User Tag List

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 5121314151617 LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 246

Thread: Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?

  1. #211
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    James says that faith without works cannot save you. Paul says the exact opposite.
    Hope I can present this in a way that it flows and makes sense.
    It looks like they are saying the exact opposite. What I find very interesting about these two passages is that both writers turn to the same OT verse to support their point,
    Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
    Jam. 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
    This is where context comes in as you had mentioned before. I would suggest to you that Paul and James are not speaking about the same “works”. Works is a general term and needs a qualifier to know what specific work is being spoken of. In the absence of a qualifier, assumptions are made so then we must turn to the context.

    In Romans, Paul is speaking about the specific works “of the law”.
    He tells them even with/without the law everyone is under sin, 3:9, and that no human can be justified in God’s sight by works “of the law”.
    3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
    With our 20/20 vision we understand that the Law cannot make one perfect because it didn’t have the blood of Christ to back it.

    Paul says but now man can be made righteous apart from the law.
    3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
    This is something the believing Jews are struggling with, understandably. They can’t imagine being justified before God without following God’s law that they have been following for 1,500+ years. Paul continues.
    3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works “of the law”.
    So to prove to them they can be found righteous without the law and without circumcision, Paul uses Abraham to show them .
    4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
    Paul is telling the Jews that before the Law and even before circumcision, God found Abraham righteous. Making the point they can be righteous without them. So, when Paul says 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, is not talking about works done in Christ but in works “of the law”. That's the context.

    The “works” James is speaking of are the fruits of the Spirit. We know the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness, self-control. It appears they were not acting with the love they should have for one another. He reminds them of the law to point out that they are not even in good standing with it and then tells them, 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. Law of liberty being under Christ unlike the law of bondage.

    He then explains to them how the law of liberty works. Even though they are no longer under the Law of works, our faith without works “of the Spirit” is dead. He uses an example they are familiar with to prove his point.
    2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
    James says that in Abraham doing so fulfilled the scripture.
    2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—


    Paul never says we are saved by “faith alone” or faith "without" works(of Spirit).
    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
    Faith "alone" is not in the passage. I see many quote this passage adding the word "alone". Paul says not as a “result”. It does not say “without” works but actually implies those saved will have works, especially when considering the context. Our salvation is not a result of our works.

    5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, Again, this is not saying He saves us “without” works but NOT BECAUSE OF works done by us.

    I’m told that we are saved by "faith alone". Faith alone is faith without works but Paul never tells us that.
    It is impossible to be saved BY works. Works, any works whether “of the Law” or works done in Christ cannot save us. Our works are filthy rags and simply our duty. There is absolutely no work we could ever do in order to be saved. That is why it’s by grace.
    Wretched man that I am.

  2. #212
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and it happened in Acts 2:17 the HOLY SPIRIT in the LAST DAYS is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE and has yet to happen !!
    Acts 2:17 is a QUOTE from the OT which was looking to the future of Pentecost. Look what the verse before verse 17, it says.
    16:16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Acts 2:38 also has no WATER as they will receive the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT !!
    What are you basing this on?

    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    The other is in Acts 10:44 the HOLY SPIRIT FELL UPON THEM !!
    They were baptized with water in this passage.
    Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
    WHY were they water baptized "in the name of" Jesus after having received the HS?

    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    BAPTISM is the Greek word BAPTISMA
    Yep and it means the rite of baptism, immersion, dipping
    Wretched man that I am.

  3. #213
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,460
    Thanks
    13,868
    Thanked 21,384 Times in 12,057 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147707

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Yep and it means the rite of baptism, immersion, dipping
    Mat 20:22-23 KJV But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    steko (June 12th, 2019)

  5. #214
    Over 6000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,277
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 1,062 Times in 775 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    304591
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Acts 2:17 is a QUOTE from the OT which was looking to the future of Pentecost. Look what the verse before verse 17, it says.
    16:16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:


    What are you basing this on?


    They were baptized with water in this passage.
    Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
    WHY were they water baptized "in the name of" Jesus after having received the HS?


    Yep and it means the rite of baptism, immersion, dipping
    Hi and it does not !!

    Heb 6:1 and 2 are very clear that we are to LEAVE / FORSAKE the teaching of Christ and verse 2 are to forsake BAPTISMS !!

    dan p

  6. #215
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and it does not !!

