ECT How is Paul's message different?

[musterion]

You don't even understand salvation on the principle of grace so it is clear that you do not believe the gospel of grace. After all, since you can't understand that gospel you cannot believe it!

And here the pope of Shugartism denounces as unsaved everyone who does not believe as he does.

 

[musterion]

You don't even understand that grace and works are mutually exclusive because you said that "One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works."

Oh, I get it now.

You didn't understand the either/or point I was making to Turbo.

You really can't read.

 

[Clete]

Could you please provide scriptural proof.

That's all I've been doing. That's what my entire last post was all about.

It's says Paul continued to preach the gospel in Acts 14 so it stands to reason what he preached in Acts 13 is the gospel he received from Jesus.

Yeah, so?

Paul never preached any other gospel than what he received from Jesus Christ by direct divine revelation. The single chapter of Acts 13 is not the equivalent of the entire book of Romans nor of any of the other Pauline epistles. If you think it is then you're missing the point of the chapter, which is stated explicitly in verses 44-52. The point of the chapter is not to present Paul's gospel but to record that he went first to the Jews and went to the Gentiles only after the Jews had rejected his gospel.

If you can prove Paul converted Christians differently than Peter, I would be more inclined to see things your way.

Once again, that's all I've been doing.

You too, along with the Jews, would reject Paul as a heretic if not for the book of Acts. Not Paul AND the Twelve, just Paul. You'd be pleased as punch with Hebrews through Revelation but not with Paul.

If think baptism is required for salvation, your problem texts will be Pauline.
If you think you can lose your salvation, your problem texts will be Pauline.
Etc.

I gave a whole list of issues in my previous post that hinge entirely on one thing - Paul and his gospel.

Every one of those doctrinal debates are resolved by simply applied Galatians 2:9 to your reading of the New Testament. Not only that but you're left with no problem texts! Before, for each debate, you'd have one set of verses that seemed to argue in favor of one side and a set that seemed to argue in favor of the other and you were forced to choose which to take at face value and which to interpret in the light of the other set. For centuries Christians have fought and argued and hated each other over which set of verses should be interpreted and which should be simply read. But you take one single verse of scripture, a verse most Christians don't even know exists, and apply it to your reading of the New Testament and suddenly neither set has to be interpreted at all. You just read the text and take it for what it seems to say.

If you think James teaches that works are required for salvation its because he does.
If you think Peter preaches that you can lose your salvation its because he does.
If you think Paul teaches that you cannot lose your salvation that is entered into apart from works, its because that precisely what he does teach.

There is no need to understand one in the light of the other. There is no need to make one say something other than what a plain reading of the text would indicate. Any third grader can read the passages and tell you what they mean. He could read Romans 4 and James 2 and see instantly that they are saying opposite things and he'd be right! The reason there is no conflict is because they aren't speaking to the same group of people. Peter, James and John were ministering to their converts (i.e. Kingdom Jews) and Paul was ministering to his just as the bible tells us they agreed to do in Galatians 2.

How much more elegant of an argument could be made for the veracity of a theological system. It's so simple and resolves centuries worth of angry in house debates and leaves ANYONE with the ability to read and understand the bible all the way down to the literate third grade child.

I don't know how to make a more biblical argument than that. Sure, I could spend hours typing a post with a bunch of direct quotes from the bible and in fact whole books have been written on this exact subject that do just that but I'm not going to recreate entire books here on TOL. I've not made any claim here that cannot be easily verified with simple searches at BibleGateway.com or any number of other similar websites. Not that I'm unwilling to flesh out something if you have a specific question, just that I'm already short on time as it is and can't totally nail down every point in a single post.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I agree that Paul taught things that we don't see other writers teaching. The way I see it is they are all one and what they teach should harmonize not contradict.

The problem is that they do contradict. If you think they don't it IS because you interpret one in the light of the other. Those Christians who disagree with your particular theological stance simply swap the set of proof and problem texts. Baptists use one set of proof texts and interpret their problem text in the light of their proof texts while Seventh Day Adventists do the same but with the opposite set of verses.

