ECT If MAD is False Why Did Paul Make the Distinction in Romans 4:16?

[turbosixx]

There's no NC on hold. 2 Cor 3-5.

I agree. It's either in effect or not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, re my question on the following link...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...tinction-in-Romans-4-16&p=4864285#post4864285

Where I wrote the following...

"Also, that an unsealed Believing remnant still out there after Paul, who needed to hear Paul's preaching, then ended up in the Body."

What I'd meant by that is that some (very few) hold that in Acts an aspect of Paul's ministry involved his supposedly having been out there attempting to track down what remained of Israel's Believing remnant not yet saved or what have you, that he might get them saved into the Body.

I do not hold that view.

The Believing remnant (election of grace) refers to those of the nation Israel who had believed (that Jesus was the Christ) and were all sealed when the rest were concluded having continued in their willful blindness or hardening of heart before Paul was saved.

As for your other question, no; I do not believe their nation was availed that after God sealed those and concluded the rest under sin with the Gentiles - which is actually the sense of Peter's "no respect of persons" in Acts 10, though he is not yet clear on it til his meeting with Paul.

The unclean animals issue, together with the water baptism issue were about this unclean as a Gentile issue*

And as Paul relates in his account of his two encounters with Peter in Galatians 2, later, after Paul had cleared him up on that, he then had to remind him of this; where he makes his "not sinners of the Gentiles...but...also found sinners" remarks.

_________________

* The "experts" on here having continued to refuse to study out the issue behind water baptism in the OT.

OK

The only reason MAD is wrong is because of the D. D'ism said 2P2P was the indispensable organizing idea of the Bible instead of Christ. Once you let Christ (the Gospel) organize the Bible you do not need to worry about Israel's land promise because of Eph 2-3.

Liar.

Here we see that Paul is contrasting those works that would be due some result (i.e. righteousness) with faith, for which righteousness is counted, rather than merited.

And Paul then ties those works to the law via circumcision, demonstrating that Abraham was made righteous before circumcision to show that all (circumcised, under the law, and uncircumcised, not under the law) are made righteous by this same faith.

And continuing to Romans 9, where Paul deals with this subject further:

So, the Jews were pursuing righteousness by merit, by obeying the law, and have failed to obtain it. This points back to Romans 4, where the Jews wanted righteousness because it was their due for works, that being obeying the law.

James, OTOH, begins chapter 2 by calling out his readers for giving better treatment to the rich than the poor, and calling them out, because this is sinful. This is the setting in which James continues into the section in question:

So, James' point is that works are a necessary result of our faith.

And he reinforces this point:

So, James is chiding believers regarding the nature of their faith, that it impact their lives so as to show through their actions.

And in this context James says:

So, the point isn't that works are required for salvation, but rather that faith requires works that represent that faith. Had Abraham said he believed, but refused to obey God in sacrificing his son, would that have been real faith? Of course not. Likewise with Rahab. If she believed that God was going to give Jericho into Israel's hands, but didn't help the spies, would that be real faith? Of course not.

So, what we see isn't that works are added to faith for salvation, but rather that the nature of our faith needs to be such that our actions reflect that faith.

See Romans 9.

What would have happened to Israel if they had not followed the law to the best of their ability, including sacrifices and such when they failed to keep it otherwise?

Romans 9 has nothing to do with "Jacob's trouble."

Then what wrath?

That’s complicated. I believe it’s much simpler.

If I understand you correctly, you are dividing things based on what they are called. Something referred to by different names can be the same thing but things that are different cannot be called by the same name or that would create confusion. For example, Jesus and Satan can be referred to by many different names but both cannot be referred to by the same name.

I see grace, the church, the faith and the body of Christ the same way, they can be called by different names and still be the same.

Here Paul uses church and body interchangeably.
Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

Did anyone else refer to the Body?

Here Paul calls the church the church of God.
1 Cor. 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus,

Here Paul says he persecuted the church of God before his conversion. If it’s not the same church as the one in 1 Corinthians 1, then this is a confusing statement.
1 Cor. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Both churches, same God. Doesn't mean they believe exactly all the same things, or that they're even under the same rules.

Also, Paul says people were in Christ before him.
Rom. 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Peter, James, John, etc. were in Christ before Paul was. What of it?

What established the church and the body? The same thing, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
Eph. 2:16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross,
Acts 20:28.. to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.[/quote]
When was it called "the Body" and who called it such?

Paul said he was a minister of the new covenant.
2 Cor. 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
He said communion is blood of the new covenant.
1 Cor. 11: 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

"A" versus "the."

It is simpler and makes more sense to me that the church and body were established by Jesus’ sacrifice and on Pentecost 3,000 plus souls were added to the church. The Jews were to hear the gospel first and they did. Then the Gentiles were later grafted in once they heard the same good news, Jesus is savior of us all.

If the 12 were commissioned with the Great Commission why did God call Paul to go to the Gentiles?

 

[turbosixx]

Did anyone else refer to the Body?



When was it called "the Body" and who called it such?



If the 12 were commissioned with the Great Commission why did God call Paul to go to the Gentiles?

If this is enough for you to divide Christ, I think I've done all I can do.

 

[Lighthouse]

If this is enough for you to divide Christ, I think I've done all I can do.

Christ is not divided.:nono:

 

[turbosixx]

Christ is not divided.:nono:

This isn't division?

Both churches, same God. Doesn't mean they believe exactly all the same things, or that they're even under the same rules.

