LA, if you are seeking eternal life you best start reading/studying Paul's writings. (Romans through Philemon)
ECT Madism refuted by the Bible.
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
- Status
Those verses were written to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. That doesn't include you.
Romans through Philemon speaks to the Gentiles. Better start reading LA?
LA and her ilk need to learn how to "Rightly Divide" the written word of God. (The Bible.)
Posters like Meshak, LA, etc, choose to live as a Jew under the Law.
Unless one is able to follow the Law 100% from birth to death, they'll not make it. Besides we're living in the Dispensation of Grace now.
The Grace way is the only way.
Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul received that Gospel from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ.
Peter and the rest continued to preach the "Kingdom Gospel" to the Jews.
Today both Jew and Gentile must come to God through the "Grace Gospel."
There was two Gospels being preached 2000 years ago, now there is one.
Anything to add LA?
Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Follow Paul, Lazy...brink a spray bottle of water and an animal or two...
At the very least, each Pentecost...
You fool - water baptism was one of THEIR "divers washings."
I one time wrote all of the Pauline epistles out by hand. What an amazing way to read the bible! It's now my favorite (partial) copy of the bible!
I don't know what RTs are but it doesn't matter.
I was answering Danoh's rhetorical question in general terms not making a comment about you personally, although I can understand why you might have thought otherwise.
We all have to be convinced of the truth in our own minds. My point to you is that making appeals to tradition (i.e. history), citing "experts" as evidence (even if that expert is yourself), or declaring something false on the basis of your personal thoughts concerning an issues complexity is not a rationally valid way to allow yourself to become convinced nor attempt to convince anyone else.
Has it ever occurred to you that not all dispensationalists believe the same things? Whatever RTs are, there's no way any rational person rejects dispensationalism on the basis of Galatians 3:17. Galatians 3:17 doesn't come even two whole pages after this...
Galatians 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.
Any interpretation or understanding of anything said in Galatians 3 that is not consistent with Galatians 2 is a pretext where one is ignoring the context and bringing one's doctrine to the text.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I've been water baptized twice and attend a Baptist church!
:rotfl:
(I don't disagree with a syllable that GM or Danoh have said on the topic of water baptism.)
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
LA
The gospel to the circumcised is the same gospel to the uncircumcised.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
You got it wrong again? How do you manage to get everything wrong??
- Status