Pick nearly any debate you want. The dividing line will be Paul.

The way I view scripture it does all harmonize and agrees. No contradictions.

Of course!

That doesn't mean that they don't actually contradict. Romans 4 and James 2 do not teach the same thing. You'll say they do but they don't. The reason you think they do is because when you read James your brain has been trained to read your doctrine into his writings. You automatically see James agreeing with Paul. It isn't because he actually does, its because your filter (i.e. your paradigm) distorts your vision. But if you will just set the two passages next to each other and read them word for word, there can be no denying that they say opposite things. The trump card that is usually played is "context". But in this particular case not even context saves the debate because both authors are clearly discussing salvation. James is NOT discussing sanctification (i.e. which comes after salvation) he is talking about salvation - period.

I'm afraid you have believed a doctrine that has taken a Ginsu to scripture where the pieces no longer fit together.

I have indeed divided the word of God. 2 Timothy 2:15

I would love to explore more into the many things you have laid out and I hope we will but first I want to determine that what Paul preached to make people members of the body is different than what Peter preached. It's a logical and reasonable starting point because Paul's letters are written to Christians. His letters apply to those who are in Christ.

I don't know what else there is to say but I'm happy to continue in whatever direction you wish.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Not really. The way you phrased it, at first, was hard to read any other way. That's why i started asking. But it's cleared up now.

It was decidedly NOT the same as Shugart saying two saving good news are in force today, which modern Jews are at liberty to shop around and select from. That issue remains an unreconcilable denial of Paul's gospel.

Oh! Wow. I've had Shugart on ignore so long I'd forgotten such things. I stand corrected.

 

[Interplanner]

When that period is over, and Israel is restored (their rise), we see all nations flocking to the Lord.


There is nothing about this in the NT, but there is an idea from the OT like this which came to fulfillment in the Israel of God.

"Flocking to the Lord" is not the idea conveyed in the so-called reign of Israel with Christ as King. Flocking implies a willingness; the image I've always read in D'ist material is that, finally, God harshly gets rid of anyone disobedient, and they go on to quote lines from the end of Rev 22. The D'ist belief about that Judean kingdom is an earth-bound, short-term 'new earth' which unnecessarily confuses what the NT is saying about the NHNE.

 

[Interplanner]

But no one before (other than) Paul taught a syllable about righteousness apart from works. No one but Paul taught about righteousness apart from the Law. No one since Abraham ever suggested that circumcision was PROHIBITED except the Apostle Paul.
--Clete



Very odd statements considering that Paul quotes the OT when he shows all of his basics. it's just that no one in Judaism--in post-exile Judaism especially--knew what they were looking at because it was meant to be seen in Christ, I Pet 1.

The doctrine that the righteousness of God was known in previous times as preached by him is found in Rom 3:31+.

There's not a prohibition of circumcision by Paul, but an allowance that it is optional. Unless you are thinking of the reaction to the Galatian zealots in which he said cut the whole thing off.

 

[Interplanner]

The problem is that they do contradict. If you think they don't it IS because you interpret one in the light of the other. Those Christians who disagree with your particular theological stance simply swap the set of proof and problem texts. Baptists use one set of proof texts and interpret their problem text in the light of their proof texts while Seventh Day Adventists do the same but with the opposite set of verses.

Pick nearly any debate you want. The dividing line will be Paul.


Of course!

That doesn't mean that they don't actually contradict. Romans 4 and James 2 do not teach the same thing. You'll say they do but they don't. The reason you think they do is because when you read James your brain has been trained to read your doctrine into his writings. You automatically see James agreeing with Paul. It isn't because he actually does, its because your filter (i.e. your paradigm) distorts your vision. But if you will just set the two passages next to each other and read them word for word, there can be no denying that they say opposite things. The trump card that is usually played is "context". But in this particular case not even context saves the debate because both authors are clearly discussing salvation. James is NOT discussing sanctification (i.e. which comes after salvation) he is talking about salvation - period.