If the 12 were commissioned with the Great Commission why did God call Paul to go to the Gentiles?

This is unity.

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

 

[Lighthouse]

This isn't division?

The rules changed. The only semblance of division is that those under the old rules remained under those rules.

This is unity.

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Where is that?

 

[turbosixx]

The rules changed. The only semblance of division is that those under the old rules remained under those rules.

Do you believe Jesus established his kingdom in the 1st century?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The rules changed. The only semblance of division is that those under the old rules remained under those rules.

They were not under those old rules.

They only had respect to them as the oblation ceased at the cross in the middle of the 70th week.

The Apostles worshiped in David's tabernacle.

Where is that?

Between the cross and the destruction of the temple.

 

[Danoh]

Do you believe Jesus established his kingdom in the 1st century?

Nope.

 

[themuzicman]

What would have happened to Israel if they had not followed the law to the best of their ability, including sacrifices and such when they failed to keep it otherwise?

They were sent into exile. If you study the OT, you'll find this great exile there.

Then what wrath?

The final, eternal wrath? The second death?

 

[Interplanner]

Do you believe Jesus established his kingdom in the 1st century?

Yes, the resurrection was his coronation and he was and is to be proclaimed as Lord of heaven and earth to all mankind going forward from that moment on. This does not mean setting up a stone and wood building someplace called the 'general offices'--if that's what the RCC is about. It exists by preaching/proclaiming it. Paul was not an anarchist but he did tell all rulers that Christ was Lord over them.

 

[Interplanner]

They were sent into exile. If you study the OT, you'll find this great exile there.



The final, eternal wrath? The second death?

The 2nd apostolic sermon in Acts 3 tells Israel that they were to now listen to the Teacher raised up like Moses (the new Moses) and that failure to do so meant extirpation--disinheritance. Practically, it also meant the destruction of the city and country.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes, the resurrection was his coronation and he was and is to be proclaimed as Lord of heaven and earth to all mankind going forward from that moment on. This does not mean setting up a stone and wood building someplace called the 'general offices'--if that's what the RCC is about. It exists by preaching/proclaiming it. Paul was not an anarchist but he did tell all rulers that Christ was Lord over them.

You're something of a "Semi-Preterist" huh. You reject the future reign of Christ on earth, I take it? Otherwise, known as "The Millennial Kingdom."

 

[Interplanner]

You're something of a "Semi-Preterist" huh. You reject the future reign of Christ on earth, I take it? Otherwise, known as "The Millennial Kingdom."

That starts right after the wedding, and that has taken place (Eph 5). At the end there is a short period of rebellion. But the believers are victorious in this through Christ's intervention and swiftly moved to the NHNE.

Reformation theology has always put the coronation of Christ immediately after the resurrection, as Acts 2 does. This is why the 'Hallelujah Chorus' (lyrics of Rev 12) are used immediately after the resurrection in Handel's MESSIAH.

I don't reject a 'reign on earth' so long as you mean the NHNE as Isaiah does. It never meant this earth. Nor does Peter in 2 Pet 3.

 

[themuzicman]

The 2nd apostolic sermon in Acts 3 tells Israel that they were to now listen to the Teacher raised up like Moses (the new Moses) and that failure to do so meant extirpation--disinheritance. Practically, it also meant the destruction of the city and country.

Well, given that the crucifixion of Christ was the final violation of the Old Covenant, that was already going to happen. Peter is pleading with the people to follow Christ, to repent from this most sinful act.

 

[Tambora]

* The "experts" on here having continued to refuse to study out the issue behind water baptism in the OT.

Prove it clown.

All you EVER do is assert a thing.

You Scripture-less fool.

 

[Danoh]

Prove it clown.

All you EVER do is assert a thing.

You Scripture-less fool.

Yep :chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't reject a 'reign on earth' so long as you mean the NHNE as Isaiah does. It never meant this earth. Nor does Peter in 2 Pet 3.

The Lord Jesus will reign in Jerusalem when He reigns from David's throne:

"Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously" (Isa.24:23).

Here we see that when He reigns in Jerusalem "the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed." This could not possibly be referring to the "New Heaven and New Earth" because there will be no need of the light of the sun there:

"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev.22:5).​

Besides that, the Lord Jesus made it plain that He will sit upon His throne when He returns to earth:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).​

The following words of Job demonstrate that the Lord Jesus will stand on the earth in the latter day:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God"​

(Job 19:25-26).​

Indeed, the following passage foretells of the time when the Lord will stand upon the earth:

"Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem" (Zech.14:3-4).​

 

[Tambora]

Yep :chuckle:

teehee!

But seriously, where do we find in the OT law where the rite of baptism is done in the manner John was baptizing?

We do find washings done in the OT for purification, usually done with water and blood.
But there is never any mention of blood with John's baptism in any of the verses concerning it.
So what examples of the law do we have with baptism of water only that can take away sins for the general population and not just for a particular cleansing (such as touching the dead and menstruation of females, etc.)?
John seems to be inviting anyone and everyone to be baptized.

 

[themuzicman]

"Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously"[/I] (Isa.24:23).

Here we see that when He reigns in Jerusalem "the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed." This could not possibly be referring to the "New Heaven and New Earth" because there will be no need of the light of the sun there:

When the sun and moon are affect as such (cf Joel 2), that means a kingdom is going to fail. In this case, Israel.