 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Pretrib Rapture and Mystery stuff ... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/3/2004 11:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
We are cautioned to not go to the circumcision for our faith, instead, we should be imitators of Paul, and follow his teaching. 1Co 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me.
1Co 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. Paul is our pattern for faith and salvation.
John responds: We are to follow Paul only insofar as Paul follows Christ. "Follow me as I follow Christ." In context, Paul is not giving a "pattern for faith and salvation," he is exhorting the Corinthians to follow CHRIST (as Paul does).
quote:
(1) Ro 16:25 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 kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—— (2) This is an amazing teaching for the rapture, and how it actually is that times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth——in Him.
Actually the passage simply and only refers to the GOSPEL. The Good News of Jesus Christ IS the mystery that had been kept secret, but now is revealed. The same is true of the Ephesians passage you mention. The Gospel, and the Gospel only, is what Paul is referring to in context.
(I must say that your take on Romans 16 is the first time I've ever heard a dispensationalist try to get a pretrib rapture out of that passage. It did illicit a chuckle).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | John - I already know "that" you disagree with me, but I'd like to know "why".
My first order of business is to deal with the nature of the mystery revelation that was hidden in God and entrusted specifically to Paul to give to us. I thought I had made that intent clear.
You are presenting the mainline standard fair responses, what anyone in a hundred would say.
Please check out my treatment of Eph 3, that may help you better focus on the uniqueness of the revelation for this dispensation.
Also, I did not associate the Rom passage to the rapture. See the paired number callouts at the beginning of each passage, my remarks match the scripture referencing. 1 goes with 1, 2 goes with 2, and so on.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2004 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Actually the passage simply and only refers to the GOSPEL. The Good News of Jesus Christ IS the mystery that had been kept secret, but now is revealed. The same is true of the Ephesians passage you mention. The Gospel, and the Gospel only, is what Paul is referring to in context.
The Gospel had been "foretold by the prophets," and was revealed "what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life"
It is "Christ crucified according to the Scriptures" (which was the OT) that preachers like Irenaeus pushed. Scripture, scripture, scripture... | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | While I'm (patiently) waiting for responses to come in, please consider the following. You should believe everything, and disbelieve nothing Should we believe "everything"?
I realize that it's a silly and sounding question, but please just answer it, yes or no. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW - Thank you PotOnWheel for keeping in mind the extra-Pauline revelation of gospel of Jesus Christ, which is taught in various and progressive ways in the OT, and boldly proclaimed in the NT, revealed in various ways. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/3/2004 5:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
While I'm (patiently) waiting for responses to come in, please consider the following. You should believe everything, and disbelieve nothing Should we believe "everything"?
I realize that it's a silly and sounding question, but please just answer it, yes or no.
Hi 1way,
I will try to respond in more detail later tonight or perhaps tomorrow to the issues you raise about dispensationalism, mystery, etc.
As for this question, I can't believe anyone with two working brain cells would subscribe to that idea.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | John - and all - Thanks, much appreciated. And I agree with your response about my question. It should serve well to demonstrate an interesting point in righteous bible understanding.
The question You should believe everything, and disbelieve nothing is a very focused paraphrase to a famous part of scripture. But before I quote the scripture, I would just like to say that the Christian faith is a reasonable and rational faith, and there is so much we can learn from God's word, yet sadly, it is our own preconceptions (what seems right in man's eyes) that ultimately blinds us from the truth.
I suggest that because the passage is so overwhelmingly non-controversial and easy to understand that we actually get a bit lazy with it and fail to realize a very unique aspect of this passage. Here is the passage, with the exact concept highlighted. quote:
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
I had to change the wording and structure, which was hard to do, but I think the same basic meaning was conveyed, although ripped from the context. But, consider, exactly how is that concept "believe all things", ripped from the context? I mean, I could have asked if everyone should believe all things, but I think that phrasing might have exposed my hand too easily. So, what context is there to clarify "believing all things"? I realize there is one, but the immediate context does not clearly spell it out. Also, you can say the same thing for the entire verse 7! Are Christians supposed to bare all things (without exception)?
Are Christians supposed to believe all things (without exception)?
Are Christians supposed to hope all things (without exception)?
Are Christians supposed to endure all things (without exception)?
And certainly the answer is no, we are not. So then the natural question arises, why do you answer that way? What is going on in your mind that allows you to make perfect sense out of these ideas, even though the text in question does not supply the reasoning? Please explain the context that actually shapes your understanding of verse 7.
:) God's word is brilliantly designed, we need to stay on the same page as the author. Looking forward to your responses.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2004 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | posted by 1way
quote:
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Yes, Love believes all things.
I teach in a school for Special Ed. Kids. 100 of them. And this passage came to mind today. Actually, it was the "hopes all things" that came into conversation with another teacher and about a particualr high school student. The student has a rough time making good decisions. And the "hope" (in the secular, "statistical" form of the word--the common useage) is slim that given previous and recent habits, associations, and weaknesses that that student would keep to the particular kind of straight-and-narrow we "hope" for him/her. Statistically there is little hope.
But as a Christian, I note the possitive influence of a Christian friend and that whole family on our "hope-full" student. Moment by moment, grace by grace, perhaps....perhaps.
So, what is "hope." 1 Corinitians came to mind. Love HOPES all things. That's not a statement about statistics. It is a statement about LOVE. Say it like this: "Hope" as Love practices hope embraces all things, permiates all things, is present in all things; even the failures, and even in statistically probable future failures. Right up until the free-decisions and actions are made, hope is still a permiating part of it all. Love does not take its hope and bail out of impossible situations. (It also bears all things, and endures all things.)
That's my experience today of this passage of scripture.
And since all the things in that passage (suffers with, but does not envy, bears all, but doesn't puff up, rejoices only in truth, etc.) are all just different sides of the same thing, the mention of "believes all" is also another side of that same thing.
"Love believes all things" parallels "endures all things, bears all things. And again -- just like with "hope" -- it is not a matter of statistics. Nor of sucess. Love believes instead of doubts; and it has nothing to do with probability or plausibility. Since it is a statement about what Love is (and not a statement about what "believability" is) the statement says that Love believes the person because the person is elevated by love. The love remains, and with it the belief, even if what was beleived in the near past was false.
Important stuff.
With helping special ed. kids, it is humbling to see where God has worked. And the portion -- however small or large -- that we have in that progress, is breathtaking. Loving the students is the greatest, most important thing. And hope and belief are part of that. Hope for the person, and belief in the person. Not necessarily believing that they have a hall pass when they say so--gotta check. But believing in their created value, and their value as persons that God loves. Belief that their potential can be developed. Belief that moment by moment, progressing or regressing, they and our relationship is the "there" and the "now" of my relationship and faithfulness to God my Savior and Creator.
