ECT How is Paul's message different?

[SaulToPaul 2]

I believe the goal of MAD is to establish an antinomian Gospel disguised as "free grace" Paul never taught such a thing nor did his successors in Church History.

Is free grace the same as easy greasy grace?

 

[Shasta]

Is free grace the same as easy greasy grace?

When properly defined "free grace" is a beautiful truth. That God would pay the price of sending His Son to the cross when we did not deserve it. Then to offer the benefits of His death to us not for any meritorious work but solely because we believe in him, is something to worship him about for an eternity. What I was talking about, what Martin Luther called antinomianism, was the idea that you can turn from your faith and deny Christ and still be in right standing with Him. Luther did not believe that and I do not think the NT writers did either (1 John 2:24, Colossians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 15:2). Historically, unconditional eternal security as we now know it was Calvin's modification of Augustine's doctrine of Perseverence.

 

[Cross Reference]

Hi and Clete has not answered , so I am ready , what about YOU ??

Lets start with Eph 3:9 or you can FLAKE OUT , so what will you do ??

dan p

With your attitude and conceit, you can expect no replies from me.

 

[Cross Reference]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You might have saved yourself some typing by simply posting, "You're wrong!".

It would have been no more valid but quite a bit faster.

And yes, there is mention of Jews in the letters.

Revelation 2:10 and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.

Revelation 3:9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
​

And that's the references to Jews and/or Judaism in the seven letters. The rest of Revelation, all of which was written as one book by one author, is just plumb full of references to Israel...
Clete

Has it ever occurred to you that a Christian is a "completed Jew"?

Where is your understanding of this passage?:

"By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace." Ephesians 2:15 (AMP)

As should know, Paul wrote that. So I ask the question, based on your critique of Shasta's reply to you, Where is the insight you believe for yourself?

OMT Clete, My above reply was written to you BEFORE I read the rest of what Shasta has written in reply to your 'scripture declarations', absent insight. Now, having read the rest of his post, I believe there isn't a word of knowledge that can be added to what he has written to enlarge one's understanding about what a "completed Jew" is. I hope you will ponder all that has been submitted to you because, much is at stake. Pray for insight instead of arguing without it.

 

[Cross Reference]

I don't believe God's Grace has ever been free but in response to faith or righteousness of man He is able to bless:

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou/you shalt/must rule over him."
Genesis 4:7 (KJV)

 

[Truster]

I don't believe God's Grace has ever been free but in response to faith or righteousness of man He is able to bless:

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou/you shalt/must rule over him."
Genesis 4:7 (KJV)

That remark means the Almighty is not Sovereign, but subject to man.

 

[Cross Reference]

That remark means the Almighty is not Sovereign, but subject to man.

How so? Have I suggested this to be about salvation that requires the righteousness of Jesus Christ to be made effective? NO!

God spoke to Cain. Why not let it say what it says and seek to get insight?

 

[Clete]

Has it ever occurred to you that a Christian is a "completed Jew"?

Did you read all the way to the end of my post?

Where is your understanding of this passage?:

"By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace." Ephesians 2:15 (AMP)

Paul is saying that the law has been taken away. It just him stating the theme of his entire ministry. He is not saying that Gentiles are now Jews, he's saying that there is now no difference between them. It would be closer to say that Jews are now Gentiles, not the other way around.

By the way, the Amplified Bible is a horrible "translation/paraphrase" of the scriptures. Do yourself a favor and stick with actual translations. That's just my opinion.

As should know, Paul wrote that. So I ask the question, based on your critique of Shasta's reply to you, Where is the insight you believe for yourself?

Huh?

OMT Clete, My above reply was written to you BEFORE I read the rest of what Shasta has written in reply to your 'scripture declarations', absent insight. Now, having read the rest of his post, I believe there isn't a word of knowledge that can be added to what he has written to enlarge one's understanding about what a "completed Jew" is. I hope you will ponder all that has been submitted to you because, much is at stake. Pray for insight instead of arguing without it.

What an arrogant *** you are!

What would keep me from telling you the exact same thing?

Just who exactly do you think you are? You don't know me! You don't have any idea what effort I've put into studying God's word nor the time I've spent praying for wisdom and objectivity. Where do you come off acting as though your the one with spiritual insight and that I'm just winging this stuff off the top of my own head?