I have indeed divided the word of God. 2 Timothy 2:15



I don't know what else there is to say but I'm happy to continue in whatever direction you wish.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The preaching of Acts 2-3 and Acts 13 are only different in that a warning to 'that generation' had to be given in 2-3 in Judea that would not apply directly to those Jews listening in Little Asia two decades later. They could of course visit or write their Judean cousins and warn them of what was coming.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

More of your peculiar brand of context-ignoring. I'll try again anyway... to confess sins to remain forgiven

The following words of the Lord Jesus were addressed to the Jews who lived under the law:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

These words are not referring to physical death because people who believe in Him die physically. Instead, these Jewish believers who lived under the law will never experience the following death:

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev.20:13-14).​

We also know that those who received the Hebrew epistles had already received eternal life in the Son (1 Jn.5:11) and here is what the Lord Jesus said about those to whom He gives eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

We also know that eternal life is a gift (Ro.6:23). We also know that the Lord will never take back a gift once it is given:

"For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro.11:29).​

We also know that the Lord Jesus told the Jews who believe that they will not come into condemnation:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).​

Of course those Jews who believed will not come into condemnation because we see that Paul used David (who lived under the law) as an example of a person to whom the Lord will not impute sin:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:5-8).​

 

[Interplanner]

That harmonization is as false as it is forced.

You are deluded if you think you've reconciled the dispensational "contradictions" which do exist in the Bible. You haven't.

You are deluded if you think the Bible all teaches the exact same things to everyone, just in different words. It doesn't. To say it does makes God the author of confusion. There are things in His Word that do not line up with one another. They cannot be made to line up without destroying both through unbelief disguised as human tradition. That is what you're doing now and that's what you've done since you got here.

[the word contradictions above is in quotes because they aren't actual contradictions, not the way infidels love to say exist. They are simply incidences of God speaking very differently to different people at different times ... but they do not line up and cannot be forced to line up without ignoring contexts and denying what they very plainly say. The fact that they bug you enough that you have to beat them into a false reconciliation proves you have zero understanding.]

Sorry but all of this is the D'ist trick to get you to think that it (D'ism with its 2 cylinders) is what makes sense, instead of the apostles. Acts 2-3 and 13 are perfectly unified, with the adjunct point that in Judea a warning needed to be made there and then, that would not apply directly in Little Asia 2 decades later.

The duality of D'ism is especially obnoxious when going through Hebrews where it always ignores the definition of the new covenant, and imagines a coming Judean kingdom when it reads 12-13 on Jerusalem, and when it ignores how 11 is saying the land never was the promise, but the promise was completed in the current generation in the coming of Christ.

D'ism is always 'true' in their private sense in which they void many, many passages like the above, or add X000 years into Mt 24A etc. when there is no natural sense to the text that calls for it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Both gospel preach that God became a Man, the He died in payment for our sins and that He rose from the dead.

So there are two gospels which declare that the Lord Jesus died in payment for our sins?

I know that the gospel of grace declares that but the other gospel which was preached, the one preached at Luke 9:6, said nothing about the Lord Jesus dying in payment for sins.

So where can anyone find another gospel besides these two, another one which declares that the Lord Jesus died in payment for sins?

Here Paul speaks of two gospels but where can we find another one which declares the Lord Jesus' death was the payment of sins:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7).​

 

[Interplanner]

Simple.

One cannot be forgiven all his sins (Col 2:13) AND at the same time required to confess sins else God won't forgive them (1 Jn 1:9).

One cannot need to be baptized with water else he won't be forgiven (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) AND need only be baptized with ONE spiritual baptism that involves no water (Eph 4).

One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works AND believe he needs to "keep short accounts with God," be water baptized to prove he's saved, to confess sins to remain forgiven, have quiet times in order to stay pleasing to Him, sign up to vacuum the "sanctuary" else God will ding him...etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

One cannot say that "people are saved by faith alone" AND say that "people are not saved by faith that is alone."

In each of the above examples either one proposition is valid and necessary for an individual, or the other is, but not both.

There. Proven.