My school is Franciscan!
quote:
Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.
st. francis of assisi - 13th century
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/3/2004 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - You are failing to see the various presuppositions you simply assume. The text affords you none of those contextual explanations.
The text plainly says that Love
bares all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things. Although love is fairly well developed in that chapter, every one of these ideas are not developed at all, especially the "all things" part. I'm not saying that you are wrong POW in your application and inferences of this teaching. What I am saying is that the passage lends no contextual development to clearly qualify or delimit the "all things" comments. Just highlighting "love" as the context does not help your view because "love" adds no meaning what so ever to "all things", but for you, it adds meaning in terms of application of the teaching.
So I repeat that verse 7 requires more understanding than what the immediate context provides. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/3/2004 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Some newer translations render the Greek word, "panta" in this verse as "always." That is, "love always hopes, always believes, always endures," (the object of love, of course, always being GOD). One translation renders the phrase, "always trusts God."
That seems to make much more sense to me.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/4/2004 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]1 way; larris - You claim to already know and understand my view. I see no reason to trust that claim yet. I will let the truth of the matter speak for itself, claims are a dime a dozen, even cheaper sometimes on the internet.
Yes I understand your view perfectly, knowing the EXACT theology and hermeneutics behind it, having been both indoctrinated in to it and trained to teach and evangelize others in to it. And at one time being as zealous for it as you are now, probably more so, since I gave up 10 years of my life in ministry to travel all over the place preaching the Word (or what I thought was the Word.) Only thing was that was BEFORE computers and message boards, and I did all my evangelizing in person, on purpose, was my purpose and witnessed to, any thing that had breath in it.
I did not look to come out of it, nor did I EVER think that what I believed was in error. My findings were quite by accident. And rather after 10 years of being fully committed to dispensationalism and Paul's special gospel, I simply chose one day to more firmly establish the rules of interpretation, the hermeneutics, behind my beliefs more firmly in my mind and heart in order to more aptly apply them to study. That is to establish the belief and teaching more firmly in my heart, from the standpoint of HOW these conclusions were reached to begin with.
And what started as just a simply brush up turned into a 7 year journey of finding one unexplainable error after another, beginning with the false definition provided to me about the word "dispensation".
Another word used to describe "dispensation" is the word "administration", they are synonyms. Dispensationalists will either call it a "dispensation" or and "administration", and the theology or rule of interpretation, hermeneutic lie under the principles of "To whom it is written", all scripture interprets itself, either, 1. in the verse, 2. In the context. 3 Previous usage. 4. difficult understood in light of the clear. and 4. TO WHOM IT IS WRITTEN. And THAT is where you get dispensational teaching. Nothing is really written TO YOU in THIS DAY AND TIME, except what was given to Paul, hence the Pauline epistles.
Now it's all presented in such a logical format, using verses such as;
1 Cor 9:17
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.
What is a "dispensation"? A dispensation is properly an administration and is accurately the administering of an ENTIRE ERA.....WRONG...but that's what it's taken to mean by dispensationalist. For some reason they get a whole TIME period out of the simple word "oikonomia", meaning simply stewardship.
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will , a stewardship of the gospel is committed unto me.
THE GOSPEL, NOT a special gospel given just to Paul. The SAME exact gospel given to PETER, with the only difference being that Paul was primarily sent to preach it to the Gentiles and Peter was sent primarily to preach it to the Jews. Peter also has a STEWARDSHIP of the Gospel committed unto him the exact same one Paul did. In fact Peter was the first one to deliver the gospel to the Gentiles, and the first one to begin to realize the "mystery" that Paul later taught.
Acts 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee. Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
THIS WAS the essence of "the mystery" that the Gentiles would be fellowheirs with the Jews. This was something never before perceived by any Jew, before Peter.
And then Peter preaches the same exact gospel to the Gentiles FIRST, before Paul, that was being preached to the Jews. The same exact gospel Jesus Chrsit preached to them durring his ministry, and after his resurrection.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
This is also the SAME GOSPEL Paul preached later.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
The "mystery" was FIRST revealed unto Peter, even though Peter may not have at this time understood the FULL extent of it. For the mystery was simply that the Gentiles would be fellowheirs and partakers of the promises of the Gospel right along with the Jews.
The next chapter confirms this, and also shows that at this same time Paul was still preaching expressly to JEWS, and had not as yet been ordained by God a minister to the Gentiles.
Acts 11
1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
SAME GOSPEL, SAME GIFT. But where was Paul?
19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
WHY were those scattered abroad preaching to none but JEWS ONLY? Because they didn’t have cell phones and fax machines. They hadn't yet heard of what happened to Peter and Corneilius.
20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, (Helenized Jews), preaching the LORD Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
THEN departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek SAUL (Paul):
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Paul was perfectly available to go to the GENTILE household of Corneilius, since he was already preaching the Gospel to the JEWS at this time. Barnabus went and got Saul who was one of those scattered abroad preaching to the Jews and brought him to Antioch to continue teaching more JEWS. If Paul had such a special secret mysterios message for the Gentiles, why did'nt God send him right off the bat? Why didn't God choose him FIRST? After all he was available.
I noticed you mentioned something about being an ACTS 12 OUT. I can only assume by knowing dispensational teaching as well as I do, that this means that from Acts 12 on, is the special dispensation and special mysterious new special gospel given to Paul for the GENTILES ONLY. Therefore of course what ever might have been said in previous chapters I just mentioned would not APPLY to you, since that happend before Acts 12.
That is how dispensationalism works, it CUTS out anything that dose not agree with it's theory on Pauls special gospel, EVEN a lot of the very things Paul wrote in his epistles, get relegated to being written to someone else if it dose not agree with the special gospel supposedly given to Paul. However even in Acts 12 there is a problem and this is that Paul was nothing special and was not singularly committed to preaching to the Gentiles.
Acts. 12:46 Then Paul AND BARNABUS waxed bold and sid. It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, WE turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded US, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
So far Paul is still not THEE ONE, since God commanded THEM not "him", and they were still preaching the EXACT SAME GOSPEL that was being preached to the Jews there in Antioch in Pisidia. This is a DIFFERENT ANTIOCH which was in Perga, than the one in Acts 11 (Antioch Syria) where Barnabus took Paul to the first time, where MANY Jews believed. But here in ANTIOCH PISIDIA the Jews there wound up rejecting the same gospel, and so in this particular location they turned unto the Gentiles.
