ECT How is Paul's message different?

[john w]

Jesus, his disciples and Paul all preached the same Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This is simple and obvious. Until I joined TOL, I didn't even think this was a debate. I've never heard anyone preach that there are different Gospels. I regularly attended church at at least 4 different denominations and never heard this. It's bizarre, friends.

Made up-an assertion.

" I've never heard anyone preach that there are different Gospels"-Daniel

1. Translated: Since you've never heard something before, it is not true.

Got it.

2. Translated: I, Daniel, have never heard anyone preach that there is more than one piece of good news in the bible.

Made up. Many preach that there is more than one piece of good news in the bible.

And/or...

3. Translated: I, Daniel, do not know what the term "gospel" means.

 

[Right Divider]

Made up-an assertion.

" I've never heard anyone preach that there are different Gospels"-Daniel

1. Translated: Since you've never heard something before, it is not true.

Got it.

2. Translated: I, Daniel, have never heard anyone preach that there is more than one piece of good news in the bible.

Made up. Many preach that there is more than one piece of good news in the bible.

And/or...

3. Translated: I, Daniel, do not know what the term "gospel" means.

Sounds like a radio "preacher" that said, "the 'good news' of the gospel".

Good thing that he has a degree from the London School of Theology!

 

[john w]

Sounds like a radio "preacher" that said, "the 'good new' of the gospel".

Good thing that he has a degree from the London School of Theology!

Yes, RD, a 6 year old, or a Jethro with a "6th grade egeecashun" can understand that the term "gospel" merely means "good news," but all these alleged members of the boc, who have more degrees than the doctors that were being schooled by the Lord Jesus Christ, at age 12(Luke 2:46 KJV), don't "get it."

Curious...............(Andy Taylor)

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, RD, a 6 year old, or a Jethro with a "6th grade egeecashun" can understand that the term "gospel" merely means "good news," but all these alleged members of the boc, who have more degrees than the doctors that were being schooled by the Lord Jesus Christ, at age 12(Luke 2:46 KJV), don't "get it."

Curious...............(Andy Taylor)

Yep, it takes a lotta learnin' to say "the good news of the good news"!

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Jesus, his disciples and Paul all preached the same Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This is simple and obvious. Until I joined TOL, I didn't even think this was a debate. I've never heard anyone preach that there are different Gospels. I regularly attended church at at least 4 different denominations and never heard this. It's bizarre, friends.

MAD people here wanted some new imagined identity which has no covenant with God and no restriction on what they do say or think or invent.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

MAD people here wanted some new imagined identity which has no covenant with God and no restriction on what they do say or think or invent.

LA

When will you reveal your newest death predictions for 2016?
You said I'd be beheaded? It still hasn't come to fruition? Is your timer
on the blink?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You see folks, LA enjoys making death predictions about posters she
hates.

 

[turbosixx]

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.

I totally agree. If we love God then we will love our neighbor and we will put other’s interest above our own. I agree with your argument up to a point. In your scenario, it’s a depiction of the way things should work and the evidence is fruit.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Once someone becomes a Christian, will they always conduct themselves as they should? What if there is no fruit? Are we given zero instructions?

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I read most of the Martian series as a kid, loved it.

It’s clear that Paul strongly taught against the law but it appears to me he did it mostly on his travels where there were Jews but probably not in the majority. What we have in scripture is the 12 working with Jews and so when working with Jews or the newly converted Jews they season their words so as not to offend and turn away those that don’t fully understand Christ and are still zealous for their traditions. Paul did the same thing when he needed to. For example, he said he would never eat meat if it caused a weak brother to stumble. Depending on the situation at times he appeared to be conforming to the law so as to be able to proclaim the gospel to Jews. I think people lose sight of that fact. Form my understanding after the cross, I do not see any NT writer preaching the observance of the old law. I only see them teaching Christ but in a manner that works from a perspective a new convert can understand based on his paradigm.

 

[Clete]

I totally agree. If we love God then we will love our neighbor and we will put other’s interest above our own.

My advice to you is to drop the notion of putting the interests of others above your own. If there is no unjust motive on your part, your interests will not be in conflict with those of another person unless their motives are unjust. In either case, there is no need to subordinate your interests to another so long as your interests are just. In any compromise with evil, only evil can profit. So don't have evil interests and you'll never see a need to subordinate your interests to anyone or anything for any reason.

I agree with your argument up to a point. In your scenario, it’s a depiction of the way things should work and the evidence is fruit.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Once someone becomes a Christian, will they always conduct themselves as they should? What if there is no fruit? Are we given zero instructions?

I answer this question with a quote from what is perhaps the greatest book ever written on the subject of the grace gospel outside the bible itself.

"To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."

Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God’s ways are not always man’s ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons" (J. W. Sanderson, Jr.). - From Principle of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford​

I read most of the Martian series as a kid, loved it.

