 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Pretrib Rapture and Mystery stuff ... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/5/2004 7:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Good Morning,
I am thinking this fine morning, that when there are disagreements, there is a "fine line" between atacking the issue and attacking the "person". And I have seen that I have smooged towards that line of attacking the person instead of the issue. If I have turned ths into a personal affront, I surely appologize to you all.
quote:
Jefscott: 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!
Paul CONSTANTLY spoke of maintaining GOOD WORKS, not the works of the LAW but GOOD WORKS, and this is what James was also speaking of. They spoke the same thing, but those who teach us these things NEVER read any of Paul's statements concerning WORKS, or we would see that something about their teaching was "amiss".
Here are just a few things Paul said about "works".
Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1 Tim. 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Titus 1:6 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Titus 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Titus 3:14 And let our's also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.
James didn't teach anything different than Paul, they both taught that after a person came to Christ that they must learn to do as he (Jesus) did. Since Jesus went all over the place DOING GOOD, they also were to learn to DO GOOD. This is NOT the WORKS of The Law, but the SAME WORKS of Jesus Christ. You know they SAY that they know him, yet in works they deny him, being abominable and reprobate to every good work. Ever known anyone like that?
James never referred to the "works" he spoke of as the "works" of the Law of Moses. His works were the same as Paul's. James dose not use the word "good" like Paul dose, but he describes the same works Paul describes.
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Again NOT the WORKS of the LAW of Moses, but the WORKS of Jesus Christ, the SAME WORKS that Paul did and instucted everyone to maintain. It is a GOOD WORK to feed and cloth someone who is a bother or sister in Christ, and is naked or destitute of daily food. These works do not save you, these are the WORKS show you have the true faith. Helping others, being kind to others, are GOOD WORKS. These are the WORKS that Paul stated that God had before ordained that we should walk in them.
Let me say again, that the confusion arises out of atributing every time the word "works" is used, to referring to the "works" of THE LAW of Moses. Paul spoke of works in two contexts, the WORKS of the Law, and the "WORKS" of the spirit, which produce GOOD WORKS, such as being kind, giving, generous, merciful, given to hospitality, willing to communicate one's good fortune to others who are in need. That is all James was also speaking of.
I've known MANY Christians who would not give you a glass of ice water if you were roasting alive in hell. I've known others who would not only give you a cup of water to quench your thirst but would lay down their very lives for you. Yet they all read the same Bible, all call themselves Christians, all name the name of Christ. So HOW DO YOU TELL? Who has FAITH and how hasn't? That is why James says "faith without works" like giving someone a pair of shoes that has none out of your closet of 200 pairs, is dead being alone.
I've actually known people who knew of someone in GREAT NEED, had the ability and the means to help them, having more than an abundance themselves, and actually said things to them like "Oh well you just must not be "believing" enough." OR "Oh well, I'll PRAY FOR YOU." And not reach out to literally help them a lick. This is all James was speaking of.
I have also known many Christians who were "respecters of persons". They have a special place for those in the "upper classes", but some poor man who dose not have the right cloths, right job, live in the right section of town, they look down upon and send him to the back of the Church. Paul taught no different than James in these things.
And what really KILLS me is that these Christians think that they can actually get away with being this way. These things were written TO THEM, to endeavor to get them to repent and start doing what the faith called for and required. Faith without the evidence that you have it is dead being alone. Oh yea I believe in Jesus, and then they will steal, lie, bear false witness, be greedy and covetouss, fornicate, defraud others, commit adultery, slander, hate others, slight others, persicute others, do every manner of evil against others, thinking they are SAVED regardless of anything and everything they do. In fact a lot of times thinking they are saved no matter what they do is what leads them to commit every form of amominable act towards others.
Both Paul and James stated that it just isn't going to go over with God in the end.
Rom. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.
Yet the Dispensationalism I was taught said that since I was in this "special" CHRUCH, that these words of Paul did not apply to me. The logic (falsey so called) being that when you study the scriptures you must determin what sections are written and apply to whom, and that there are THREE divisions "Jew, Gentile and the Chruch of God."
