Theology Club: The Mystery: One Lump, or Two :)

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So these words are not speaking of the Body of Christ?:

"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Ro.12:5).​

Also, are we to suppose that those to whom Paul addressed these words had not received the gospel of grace?:

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

You obviously do not even understand what the gospel of grace is about!

You don't listen very well to the Mods, do ya?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No

Correct

You do seem to stalk around where the OP did not invite you? Doing this to an extreme would be annoying. Better stop it.

Yep

 

[heir]

So these words are not speaking of the Body of Christ?

I already answered you. You just aren't satisfied with my answer.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I already answered you. You just aren't satisfied with my answer.

Indeed sister.

The Roman letter is full of Body of Christ doctrine, the fact that they were not yet in the Body should be an eye opener and shed light on Paul's course, rather than a topic of contention.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You obviously do not even understand what the gospel of grace is about!

It is ironic you say that when you believe it was preached in Acts 13.

You fail to distinguish between a God fearing Gentile and a pagan Gentile, for whom the dispensation of the grace
of God is specifically for. For YOU Gentiles who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope. Not all Gentiles were aliens and strangers (like those in Acts 13). Some were.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Roman letter is full of Body of Christ doctrine, the fact that they were not yet in the Body should be an eye opener and shed light on Paul's course, rather than a topic of contention.

So the words here in "bold" are not speaking of the Body of Christ but some other body?

"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Ro.12:5).​

 

[whitestone]

hey thats a pretty good article(I'll bookmark it and look at it further),,before you came I made the comment "this will be the end of their MAD'ness',,,I then received neg-rep's'' for saying it,lol.(maybe the way I said it was improper,forgive me if so),,,

The issue is the same though as to the beginnings of these certain things,body of Christ,Gospel of Grace,grafting in,branches torn out ect.,,closely examining the different threads you might find one's speech with all beginning the G.O.G. in Acts 9,13,2ect. others begin the B.O.C at this same time others not ect.ect.,,,

In short though these separate names we use need separate definitions and beginning and ending points(to which apply),,but this I agree is the friction among our own in that we have the different ideas of when these began or if they are the same thing(so should be mingled).

The branches that were removed were torn out before the destruction of the temple in ad70 so as we see in scripture "if judgement began at the temple of God,ect." then they were removed before ad70 and so if this is mentioned in any of Paul,or Peter's letter's the act of removal of those branches were PRIOR to the destruction of the temple,and then the grafting also. So the destruction of the temple was the end of the events they were describing,,,

and there we have it the difference in definitions. The sad part is if we bicker among our own an preterit will say "look they cannot agree",,another will then need begin with the explanation of our difference and then proceed to the truth. we complicate it this way the road block we set up in front of the truth we tell,,,

 

[Danoh]

and there we have it the difference in definitions. The sad part is if we bicker among our own an preterit will say "look they cannot agree",,another will then need begin with the explanation of our difference and then proceed to the truth. we complicate it this way the road block we set up in front of the truth we tell,,,

At the same time, whether or not we are all on the same exact page, our enemies without, not to mention that one within, will still find reason for throwing their rocks.

Even when we major in the Major over our minors.

Case in point, STP and I are miles apart on some things, yet, we get along just fine. And yet, the Teltelestai's of the world will find reason against us both.

Because the issue for such is not their differences with their own and or with others. Rather; their issues with themselves.

They refuse to major in the Major, when the minor differs.

The Apostle Paul's "ye are not straightened in us, but ye are straightened in your own bowels," 2 Cor. 6:12.

There you have it Basic Pauline Psychology 101 - the same basic "diagnosis" even Freud, Adler, Young, et al, would have readily agreed with, lol

 

[whitestone]

At the same time, whether or not we are all on the same exact page, our enemies without, not to mention that one within, will still find reason for throwing their rocks.

Even when we major in the Major over our minors.

Case in point, STP and I are miles apart on some things, yet, we get along just fine. And yet, the Teltelestai's of the world will find reason against us both.

Because the issue for such is not their differences with their own and or with others. Rather; their issues with themselves.

They refuse to major in the Major, when the minor differs.

The Apostle Paul's "ye are not straightened in us, but ye are straightened in your own bowels," 2 Cor. 6:12.

There you have it Basic Pauline Psychology 101 - the same basic "diagnosis" even Freud, Adler, Young, et al, would have readily agreed with, lol

in this day and age there are those who have watched and read through all the bible writer,four Scotsman,Danoh,Jerryshu ect.ect.(left the others out on purpose,lol) on the www for a great multitude of years. You are warning us about something we already know,,,(just saying),,

 

[Danoh]

in this day and age there are those who have watched and read through all the bible writer,four Scotsman,Danoh,Jerryshu ect.ect.(left the others out on purpose,lol) on the www for a great multitude of years. You are warning us about something we already know,,,(just saying),,

Lol, you're right; I'm turning into Jerry about Jerry :rotfl:

Duly noted. From here on out , whenever he is being hounding or belittling, I'll just post the link to that thread I made about him.

