ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

If you guys want to discuss eschatology, please just start another thread.

I intend to continue the discussion about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism with Turbosixx when he returns.

Thank you!

 

[Interplanner]

"One More Thing".



Yes. and the last days began at Pentecost! Everything God does is in the present tense. You haven't considered that in God economy time is not. Time is for us. Wherefore, when He says "it is finished", it is not so????

Keep the normal sense of language as long as you possibly can. If the passage says these things are soon, quickly, at hand, then keep that. The Rev was about the fall of the harlot because the same expression Jesus used about the blood of all the saints and martyrs is in both Mt 23 and Rev 18:24.

We are in agreement that the last days was earlier than most admit.

I don't do 'mind-games' about being in and out of time. God moves through time with us. When Christ said 'it is accomplished', it was historical reality and has been so ever since. Dan 9 and other passages knew it was coming, yes. But I don't know why a person would then think there were 'mind-games' in the Bible in which we toy with time and who was where and when and why.

 

[Cross Reference]

Keep the normal sense of language as long as you possibly can. If the passage says these things are soon, quickly, at hand, then keep that. The Rev was about the fall of the harlot because the same expression Jesus used about the blood of all the saints and martyrs is in both Mt 23 and Rev 18:24.

We are in agreement that the last days was earlier than most admit.

I don't do 'mind-games' about being in and out of time. God moves through time with us. When Christ said 'it is accomplished', it was historical reality and has been so ever since. Dan 9 and other passages knew it was coming, yes. But I don't know why a person would then think there were 'mind-games' in the Bible in which we toy with time and who was where and when and why.

I know what to do. Just make sure you do it. . . which you are not doing in the above.

You don't [or can't, which I choose to believe] explain what was "finished" . . that was from the beginning of creation and, in the Mind of God was "finished", even then?

 

[Interplanner]

I know what to do. Just make sure you do it. . . which you are not doing in the above.

You don't [or can't, which I choose to believe] explain what was "finished" . . that was from the beginning of creation and, in the Mind of God was "finished", even then?

Yes, Christ did accept the risk of tasting death for us before the world was created. Sometimes it is called the parental risk of creation in theology.

Your declarative sentence turned into a question. What are you trying to say?

 

[Clete]

Can someone please teach CR how to properly quote posts?

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes, Christ did accept the risk of tasting death for us before the world was created. Sometimes it is called the parental risk of creation in theology.

That's nice.

Your declarative sentence turned into a question. What are you trying to say?

OK. It was intended to be a question. But just ignore it to understand that God said it was finished before the foundation of the earth was laid. There is no time "framing" in His economy. Everything is in the 'now"of things. That is what having foreknowledge and predestination is all about.

 

[turbosixx]

The following is a re-post and continuation of post #409. I'm just posting all of it here so as to make it easier to follow the line of thinking but also to make it easier to respond too.....



This is just an absolutely terrific question! It really goes straight to the heart of the real practical difference between A9D and basically every other doctrinal system.

Some people really make a huge issue out of the word "sin" and develop detailed doctrinal constructs around the meaning of that one word. I'm reminded of a guy who used to post here on TOL whose user name was Sozo. He's a really smart guy and wrote some of the most terrific posts about grace but holy crap was he caught up on the word "sin". He just flatly insisted that it was not possible for a Christian to sin and based STRICTLY on his very tight definition of the word, he was right. The problem he had though is that he was nearly the only person in the world that used the word 'sin' in such way.
I make no effort to do such things. In fact, if anything, I attempt to use terms in the most common understanding possible so as to avoid the sort of confusion that Sozo was constantly fighting while he was here.

So, having said that, let me answer your question this way. If by 'sin' you mean committing an act that you know you shouldn't then the answer is an unqualified, "Yes, of course!". Christians do thing that hurt themselves and those around them, things that God does not like and does not want them to do.

BUT! He does not hold those sins against us because He has already held it against His Son who died in our place, receiving the just punishment for our sin.

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:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

Put another way, the wages of sin are death (note that this was so WAY before the Law of Moses - it goes all the way back to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - it is no mere coincidence by the way that both that Tree and the Law have a ministry of death.) and we are identified in Christ's death. What hold then does sin have over us? This is precisely the theme of the whole of Romans 6 and 7.

