcised or keep the Sabbath and that we are saved by faith with no law keeping and good works required, can we be safe in assuming that we must render the Peter's will null and void and adhere to the new will (Paull's). Whew!

The only way we can get around this is to declare Paul a false prophet. But even Peter and James could not that. Why? Because God put his stamp of approval on Paul--tongues and miracles.

TeeJay

#320 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 27 March 2012 - 07:42 PM

The saved condition is what produces the good fruit when one is abiding in Christ.

But the good fruit does not produce the saved condition. You cannot harmonise Paul and James unless you recognise the change preached by Paul.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users