Want more? There's more.

The unified preaching of the apostles is that Christ's suffering alone justifies us from our sins. There are 1000 ways for human behavior to appreciate this on responsive levels, but they apostles are never mistaken than Christ's doing and dying is alone the atonement.

The idea of putting a human response of any description on the same level is ridiculous, which is probably why Eph 2 says that 'that--faith--is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.' God creates believers who willingly do his service; they do not bicker about this kind of response vs another as though one was 'right' and the other sends you to hell. That is the flesh, and miserable.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The idea of putting a human response of any description on the same level is ridiculous, which is probably why Eph 2 says that 'that--faith--is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.'

So the Lord gives some people the gift of faith and He does not give faith to others?

So only some people can be saved while the rest cannot?

 

[Interplanner]

If you think James teaches that works are required for salvation its because he does.
If you think Peter preaches that you can lose your salvation its because he does.
If you think Paul teaches that you cannot lose your salvation that is entered into apart from works, its because that precisely what he does teach.
--Clete


All James meant was faith is never lifeless. He was not putting human works on the same level as Christ's.
Both Peter and Paul said that a person can deny Christ and therefore not be saved. God does not justify those who don't think they need any justification.

That qualification about 'entering into a salvation apart from works' is a bit odd if you meant he taught you could enter that way in other cases...

 

[Interplanner]

So the Lord gives some people the gift of faith and He does not give faith to others?

So only some people can be saved while the rest cannot?

I don't think he's trying to say anything about your question; merely reminding us that the whole thing comes from him and is for his use and kingdom. We are not to think of it as our possession or achievement.

 

[Interplanner]

So there are two gospels which declare that the Lord Jesus died in payment for our sins?

I know that the gospel of grace declares that but the other gospel which was preached, the one preached at Luke 9:6, said nothing about the Lord Jesus dying in payment for sins.

So where can anyone find another gospel besides these two, another one which declares that the Lord Jesus died in payment for sins?

Here Paul speaks of two gospels but where can we find another one which declares the Lord Jesus' death was the payment of sins:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7).​

The grammar there does not support 2 messages any more than the next verse supports 2 Gods. The conclusion of 2 messages from the verse you quoted is folly.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't think he's trying to say anything about your question; merely reminding us that the whole thing comes from him and is for his use and kingdom. We are not to think of it as our possession or achievement.

You are the one who said that faith is a gift of God.

In your opinion what determines who gets the gift and who doesn't?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The grammar there does not support 2 messages any more than the next verse supports 2 Gods. The conclusion of 2 messages from the verse you quoted is folly.

You have no credibility on this issue because you say that the Twelve were preaching a gospel at Luke 9:6 which declares that Christ died for our sins DESPITE the fact that when they preached a gospel there they did not even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).

 

[musterion]

The following words of the Lord Jesus were addressed to the Jews who lived under the law:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

These words are not referring to physical death because people who believe in Him die physically. Instead, these Jewish believers who lived under the law will never experience the following death:

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev.20:13-14).​

We also know that those who received the Hebrew epistles had already received eternal life in the Son (1 Jn.5:11) and here is what the Lord Jesus said about those to whom He gives eternal life:

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn.10:28).​

We also know that eternal life is a gift (Ro.6:23). We also know that the Lord will never take back a gift once it is given:

"For God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Ro.11:29).​

We also know that the Lord Jesus told the Jews who believe that they will not come into condemnation:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).​

Of course those Jews who believed will not come into condemnation because we see that Paul used David (who lived under the law) as an example of a person to whom the Lord will not impute sin:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:5-8).​

Once again, gentle readers, notice how he refuses to acknowledge the point of a post because doing so would force him to admit he made a simple error...so he riffs off in a whole other direction while pretending you didn't say what you said.

Consistently dishonest behavior like this is well within the realm of trolls.

 

[musterion]

While the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids* on here hold the second one of those two - people like STP, heir, Nick, and various of their pals on here. Some 50 errors and counting.

This may constitute another call-out. You need to stop. Long vacation, let go your anger.