IF this somehow describes a new era, and a new gospel given to Paul for the GENTILES ONLY, then why in the world did Paul keep going to the synagoges in every place he went after that? Why was he singularly devoted to still trying to convert Jews to the gospel. And why here in Acts 13 do even the GENTILES wind up getting stirred up against BARNABUS and Paul and throwing them out of the country? Where upon they went immediately to Iconium and WENT STRAIGHT TO THE SYNAGOGUE! Where a multitude of Jews wound up believing.
Dispensationalism takes one special circumstance in one special town and applies it to ALL the Jews for ALL time. That AFTER that point in Antioc Psidia there was some new special gospel ordained and the Jews were just dropped off. Yet Paul continued to preach the gospel to the Jews on a regualr basis after that. In fact anywhere he went and any chance he got, he preached to the JEWS FIRST. And he was NOT ALONE or special since BARNABUS WAS ORDIANED TO PREACH THE VERY SAME GOSPEL, TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE.
Never is Paul "special", Barnabus is constantly with him or that he "he with Barnabus" since Barnabus is the one who went and got him to begin with. Then AFTER thy leave Antioch Psidia where this supposed new revelation began, they immediately go to Iconium and preach guess where?
Acts 14:
1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
NOT THE JEWS in general but the UNBELIEVING JEWS, a minority stired up the Gentiles in the synagogue, and the very Gentiles that believed then turned against Paul and Barnabus.
3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews (unbelieving Jews, remember, NOT the multidue of believing ones.), and part with the apostles. And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
It surely dosen't look like the Gentiles held out much longer than the Jews. But they continued preaching to both Jews and Gentiles, and eventually stated:
Acts. 14:27 And when they were come (back to Antioch Syria, where there was a great Jewish Chruch), and had gathered the church (JEWISH CHURCH)together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there they abode LONG TIME with the disciples (that is JEWISH DISCIPLES, again not fulfilling this secret calling.)
Eventually in Acts 15 they wind up going to Jerusalem where Peter states something totally contrary to the "secret" gospel claimed by Dispensationalist to have been given to Paul.
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
WOW, Peter just stated "The MYSTERY", and Paul wasn't even the one who told him.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
WOW, he just stated it again, and included JEWS in the senerio. Same gospel, same grace, no difference. No "special" gospel given to Paul.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
How about that even James the Lord's brother is LYING and claiming that PETER was first sent to the Gentiles, and that they all have the SAME gospel that they received from Jesus (now written in the gospels) and that the so called "mystery" was in fact written in the Old Testament.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, AND ALL THE GENTILES, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Now PAUL also in all his epistles wrote to them to abstain from the very SAME things. He preached no ohter gospel, no other mystery than that which was reveled to Peter and James BEFORE Paul AND BARNABUS were told by God to preach to the Gentiles.
James continues:
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia
15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
There was NOTHING "special" about either one of them, for there were MANY OTHERS teaching the same exact things. So far we are to Acts 15 and Paul has not as yet received any SPECIAL mystery. In fact the very "mystery" he speaks of was already revealed to Peter, who was sent to the Gentiles FIRST. And it was known to James the Lords brother.
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do.
Now we have Paul wanting to go back and visit his "brethren". And to Paul that only means ONE THING, since Paul even though God had along with Barnabus commissioned him to go to the Gentiles, he now wants to go back and visit his BRETHREN the Jews.
And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
And there is absolutely nothing to say that Paul was even right in the matter, since they made up later and Paul later took John i.e Mark as a helper. 2 Tim 4:11
And what dose Paul do then?
Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
WOW, how about that, Paul who supposedly receive this great special mystery to the Gentiles, is now practicing circumsision on one, because he is half Jew. The reason Paul wanted him circumsized was so that Timothy could go with him into JEWISH houses as he continued to preach the gospel to the JEWS also as well as the Gentiles.
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
WOW Paul is still not teaching any new special secret mysterious gospel that no one ever knew before and we are clear up to acts 16. According to dispensational interpretation, we need to CUT THESE CHAPTERS OUT, and become at least Acts 16 OUT dispensationalists.
Well what about Acts 17?
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: AND PAUL AS HIS MANNER WAS, WENT IN UNTO THEM, and THREE SABBATH DAYS reasoned with them OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
"AS HIS MANNER WAS", he's still going to the JEWS and STILL preaching to them out of the SCRIPTURES. I don't think those were the letters he wrote called the Pauline Epistles. I guess not we have to be Acts 17 OUT, Dispensationilists. So how about Acts 18?
Acts 18
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned (as his manner was) in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
OK...maybe we can be Acts 18 OUT Dispensationalists. FINALLY Paul is about to receive some secret, mysterious Gentile gospel. Now why he didn’t obey God and turn away from the Jews in Acts 12 as he said he was going to do the first time, I suppose God only knows. So now we should be able to see this “special” gospel. Let’s move on to the NEXT VERSE Acts 18:7, now that we have pin pointed the exact time Paul totally turned away from the Jews and received a special “dispensation”.
Acts 18:6....I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
My GOODNESS Paul wasn’t very good at making RESOLUTIONS, he just wound up right back in the JEWISH SYNAGOGUE in the very SAME TOWN. I bet the Lord got on him for this one, let’s see?
9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Well what happens next, did Paul do as Dispensationalist teaches, I mean FINALLY did he get it? Let’s see.
12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.
And he drave them from the judgment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things. And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Well God kept his word and protected Paul and many both JEWS and Gentiles were added to the Chruch there. So what did Paul do next, SURELY he is now about to go to the GENTILES as Dispensationalists teach and preach the mysterious secret gospel.
19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
MAN THAT PAUL, he just couldn’t get away from PREACHING TO THE JEWS! And he was still preaching the SAME gospel that he was comissioned by the ELDERS of JERUSALEM to carry to the Gentiles.
Surely somewhere along here he’s going to turn away from the Jews, as Dispensationalism teaches?
19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
WOW, not only is he not just preaching to the Gentiles, he’s continually in Jewish Synagogues and now can you believe it, he’s going BACK to Jerusalem for the JEWISH FEAST of the PASSOVER. I guess we are going to have to become Acts 18 OUT dispensationalist. We could go on here to show that Paul NEVER did turn away from the Jews and preach souly to Gentiles, and that the Gentiles often hammered him as much as the unbelieving Jews. But Paul goes to Jerusalem and we know the rest. Yes he dose wind up in Rome where he’s in PRISON, and during that time ALL THOSE WHO WERE IN ASIA who heard the word of God by the mouth of Paul in the space of several years, turned away from him while he was in prison. Heck Paul didn’t even originally preach the gospel to the ROMANS. By the time he got to Rome the first time, there were already believing Jews and Gentiles in the churches there. His letter to the Romans was written to people he’d never even seen before he was arrested.
The FACTS are that Paul was NEVER given any other gospel than that which was originally given to all the other apostles and disciples of the Lord. The facts are that the very gospel you are believing is ANOTHER Gospel that PAUL WARNED about, and that Peter said they would PERVERT the writings of Paul into.
Gal.1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though WE, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul stated to them that even if HE preached another gospel unto them, than the one originally given by ALL the apostles let that man be accursed. Showing clearly that Paul knew the original gospel would be perverted into something else. Peter also warned that they would use Paul’s very letter to do this very thing.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
Peter wrote this epistle to the Gentiles that Paul had both written to and preached to. ”even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”
The “secret”, “mysterious” gospel that dispensationalist believe is the false gospel, that perverted understanding of the original gospel that is written in the scriptures, which both Paul and Peter constantly warned about. If it didn’t sound good to people, didn’t sound logical, then people would not accept it. When they read the scriptures, they have been taught to read that dispensationalism in where it is NOT. I read it that way for years, till God had mercy on me and taught me how to REALLY read ALL that is written, and thus I was able to deliver myself out of that teaching. But it was HARD to do, I was SO CONVINCED that Dispensationalism was the TRUTH.
I hope that you as I someday recover your self out of this wicked snare of the false gospel, of which you not only get another gospel, but another Jesus and another spirit, all not the original and all only a perversion of what Paul really taught.
In the Love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Wow, now that's a post! While I appreciate laris's concerns, he is anything but accurate in understanding of my views and is serving well to also misrepresent dispensationalism in general as well.
Of special note, he misrepresents what the word "dispensation" means from a dispensational view point, and that speaks volumes to the inaccuracies of his claims, although it is certainly possible he certainly may have been taught bad doctrine, in fact, it seems likely he was. I have never read that the word "dispensation" has to do with periods of time, other than from false accusers, but rather it means, house rules, it's God's way of governing His people, it's synonymous with "administration" and "stewardship", and it is primarily a statement of "personal governance", not "periods of time". The various periods of time associated with common dispensational schemes are not an "interpretation" issue for the word "dispensation", it's an issue of "application" issue based from simply understanding that God has issued different dispensations throughout time.
By this glaring mistake alone, I find his remarks to be remarkable and not credible, but, that is just an initial observation, I'm very willing to withstand a cross examination from even a hostile viewpoint.
I repeat, and I will continue to repeat until the issue is actually dealt with, my first order of business is to deal with the nature of the revelation that was given for this dispensation. I will even state it in one word to help some of you gain focus.
revelation
You can run from this issue, but that's ok, it only makes the truth from God's word look that much more formidable against these contrary views. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/4/2004 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it's interesting how you trie to refute what I said, by saying THE SAME thing I said, and then denying it and saying the same thing again.
Quote:
Of special note, he misrepresents what the word "dispensation" means from a dispensational view point, and that speaks volumes to the inaccuracies of his claims, although it is certainly possible he certainly may have been taught bad doctrine, in fact, it seems likely he was.
Then you say:
I have never read that the word "dispensation" has to do with periods of time,
And then later you say:
The various periods of TIME associated with common dispensational schemes are not an "interpretation" issue for the word "dispensation", it's an issue of "application" issue based from simply understanding that God has issued different dispensations throughout time.
AGAIN:
1way: I have never read that the word "dispensation" has to do with periods of time,
1way: God has issued different dispensations throughout time.
You say it dosen't and then you say it dose, while saying that my saing it dose like you just said it dose is in error.
And then you contradict yourself again and say the very same thing I said, and then say I'm wrong about it.
1way: Of special note, he misrepresents what the word "dispensation" means from a dispensational view point,
Which according to the dispensational view point is according to you:
1way: , it's synonymous with "administration" and "stewardship",
I told you that the word "dispensation" was "synonymous" with "administration".
larris: Another word used to describe "dispensation" is the word "administration", they are synonyms.
However neither does the word "dispensation" nor the word "administration" NOR the word "oikonomia" steward ship, have anything to do with what you said, which is "God has issued different dispensations throughout time." Which you also denied dispensationalism had anything to do with and then stated that it dose deal with TIME.
I stated: What is a "dispensation"? A dispensation is properly an administration and is accurately the administering of an ENTIRE ERA.....WRONG...but that's what it's taken to mean by dispensationalist. For some reason they get a whole TIME period out of the simple word "oikonomia", meaning simply stewardship.
And then you stated exactly what I said here, that you believe, denied it and then stated it as fact.
1way: it's synonymous with "administration" and "stewardship", and it is primarily a statement of "personal governance", not "periods of time". The various periods of time associated with common dispensational schemes are not an "interpretation" issue for the word "dispensation", it's an issue of "application" issue based from simply understanding that God has issued different dispensations throughout time.
That is EXACTLY what I said you believed! You just take exception to my using the word "INTERPRETATION" in referring to your view of the scriptures. Because to "you" it's not an "interpretation", you really think the scriptures are teaching this stuff. To you it's just the "WORD OF GOD". But in reality it's YOUR interpretation of the Word of God regarding what you think the word "dispensation" means.
You think it's a "special" period of time in which the Church is GOVERNED by a special DISPENSATION. Which then translates into a "special gospel" given only to Paul.
But REGARDLESS, the FACT is that even though you are an Acts 12 OUT dispensationalist, I PROVED that both Peter and James knew the so called MYSTERY before Paul ever heard of it. And that in EVERY chapter after Acts 12 Paul continued to go INTO THE SYNAGOGUES and PREACH to the JEWS as his manner was.
Why Paul even CIRCUMCISED a half Jew Timothy, just to please the JEWS he was going and preaching to. And then Paul even choose to go to JERUSALEM to the PASSOVER, just so that he could be around THE JEWS. And this all took place AFTER Acts 12. So if you are going to be a proper dispensationalist, you are just going to have to cut out THE REST OF ACTS and be a NO ACTS Dispensationalist.
I have compassion on you having been where you are, weather you believe it or not. But what you THINK you are seeing is not what's really written. And I fully understand WHY you can't see it...YET.
So go back and forget the first part of the post, and then read the whole book of Acts and see where Paul continued to constantly GO TO THE SYNAGOGES to the JEWS and PREACH the SAME gospel that Peter, John James and all the other apostles that had been with Jesus preached.
Then go and look up every single usage of the word RESURRECTION in the New Testament, and you will see that PAUL taught the SAME RESURRECTION that Jesus and the apostles taught and NOT a secret RAPTURE. And that what you believe to be a SECRET RAPTURE was in reality JUST another aspect of the SAME RESURRECTION that Jesus and the apostles taught. NO special Church, no special gosple, all the SAME promises to the Gentiles from that day to this as was originally given to ISRAEL, to the JEWS. And ALL the same prophecies apply to all of us, including but not limited to the GREAT TRIBULATION, which if alive you WILL BE HERE FOR.
It took me a full 7 years to come to the place where I finally saw that I had been completely taken in by the false gospel of Dispensationalism. I don't expect you to believe me, or even see what I am trying to show you. Especially in one or two posts, if ever.
The gosple you believe is this one described by Peter.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
Peter and Paul preached THE SAME GOSPEL. Some back then started corrupting it, perverting the understanding of Pauls letters as well as the other Scriptures, and then you and I got born about 2000 years later and inherited the more advanced perverted teaching, now called Dispensationalisum.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | laris - This is all pretty much beside the point, but I do not want you to think that I am just avoiding your points, so I will answer, but please see the next post to see what you are missing in terms of this discussion. You posted quote:
AGAIN:
1way: I have never read that the word "dispensation" has to do with periods of time,
1way: God has issued different dispensations throughout time.
You say it doesn't and then you say it dose, while saying that my saying it dose like you just said it dose is in error.
No, I did not, I called attention to the difference between the "interpretation" or meaning of a single word
and an "application" or "doctrine" from a bible wide contextual development using examples and different concepts, like "different revelation" or "Hidden in God" or "dispensation of the fullness of the times" or "that the dispensation of grace was hidden in God until given to Paul" and so on. Then you continued making this same mistake giving more and more details going over the same point, so I'll skip to an especially clear expression you offered.
You continue saying quote:
I stated: What is a "dispensation"? A dispensation is properly an administration and is accurately the administering of an ENTIRE ERA.....WRONG...but that's what it's taken to mean by dispensationalist. For some reason they get a whole TIME period out of the simple word "oikonomia", meaning simply stewardship.
I agree with your claim in that it does not mean era, time is not part of the meaning of the word dispensation or oikonomia. But I disagree with the fallacy of contradiction by saying that we dispensationalists teach that it does mean a period of time or era, we do not or more specifically, I do not, and no one I know does either.
The time periods involved in the various dispensations is not a product of the interpretation of the word oikonomia, it's the product of bible study where we find different dispensations are evident throughout time. A difference of interpretation verses application, a difference of the meaning of one word verses the meaning of thousands of words.
I wish you the best in learning to first sufficiently understand the truth of a matter prior to entering into so much judgment.
As to claiming that I preach a false gospel, you are really stressing the limitations of reasonable and respectful discussions. My gospel message is not false, the only way you should have a problem with it is if you reject Paul's teaching on it, and I assume you are fine with Paul's gospel message, so please affirm what you know to be godly and right.
If you demonstrate that you can, and consistently will differentiate difference between the interpretation of a single word
and the application of a bible wide contextually derived doctrine, then your reasonable objectivity would be survivable and most welcomed. Next post I will post evidence and argumentation for the main point, if you will, please deal with it. Thanks.
In the love of Christ,
1Way | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/4/2004 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | 1:11 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin 1:12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it. 1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 1:15 But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I conferred not with flesh and blood, 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 1:20 I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you! 1:21 Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 1:22 But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 1:23 They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.” 1:24 So they glorified God because of me.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. 2:2 I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running—or had not run—in vain.
Paul received his gospel by revelation; he never received it from any person - not even the other apostles; he "presented" it to them 14 years after his conversion; until that time they (the other apostles) knew nothing of it. The mere FACT that gentiles could be saved was not what was revealed to Paul. It was a body of knowledge about God's Son that he calls HIS gospel.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | SwanLake - You said quote:
Some love "bears" all things.
But all love should "bear" all things. HTH
What does "HTH" mean?
I disagree, but I'm not sure if we are understanding each other first. I'll try to clarify.
When God teaches us to excommunicate someone, we no longer "bear" with them, we personally reject them and we are being loving when we do that, God does not teach unloving things. "Bearing" something lends the idea that you remain under it's "load" or "responsibility" or "relationship", it's like "withstanding", and may be clarified by it's contextual use when we say that we should bear one another's burdens. Sometimes we are not suppose to continue to bear with each other, i.e. excommunication. So I disagree that love is suppose to "always bear all things" (without exception).
Believe all things
But take the more clear example in that verse, which is "believes all things". We are not to believe ALL THINGS (without exception), we are only supposed to believe the things of God and what He says we should believe. For example, if someone says that God is evil  and the devil is good  , should be believe that just because there is a verse in the bible that says that love ... "believes all things"?
Of course not.  So the point should be clear, there is an undercurrent of assumed meaning  that is necessary to properly understand that verse and much of this entire wonderful passage.
I wonder who will be the first one to reasonably identify the context that is assumed for the love chapter...
I can look of commentaries myself, but, I am dealing with you all, so please, post what you think is the contextually assumed presumption that would make v.7 make perfect sense, and specifically consider since that is the most clear example for what needs the most clarification.
Thanks,
1Way
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/4/2004 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way, you are mincing words, for Dispensational Bible study and it's APPLICATION is "INTERPRETATION". And weather you know it or not, it's all based on saying that a dispensation is the administration or a stewardship of a period of TIME or that lasts for a period of time, or that covered a period of TIME, in which only certain parts of the Bible actually APPLY to you in this day and time. While other parts only applied to those in another dispensation.
Now there are varrious schools amongst Dispensationalist that divide that time up in differnet ways. For instance Clarence Larken in Dispensatinal Truth divides the Bible up into various "dispensations, administrations, stewardships, whatever you want to call it.
Larkin divied the dispensations and named them as follows.
1 The Edenic Dispensation (Innocence), beginning with the creation of Adam to the expulsion from the garden.
2. The Antediluvian Dispensation, extends from the Falll fo the Flood.
3. The post-diluvian Dispensation, extending from Noah to Abraham.
4. The Patricrchal Dispensation from The call of Abraham to the Exodus.
5. The Law dispensation from Exodus to the Birth of Christ,
6. The Ecclesiastical Dispensation, which he also calls the "GRACE" dispensation extending from as he says the "cross" to the "crown" which he also calls a "parenthetical dispensation"
7 The Dispensation of Judgement, which lies between the Grace dispensaton and the millennial dispensation. Which he says is also antother parenthetical dispensation.
8. The Millinnial Dispensation, the 1000 year reign of Christ.
And a few others. But the point is that these dispensations NO MATTER how you divide them up extend over a period of TIME. It's a way to INTERPRET the bible as you STUDY. That is, everything that is not written by Paul get's relegated to not being written to you and therefore not APPLIED or APPLYING to you since it is supposedly referrring to a different time, and written to different people.