You know what? I'm done. I've tried my best to be patient and to give you second and third and forth chances to be intellectually honest and to have a substantive discussion where, even if we never agree, we're both edified by having gone through the exercise. But you are flatly incapable of it and I will waste not one more second on the effort.

Go take your spiritual insight and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Good bye!

Clete

 

[Truster]

How so? Have I suggested this to be about salvation that requires the righteousness of Jesus Christ to be made effective? NO!

God spoke to Cain. Why not let it say what it says and seek to get insight?

Because the auxiliary verbs are not in the original Hebrew. By placing them in there it becomes a command. It wasn't a command it was a statement of fact.

 

[Cross Reference]

Did you read all the way to the end of my post?

Yes!

Paul is saying that the law has been taken away. It just him stating the theme of his entire ministry. He is not saying that Gentiles are now Jews, he's saying that there is now no difference between them. It would be closer to say that Jews are now Gentiles, not the other way around.

Why, when the gentiles were grafted in . . . not the other way 'round?

By the way, the Amplified Bible is a horrible "translation/paraphrase" of the scriptures. Do yourself a favor and stick with actual translations. That's just my opinion.

Stop changing the subject. I know the value of the AMP and the cautions one must take when using to it..

Huh?

Yeah, You don't get it.

What an arrogant *** you are!

Your attitude of superiority smells of it.

What would keep me from telling you the exact same thing?

You have done so on numerous occasions with nothing to support it except more opinion without substance.

Just who exactly do you think you are? You don't know me! You don't have any idea what effort I've put into studying God's word nor the time I've spent praying for wisdom and objectivity. Where do you come off acting as though your the one with spiritual insight and that I'm just winging this stuff off the top of my own head?

Who do you think you are?? And all the rest, likewise!

Why then is your attitude would different when approaching subject matter?

You know what? I'm done. I've tried my best to be patient and to give you second and third and forth chances to be intellectually honest and to have a substantive discussion where, even if we never agree, we're both edified by having gone through the exercise. But you are flatly incapable of it and I will waste not one more second on the effort.

You think too much of yourself, brother.

Go take your spiritual insight and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Good bye!

Clete

Don't go yet, Clete. I'm not finished.

 

[Clete]

When I said it is not written to Jews I did not mean Jews were not mentioned in the letter.

You said that there was no mention of Jew or Gentile in those letters.

Not only are they mentioned but the context makes it impossible - impossible - to accept anything other than that the whole book is about to Israel!

Why would I say that since prophecy has much to do with them. I meant that the book was not addressed specifically "to the Jews" nor were the Seven Letters which were written to existing Churches written "to the Jews at Smyrna" "to the Jews at Ephesus" (etc).

Well I wouldn't have expected God to write a letter to a nonexistent church. The churches existed, so what? Of course they existed!

You seem to think references to the Jews in the Revelation means the book is not intended for the edification of all Christians multitudes of whom will be a part of those events.

There is tons of edification possible by reading any scripture! That doesn't mean it was all written to or about me. The context allows no other rational understanding except that the Revelation was written about the nation of Israel. Gentiles do not have a City of Jerusalem, nor synagogues.

If the mention of Jewish matters makes a book or letter "not for Gentile Christians" then you must not think the OT is scripture "profitable for doctrine" because that is just about all it is about. Paul did not think that way. When he said "all scripture was inspired he was talking about the OT."

As I said a moment ago and as I've stated multiple times now on this thread alone, all scripture is profitable - all of it! Understanding which portions are written specifically to the group of which I am a member as well as which are written to a group of which I am not a member makes all of it that much MORE profitable. If I read a letter that is not addressed to me, how is it not more profitable for me to read it in that context?

As to the seven Churches mentioned in Revelation there is no reason to suppose they are all Jewish (if that is what you are implying).

I am not implying it, I stating it outright.

John was one of the Twelve, who agreed with Paul to minister to the Circumcision (Gal. 2:9). You ignore this to your own detriment. Further, the theme of those letters are consistent with the works plus faith gospel that applied to the Circumcision. The book constantly talks about works and keeping the commandments of God and perseverance to the end, etc. A message consistent with what Jesus taught in the gospels as well as what is taught by Peter, James, John, Jude and the author of Hebrews, just as you'd expect if Galatians 2:9 is read and understood to mean what it says.

