Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored

[SimpleMan77]

Just because you're saved doesn't mean it's okay to sin or to avoid doing rightly. The difference is that the Law made the one (i.e. salvation) requisite to the other (i.e. doing rightly). With Paul, however, the fear of death that the Law imposed has been replaced with the law of Love in which there is no fear of death for we are identified in Christ who is righteous and we are therefore righteous in Him and cannot be otherwise.
Notice also that your objections are all based in the flesh. What we do or do not do. Paul addresses this issue directly...

Romans 7: 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

Paul also directly answers your objection as asked...

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

So I see we both agree that we don't want to risk standing before God if we've willfully chosen to disobey Paul's teachings about how to live.

We agree that obeying his commands for "presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice", and the commands following in Romans 12, can't save us if we're trying to use them to earn salvation, but we agree that we don't want to hear what God says to us if we purposely choose to transgress them.

I don't think we see things as much differently, as we are approaching it from different angles.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

MAD wackos stand too firm on 1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV) and refuse to let religion pollute the gospel.
Those heretics...

Yep.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Posters who are ignorant of what MAD teaches us Grace Gospel Believers, always seem to come back to the old: "So, you guys have a license to sin, huh?" They wouldn't come to that faulty understanding if it weren't for their "misunderstanding of MAD." They get all their, supposed knowledge of MAD from those who haven't the slightest idea of what, MAD stands for.

 

[Clete]

The next verse explains it.

Galatians 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

It was what he was called to, similar to if God called me today to evangelize the Hispanic community in the US, and anointed me especially to reach them.

In that meeting (Acts 15) a few things are important to note.

Paul said that he approached the meeting knowing that, if the Apostles didn't approve of what he had been preaching, his race had been run in vain up to that point.

Paul said that the Apostles didn't add anything to him, but agreed with what he was preaching 100%.

In the meeting, Peter said that God had first used him to preach "purification by faith" to the Gentiles, and concluded that was identical to what Paul was preaching.

The Apostles weren't the ones preaching that the Gentiles had to keep the law of Moses - that was converted Pharisees.

I have a difficult time understanding how people can contradict themselves so blatantly without noticing it. They compartmentalize their doctrine to such a degree that one teaching has no impact another until the contradiction is pointed out and then its just glossed over.

Your answer here is that the difference between the two gospels is nothing at all other than the audience.

I cannot resist saying that I find that answer flatly stupid. Not that you are stupid, I know you're just stating what you've been taught, but any third grader (third graders haven't spent decades getting married to one theological view or another) who reads Galatians 2 knows that such an idea is rediculous.

Not only is it silly on its face but it contradicts YOUR own doctrine! You're overlooking nothing less than the Great Commission!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

Are you suggesting that the collective legs of the Twelve Apostles were broken and that God required a thirteenth apostle with a commission to preach the gospel to every nation in the world except Israel? In actual fact, you've done more here than merely suggest it.

Why do you suppose the Twelve agreed to send Paul to the Gentiles while they ministered only to Israel (Gal. 2:9) Did they forget Jesus' command? Did they ignore it?

Further, Paul tells us plainly that Israel was cut off (interesting use of words seeing as how the word circumcision is used to describe them in Gal. 2). Why would the Twelve need to stick around and preach to a nation that had been cut off, why wouldn't they all of have gone to the Gentiles?

Further still, James states as plain as day that his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). And he said this in the context of Paul's meeting with the Twelve during the Jerusalem council. Paul didn't preach anything like being "zealous for the law"! In fact, there can be no argument that he preached the exact opposite of that. I wonder if, since circumcision is a symble of the law (both being a cutting off of the flesh) whether that has anything to do with Paul's gospel being refered to as the Gospel of Uncircumcision while the gospel that the Twelve taught is called the Gospel of Circumcision? Do you really mean to imply that this is a coincidence?

Do you see what I mean here? Such an answer caves in whole sections of doctrine (not to mention the scripture itself). You have to maintain a doctrine that is a coherent whole because ideas have consequences and an error in one place often has implications in several others.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SimpleMan77]

Posters who are ignorant of what MAD teaches us Grace Gospel Believers, always seem to come back to the old: "So, you guys have a license to sin, huh?" They wouldn't come to that faulty understanding if it weren't for their "misunderstanding of MAD." They get all their, supposed knowledge of MAD from those who haven't the slightest idea of what, MAD stands for.

Those aren't my words. Read my post 2 up from here, where I end it by saying "I don't think we see things as much differently, as we are approaching it from different angles."




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I have a difficult time understanding how people can contradict themselves so blatantly without noticing it. They compartmentalize their doctrine to such a degree that one teaching has no impact another until the contradiction is pointed out and then its just glossed over.

Your answer here is that the difference between the two gospels is nothing at all other than the audience.

I cannot resist saying that I find that answer flatly stupid. Not that you are stupid, I know you're just stating what you've been taught, but any third grader (third graders haven't spent decades getting married to one theological view or another) who reads Galatians 2 knows that such an idea is rediculous.

Not only is it silly on its face but it contradicts YOUR own doctrine! You're overlooking nothing less than the Great Commission!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

Are you suggesting that the collective legs of the Twelve Apostles were broken and that God required a thirteenth apostle with a commission to preach the gospel to every nation in the world except Israel? In actual fact, you've done more here than merely suggest it.

Why do you suppose the Twelve agreed to send Paul to the Gentiles while they ministered only to Israel (Gal. 2:9) Did they forget Jesus' command? Did they ignore it?

Further, Paul tells us plainly that Israel was cut off (interesting use of words seeing as how the word circumcision is used to describe them in Gal. 2). Why would the Twelve need to stick around and preach to a nation that had been cut off, why wouldn't they all of have gone to the Gentiles?

Further still, James states as plain as day that his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). And he said this in the context of Paul's meeting with the Twelve during the Jerusalem council. Paul didn't preach anything like being "zealous for the law"! In fact, there can be no argument that he preached the exact opposite of that. I wonder if, since circumcision is a symble of the law (both being a cutting off of the flesh) whether that has anything to do with Paul's gospel being refered to as the Gospel of Uncircumcision while the gospel that the Twelve taught is called the Gospel of Circumcision? Do you really mean to imply that this is a coincidence?

Do you see what I mean here? Such an answer caves in whole sections of doctrine (not to mention the scripture itself). You have to maintain a doctrine that is a coherent whole because ideas have consequences and an error in one place often has implications in several others.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well said.

 

[john w]

Like I said, obey all you know.

Correct-Like you said-not the bible.


Memorize-the righteousness of God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Those who are of the Body of Christ won't be judged by God the Father at The Great White Throne Judgment. That is reserved for "The Spiritually Dead" meaning, those who are unsaved. Reveltion 20:12 states: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

The saved will stand before Christ. (God the Son) 2 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." These are the Spiritually alive people. (The saved) There will be no condemnation for the Body of Christ. No punishment, just rewards or the loss of rewards for what we did while in the flesh. Each member of the Body of Christ has the "Righteousness of Christ" and the promise of eternal life. The unsaved will be judged by their works and be cast into The Lake of Fire for eternity.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Correct-Like you said-not the bible.


Memorize-the righteousness of God.

That's fine. I'll believe, then deliberately obey Paul's commands for how to please God, all the while trusting that it's ONLY God's mercy that saved me.

You believe, then choose to deliberately not obey Paul's commands for how to please God, all the while trusting that it's only God's mercy that saved you.

I don't have to know you to know that you would rather step into eternity having not chosen to disobey God (as listed below).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

What is God going to tell you at judgement if you say "I believed, but I ignored all of Paul's other instructions"?

Jesus Christ is judging us now for a position in his kingdom. (1 Peter 4:17)

 

[SimpleMan77]

Posters who are ignorant of what MAD teaches us Grace Gospel Believers, always seem to come back to the old: "So, you guys have a license to sin, huh?" They wouldn't come to that faulty understanding if it weren't for their "misunderstanding of MAD." They get all their, supposed knowledge of MAD from those who haven't the slightest idea of what, MAD stands for.

True difference between you and me:

I respond to you saying "it is by faith alone" by saying "I agree, we are saved by faith alone, but my faith causes me to obey, and I don't want to face God after my life in purposeful disobedience"

You respond to me saying "faith should produce obedience" by saying "works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. You don't have to obey any part of the commands of the Bible in order to be saved. Only believe".

You won't even admit that being faithful to your wife, not being a fornicator, being true to worshipping only God, not idols, etc IS REQUIRED to inherit the Kingdom of God.

"Inheritance" refers to a gift given us by the death of Jesus, but we can live unrighteously to the point we "shall not inherit the kingdom of God". Paul defines the "unrighteous".

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Try believing, along with all those things, and try to claim your inheritance. It won't happen, I don't care how much you believe.

If you say "when you truly believe, you won't do those things". That's what I've been saying all along. True faith produces obedience, and if it doesn't produce obedience it dies on the vine.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

I have a difficult time understanding how people can contradict themselves so blatantly without noticing it. They compartmentalize their doctrine to such a degree that one teaching has no impact another until the contradiction is pointed out and then its just glossed over.

Your answer here is that the difference between the two gospels is nothing at all other than the audience.

I cannot resist saying that I find that answer flatly stupid. Not that you are stupid, I know you're just stating what you've been taught, but any third grader (third graders haven't spent decades getting married to one theological view or another) who reads Galatians 2 knows that such an idea is rediculous.

Not only is it silly on its face but it contradicts YOUR own doctrine! You're overlooking nothing less than the Great Commission!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

Are you suggesting that the collective legs of the Twelve Apostles were broken and that God required a thirteenth apostle with a commission to preach the gospel to every nation in the world except Israel? In actual fact, you've done more here than merely suggest it.

Why do you suppose the Twelve agreed to send Paul to the Gentiles while they ministered only to Israel (Gal. 2:9) Did they forget Jesus' command? Did they ignore it?

Further, Paul tells us plainly that Israel was cut off (interesting use of words seeing as how the word circumcision is used to describe them in Gal. 2). Why would the Twelve need to stick around and preach to a nation that had been cut off, why wouldn't they all of have gone to the Gentiles?

Further still, James states as plain as day that his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). And he said this in the context of Paul's meeting with the Twelve during the Jerusalem council. Paul didn't preach anything like being "zealous for the law"! In fact, there can be no argument that he preached the exact opposite of that. I wonder if, since circumcision is a symble of the law (both being a cutting off of the flesh) whether that has anything to do with Paul's gospel being refered to as the Gospel of Uncircumcision while the gospel that the Twelve taught is called the Gospel of Circumcision? Do you really mean to imply that this is a coincidence?

Do you see what I mean here? Such an answer caves in whole sections of doctrine (not to mention the scripture itself). You have to maintain a doctrine that is a coherent whole because ideas have consequences and an error in one place often has implications in several others.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Can we agree that being faithful to your wife, not being a fornicator, being true to worshipping only God, not idols, etc IS REQUIRED to inherit the Kingdom of God.

"Inheritance" refers to a gift given us by the death of Jesus, but we can live unrighteously to the point we "shall not inherit the kingdom of God". Paul defines the "unrighteous".

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Would you be confident in believing, along with all those things, and trying to claim your inheritance. It won't happen, I don't care how much you believe.

If you say "when you truly believe, you won't do those things". That's what I've been saying all along. True faith produces obedience, and if it doesn't produce obedience it dies on the vine.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Crucible]

Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy?

Most definitely, especially being that they can't even live up to Paul's teachings. It all funnels, as most dubious sects go, into the crypts of 'easy believism'. They became lazy with fundamental ordinances and justified it by pure omission of scriptures.
You see, why waste such time with things like baptism when you can baptize a hundred people at one time with a prayer :AMR:

Forget MADism, seriously.

 

[Danoh]

Paul taught that the Gospel was the death, burial and resurrection.

He also taught that those who don't "obey the Gospel" would reap the vengeance of God (same terminology used in 1 Pet 4:17)

2 Thessalonians 1:8
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

You obey the Gospel by repentance (take up your cross, die to yourself), baptism (buried with Him), and receiving and walking in the Holy Ghost (the power of the resurrection).

That's why Paul baptized people after they repented, and God filled them with the Holy Ghost when Paul laid his hands on them.

How else do you "obey the Gospel"?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Sm77, whether your concerns about MAD are genuine or not (God knoweth), one thing is certain...

You would do both yourself and others well, to learn first...how to arrive at any passage or passage's...actually intended...sense.

The intended sense of "obey" in 2 Thess. 1:8 is the sense of "believe..."

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Works...for acceptance...or performance based acceptance before God...were the issue...before...the Cross...not...after...

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

 

[Clete]

So I see we both agree that we don't want to risk standing before God if we've willfully chosen to disobey Paul's teachings about how to live.

We agree that obeying his commands for "presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice", and the commands following in Romans 12, can't save us if we're trying to use them to earn salvation, but we agree that we don't want to hear what God says to us if we purposely choose to transgress them.

I don't think we see things as much differently, as we are approaching it from different angles.

Sorry, I appreciate the attempt to find common ground but you're quite wrong.

You say that faith without works is dead (Yes, James 2 is talking about salvation). I say that's the only kind of faith God honors during the Dispensation of the Grace of God.