So, do Christians do things they shouldn't (a.k.a. sin)? Sure they do. Christians aren't perfect, they're forgiven, as they say. But there is a perspective from which this is not so. That is to say, it is not inaccurate to say that we are perfect - IN HIM! This was a major point Zozo would make all the time and it is a point that is quite correct. It is only in our flesh that sin exists and we are to reckon ourselves to have been crucified with Christ. This reckoning is the key to the Christian life.

One of the most critical things that a Christian must learn is that he cannot live the Christian life. It is Christ who lives His life through us by faith. It cannot be done through the flesh. And this is really critical - The law, any law, has to do with the flesh. It is a rule that tells the flesh, "NO!". Just as circumcision is a cutting off of the physical flesh, the law, which circumcision symbolizes, is a cutting off of that part of ourselves that we refer to as "the flesh". And it makes no difference if you are talking about the Law of Moses itself or the list of rules your pastor has in place for what sort of clothes you're allowed to wear at church or whether your wife can wear her hair down or whether you must give 10% of your income to the church or whether its okay to smoke cigarettes or eat at Burger King. All such rules doom the Christian to failure! Why? Because every one of them presuppose that the flesh lives! They all presuppose that you are better than you are and that you are capable of doing righteousness. You're not! Stop trying! Contradiction cannot exist! You can either reckon your flesh to have been crucified (i.e. that its dead) or you can set up rules in attempt to cut off its desires. You cannot do both!

The only righteousness you have is that which has been imputed to you by God. It is a righteousness that does not belong to you and that you did not earn and that you cannot screw up! It is the righteousness of Christ that has been credited to your account. The key question is, do you believe it? Those that believe it understand that the Christian life is not about working but about resting. The more real the biblical facts concerning your position in Christ becomes in your mind, the more you will relax and simply rest in His completed work. When it stops being about doing and becomes about being then the doing of it will stop being of your flesh and will be of Christ.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”​

This is Paul's Gospel (Romans 2:16 & 16:25; II Timothy 2:18). It does not exist outside of Paul's epistles and if Paul's epistles did not exist we would all be Messianic Jews or the equivalent. It is precisely those who do not distinguish between Paul's ministry and that of the twelve (II Timothy 2:15) who are doomed to be permanently engaged in a constant battle with their flesh. Their flesh is the undead, unrelenting, moaning zombie that they cannot kill because THEY keep resurrecting it! They keep trying to become that which God has already declared them to be. They keep aspiring to that which is already theirs! They cannot reach God because they refuse to believe that they are already IN HIM. Their life then becomes one failure after another, one constant battle between wanting love but feeling guilt. You are not guilty! You were guilty before you came to Christ but once you received Christ, your guilt was transferred to Him and His death paid the price for it. Any further guilt on your part is UNJUST! It is you telling God that Christ's suffering wasn't enough - I must also suffer! It isn't so! There is no place for guilt in the life of a Christian for you are not under law but in Christ. You can no more be guilty of sin than can Christ be.

Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

I’m back and ready for more discussion, I hope you are too. I had hoped to think on what we talked about while on my trip but with 8 of us going and me in charge it was hectic.

I want to reply to your post but since you view Paul’s writings differently than the other NT writers I feel I’m at a slight disadvantage in presenting arguments for my understanding on sin and law. If we get back around to it I would like to discuss what law we are under but I would like to discuss this first for now so maybe we can better understand each other on Paul verses other writers. I don’t understand your comment below so I need a little more information.

This is Paul's Gospel (Romans 2:16 & 16:25; II Timothy 2:18). It does not exist outside of Paul's epistles and if Paul's epistles did not exist we would all be Messianic Jews or the equivalent.

I don’t understand what is a Messianic Jew? In my understanding, in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, just Christians. It’s impossible for a Jew to be a follower of Christ and still be a Jew, as far as religion not nationality. Paul said in Phil. 3 that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews but considered it garbage for Christ. Is Christ divided?

 

[lifeisgood]

There is one gospel --- Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross. It has only ever been this gospel.

There is however a distinction between Peter, the disciples, and Paul's preaching of this gospel in that Peter and the disciples preached Law/Blood and Paul preached Grace/Blood.

