Just One Gospel?

Sozo said:

Then you believe, Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac?

Click to expand...

Abraham was an exceptional case. Abraham was the father of two distinct groups of people and was used to represent both. This is why both Paul and James could legitimately use him in the way they did without contradiction or error. He was under two covenants with God, one conditional the other not. And so from a certain perspective he was justified in both ways, at least he was in a manner of speaking. In actual point of fact he was justified by faith because his belief that he would have a son came long before his offering up of that son to God. But that does not negate James point because, like I said, Abraham was under two covenants at the same time. One was unconditional because God had caused him to fall asleep when it was entered into, and so all the obligation fell to God. The other was conditional and required Abrahams obedience, thus he was and is the father of both the Body of Christ and of Israel and thus both Paul and James make valid and non-contradictory points.

Now, would you please explain how it is that, if you are correct in your previous post, we shouldn't rip the book of James out of our Bibles?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete said:

Abraham was an exceptional case. Abraham was the father of two distinct groups of people and was used to represent both. This is why both Paul and James could legitimately use him in the way they did without contradiction or error. He was under two covenants with God, one conditional the other not. And so from a certain perspective he was justified in both ways, at least he was in a manner of speaking. In actual point of fact he was justified by faith because his belief that he would have a son came long before his offering up of that son to God. But that does not negate James point because, like I said, Abraham was under two covenants at the same time. One was unconditional because God had caused him to fall asleep when it was entered into, and so all the obligation fell to God. The other was conditional and required Abrahams obedience, thus he was and is the father of both the Body of Christ and of Israel and thus both Paul and James make valid and non-contradictory points.

Now, would you please explain how it is that, if you are correct in your previous post, we shouldn't rip the book of James out of our Bibles?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

James is quoting the false teachings of the Jews who reject Christ as Messiah... "Someone may well say..."

These same Jews are persecuting the Jewish believers who do believe in Christ, and are under their authority.

I am not going to take the time to write an entire commentary on the book of James.

Abraham was NOT justified by works, or Paul and Moses are lying.

NOT ONE OF YOU has provided anything to show what "gospel" the 12 were preaching.

Sozo said:

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Click to expand...

So what?

James is quoting the false teachings of the Jews who reject Christ as Messiah... "Someone may well say..."
These same Jews are persecuting the Jewish believers who do believe in Christ, and are under their authority.

Click to expand...

You can't escape the theme of the book Sozo. "Faith without works is dead." That pretty much sums the whole thing up.

I am not going to take the time to write an entire commentary on the book of James.

Click to expand...

No one is asking for that. Simply establish what you've claimed, that's all I want.

Abraham was NOT justified by works, or Paul and Moses are lying.

Click to expand...

Then rip the book of James out of your Bible or else explain to me why you won't.

NOT ONE OF YOU has provided anything to show what "gospel" the 12 were preaching.

Click to expand...

Now who is lying Sozo! Good greif, you sound like Hilston! The whole thread is here for everyone to read, the answer has been given to you at least a half dozen times. Your protestations to the contrary don't change the facts and you're failure to comprehend is not our fault. If you don't like our answers read the Gospels, it's in there as well, just as plain and clear as can be!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete said:

So what?


The whole thread is here for everyone to read, the answer has been given to you at least a half dozen times.

Click to expand...

That is a lie! You guys have said NOTHING about the gospel of the kingdom, except that there is one, and it is different than Paul's.

So what?

There is NO OTHER name than the name of Jesus in which men are saved. Unless you believe the gospel delivered by Paul, then you are not saved, whether or not you are a Jew or Gentile.

Sozo said:

That is a lie! You guys have said NOTHING about the gospel of the kingdom, except that there is one, and it is different than Paul's.

So what?

There is NO OTHER name than the name of Jesus in which men are saved. Unless you believe the gospel delivered by Paul, then you are not saved, whether or not you are a Jew or Gentile.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a lie Sozo. Your question has been answered several times, you just can't acknowledge it or else you'd have to change your tune.

And no one has suggested that there is any other name by which men must be saved, no one has suggested that at all.

As I said from the very start, either the gospel message changed or else Paul is a fraud because there was a time when you were required to follow the law of Moses and now, under and only because of the teachings of Paul, we are required to not follow the law or else Christ will profit us nothing. Now, if that isn't different, I don't know what is, Sozo, I don't know what is.