For example, one of the cities mentioned is Ephesus. Ephesus was originally evangelized by Paul. When Paul first arrived he found it to be dominated by idolatry and had a difficult time reaching them (Acts 18:19) Later he went back and spent three years teaching there. By the time he writes his letter to them they have grown considerably and we see both Jews as well as Gentiles worshiping together. Although the Church consisted of both groups Paul describes them as one BODY. The way you and your camp use the term "Body of Christ" sounds like code for some kind of Pauline Denomination. This verse shows Paul using the term Body for the entire assembly of believers, Jews and Gentiles.

The term body is not in Acts 18:19. Maybe you using a different translation. It doesn't matter - it isn't truly relevant. There were both Jew and Gentile believers in Ephesus, Paul definitely did preach the gospel to both groups for some time. He eventually ended that practice and went exclusively to the gentiles no longer attempt to get Jews to accept their Messiah as Jews. He eventually just treats everyone as though they are all effectively gentiles.

The fact that there was a transition period where both Jewish believers and Gentile believers existed simultaneously is not disputed by me or any other dispensationalist. What would be the point of sending Paul to the uncircumcision while the Twelve ministered to the Circumcision if they weren't both around? And the fact that they worshiped together is no surprise either! It would be weird if they didn't! They both worship the same Jesus, they both rely on the same death and resurrection, they both love the same God! The difference is simply that one set of believers where saved under one set of rules while the other was saved under a new different set of rules and as Paul said, if you were called while circumcised do not become uncircumcised and vise versa for the callings of God are irrevocable.

His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility (Ephesians 2:14-15).

I agree! But this is in the context of PAUL'S gospel! You'd know nothing at all of this by reading the gospel's and Hebrews through Revelation - nothing at all! If not for Paul, you'd insist upon circumcising your male children on the eighth day, observing the Sabbath, tithing and following the rest of Moses minus those portions of the Law that no longer apply even to the Jews because of Calvary (i.e. the sacrificial laws, etc), which is the theme of Hebrews! Why in the world would there even be a book in the bible addressed to the Hebrews if they no longer existed apart from the Gentiles?

The Church of Ephesus is also mentioned in the Revelation. Are we to suppose that it was a segregated Jewish Congregation then after all Paul had done to teach them that they were one Body?

Not necessarily but it is certainly possible, if not likely, that at least in many ways they were separate from one another. Even if they often worshiped together and considered themselves ultimately to be one body because of their common bond with Christ, they could have and likely would have also be separate in several important ways, not the least of which would have been following Moses.

Perhaps we to assume that when Christ speaks to the Church at Ephesus he is only speaking to one portion of a divided Church - after He had endured the suffering of the cross to unite them into one man?

Yes! That much is precisely correct, aside from the snarky remark at the end.

When Christ addresses the believers in Revelation 2 & 3, He is addressing circumcision believers. This is evidence, as I've said already, by the fact that John wrote the letter, the repeated and undeniable Jewishness of the messages and the repeated references to Israel and Jerusalem.

Though Paul laid the foundation of the Churches of Asia Minor, years after his death the Early Church Fathers record that the Apostle John moved to Ephesus and assumed a leadership role there. They say John wrote both his Gospel and the Revelation there. From Ephesus John was sent into exile on Patmos (which was near Ephesus). They say this occurred during the reign of Domitian which was in the last part of the century. After John's return and they record that the Apostle remained active in ministry until the reign of Trajan. John was said to have taught leaders throughout the entire region of Asia minor. Thus he had considerable impact on the Gentile world.

None of this is relevant! I do not deny that there were both circumcision and uncircumsion believers in Ephesus!

Some of what you have said in Revelation pertains future events - like the convocation of various tribes. I have no idea how that will happen but I have seen no evidence that it happened back in the First Century. You relegate all kinds of things to the Jews that we will be a part of. You seem to characterize John's mention of the New Jerusalem as something "Jewish" but Paul talks about it too (Galatians 4:26). Another sign that it is a Jewish book is supposed to be the fact that it mentions the "ark" but the ark John sees is the heavenly antitype, the pattern of which was replicated in the tabernacle. The heavenly ark is the same "throne of grace" that believers come to find help in times of need. It is true that "Temple" is a "Jewish" word but there is a heavenly temple long before Solomon built his. Yes, the names of the Apostles are on the doors of the New Jerusalem. Why? As a memorial, so people will see it coming and going. I believe the City is a structure. If it were symbolic it would not have measurements - unless you think the measurements are symbolic too. The names of the 12 tribes are memorialized there too to remind us of the heritage we were grafted into. We were grafted into the root the Jews sprang from. Your doctrine tears apart the unity Christ created when he brought the two races into one. It undermines the unity Paul worked so hard to establish. You have gone as far as to envision a segregated afterlife.