There are various schools and divisions of these times amongst Dispensationalist, I am just given an example above. In what I was taught long before I ever heard of Clarence larken or even dispensationalism, it was called "Administrations" and was divided up as follows.
1. The Original Paradise Administration.
2. The Patriarchal Administration.
3. The Law Administration.
4. The Christ Administration.
5. The Chruch or Grace Administration.
6. The Appearing or Revelation Administration
7. The Final or Paradise or Glory Administration.
And to these 7 sections was the Bible divided up as to APPLICATION. Where as only that part that is written to and concering the administration you are said to be in is for you to APPLY in this day and time. Everything else before no. 5 is only "for your learning", not written to you. And this is what you APPLY when you STUDY the Bible to supposedly be able to understand it, and apply it to your life.
I know exactly what you mean by "application". So don't tell me that I don't know what you are talking about, regardless of whatever slight bent you might have personally on the teaching. For instance your "Acts 12 OUT" form of Dispensationalism. What I was taught was even more deceptive than that one, rather it was taught that the book of Acts was the "fulcrum" upon which the Christ Administration transfered to the Grace Administration. Therefore in essence NONE of Acts was written to us to "APPLY" since it was just a "transition" book. Where as who ever or what ever you learned made it an "Acts 12 OUT" dispensation.
The point is the whole entire teaching no matter what form it comes in, no matter how "logical" they make it look is false, false false.
Therefore I will reiterate that Paul NEVER taught what you are saying he tuaght. As to YOUR GOSPEL being false, well it's NOT YOURS, you didn't come up with this perverted slant on scripture, you just got indoctrinated into it before you even had a chance to really hear the truth. That's exactly how I swallowed it and believed it for years.
Dispensationalism teaches that Paul received a special secret teaching. In some cases of dispensationalism the Jews are CUT out of it, and in others some of them are included. As I said there are varrious forms of it. Dispensationalism teaches that all the prophecies of the Old Testament dealing with Israel don’t apply to Gentile Christians or to what they call "The Church" in this "grace" administration.
However as you will see Paul seemed to have a problem even getting to the Gentiles, since he was so PREOCCUPIED with running to the synagogue and preaching not some “mystery gospel” for a “grace administration” but rather preaching christ to them out of the Torah, the Scriptures, the law and the prophets. And this was not only before ACTS 12, but long after ACTS 12. That is why ultimately if you are going to be a good little dispensationalist, you must find a way to APPLY the book of ACTS completely OUT of the Dispensation of Grace, the CHRUCH period. Becasue according to Acts 12 OUT it's all based on Paul saying that since the Jews did not think themselves worthy of eternal life he would turn to the Gentiles. HOWEVER he never did really turn to the Gentiles and continued to run to the synagogue.
Acts 9
19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Acts 13
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 13
13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. (And guess what? Preached a whole sermon on the Old Testament concerning the gospel of Christ, go and read it.)
Acts 14
1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Acts 17
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
“PAUL” there he goes into the synagogue AGAIN! And not only is he NOT preaching the supposed secret mystery gospel given ONLY to him, he’d actually using the Torah, the Jewish SCRIPTURES to reason with them concerning the gospel of Christ.
Acts 17
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Well those idiots in Berea, don’t they know that the secret gospel of Paul isn’t written in “the scriptures”, they should have been searching Romans or Ephesians not that stuff we call the OT today, which was just “scriptures” to them. Surely Paul had copies of his own secret gospel that he was preaching out of. You know the “Pauline Epistles”, where all that secret stuff only given to Paul is.
Acts 17
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
SHEESH, you would think that Paul would have gotten a CLUE by now that he was supposed to be preaching his secret gospel. WOW was he ever the most disobedient apostle going or WHAT? Ah well maybe as we move on here he’ll get it together.
Acts 18
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Acts 18
6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Good old Paul, “I’M GOING TO THE GENTILES”...AND STRAIGHTWAY....he runs right back into the synagogue. Nothing like real DETERMINATION there. That’s kind of like an smoker when he says “I’M GOING TO QUIT SMOKING”...by the way you got a light?
Acts 18
18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Oh yea leave the TWO FAITHFUL GENTILES and hop on over to the synagogue again. Of course he head was shorn cause he “had a vow”, a vow to go to Jerusalem for the JEWISH Passover. But he had to stop at the Ephesian synagogue first and show them his new JEWISH HAIRCUT.
Acts 19
8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Acts 19
9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
WELL FINALLY, he’s on Gentile territory. IT TOOK LONG ENOUGH! The question is? Will he stay there?
Acts 24 (Paul arrested)
10 Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
BOY that was a little “play on words by Paul”. He’d done practically nothing but run to every synagogue in every place he went to. It was just a “technicality” that at the moment they caught up with him he wasn’t in one, so he says: “and they neither found me...in the synagogue.” Again it was a mere technicality, that he wasn’t in one when they did find him.
And then Paul says: But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
I guess Paul didn’t know he was supposed to be teaching a secret mystery gospel, we got him clear over here in Acts 24 still believing all things that are written in the law and the prophets. Now to make matters worse for us, not only was Paul NOT teaching this elusive mystery gospel, he was flat out here in trouble because he DISOBEYED GOD TO BEGIN WITH. Paul had been warned many times NOT to go to Jerusalem.
Acts 21
4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased saying The will of the Lord be done.
The WILL of the LORD was for Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem! Oh he sounds so religious doesn’t he. “What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”
But God had told Paul NOT to go, and he had several prophets through the spirit tell Paul NOT to go. But what was Paul’s attitude? Romans says it all.
Rom. 9
1. I say the truth in Christ, (like saying I swear to God) I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
Well that’s just GREAT! But he wasn’t primarily sent to them, he was supposed to carry the bulk of his message to the Gentiles, and WHEN he actually did this, by winding up in the school of Tyranus for two years, God was able to really energize his ministry. BUT he was NEVER given a secret mystery doctrine different from all the other apostles, and he states so in Ephesians.
Ephesians 3
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
“revealed to his holy APOSTLES (plural) and PROPEHTS (plural) by the Spirit.”
Paul’s job was to just primarily tell the Gentiles about it, which he managed to do on “occasion” when he wasn’t running around in the synagogue begging his brethren according the flesh to believe it. Or when he wasn’t trapseing off to Jerusalem to show his brethren what a good Jew he was, and how much he loved them and cried for them and wanted them to BELIEVE.