Therefore when it comes to reading what Paul states here, they cut it out because Paul uses the terms "Jew" or "Gentile", saying that because you are of the "CHRUCH" he's not talking to you. Therefore you have no need to fear any judgment what so ever for any deed you happen to commit.
They fail to tell you that the Jew and Gentile Paul is speaking of here is referring to CHRISTIAN Jews and CHRISTIAN Gentiles in Rome, that were all mebers of THE CHURCH, and that these things applied specifically to THEM as Christians.
By their interpretation or application of study, they get people to cut out anything that seems to indicate that if they do anything evil they will ever be judged for it. While at the same time relegating ALL works to being WORKS of the LAW that you are not under. When all the apostles especially PAUL constantly taught the believers to renew their minds and maintain doing WELL, doing right, or doing as Jesus did, loving one's neighbor as one's self.
Rom. 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
That there were real Christan members of "The Church" composed of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles, that were not walking uprightly according to the gospel is evident by Paul's instructions to the Corinthians.
1 Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother (another Christian) be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
This would be someone who was not maintaining good works for necessary uses, who had not let the goodness of God lead them to repentance, who said they had faith, and yet did not have the works that accompanied faith of which repentance from these behaviors was a part.
I hope I have explained a litte here to show that James was not teaching anything other than Paul taught, and that his book is scripture, and is written to Jewish Christians who were under the very same gospel that Paul taught.
In reading another post jefscott you stated: I hold MY kids accountable to living according to God's standards (since it is my duty to do so), but not other kids.
I am saying this is exactly what Paul and James were telling those in their time that God expected his children to do. That is hold themselves and one another accountable to living according to God's standards. Just like James and Paul stated it in somewhat different manners from one another, you have stated the same thing in a different manner giving a different example. That's all the two of them did.
Now the question would be would you expect your children to maintain a certain standard while you yourself lived by another? Hopefully no of course you would not. But that is what the Christian Jews in Rome did to the Christian Gentiles. Taught "don't committ adultery", don't steal et. and then went out and did it, and so blasphemed that worthy name by which they were called.
Anyway, I think what you gave there is a very good example of what I'm trying to get forth here. I think a good study would be to go through James and then go to Paul's writings and find those same things Paul taught. They may have presented them in slightly different termenology but they were teaching the same thing.
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 | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
POW - You are failing to see the various presuppositions you simply assume. The text affords you none of those contextual explanations.
I stand by what I posted.
As a teacher since 1979 many times I've seen people miss the point of a passage; and you seem to have done just that. Therefore my post was meant as a help -- the same as if you were in one of my classes.
If you don't like it, that is your choice to make.
Have a nice day.
I'll invite anyone else to give their suggestion to 1way. He has mine. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | THIS IS WHAT I POSTED FOR 1WAY. IT IS REALLY PRETTY SIMPLE.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/5/2004 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
No apology necessary, just hold with me on the debate. I don't have time to write a dissertation on my theology so I'll have to do it one point at a time. Be patient with me.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefscott: 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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul CONSTANTLY spoke of maintaining GOOD WORKS, not the works of the LAW but GOOD WORKS, and this is what James was also speaking of. They spoke the same thing, but those who teach us these things NEVER read any of Paul's statements concerning WORKS, or we would see that something about their teaching was "amiss".
You did not address my point. There is no doubt that there are themes in Paul's epistles that are NOT in the book of James. And again, NO ONE is denying that there are common themes throughout the NT and the WHOLE Bible.
quote:
James didn't teach anything different than Paul, they both taught that after a person came to Christ that they must learn to do as he (Jesus) did. Since Jesus went all over the place DOING GOOD, they also were to learn to DO GOOD. This is NOT the WORKS of The Law, but the SAME WORKS of Jesus Christ. You know they SAY that they know him, yet in works they deny him, being abominable and reprobate to every good work. Ever known anyone like that?
Read the following passage from Matthew 5:
5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I was arguing with Albert that the Law they were to keep was the Mosaic Law. He couldn't prove otherwise, can you? Moreover, James per Acts 21 WAS keeping the Law (as was Paul) and conceded there that the Gentiles didn't have to. Yes, James emphasized the Royal Law of Love in his epistle also, but the two aren't contradictory.
quote:
By their interpretation or application of study, they get people to cut out anything that seems to indicate that if they do anything evil they will ever be judged for it. While at the same time relegating ALL works to being WORKS of the LAW that you are not under.