We cannot in these modern days preach Law/Blood because the Lord ordered the Temple destroyed and without the Temple, High Priest, etc. there is no way that we can do the works that the Law demands we do.

Paul knew that the Law was fulfilled in Jesus. (Did he hear Jesus saying that the Temple would be destroyed very soon?) He had in mind that the Temple was no longer (even though it was still standing) because Jesus fulfilled what the Temple represented and without the Temple, ONLY grace/blood can stand.

Today only what God gave to Paul can be preached (Grace/Blood) for the Temple (Law/Blood) was done away with in Jesus.

If we can see that distinction, there will never be any confusion for they both preached --- Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross of Calvary --- which is the Gospel.

 

[musterion]

Peter at Pentecost preached the Cross as bad news for Israel, indicting them of His murder and demanding, on God's behalf, that they repent. Stephen was even more blunt about it.

Paul preached the Cross as good news for all mankind, without distinction. The best news ever, in fact.

 

[Dialogos]

Peter at Pentecost preached the Cross as bad news for Israel,

What?

John 1:29, gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
1 John 1:7 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
Hebrews 9:12 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
1 Peter 1:18-19 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?

..indicting them of His murder and demanding, on God's behalf, that they repent. Stephen was even more blunt about it.

Its bad news that they killed the Author of Life. Its good news that the Lamb of God was slain because if the Lamb of God wasn't, no Jew nor Gentile would ever know redemption.

Paul preached the Cross as good news for all mankind, without distinction. The best news ever, in fact.

Sounds a lot like John 1:29, 1 John 1:7, Hebrews 9:12 and 1 Peter 1:18-19.

:chuckle:

 

[musterion]

What?

John 1:29, gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
1 John 1:7 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
Hebrews 9:12 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?
1 Peter 1:18-19 gospel of the circumcision or Paul's gospel?

Focus. I referred to Peter at Pentecost, then Stephen. Read what they said, please, then comment.

Its bad news that they killed the Author of Life. Its good news that the Lamb of God was slain because if the Lamb of God wasn't, no Jew nor Gentile would ever know redemption.

And at that time, they did not know yet He'd died for the sins of the whole world. They did not know yet God was about to place Jews on the same level as Gentiles in every possible way and be done with national Israel for a season. Those facts was revealed to and through Paul, then later affirmed to the circumcision apostles by the Spirit.

Go back and read the speeches of Peter and Stephen. Find where they present the DBR as good news for all mankind.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

"Is Christ divided?" 1 Corinthians 1:13

 

[Right Divider]

"Is Christ divided?" 1 Corinthians 1:13

1Co 4:15-17 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. (17) For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
​

Folks always like to abuse 1 Cor 1:13

 

[heir]

"Is Christ divided?" 1 Corinthians 1:13

You do realize that Paul said this in light of the fact that at Corinth there was a mixed bag of people saying they followed this person or that (1 Corinthians 1:12 KJV)? You do also realize that in order to speak the same thing as in 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV, the resolution to divisions is to follow Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV)? You should know that by now. Follow Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV)!

 

[Right Divider]

You do realize that Paul said this in light of the fact that at Corinth there was a mixed bag of people saying they followed this person or that (1 Corinthians 1:12 KJV)? You do also realize that in order to speak the same thing as in 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV, the resolution to divisions is to follow Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV)? You should know that by now. Follow Paul (1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV)!

I guess that they never get past the first chapter.

 

[Clete]

I’m back and ready for more discussion, I hope you are too. I had hoped to think on what we talked about while on my trip but with 8 of us going and me in charge it was hectic.

I understand completely! I've been away for nearly a week and I very intentionally didn't give any thought at all to theological debates. "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven:"

I want to reply to your post but since you view Paul’s writings differently than the other NT writers I feel I’m at a slight disadvantage in presenting arguments for my understanding on sin and law. If we get back around to it I would like to discuss what law we are under....

It's simple! There is no law! You have been crucified, that is lawfully EXECUTED in Christ! What more does the law, any law, have to say to a dead man?

We are under the "law" of love, which is no law at all. Acts of love are not compelled or done out of obligation but are done willingly or not at all. I do not give to the needy because I'm supposed to but because I want to. I do not support my church because there's a rule on the wall commanding me to give but because I believe in the work it is doing and WANT to support it.