The gospel has always been basically believe in God and obey Him and He will save you. That much has not changed, what has changed is what is including in the "obey" portion of that statement. At one time it was "follow the law", now it is "do not place yourself under the law". How much clearer can it be Sozo? I can't do a mind meld and deliver it to you via a direct mental link and if I could, it wouldn't be any clearer than this. What more do you want? Can't you see that if not for the apostle Paul we would all still be circumcising our children on the eighth day, observing the feasts and not eating pork, etc? How do you not see that as a change? Before, the gospel message included such things (even if those things didn't save in and of themselves) and now its not only not included in the message, they are forbidden by it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete said:

No, it's not a lie Sozo.

Click to expand...

Then it is just ignorance.

Your question has been answered several times, you just can't acknowledge it or else you'd have to change your tune.

Click to expand...

I do not acknowledge those things that are said out of ignorance.

And no one has suggested that there is any other name by which men must be saved, no one has suggested that at all.

Click to expand...

You simply added the Law to the equation.

As I said from the very start, either the gospel message changed or else Paul is a fraud because there was a time when you were required to follow the law of Moses and now, under and only because of the teachings of Paul, we are required to not follow the law or else Christ will profit us nothing.

Click to expand...

Gentiles, were NEVER required to follow the Law, could Gentiles receive the promise? Could they be accounted righteous? God gave the Law to prove that man is a sinner, not because He believed they could keep it.

The gospel has always been basically believe in God and obey Him and He will save you.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by obey? No one has ever obeyed the Law.

At one time it was "follow the law", now it is "do not place yourself under the law".

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. No one was ever justified by the works of the Law.

Can't you see that if not for the apostle Paul we would all still be circumcising our children on the eighth day, observing the feasts and not eating pork, etc?

Click to expand...

I'm not Jewish, are you? Paul had nothing to do with it. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, and Paul only told us what was already true.

Sozo said:James says... "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

The answer to that question is... ABOSOLUTELY NOT!

Click to expand...

Jame's entire point in chapter two is that sola fida will not save you. James' point is actually that Abraham was justified by works and James is right! Abraham was justified by works.

In the verses before James says this, he says "What good is it if a man says he has faith, but doesn't have works. can faith save him?" He goes on to prove that faith can't save a person. Then he points out that it was works that saved Abraham (to which you response "ABSOLUTELY NOT") and then says "See how it was his works that excerised his faith.

James goes on to give more princples similar to the theme. James says ... "Likewise [in the same manner that Abraham was saved by works] also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she received the messengers, and had sent thm out another way?"

James' entire point is that salbvation is by a combination of faith and works. He says that faith alone cannot save a man, and is itself nothing until that person walks out his faith with works. This is a different gospel than what Paul teaches.

ApologeticJedi said:

Jame's entire point in chapter two is that sola fida will not save you. James' point is actually that Abraham was justified by works and James is right! Abraham was justified by works.

Click to expand...

No... he... was... not!

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Is Abraham a man?

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness"

This is a waste of time. You are not even trying.

Believe what you want and tear out the book of James if you like, whatever, I no longer care.

Clete said:

This is a waste of time. You are not even trying.

Believe what you want and tear out the book of James if you like, whatever, I no longer care.

Click to expand...

YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!

Sozo said:

YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!

Click to expand...

Then why can't you answer any of my questions concerning the book of James or the existence of Paul's ministry? You've lost your ability to think Sozo. You simply react, and allow your emotions to take over your mind. You know as well as anyone I am not insane and yet you allow yourself to say such asinine things. It's pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete said:

Then why can't you answer any of my questions concerning the book of James or the existence of Paul's ministry? You've lost your ability to think Sozo. You simply react, and allow your emotions to take over your mind. You know as well as anyone I am not insane and yet you allow yourself to say such asinine things. It's pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

I started by asking these questions...

What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?

I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message?

Did they preach eternal life?

Did they preach salvation by faith?

What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?

What is the gospel of the Kingdom?

How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved?

How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?

What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?

How is the message of the gospel of the kingdom, a demand to keep the Law, when Jesus tells them not to trust in the Law, but in Him?

Did Peter, James, John, and the others of the 12, believe Paul or not?

I have NEVER received answers, that make a lick of sense, to these questions.

I must be a glutton for punishment, maybe fellowship week is getting close enough to start effecting me or something. Either way, I will make another attempt to answer these questions but not right now, I'll do it later tonight if I can.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo said:

YOU are the ONE who twists the bible to fit your "another gospel" crap!

Paul is speaking of the same Abraham that James is referring. That SAME Abraham was not justified by works and justified by works at the SAME time! To make that conclusion only proves that YOU are insane!!!

Click to expand...

I think there is something to be said here.

Romans 14:17 *For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 *For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 *Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 *For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 *It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 *Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 *And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Actually Paul and James taught the same thing. It may not appear so but they did.

