User Tag List

Page 1 of 188 12341151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 2818

Thread: How is Paul's message different?

  1. #1
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,834 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147754

    How is Paul's message different?

    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    How is Paul's message different?
    How is it not different?

    I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

    They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

    No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.

    Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

    That idea is exclusive to Paul!

    Further, there are lots and lots of doctrinal debates in the church that have persisted for centuries and a great many of them, if not all of them, fall along the lines of Paul vs Peter, James & John.

    Is water baptism required for salvation?

    If you say, "Yes", you'll cite the New Testament books NOT written by Paul, including the Gospels.

    If you say, "No", you'll cite nothing at all but the books written by Paul.

    The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

    All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    P.S. Here's an excellent example of just the sort of doctrinal debate I'm talking about. Skim through the first several posts and take note of the proof texts on each side...

    Swine Sausage - Sin?

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2018),Right Divider (March 31st, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  3. #2
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    How is it not different?

    I invite you to answer the questions I just posed to LA.

    They illustrate just two of the differences between Paul and the twelve but to give you a direct answer, the difference is the Gospel of Grace.

    No one other than Paul preached the gospel of grace - no one. Not Jesus, not Peter nor James nor John nor anyone else.
    Are these different gospels than the gospel of grace because they are not called the gospel of grace?
    Rom. 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son,
    Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God,
    Phil. 1:27 Watever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
    Eph. 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

    Because Paul is the only one to use the term "gospel of grace" does not make it a different gospel. They are all based on Christ.
    Wretched man that I am.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to turbosixx For Your Post:

    dodge (July 28th, 2018),meshak (April 6th, 2018)

  5. #3
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Is water baptism required for salvation?
    Didnít Paul baptize believers? If he was given a gospel that doesnít require baptism for salvation, why did he baptize believers? In one case he batized them a second time.

    I do not see where he stopped the practice or preached it's cessation.
    Wretched man that I am.

  6. #4
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,834 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Are these different gospels than the gospel of grace because they are not called the gospel of grace?
    Rom. 1:9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son,
    Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God,
    Phil. 1:27 Watever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
    Eph. 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

    Because Paul is the only one to use the term "gospel of grace" does not make it a different gospel. They are all based on Christ.
    Well Christ is of course what the Gospel of Grace has primarily in common with the Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve.

    I should point out, for the sake of clarity, that the concept of grace is not exclusive to Paul. Even the Law, what I am referring to as the Kingdom Gospel, was under-girded by grace because no one is capable of perfect observance of the the Law. What is exclusive to Paul is the idea of salvation and righteousness being imputed entirely apart from works. It's salvation by grace through faith plus nothing that is exclusive to Paul.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  8. #5
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The same is true about whether works are required for salvation, or whether you can lost your salvation, or speaking in tongues, or whether the rapture will occur before or after the Tribulation, or whether you should only eat certain kinds of foods, or whether you should observe the Sabbath or tithe or obey the Ten Commandments, etc, etc.

    All of these seemingly unrelated issues, and many more, all fall along the lines of Paul vs the rest of the Biblical authors and so I'm not being flippant at all when I say that the list of what isn't different is much shorter than the list of things which are different. Very nearly the whole thing is different because the difference is literally the difference between observance of the law being required vs. observance of the law being prohibited.
    I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers. Their audiences are at times different but the elements of the gospel are in agreement. For example, I see Paul and James in agreement.
    Wretched man that I am.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to turbosixx For Your Post:

    dodge (June 17th, 2018)

  10. #6
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    What is exclusive to Paul is the idea of salvation and righteousness being imputed entirely apart from works. It's salvation by grace through faith plus nothing that is exclusive to Paul.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

    1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

    Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?
    Wretched man that I am.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to turbosixx For Your Post:

    meshak (April 6th, 2018)

  12. #7
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,834 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Didn’t Paul baptize believers? If he was given a gospel that doesn’t require baptism for salvation, why did he baptize believers? In one case he batized them a second time.

    I do not see where he stopped the practice or preached it's cessation.
    The details of this specific debate would be a topic for another thread.

    Do you not see the point I'm making, even if you can't intuit the details?

    I didn't bring all of those issues up so we could debate them, I brought them up to answer your question. Go find a debate somewhere about water baptism and see if what I told you was accurate. Those holding the position that it is required will cite non-Pauline biblical sources and accept them at face value while taking Pauline passages and explaining how they don't mean what they seem to say or else just ignoring them altogether.

    There are, I'm sure, occasional exceptions to this general rule but spend some time researching it if you don't believe me. The pattern is completely obvious.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  14. #8
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,834 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

    1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

    Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?
    I know for a fact that he did. Romans 4:5

    Is there any chance at all that you are going to respond to the actual point of my comments or do you only wish to drag this off into the weeds?

    Were you actually asking the question I answered or were you preaching?

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  16. #9
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The details of this specific debate would be a topic for another thread.

    Do you not see the point I'm making, even if you can't intuit the details?

    I didn't bring all of those issues up so we could debate them, I brought them up to answer your question. Go find a debate somewhere about water baptism and see if what I told you was accurate. Those holding the position that it is required will cite non-Pauline biblical sources and accept them at face value while taking Pauline passages and explaining how they don't mean what they seem to say or else just ignoring them altogether.

    There are, I'm sure, occasional exceptions to this general rule but spend some time researching it if you don't believe me. The pattern is completely obvious.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    I agree this is another matter but my point was I don't see them answering my questions because I don't agree with the fact that Paul didn't view baptism as not necessary.

    I've studied this but see holes in peoples reasoning, which I know we all do.
    Wretched man that I am.

  17. #10
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,830
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 9,947 Times in 6,964 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147800
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers.
    You are either stupid or evil. There is no possible way to draw that conclusion.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2018),lifeisgood (April 18th, 2018),Right Divider (March 31st, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  19. #11
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I know for a fact that he did. Romans 4:5

    Is there any chance at all that you are going to respond to the actual point of my comments or do you only wish to drag this off into the weeds?

    Were you actually asking the question I answered or were you preaching?
    I'm trying to address your proof points and your right, it has gotten off track. Sorry.

    I am trying to answer. Your points of what Paul preached that is different I don't agree with.
    Wretched man that I am.

  20. #12
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks
    366
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,834 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147754
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I see total agreement between Paul and the other writers. Their audiences are at times different but the elements of the gospel are in agreement. For example, I see Paul and James in agreement.
    There is only two ways you can say this.

    1. You are ignorant of what one or the other teach in Scripture.

    2. You make one or the other of them say something other than what it seems like they are saying by having simply read the words they wrote.

    It is almost always the later.

    As an example...

    Please explain how Romans 4:4-6 and James 2:14-17 are in agreement.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (April 7th, 2018),Ktoyou (June 19th, 2018),lifeisgood (April 18th, 2018),Right Divider (March 31st, 2018),Tambora (March 29th, 2018)

  22. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,404
    Thanks
    18,066
    Thanked 16,572 Times in 13,015 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I suggest to you that Paul did not preach faith plus nothing.

    1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

    Their being saved by the gospel is conditional. Also, how does one believe the gospel in vain?
    Paul is only stressing that we must believe and never stop believing, I don't know why people point to the word if. It simply means to remember to believe what he taught.

    in vain means - for nothing; doing something with no results.

  23. #14
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
    You are either stupid or evil. There is no possible way to draw that conclusion.
    I don't think I'm evil but I'm not sure I'm not stupid. There are times it looks that way.

    That conclusion can be drawn and I'd be glad to explain.
    Wretched man that I am.

  24. #15
    Over 3000 post club turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,558
    Thanks
    174
    Thanked 269 Times in 240 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134747
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    Paul is only stressing that we must believe and never stop believing, I don't know why people point to the word if. It simply means remember to believe what he taught.
    Can someone stop believing? They sure can stop following Christ and therefore believed in vain.
    Wretched man that I am.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to turbosixx For Your Post:

    meshak (April 6th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us