    Heb 6:1 and 2 are very clear that we are to LEAVE / FORSAKE the teaching of Christ and verse 2 are to forsake BAPTISMS !!

    dan p
    I would suggest you look at the context. The writer is rebuking them for not having moved past these elementary principles. Look at the previous chapter.

    Heb. 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,

    Are we to FORSAKE faith toward God??
    6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.



    Why did Paul lay hands on them AFTER they were baptized in the name of Jesus?
    Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.


    IF baptized "in the name of" Jesus is NOT water, WHAT is it and HOW is it done?
    Last edited by turbosixx; June 12th, 2019 at 04:18 PM.
    Wretched man that I am.

  7. #216
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,460
    Thanks
    13,868
    Thanked 21,384 Times in 12,057 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147707

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I would suggest you look at the context. The writer is rebuking them for not having moved past these elementary principles. Look at the previous chapter.

    Heb. 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,

    Are we to FORSAKE faith toward God??
    6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
    The book to the HEBREWS has nothing to do with the body of Christ.
    Much can be learned from it, but trying to apply ITS doctrines to the body of Christ is pure chaos.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 12th, 2019),steko (June 12th, 2019)

  9. #217
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,586
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 6,782 Times in 3,612 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147773
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Hope I can present this in a way that it flows and makes sense.
    It looks like they are saying the exact opposite. What I find very interesting about these two passages is that both writers turn to the same OT verse to support their point,
    Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
    Jam. 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
    This is where context comes in as you had mentioned before. I would suggest to you that Paul and James are not speaking about the same “works”. Works is a general term and needs a qualifier to know what specific work is being spoken of. In the absence of a qualifier, assumptions are made so then we must turn to the context.

    In Romans, Paul is speaking about the specific works “of the law”.
    He tells them even with/without the law everyone is under sin, 3:9, and that no human can be justified in God’s sight by works “of the law”.
    3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
    With our 20/20 vision we understand that the Law cannot make one perfect because it didn’t have the blood of Christ to back it.

    Paul says but now man can be made righteous apart from the law.
    3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
    This is something the believing Jews are struggling with, understandably. They can’t imagine being justified before God without following God’s law that they have been following for 1,500+ years. Paul continues.
    3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works “of the law”.
    So to prove to them they can be found righteous without the law and without circumcision, Paul uses Abraham to show them .
    4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
    Paul is telling the Jews that before the Law and even before circumcision, God found Abraham righteous. Making the point they can be righteous without them. So, when Paul says 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, is not talking about works done in Christ but in works “of the law”. That's the context.

    The “works” James is speaking of are the fruits of the Spirit. We know the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness, self-control. It appears they were not acting with the love they should have for one another. He reminds them of the law to point out that they are not even in good standing with it and then tells them, 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. Law of liberty being under Christ unlike the law of bondage.

    He then explains to them how the law of liberty works. Even though they are no longer under the Law of works, our faith without works “of the Spirit” is dead. He uses an example they are familiar with to prove his point.
    2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
    James says that in Abraham doing so fulfilled the scripture.
    2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says,“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—


    Paul never says we are saved by “faith alone” or faith "without" works(of Spirit).
    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
    Faith "alone" is not in the passage. I see many quote this passage adding the word "alone". Paul says not as a “result”. It does not say “without” works but actually implies those saved will have works, especially when considering the context. Our salvation is not a result of our works.

    5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, Again, this is not saying He saves us “without” works but NOT BECAUSE OF works done by us.

    I’m told that we are saved by "faith alone". Faith alone is faith without works but Paul never tells us that.
    It is impossible to be saved BY works. Works, any works whether “of the Law” or works done in Christ cannot save us. Our works are filthy rags and simply our duty. There is absolutely no work we could ever do in order to be saved. That is why it’s by grace.
    All of that to say that Paul is the one that didn't mean what it seems like he means when you just read the passage but James got it clearly stated in one sentence and all you have to do is read it.

    I have never found ANYONE who claims that they take both passages to mean what they say who actually did it. Not one single person! (That is, no one who didn't already hold to a Mid-Acts Dispensational doctrinal system.)

    This is to be expected however, right? I mean, it's pretty obvious that one or the other is going to have to be "interpreted" in order for them to be in agreement because the face value conflict between the two passages is completely obvious and undeniable. You begin youe post with "It looks like they are saying the exact opposite." Yes! It sure does! It looks like it because they are, in fact, saying opposite things. Not only are they saying opposite things, they should be saying opposite things! If they weren't there would be a big problem. It would throw Paul's entire ministry into question. There is simply no need for Paul if his gospel was the same as that of The Twelve.