I was wondering whether you'd recognize the reference! :up:

It’s clear that Paul strongly taught against the law but it appears to me he did it mostly on his travels where there were Jews but probably not in the majority. What we have in scripture is the 12 working with Jews and so when working with Jews or the newly converted Jews they season their words so as not to offend and turn away those that don’t fully understand Christ and are still zealous for their traditions. Paul did the same thing when he needed to. For example, he said he would never eat meat if it caused a weak brother to stumble. Depending on the situation at times he appeared to be conforming to the law so as to be able to proclaim the gospel to Jews. I think people lose sight of that fact. Form my understanding after the cross, I do not see any NT writer preaching the observance of the old law. I only see them teaching Christ but in a manner that works from a perspective a new convert can understand based on his paradigm.

Even if this were so, which I do not believe it is (James explicitly states that his followers were all zealous for the Law), this sentiment seems to forget much of our previous discussion. If you were correct here you'd still have to explain why Paul's ministry existed in the first place. Your position would make more sense if, for example, the book of Revelation depicted the New Jerusalem with 13 foundations with the names of the 13 Apostles (Rev. 21:14). And that's only one of several difficulties that you'd have to deal with. Recall our previous discussion about the dozens of theological debates each side of which fall on the writings of Paul vs. the rest of the New Testament.

Out of time for now!

Happy New Year!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Right Divider]

<cut>
It’s clear that Paul strongly taught against the law but it appears to me he did it mostly on his travels where there were Jews but probably not in the majority. What we have in scripture is the 12 working with Jews and so when working with Jews or the newly converted Jews they season their words so as not to offend and turn away those that don’t fully understand Christ and are still zealous for their traditions. Paul did the same thing when he needed to. For example, he said he would never eat meat if it caused a weak brother to stumble. Depending on the situation at times he appeared to be conforming to the law so as to be able to proclaim the gospel to Jews. I think people lose sight of that fact. Form my understanding after the cross, I do not see any NT writer preaching the observance of the old law. I only see them teaching Christ but in a manner that works from a perspective a new convert can understand based on his paradigm.

No, Paul did NOT teach "against the law". This was the FALSE charge that was often used to accuse him.

Rom 7:12 KJV Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Rom 7:16 KJV If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

1Ti 1:8-11 KJV But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
​

The law is good, people are bad.

 

[turbosixx]

I answer this question with a quote from what is perhaps the greatest book ever written on the subject of the grace gospel outside the bible itself.

"To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."

Have we been afraid to really believe God? Have some even been afraid to allow others to really believe Him? We must never forget that "God’s ways are not always man’s ways. To some men constant peril is the only spur to action, and many religions and psychologies are dependent on fear to keep their disciples in line. Fear, too, has a place in Christianity, but God has higher and more effective motivations than fear, and one of these is love. Often fear after a while produces only numbness, but love thrives on love. To promise a man the certainty of his destiny may seem, on the human level, like playing with fire; but this leaves God out of the picture. Those who have the deepest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin. Moreover, fear produces the obedience of slaves; love engenders the obedience of sons" (J. W. Sanderson, Jr.). - From Principle of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford​

Again I agree to a point. You previously said “We are under the "law" of love, which is no law at all.” Of course, I see it a little different and believe that we are under the law of love but it is law. If you love God sure there is no law against that but what does it mean to love God? How do we know that we love God?

We are given instructions in this Christian age. Here is one example:
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
Can we love God and live ungodly?
What if we don’t deny ungodliness and give in to fleshly desires, are we transgressing these instructions?

Even if this were so, which I do not believe it is (James explicitly states that his followers were all zealous for the Law), this sentiment seems to forget much of our previous discussion. If you were correct here you'd still have to explain why Paul's ministry existed in the first place. You position would make more sense if, for example, the book of Revelation depicted the New Jerusalem with 13 foundations with the names of the 13 Apostles (Rev. 21:14). And that's only one of several difficulties that you'd have to deal. Recall our previous discussion about the dozens of theological debates each side of which fall on the writings of Paul vs. the rest of the New Testament.

Looking at the New Jerusalem for understanding is something to possibly consider but I wouldn’t use it for a basis of understanding. When looking at the twelve tribes, are the twelves sons of Jacob named as the twelve tribes?
James stating that believers were zealous for the law is not proof that any apostle taught observance of the law after the cross. If they did teach observance of the law, it should be easy to quote book, chapter and verse. I only see them teaching Christ while working with the listener’s knowledge of OT and their paradigm.

1 Pt. 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

 

[Right Divider]

Again I agree to a point. You previously said “We are under the "law" of love, which is no law at all.” Of course, I see it a little different and believe that we are under the law of love but it is law. If you love God sure there is no law against that but what does it mean to love God? How do we know that we love God?

