ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Danoh]

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

Nope, no anger on my part.

At the same time, your rule observance didn't seem to stop you from calling me out about Jordan to JohnW while I was away a few days....

Didn't seem to bother you when Tam recently called me out on Jerry's Pre-Trib thread.

Its time, Musti, that YOU took a long vacation not only from your double-standard, but from your thin skin.

:rotfl:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Right Divider]

Why not?

You can reply to any question that way. Why not actually provide a good answer to the question?

Then why is it that the people that believed Paul are members of the body and the people that believed Peter are not?

Because scripture shows clearly that God had a plan for Israel and a different plan for the body of Christ. I know that you reject this without consideration, so you're stuff here you are.

 

[john w]

Don't disagree with musterion unless you want to be called dishonest!

Vs.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Trib-Rapture&p=5228934&highlight=#post5228934
Post #6:

If you want to be honest about the rapture you must not deny the fact that it is said to be imminent.

Why don't you address that fact?

My response-post#8:

Add that "If you want to be honest" to his bag of tricks.


Translated: If you want to be honest, you must agree with me, Nicky Shugart, on everything that I assert, and YOU MUST NOT DENY IT!!!!

Listen to Nicky, TOL audience. Do not deny what he says.

Actor, as he mimicked my response to his sophistry.

 

[Interplanner]

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).

They DENIED he was going to. They knew from a long time back. To deny is to wish it weren't true, that it wasn't going to happen.

It would be better for you to read about the psychology of denial or see a good comedy movie on it, than to keep pounding on some bizarre idea that they didn't know.

What the disciples did in Lk 18 does not and cannot change the grammar of Gal 2. There is no grammatical or diagrammatical basis for 2 gospels nor 2 gods in the next verse (both sentences diagram the same way).

 

[Interplanner]

You can reply to any question that way. Why not actually provide a good answer to the question?


Because scripture shows clearly that God had plan for Israel and a different plan for the body of Christ. I know that you reject this without consideration, so you're stuff here you are.

The D'ist way of doing Scripture thinks there is another plan. There is not and D'ists are the worst about this when it comes to the ordinary meaning of Hebrews where no less that 3 flubs come to mind every time they talk about it.

 

[Interplanner]

The reign of God of the prophets (where the expression comes from) was not going to come without the death of Messiah, Dan 9, Is 53, and that was the righteousness of God, Jer 23-33. That's why I Peter 1 reads the way it does.

D'ism is utterly foreign with their concepts that want 'in.'

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Vs.Actor, as he mimicked my response to his sophistry.

Just curious but do you agree with Clete that those who lived under the law could lose their salvation?

Do you think that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?

I just want to check and see if you are a genuine card-carrying member of the Neo-MAD outfit.

 

[Clete]

There's not a prohibition of circumcision by Paul.....

Galatians 5:2



That response it intentionally very short. I am actively avoiding getting into the weeds on this. The entire point of my conversation with Turbosixx has to do with big picture (i.e. paradigm level) concepts. Getting into some details is unavoidable but I'm not looking to actively debate the doctrinal details that come up.

 

[Clete]

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...

Perfect example of what a typical Baptist might say.

Go find a person who attends a Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps a Catholic Church and you're likely to hear the effective opposite. It'll be Paul who didn't mean what it sounds like he said and James who is taken at face value.

My doctrine doesn't need to explain what James meant. He meant what he said - plain as day - period. James' message is that if you don't have works, you are not saved. Simple. That's the entire point of the whole 2nd chapter of his book.

Paul says the exact opposite. It is he who DOES NOT WORK to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

And again, there is no need for me to explain what Paul meant. He meant precisely what it sounds like he meant. He meant exactly what he said. Any third grade child can read it and understand what is being said.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The D'ist way of doing Scripture thinks there is another plan. There is not and D'ists are the worst about this when it comes to the ordinary meaning of Hebrews where no less that 3 flubs come to mind every time they talk about it.

You are a liar and a fibbing story teller.

 

[Right Divider]

Perfect example of what a typical Baptist might say.

Go find a person who attends a Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps a Catholic Church and you're likely to hear the effective opposite. It'll be Paul who didn't mean what it sounds like he said and James who is taken at face value.

My doctrine doesn't need to explain what James meant. He meant what he said - plain as day - period. James' message is that if you don't have works, you are not saved. Simple. That's the entire point of the whole 2nd chapter of his book.

Paul says the exact opposite. It is he who DOES NOT WORK to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

And again, there is no need for me to explain what Paul meant. He meant precisely what it sounds like he meant. He meant exactly what he said. Any third grade child can read it and understand what is being said.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Amen Clete.

IP is a classic example of someone that is unable to believe SIMPLE and CLEAR scripture.... like Hebrews 8:8

 

[john w]

Just curious but do you agree with Clete that those who lived under the law could lose their salvation?

Do you think that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?

I just want to check and see if you are a genuine card-carrying member of the Neo-MAD outfit.

Nice misdirection, you wicked sower of discord amongst the brethren, as I caught you in another example of hypocrisy, acting, as we know that you are bible corrector/mystic/agnostic/blender, humanist,Full Preterist, satanic "Replacement Theology" troll, Church of Christ member, and a "it all says the same thing" fraud, member of that "outfit."You confused old man, clown, as TOL laughs at you, as do others sites, as you've been banned on over 6 sites.

Tell us, John 3 Nicky 3 "Jew" Shugart-why have you been banned from scores of sites, and most of your "threads" been closed, on TOL?

Not a peep.

I thought so, troll.

 

[Interplanner]

Perfect example of what a typical Baptist might say.