You know as well as I do that all sects have their own hermeneutical mechanisms to annul the word of God so they can pick and choose what they apply, so let's stick to the topic - some KIND of choice in applicability is inevitable, unless you want to keep the LAW!
quote:
I hope I have explained a litte here to show that James was not teaching anything other than Paul taught, and that his book is scripture, and is written to Jewish Christians who were under the very same gospel that Paul taught.
But how do you know Paul's epistles were written to Jewish Christians?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/5/2004 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | But how do you know Paul's epistles were written to Jewish Christians?
First I didn't say all of Paul's epistles were written to Jewish Christians, they were written to Jewish Christians and Gentiles Christians. That is they were written to those in Christ which comprised both believing Jews and believing Gentiles, but all were Christians and followers of "that way".
Rom. 1:7 To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First I thank my God though Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
He begins his adress to all both believing Jews and believing Gentiles equally. First he builds them up and then he gets to the heart of what he's going to reprove them for and then goes into specific reproof for the believing Jews, which comprises most of the epistle, and then he goes into what he's going to reprove the believing Gentiles for, and then at the end speaks to them in general terms as a whole.
Like for instance by 2:17 he is specifically talking to the believing Jews,
2:15 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowesth is will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law.
Then he reads them the riot act over what they've been doing. And then he goes on to explain more to them about the righteouness of Jesus Christ on the Gentiles even though the Gentiles haven't been instructed out of the LAW.
By chapter 7 he's still talking to the believing Jews.
7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man so long as he lives?
From there though 10 he's still trying to reason with the believing Jews and things about the Law and the gosple. Then in chapter 11 he starts to make a transition and speak to the believing Gentiles.
11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am an apostle of the Gentiles.
You just have to read the whole thing and see the transition of who he's talking to and the subject matter.
Though I give Paul a hard rap for running to the synagogue all the time, the truth is that in every synagogue there were Gentile converts to the Jewish faith. The Jews were really big on prosletizing and trying to draw the Gentiles into their religion and following the Law. This was because they believed that the Gentiles has to be converted to Isreal, before their messiah would come and hand the kingdom of God over to them. Like Corneilius was a Gentile convert to the Jewish religion.
Shoot, got to go to work.
God bless,
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/5/2004 12:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Paul went to the Gentiles and the other apostles went to the circumcision. This is clear from the verse in Galatians and the history of the Acts, as well as other verses.
It is clear that James and Peter wrote to Jews in their epistles. According to James, those believing Jews met in synagogues. Those believing Jews were called the "sect" of the Nazarenes by other Jews - why? because they were a "sect" of Judaism; otherwise they wouldn't even be CALLED Jews.
You still haven't dealt with the history of the Acts which shows all believing Jews, including Paul, keeping the Law. Nor have you dealt with Matthew 5 which is paramount in this discussion. It is this fact that makes any incidental reference (which I find questionable) to believing Jews in Paul's epistles irrelevant.
quote:
Like for instance by 2:17 he is specifically talking to the believing Jews,
2:15 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowesth is will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law.
This verse is equivocal; it could be like the one that says "Who art thou O man who sayest..." I.e., merely hypothetical.
quote:
By chapter 7 he's still talking to the believing Jews.
7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man so long as he lives?
This is also equivocal; it is perfectly conceivable that some believing Gentiles could have been familiar with the Law.
quote:
Though I give Paul a hard rap for running to the synagogue all the time, the truth is that in every synagogue there were Gentile converts to the Jewish faith. The Jews were really big on prosletizing and trying to draw the Gentiles into their religion and following the Law. This was because they believed that the Gentiles has to be converted to Isreal, before their messiah would come and hand the kingdom of God over to them. Like Corneilius was a Gentile convert to the Jewish religion.
Cornelius was NOT a proselyte, though, for he was uncircumcised.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by larris
He begins his adress to all both believing Jews and believing Gentiles equally.
! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2004 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW, 1Way:
My take on your use of 1 Cor. 13 is that you are trying to take is sentence-fragmane by sentence-fragment. I took it as whole paragraphs and a whole section. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2004 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
POW - What, in the context, clarifies your understanding of
believes all things?
Or does, "believes all things" not mean, "believe all things without question", but instead means, "believe all things within a certain contextual understanding"?
The fact that it is a paragraph. following that recognition, that Paul had a point to make, and not a collection of 'stray' puzzles to be figured out, I wrote this:
quote:
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.
The WHOLE chapter thirteen of First Corinthians has ONE POINT. Even the virtue that Luther elevated so highly, Faith, ONLY exists WITHIN Love.
Proof of what I'm saying is that chapter thirteen does not exist by itself. The POINT of both chapters twelve and fourteen are contained in thirteen -- and twelve and fourteen are meaningless without thirteen. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/6/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Paul went to the Gentiles and the other apostles went to the circumcision. This is clear from the verse in Galatians and the history of the Acts, as well as other verses. It is clear that James and Peter wrote to Jews in their epistles.
I would simply ask you, what do you think “THE CHURCH” consisted of? AND what does the term “SAME BODY” mean to you?
The manner in which you have been taught to look at the Bible, suggests that you think there were TWO Churches and TWO Gospels. One specially for Jews that only Jews went to and one especially for Gentiles that only Gentiles went to.
True Paul was PRIMARILY sent as an apostle to the Gentiles. And true Peter was primarily sent to the Jews. BUT their ministries OVERLAPPED. The way you’ve been taught, if Paul was to run into a Jew that wanted to believe the gospel, he’s have to say “SORRY I can’t talk to you, I’m ONLY sent to the Gentiles. Let me give you PETER’S phone number.” And if Peter were to run into a Gentile that wanted to hear the gospel, he have to say, “Well SORRY I’m not sent to you Gentiles, let me give you Aquilla and Priscilla’s address he’s staying with them.” And you have them preaching TWO complete and TOTALLY SEPARATE messages. “And ner the twain do meet.”
Then if it’s true that Peter and James only wrote to the Jews, and according to all of you here, they had a different gospel, that means that NO LONGER do any of the things said in them apply to any of you as Gentile Christians, like for instance.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which has not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Not only do Gentile Christians constantly apply this scripture to them. This verse also shows clearly that Peter was in fact writing to the believing Gentiles and not to the Jews, as those who taught you state:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
This among other references in 1st Peter clealy shows he was writing to Christain Gentiles.
If Peter only wrote this epistle to the Jews, this means that you Gentile Christians are NOT a royal priesthood, NOT a holy nation, not the ones called out of darkness into his marvelous light. However Peter did in fact write this epistle to the believing Gentiles, hence members of the SAME BODY as those believing Jews, of which he was one.
And if Peter only wrote this epistle to the Jews as you have been taught to believe, then he was telling them that in the past there really were not the people of God as God had tole them for several thousand years.
Obviously Peter didn’t know who he was supposed to write to. I guess he didn’t have the advantage of having the current Christian theology that says he was only supposed to write to the Jews. BECAUSE STUPID PETER, wrote his whole epistle to the Christian GENTILES, who had “come into the Israel of God”, of which he Peter was a member. The believing Gentiles were now along with believing Jews called “CHRISTIANS”, members of the SAME ecclesia and of the SAME body, with the SAME gospel. What Peter and Paul preached was interchangalbe to each.
1 Peter 4:16 YET if any man suffer as a CHRISTIAN, let him not be ashamed: but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Well maybe 2nd Peter was written to the Jews, maybe he GOT IT by then and did what dispensationalist tell him he was supposed to be doing.
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ to THEM WHO HAVE OBTAINED LIKE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH US.
Well gee, who, “obtained like preceious faith with us, THROUGH the righteousness of God and our savior Jesus Christ?
Who is “US”, hum, could it be THE JEWS? Don’t I recall PAUL teaching something along that line?
And not only, but if Peter wrote his letters of the Jews, only then he also LIED about Paul in this very letter.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsufferieng of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved bother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him HAS WRITTEN TO YOU.
So what is it? Did Paul really just write his letters to the JEWS, since according to what you have been led to believe Peter wrote this letter to the Jews, and he here states Paul wrote to them about the same things?
And account that the longsufferieng of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved bother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him HAS WRITTEN TO YOU. Speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as also they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter says he was writing to these GENTILES about the SAME things Paul had written to them about. But now we have a group telling us that Peter didn't write these scriptures to the Gentiles, that he wrote them to the Jews, and that Paul only wrote to the Gentiles. Sounds like we have exactly what Peter was talking about here, a teaching that corrupts what the scriptures are really saying.
Or did Peter just lie about Paul? Or Was Peter actually writing to the Gentiles here just like Paul and saying the same things Paul taught, that Christians today can’t see, because of all the lies they’ve been told about the bible?
I'm really sorry, sorry because you are repeating all of the same exact lies that I was taught and believed about the bible, that blinded me to what it is really saying. I repeated these things because that is what I had been taught. Therefore when I read the Bible I read these false statements right into it. You just repeat this stuff because that is also what you have been taught.
They (whom we trust) make these false statements and then pick out a few scriptures that seem on the surface to prove it. Then we pick it up and pass it on, and every time we read the Word we read those lies right into it, and thus are blinded to the truth of what is actually being said. They make us involuntary liars, and teach us to handle the Word of God deceitfully, by applying a rule of interpretation that says "those books were written to someone else and don't apply to you, OH GENTILE CHRISTIAN", when in fact they were actually written to the Gentiles and apply in application of the truth, to both believing Jew and Gentile which are of the SAME BODY, hence "CHRISTIANS".
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/6/2004 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul went to the Gentiles and the other apostles went to the circumcision. This is clear from the verse in Galatians and the history of the Acts, as well as other verses. It is clear that James and Peter wrote to Jews in their epistles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would simply ask you, what do you think “THE CHURCH” consisted of? AND what does the term “SAME BODY” mean to you?
I would have appreciated it if you would have dealt with what I wrote. But Paul says in 1 COR. that JEWS and Gentiles were baptized into one body. A Jew is one who keeps the law. The verse doesn't say that they ceased to be Jews after their baptism into one body.
quote:
The manner in which you have been taught to look at the Bible, suggests that you think there were TWO Churches and TWO Gospels. One specially for Jews that only Jews went to and one especially for Gentiles that only Gentiles went to.
Nope; Paul says both JEWS and Gentiles in ONE BODY. But it IS clear that Paul went to Gentiles and the other apostles went to JEWS. WHY in your opinion was this necessary?? Why did the gospel have to go to the Jew first?? Why are the believing Jews called the "natural branches" and the gentiles called "unnatural branches."
quote:
True Paul was PRIMARILY sent as an apostle to the Gentiles. And true Peter was primarily sent to the Jews. BUT their ministries OVERLAPPED. The way you’ve been taught, if Paul was to run into a Jew that wanted to believe the gospel, he’s have to say “SORRY I can’t talk to you, I’m ONLY sent to the Gentiles.
Don't be so presumptuous as to know what I believe, please. We haven't hashed it all out YET. I've already said things that absolutely contradict what you wrote above!
quote:
Then if it’s true that Peter and James only wrote to the Jews, and according to all of you here, they had a different gospel, that means that NO LONGER do any of the things said in them apply to any of you as Gentile Christians, like for instance.
I've already said things that absolutely contradict what you wrote above!
quote:
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which has not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Not only do Gentile Christians constantly apply this scripture to them. This verse also shows clearly that Peter was in fact writing to the believing Gentiles and not to the Jews, as those who taught you state:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
This among other references in 1st Peter clealy shows he was writing to Christain Gentiles.
Peter expressly said he was writing to dispersed ones, just like James. It seems clear to me that they are Jews. Moreover, the Exodous passage is about Israel!!
quote:
If Peter only wrote this epistle to the Jews, this means that you Gentile Christians are NOT a royal priesthood, NOT a holy nation, not the ones called out of darkness into his marvelous light.
