Acts 21. The Jerusalem Church maintained their Temple worship and expected Paul to do the same. They were obviously known to the Temple priests. When Paul was arrested the Apostles could have witnessed for Paul but they did not. I think they were pleased to see Paul arrested.
ARCHIVE: MacArthur Rant
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
I refuted this in my previous post.
That's a distortion of what actually took place. Jesus told the twelve to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, yet they agreed to minister only to the circumcised (Israel) while Paul would minister to the rest of the world (the Gentiles).
Because Paul's Gospel of uncircumcision didn't exist yet. Jesus' Earthly ministry was focused on Israel.
- These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" Matthew 10:5-7
But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24
billwald,
Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel."
If Christ revealed to the twelve that He would be killed and be raised on the third day (and commanding them to tell no one) in Luke 9:20-22, then what was "the gospel" He had already sent them out to preach?
By the way, I'm glad your back. I had forgotten about this thread.
- So they [the twelve] departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:6
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."
And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:20-22
Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel."
If Christ revealed to the twelve that He would be killed and be raised on the third day (and commanding them to tell no one) in Luke 9:20-22, then what was "the gospel" He had already sent them out to preach?
By the way, I'm glad your back. I had forgotten about this thread.
That is baseless speculation that runs contrary to the writings of Peter, and the twelve (recorded by Luke), stating that they loved Paul and they endorsed his ministry. Luke also recorded in Acts that Paul performed miracles, which is a sign of authority from God throughout Scripture. (example: Luke 9:1)
One could similarly conclude that the twelve were against Jesus and that they were glad to see him arrested. There is no record of them defending Jesus at his trials, and there is even record of Peter utterly denying any association with Him.
Nevermind that the gospels record that they tried to defend Jesus when soldiers came to arrest Him. Nevermind that they wrote about Him being our Lord. That was just politically correctness of the day. The important thing is that they were silent at his trials, right?
Turbo,
Like you, I had forgotten about this thread and am glad to see billwald back!
I, however, have nothing to add! Your arguments are brilliant. Post #20 should have been awarded POTD! I don't see how a more powerful argument could be made.
BRILLIANT!!! :up:
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. billwald - I commend you for your intellectual honesty. I don't think I've ever come across anyone else who believed what you do about Paul and had the guts not only to say it but to actually make an argument that wasn't completely incoherent.
You're wrong, but brave!
The only thing you could do that is braver would be to accept Turbo's arguments and admit that your position is self-defeating.
Like you, I had forgotten about this thread and am glad to see billwald back!
I, however, have nothing to add! Your arguments are brilliant. Post #20 should have been awarded POTD! I don't see how a more powerful argument could be made.
BRILLIANT!!! :up:
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. billwald - I commend you for your intellectual honesty. I don't think I've ever come across anyone else who believed what you do about Paul and had the guts not only to say it but to actually make an argument that wasn't completely incoherent.
You're wrong, but brave!
The only thing you could do that is braver would be to accept Turbo's arguments and admit that your position is self-defeating.
Last edited:
The side that wins the war writes the history books - and the Bibles.
My primary complaint against Paul is his misuse of the OT and his bad logic.
1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.
2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.
3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertant felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.
4. The Mosiac Covenant does NOT apply to gentiles living outside the Land. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed believers have a marginal case for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves if the Church replaces Israel and recieves all the blessings and obligations that were contractually accepted by Israel. Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves.
5. There is no Biblical or logical justification for seperating the Ten Words from the rest of the 613 positive and negative statements found in the Torah (first 5 books). The Ten Words are like chapter headings in a book. For example, the 2nd greatest commandment is not part of the 10 words. The prohibitions against homosexuality and beastiality are not in the Ten Words. Reading the Ten Commandments is an incomplete exposition of the LAW.
6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challange to seperate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial catagories. I have been making this challange for 10 years and no one has done it.
My primary complaint against Paul is his misuse of the OT and his bad logic.
1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.
2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.
3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertant felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.
4. The Mosiac Covenant does NOT apply to gentiles living outside the Land. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed believers have a marginal case for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves if the Church replaces Israel and recieves all the blessings and obligations that were contractually accepted by Israel. Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosiac Covenant to themselves.
5. There is no Biblical or logical justification for seperating the Ten Words from the rest of the 613 positive and negative statements found in the Torah (first 5 books). The Ten Words are like chapter headings in a book. For example, the 2nd greatest commandment is not part of the 10 words. The prohibitions against homosexuality and beastiality are not in the Ten Words. Reading the Ten Commandments is an incomplete exposition of the LAW.
6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challange to seperate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial catagories. I have been making this challange for 10 years and no one has done it.
Huh?
Which side of the war were Luke and Peter on?
Isn't it their writings which give the most trouble to your position?
What? No he doesn't! Ever read Roman 13?
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
So what's your point?
What are you saying? That the Mosaic Law was not an important part of salvation? Is that it? I don't think I follow your logic here.
Please explain what your understanding is of the Gospel. What must one do to be saved? Is the Gospel the same now as it was prior to Christ? If not, in what way has it changed?
The Body of Christ is not Israel and vise versa. There is no logical reason for the Body to take over Israel's role.
Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!
Again, I don't believe Paul himself could have said it any better! We are not under the law, period.
That is, the Mosaic Law. Dispensationalists believe that there is more than one dispensation currently active. In fact there are at least two; The Dispensation of the Grace of God, and the Dispensation of Human Government.
In short, the criminal justice system set up in the Bible should still be in effect and it is the criminal justice system that God himself will use to judge the nations and us. In other words, if our government legalizes homosexuality it does the homo not good. He will still answer to God for his perversion as will the nation which legalized it.
Do you not accept Jesus as your sufficient sacrifice? The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone. They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!
Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone. There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless. What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this is somewhat off the subject though isn't it? After all, if you accepted Paul as being in the office appointed him by Jesus Himself then all of this would be clear to you. As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct! All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct.
You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...
1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.
Or…
2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.
Which will it be?
Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
'Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel." '
It is the gospel. The announcement that God is reconciled with humans because of the resurrection. The "and all you gots to do is raise your hand and repeat the prayer after me" is not a part of the gospel. Deciding who of us is reconciled with God is not part of the gospel.
It is the gospel. The announcement that God is reconciled with humans because of the resurrection. The "and all you gots to do is raise your hand and repeat the prayer after me" is not a part of the gospel. Deciding who of us is reconciled with God is not part of the gospel.
1. He uses "law" as if the Mosiac Covenant was the only communication from God to man. He totally ignores the Noahic Covenant, which provides the basic Law for the human race.
"What? No he doesn't! Ever read Roman 13?"
Begs the question
Romans 5: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
There never was a time that there was sin in the world but no law. The First commandment was
Gen. 1 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The second commandment was
Gen. 2:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The general Covenant/Commandment/Law that applies to all humans was the Noahic Covenant
Gen. 9:
1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
8. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9. And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10. And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Paul ignores all of this. Why?
"What? No he doesn't! Ever read Roman 13?"
Begs the question
Romans 5: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
There never was a time that there was sin in the world but no law. The First commandment was
Gen. 1 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The second commandment was
Gen. 2:
17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The general Covenant/Commandment/Law that applies to all humans was the Noahic Covenant
Gen. 9:
1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7. And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
8. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9. And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10. And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Paul ignores all of this. Why?
quote:
2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.
"So what's your point?"
Romans 2:
12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves
Obviously refers to the Mosiac Covenant, ignoring the Noahic Covenant. All gentiles are sons of Noah and by Christian logic are subject to the Noahic Covenant. There are no gentiles that do not have the Law.
Paul wants his readers to believe that non-christians do not have "eternal life" because they do not perfectly keep the Law. There is NOTHING in the Mosiac Covenant which makes ANY reference to going to hell for violation of same.
Romans 3:
19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
If Paul is referring to the Mosiac Covenant then he is assuming facts not in evidence because the MC does not apply to gentiles nor does it refer to "justifying" for the purposes of eternal life in Heaven.
Romans 4:
15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
I have Demonstrated there was no such time where there was no law since the Garden.
16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Begs the question, assumes facts not in evidence because the ONLY punishment for violation of the Law was temporal death, not Hell.
2. There isn't one verse in Exodus through Deut which references anyone's status in the next world. The Mosiac Covenant only provides a social contract for those who came out of Egypt and will live in Israel and to converts and aliens who live in the land. The blessings and punishments are all temporal.
"So what's your point?"
Romans 2:
12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves
Obviously refers to the Mosiac Covenant, ignoring the Noahic Covenant. All gentiles are sons of Noah and by Christian logic are subject to the Noahic Covenant. There are no gentiles that do not have the Law.
Paul wants his readers to believe that non-christians do not have "eternal life" because they do not perfectly keep the Law. There is NOTHING in the Mosiac Covenant which makes ANY reference to going to hell for violation of same.
Romans 3:
19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
If Paul is referring to the Mosiac Covenant then he is assuming facts not in evidence because the MC does not apply to gentiles nor does it refer to "justifying" for the purposes of eternal life in Heaven.
Romans 4:
15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
I have Demonstrated there was no such time where there was no law since the Garden.
16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Begs the question, assumes facts not in evidence because the ONLY punishment for violation of the Law was temporal death, not Hell.
quote:
3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertent felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.
"What are you saying? That the Mosaic Law was not an important part of salvation?"
Yes, that is what I am saying. The Mosiac Law was a social contract which was enforced with temporal death, not Hell.
"Please explain what your understanding is of the Gospel."
The Gospel is the good news that God through Jesus has unilaterally resolved the sin problem between God and man.
"What must one do to be saved?"
NOTHING! A meaningless question. Should be rephrased, "What must I do to become reprobate-lost?"
"Is the Gospel the same now as it was prior to Christ? If not, in what way has it changed?"
God never changes (the rules). From the beginning God was going to unilaterally resolve the sin problem. We are constrained by the "arrow of time" so for us the resolution occurred at a specific portion of the space-time continuum. Kind of like the preacher says what he is going to say, says the sermon, and then tells us what he said.
From the beginning - At least it was specified (inferred?) since Abraham, maybe from Noah, that there are two seperate themes in the Bible. First, God give us a social contract with which to govern ourselves and violation of it results in physical (temporal) death.
The second is that from the beginning of human history that there has been a sub set of humanity that God has declared righteous and who will eternal life with God in the next world.
The problem is that the Bible only names very few people in this righteous sub set and gives us no method of determining who else is in it except the check list in 1 John. Anyone who perfectly meets this check list can know that they are saved. The resty of us must continue to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
3. The sin offerings are for misdemeanors and inadvertent felonies. There was no sacrifice that atoned for an intentional felony.
"What are you saying? That the Mosaic Law was not an important part of salvation?"
Yes, that is what I am saying. The Mosiac Law was a social contract which was enforced with temporal death, not Hell.
"Please explain what your understanding is of the Gospel."
The Gospel is the good news that God through Jesus has unilaterally resolved the sin problem between God and man.
"What must one do to be saved?"
NOTHING! A meaningless question. Should be rephrased, "What must I do to become reprobate-lost?"
"Is the Gospel the same now as it was prior to Christ? If not, in what way has it changed?"
God never changes (the rules). From the beginning God was going to unilaterally resolve the sin problem. We are constrained by the "arrow of time" so for us the resolution occurred at a specific portion of the space-time continuum. Kind of like the preacher says what he is going to say, says the sermon, and then tells us what he said.
From the beginning - At least it was specified (inferred?) since Abraham, maybe from Noah, that there are two seperate themes in the Bible. First, God give us a social contract with which to govern ourselves and violation of it results in physical (temporal) death.
The second is that from the beginning of human history that there has been a sub set of humanity that God has declared righteous and who will eternal life with God in the next world.
The problem is that the Bible only names very few people in this righteous sub set and gives us no method of determining who else is in it except the check list in 1 John. Anyone who perfectly meets this check list can know that they are saved. The resty of us must continue to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
"The Body of Christ is not Israel and vise versa. There is no logical reason for the Body to take over Israel's role."
This is the Covenant theology/dispensational debate which cannot be resolved with the information available at this time. I lean toward the covenant side.
quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then why did he write "Romans?" The entire theme of Romans is that gentiles were obligated under the Mosiac Covenant until ("believing in?") the resurrection relieved them of that obligation. That God judges and condemns gentiles by the Mosiac standard until they become Christians.
On what basis do you claim that God condems non-christians?
This is the Covenant theology/dispensational debate which cannot be resolved with the information available at this time. I lean toward the covenant side.
quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then why did he write "Romans?" The entire theme of Romans is that gentiles were obligated under the Mosiac Covenant until ("believing in?") the resurrection relieved them of that obligation. That God judges and condemns gentiles by the Mosiac standard until they become Christians.
On what basis do you claim that God condems non-christians?
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
The rest of your posts are almost entirely unintelligible!
Stop blowing smoke and answer the question....
You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...
1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.
Or…
2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.
Which will it be?
Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve.
Resting in Him,
Clete
quote:
6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challenge to separate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial categories. I have been making this challenge for 10 years and no one has done it.
"Do you not accept Jesus as your sufficient sacrifice?"
Yes
"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."
Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
I'm not 100% convinced
"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."
That's my point!!!!!! This is cheap to say unless you (can) tell me which specific points of the Mosiac Covenant have no moral content.
Second, the entire covenant was only intended for Israel. If not, why did you write:
[quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.]
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then why do you demand that gentiles apply the moral content of the covenant to themselves?
" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."
You just agreed that all portions exclusively pertained to Israel.
"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"
There is no point. You are the one who wants to apply the moral content to gentiles, not me. God can "save" anyone "in Christ Jesus."
"After all, if you accepted Paul as being in the office appointed him by Jesus Himself then all of this would be clear to you."
Not sure I do.
" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"
And I claim it is in error.
"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."
I did acknowledge all of that before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.
"You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...
"1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.
"Or…
"2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.
"Which will it be?
"Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve."
I'm working on a synthesis. <G>
6. It is an error - or at least a cheap bluff - to claim that Jesus "fulfilled the administrative and sacrificial portions of the Law" and we are only obligated to obey the moral parts. Who are we to determine which parts of God's Law do not have moral implications.
I repeat my challenge to separate the 613 statements into the 3 artificial categories. I have been making this challenge for 10 years and no one has done it.
"Do you not accept Jesus as your sufficient sacrifice?"
Yes
"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."
Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
I'm not 100% convinced
"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."
That's my point!!!!!! This is cheap to say unless you (can) tell me which specific points of the Mosiac Covenant have no moral content.
Second, the entire covenant was only intended for Israel. If not, why did you write:
[quote:
Gentile Dispensationalists have absolutely no Biblical or logical justification for applying the Mosaic Covenant to themselves.]
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then why do you demand that gentiles apply the moral content of the covenant to themselves?
" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."
You just agreed that all portions exclusively pertained to Israel.
"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"
There is no point. You are the one who wants to apply the moral content to gentiles, not me. God can "save" anyone "in Christ Jesus."
"After all, if you accepted Paul as being in the office appointed him by Jesus Himself then all of this would be clear to you."
Not sure I do.
" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"
And I claim it is in error.
"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."
I did acknowledge all of that before I started reading the Bible for myself, before I took classes in Bible college and in Western Theological Sem.
"You must at this point acknowledge one of two things...
"1. That based upon the testimony of the twelve apostles and of the book of Acts, Paul's ministry and therefore his epistles are a valid portion of scripture.
"Or…
"2. That, not only are Paul's letters invalid but so are Peter's and the book of Acts because they clearly endorsed Paul.
"Which will it be?
"Accept Paul, or reject all three, Paul, Luke and Peter (and perhaps more)?
Keep in mind that Luke also wrote one of the Gospels and that your rejection of his writings will by necessity require the rejection of a fourth of the Gospels as well, not to mention the implications of rejecting Peter who was one of, if not the primary leader of the twelve."
I'm working on a synthesis. <G>
quote:
On what basis do you claim that God condemns non-Christians?
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This is true! (But) I don't need to know the name of a bridge to cross it.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
True, but it doesn't claim exclusivity.
You didn't answer the question. Are the unelect condemned for failing to perfectly keep the Mosiac Law or are they condemned for failing to "believe in" Jesus?
If the latter, please explain how one controls one's beliefs.
On what basis do you claim that God condemns non-Christians?
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This is true! (But) I don't need to know the name of a bridge to cross it.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
True, but it doesn't claim exclusivity.
You didn't answer the question. Are the unelect condemned for failing to perfectly keep the Mosiac Law or are they condemned for failing to "believe in" Jesus?
If the latter, please explain how one controls one's beliefs.
I said...
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
billwald responded...
I said...
"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."
billwald said...
I responded...
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then billwald asked...
I said...
" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."
billwald responded...
Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature.
Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another. This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other. You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them.
Get it?
These symbolic laws had more than one purpose but one of the most important was that it separated Israel from the rest of the world which was important for a lot of reasons that we don't need to go into right now. The point is that once Israel was cut off, these symbolic laws no longer had any purpose.
I said...
"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"
Billwald responded...
Paul himself could have written this portion of your post! Why do you reject Paul and preach his Gospel?
I said...
" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"
billwald replied...
Yes, I know. And in doing so you are in direct conflict with the teachings of Peter and of Luke.
I said...
"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."
billwald responded...
Did you accept Paul or did you throw away the writings of Peter and Luke?
Those truly are your only two alternatives.
Resting in Him,
Clete
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
billwald responded...
What would it take to convince you?
I said...
"Further, all but the criminal justice portion of the law was intended for Israel alone."
Who said anything about morals? The things that God said should be punished by the governing authorities (crimes) should still be considered just that, crimes and the perpetrators punished accordingly.
billwald said...
I responded...
"Quite right! Paul could not have said it better himself!"
Then billwald asked...
I don't! I don't believe that we can be moral and more than we can be righteous. In fact, I think that the two are basically the same thing. We are righteous because God has imputed righteousness to us. We are moral because Christ is forming us into His image.
I said...
" There is now no Jew or Gentile, for Israel has been cut off. Therefore those portions of the law that pertained exclusively to Israel are rendered meaningless."
billwald responded...
No I didn't. You're not paying attention.
Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature.
Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another. This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other. You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them.
Get it?
These symbolic laws had more than one purpose but one of the most important was that it separated Israel from the rest of the world which was important for a lot of reasons that we don't need to go into right now. The point is that once Israel was cut off, these symbolic laws no longer had any purpose.
I said...
"What's the point of being separate if this is no longer any difference in the way God treats either set of persons?"
Billwald responded...
I do not apply any portion of the law to anyone except the criminal justice portion which applies only to criminals.
Paul himself could have written this portion of your post! Why do you reject Paul and preach his Gospel?
I said...
" As I said before, you have a great advantage over 90+% of the church today in that you see and acknowledge a difference in the message Paul preached verses that which Jesus and the twelve preached.
You have that much correct!"
billwald replied...
Yes, I know. And in doing so you are in direct conflict with the teachings of Peter and of Luke.
I said...
"All that remains is for you to see that those whom you do acknowledge as being in authority endorsed Paul's ministry and for you to endeavor to understand why God made a change, what that change was and what it means to your theological construct."
billwald responded...
Well don't keep us in suspense! Which did you choose?
Did you accept Paul or did you throw away the writings of Peter and Luke?
Those truly are your only two alternatives.
Resting in Him,
Clete
billwald,
I went on to say,
Let's look at these verses again:
- So they [the twelve] departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:6
- [Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."
And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:20-22
When Jesus told the twelve that He would be killed and raised from the dead, He commanded them to tell no one.
But before He had ever even told them about this they were "preaching the gospel" at His command.
My question is this: What was "the gospel" that the twelve were preaching according to Luke 9:6?
Obviously the twelve were not preaching about Christ's death and resurrection. They didn't know about it yet, and when Jesus later taught them about it he told them to tell no one about it. Peter didn't even believe it when he first heard it! (Matt 16:22; Mark 8:32)
So what gospel had the twelve been preaching?
Let me try again.
"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."
Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
The origional purpose of the repentance and sacrifice after committing an inadvertant sin was to obtain the community's forgiveness under the civil code that they accepted from God as their civil law. The sacrifices were a symbol of the person's repentance that was visable to the community. They had nothing to do with earning acceptance before God. Acceptance before God can't be earned.
Christ's sacrifice provided acceptance before God, not before the community. The community still imposes civil penalties for violation of the social contract.
The Jewish community had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The rabbis concluded that the sacrifices had always been (only) symbolic of an inward repentance.
The Jewish Christians continued to offer Temple sacrifices. They also had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The resolution was the transferrence of power from the Jerusalem elders to Paul's followers who then imposed Paul's interpretation upon the church.
I have concluded that Jesus intended that the Christian Jews were to reform Judiasm from the inside. They failed and the destruction of the Temple and the church age was God's "Plan B."
"The blood of lambs and bulls never atoned for the sin of anyone."
Not exactly. They were a symbol of atonement for people living under the Mosiac Covenant who repented of involuntary violations and who made restitution where possible. They were never intended to get anyone into Heaven.
"They were but a symbol of the substance which is Christ!"
The origional purpose of the repentance and sacrifice after committing an inadvertant sin was to obtain the community's forgiveness under the civil code that they accepted from God as their civil law. The sacrifices were a symbol of the person's repentance that was visable to the community. They had nothing to do with earning acceptance before God. Acceptance before God can't be earned.
Christ's sacrifice provided acceptance before God, not before the community. The community still imposes civil penalties for violation of the social contract.
The Jewish community had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The rabbis concluded that the sacrifices had always been (only) symbolic of an inward repentance.
The Jewish Christians continued to offer Temple sacrifices. They also had to resolve the nature of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed. The resolution was the transferrence of power from the Jerusalem elders to Paul's followers who then imposed Paul's interpretation upon the church.
I have concluded that Jesus intended that the Christian Jews were to reform Judiasm from the inside. They failed and the destruction of the Temple and the church age was God's "Plan B."
"I don't! I don't believe that we can be moral and more than we can be righteous. In fact, I think that the two are basically the same thing. We are righteous because God has imputed righteousness to us. We are moral because Christ is forming us into His image."
OK, who is "Us," Kemosabe?
1. The elect?
2. The people who have invited Jesus into their hearts?
3. Everyone who has not committed the unpardonable sin - attributing Jesus' miracles to Satan?
4. ??????
OK, who is "Us," Kemosabe?
1. The elect?
2. The people who have invited Jesus into their hearts?
3. Everyone who has not committed the unpardonable sin - attributing Jesus' miracles to Satan?
4. ??????
"Parts of the law were clearly not moral in nature."
Not to me. You know the mind of God?
"Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another."
Take a look at
http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf
Essay is "Must a Presbyterian be a Presuppisationalist?"
"This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other."
Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.
"You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them."
How about aborting "murdering" an unborn infant to save the life of the mother? Yes, it occasionally happens.
Not to me. You know the mind of God?
"Take for example observing the Sabbath and circumcision.
Male children were to be circumcised on the eighth day, right? Well, what happens if the eighth day falls on a Sabbath?
Do you see what I'm getting at? The two laws can conflict with one another."
Take a look at
http://www.cityreformed.org/snoke/PRESBY.pdf
Essay is "Must a Presbyterian be a Presuppisationalist?"
"This is clear proof that they are not moral but symbolic. Two moral laws could never conflict with each other."
Deductive logic is a mathematical process that doesn't necessarially relate to the real world. Our world is inductive, Hegelian.
"You will never be in a situation where you are forced to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them."
How about aborting "murdering" an unborn infant to save the life of the mother? Yes, it occasionally happens.