Dispensationalist’s have been blinded to what Paul himself is saying. Apostles is PLURAL meaning more than ONE. Prophets is PLURAL meaning more than ONE. Peter was the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and have the mystery revealed to him. Later Peter told those in Jerusalem and the mystery was revealed to those in Jerusalem, including the Lord’s brother James, all BEFORE Paul ever heard of such.
Paul was a great man, yet he was a man, with a mans failings. But in dispensational doctrine Paul becomes almost a GOD, and is seated doctrinally above Christ and his teachings. There NEVER was a secret mystery doctrine that was revealed ONLY to Paul. Paul barely fulfilled his ministry to the Gentiles, and wound up leaving a lot of them in the lurch because of his affections towards his brethren the Jews. Yet God was still able though all of Paul’s failings, to work the best he could with the man he chose. God definitely did show his “mercy” in regards to Paul, not only for what Paul did BEFORE he became a Christian, but for what Paul DID NOT DO after he became a Christian. But Paul never taught a secret mystery doctrine that no one else knew.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Jefscott - That is a powerful point. Also, this may be over the issue of the Jerusalem council, which was doctrinal problems between the 12 and Paul. The men who were from James had serious problems against what Paul was teaching and when this conflict reached Jerusalem, the 12 did not say, look are you crazy, Paul and we teach the same stuff, we even teach the same gospel message, so it is only silly that we should have a doctrinal gathering because Paul is teaching the same stuff as we are. That is not what happened, instead, they heard that Paul was renouncing Moses as being the representative for how to be saved, that is, become a law keeper.
And Paul plainly says that when he went there, he told them that gospel that he preaches! So we find that it is reasonable that Paul saw that this was a gospel issue at the Jerusalem council, and he did the same thing again with Peter because of his table manners! Today we would never accuse anyone of being dishonest with the gospel because someone started observing clean and unclean commandments from God that was given to Israel to keep. We might say that they are wrong, we might say that they are being legalistic, but we would not see that issue as concerning one's salvation. Yet Paul did, because he knew that their gospel message was still law based and ours is not.
So for the "one gospel" folks, you have two very difficult passages in trying to explain how Paul rightly understood the circumstances as involving gospel differences, if each side taught the same exact gospel message, there should have been no conflict resolution at all! It seems clear that they did not teach the same exact gospel message.
So Jefscott, wow, thanks, very pleased to meet you, please stick around, I think I'm a bit outnumbered here, though this has been exciting so far. I'd be interested in critical remarks about my treatment of Eph 3, but please be kind, I threw it together in between preparing and eating over a bowl of soup, very simple, with an ear towards the uniqueness of the revelation for this dispensation. See, I do not have church or bible study fellowship with likeminded believers (just constant internet studies) so I hardly ever even hear this stuff being taught. But by the time I was done, I was praising God, His word is so true! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/4/2004 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
quote:
Paul was a great man, yet he was a man, with a mans failings. But in dispensational doctrine Paul becomes almost a GOD, and is seated doctrinally above Christ and his teachings. There NEVER was a secret mystery doctrine that was revealed ONLY to Paul. Paul barely fulfilled his ministry to the Gentiles, and wound up leaving a lot of them in the lurch because of his affections towards his brethren the Jews. Yet God was still able though all of Paul’s failings, to work the best he could with the man he chose.
Paul makes it clear that he HAD to preach to the Jew first where ever he went. Peter said the same thing:
3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’ 3:26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”
The gospel was to go to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. When it became known that uncircumsized gentiles were to be saved, it was then imperative that Paul preach to the Jew first even in "the uttermost parts of the earth." What profiteth the circumcision? Much in every way, for the oracles of God were sent to them FIRST!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | laris - The word "Oikonomia" means what you and I both agree it means, it does not mean "a period of time" or "age" or "era". The entire notion of different dispensations spanning different times is a bible wide teaching or doctrine derived from literally thousands of words and examples, not just one word.
That is not mincing words, that is a fact. There are plenty of resources (including the internet) that agrees perfectly with this simple issue. Your behavior and denial of this fact is bizarre.
You are the one who has falsified things, and I am not mincing words, in fact, anyone can openly see that I am being perfectly clear and consistent.
Still no comment about God clarifying that the revelation for this dispensation was kept hidden in Him until it was specifically given to Paul to give to us. Talk is cheap when you have selective hearing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul was not lurch with spreading the gospel.
Paul respected the Jews first, but is called the (only) Apostle unto the Gentiles. Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Paul's gospel was a regions beyond abounding traveler! Sounds like Paul's gospel is doing pretty good. 2Co 10:16 to preach the gospel in the [regions] beyond you, [and] not to boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment. Wow, something bad or rough happens to Paul and it still can not stop the propagation of the gospel! Way to go Paul. Php 1:12 But I want you to know, brethren, that the things [which happened] to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, Wow, the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, and Roms 1-2 show a universal aspect of his gospel as well. I'd say that is a serious note of effectiveness. Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Ro 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them]) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. Yes, Paul was specifically given a particular trust. 1Ti 1:11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. to make all men see the fellowship of the mystery, which was hidden in God, yet in contrary audacity, believers seem to hate the very notion that Paul taught such a unique thing. Eph 3:9 and to make all see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; I pray that all men should see what is the fellowship of the mystery, and to boldly proclaim that gospel that Paul preached.
And we do not lift up Paul any higher than Jesus did (God had Paul magnify his ministry!), his teachings came from Jesus and as such represent no threat or challenge to His authority, rather the bible truth is that Paul's teachings come from Christ's authority. Such phony charges these days. I suppose next they say that we teach it's ok to sin so that grace might abound. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/4/2004 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way and jefscot,
quote:
3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’ 3:26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”
Peter said this to JEWS who JESUS had come to in his earthly ministry, who had rejected and crucified him. They had already had him come FIRST. Paul said flat out his ministry was to the GENTILES and Peter's was to the JEWS. God told Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem and he went anyway. Yes he said the things that happend to him wound up furthering the gospel. But that was just God making the best out of a bad situation that was NEEDLESS. God is constantly picking up the pieces for believers that don't obey his primary will. I'm sorry but Paul was not the infallable representivie of Christ.
quote:
Jefscot: Paul received his gospel by revelation; he never received it from any person - not even the other apostles; he "presented" it to them 14 years after his conversion; until that time they (the other apostles) knew nothing of it. The mere FACT that gentiles could be saved was not what was revealed to Paul. It was a body of knowledge about God's Son that he calls HIS gospel.
Paul received his gospel from the same sourse the other apostles received their gospel, THE RISEN CHRIST. He received his gospel from a PERSON by the name of Jesus, the same guy who stopped him on the road to Damascus and spoke to him audibly to him there. And he received the very same things Jesus taught all his other disciples.