So?? Would that be the end of the world to you??
quote:
1 Peter 4:16 YET if any man suffer as a CHRISTIAN, let him not be ashamed: but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Well maybe 2nd Peter was written to the Jews, maybe he GOT IT by then and did what dispensationalist tell him he was supposed to be doing.
I don't see any logical connection between 1 Peter 4:16 and your comment.
quote:
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ to THEM WHO HAVE OBTAINED LIKE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH US.
Well gee, who, “obtained like preceious faith with us, THROUGH the righteousness of God and our savior Jesus Christ?
Who is “US”, hum, could it be THE JEWS? Don’t I recall PAUL teaching something along that line?
I'm going to tell you one more time: There are themes that are consistent throughout the Bible, others that are consistent within the NT; and others that are consistent within the post-ressurection epistles. So you can get off this bandwagon any minute now. It proves nothing. If there are differences, the similarities don't negate them.
quote:
And not only, but if Peter wrote his letters of the Jews, only then he also LIED about Paul in this very letter.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsufferieng of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved bother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him HAS WRITTEN TO YOU.
So what is it? Did Paul really just write his letters to the JEWS, since according to what you have been led to believe Peter wrote this letter to the Jews, and he here states Paul wrote to them about the same things?
Read the whole verse: "as ALSO in ALL his epistles." Thus, not ALL his epistles were written to Jews. I think the book of Hebrews was written by Paul to Jews. That solves both parts of the passage. The other epistles of Paul WERE written to Gentiles.
And please, deal with the issues I raised previously. Namely, the Matthew 5 passage and the fact that the believing Jews WERE keeping the Law during Acts!
I will tone down when you do.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/6/2004 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
Though it is true that in Acts some Jewish believers in Jesus continued to keep the law of Moses, it became clear during that early stage of the church that law-keeping in and of itself did not justify anyone, and thus came to be viewed as definitely optional. (Acts 10, 11, 13:39, and esp. Acts 15) To be sure, I'm not referring to the moral law of "love God, love neighbor," which is clearly binding upon all who claim to be Christians.
Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Gal 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 ¶ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (This simply must refer to Jews).
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
"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 6/6/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | POW - So by your answer, you do not know if one should believe all things without exception or not. So the test is simple. Should everyone believe the following? That God is evil and will not save anyone?
That Jesus is a fraud and should be hated instead of loved? Again, I am NOT saying that the paragraph and the surrounding context and chapter lends no further development. What I am saying is that the writer most certainly is holding an unwritten assumption that he definitely expects us to understand, so that when we find him saying
"believe all things"
we rightly and reasonable rule out the idea that we are to believe all things without exception. Obviously we are not to believe against God. If you have no answer to the contextual understanding that shapes your view, then so be it, again I find you promoting a biblically vague faith, and praise God, He saves biblically vague people. But, if you do understand why we are not supposed to believe all things without exception, then please feel welcome to explain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/6/2004 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Co 13:4 Love suffers long [and] is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. So is that
believes all things without exception?
Or is that
believes all things with implied exceptions? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/6/2004 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | It is amazing but sad that such a simple and foundational bible issue gives many so much difficulty. | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 6/7/2004 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff, You stated: "Now that we are "out of His flesh and out of His bones," the distinction of the flesh that made Jews "natural branches" and the Gentiles "unnatural branches" is no longer relevant. The temple is destroyed, and the Israelites are now "NOT MY PEOPLE" (see Hosea)."
Jeff, you are making the same mistake I made for years, which is assuming that every time the term “Israel” is used in the Bible it’s referring to the Jews as a whole. The reference you gave above is not referring to the Israel around at the time of Jesus, but to the Northern Kingdom of Israel as opposed to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Which TWO kingdoms came about after the death of Solomon.
Hosea is specifically referring to the Northern Kingdom called “Israel”, which consisted of the northern 10 tribes of Isreal, and was later conquered by Assyria. At that same time the Southern Kingdom consisted primarily of only TWO tribes, Judah and Benjamen. The Northern kingdom was called Israel and the Southern Kingdom was called Judah. The confusion comes in because when the 12 tribes were united the whole kingdom was called “Israel”. But then after the civil war the Northern 10 Tribes nation was called Israel, and the 2 Southern Tribes called Judah. And it was the kingdom of Judah that was around at the time of Jesus, which was again called Israel.
