ECT Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship) of Grace

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Aletheiophile said:
Click to expand...


There is a misunderstanding about justification. Yes, God may have given different laws (usually consistent on the deeper ethical level, but various laws that 'spoke' to opposing religions or cults around Israel), but there is only one way to be justified from sins and that is what Paul is teaching by saying that the 'faith was credited as righteousness' of Abraham was known as such back then. Justification is about the debt of sin, and there is only one solution. A perfect righteousness must be supplied. This does not come from human activity. None of the ceremonial or even ethical laws were give to solve this problem. Judaism thought so, but it was not what God thought.
 
A

Aletheiophile

New member
Interplanner said:
There is a misunderstanding about justification. Yes, God may have given different laws (usually consistent on the deeper ethical level, but various laws that 'spoke' to opposing religions or cults around Israel), but there is only one way to be justified from sins and that is what Paul is teaching by saying that the 'faith was credited as righteousness' of Abraham was known as such back then. Justification is about the debt of sin, and there is only one solution. A perfect righteousness must be supplied. This does not come from human activity. None of the ceremonial or even ethical laws were give to solve this problem. Judaism thought so, but it was not what God thought.
Click to expand...

8ae.gif
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
There is a misunderstanding about justification. Yes, God may have given different laws (usually consistent on the deeper ethical level, but various laws that 'spoke' to opposing religions or cults around Israel), but there is only one way to be justified from sins and that is what Paul is teaching by saying that the 'faith was credited as righteousness' of Abraham was known as such back then. Justification is about the debt of sin, and there is only one solution. A perfect righteousness must be supplied. This does not come from human activity. None of the ceremonial or even ethical laws were give to solve this problem. Judaism thought so, but it was not what God thought.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with all that.

At the same time, you are as off, as usual, as your notion of the Dispy's understanding of Romans 11:26's "all Israel."

For the kind of "all" that passage has in mind is the Messianic Judaism of Moses in Luke 1: 6 and Rom. 10:5.

Thus, the Spirit's condemnation of Israel's Replacement Judaism, as described by the Spirit through Stephen in Acts 7:51-53.

Messianic Judaism is described in John 1; Acts 3; Acts 7; and the end of Rom. 9 as having been keeping the Law by faith - believing that Jesus was the Christ their Law did say should come.

Prior to that, Messianic Judaism was the issue of keeping the Law by faith - by believing the Law that God would one day send them a Saviour.

But as usual, the lens that is ever your "one size fits all" has you seeing only one Judaism - the apostate one.

Which also asserts a belief in a Messiah, but it is a mere outward show - in the flesh, before men, not in the spirit (not from the heart) as to actually pleasing God, John 5; John 8; Rom. 2., etc.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
I basically agree with all that.

At the same time, you are as off, as usual, as your notion of the Dispy's understanding of Romans 11:26's "all Israel."

For the kind of "all" that passage has in mind is the Messianic Judaism of Moses in Luke 1: 6 and Rom. 10:5.

Thus, the Spirit's condemnation of Israel's Replacement Judaism, as described by the Spirit through Stephen in Acts 7:51-53.

Messianic Judaism is described in John 1; Acts 3; Acts 7; and the end of Rom. 9 as having been keeping the Law by faith - believing that Jesus was the Christ their Law did say should come.

Prior to that, Messianic Judaism was the issue of keeping the Law by faith - by believing the Law that God would one day send them a Saviour.

But as usual, the lens that is ever your "one size fits all" has you seeing only one Judaism - the apostate one.

Which also asserts a belief in a Messiah, but it is a mere outward show - in the flesh, before men, not in the spirit (not from the heart) as to actually pleasing God, John 5; John 8; Rom. 2., etc.
Click to expand...



"The man" in "the man that does them will live by them" was Christ. What he did is credited to those who have faith. You don't know justification and imputation as you should.

Thank you for agreeing about Judaism's RT in Acts 7. That's what Gal 3:17 is about. The modern 'problem' is too confused to bother with. It's taken two years for you to call it Judaism's RT, but way to go.

Believing that God would one day send an atoning savior is not a law and is not the Law of Moses. You're really leaky here; the whole thing you're trying to do is falling apart.

How do you 'keep the law' 'by faith' when those two expressions are at odds in Paul's letters?

Your last line sounds like the kind of stuff poorly taught evangelicals say when they can't quite grasp that christ is a solid piece of history. The 'real' messiah is something you 'have to do.' Go neo-orthodoxy!
 
P

popsthebuilder

New member
Interplanner said:
"The man" in "the man that does them will live by them" was Christ. What he did is credited to those who have faith. You don't know justification and imputation as you should.

Thank you for agreeing about Judaism's RT in Acts 7. That's what Gal 3:17 is about. The modern 'problem' is too confused to bother with. It's taken two years for you to call it Judaism's RT, but way to go.

Believing that God would one day send an atoning savior is not a law and is not the Law of Moses. You're really leaky here; the whole thing you're trying to do is falling apart.

How do you 'keep the law' 'by faith' when those two expressions are at odds in Paul's letters?

Your last line sounds like the kind of stuff poorly taught evangelicals say when they can't quite grasp that christ is a solid piece of history. The 'real' messiah is something you 'have to do.' Go neo-orthodoxy!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should re-read Romans throughout.

Many like to act as if Paul said to go on sinning if a true believer. He said nothing of the sort, nor is it said in any of the rest of the bible. Sure you. An make it seem that way by taking things out of context. So next time you think that's what is being said; do yourself a favor and read the whole chapter. And perhaps the one before and after.

As if the steward of the Lord would deny the example, teachings, and self sacrifice of the Lord.

Peace

Sent from my HTC Desire 512 using Tapatalk
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
"The man" in "the man that does them will live by them" was Christ. What he did is credited to those who have faith. You don't know justification and imputation as you should.

Thank you for agreeing about Judaism's RT in Acts 7. That's what Gal 3:17 is about. The modern 'problem' is too confused to bother with. It's taken two years for you to call it Judaism's RT, but way to go.

Believing that God would one day send an atoning savior is not a law and is not the Law of Moses. You're really leaky here; the whole thing you're trying to do is falling apart.

How do you 'keep the law' 'by faith' when those two expressions are at odds in Paul's letters?

Your last line sounds like the kind of stuff poorly taught evangelicals say when they can't quite grasp that christ is a solid piece of history. The 'real' messiah is something you 'have to do.' Go neo-orthodoxy!
Click to expand...

No to your paragraph one - the man was the individual Israelite under the law...Rom. 10; already cited.

As to your paragraph two, as usual, unless you are spoonfed what another has asserted all along (the crippling result of your OVER RELIANCE ON ENDLESS EXTERNAL SOURCES) you are able to see it.

How many times have I cited Acts 7:51 along with Matt. 12:30-32 as to apostate Israel - even before you and I were on this site.

Re: Your paragraph three - "we have found him who Moses..", and "ye search the scriptures because...", and "had ye believed Moses..." fill those in; genius.

Your paragraph four - recall Paul's stern "because they sought it not by faith" (connected with my answer to your paragraph three).

As for your last paragraph; not worth bothering with; I have my nose in Scripture on these issues, not in YOUR actual "bible" - those endless, brown nose EXTERNAL sources you are ever singing the praises of.
 
D

Danoh

New member
popsthebuilder said:
Perhaps you should re-read Romans throughout.

Many like to act as if Paul said to go on sinning if a true believer. He said nothing of the sort, nor is it said in any of the rest of the bible. Sure you. An make it seem that way by taking things out of context. So next time you think that's what is being said; do yourself a favor and read the whole chapter. And perhaps the one before and after.

As if the steward of the Lord would deny the example, teachings, and self sacrifice of the Lord.

Peace

Sent from my HTC Desire 512 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As much as I take issue with him for his OVER RELIANCE on external sources for his supposed understanding of Scripture; it is just as clear to me that Interplanner asserts nothing of the kind as to what you are asserting.

Understand the other side's view before attempting to debate it; that it not have to be spoonfed to you.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
No to your paragraph one - the man was the individual Israelite under the law...Rom. 10; already cited.

As to your paragraph two, as usual, unless you are spoonfed what another has asserted all along (the crippling result of your OVER RELIANCE ON ENDLESS EXTERNAL SOURCES) you are able to see it.

How many times have I cited Acts 7:51 along with Matt. 12:30-32 as to apostate Israel - even before you and I were on this site.

Re: Your paragraph three - "we have found him who Moses..", and "ye search the scriptures because...", and "had ye believed Moses..." fill those in; genius.

Your paragraph four - recall Paul's stern "because they sought it not by faith" (connected with my answer to your paragraph three).

As for your last paragraph; not worth bothering with; I have my nose in Scripture on these issues, not in YOUR actual "bible" - those endless, brown nose EXTERNAL sources you are ever singing the praises of.
Click to expand...


re "The man who does them"
It is sarcastic. They didn't live! It's part of the tutorial to lead to Christ, not the other way around. That is why Christ's work is mentioned so immediately in the next things he says!

What they should have concluded from the Law was not that it was an alternate path, but Rom 3:19, 20. How could anything be more clear?

re Acts 7 & Gal 3:17
Why did Paul write 3:17? Spoon-fed? Schmoonfed. You don't know why because you don't do why.

re finding Him whom Moses spoke of
...is not a law. It is Gospel. Do you know the difference between 'indicative' mode and 'imperative'? There was an imperative, of course: to LISTEN to him. Err, how do you listen to him until he has come?...

re keeping the law
One justifies and one does not. At least you're getting close, but you are not making the distinctions Paul made. As with Abraham, justification always was available by faith, and it always was the crediting of righteousness. The Law was trying to prove it had to be, but you know people. They'll take it to mean something else for some other reason.

What question in all of this are you trying to answer? What do you think needs to be answered? There's still a chance I can understand you. By not referring to Rom 3:19-20, or not knowing it's there, or not being able to say why Gal 3:17 was written, or not factoring in the 'tutorial' role of the Law, I can't agree that your "nose" is in Scripture.

All of those passages just mentioned, btw, are internal, not external, do you see?

It will save much effort if you agree where possible.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
re "The man who does them"
It is sarcastic. They didn't live! It's part of the tutorial to lead to Christ, not the other way around. That is why Christ's work is mentioned so immediately in the next things he says!

What they should have concluded from the Law was not that it was an alternate path, but Rom 3:19, 20. How could anything be more clear?

re Acts 7 & Gal 3:17
Why did Paul write 3:17? Spoon-fed? Schmoonfed. You don't know why because you don't do why.

re finding Him whom Moses spoke of
...is not a law. It is Gospel. Do you know the difference between 'indicative' mode and 'imperative'? There was an imperative, of course: to LISTEN to him. Err, how do you listen to him until he has come?...

re keeping the law
One justifies and one does not. At least you're getting close, but you are not making the distinctions Paul made. As with Abraham, justification always was available by faith, and it always was the crediting of righteousness. The Law was trying to prove it had to be, but you know people. They'll take it to mean something else for some other reason.

What question in all of this are you trying to answer? What do you think needs to be answered? There's still a chance I can understand you. By not referring to Rom 3:19-20, or not knowing it's there, or not being able to say why Gal 3:17 was written, or not factoring in the 'tutorial' role of the Law, I can't agree that your "nose" is in Scripture.

All of those passages just mentioned, btw, are internal, not external, do you see?

It will save much effort if you agree where possible.
Click to expand...

"That righteousness which is of the law" centered around, not mere outward of "doing those things" the law commanded, rather; doing them "by faith."

Would you like the actual passages or will you need to check that much against more of your endless OVER RELIANCE on EXTERNAL sources.

Either way; we both know you will only read your EXTERNAL SOURCE OVER RELIANCE into whatever passages I might cite.

By the way, I am well aware you subscribe to a Partial form of Preterism. One that is much more Partial than Tel's or I Am A Berean's (Partial Preterism).

The extreme that is Replacement, nonetheless - be it its step mother: Reformed or Covenant - or one or another of its other red headed step-children; the extremes that are Historicism; (Extreme) Futurism, ad nauseum.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
"That righteousness which is of the law" centered around, not mere outward of "doing those things" the law commanded, rather; doing them "by faith."

Would you like the actual passages or will you need to check that much against more of your endless OVER RELIANCE on EXTERNAL sources.

Either way; we both know you will only read your EXTERNAL SOURCE OVER RELIANCE into whatever passages I might cite.

By the way, I am well aware you subscribe to a Partial form of Preterism. One that is much more Partial than Tel's or I Am A Berean's (Partial Preterism).

The extreme that is Replacement, nonetheless - be it its step mother: Reformed or Covenant - or one or another of its other red headed step-children; the extremes that are Historicism; (Extreme) Futurism, ad nauseum.
Click to expand...



The only RT issue that matters is what Judaism did as revealed in Gal 3:17. D'ism's unreplacement theology is fraught with 2P2P problems, and doesn't know where it is the history of things. It just goes 'plunk, open the Bible, this verse is about me and us today!'

The obedience of faith didn't matter to zealots; they formed morality police and sabbath police (Mt 24A). They never heard of God's "Sabbath" in Heb 4.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
The only RT issue that matters is what Judaism did as revealed in Gal 3:17. D'ism's unreplacement theology is fraught with 2P2P problems, and doesn't know where it is the history of things. It just goes 'plunk, open the Bible, this verse is about me and us today!'

The obedience of faith didn't matter to zealots; they formed morality police and sabbath police (Mt 24A). They never heard of God's "Sabbath" in Heb 4.
Click to expand...

You are not familiar with the Scriptural concept of the Law by faith, are you.

It is within one of the (only four) dispensations in Scripture (Promise, Law, Mystery Grace, Kingdom Fullness).
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Danoh said:
You are not familiar with the Scriptural concept of the Law by faith, are you.

It is within one of the (only four) dispensations in Scripture (Promise, Law, Mystery Grace, Kingdom Fullness).
Click to expand...
So you're saying that God not dispense anything at all to Adam?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
popsthebuilder said:
Perhaps you should re-read Romans throughout.

Many like to act as if Paul said to go on sinning if a true believer. He said nothing of the sort, nor is it said in any of the rest of the bible. Sure you. An make it seem that way by taking things out of context. So next time you think that's what is being said; do yourself a favor and read the whole chapter. And perhaps the one before and after.

As if the steward of the Lord would deny the example, teachings, and self sacrifice of the Lord.

Peace

Sent from my HTC Desire 512 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I don't know why you would think that from the above. You have to distinguish between ceremonial/dietary and ethical or it crashes. Paul was not a permissive.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
You are not familiar with the Scriptural concept of the Law by faith, are you.

It is within one of the (only four) dispensations in Scripture (Promise, Law, Mystery Grace, Kingdom Fullness).
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be would I? Mystery Grace is nonsense and Kingom Fullness is futurist and therefore wrong.

No, the expression is not in Paul nor in how he thinks. Prove otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top