Segregated after life. That's not a completely inaccurate way of putting it.

The Body of Christ has a heavenly calling while Israel an Earthly one. It is Israel that will inherit the Earth, not the Body of Christ. Once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, God will turn again to Israel and the things you rightly say are yet future events will begin to happen. The Tribulation will occur and Christ will then return, set up Israel's Kingdom and will reign from Jerusalem on this Earth for a thousand years, etc, etc, etc.

I believe the goal of MAD is to establish an antinomian Gospel disguised as "free grace" Paul never taught such a thing nor did his successors in Church History.

It doesn't matter what you think. Establishing a rationally coherent, systematic theology that allows one to read the scripture and understand it for what it says, is the ACTUAL goal of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. If an antinomian gospel is the result then so be it. The gospel is what it is. I am not afraid of the conclusions of my own logic.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Cross Reference]

<groan>

Crete wrote this:

The Tribulation will occur and Christ will then return, set up Israel's Kingdom and will reign from Jerusalem on this Earth for a thousand years, etc, etc, etc.

That is very true, in my understanding. It is mentioned in Rev. 12 as being in the middle of the seven years that will begin the great tribulation. Here:

"And she [the woman] brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was [immediately] caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." Revelation 12:5-6 (KJV)

Most believe in error that the woman is Israel. I wonder who Clete thinks she is?

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

No I know for certain that you haven't read it because I've never suggested otherwise.


Tell that to Moses.


I can't speak for your conscience but God's word certainly does not persuade you to lie.


A proof text you could only quote if you had NOT read the thread.

Pathetic.

What in the world is the point of lying about such a thing? If you didn't want to discuss it why are you even on this thread?

Do not answer that! I'll ignore any other post you make on this thread.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So instead of answering my challenges, it's better for you to attack. I stand by what I said. I'm not gonna stoop to attacking. Your diversion is just avoidance of the issue I brought up. Just give an answer.

 

[musterion]

Historically, unconditional eternal security as we now know it was Calvin's modification of Augustine's doctrine of Perseverence.

Wrong.

 

[Interplanner]

<groan>

Crete wrote this:


That is very true, in my understanding. It is mentioned in Rev. 12 as being in the middle of the seven years that will begin the great tribulation. Here:

"And she [the woman] brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was [immediately] caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." Revelation 12:5-6 (KJV)

Most believe in error that the woman is Israel. I wonder who Clete thinks she is?

Don't start doctrines in the Rev that are not crystal clear in ordinary language elsewhere.

 

[Cross Reference]

Don't start doctrines in the Rev that are not crystal clear in ordinary language elsewhere.

To me, what I am given to understand has been made crystal clear. Now what? A little here and a little there. Its time, don't you think?

 

[Interplanner]

To me, what I am given to understand has been made crystal clear. Now what? A little here and a little there. Its time, don't you think?

No, because the Rev was written to believers in Judea in the 1st century to help them sort out the disaster in their country and move forward to the 'wedding' ie, the church.

 

[Cross Reference]

No, because the Rev was written to believers in Judea in the 1st century to help them sort out the disaster in their country and move forward to the 'wedding' ie, the church.

You need to get off the "Judea band wagon/obsession". There were 7 churches spread over the known world to whom the book of Revelations refer to. Lets get Judea behind us and move on. You have some traveling to catch up on.

OMT: re time travel: Rev 12 and 13 were for a period time of at least 2000 yrs after Christ.

 

[Interplanner]

What is OMT?

I can't do what you want because the 1st chapter of the Rev is emphatic that the things he is writing are now, quickly, at hand. Ignoring that is one of the greatest flubifications of pop eschatology today.

 

[Cross Reference]

What is OMT?

"One More Thing".

I can't do what you want because the 1st chapter of the Rev is emphatic that the things he is writing are now, quickly, at hand. Ignoring that is one of the greatest flubifications of pop eschatology today.

Yes. and the last days began at Pentecost! Everything God does is in the present tense. You haven't considered that in God economy time is not. Time is for us. Wherefore, when He says "it is finished", it is not so????