Hosea was speaking of what would happen to the Northern Tribes, the Northern Kingdom called “Israel” NOT the Israel that existed at the time of Jesus. If you don’t know the history of the Kingdom of Israel it is very easy to make this mistake.
As I read your replies I am coming to see what kind of Dispensationalism you are using to interpret the Bible. As in what you say here:
quote:
It is my belief that Paul received NEW revelation after Acts that explains why believing Israelites today don't keep the Law. Romans 9 made it clear that the "flesh" was a relevant distinction between the believing Jews and believing Gentiles during Acts. But when we get to the post-Acts epistles of Paul, we see him talking about a "circumcision of the Christ" which "puts off" the "body of the flesh." Ephesians is even more clear - we are "out of His flesh and out of His bones." This is a BODY definition different than that given in the Acts epistles. In those epistles, the ONE BODY was defined as having to do with Christ's ONE spirit being in MANY physical bodies (of believers).
Now that we are "out of His flesh and out of His bones," the distinction of the flesh that made Jews "natural branches" and the Gentiles "unnatural branches" is no longer relevant. The temple is destroyed, and the Israelites are now "NOT MY PEOPLE" (see Hosea). The kingdom has been delayed again, just as it was after the Exodous (see Acts 7) and when it was revealed to Daniel that the 70 years was to be extended to 70 sabbaths of years. But the promises (physical and spiritual) to Israel WILL come to pass. They are NOT to be spiritualized away.
You speak of “Acts” and then you speak of what you call the “Acts Epistles” and the “Post Acts” epistles. So am I to take it that you believe Romans would be an “Acts Epistle”, that is written during the time frame of the book of Acts. And some later epistle such as Ephesians would be a “post Acts” epistle meaning that it was written after the book of Acts. Is this why you believe that Paul received new revelation after Acts.
So then which epistles do you consider Acts Epistles and Post Acts epistles exactly? What is the distinction and division you are making here. I need to know before we can continue this discussion.
Nevermind,I just typed in "post Acts epistles" to the search engine and found out why you believe as you do. It's been a few years since I checked out anything more on the advancement of the Dispensational perversions of supposedly rightly dividing the scriptures. Post Acts et. is just another form of this.
I read Bob Patenaude division of the epistles into Acts, Epistles, Acts Period Epistles and General Epistles, that explaned this form of Dispensationalism further. And as I read, I almost felt as if I was reading something you wrote. I did not realize that you had been indoctrinated into this form of theology, being as it was to me, old as far as method but new as far as just another means of division.
At first I was kind of shocked and upset, sickened and disgusted at how they do not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord, by using a type of SORCERY of deception in cutting up the Word of God. But THEN I just thought IT FIGGURES! Like what happened to me, I see that others have just swallowed another form of this theology hook, line and sinker. I recognized so much of what it said on that web sight in what you wrote. (and I've edited this post so many times, who knows what version you will get.)
In reading Bob Patenaude's page, I thought I was reading something you wrote since so much of what you said was exactly the same. I really understand how this happens since I was a parrot for years to the dispensational theology that was indoctrniated into my thinking.
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 6/7/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Jefscott - LOL, sorry brother, I am with you, and I am for you, but, I am also for these others even though they are not being very responsive. I've put in a request for an extra truck load of blessings sent your way with priority service, as we all wait for folks to respond to what the contextual presumption is for 1Co 13, especially verse 7b.
I only have responses from you and POW, and maybe that will be all I get. ??? This thread's participants; John, Larris, SwanLake, have not responded. Well, SwanLake has responded, but not after my clarification over what I am specifically seeking.
John, Larris, SwanLake, if you are interested, please consider my two recent post dated 06/07/2004, the first two, the one that starts as addressed to POW, and then answer the second of those two. This exercise shouldn't take more than a minuet or two of your valuable time.
Thanks,
1Way | | Back to Top | | |
|
SwanLake
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/7/2004 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
SwanLake - You said quote:
Some love "bares" all things.