    Further, I submit to you that you do not believe that it was Paul who was less than perfectly clear for any good biblical reason but rather you construct your defense of your position because of your preexisting doctrine. The proof of this is that it won't just be salvation by works where you de-emphasize Paul's writings and interpret them in the light of the other New Testament writers. You will, instinctively and usually unconsciously, lean toward the law and away from grace.

    For example, based on what you've done here with Paul's writings on the issue of salvation by faith requiring works, it is likely that you will believe...
    • That you have to get wet to get saved (of course this one was easy )
    • That you can lose your salvation.
    • That the Ten Commandments should be followed by Christians.
    • That there is no rapture (or at least no pre-tribulation rapture).
    • Avoiding "unclean" foods (i.e. pork and shell fish, etc) might be a good idea.


    Short on time! Sorry that's not a more thorough response!

    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; June 13th, 2019 at 06:08 AM.

    "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

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 12th, 2019),Right Divider (June 13th, 2019),steko (June 12th, 2019),way 2 go (June 14th, 2019)

  11. #218
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,460
    Thanks
    13,868
    Thanked 21,384 Times in 12,057 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147707

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I would suggest you look at the context.
    Indeed.... HEBREWS!
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Clete (June 13th, 2019),JudgeRightly (June 13th, 2019),steko (June 14th, 2019)

  13. #219
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    All of that to say that Paul is the one that didn't mean what it seems like he means
    Paul said exactly what he meant to say and makes it perfectly clear. Justified apart from works of the law.
    28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

    Works is a general term and adding a qualifier makes it a specific set of works. For example, by saying just "works" one could possibly mean works of darkness.
    11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

    Paul adding "of the Law" eliminates every other type of work.

    If all you're trying to do is narrow down what category of heretic to put me in, Fool is fine with me. I personally would rather discuss scripture than why I'm an idiot. I know you haven't called me that but all you have been doing is pointing out what's wrong with me. Telling me what you think won't help me to see that Paul is not speaking of works "of the law". Addressing the context and pointing out what I'm missing will.



    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    You will, instinctively and usually unconsciously, lean toward the law and away from grace.
    I don't think you have figured out what I believe yet. I believe we are NOT under the Law of Moses and we(non-Jews)have NEVER been. The Jews are not even under it today.

    I'm curious, how do you think these people were saved? Law or grace? or other?
    Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
    Wretched man that I am.

  14. #220
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,586
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 6,782 Times in 3,612 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147773
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Paul said exactly what he meant to say and makes it perfectly clear. Justified apart from works of the law.
    So was James.

    James tells us not only that he was writing to Jews (James 1:1) but that his followers were zealous for the law. (Acts 21:20)
    Not only that but he references the law several times most prominently in chapter 2 verses 8 through 12.

    Further, Paul states the Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised (before Genesis 9) but James states that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar (Genisis 22).

    It is not possible for you to find any way around that one. Paul explicitly states that "faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness" at some point before Genesis 9 when he was circumcised (Romans 4:9) while James explicitly states that "Abraham our father [was] justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar" in Genesis 22 (James 2:21).

    There is no way they aren't making opposite points. It's as plain as can be - IF - all you do is read it.

    If all you're trying to do is narrow down what category of heretic to put me in, Fool is fine with me.
    What? Who said anything about being a heretic?

    I'm talking about the way you interpret the bible. Your paradigm literally has made you think you take passages at face value when you absolutely do not. I'm not suggesting that you're doing it intentionally. In fact, quite the contrary. You are, in fact, quite entirely blind to it. All I am doing is showing it to you in the hopes that you'll see it and accept the possibility that there is an objectively superior way to go about doing biblical theology.

    I personally would rather discuss scripture than why I'm an idiot.
    Look, you need to cool your jets. What are you new around here or what? Have you ever seen me insinuate that someone is stupid? Or is it not my regular mode to simply tell someone plainly that they are stupid? Trust me, if I was trying to say that you were stupid, there'd be no room for doubt about what I was trying to say because I would use the words "You" and "are" and "stupid!" in that order.

    I can tell you that if I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't even be engaged in this conversation.