We are given instructions in this Christian age. Here is one example:
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
Can we love God and live ungodly?
What if we don’t deny ungodliness and give in to fleshly desires, are we transgressing these instructions?

You're just like the Pharisees in Jesus' day.

The "law of love" it NOT a law... that is a linguistic technique to CONTRAST the law with love.

Law is an obligation. Love can only be done freely WITHOUT obligation.

Rom 13:10 KJV Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
​

Is this about an list of obligations to keep that we will not be condemned?

Looking at the New Jerusalem for understanding is a good point but I wouldn’t use it for a basis of understanding. When looking at the twelve tribes, are the twelves sons of Jacob the twelve tribes?

Yes.

James stating that believers were zealous for the law is not proof that any apostle taught observance of the law after the cross. If they did teach observance of the law, it should be easy to quote book, chapter and verse. I only see them teaching Christ while working with the listener’s knowledge of OT and their paradigm.

1 Pt. 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

1Pe 2:11-12 KJV Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; (12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
​

Do YOU have YOUR conversation honest among the Gentiles?

 

[turbosixx]

You're just like the Pharisees in Jesus' day.

The "law of love" it NOT a law... that is a linguistic technique to CONTRAST the law with love.

Law is an obligation. Love can only be done freely WITHOUT obligation.

Rom 13:10 KJV Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
​

Is this about an list of obligations to keep that we will not be condemned?

Paul said he was under law.
1 Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Yes.

Look again, it's not Jacobs twelve sons.

1Pe 2:11-12 KJV Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; (12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
​

Do YOU have YOUR conversation honest among the Gentiles?

Again, he is talking to Christians but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. but using language they understand. A Gentile is a heathen or non-Christian.

Is he not talking to Christians?

 

[Right Divider]

Paul said he was under law.
1 Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

You're funny. You think words have a single solitary meaning REGARDLESS of the context in which they are used.

Look again, it's not Jacobs twelve sons.

What is your point?

Again, he is talking to Christians but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. but using language they understand. A Gentile is a heathen or non-Christian.

Is he not talking to Christians?

No, a Gentile is NOT defined that way. That is the way that you want to define it to suit your need.

There were plenty of BELIEVING Gentiles, like Cornelius or Nicolas.

 

[turbosixx]

You're funny. You think words have a single solitary meaning REGARDLESS of the context in which they are used.

Feel free to use the context and prove Paul said he wasn't under any law.

No, a Gentile is NOT defined that way. That is the way that you want to define it to suit your need.

There were plenty of BELIEVING Gentiles, like Cornelius or Nicolas.

Are there Jews and Gentiles in Christ? What are those outside of Christ?

Would you use this as proof the aptostles taught observance of the old law? If not, do you have any?

 

[Right Divider]

Feel free to use the context and prove Paul said he wasn't under any law.

Do you think that the "law of Christ" is a list of "do's and don'ts", like the law of Moses?

Are there Jews and Gentiles in Christ? What are those outside of Christ?

Jews and Gentiles.

Would you use this as proof the aptostles taught observance of the old law? If not, do you have any?

Define "the old law".

 

[turbosixx]

Do you think that the "law of Christ" is a list of "do's and don'ts", like the law of Moses?

This doesn't address Paul saying he was not without law but under the law of Christ. I looked at the Greek meanings and there is no word confusion.

Jews and Gentiles.

Not the way I read it. If I'm not using the context properly, please show me.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Define "the old law".

It doesn't matter, anything before the cross.

 

[Right Divider]

This doesn't address Paul saying he was not without law but under the law of Christ. I looked at the Greek meanings and there is no word confusion.

Law or "the law". What Paul means is that we are not lawless as in "anything goes".

Not the way I read it. If I'm not using the context properly, please show me.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do think that "all one in Christ" means believers AND unbelievers? Under the OC, Gentiles were always welcome by God to join with Israel and obey the law as long the males were circumcised. This was true even as they left Egypt long ago:

Exo 12:48-49 KJV And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
​

The "all one in Christ" is Paul's teaching about the ONE NEW MAN, which did not start until Israel had rejected Father, Son and Spirit (which occurred in Acts 7).

It doesn't matter, anything before the cross.

Actually, it does matter. If you just want to talk in vague generalities, you can just spout your opinion as fact all that you want. It doesn't mean a thing.

Are you one of those that thinks that the OC started at Gen. 1:1? And that the NC starts at Matt. 1:1?

 

[turbosixx]

Are you one of those that thinks that the OC started at Gen. 1:1? And that the NC starts at Matt. 1:1?

No

 

[turbosixx]

The "all one in Christ" is Paul's teaching about the ONE NEW MAN, which did not start until Israel had rejected Father, Son and Spirit (which occurred in Acts 7).

That's not what the passage about the ONE NEW MAN tells us when keeping it in context.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross,