ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?

turbosixx

New member
So was James.
Just to be sure we're on the same page. We both agree that Paul and James are saying that man can be justified apart from (without) works “of the law”.? You surprised me, I didn’t expect you to see it that way.


It is not possible for you to find any way around that one. Paul explicitly states that "faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness" at some point before Genesis 9 when he was circumcised (Romans 4:9) while James explicitly states that "Abraham our father [was] justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar" in Genesis 22 (James 2:21).

There is no way they aren't making opposite points. It's as plain as can be - IF - all you do is read it.

I agree. Paul is talking about before circumcision and James is talking about after circumcision but they are NOT making opposite points. Paul is talking about works "of the law" and James is not. If James said we are justified by works of the law, that would be opposite.

Is it your understanding that Paul is saying justified without works and James is saying justified by works?

All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works. The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate. Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.

James is showing us what true faith in Christ looks like.
Gal. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.



What? Who said anything about being a heretic?

I'm talking about the way you interpret the bible. Your paradigm literally has made you think you take passages at face value when you absolutely do not. I'm not suggesting that you're doing it intentionally. In fact, quite the contrary. You are, in fact, quite entirely blind to it. All I am doing is showing it to you in the hopes that you'll see it and accept the possibility that there is an objectively superior way to go about doing biblical theology.


Look, you need to cool your jets. What are you new around here or what? Have you ever seen me insinuate that someone is stupid? Or is it not my regular mode to simply tell someone plainly that they are stupid? Trust me, if I was trying to say that you were stupid, there'd be no room for doubt about what I was trying to say because I would use the words "You" and "are" and "stupid!" in that order.

I can tell you that if I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't even be engaged in this conversation.


Well, it's not as if I've been simply making that claim without supporting it with reasonable arguments. This is, after all, a website where people who disagree with eachother come to hash things out. That's sort of the whole point of being here.

Besides, I don't disagree with you any more than you do with me, right? So why don't I feel attacked by you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong for saying that Paul and James are saying opposite things? You've made that claim and made a solid argument. It isn't my fault if I don't engage the debate in a fashion that would require me to accept your premise (i.e. accept your biblical paradigm).

Last night as I was lying in bed thinking about this and it hit me that I could have worded this better. Sorry about that. I don’t feel attacked. I actually prefer raw honest dialog. I feel that when someone communicates that way, they’re usually genuine. I was just getting frustrated that you were focusing on what's wrong with me instead of addressing scriptures as we have now done.

I personally could care less about the background of who is on the other side of a debate. I want to hear their points and the scriptures they base those points on and then discuss.


It should help you! Do you think that it's coincidence that I guessed your position on most, if not all, of those doctrinal issues correctly?

It isn't a coincidence!

Which of those doctrines did I guess wrong? (The last one is always pretty iffy.)
I agree to 2 out of 5. Yes, we who have been at this a while generally know the others stance within a short time.



There is no question about it. I don't even have to read the passage (although I am familiar with it). Anyone saved prior to Acts 9 (and several after that point) were saved under the Kingdom Gospel and were brought into the the family of God under the previous dispensation and were, therefore, required to obey the Law just as Jesus did and taught. Anyone who became a believer became a member of the Kingdom of Israel. Virtually all, if not all, of them were Jews and simply accepted Jesus as their Messiah and would have believe and functioned in a manner consistent with being Jews, observing the Sabbaths (all of them) avoiding unclean foods, tithing, baptizing, etc, etc.

Wow, we definitely see this differently. This could be an entire thread in itself.

I’m not exactly sure of your answer though. were saved under the Kingdom Gospel” Could you please clarify. Were they saved by grace or the law?


Anyone who became a believer became a member of the Kingdom of Israel.
Clete

What were they before this?

Respectfully,
Tom
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Just to be sure we're on the same page. We both agree that Paul and James are saying that man can be justified apart from (without) works “of the law”.? You surprised me, I didn’t expect you to see it that way.
What did I say that made you think this?

In actual fact, it doesn't matter what sort of works either of them are talking about. Works of the law, works of the Spirit, hard work, busy work or fire works, it doesn't matter. Works or the lack thereof DO NOT save you period, end of sentence.

Under the Kingdom Gospel one was saved because they had faith which was followed and confirmed by the things you did and didn't do. The works were are part of the cause and had to be continued in order to maintain your membership in the nation of Israel.

Under the Gospel of Grace, you are saved by faith APART from works. Works do not play a causal role but are rather a result of salvation. We are "saved unto good works" bot by them. They do not come before but after. Our salvation is not a result of what we do (or don't do) but as a result of placing our faith in what has already been done for us.

I agree. Paul is talking about before circumcision and James is talking about after circumcision but they are NOT making opposite points. Paul is talking about works "of the law" and James is not. If James said we are justified by works of the law, that would be opposite.
I established pretty clearly that James was talking about the law. You simply repeating your position does nothing to address my arguemnts.

Is it your understanding that Paul is saying justified without works and James is saying justified by works?
That's very nearly verbatim what they both say!

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

James 2: 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works.
You say this and I believe that you believe this but the problem is that the text of scrupture is plain and plain can be!

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

You read that and then you feel the need to expain "his point"....

The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate.
"might want to read it as..."

How is it possible that you cannot see that you just said that you simply read it and then explain how simply reading it "would be inaccurate"?

Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.
I've been quoting you one all a long and as I said, it does not matter anyway. Any work, as soon as it become required becomes a work of the law anyway. Sacrificing you child to God by fire was never mentioned as a required duty in the Mosaic Law, quite the contrary, and yet this is the work that James claims saved Abraham and made him righteous.

James is showing us what true faith in Christ looks like.
He is showing us was true faith in Christ looks like for those saved under a dispensation of law where works are required for salvation.

Gal. 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
It is truly astounding how you cannot see that you argue against yourself.

The only way that quoting this verse would make sense in my mind is if you think that I'm suggesting that Christian ought not do good works; that I am somehow arguing that Christians should avoid doing good.

I, of course, am not saying that. I simply saying that, under grace, works come as a result of salvation and not the other way around as it was under the law.

Last night as I was lying in bed thinking about this and it hit me that I could have worded this better. Sorry about that. I don’t feel attacked. I actually prefer raw honest dialog. I feel that when someone communicates that way, they’re usually genuine. I was just getting frustrated that you were focusing on what's wrong with me instead of addressing scriptures as we have now done.

I personally could care less about the background of who is on the other side of a debate. I want to hear their points and the scriptures they base those points on and then discuss.
Good! I was afraid I was loosing you there.

I agree to 2 out of 5. Yes, we who have been at this a while generally know the others stance within a short time.
Sorry, but I can't say that I believe you. Perhaps it has to do with the way I worded them but those issues are related in ways that most have no idea about and they almost always go together as a group. The unclean foods one is, as I said, always a little iffy because that one is all but impossible to confuse as being anything other than associated specifically with Israel and the Mosaic Law but still, if you go to a CHristian television studio, you can sling a dead cat without hitting a Christian that avoids foods like shell fish, catfish, pork, etc. There was one that showed up on this thread, if I remember correctly.

Wow, we definitely see this differently. This could be an entire thread in itself.

I’m not exactly sure of your answer though. were saved under the Kingdom Gospel” Could you please clarify. Were they saved by grace or the law?
Well, everyone who has ever been saved has been saved by God grace. The law cannot save because no one, other than God Himself, can following it perfectly and so your question presents something of a false dichotomy.

However, if your phrasing is understood as a sort of short hand way of referring to the two dispensations, then the answer is that they were saved by "the law" but I would never state it in those terms except as a figure of speach. The far more communicative way of stating it is that they were saved under the dispensation of law.

The terms "dispensation of law", "kingdom gospel", or just "law' are all sort of used interchangably by those of us who see that Paul was preaching a different gospel and so cofusion can ensue rather easily.

The point is that under the dispensation of law, works were required just as James very clearly explains.

What were they before this?
Jews. And not necessarily unsaved ones either, by the way. Accepting Jesus as their Messiah likely seemed to be a completely natural step in their spiritual lives. Just as Peter wasn't unsaved when called by Jesus, many of those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah in the early Acts period were likely faithful Jews who loved God and obeyed the Law as any good Jew would.



A moment ago, I memtioned two gospels. What do you make of this passage...

[indentGalatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[/indent]

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

turbosixx

New member
It’s clear that we are not going to agree on James 2 and Romans 4 which is no surprise. Thanks for the discussion. I will be glad to move on to this passage. It will be interesting to see how we disagree on this one as well :).

A moment ago, I memtioned two gospels. What do you make of this passage...

[indentGalatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[/indent]

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ok, let’s get a little more of the context.
2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
So Paul was preaching a gospel that did not include circumcision. God sent him to the 12 to set before them the gospel he proclaimed. God wanted him to be sure that he was not running or had not run in vain.

2:6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
So when they compare the supposed 2 gospels, the 12 do not see anything a miss. If Paul’s gospel didn’t include baptizing believers, wouldn’t the 12 at least try to add it to Paul? Where is the discussion about it not being part of the gospel like we see with circumcision?

2:5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
If adding circumcision to the gospel is not the truth of the gospel, then why would Paul add/continue baptism to his gospel if it isn’t the truth of his gospel?

2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.
If you refer back to the Greek text, gospel only appears once because there is only one gospel going out to 2 different audiences. The whole world is made up of two types of people, Jew and Gentile. There is no need for a specific gospel for each. All have sinned. All can be saved the same way.

When we compare the gospel that Peter preached in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13, they're the same message.

2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)
Paul is stressing the unit of the message by citing the unity of the source.

Can we agree that Galatians 2 is talking about the counsel in Acts 15?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
All I'm doing is reading it, as written. Paul is NOT saying “without” works. The point Paul is trying to get across, based on the words and context is, without works "of the law". Someone might want to read it as simply "without" works but that would be inaccurate. Paul qualifies THE works he's talking about. I know of ZERO passages that tell us “without” works. Justified without works “of the law”, absolutely. Justified without any works, no.


Respectfully,
Tom
Justified without any works

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
 

turbosixx

New member
Justified without any works

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

I would suggest to you that Abraham was considered righteous because he obeyed God. He pleased God.
That passage doesn't come out and say without works. If Abraham did no work (slept with Sarai), would this have come true?

We must obey the gospel.
8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Jn. 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
 
Last edited:

way 2 go

Well-known member
I would suggest to you that Abraham was considered righteous because he obeyed God. He pleased God.
you're suggesting God lied .

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.


That passage doesn't come out and say without works.
yes it says without works


If Abraham did no work (slept with Sarai), would this have come true?
does the bible say Abraham was counted righteous for sleeping with Sarai or
he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
***Capital letters in my posts are intended for emphasis only and should not be read as "yelling".***

It’s clear that we are not going to agree on James 2 and Romans 4 which is no surprise. Thanks for the discussion.
I find it incredible that you're satisfied with the way you do doctrine. Your argument consisted basically of "Paul and James are saying the same thing!" and that's it. Just a claim with nothing at all to back it up and you are basically refusing to respond to the actual arguments that I've made to the contrary, never mind the fact that a simple reading of the passages in question belie your position. If simply stating your doctrine is sufficient to establish it, why bother with the bible at all?

I will be glad to move on to this passage. It will be interesting to see how we disagree on this one as well :).

Ok, let’s get a little more of the context.
2:2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
So Paul was preaching a gospel that did not include circumcision. God sent him to the 12 to set before them the gospel he proclaimed. God wanted him to be sure that he was not running or had not run in vain.
God wanted the 12 to understand Paul's gospel. Paul wasn't worried about the veracity of his gospel, he had gotten it by direct divine revelation. His visit to Jerusalem was for the twelve's benefit, not Paul's.

2:6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
So when they compare the supposed 2 gospels, the 12 do not see anything a miss.
THIS is what you got from verse 6?

Where does it say anything about what you just said in verse six?

Paul is saying here that he wasn't going to Jerusalem to answer to the Twelve as though he was under their authority.

If Paul’s gospel didn’t include baptizing believers, wouldn’t the 12 at least try to add it to Paul?
This is called begging the question. Your argument here presupposes that your position concerning their gospels being the same is correct. Such an argument is invalid because that's the issue at question.

No, the Twelve would not have tried to add something to a gospel that they acknowledge was given to Paul by God.

Where is the discussion about it not being part of the gospel like we see with circumcision?
Circumcision is symbolic of the whole law. Circumcision is a physical cutting off of the flesh whereas the law is a cutting off of the "flesh" in a spiritual/moral sense. Everything pertaining to the flesh is encapsulated in the practice of circumcision. If you don't have to circumcise, you don't have to perform any work of the flesh at all. (Gal. 5:3)

2:5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
If adding circumcision to the gospel is not the truth of the gospel, then why would Paul add/continue baptism to his gospel if it isn’t the truth of his gospel?
What are you talking about?

This passage has exactly NOTHING to do with baptism!

This verse five is what tells you that verse six is talking about Paul not being there to submit himself to the Twelve.

2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.
If you refer back to the Greek text, gospel only appears once because there is only one gospel going out to 2 different audiences. The whole world is made up of two types of people, Jew and Gentile. There is no need for a specific gospel for each. All have sinned. All can be saved the same way.
I'm going to assume that you're simply parroting something someone else taught you here because it's not even close to being correct. The fact that the word gospel only appears once in this sentence does not imply that there was only one gospel. That logic doesn't even make sense.

"C.S. Lewis wrote the book, "Mere Christianity" while Bob Enyart wrote, "The Plot".

How many books are mentioned in the above sentence? Notice that I only used the word "book" once!

The same sort of linguistic device is being used here. There are two different messages being preached to two different groups of believers. It's just as simple and plain as it can possibly be - IF - all you do is read it.

When we compare the gospel that Peter preached in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13, they're the same message.
Incredible. Utterly, incomprehensibly incredible.

As if Acts 13 is the only source we have in the whole bible for what Paul preached.

2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)
Paul is stressing the unit of the message by citing the unity of the source.
NO HE IS NOT DOING ANY SUCH THING!!!

What in the world did you bother saying anything about the context for?

Paul is saying that the Twelve acknowledged that Paul had recieved his gospel from God and therefore didn't dispute it and agreed that they would minister to the Jews in Israel (preempting the Great Commission, I might add) while Paul went to the Gentiles with his gospel.

Can we agree that Galatians 2 is talking about the counsel in Acts 15?
Yes.


If Paul's gospel is the same as that the of the Twelve, where's the need for them to stay and minister to the Jews while Paul goes to the Gentiles?

In fact, if Paul's gospel was the same as the Twelve, why was Paul taught it by revelation and wny was there any need to explain himself to the Twelve at all?

Indeed, why Paul at all? What was wrong with the Twelve that they could not have been given this gospel to the Gentiles? Where's the need for a thirteenth apostle?

Clete
 

turbosixx

New member
you're suggesting God lied .

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
I'm suggesting your idea of what it means to believe is incorrect.



does the bible say Abraham was counted righteous for sleeping with Sarai or
he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Gen. 15:4 Then behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.”

In order for his son to come from his own body, doesn't Abraham have to do something to make it so?

I suggest in order to believe God, one must do God's will.

Under the dispensation of grace, does God have ANY rules/expectations for us?
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
***Capital letters in my posts are intended for emphasis only and should not be read as "yelling".***
Me too. I have no authority over anyone on here so I do not feel I have the right to yell. Even if I did I wouldn't yell.


I find it incredible that you're satisfied with the way you do doctrine. Your argument consisted basically of "Paul and James are saying the same thing!" and that's it. Just a claim with nothing at all to back it up and you are basically refusing to respond to the actual arguments that I've made to the contrary, never mind the fact that a simple reading of the passages in question belie your position. If simply stating your doctrine is sufficient to establish it, why bother with the bible at all?

Sorry. I thought I explained myself sufficiently. When you explained your side then ended with a question from a different passage I assumed you were ready to move on. That’s what I get for assuming. I have been thinking about your reply and was going to reply back because there are some things I want to discuss. If it’s ok with you, I will reply with that in this post and then for Gal. 2 I will reply in a separate post so this one doesn’t get any longer than it's going to be already.

Works or the lack thereof DO NOT save you period, end of sentence.
I agree 100% with this statement. I hope that this will clear up my position. Works CANNOT save us. It is my understanding there are no works that we can perform to save ourselves. It is also my understanding that if we have no works, God will not gift us His grace. I believe that faith alone is dead and not truly faith. True faith is faith that obeys(works) God.

Under the Kingdom Gospel
You see two gospels, I do not. I believe this could be the root of our disagreement. I believe this goes along with Gal. 2 and there is a lot to it so I won’t address it here for time/length.

Under the Gospel of Grace, you are saved by faith APART from works.
You’re paraphrasing Romans 3 and if you will NOTICE, you’re not completing the verse. You’re leaving a critical qualifier off the end of the verse, I guess because of your paradigm. This is how the verse reads, as written, that tells us we are justified (saved) apart from works.
3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

We are "saved unto good works" bot by them. They do not come before but after. Our salvation is not a result of what we do (or don't do) but as a result of placing our faith in what has already been done for us.
I AGREE 100% with this statement. However, you are not describing faith alone. Your describing faith that has works. Our faith produces works and that is what James is telling us. Faith alone is dead but faith that works is complete faith.

I established pretty clearly that James was talking about the law. You simply repeating your position does nothing to address my arguemnts.
I’m sorry but you didn’t establish James talking about the law. You said it but I didn’t feel you establish it. Maybe the 2 gospel discussion will flesh this out.

I, of course, am not saying that. I simply saying that, under grace, works come as a result of salvation and not the other way around as it was under the law.
I agree with this statement.

Sorry, but I can't say that I believe you. Perhaps it has to do with the way I worded them but those issues are related in ways that most have no idea about and they almost always go together as a group.
Again, I believe this goes back to the 2 gospels thing. For the record, I am a dispensationalist. I just draw the line in a different place than you do.

However, if your phrasing is understood as a sort of short hand way of referring to the two dispensations, then the answer is that they were saved by "the law" but I would never state it in those terms except as a figure of speach. The far more communicative way of stating it is that they were saved under the dispensation of law.
I agree that anyone who is saved is saved by grace, under the law or not. Yes, I’m talking about the two dispensations. I suggest it is impossible for those who were saved at Pentecost to be saved under the dispensation of law for many reasons. I would love to point them out but this is already long. Since we’re in the neighborhood, that is what Paul is telling them in Romans. It is impossible to be saved under the law.

3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
God wanted the 12 to understand Paul's gospel. Paul wasn't worried about the veracity of his gospel, he had gotten it by direct divine revelation. His visit to Jerusalem was for the twelve's benefit, not Paul's.
Simply stating your position doesn’t help me understand how you came to this conclusion.
If Paul wasn’t worried about the accuracy of his gospel, what does he mean by in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

he had gotten it by direct divine revelation
Where do you think the 12 got theirs.

THIS is what you got from verse 6?
Where does it say anything about what you just said in verse six?
Paul is saying here that he wasn't going to Jerusalem to answer to the Twelve as though he was under their authority.
No, he was not under their authority. What I’m saying is that when Paul submitted his gospel to them they didn’t see anything different than what they had been preaching and doing. Hence, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

I love this about the Acts 15 counsel. There was a question about what was truth and instead of God telling them directly, they came to an understanding based on what God had already revealed. That is how we come to the knowledge of the truth today.

No, the Twelve would not have tried to add something to a gospel that they acknowledge was given to Paul by God.
I see your logic here and can understand how one could see it that way. The problem I have with that logic is the 12 were told to preach the gospel to everyone and baptize the believers. If Paul was not baptizing the believers, wouldn’t they want to add that?

Please consider this. Peter was the first to convert Gentiles. When Peter saw that God had accepted them, he COMMAMDED them to be baptized. If Paul is not baptizing, or having them baptized, everyone who believes as Jesus personally instructed the 12, wouldn't Peter at the very least want to mention this difference?

What are you talking about? This passage has exactly NOTHING to do with baptism!
I’m trying to understand this 2 gospel thing. Does Paul’s gospel include baptizing believers or not?? If it does NOT, then if Paul is baptizing believes wouldn’t that be adding something to the gospel that he did not receive from Christ?? Just like the discussion they're having about circumcision. Men wanted to add circumcision to those who believed the gospel.

This verse five is what tells you that verse six is talking about Paul not being there to submit himself to the Twelve.
Are you suggesting that v.5 is talking about the 12? If so, I suggest the context along with Acts 15 indicates that it is not the 12 in v. 5.
2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

I'm going to assume that you're simply parroting something someone else taught you here because it's not even close to being correct. The fact that the word gospel only appears once in this sentence does not imply that there was only one gospel. That logic doesn't even make sense.

"C.S. Lewis wrote the book, "Mere Christianity" while Bob Enyart wrote, "The Plot".

How many books are mentioned in the above sentence? Notice that I only used the word "book" once!

The same sort of linguistic device is being used here. There are two different messages being preached to two different groups of believers. It's just as simple and plain as it can possibly be - IF - all you do is read it.
Nope it’s mine. That’s why it’s not the strongest argument. You don’t address two different books meant for two different audiences in your example as is the claim of v.7. Can you do that only using book once? I’m not saying you can’t but it would help me to the see the error in my logic better if you would.

Incredible. Utterly, incomprehensibly incredible. As if Acts 13 is the only source we have in the whole bible for what Paul preached.
Preached to UNBELIEVERS to convert them. I don’t know off the top of my head of a another sermon to unbelievers other than maybe Mars hill. It usually says something like Paul "spoke the word of the Lord". So to see what is the word of the Lord, I go back to his sermon in Acts 13.


Paul is saying that the Twelve acknowledged that Paul had recieved his gospel from God
Agreed.

and therefore didn't dispute it
I suggest they didn’t dispute it because it’s exactly the same. Yes, they recognize Paul received it from God but if it was different there would at the very least be a discussion about the difference. When we see what Paul preached to unbelievers on his journeys, it's the same. He baptized believers just the same.


If Paul's gospel is the same as that the of the Twelve, where's the need for them to stay and minister to the Jews while Paul goes to the Gentiles?

In fact, if Paul's gospel was the same as the Twelve, why was Paul taught it by revelation and wny was there any need to explain himself to the Twelve at all?

Indeed, why Paul at all? What was wrong with the Twelve that they could not have been given this gospel to the Gentiles? Where's the need for a thirteenth apostle?

Clete

This is an argument from silence.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
*********

Ok, so after having responded to both of your posts, there is now a humongous amount that has been said. Do not feel the need to respond to every point in both of my responses! In fact, please do not do that. It would take way too long and no one would want to read it. Some of this has simply got to end up on the cutting room floor.

*********

Sorry. I thought I explained myself sufficiently. When you explained your side then ended with a question from a different passage I assumed you were ready to move on. That’s what I get for assuming. I have been thinking about your reply and was going to reply back because there are some things I want to discuss. If it’s ok with you, I will reply with that in this post and then for Gal. 2 I will reply in a separate post so this one doesn’t get any longer than it's going to be already.
Actually, I was thinking all day yesterday that I sort of overstated things when I said you had simply made the claim that Paul and James are saying the same thing. It's not as if you didn't present any sort of argument at all which is what my comments implied.

As for posting seperate posts for the seperate passages, you can if you want but it isn't necessary. It's still material that needs read and responded too either way and it's all the same topic as far as I'm concerned and either way, one post or two, it's all the same to me.

I agree 100% with this statement. I hope that this will clear up my position. Works CANNOT save us. It is my understanding there are no works that we can perform to save ourselves. It is also my understanding that if we have no works, God will not gift us His grace. I believe that faith alone is dead and not truly faith. True faith is faith that obeys(works) God.
I used to believe this and can see so clearly now that it's just as self contradictory as believing in sharp-cornered spheres would be.

It's either that we saved by faith APART FROM WORKS or that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. It cannot be both.

You see two gospels, I do not.
We are not discussing matters of opinion here.

I believe this could be the root of our disagreement. I believe this goes along with Gal. 2 and there is a lot to it so I won’t address it here for time/length.
I can guarantee you that it is, in fact, the root of our disagreement. That's why I brought it up.

You’re paraphrasing Romans 3 and if you will NOTICE, you’re not completing the verse. You’re leaving a critical qualifier off the end of the verse, I guess because of your paradigm. This is how the verse reads, as written, that tells us we are justified (saved) apart from works.
3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
I was not paraphrasing anything in particular and this argument of yours has already been refuted without rebuttal from you. Repeating the argument doesn't count as a rebuttal.

Romans 3:28 is not the only verse Paul wrote. Abraham was justified by faith not just before the Law but before circumcision before he did anything at all other than believe God.

I AGREE 100% with this statement. However, you are not describing faith alone. Your describing faith that has works. Our faith produces works and that is what James is telling us. Faith alone is dead but faith that works is complete faith.
And you are contradicting yourself, although I know you cannot see it.

It has NOTHING to do with what James was talking about. James is NOT talking about sanctification but rather justification. Or put another way, James is not discussing your Christian walk after you get saved but rather how you get saved in the first place. Paul teaches that works come as a result of one's salvation while James teaches just the exact opposite, that justification is the result of good works. (James 2:24)

I’m sorry but you didn’t establish James talking about the law.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

You said it but I didn’t feel you establish it.
My having established something is not contingent on you allowing it to persude your mind. That isn't what it means to establish something, nor is whether something was or was not established a matter of opinion.

I agree with this statement.
Good! James explicitly states the opposite.

Again, I believe this goes back to the 2 gospels thing. For the record, I am a dispensationalist. I just draw the line in a different place than you do.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place?

The fact that you're a dispensationalist changes the entire discussion. You're already 3/4 of the way there!

I agree that anyone who is saved is saved by grace, under the law or not. Yes, I’m talking about the two dispensations. I suggest it is impossible for those who were saved at Pentecost to be saved under the dispensation of law for many reasons. I would love to point them out but this is already long. Since we’re in the neighborhood, that is what Paul is telling them in Romans. It is impossible to be saved under the law.

3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
I assume that you meant to say that it was/is impossible to be saved BY the law.

If it was impossible to be saved under the law then that's a big problem for anyone who believed before Paul.


You said some amazing things in your next post but I have no time this morning to respond. It'll have to wait till this afternoon.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Simply stating your position doesn’t help me understand how you came to this conclusion.
If Paul wasn’t worried about the accuracy of his gospel, what does he mean by in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
His comment in verse three about Titus not having to be circumcised seems to indicate that he was worried about his visit to the twelve would be interpreted as an endorsement of their gospel (i.e. the circumcision gospel spoken of in verse 9). He didn't make a big public spectacle of his visit and went to the twelve privately so as not undermine his gospel.

Where do you think the 12 got theirs.
I don't have to think. They got it from Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. Matthew 28:18-20

No, he was not under their authority. What I’m saying is that when Paul submitted his gospel to them they didn’t see anything different than what they had been preaching and doing. Hence, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
This is your doctrine, not what the bible says. If the two were the same, there would have been no distinction made in verse 9 and there would have been no need for the meeting in the first place.

I love this about the Acts 15 counsel. There was a question about what was truth and instead of God telling them directly, they came to an understanding based on what God had already revealed. That is how we come to the knowledge of the truth today.
Again, this is your doctrine speaking, not the text.

Paul explicitly states that he received what he repeatedly called "my gospel" by direct divine revelation and that the twelve added nothing to him (i.e. to his gospel). Paul's gospel was therefore not the result of any council, Acts 15 or otherwise.

God sent Paul to the Twelve because they needed to understand what he was preaching and why so that there wouldn't be a conflict between the two groups over circumcision and the eating of unclean foods. And even after that meeting it was all Paul could do to keep Peter from mucky it all up when he separated himself from the Gentiles when "men from James" showed up for dinner. (Gal. 2:12)

I see your logic here and can understand how one could see it that way. The problem I have with that logic is the 12 were told to preach the gospel to everyone and baptize the believers. If Paul was not baptizing the believers, wouldn’t they want to add that?
NO!

Same question, same answer!

Why would they want to add that if they understood that what Paul was preaching and doing was a result of what he (Paul) had received by divine revelation?

Remember that it wasn't the Twelve that sent for Paul, it was God who sent Paul to the Twelve, the result of which was not any modification of Paul's activities but rather a cessation of the Twelve (and their followers) giving Paul's converts a hard time about circumcision and following the customs of the Jewish faith (Acts 21:15-25)

Please consider this. Peter was the first to convert Gentiles. When Peter saw that God had accepted them, he COMMANDED them to be baptized. If Paul is not baptizing, or having them baptized, everyone who believes as Jesus personally instructed the 12, wouldn't Peter at the very least want to mention this difference?
There was probably all kinds of things that Paul was preaching and doing that Peter didn't understand. In fact, he even said exactly that. (2 Peter 3:15)


And, by the way, your point here is, in fact, an actual argument from silence, unlike what you accuse me of later in the post.

An argument from silence happens when you take what is not said or what does not happen and make an affirmative case based on that non-event. Such arguments are not necessarily fallacious but they are rather weak, especially in comparison to a case built on affirmative evidence. And while arguments from silence are not necessarily fallacious, they very often are fallacious because the premise of the argument often presupposes the rightness of the person's position who's making the argument. In other words, arguments from silence very often beg the question.
In this case, your premise is that Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's and if that were the case then you would think that Peter would want Paul to be baptizing if in fact he wasn't doing so. But the problem with that argument is that if Paul wasn't baptizing because his gospel was different then Peter wouldn't have wanted to add baptism to it if he knew it was different. Thus I could argue that Peter's silence is a tacit endorsement of Paul's lack of baptizing. And so Peter's silence can be used as an argument for either side of the debate depending on which premise you wanted to interpret the silence through. A text book example of why question begging doesn't advance one's position in any debate.

I’m trying to understand this 2 gospel thing. Does Paul’s gospel include baptizing believers or not?? If it does NOT, then if Paul is baptizing believes wouldn’t that be adding something to the gospel that he did not receive from Christ?? Just like the discussion they're having about circumcision. Men wanted to add circumcision to those who believed the gospel.
It did include water baptism for a time but baptism and miracles and speaking in tongues and other similar things were "done away" with as Paul's gospel became better known, understood and widespread. (I Cor. 13)

Are you suggesting that v.5 is talking about the 12? If so, I suggest the context along with Acts 15 indicates that it is not the 12 in v. 5.
2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment
Your understanding of this is so convoluted that its difficult to even understand where this question would come from.

The parenthetical comment in verse 4 is explaining, at least in part, what prompted the need for Paul to go to Jerusalem. My only point was that it had nothing to do with baptism as you had suggested in your previous post and that Paul is sort of giving a list of people here (in verse 4 - 6) that he did not submit himself to.

Nope it’s mine. That’s why it’s not the strongest argument. You don’t address two different books meant for two different audiences in your example as is the claim of v.7. Can you do that only using book once? I’m not saying you can’t but it would help me to the see the error in my logic better if you would.
"Charles Mackay wrote the book 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" while Ayn Rand wrote 'Atlas Shrugged'."

It makes no difference who the author is or which books are being discussed or how many difference intended audiences. It's the form of the sentence that is the point here. The number of times the word "book" is used is entirely irrelevant to how many books are being discussed. In fact, you wouldn't even have to use the word "book" at all in that sentence if you didn't want too.

Preached to UNBELIEVERS to convert them. I don’t know off the top of my head of a another sermon to unbelievers other than maybe Mars hill. It usually says something like Paul "spoke the word of the Lord". So to see what is the word of the Lord, I go back to his sermon in Acts 13.
Listen, you have got to drop this technique of doing theology. Seriously. This is dangerously poor hermeneutics. You read the bible as though it were written by lawyers, picking out single words and linking passages in the flimsiest, most unsubstantial manner possible.

There is no doctrine, none at all, no matter how hideously heretical it might be, that one could not formulate using such a method.

That's not to say that you're a heretic or a cultist or anything like that but merely that this particular technique has no place in the proper formation of sound doctrine.

I suggest they didn’t dispute it because it’s exactly the same.
Except that if it were exactly the same there would have been no need for the meeting to take place at all and there would have been no distinction made between the two gospels in verse 9 nor any conflict over circumcision and observing the customs of the Jewish faith nor any reason for Paul to get into Peter's face about his conduct when the "men from James" showed up.

Yes, they recognize Paul received it from God but if it was different there would at the very least be a discussion about the difference.
Verses 7 - 9 seem to state explicitly that there was exactly that. In fact, discussing the differences was precisely the point of God having sent Paul there in the first place.

Galatians 2:2a And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles​

Notice also that he went in private (Gal. 2:2b). If his gospel was no different then were was the risk of controversy?

This is an argument from silence.
No, sorry but it just isn't. The questions are all based on your own premise and cite events that clearly happened and aren't even in dispute.

The affirmative fact of the matter is and the bible affirmatively and explicitly states that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to Paul, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.

That's two gospels to two people to two audiences (Gal. 2:7-9).

If there were the same then verses 7, 8 and 9 do not mean what they say and more than that, there would have been no need for Paul in the first place because God already had 12 fully trained and Holy Spirit filled Apostles on the ground doing ministry.

There is exactly zero sense in which my questions were in any way an argument from silence. The only thing silent about those questions is what I have almost universally gotten in response to them by those who fail to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

And so I ask you them again and challenge you to make some sort of an attempt to answer them. At the very least you should think such questions through because, like I said, they start by accepting your own premise, that Paul's gospel is the same as that of the Twelve, and ask you reconcile that premise with the occurrence of events that definitely happened and that are not in dispute.


If Paul's gospel is the same as that the of the Twelve, where's the need for them to stay and minister to the Jews while Paul goes to the Gentiles?

In fact, if Paul's gospel was the same as the Twelve, why was Paul taught it by revelation and wny was there any need to explain himself to the Twelve at all?

Indeed, why Paul at all? What was wrong with the Twelve that they could not have been given this gospel to the Gentiles? Where's the need for a thirteenth apostle?


Clete
 

turbosixx

New member
I combined them so we don't loose track. It's getting long.

I used to believe this and can see so clearly now that it's just as self contradictory as believing in sharp-cornered spheres would be.

It's either that we saved by faith APART FROM WORKS or that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. It cannot be both.
When we consider the context, it is both. You’re leaving out “of the law” in your caps statement.

I was not paraphrasing anything in particular and this argument of yours has already been refuted without rebuttal from you. Repeating the argument doesn't count as a rebuttal.
I’m sorry but, from my point of view, making your own hybrid verse does not prove me wrong. When I hear people proclaim we are saved by faith alone, I often see them quoting scripture where they change the words. Not being disrespectful, but when someone changes the wording to suit them, I see that as someone who has been deceived or not realizing what they're doing.
For example, they will quote Eph. 2:8 and add alone like this, 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith alone. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. Even though that is not what Paul said.

Paul never says we are saved by faith alone. Paul never says we are saved by faith apart from works without adding the qualifier “of the law”.


Romans 3:28 is not the only verse Paul wrote
Abraham was justified by faith not just before the Law but before circumcision before he did anything at all other than believe God.
Pulling this out of context doesn’t convince me that Pauls point is “faith alone”. Could you please explain, based on the context, why did Paul used this example of Abraham? BASED ON CONTEXT prove what point he is making to who he was talking to?

And you are contradicting yourself, although I know you cannot see it.

It has NOTHING to do with what James was talking about. James is NOT talking about sanctification but rather justification. Or put another way, James is not discussing your Christian walk after you get saved but rather how you get saved in the first place. Paul teaches that works come as a result of one's salvation while James teaches just the exact opposite, that justification is the result of good works. (James 2:24)
Nope can't see it because it looks like to me James is talking about our Christian walk.
2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
2: 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
2: 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?


Our Christian walk boils down to two things. Our love for God and our love for man. James is talking about love for our brother in this passage.

I assume that you meant to say that it was/is impossible to be saved BY the law.

If it was impossible to be saved under the law then that's a big problem for anyone who believed before Paul.

Yes, you’re right, BY the law is a better way to say it. I’m curious how you see this. Those who lived by the law, let’s say David, when was he truly saved?


His comment in verse three about Titus not having to be circumcised seems to indicate that he was worried about his visit to the twelve would be interpreted as an endorsement of their gospel (i.e. the circumcision gospel spoken of in verse 9). He didn't make a big public spectacle of his visit and went to the twelve privately so as not undermine his gospel.
I’m not sure I understand your explanation here. Who is Paul talking about that did not force Titus to be circumcised? How would he be endorsing their gospel since Titus was not circumcised?

This is your doctrine, not what the bible says. If the two were the same, there would have been no distinction made in verse 9 and there would have been no need for the meeting in the first place.
The meeting was because of “false brethren” adding circumcision, Acts 15:1,2. Something the 12 did not instruct, Acts 15:24.
I do not see how that makes the meeting about different gospels.

Again, this is your doctrine speaking, not the text.

Paul explicitly states that he received what he repeatedly called "my gospel" by direct divine revelation and that the twelve added nothing to him (i.e. to his gospel). Paul's gospel was therefore not the result of any council, Acts 15 or otherwise.

God sent Paul to the Twelve because they needed to understand what he was preaching and why so that there wouldn't be a conflict between the two groups over circumcision and the eating of unclean foods. And even after that meeting it was all Paul could do to keep Peter from mucky it all up when he separated himself from the Gentiles when "men from James" showed up for dinner. (Gal. 2:12)
I must not have stated my point sufficiently but it’s not important.


NO!

Same question, same answer!

Why would they want to add that if they understood that what Paul was preaching and doing was a result of what he (Paul) had received by divine revelation?
If what they were preaching was different, wouldn’t that at least be mentioned?

Remember that it wasn't the Twelve that sent for Paul, it was God who sent Paul to the Twelve, the result of which was not any modification of Paul's activities but rather a cessation of the Twelve (and their followers) giving Paul's converts a hard time about circumcision and following the customs of the Jewish faith (Acts 21:15-25)
I do not see how the 12’s activities were modified. They were not the ones instructing believers to be circumcised, Acts 15:24, and neither was Paul.
Didn’t Paul circulate a letter that instructed some observance of the Jewish faith, Acts 15:28,29? Was Paul already instructing this? If not, wouldn’t this be Paul modifying what he was preaching? Does Paul condone this?

It did include water baptism for a time but baptism and miracles and speaking in tongues and other similar things were "done away" with as Paul's gospel became better known, understood and widespread. (I Cor. 13)
I don't see how Paul’s gospel not being “better known” explains why he baptized believers? Especially after the council in Acts 15, it makes no sense for Paul to baptize believers unless his gospel was the same as the 12. They baptized believers.
I suggest to you that 1 Cor. 13 is talking about Spiritual gifts. Baptism is not a Spiritual gift.

The parenthetical comment in verse 4 is explaining, at least in part, what prompted the need for Paul to go to Jerusalem. My only point was that it had nothing to do with baptism as you had suggested in your previous post and that Paul is sort of giving a list of people here (in verse 4 - 6) that he did not submit himself to.
You are correct that this has nothing to do with baptism but it is establishing the precedent that nothing can be added to the gospel in order to be saved. As Paul says in Gal. 1, adding circumcision distorts it and makes it another gospel. Wouldn’t adding baptism to wash away sins distort it as well?


"Charles Mackay wrote the book 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" while Ayn Rand wrote 'Atlas Shrugged'."
I still don’t think this is representative of verse 7. In verse 7 we have one author of two different books, without descriptions, to two different identified audiences.


Listen, you have got to drop this technique of doing theology. Seriously. This is dangerously poor hermeneutics. You read the bible as though it were written by lawyers, picking out single words and linking passages in the flimsiest, most unsubstantial manner possible.

There is no doctrine, none at all, no matter how hideously heretical it might be, that one could not formulate using such a method.

That's not to say that you're a heretic or a cultist or anything like that but merely that this particular technique has no place in the proper formation of sound doctrine.
So are you saying Acts 13 is not the gospel Paul preached to convert unbelievers?
I suggest to you that Paul preached simply the gospel to convert Christians, 1 Cor. 2:1,2. His letters to those already converted expounds upon the grace that they received.

Except that if it were exactly the same there would have been no need for the meeting to take place at all and there would have been no distinction made between the two gospels in verse 9 nor any conflict over circumcision and observing the customs of the Jewish faith nor any reason for Paul to get into Peter's face about his conduct when the "men from James" showed up.
I don’t see how you see a distinction in verse 9. The 12 were not instructing circumcision. They each simply went to different mission fields with the same message. Jesus is the Christ.

Verses 7 - 9 seem to state explicitly that there was exactly that. In fact, discussing the differences was precisely the point of God having sent Paul there in the first place.

Galatians 2:2a And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles​
Again, the meeting was not about differences in what each were preaching/doing but what “false brethren” were spreading, 2:4.


Notice also that he went in private (Gal. 2:2b). If his gospel was no different then were was the risk of controversy?
The controversy was the level of understanding the Jews, especially in Jerusalem, had about faith verses law. They didn’t fully understand that they were not following the old law anymore. Paul’s letters to the Corinthian and Galatian churches shows, even away from Jerusalem, that it was a problem. He went in secretly because as we see in Acts 21, Paul’s presence in Jerusalem causes an uproar.

That's two gospels to two people to two audiences (Gal. 2:7-9).
Why the need for two? If I understand you correctly, about the time the first NT book is written wouldn’t one be obsolete? I don't see the sense in adding the confusion of writing about a gospel that would be obsolete by the time the first book is written.


If Paul's gospel is the same as that the of the Twelve, where's the need for them to stay and minister to the Jews while Paul goes to the Gentiles?
This doesn’t prove two gospels, just two audiences. I’m sure the 12 preached to Gentiles just as Paul also preached to Jews. Peter wrote letters to the same people Paul did.

In fact, if Paul's gospel was the same as the Twelve, why was Paul taught it by revelation and wny was there any need to explain himself to the Twelve at all?
A, I guess to make him credible.
Gal. 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel
B, to make sure he hadn’t run in vain.

Indeed, why Paul at all? What was wrong with the Twelve that they could not have been given this gospel to the Gentiles? Where's the need for a thirteenth apostle?
I don’t know of scripture that tells us why Paul other than he was separated for the gospel. I’d say the need for him was it’s a big world and the 12 had their hands full in Israel. Paul worked harder than the others because he persecuted the church of God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I combined them so we don't loose track. It's getting long.


When we consider the context, it is both. You’re leaving out “of the law” in your caps statement.
Once again, this argument has already been addressed and ignored. You can just keep on repeating yourself if you want but it won't change the fact that I've already dealt with this. I will not do it again.

I’m sorry but, from my point of view, making your own hybrid verse does not prove me wrong.
That's because your entire doctrine is built on proof-texting, which has also been addressed and mostly ignored.

Further, this is a text based web forum. I don't have the time to write, nor would you take the time to read a fully fleshed out biblical exposition of this subject. You're going to have to read a little but inbetween the lines and, more importantly, you're going to have to get a bit more directly responsive to the argument aside from telling me that you're not convinced and repeating your position.

When I hear people proclaim we are saved by faith alone, I often see them quoting scripture where they change the words. Not being disrespectful, but when someone changes the wording to suit them, I see that as someone who has been deceived or not realizing what they're doing.
For example, they will quote Eph. 2:8 and add alone like this, 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith alone. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. Even though that is not what Paul said.
Well, as I said, I won't repeat myself here endlessly so that you can repeatedly reset the debate because we're all of two or three posts down the road from where this ground has already been covered.

Paul never says we are saved by faith alone. Paul never says we are saved by faith apart from works without adding the qualifier “of the law”.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Just how many times do you plan on repeating this? If had a pulpit, you could pound your fist and ask the crowd for an amen.


Pulling this out of context doesn’t convince me that Pauls point is “faith alone”. Could you please explain, based on the context, why did Paul used this example of Abraham? BASED ON CONTEXT prove what point he is making to who he was talking to?
I am not going to prove what Paul himself states for all to read. That would be accepting your premise. I will not ever do that.

Plus, once again, this is ground that has already been covered.

Nope can't see it because it looks like to me James is talking about our Christian walk.
Well that's just the exact problem. You want to talk about leaving out words and causing passages to say what you need them to say? The whole passage where James speaks of faith plus works is 100% about salvation from beginning to end! But you quote something that has nothing to do with what we're even talking about!

It's as if you cannot keep the two topics distinguished in your mind. James 2:1-15 isn't talking about salvation but verses 16-24 clearly are! You have to have known that when you typed this!

He begins by asking the question...
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?​

He ends by answering that question twice!...
James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.​

Our Christian walk boils down to two things. Our love for God and our love for man. James is talking about love for our brother in this passage.
Yeah, no kidding. Then in the very next verse he starts making an argument for how you are saved by works.

As I've already said more than once already, my doctrine does not teach that we ought not do good works or that we should avoid doing rightly. The difference isn't about how we should act but what gets us saved.

Yes, you’re right, BY the law is a better way to say it. I’m curious how you see this. Those who lived by the law, let’s say David, when was he truly saved?
This is an unanswerable question. In the previous dispensation your salvation could be lost if you did not continue in both faith and good works. David set the example for repentance. He would fall greatly and then recover greatly. Others started off great and ended poorly. King Solomon being one of the greatest examples of that, King Saul being another and even the nation of Israel being perhaps the ultimate example of starting good and ending poorly, although God will one day cause Israel to repent and they'll have the come back of all come backs.

*****************

I've skipped a bunch of stuff because most of it would require me to simply repeat what I've already said. You don't see this and you don't see that. You can't seem to keep your eye on the ball here. I'm not trying to proof-text my way into your mind. I'm not attempting to persuade you that my way of doing doctrine is objectively superior by adopting your way of doing doctrine. But that is precisely what you want me to do and that is exactly the way you are reading my posts. As a result, I'm not going any further down that road. It's a waste of time.

I don’t know of scripture that tells us why Paul other than he was separated for the gospel. I’d say the need for him was it’s a big world and the 12 had their hands full in Israel. Paul worked harder than the others because he persecuted the church of God.
This is a ridiculous cop out of an answer. It's not even an answer!

Look, do you believe that Paul's gospel was identical to the Twelve's or not?

Do you believe that the Twelve were sent by Jesus to "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," or not?

THEY DID NOT DO IT!!!!

Instead they sent Paul to do it while they ministered to "the circumcised" (i.e. Israel).

A fact that is born out by not only the direct statement of such in Galatians 2 but also by the fact that the letters in the New Testament that are not written by Paul are all written to Jews!

Clete
 

turbosixx

New member
Thanks for taking the time with me.

It's as if you cannot keep the two topics distinguished in your mind. James 2:1-15 isn't talking about salvation but verses 16-24 clearly are! You have to have known that when you typed this!
I see my mistake now. When you said that it concerned salvation, I thought you were talking about what it takes to receive salvation. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that James is telling "believing Jews" that they maintain their salvation by their Christian walk.

In the previous dispensation your salvation could be lost if you did not continue in both faith and good works.
Again, if I understand you correctly, this is what James is saying.

I suggest we look at other passages to see if we can find supporting evidence for our views. Not only do I NOT see Paul saying we are saved by "faith alone", his rebuking/encouragement of Christians do not suggest faith alone. I see Paul saying the same thing as James. Here are a couple of examples.

1 Tim. 4:15 Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul doesn’t say because you are saved but says “for by so doing you will save”. This supports maintaining salvation just as James describes.

Paul speaking to Gentiles in Romans 11.
11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
This doesn’t sound like faith alone. They have been grafted in and are part of the tree (believed) but if they do not continue, they will be cut off. A branch cannot be cut off if it is not attached.

I’d like to consider passages that you feel support faith alone.

Look, do you believe that Paul's gospel was identical to the Twelve's or not?
Absolutely. Same source and the same message. The good news that Jesus is the Christ.

Do you believe that the Twelve were sent by Jesus to "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," or not?
Yes also in Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The evidence I see is Paul following those two passages. He preached the word of the Lord and baptized the believers. If Paul’s gospel was different and we know he didn’t get it from man, why would he follow the exact same instructions of Jesus to the 12 in making disciples? Even after Acts 15 Paul baptized a Gentile. I know I don’t fully understand your position but from what I do know I see no reasonable explanation for Paul baptizing a Gentile. Or baptizing men who have already been baptized on his 3rd journey.

Baptism being like the Spiritual gifts is not a reasonable explanation. The gifts were for building up until the whole word was revealed and then they would fade away. Baptism is for making disciples as God has said.

THEY DID NOT DO IT!!!!
I don’t understand this argument so I will assume what you mean. Since when does the understanding of man, or the lack of in this case, change God’s commandment? God said the gospel was for all nations. Paul tells us the the gospel was to the Jew first and that is what the 12 did, they went to the Jew first. When the time was right, God sent Peter to the Gentiles. Then the Jews finally understood that the gospel was for Gentiles as well, Acts 10:34,35.


A fact that is born out by not only the direct statement of such in Galatians 2 but also by the fact that the letters in the New Testament that are not written by Paul are all written to Jews!

I disagree. Paul wrote to Jews as well and also the exact same people Peter wrote to. In your understanding, did Peter and Paul write things that contradicted or agreed?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I don’t understand this argument so I will assume what you mean. Since when does the understanding of man, or the lack of in this case, change God’s commandment? God said the gospel was for all nations. Paul tells us the the gospel was to the Jew first and that is what the 12 did, they went to the Jew first. When the time was right, God sent Peter to the Gentiles. Then the Jews finally understood that the gospel was for Gentiles as well, Acts 10:34,35.
The paradigm blindness problem is so close to impossible to overcome that it surprises me almost every time.

How can you not understand it? We've been discussing the very passage states it directly and explicitly for the last week.

Galatians 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

I disagree.
You're disagreement is irrelevant. It is not a matter of opinion.

Paul wrote to Jews as well
Yes, of course he did. The gospel of grace does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile as did the law.

Which, incidentally, is further evidence that what the Twelve were preaching was different because otherwise it would have made no sense for them to go "to the circumcised". If they were preaching the same gospel, it wouldn't matter who they went to.

...and also the exact same people Peter wrote to. In your understanding, did Peter and Paul write things that contradicted or agreed?
Again, the paradigm blindness issue boggles my mind.

If you believe that you must have works to be saved, your proof texts will be everywhere other than in the writings of Paul. There might be one or two verses in Paul's writings that one could turn into proof texts but mostly what Paul has to say will be problem texts for the one who thinks works are salvific and they'd have to find ways for him to be saying something other than the plain reading of the text would tend to communicate. You're hang up on the phrase "of the law" is an excellent example. You use three words to flip Paul's entire ministry on it's head.

If you believe that believers can lose their salvation your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul. By 'everywhere' I mean the Old Testament, the Gospels and Hebrews through Revelation.

If you believe that miracles and healing are insured for the faithful believer your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul.

If you believe that there is no pre-tribulation rapture your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul.

If you believe that believers must keep the Sabbath your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul.

If Paul is preaching the same thing as everyone else and his writing are so in agreement with that of Peter, James and John then why is he so consistently the dividing line between people on either side of so many issues that divide the Christian church?

Water baptism, perhaps your favorite doctrine, is definitely the most divisive single doctrine in the whole history of the church! It too, has the same characteristic. Generally speaking, those who believe baptism is salvific rely primarily on the Gospels and Peter James and John for their proof texts. This line is not as stark with this particular issue but it is still there. Paul is THE ONLY person who ever said anything like "I was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel". In fact, if water baptism is salvific, then the gospel cannot be preached without it and so it is Paul's comments and only his that have to be explained away.

And don't think that what I've listed here is a complete list. It isn't. The list seems to go on forever and includes everything from tithing to unclean foods and issues concerning church leadership and all sorts of things that Christians divide over and fight about and do so needlessly because every one of these issues are effortlessly and cleanly resolved if all you do is realize that Paul was preaching a new gospel that had been "kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25) and that the Twelve were saved and ministered under the previous dispensation.

Clete
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
In the previous dispensation your salvation could be lost if you did not continue in both faith and good works..

Clete, the following verse seems to deny your idea:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

Would you mind giving us your interpretation of the meaning of these words?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
The paradigm blindness problem is so close to impossible to overcome that it surprises me almost every time.
I agree. It’s close to impossible to overcome but unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me. There are many to choose from.

How can you not understand it? We've been discussing the very passage states it directly and explicitly for the last week.
What I don’t understand is how God’s command can be changed by the apostles actions. God said, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them”. When the time was right God used divine intervention to set them straight. He sent Peter to Gentiles, which is in line with His great commission. Just because it didn’t happen like you thought it should doesn’t change God’s commandment. Peter preached the same gospel to the Gentiles he’d been preaching and God saved them, no distinction.

Galatians 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
This doesn’t prove the messages were different. I would rather look at the messages to see if there is a difference.

Yes, of course he did. The gospel of grace does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile as did the law.
I agree.

Which, incidentally, is further evidence that what the Twelve were preaching was different because otherwise it would have made no sense for them to go "to the circumcised". If they were preaching the same gospel, it wouldn't matter who they went to.
If you will remember, Gal. 2 is talking about the counsel in Jerusalem. I suggest to you the reason they were sent to the Gentiles was to circulate the letter to the Gentiles and also continue preaching.
Acts 15:23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.

Again, the paradigm blindness issue boggles my mind.
Yours doesn’t boggle my mind. It makes me sad that reading the same words we cannot come to the same conclusion.

You're hang up on the phrase "of the law" is an excellent example. You use three words to flip Paul's entire ministry on it's head.
The phrase changes the meaning. Also, I didn't add the words, Paul did. I fail to see how adding/subtracting words and context are a hang up. Would you accept that from me?

If you believe that believers can lose their salvation your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul. By 'everywhere' I mean the Old Testament, the Gospels and Hebrews through Revelation.
Actually I see it a lot in Paul’s writings.

If you believe that miracles and healing are insured for the faithful believer your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul.

If you believe that believers must keep the Sabbath your proof texts will be everywhere other than the writings of Paul.
I do not believe these things.

If Paul is preaching the same thing as everyone else and his writing are so in agreement with that of Peter, James and John then why is he so consistently the dividing line between people on either side of so many issues that divide the Christian church?
There is a long list of reasons, ignorance being one of them. It didn't take long for it to happen to the church.
Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Water baptism, perhaps your favorite doctrine, is definitely the most divisive single doctrine in the whole history of the church!
As I said before. God said not me, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them”. Since that is how someone becomes a Christian, wouldn’t that be a primary target of Satan. I cannot quietly sit back and let him pervert God’s word.

Paul is THE ONLY person who ever said anything like "I was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel". In fact, if water baptism is salvific, then the gospel cannot be preached without it and so it is Paul's comments and only his that have to be explained away.
Paul doesn't say he was sent to NOT baptize. If this verse is telling us Paul was sent to NOT baptize then why in the world would he ever do it? He baptized believers right up to his arrest. He never stopped.

I’ve asked for someone to explain that verse based on the context but I get crickets. I suggest he was obligated to preach but not obligated to baptize. Others men with him could and did baptize the many believers.

And don't think that what I've listed here is a complete list. It isn't. The list seems to go on forever and includes everything from tithing to unclean foods and issues concerning church leadership and all sorts of things that Christians divide over and fight about and do so needlessly because every one of these issues are effortlessly and cleanly resolved if all you do is realize that Paul was preaching a new gospel that had been "kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25) and that the Twelve were saved and ministered under the previous dispensation.
Clete

I didn’t see your comments on Paul circulating a letter to Gentiles that instructed them to observe some of the customs of the Law.
Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Did Paul argue against it?
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I agree. It’s close to impossible to overcome but unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me. There are many to choose from.


What I don’t understand is how God’s command can be changed by the apostles actions. God said, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them”. When the time was right God used divine intervention to set them straight. He sent Peter to Gentiles, which is in line with His great commission. Just because it didn’t happen like you thought it should doesn’t change God’s commandment. Peter preached the same gospel to the Gentiles he’d been preaching and God saved them, no distinction.


This doesn’t prove the messages were different. I would rather look at the messages to see if there is a difference.


I agree.


If you will remember, Gal. 2 is talking about the counsel in Jerusalem. I suggest to you the reason they were sent to the Gentiles was to circulate the letter to the Gentiles and also continue preaching.
Acts 15:23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.


Yours doesn’t boggle my mind. It makes me sad that reading the same words we cannot come to the same conclusion.


The phrase changes the meaning. Also, I didn't add the words, Paul did. I fail to see how adding/subtracting words and context are a hang up. Would you accept that from me?


Actually I see it a lot in Paul’s writings.


I do not believe these things.


There is a long list of reasons, ignorance being one of them. It didn't take long for it to happen to the church.
Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.


As I said before. God said not me, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them”. Since that is how someone becomes a Christian, wouldn’t that be a primary target of Satan. I cannot quietly sit back and let him pervert God’s word.


Paul doesn't say he was sent to NOT baptize. If this verse is telling us Paul was sent to NOT baptize then why in the world would he ever do it? He baptized believers right up to his arrest. He never stopped.

I’ve asked for someone to explain that verse based on the context but I get crickets. I suggest he was obligated to preach but not obligated to baptize. Others men with him could and did baptize the many believers.



I didn’t see your comments on Paul circulating a letter to Gentiles that instructed them to observe some of the customs of the Law.
Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Did Paul argue against it?

This post was almost completely a waste of time both to write and to read. It was unresponsive to the questions asked and basically was a repeat of your position.

You seem to be either incapable of grasping the argument made by asking such questions as "If Paul is preaching the same thing as everyone else and his writing are so in agreement with that of Peter, James and John then why is he so consistently the dividing line between people on either side of so many issues that divide the Christian church?" (not to mention all the material stated to preface that question) or you are intentionally ignoring it.

Either way, I'm not a fan of having my time wasted.

:wave2:
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
In the previous dispensation your salvation could be lost if you did not continue in both faith and good works..

Clete, the following words of the Lord Jesus seem to contradict your teaching that those who lived in the previous dispensation could lose their salvation:

"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).​

Would you mind giving us your interpretation of the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words in that verse?

The whole passage where James speaks of faith plus works is 100% about salvation from beginning to end!

Clete, do you think that the following words of James are speaking about salvation?:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures"
(Jas.1:18).​

I don't see any mention of "works" in this verse. Do you?
 
Last edited:
Top