    I know you haven't called me that but all you have been doing is pointing out what's wrong with me.
    Well, it's not as if I've been simply making that claim without supporting it with reasonable arguments. This is, after all, a website where people who disagree with eachother come to hash things out. That's sort of the whole point of being here.

    Besides, I don't disagree with you any more than you do with me, right? So why don't I feel attacked by you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong for saying that Paul and James are saying opposite things? You've made that claim and made a solid argument. It isn't my fault if I don't engage the debate in a fashion that would require me to accept your premise (i.e. accept your biblical paradigm).

    Telling me what you think won't help me to see that Paul is not speaking of works "of the law". Addressing the context and pointing out what I'm missing will.
    It should help you! Do you think that it's coincidence that I guessed your position on most, if not all, of those doctrinal issues correctly?

    It isn't a coincidence!

    I agree that I could have been more thorough with my previous response but I was short on time. Hopefully, this post has rectified that.

    I don't think you have figured out what I believe yet. I believe we are NOT under the Law of Moses and we(non-Jews)have NEVER been. The Jews are not even under it today.
    Which of those doctrines did I guess wrong? (The last one is always pretty iffy.)

    I'm curious, how do you think these people were saved? Law or grace? or other?
    Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
    There is no question about it. I don't even have to read the passage (although I am familiar with it). Anyone saved prior to Acts 9 (and several after that point) were saved under the Kingdom Gospel and were brought into the the family of God under the previous dispensation and were, therefore, required to obey the Law just as Jesus did and taught. Anyone who became a believer became a member of the Kingdom of Israel. Virtually all, if not all, of them were Jews and simply accepted Jesus as their Messiah and would have believe and functioned in a manner consistent with being Jews, observing the Sabbaths (all of them) avoiding unclean foods, tithing, baptizing, etc, etc.

    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; June 14th, 2019 at 05:56 PM.

    "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 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 14th, 2019),Right Divider (June 15th, 2019),way 2 go (June 14th, 2019)

  16. #221
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    So was James.
    Just to be sure we're on the same page. We both agree that Paul and James are saying that man can be justified apart from (without) works “of the law”.? You surprised me, I didn’t expect you to see it that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    It is not possible for you to find any way around that one. Paul explicitly states that "faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness" at some point before Genesis 9 when he was circumcised (Romans 4:9) while James explicitly states that "Abraham our father [was] justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar" in Genesis 22 (James 2:21).

    There is no way they aren't making opposite points. It's as plain as can be - IF - all you do is read it.
    I agree. Paul is talking about before circumcision and James is talking about after circumcision but they are NOT making opposite points. Paul is talking about works "of the law" and James is not. If James said we are justified by works of the law, that would be opposite.

    Is it your understanding that Paul is saying justified without works and James is saying justified by works?

    All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works. The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate. Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.

    James is showing us what true faith in Christ looks like.
    Gal. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.



    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    What? Who said anything about being a heretic?

    I'm talking about the way you interpret the bible. Your paradigm literally has made you think you take passages at face value when you absolutely do not. I'm not suggesting that you're doing it intentionally. In fact, quite the contrary. You are, in fact, quite entirely blind to it. All I am doing is showing it to you in the hopes that you'll see it and accept the possibility that there is an objectively superior way to go about doing biblical theology.


    Look, you need to cool your jets. What are you new around here or what? Have you ever seen me insinuate that someone is stupid? Or is it not my regular mode to simply tell someone plainly that they are stupid? Trust me, if I was trying to say that you were stupid, there'd be no room for doubt about what I was trying to say because I would use the words "You" and "are" and "stupid!" in that order.

    I can tell you that if I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't even be engaged in this conversation.


    Well, it's not as if I've been simply making that claim without supporting it with reasonable arguments. This is, after all, a website where people who disagree with eachother come to hash things out. That's sort of the whole point of being here.

    Besides, I don't disagree with you any more than you do with me, right? So why don't I feel attacked by you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong for saying that Paul and James are saying opposite things? You've made that claim and made a solid argument. It isn't my fault if I don't engage the debate in a fashion that would require me to accept your premise (i.e. accept your biblical paradigm).
    Last night as I was lying in bed thinking about this and it hit me that I could have worded this better. Sorry about that. I don’t feel attacked. I actually prefer raw honest dialog. I feel that when someone communicates that way, they’re usually genuine. I was just getting frustrated that you were focusing on what's wrong with me instead of addressing scriptures as we have now done.