First of all Paul accents the negative, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink". Sense Paul was addressing meat sacrificed to a false god he spoke in terms of eating and drinking. Things that all do to sustain human life. Those things that affect human life are those things that we see every day. It is our relationship to one another. Those things do not effect our relationship with God. Why? Because The Kingdom of God is first of all righteousness, second the Kingdom of God is peace; Not peace with man but peace with God. and third The Kingdom of God is Joy. These three are absolutes. If these three are not present in your faith then you are not of faith. You do not have faith.

For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;

What is important to God is not what we eat or drink. What is important to God is that we be righteous, that we live in peace and that we have Joy. I tell you today that I am righteous, I am at peace and I am filled with joy. I do not always express those things but for the most part I try. Why? because that is what I am in the inter man. The things that I do in my relationships with this world should exhibit those qualities. It is by the exhibition of those things within that you know what I am. In my relationship with you, you know what I am by the things that I do. James says the same thing, Show me your faith with out the work of faith and I will show you my faith by the work of faith that I do. Our relationship with others and among ourselves is important to God. Jesus said the same thing, You shall know them by their fruit. There should be an exhibit of Christ in our lives.

For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.

Why is it evil for a man to eat with offense? Meat is not destructive and all things are pure. Then what is the offense. It is really very simple. Those things in the physical world do not destroy the things of God. If by the things that you do or don't do destroy your righteousness, your peace or your joy then those things are of yourself and not of God and you are in sin because you are not of faith and are sinful. You have not believed unto salvation. You trust in your works and do not trust God to keep His word.

THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD CANNOT DESTROY THE THINGS OF GOD AND IF WHAT YOU DO OUR DON'T DO DESTROYS YOUR FAITH THEN THAT FAITH IS NOT OF GOD AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS FALSE!

Hello Sozo,

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. Clete and I may not have the same answers to your questions as we may have different views on certain things.

"What kinds of things do you think that the disciples were saying when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?"

Please see my post number 122. I know you've already read it, but perhaps my answers to your other questions may clarify that post for you.

"I'm simply wanting to understand what the disciples mindset was concerning the gospel of the kingdom. What did they think was the outcome of those who received their message?"

If Israel, as a nation, received their message and accepted Jesus as their King, He would have set up His earthly reign. I believe their message was an extension of that which John the Baptist started. John was a prophet under the old covenant, when Israel was required to keep the law in order to enjoy the blessings of being in their land (see Deuteronomy). The function of Old Testament prophets was to bring Israel, as a nation, back into compliance with the law. This had to be done in order for Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. A smattering of individuals receiving this message would not bring about these results. That's why it didn't happen.

"Did they preach eternal life? Did they preach salvation by faith?"

As part of the gospel of the kingdom, I'm not really sure. After the death and resurrection of Christ, yes.

More to come. I'm at work and will give what answers I can, but I have to reboot about half the Unix systems in the world tonight (well, maybe I'm exagerating, but just a little...) so I'll be pretty busy.

What "gospel" were the 12 preaching here...

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16. "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17. "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18. they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly [poison], it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19. So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed"

In response to post 156: This would be the gospel of salvation by grace through faith. The same gospel that Paul later preached to the gentiles, but perhaps preached a little differently when preached to their fellow Jews...just as I would present the gospel of salvation differently to a Roman Catholic than I would to an unsaved Protestant.

With all the so-called Open Theist, Acts 9ers, and dispys on this site, you'd think one of you guys could offer an intelligent argument for your contentions. :yawn:

Sozo said:

You guys are making absolutely no sense.

Let's do it this way.

I'm a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. His disciples (who are preaching the gospel of the kingdom) walk up to me and say...?

Click to expand...

Repent for the Kingdom is at hand!!!!!! The same message John the Baptist said. The same message Christ taught. The same message Peter and the 11 taught.

"What did they believe that the Kingdom entailed?"

Probably all that neat stuff in the Old Testament about the great place that Israel would be someday, with their Messiah reigning over the land and over the whole world.

"What is the gospel of the Kingdom?"

See my post number 90.

"How were those individuals saved? What evidence did they have that they were saved?"

They were saved by grace through faith, but I don't know what evidence they had at that time.

"How is that no one is justified by the Law, and yet the 12 are preaching salvation through the Law?"

The 12 were not preaching salvation through the Law.

"What does the Law have to do with the gospel of the kingdom?"

If anything, that Israel needed to return to the keeping of the Law in order to bring in the blessings of the Kingdom, just as they needed to keep the Law in order to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, i.e., to remain in their land.

Ooops...gotta go...be back later.