But all love should "bear" all things. HTH
What does "HTH" mean?
Hope This Helps
quote:
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 "bare" with them, we personally reject them and we are being loving when we do that, God does not teach unloving things. "Baring" something lends the idea
"bear a burden, bear with them"
"bare your soul, bare your behind"
You're reading too much into it, I was merely being anal retentive and correcting your misspelling in an, apparently, unhumorous way.
 sorry....
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me." -- Jack Handey | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/7/2004 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | SwanLake - Sorry for missing the spelling error, thanks for the correction. Here, let me help matters.
Ha haha, he hehe, ho hoho, ha ha haa ha
Eh hmm. There, see, it was not all a loss.
So, please do tell, what is your response to the following.
Love ... believes all things ... - Does that mean, love believes all things without exception,
or
- Does that mean, love believes all things within presumed limits
Inquiring minds want to know.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/7/2004 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | And then, if you really feel ambitious, you could even explain you thoughts for what the presumption is that rightly limits the range of meaning involved. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/7/2004 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Ending your posts with,
In Christ,
larris
doesn't whitewash your shamelessly insulting posts. Can you even define humility and meekness??? Please deal with the questions I have begged you to explain!!
It may come as another disgusting shock to you, but I came to my views independently of ANY other writer. I found 2 people who held similar views after the fact. The internet didn't even exist at that time. When I found, via the internet, that there were even more people who held similar views, I was somewhat surprised.
So PLEASE quit being presumptuous about me. Because the old proverb about what ASSUMING does is being utterly fulfilled in YOU. It may come as another disgusting shock to you, but you're NOT OMNISCIENT!!! You know virtually nothing about me, but feel free to insult me in your IGNORANCE!!!!!!! For the love of decency, CALM DOWN and address my questions if you want to have a respectful, meaningful debate.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 6/7/2004 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Jefscott - Blessings. Smile, he is hard core.
And I think you know this, but this is to add to your point about Larris's lack of reponsiveness.
This entire thread, although entitled The PreTrib Rapture, and Mystery stuff, I put off the rapture stuff to first deal with one single issue. The uniqueness and nature of the revelation that was given to Paul to give to us for the teachings of this dispensation.
Yet, to date, and after post after post after post, my requests for folks to deal with this single primary foundational issue, has been met with ,,, nothing but aversion.
Bless God, His word is true, God says that the revelation for this dispensation was kept hidden in Him until it was entrusted to Paul to give to us. And what much more need be said! It's not according to all other revelation (although some tangents and crossover may apply), our entire dispensation is not according to Israel's well exposed prophetic plan.
The last thing one would expect to find is that Paul's mystery rapture is the same thing as the prophetic second coming, or that our exception to the prophetic program with Israel should become all mixed up together (i.e. the gentiles should go through the tribulation {not true}). Yet that is exactly what people do by fundamentally neglecting and essentially violating this most amazing teaching,
that the revelation for this dispensation, was not otherwise revealed until it was give to Paul.
Don't feel too bad, Larris may mean well, but speaking so many false presumptions presents many problem not easily corrected. I ask him about the nature of the revelation for this dispensation, and he never responds commensurately, instead he picks a tangent rabbit trail and off he goes. So I guess that is like winning the point by no contest. (chuckles) Go figure.
Overall, I am sort of winging it, about both issues, the mystery revelation and love's assumed underwriting. And I'm having an absolute blast doing it. As a refresher, I am tying in the common practice of first understanding the rhetorical info in terms of what the writer has in mind, including presuppositions, so that just as we naturally insert a presupposition into famous passages like the love chapter, so too should we rightly and naturally insert proper presuppositions into our mystery teachings, namely that somehow these teachings are not according to other revelation, so seek to also understand the differences that matter.
I would like to get to know you better and share some more specifics, please let me know if we can communicate privately. In the mean time, I'm going to have to come up with something good about the assumed context underwriting the love chapter, where 13:7.b clearly shows that one exists, as you already affirmed. I "think" I can do it some justice, but I am taking a very laid back approach to it, although I think I have a pretty good handle on biblical morality and God's attributes. Thanks again for your time. | | 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 4:05 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 |
|
|