    I personally could care less about the background of who is on the other side of a debate. I want to hear their points and the scriptures they base those points on and then discuss.


    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    It should help you! Do you think that it's coincidence that I guessed your position on most, if not all, of those doctrinal issues correctly?

    It isn't a coincidence!

    Which of those doctrines did I guess wrong? (The last one is always pretty iffy.)
    I agree to 2 out of 5. Yes, we who have been at this a while generally know the others stance within a short time.



    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    There is no question about it. I don't even have to read the passage (although I am familiar with it). Anyone saved prior to Acts 9 (and several after that point) were saved under the Kingdom Gospel and were brought into the the family of God under the previous dispensation and were, therefore, required to obey the Law just as Jesus did and taught. Anyone who became a believer became a member of the Kingdom of Israel. Virtually all, if not all, of them were Jews and simply accepted Jesus as their Messiah and would have believe and functioned in a manner consistent with being Jews, observing the Sabbaths (all of them) avoiding unclean foods, tithing, baptizing, etc, etc.
    Wow, we definitely see this differently. This could be an entire thread in itself.

    I’m not exactly sure of your answer though. were saved under the Kingdom Gospel” Could you please clarify. Were they saved by grace or the law?


    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Anyone who became a believer became a member of the Kingdom of Israel.
    Clete
    What were they before this?

    Respectfully,
    Tom
    Last edited by turbosixx; June 15th, 2019 at 03:22 PM. Reason: Cleanup
    Wretched man that I am.

  17. #222
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,586
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 6,782 Times in 3,612 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147773
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    Just to be sure we're on the same page. We both agree that Paul and James are saying that man can be justified apart from (without) works “of the law”.? You surprised me, I didn’t expect you to see it that way.
    What did I say that made you think this?

    In actual fact, it doesn't matter what sort of works either of them are talking about. Works of the law, works of the Spirit, hard work, busy work or fire works, it doesn't matter. Works or the lack thereof DO NOT save you period, end of sentence.

    Under the Kingdom Gospel one was saved because they had faith which was followed and confirmed by the things you did and didn't do. The works were are part of the cause and had to be continued in order to maintain your membership in the nation of Israel.

    Under the Gospel of Grace, you are saved by faith APART from works. Works do not play a causal role but are rather a result of salvation. We are "saved unto good works" bot by them. They do not come before but after. Our salvation is not a result of what we do (or don't do) but as a result of placing our faith in what has already been done for us.

    I agree. Paul is talking about before circumcision and James is talking about after circumcision but they are NOT making opposite points. Paul is talking about works "of the law" and James is not. If James said we are justified by works of the law, that would be opposite.
    I established pretty clearly that James was talking about the law. You simply repeating your position does nothing to address my arguemnts.

    Is it your understanding that Paul is saying justified without works and James is saying justified by works?
    That's very nearly verbatim what they both say!

    Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

    James 2: 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

    All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works.
    You say this and I believe that you believe this but the problem is that the text of scrupture is plain and plain can be!

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

    You read that and then you feel the need to expain "his point"....

    The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate.
    "might want to read it as..."

    How is it possible that you cannot see that you just said that you simply read it and then explain how simply reading it "would be inaccurate"?

    Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.
    I've been quoting you one all a long and as I said, it does not matter anyway. Any work, as soon as it become required becomes a work of the law anyway. Sacrificing you child to God by fire was never mentioned as a required duty in the Mosaic Law, quite the contrary, and yet this is the work that James claims saved Abraham and made him righteous.

    James is showing us what true faith in Christ looks like.
    He is showing us was true faith in Christ looks like for those saved under a dispensation of law where works are required for salvation.

    Gal. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
    It is truly astounding how you cannot see that you argue against yourself.

    The only way that quoting this verse would make sense in my mind is if you think that I'm suggesting that Christian ought not do good works; that I am somehow arguing that Christians should avoid doing good.

    I, of course, am not saying that. I simply saying that, under grace, works come as a result of salvation and not the other way around as it was under the law.

    Last night as I was lying in bed thinking about this and it hit me that I could have worded this better. Sorry about that. I don’t feel attacked. I actually prefer raw honest dialog. I feel that when someone communicates that way, they’re usually genuine. I was just getting frustrated that you were focusing on what's wrong with me instead of addressing scriptures as we have now done.

    I personally could care less about the background of who is on the other side of a debate. I want to hear their points and the scriptures they base those points on and then discuss.
    Good! I was afraid I was loosing you there.

    I agree to 2 out of 5. Yes, we who have been at this a while generally know the others stance within a short time.
    Sorry, but I can't say that I believe you. Perhaps it has to do with the way I worded them but those issues are related in ways that most have no idea about and they almost always go together as a group. The unclean foods one is, as I said, always a little iffy because that one is all but impossible to confuse as being anything other than associated specifically with Israel and the Mosaic Law but still, if you go to a CHristian television studio, you can sling a dead cat without hitting a Christian that avoids foods like shell fish, catfish, pork, etc. There was one that showed up on this thread, if I remember correctly.

    Wow, we definitely see this differently. This could be an entire thread in itself.

    I’m not exactly sure of your answer though. were saved under the Kingdom Gospel” Could you please clarify. Were they saved by grace or the law?
    Well, everyone who has ever been saved has been saved by God grace. The law cannot save because no one, other than God Himself, can following it perfectly and so your question presents something of a false dichotomy.

    However, if your phrasing is understood as a sort of short hand way of referring to the two dispensations, then the answer is that they were saved by "the law" but I would never state it in those terms except as a figure of speach. The far more communicative way of stating it is that they were saved under the dispensation of law.

    The terms "dispensation of law", "kingdom gospel", or just "law' are all sort of used interchangably by those of us who see that Paul was preaching a different gospel and so cofusion can ensue rather easily.

    The point is that under the dispensation of law, works were required just as James very clearly explains.

    What were they before this?
    Jews. And not necessarily unsaved ones either, by the way. Accepting Jesus as their Messiah likely seemed to be a completely natural step in their spiritual lives. Just as Peter wasn't unsaved when called by Jesus, many of those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah in the early Acts period were likely faithful Jews who loved God and obeyed the Law as any good Jew would.



    A moment ago, I memtioned two gospels. What do you make of this passage...

    [indentGalatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[/indent]

    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

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

    JudgeRightly (June 16th, 2019),Right Divider (June 17th, 2019),way 2 go (June 16th, 2019)

  19. #223
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    It’s clear that we are not going to agree on James 2 and Romans 4 which is no surprise. Thanks for the discussion. I will be glad to move on to this passage. It will be interesting to see how we disagree on this one as well .

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post

    A moment ago, I memtioned two gospels. What do you make of this passage...

    [indentGalatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[/indent]

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Ok, let’s get a little more of the context.
    2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
    So Paul was preaching a gospel that did not include circumcision. God sent him to the 12 to set before them the gospel he proclaimed. God wanted him to be sure that he was not running or had not run in vain.

    2:6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
    So when they compare the supposed 2 gospels, the 12 do not see anything a miss. If Paul’s gospel didn’t include baptizing believers, wouldn’t the 12 at least try to add it to Paul? Where is the discussion about it not being part of the gospel like we see with circumcision?

    2:5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
    If adding circumcision to the gospel is not the truth of the gospel, then why would Paul add/continue baptism to his gospel if it isn’t the truth of his gospel?

    2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.
    If you refer back to the Greek text, gospel only appears once because there is only one gospel going out to 2 different audiences. The whole world is made up of two types of people, Jew and Gentile. There is no need for a specific gospel for each. All have sinned. All can be saved the same way.

    When we compare the gospel that Peter preached in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13, they're the same message.

    2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)
    Paul is stressing the unit of the message by citing the unity of the source.

    Can we agree that Galatians 2 is talking about the counsel in Acts 15?
    Wretched man that I am.

  20. #224
    Over 2000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,207
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 1,438 Times in 815 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    418460
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post

    All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works. The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate. Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.


    Respectfully,
    Tom
    Justified without any works

    Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
    Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to way 2 go For Your Post:

    Right Divider (June 17th, 2019)

  22. #225
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by way 2 go View Post
    Justified without any works

    Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
    Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
    I would suggest to you that Abraham was considered righteous because he obeyed God. He pleased God.
    That passage doesn't come out and say without works. If Abraham did no work (slept with Sarai), would this have come true?

    We must obey the gospel.
    8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

    Jn. 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
    Last edited by turbosixx; June 16th, 2019 at 12:46 PM.
    Wretched man that I am.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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