Dispensationalism teaches or programs you think, that simply because Paul received his knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ in a somewhat different manner and later than the other apostles, that he preached ANOTHER GOSPEL than they did, let alone one they never heard before? After all the scriptures you gave did have this verse also in it.
Gal. 1:21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Paul taught the SAME gosple, the SAME faith that the other apostles taught. The SAME faith that he once destroyed.
Gal. 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Same gospel same "body of knowledge", Paul never received any "special" secret gospel. The ONLY difference between Paul and Peter was WHO they were primarily sent to, not WHAT they taught.
As for Peter whimping out at the dinner table, Paul whimped out at the circumcision block when he had Timothy circumcised just because his mother was a Jew, to please the JEWS.
And if Paul was given some special secret mystery, some special secret body of knowledge not contained in SCRIPTURE that none of the other apostles taught or ever heard before it was given to Paul, then why did he tell Timothy:
"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them: and that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE is given my inspiration of God and is profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
You folks are so intent on trying to see a "secret mystery" in there, that was never written, was never told to anyone before Paul, that you don't see the fact that Paul taught THE SCRIPTURES. Paul was not given a secret revelation or body of knowledge, he was given the understanding of the SCRIPTURES, of which the mystery was a part that no one fully understood until Christ later revealed it to his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit. NOT just Paul, and not even Paul first. That is why they all taught the gospel and the mystery out of the OLD TESTAMENT. Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, James, and EVERYONE else that was an apostle or diciple of the Lord ALL TAUGHT THE SAME EXACT GOSPEL.
Paul dosn't state that he was the GREATEST of the apostles, becasue he received some secret body of knowledge that none of them knew about. He says he was the least of all the apostles, one that was born out of due time. That is he was the LAST to know anything.
Paul would be totally freaked out if he could see today how Christianity has corrupted the understanding of the things he wrote, and turned them in to ANOTHER GOSPEL, the very one he warned both the Galatians and the Corinthians about. I bet all his letters would have started with "Good morning Mr. Phelps". If that would have happened then you folks would actually have to read the same thing Paul read and come to understand it like he did, namely what we call the Old Testament.
Again EVERYTHING Paul knew, every "mystery" was and is hidden in figuritive language in the "SCRIPTURES", the Old Testament, and was taught by Jesus in his ministry.
In Christ,
larris
In Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/4/2004 9:51 PM (GMT -6) | | larris - You said quote:
Peter said this to JEWS who JESUS had come to in his earthly ministry, who had rejected and crucified him. They had already had him come FIRST. Paul said flat out his ministry was to the GENTILES and Peter's was to the JEWS. (1) God told Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem and he went anyway. Yes he said the things that happend to him wound up furthering the gospel. (2) But that was just God making the best out of a bad situation that was NEEDLESS. God is constantly picking up the pieces for believers that don't obey his primary will. (3) I'm sorry but Paul was not the infallable representivie of Christ.
(1) That is not true. Paul went there under divine revelation.
(2) That is not true. God directed him to do what he did, and you say it was a bad situation that was needless.
(3) Straw man, no one is arguing that Paul was infallible.
You quote points and then do not deal with them. The view that Jefscott presented was that Paul got his gospel from Jesus in a way that was different from the others who got theirs from Jesus, because theirs was verified through men, and Paul's was not. But instead of responding cogently to that idea, you argued that Paul got His gospel from Jesus so it just was the same gospel.
Then, after all that debacle, you said. quote:
Dispensationalism teaches or programs you think, that simply because Paul received his knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ in a somewhat different manner and later than the other apostles, that he preached ANOTHER GOSPEL than they did, let alone one they never heard before? After all the scriptures you gave did have this verse also in it.
And I am dumbfounded that you could be so ridiculously and willfully ignorant. Must I shout this too you at the top of my lungs or what?
THE REVELATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO PAUL WAS KEPT SECRECT, BEING HIDDEN IN GOD UNTIL GIVEN TO PAUL.
Not because He received His gospel in a different manor, but because scripture plainly says that the revelation that was given to him to give to us, was hidden in God until it was entrusted to Paul.
You said quote:
As for Peter whimping out at the dinner table, Paul whimped out at the circumcision block when he had Timothy circumcised just because his mother was a Jew, to please the JEWS.
You are impossible. The point was Paul said that what Peter had done involved gospel dishonesty. If Peter and Paul taught the same saved by grace through faith alone and no works gospel, then Paul would have had no righteous grounds for charging Peter with gospel dishonesty! Secondly, Paul did not sin like Peter did against Paul's gospel by having one person circumcisized, he had a valid ministry to the circumcision even though that was not his focus, because after those Jews died off, Paul had to help the next generation become Christian instead of Jewish.
So not only was I right that you do not understand my views, I am now shocked at how contradictory you are with what dispensationalism teaches,
with what the bible teaches,
with what I have been saying since the very beginning. You are over the top, you do not listen, you do not reason, you falsify what others say, including God's word. Talk about bizarre. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/5/2004 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’ 3:26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter said this to JEWS who JESUS had come to in his earthly ministry, who had rejected and crucified him. They had already had him come FIRST. Paul said flat out his ministry was to the GENTILES and Peter's was to the JEWS. God told Paul NOT to go to Jerusalem and he went anyway. Yes he said the things that happend to him wound up furthering the gospel. But that was just God making the best out of a bad situation that was NEEDLESS. God is constantly picking up the pieces for believers that don't obey his primary will. I'm sorry but Paul was not the infallable representivie of Christ.
The Samaritans were NOT the sons of the prophets. It is not ONLY a geographical coincidence that the gospel was to be preached to Judea before Samaria. Moreover, no one is denying the fact that there is not some basic gospel message common to all the apostles, but Paul specifically said he laid before the apostles in Jerusalem the "gospel" which he preached to the gentiles. This is not the gospel one gets converted by. It is a body of doctrine.
Nowhere in the non-Pauline epistles do the other apostles deal with justification by faith the way Paul does. That's why many have wondered whether the epistle of James was even scripture! Nor do those epistles talk of Gentiles being reckoned as Abraham's seed by virtue of having THE seed, CHRIST, in them, etc. Those epistles were written to Jewish believers who already WERE Abraham's seed apart from Christ. The book of Acts shows that those Jewish believers (Paul included) kept the Mosaic law, also. As 1WAY said, why else would there have been a council in Acts 15 at all if ALL believers were NOT keeping the Law?
Peter and the Jews in Jerusalem knew THAT Gentiles could be saved due to the Cornelius incident. They did NOT know HOW they could thus be saved until Paul laid before them that gospel which he preached to the Gentiles at Acts 15!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 128 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|