Go find a person who attends a Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps a Catholic Church and you're likely to hear the effective opposite. It'll be Paul who didn't mean what it sounds like he said and James who is taken at face value.

My doctrine doesn't need to explain what James meant. He meant what he said - plain as day - period. James' message is that if you don't have works, you are not saved. Simple. That's the entire point of the whole 2nd chapter of his book.

Paul says the exact opposite. It is he who DOES NOT WORK to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

And again, there is no need for me to explain what Paul meant. He meant precisely what it sounds like he meant. He meant exactly what he said. Any third grade child can read it and understand what is being said.


Resting in Him,
Clete

When James was being pastoral about this issue, he was not necessarily disagreeing with what Paul had said. After all, he used the word faith. If he did not meant that word, he would have used another. But obviously a faith that justifies is very grateful and does work for God.

Is a marriage a piece of paper? No, so there has to be a fire. That's all James is saying. A body without a spirit is dead, even though it is a body. He is not the apostle of 'spirit' while Paul is the apostle of 'body.'

There are not two gospels here, there are not two sets of letters, there are not two doctrines, and there are not two programs one for Israel and one for anyone else. Those things are plain as well.

 

[Interplanner]

Perfect example of what a typical Baptist might say.

Go find a person who attends a Seventh Day Adventist or perhaps a Catholic Church and you're likely to hear the effective opposite. It'll be Paul who didn't mean what it sounds like he said and James who is taken at face value.

My doctrine doesn't need to explain what James meant. He meant what he said - plain as day - period. James' message is that if you don't have works, you are not saved. Simple. That's the entire point of the whole 2nd chapter of his book.

Paul says the exact opposite. It is he who DOES NOT WORK to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.

And again, there is no need for me to explain what Paul meant. He meant precisely what it sounds like he meant. He meant exactly what he said. Any third grade child can read it and understand what is being said.


Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't know any Baptists, so who did you insult?

 

[Interplanner]

Galatians 5:2



That response it intentionally very short. I am actively avoiding getting into the weeds on this. The entire point of my conversation with Turbosixx has to do with big picture (i.e. paradigm level) concepts. Getting into some details is unavoidable but I'm not looking to actively debate the doctrinal details that come up.

but it is a loaded statement in the letter. don't get too confined, constricted, narrow. Don't lift out one line as though there was no framework before it. It means if you do what the Judaizers are saying to do, Christ is no value. If you do it to worship God after becoming a Christian for your own reasons, and definitely not as some kind of addition to Christ, go ahead. Hopefully insurance will cover the procedure.

The Judaizers, D'ists should hear this, preached the other gospel that was prohibited. there was another gospel out there and it was anathemaed by Paul. To show how obtuse D'ists are, all they do all day is find a 2nd 'Christian' one in Galatians instead of the conflict behind the letter!

 

[Interplanner]

You are a liar and a fibbing story teller.

1, the myth of the exclusive nature of the letter as though for Jews only
2, the nature of the new covenant we are now in, coordinating with all other NT references
3, the belief that the land was what the ancient believers were seeking
4, the vital connection to the New Jerusalem as a geographic entity--even while the land of Israel was about to be fried.

All comments on these things here at TOL by the D'ists are utterly mistaken

 

[turbosixx]

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

I suggest your last post was about Paul and not “his” gospel. He is just a messenger.

The two gospels are similar, as your verses clearly indicate. But things that are similar are not the same. "Similar" and "same" are not synonyms. Both gospels are based on Jesus and what He accomplish at Calvary.

You say they are similar but not the same. Can you prove, without the epistles, that the gospel Paul preached to make members of the body is any different than the gospel Peter preached?

How can they preach the same thing and make different “Christians”?

I will be glad to go on to the epistles but I first want to establish what they heard and believed to become Christians.

 

[turbosixx]

Romans 4 and James 2 do not teach the same thing.

What is Paul's point in Romans 4? Why does he bring up Abraham?

 

[turbosixx]

Thanks for giving your proof with scripture.

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).

The verse there in Colossians is talking about how their sins were forgiven, by now being in Christ as opposed to their prior uncircumcision. Yes, when we are added to Christ we are a new creation and given a clean robe. Can that robe be tarnished?
I challenge the view of a verse against other verses to see if they agree. Can you please give me your take on the member of the church in 1 Cor. 5? If all his sins are forgiven, why is Paul having him handed over to Satan? Once handed over, if his sins are already forgiven, then what does he need to do to come back?

I would suggest Paul adds details the other writers do not and the other writers add details Paul does not but they all work together.

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).

If there is only “spiritual” baptism, why did Paul water baptize those who believed his message just as the others did? Wouldn't that make two if spiritual baptism is a real thing?

One cannot claim to be saved by grace through faith alone in Christ's DBR, without works[/U

Do you think it’s wise to add the word “alone” to God’s word? Also if you’re quoting Eph 2, do you think it’s wise to change “not of works” to “without works”? I know this is probably a paraphrasing but it's a twisting and has been repeated enough to become "truth".

One cannot say that "people are saved by faith alone" AND say that "people are not saved by faith that is alone."
Man adds the word alone and says “saved by faith alone” but bible says You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. I will stick with the bible.

There. Proven.

I appreciate your input but all you’ve proven to me is that you change words and take things out of context.

 

[whitestone]

I could say the same for you or everyone for that matter.



I believe it's important to understand when the two groups became one body.

The root I'm referring to is what did the new converts hear and believe that caused them to be added to the body?

lol, everyone does do they not,the keyboard is it seems a reflection...

Which two in the things me and you discussed the Grecians(Grecian Jews)and James in A15,A21 or the 12 and the BOC?