If you think we are in agreement you've completely misunderstood. You see, its your works, the works you do because you've been commanded to do so, the works you perform to avoid God's wrath, those are the works that will be burned up. You're the one that is going to be saved as through fire. Paul isn't talking about unbelievers, he's talking about believers who do not rest in His finished work but instead, resurect their flesh and try to be good. You cannot be good SM77! That's the message of the whole of Paul's gospel. It isn't about you, it's about Christ. It is "Not I, but Christ" for if you are in Him, you are to recon yourself dead to the flesh but alive to God. What good works can a dead man do? NONE! You have be crucified in Christ and it is no longer you who lives but Christ lives His life through you BY FAITH! You are therefore righteous and CANNOT be otherwise because Christ cannot be otherwise no matter what actions you take in the flesh. Your flesh cannot overcome the righteousness of Christ nor outspend the price paid for you on the cross. That's the whole point of Romans 7 if not Paul's entire ministry and message.

I'll stop there for now. When I get started on this topic I tend to get preachy and long winded so I'll just keep it breaf.

I would however, like it very much if you could take a stab at responding to just how your belief that Paul's and Peter's gospels are identical except for the intended audience squares with the Great Commission.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SimpleMan77]

I have a difficult time understanding how people can contradict themselves so blatantly without noticing it. They compartmentalize their doctrine to such a degree that one teaching has no impact another until the contradiction is pointed out and then its just glossed over.

Your answer here is that the difference between the two gospels is nothing at all other than the audience.

I cannot resist saying that I find that answer flatly stupid. Not that you are stupid, I know you're just stating what you've been taught, but any third grader (third graders haven't spent decades getting married to one theological view or another) who reads Galatians 2 knows that such an idea is rediculous.

Not only is it silly on its face but it contradicts YOUR own doctrine! You're overlooking nothing less than the Great Commission!

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

Are you suggesting that the collective legs of the Twelve Apostles were broken and that God required a thirteenth apostle with a commission to preach the gospel to every nation in the world except Israel? In actual fact, you've done more here than merely suggest it.

Why do you suppose the Twelve agreed to send Paul to the Gentiles while they ministered only to Israel (Gal. 2:9) Did they forget Jesus' command? Did they ignore it?

Further, Paul tells us plainly that Israel was cut off (interesting use of words seeing as how the word circumcision is used to describe them in Gal. 2). Why would the Twelve need to stick around and preach to a nation that had been cut off, why wouldn't they all of have gone to the Gentiles?

Further still, James states as plain as day that his followers were all "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). And he said this in the context of Paul's meeting with the Twelve during the Jerusalem council. Paul didn't preach anything like being "zealous for the law"! In fact, there can be no argument that he preached the exact opposite of that. I wonder if, since circumcision is a symble of the law (both being a cutting off of the flesh) whether that has anything to do with Paul's gospel being refered to as the Gospel of Uncircumcision while the gospel that the Twelve taught is called the Gospel of Circumcision? Do you really mean to imply that this is a coincidence?

Do you see what I mean here? Such an answer caves in whole sections of doctrine (not to mention the scripture itself). You have to maintain a doctrine that is a coherent whole because ideas have consequences and an error in one place often has implications in several others.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jesus gave the great commission, which was that His disciples were to oversee an outreach to all nations. He did not say "you go only to the Jews, and I'll raise up someone else for the Gentiles".

Peter and the apostles headed up the outreach to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. Keep in mind that at this time, the Jewish disciples probably outnumbered the Gentile disciples by 100 to 1.

Yes, there were Jewish disciples who were at that time, and continued to be, zealous for the law. In his writings, Paul said that was perfectly OK for the Jews to be that way.

What he had a problem with, is the Jews trying to enforce that upon the Gentiles. He said that it was fine to observe feast days or to not observe them, to keep dietary laws, or to not keep them.

What wasn't OK was trusting in that for salvation, and putting your beliefs on someone else. In fact, Paul said that when he was around those who were under the law, he kept the teachings of the law himself to try to reach them.

The book of Galatians was specifically written to counter the teachings of people who were trying to require the law of Moses. They had nothing to do with Paul requiring Gentiles to abstain from fornication, adultery, lying, unrighteousness, etc, which he consistently taught.

Paul clearly says that people who do those things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Danoh]

Only dangerous to those who embrace it. There have always been heresy, and that is by design. Indeed Paul said "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Corinthians 11:19).

My comment is designed to make those who are involved think. If we can carve out commands of New Testament scripture as "not being for us", we can do that with any part we don't want to obey.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Sm77, you are again off on the intended sense of a passage...

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How so, Paul?

11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

In other words, as with all the other issues they were divided over, likewise when they came together to observe the Lord's Supper.

Even in that, theirs was not the spirit, or heart attitude of communion with one another in the Lord that the Lord's Supper had both been meant to be observed in, and instill in them as to how they were to conduct themselves with one another...in their dealings with...one another.

11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The sense of "heresies" there is that of "divisions among" them as to who among them was higher than others on some sort of a hierarchy of approval in God's eyes.

Divisions among them that Paul asserts actually only end up manifesting who among them was actually approved as to conduct becoming of a saint.

Again, Sm77, if you are going to save the MADs from their supposed "heresy," you might do well to first learn how to arrive at any passage or passage's...actually intended sense.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Sm77, you are again off on the intended sense of a passage...

1 Corinthians 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How so, Paul?

11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

In other words, as with all the other issues they were divided over, likewise when they came together to observe the Lord's Supper.

Even in that, theirs was not the spirit, or heart attitude of communion with one another in the Lord that the Lord's Supper had both been meant to be observed in, and instill in them as to how they were to conduct themselves with one another...in their dealings with...one another.

11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The sense of "heresies" there is that of "divisions among" them as to who among them was higher than others on some sort of a hierarchy of approval in God's eyes.

Divisions among them that Paul asserts actually only end up manifesting who among them was actually approved as to conduct becoming of a saint.

Again, Sm77, if you are going to save the MADs from their supposed "heresy," you might do well to first learn how to arrive at any passage or passage's...actually intended sense.

I agree with you that he was specifically talking about divisions there, and I would expand that to say that it included the divisions over who they were following.

Some wanted to follow Peter, some Apollos, some Paul, but Paul rebuked them, saying that each of the apostles had a different ministry (planting, watering, etc.), but that each of the NT Apostles and prophets were unified in pointing people to Jesus - working in the same harvest.

There is, however, a principle that can be applied to other issues besides the division. Jesus taught that the tares should be allowed to grow with the wheat. Same principal.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Clete]

Jesus gave the great commission, which was that His disciples were to oversee an outreach to all nations. He did not say "you go only to the Jews, and I'll raise up someone else for the Gentiles".

And yet that is precisely what happened.

Peter and the apostles headed up the outreach to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. Keep in mind that at this time, the Jewish disciples probably outnumbered the Gentile disciples by 100 to 1.

As if the Holy Spirit couldn't handle it with twelve disciples but He could with thirteen? Is that what you are suggesting?

Yes, there were Jewish disciples who were at that time, and continued to be, zealous for the law. In his writings, Paul said that was perfectly OK for the Jews to be that way.

What he had a problem with, is the Jews trying to enforce that upon the Gentiles. He said that it was fine to observe feast days or to not observe them, to keep dietary laws, or to not keep them.

What wasn't OK was trusting in that for salvation, and putting your beliefs on someone else. In fact, Paul said that when he was around those who were under the law, he kept the teachings of the law himself to try to reach them.

The book of Galatians was specifically written to counter the teachings of people who were trying to require the law of Moses. They had nothing to do with Paul requiring Gentiles to abstain from fornication, adultery, lying, unrighteousness, etc, which he consistently taught.

Paul clearly says that people who do those things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

What is the asnwer to James' question?

 

[john w]

That's fine. I'll believe, then deliberately obey Paul's commands for how to please God, all the while trusting that it's ONLY God's mercy that saved me.

You believe, then choose to deliberately not obey Paul's commands for how to please God, all the while trusting that it's only God's mercy that saved you.

I don't have to know you to know that you would rather step into eternity having not chosen to disobey God (as listed below).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Translation: Evasion, spin, tap dancing with a white can, top hat, create a moving target, rabbit trails.....

Did our hero address his own "argument," and answer:

How much obedience?

Repent of what?

Not a peep.

"If you do your best, and repent when you see you've done wrong, the righteousness of Jesus will continue to cover you. When God looks at you he'll see Jesus."-you

Your best, you muse? Wrong standard.


The Lord Jesus Christ died, simpletonian, because our/your "best" is not acceptable-He died for our sins, because we "come short" of the standard required to be in His holy presence....Memorize:

The righteousness of God.


99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999% and you are still headed for hell.


Tell us, on record, that you have "repented of your all of your sins." = stopped sinning.


Go ahead.


An honest man/woman admits he/she has not, cannot.


A lost person, says they can. You talk like the lost. They talk like you.


Get saved.


Tell us what happened, 2000+ years ago, at Calvary, and why.


Tell us the good news.

You won't, because you do not know the bad news. That, TOL, is the reason most are lost-they are not convinced/convicted of their dire condition-the bad news. My evidence? This simpletonian perverter of the gospel of Christ.