'Whenever,' hunh? - sheesh, now I still have my work cut out, lol

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I asked:

John's words are saying that anyone living at that time who believed that Jesus is Christ were born of God.​

To this Ktoyou agreed with me:

Correct

It is beyond me why some people on the "MidActs Dispensationalism" forum would deny that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone, especially when we see that the Lord said this to one of those Jews:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).​

 

[patrick jane]

I asked:

John's words are saying that anyone living at that time who believed that Jesus is Christ were born of God.​

To this Ktoyou agreed with me:



It is beyond me why some people on the "MidActs Dispensationalism" forum would deny that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone, especially when we see that the Lord said this to one of those Jews:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).​

what's your point ? you never make one -

 

[Jerry Shugart]

what's your point ? you never make one -

My point is the fact that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith and faith alone.

 

[Danoh]

what's your point ? you never make one -

And yet you defend his actions.

His point is that he believes he has the right to hound after anyone Mid-Acts, no matter the thread, subject or post, in post, after post, after post, insisting they drop whatever they were exploring and assert they believe as he does at the same time that he talks down to them.

Those who give him the grace of ignoring them, he then attempts to belittle further.

That is his point, in post, after post, after post, for years now.

If this is not clear to you, no problem; just read his very next post, and the one after that one, and the one after...

This practice of his is called cyber bullying, by the way...the exact same tactic of the playground bully having to ruin everyone else's time in his incessant demand he be paid homage to.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Theology Club Rules:

"Almost all memberships will be approved however your membership will be revoked if you engage in anti-Christian rhetoric, repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. In short the Theology Club is a place for honest and friendly discussion regarding theological topics." ​

 

[patrick jane]

And yet you defend his actions.

His point is that he believes he has the right to hound after anyone Mid-Acts, no matter the thread, subject or post, in post, after post, after post, insisting they drop whatever they were exploring and assert they believe as he does at the same time that he talks down to them.

Those who give him the grace of ignoring them, he then attempts to belittle further.

That is his point, in post, after post, after post, for years now.

If this is not clear to you, no problem; just read his very next post, and the one after that one, and the one after...

This practice of his is called cyber bullying, by the way...the exact same tactic of the playground bully having to ruin everyone else's time in his incessant demand he be paid homage to.

i may have slightly defended him quite awhile back, barely. most recently i saw a death wish from you upon him and no matter who it was i would speak to that. i have pointed out numerous times what i see him do, and thank God he never replies or comments too much on my posts. i think he can sense that i won't play his games

he asks questions and doesn't tell you what he thinks, but wants us to tell him, so he can say - then you say this, and you think that - and he's completely wrong. it's the same every time. then he puts words in mouths and contorts the questions. i told him he should study alone, just think how much he could do by himself !!!!

 

[patrick jane]

My point is the fact that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith and faith alone.

At 1 John 1:9 we are told to confess (acknowledge) our sins and then "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

Then after being cleansed from our sins then we are to keep ourselves holy by ceasing from sinning:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Ro.12:1).

but then you point to Paul talking about staying clean and living holy, as if that is required in addition to faith -

 

[Jerry Shugart]

but then you point to Paul talking about staying clean and living holy, as if that is required in addition to faith -

I NEVER said that keeping ourselves holy is a requirement for salvation.

In fact, I quoted Romans 12:1 which states in no uncertain terms that keeping ourselves holy is a part of a Christiane reasonable service.

Can you not tell the difference between "salvation" and "service"?

 

[Danoh]

i may have slightly defended him quite awhile back, barely. most recently i saw a death wish from you upon him and no matter who it was i would speak to that. i have pointed out numerous times what i see him do, and thank God he never replies or comments too much on my posts. i think he can sense that i won't play his games

he asks questions and doesn't tell you what he thinks, but wants us to tell him, so he can say - then you say this, and you think that - and he's completely wrong. it's the same every time. then he puts words in mouths and contorts the questions. i told him he should study alone, just think how much he could do by himself !!!!

I have already related that in my generation the words "drop dead" mean "get lost, annoying gnat."

Personally I am surprised this "Accuser of the Brethren" did not turn my explanation into my asserting I wished him to loose his salvation.

Anyway, this that you finally realize about his way, in your above words, is an exact description of the kind of people the Galatians had ended up misled by - the Legalist.

Galatians 6:

12. As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

The man appears to show no care neither for submitting his own will to the following:

14. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Nor to allowing others theirs:

15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

As a result, his is continually the very opposition of the following:

16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

As you see in those passages, the issue was not circumcision (a work someone might be appeased by), nor uncircumcision (its lack), rather; a failure to allow others to stand by faith where they are with the Lord, in Him, as Paul had taught them they were to stand by: by faith.

To stand by faith in that liberty that had cost Christ His shed Blood ALONE.

As with those who had succeeded enslaving the Galatians under their thumb, this would be know it all king of Mid-Acts behaves towards others supposedly his own, as if another man's servant is his to lord it over as he sees fit...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I have already related that in my generation the words "drop dead" mean "get lost, annoying gnat."

I think the kids today say, "Kick rocks" or "Get to steppin".