My sister drives three hours twice a month each summer to help our Mother mow her yard. There isn't anyone telling her she has to do that or even that she aught to do that. You couldn't keep her from doing it! She doesn't even do it because our Mom "needs" it. My Mom could very easily afford to pay someone to mow her grass and trim the bushes. My sister does it because she loves Mom - a lot!

It's the exact same thing between us and God. God doesn't want for us to do things because there's a rule somewhere that says we aught to do this or aught not do that. The whole history of the bible is there to teach us that we can't do it anyway, so why try? Love God! That's it - period.

....but I would like to discuss this first for now so maybe we can better understand each other on Paul verses other writers. I don’t understand your comment below so I need a little more information.



I don’t understand what is a Messianic Jew? In my understanding, in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, just Christians. It’s impossible for a Jew to be a follower of Christ and still be a Jew, as far as religion not nationality. Paul said in Phil. 3 that he was a Hebrew of Hebrews but considered it garbage for Christ. Is Christ divided?

Well, a modern Messianic Jew is a person, usually of Jewish decent but not always, who believes Jesus is the Messiah. In fact, their acceptance of Jesus as Messiah is the primary distinction between them and any other Jew. They observe the Sabbaths (all of them, including the Feasts) as well as the rest of the Mosaic Law apart from the portion of which is specifically dealt with in the New Testament (i.e. the book of Hebrews). They almost completely ignore the Apostle Paul all together. The few I've had contact with do not understand him. They react to his epistles as though they were written in Barsoomian.

The important point here is that their custom and practice is very nearly, if not exactly what Christianity would look like if not for the Apostle Paul. He is the ONLY reason we don't all wear Kipas, have facial hair and have tassels on them hems of our clothing.

MESSIANIC JUDAISM


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

Focus. I referred to Peter at Pentecost, then Stephen. Read what they said, please, then comment.

One, thankfully we have a bible that contains more of God's revelation than these two speeches.

Two, Peter's speech at Pentecost offered the forgiveness of sins to the repentant.

On what basis does that forgiveness come?

:think:

And at that time, they did not know yet He'd died for the sins of the whole world.

So you think that the disciples of John knew more about who Jesus was than the disciples of Jesus (John 1:29)?

They did not know yet God was about to place Jews on the same level as Gentiles in every possible way and be done with national Israel for a season.

So?

This is the implication of the gospel but not the contents of the gospel. The gospel isn't that God made Gentiles equal the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and was raised from the dead.

Those facts was revealed to and through Paul, then later affirmed to the circumcision apostles by the Spirit.

Actually, Peter gets the vision in Acts 10 that shows him that the gospel is for the gentiles as well.

 

[Clete]

Actually, Peter gets the vision in Acts 10 that shows him that the gospel is for the gentiles as well.

This isn't quite right.
Gentiles were always able to become believers. The point isn't that the gospel is for Gentiles per se, it's that Gentiles no longer need to become Jews; that Gentiles are no longer considered 'unclean'.

A point not preached by a single soul on Earth, prior to the Apostle Paul.

 

[Cross Reference]

One, thankfully we have a bible that contains more of God's revelation than these two speeches.

Two, Peter's speech at Pentecost offered the forgiveness of sins to the repentant.

On what basis does that forgiveness come?

:think:


So you think that the disciples of John knew more about who Jesus was than the disciples of Jesus (John 1:29)?


So?

This is the implication of the gospel but not the contents of the gospel. The gospel isn't that God made Gentiles equal the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and was raised from the dead.


Actually, Peter gets the vision in Acts 10 that shows him that the gospel is for the gentiles as well.

Cornielus didn't need more of the gospel. We was already a saved. He had been praying for 'enlightenment' that would give him further understanding of the God He had already been worshipping..

 

[Dialogos]

This isn't quite right.
Gentiles were always able to become believers. The point isn't that the gospel is for Gentiles per se, it's that Gentiles no longer need to become Jews; that Gentiles are no longer considered 'unclean'.

A point not preached by a single soul on Earth, prior to the Apostle Paul.

Actually, Peter preached that very message to Cornelius and the gentiles in his household (Acts 10:28), while Paul was preaching to the Jews in the synagogues.