Kevin
New member
Hope,
Well, when one says that "faith ONLY" saves, that's exactly what that's refering to - the belief of something to be true based upon given evidence. Faith only, by it's definition, is just that belief, and does not include repentance. the faith only saves theory would allow somebody to believe in Christ and live and not repent from their life of sin, and they would still be saved, which is ludicrous.
No, it was not rejected by all Jews, but yes, the vast majority.
Yeah, and these were people who rejected Christ, and of course would not realize the the Mosaic Law had already been done away with.
When Christ told the 11 apostles to go out and preach the gospel, they went out and preached Christ, not the Mosaic Law. They taught what Christ had emphasized in the gospels - belief in Him and obedience to Him.
Yeah, Paul's message was forgiveness of sins through Christ, just as you quoted in the first verse. But this had already been going on well before that:
Luke 24:46-48 (MKJV)
46) And He said to them, So it is written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48) And you are witnesses of these things.
Remission of sins in His name began at Jersusalem, which was Pentecost. Paul preached the same thing - remission of sins through Christ.
They weren't jealous.
They taught them to abstain from food to offered to idols because it might weaken or offend others' concscience who believe that eating food offered to idols will defile a man (such as Jewish converts). To avoid this, they said that you would to well to abstain from these things...
Paul taught a similar thing in 1 Cor. 8:8-13:
8) But food does not commend us to God. For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak.
10) For if anyone sees you who have knowledge sitting in an idol temple, will not the weak one's conscience be lifted up so as to eat things sacrificed to idols?
11) And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died.
12) And sinning in this way against your brothers, and wounding their conscience, being weak, you sin against Christ.
13) Therefore, if food offends my brother, I will eat no flesh forever, that I do not offend my brother.
Basic message - if it offends the brother - don't eat it least he fall to temptation and sin.
Now getting back to your reference of Acts 15:20-21, and them supposedly including the law of Moses in the gospel... just look a few verses down, and you will see that that notion is entirely inaccurate:
Acts 15:24
24) Because we have heard that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to whom we gave no such command);
Obvious proof that the 12 didn't command people to keep the Mosaic Law. Obvious. If they did, they certainly would have commanded cirucmcision, but it's clear they "gave NO such commandment."
You are missing the context here. The reason that the elders told Paul to go with the four and observe Jewish customs was because of the crowd of Jews who knew that Paul had taught against cirucmcision. It was because of this crowd that they told Paul this. This does not mean that they taught that the Gentiles should keep the law, for we see in verse 25 that the Jewish elders said:
Acts 21:25 (MKJV)
25Act 21:25 And as to the nations who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such things, except only that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a thing strangled, and from fornication.
And again, they decided to tell them to abastain from the sake of peace between the Jewish and Gentile converts.
Also noticed that Pauled agreed to the elders advice and observed the Jewish customs (verses 26). Now if that was against the gospel that Paul preached, he certainly wouldn't have agreed to this, because Paul himself said that any other gospel than the one he preached is accursed (Gal. 1:9).
Water baptism has nothing to do with the context of verse 25. Nice try.
That's the problem with dispensationism... it's so arbitrary. I guess I should learn that I might get a different version depending on which dispy I'm speaking to.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was just asking a question. Since you don't believe that Peter preached the gospel of the new covenant in Acts 2, I was just wondering your thoughts on wheter or not Peter preached the same gospel that he did in Acts 2 as he did to the Getiles in Acts 10? It's a valid question.
No, Peter is not a prime example of "progressive revelation". Peter is a prime example of somebody who had a problem letting go of years of a Jewish vs. Gentile frame of mind. Peter had a problem with lettting it go, so Christ had to help him out with that when He gave Peter the visision of the sheets.
Well of course, this teaches to fear and obey God, as every Christian should.
I've already explained what Paul meant by saying that "not by works of righteousness". Paul is certainly NOT saying that obeying the commandents of God has nothing to do with our salvation, for Paul himself obeyed the gospel and was baptized in his own conversion. Also, Paul himself said:
Now why would Paul say that what's important is keeping the commandments of God, if it wasn't essential to salvation? This goes hand in hand with Rev. 22:14 which says that it is those who keep His commandments who will enter heaven.
And in the beginning of Revelation, we see Gentile churches being judged by their works. Why would the church of Ephesus be in danger and need to be warned if works had nothing to do with salvation? Christ told them to remember and repent and to do the first works (Rev. 2:4-5).
Then there's the scene of Judgement Day in Matt 25:31-46. Verses 41 through 46 show people condemned to Hell because of their lack of good works. What happened to the progressive revelation that works nothing to do with our salvation?
Acts 2:38 is NOT what John preached. Peter in Acts 2 told the Jews in verse 21 that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and then Peter went on to preach Christ and Him crucified, and that God made Him both Lord and Christ.
Now I want you to show me where John the Baptism preached Christ and Him crucified. And I want you to show me one example of John baptizing people in the name of the Lord or for the remissioin of sins. That will be impossible to do since scripture says that remission of sin in His name began in Jerusalem (Pentacost). It's also a Biblical fact that Paul had people baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), just as Peter did in Acts 2:38.
Yes I can... you're just too blinded by your dispy beliefs to see it. Acts 19:1-5 irrefutably shows people who were baptized into John's baptism being baptized again, but this time in the name of the Lord. When a person is baptized two times, that person has been rebaptized. You just fail to see the distinction between John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Paul reocognized the difference, which is why he had them rebaptized.
Then there's:
Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught the things of the Lord diligently, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And Aquila and Priscilla heard him, and they took him and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly.
The scriptures emphasize that Apollos only knew the baptism of John. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, what do you think they taught him more perfectly on, based on context? Do you think Apollos continued baptizing people into Jhon's baptism after this? No way. We know that Paul had people baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), and both Paul and Apollos baptized people in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12-16). Obviously, it Apollos baptized people in the name of the Lord, just as Peter baptized people at Corinth in the name of the Lord (the same one Peter performed in Acts 2).
Well, when one says that "faith ONLY" saves, that's exactly what that's refering to - the belief of something to be true based upon given evidence. Faith only, by it's definition, is just that belief, and does not include repentance. the faith only saves theory would allow somebody to believe in Christ and live and not repent from their life of sin, and they would still be saved, which is ludicrous.
No, it was not rejected by all Jews, but yes, the vast majority.
Yeah, and these were people who rejected Christ, and of course would not realize the the Mosaic Law had already been done away with.
When Christ told the 11 apostles to go out and preach the gospel, they went out and preached Christ, not the Mosaic Law. They taught what Christ had emphasized in the gospels - belief in Him and obedience to Him.
Yeah, Paul's message was forgiveness of sins through Christ, just as you quoted in the first verse. But this had already been going on well before that:
Luke 24:46-48 (MKJV)
46) And He said to them, So it is written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48) And you are witnesses of these things.
Remission of sins in His name began at Jersusalem, which was Pentecost. Paul preached the same thing - remission of sins through Christ.
They weren't jealous.
They taught them to abstain from food to offered to idols because it might weaken or offend others' concscience who believe that eating food offered to idols will defile a man (such as Jewish converts). To avoid this, they said that you would to well to abstain from these things...Paul taught a similar thing in 1 Cor. 8:8-13:
8) But food does not commend us to God. For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak.
10) For if anyone sees you who have knowledge sitting in an idol temple, will not the weak one's conscience be lifted up so as to eat things sacrificed to idols?
11) And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died.
12) And sinning in this way against your brothers, and wounding their conscience, being weak, you sin against Christ.
13) Therefore, if food offends my brother, I will eat no flesh forever, that I do not offend my brother.
Basic message - if it offends the brother - don't eat it least he fall to temptation and sin.
Now getting back to your reference of Acts 15:20-21, and them supposedly including the law of Moses in the gospel... just look a few verses down, and you will see that that notion is entirely inaccurate:
Acts 15:24
24) Because we have heard that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to whom we gave no such command);
Obvious proof that the 12 didn't command people to keep the Mosaic Law. Obvious. If they did, they certainly would have commanded cirucmcision, but it's clear they "gave NO such commandment."
You are missing the context here. The reason that the elders told Paul to go with the four and observe Jewish customs was because of the crowd of Jews who knew that Paul had taught against cirucmcision. It was because of this crowd that they told Paul this. This does not mean that they taught that the Gentiles should keep the law, for we see in verse 25 that the Jewish elders said:
Acts 21:25 (MKJV)
25Act 21:25 And as to the nations who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such things, except only that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a thing strangled, and from fornication.
And again, they decided to tell them to abastain from the sake of peace between the Jewish and Gentile converts.
Also noticed that Pauled agreed to the elders advice and observed the Jewish customs (verses 26). Now if that was against the gospel that Paul preached, he certainly wouldn't have agreed to this, because Paul himself said that any other gospel than the one he preached is accursed (Gal. 1:9).
Water baptism has nothing to do with the context of verse 25. Nice try.
That's the problem with dispensationism... it's so arbitrary. I guess I should learn that I might get a different version depending on which dispy I'm speaking to.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was just asking a question. Since you don't believe that Peter preached the gospel of the new covenant in Acts 2, I was just wondering your thoughts on wheter or not Peter preached the same gospel that he did in Acts 2 as he did to the Getiles in Acts 10? It's a valid question.
No, Peter is not a prime example of "progressive revelation". Peter is a prime example of somebody who had a problem letting go of years of a Jewish vs. Gentile frame of mind. Peter had a problem with lettting it go, so Christ had to help him out with that when He gave Peter the visision of the sheets.
Well of course, this teaches to fear and obey God, as every Christian should.
I've already explained what Paul meant by saying that "not by works of righteousness". Paul is certainly NOT saying that obeying the commandents of God has nothing to do with our salvation, for Paul himself obeyed the gospel and was baptized in his own conversion. Also, Paul himself said:
Now why would Paul say that what's important is keeping the commandments of God, if it wasn't essential to salvation? This goes hand in hand with Rev. 22:14 which says that it is those who keep His commandments who will enter heaven.
And in the beginning of Revelation, we see Gentile churches being judged by their works. Why would the church of Ephesus be in danger and need to be warned if works had nothing to do with salvation? Christ told them to remember and repent and to do the first works (Rev. 2:4-5).
Then there's the scene of Judgement Day in Matt 25:31-46. Verses 41 through 46 show people condemned to Hell because of their lack of good works. What happened to the progressive revelation that works nothing to do with our salvation?
Acts 2:38 is NOT what John preached. Peter in Acts 2 told the Jews in verse 21 that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and then Peter went on to preach Christ and Him crucified, and that God made Him both Lord and Christ.
Now I want you to show me where John the Baptism preached Christ and Him crucified. And I want you to show me one example of John baptizing people in the name of the Lord or for the remissioin of sins. That will be impossible to do since scripture says that remission of sin in His name began in Jerusalem (Pentacost). It's also a Biblical fact that Paul had people baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), just as Peter did in Acts 2:38.
Yes I can... you're just too blinded by your dispy beliefs to see it. Acts 19:1-5 irrefutably shows people who were baptized into John's baptism being baptized again, but this time in the name of the Lord. When a person is baptized two times, that person has been rebaptized. You just fail to see the distinction between John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Paul reocognized the difference, which is why he had them rebaptized.
Then there's:
Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in the spirit, he spoke and taught the things of the Lord diligently, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. And Aquila and Priscilla heard him, and they took him and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly.
The scriptures emphasize that Apollos only knew the baptism of John. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, what do you think they taught him more perfectly on, based on context? Do you think Apollos continued baptizing people into Jhon's baptism after this? No way. We know that Paul had people baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5), and both Paul and Apollos baptized people in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12-16). Obviously, it Apollos baptized people in the name of the Lord, just as Peter baptized people at Corinth in the name of the Lord (the same one Peter performed in Acts 2).
Last edited:
