Hoping this is an appropriate place for this. Helped me out recently, lots of references/info in one spot.
*edited because of partial attachment*
http://www.weltmanager.de/worldmanager/TheTwoEvangels.html (http://www.weltmanager.de/worldmanager/TheTwoEvangels.html)
Glad it helped you. Some see it that way whole-heartedly, some very little, and some in between I guess. Anyway, you'll get discussion from it.
I see it as one gospel, applied to two distinct groups. Two aspects of one gospel bringing all into one new man. Paul and Peter were definitely the two primary messengers, Peter to the circumscision applying the one gospel and Paul to the uncircumscision applying the one gospel.
I think we also must remember there were others as wel, the 11, all went out with the gospel of the kingdom, and I am sure it was applied through them bu the Spirit in unique ways, bringing all into the one olive tree.
"For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting." (Ephesians 2:8,9)
Check out the attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: eaglesway on May 20, 2015, 08:09:09 AM
I see it as one gospel, applied to two distinct groups. Two aspects of one gospel bringing all into one new man. Paul and Peter were definitely the two primary messengers, Peter to the circumscision applying the one gospel and Paul to the uncircumscision applying the one gospel.
I think we also must remember there were others as wel, the 11, all went out with the gospel of the kingdom, and I am sure it was applied through them bu the Spirit in unique ways, bringing all into the one olive tree.
:thumbsup: For me , Gathering into Christ one new Man being the messenger Son of Man and also Son Of God [Hear MY SON , Hear what the Spirit is saying ] the Body of believers
heb6
19This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20where
Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.s
Psalm 110:4
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."John 14:2
My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?
Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that
he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers and sisters,
who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as
our apostle and high priest.
Hebrews 4:14
Therefore, since
we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
Hebrews 5:6
And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."Hebrews 7:8
In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living.
Hebrews 7:17
For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."1 Peter 3:22
who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-
-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. both Peter and Paul have the HOLY SPIRIT witness in them ..declaring the message of truth/ seed of Christ "out of their mouths " as do many many called and some chosen to do so by GOD HIMSELF .
we are to
grow in truth and grace, Given by the increase of God there is no DIVISION IN JESUS CHRIST
The world... yes........
"I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ. But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:6-8)
Check out the attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
See the attachment to read some more information about the gospels differentiated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
See the attachment to read some information about the Circumcision Evangel.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Personally, when I compare James 2 against Romans 2, I see no difference in core teaching. I think there is a misunderstanding in Christanity of the role that Grace has in our salvation from sin, which causes confusion about Law and Grace.
For another perspective:
http://www.mercifultruth.com/links-savedbygrace.html
one new man in Christ from BOTH
NO DIVISIONS One in Christ
EPH 2
...14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity....
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Ephesians 2:14
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Ephesians 2:16
and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Colossians 1:21
Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
Colossians 2:14
having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 2:20
Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:
Colossians 3:10
and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Colossians 3:15
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
Quote from: rosered on May 20, 2015, 08:59:49 PM
one new man in Christ from BOTH
NO DIVISIONS One in Christ
EPH 2
...14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity....
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.
Ephesians 2:10
For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Ephesians 2:14
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Ephesians 2:16
and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Colossians 1:21
Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
Colossians 2:14
having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 2:20
Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:
Colossians 3:10
and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Colossians 3:15
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
:dsunny:
See the attachments for information about the uncircumcision evangel.
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
Here's a link to some relevant information especially for those who can't access the PDF files.
http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/index.html
"But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:8)
[attachment deleted by admin]
See the attachments for Paul To The Galatians.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hmm... perhaps the word choice isn't ideal. Or perhaps a definition of gospel is required. That said-by my reckoning-Jesus and his apostles described a very different existence that was unique to the people of Israel, on earth, not a new or different Good News. It does seem to me however, either side of that debate is equal in substance (or am I confused?). Maybe a new designation is in order? And by my estimation there are in fact 3 experiences: Firstfruit, Israel, nations.
Thoughts in any direction?
I appreciate all the material btw, I'm a slow reader, so that should last me a while, lol
Oops! by 'apostles' I mean the 12, and not Paul :laughing7:
Quote from: ian on May 21, 2015, 04:37:06 AM
Hmm... perhaps the word choice isn't ideal. Or perhaps a definition of gospel is required. That said-by my reckoning-Jesus and his apostles described a very different existence that was unique to the people of Israel, on earth, not a new or different Good News. It does seem to me however, either side of that debate is equal in substance (or am I confused?). Maybe a new designation is in order? And by my estimation there are in fact 3 experiences: Firstfruit, Israel, nations.
Thoughts in any direction?
I appreciate all the material btw, I'm a slow reader, so that should last me a while, lol
Paul and the 12 apostles presented identical gospels in my opinion, tailored to the listening audience. It was promised first to Israel by Jesus. They rejected it save for a remnant of Israel, and then it was eventually given to the Gentiles after the promise of Pentecost was fulfilled so that the promise could continue to be received by anyone who called upon the name of the Lord.
general comment that may be useful in some way to someone in the thread;
I'm not always sure what it means exactly for each situation, but I personally think it's something important to keep in the back of our mind. Jesus' earthly ministry was primarily (some say exclusively) to the Jews, in the age of Law, before the destruction of the temple and the end of temple worship, and (obviously) before the cross. Just may be worth noting.
That's true. The gospel was preached to them first. Then the Gentiles. Everything Paul said to Gentiles, I believe, lines up with what Jesus said to Israel. The importance of faith, obedience, the wrath of God, the destructiveness of sin and the path to salvation.
I just realized that only half of that got uploaded as an attachment. Lets try this again! This is what I originally intended to publish:
http://www.weltmanager.de/worldmanager/TheTwoEvangels.html (http://www.weltmanager.de/worldmanager/TheTwoEvangels.html)
It is worth remembering that it was Peter that first preached to the Gentiles, to Cornelius. Does this mean he switched gospels for the day? On the contrary, he testified of the Gentiles that they received the Holy Spirit "just as we (the circumcision) have".
Paul also preached many times to the Jews, including the last chapter of Acts. Does this mean he kept changing gospel for the day? On the contrary, he testified that he was going to the Gentiles with "this salvation of God" which the Jews had rejected, and that the Gentiles would hear that which the Jews would not. Same gospel, different response.
Quote from: Shev on May 21, 2015, 08:11:07 AM
It is worth remembering that it was Peter that first preached to the Gentiles, to Cornelius. Does this mean he switched gospels for the day? On the contrary, he testified of the Gentiles that they received the Holy Spirit "just as we (the circumcision) have".
Paul also preached many times to the Jews, including the last chapter of Acts. Does this mean he kept changing gospel for the day? On the contrary, he testified that he was going to the Gentiles with "this salvation of God" which the Jews had rejected, and that the Gentiles would hear that which the Jews would not. Same gospel, different response.
:thumbsup:
:iagree: ----> :thumbsup:
Ian,
Thanks for upgrading the link to the chart. It's a lot more fun now.
Quote from: Shev on May 21, 2015, 08:11:07 AM
It is worth remembering that it was Peter that first preached to the Gentiles, to Cornelius. Does this mean he switched gospels for the day? On the contrary, he testified of the Gentiles that they received the Holy Spirit "just as we (the circumcision) have".
Paul also preached many times to the Jews, including the last chapter of Acts. Does this mean he kept changing gospel for the day? On the contrary, he testified that he was going to the Gentiles with "this salvation of God" which the Jews had rejected, and that the Gentiles would hear that which the Jews would not. Same gospel, different response.
Amen.
Jesus brought the gospel of the kingdom. Like a measure of leaven in three bushels of meal, till all is leavened- it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Christ in you the hope of glory.
Jesus is the good news, but men keep trying to incorporate their doctrinal systems into "the gospel" in order to lend more weight to their additions to the truth.
The gospel Jesus gave to the apostles is the only good news, and it is for all people, and it is the good news of a savior, Jesus the son of God.
"Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news(euagellion-evangel, glad tidings) of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."
I just noticed that's Jeff Priddy's work, AKA Martin Zender. God obviously showed Peter first that even those of us of the nations were going to receive salvation which he had a hard time explaining to his Jewish buddies after they messed with him for helping out Cornelius. And yes, especially in the book of Acts which was a transition period, Paul evangelized a lot of his Jewish people and caught a lot of heat for doing so, but both of those things are missing the point. Of course the evangel of God, the evangel of Jesus Christ, is the same basic message that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, was entombed, and roused from the dead through the glory of the Father, and it's shared by both the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. But what's said to be different is that those of us of the nations are saved in grace through faith while the Hebrew law was still observed by those folks who had to be reassured at the council of Jerusalem when Peter had to speak up for Paul, and Paul was given their blessing to go to the nations which is how we got evangelized. Even the decrees that were suggested by James as a compromise were later nullified in Ephesians. Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians to straighten out the folks there because some of the Jewish guys had conned them into believing they had to follow the law even though they weren't Jewish. That's the difference with guys like Cornelius who was actually a proselyte who probably followed the law with Peter and the rest of the guys in Jerusalem, but that's not what's up with us. You can make yourself crazy arguing about the evangel being the same or different, but both points of view are right in a sense. So I don't get worked up about it or care to debate it any more than a lot of other stuff that folks want to argue about, like literal vs. figurative or whatever, because I can see how folks see both sides of that too. I agree that Christ fulfilled the law, but some Jewish folks back then still wanted to do their thing. The important thing is that those of us of nations aren't subject to the Hebrew law because we've never been Hebrews. That's why Jesus waited until he was risen to convert Paul outside Israel on the road to Damascus after he had told his disciples not even to go on a road of the nations before he was crucified. The Jews were given the law to show the futility of mankind trying to save themselves, but the Jews are still God's chosen people who will minister to the nations on earth when Christ returns and rules Israel while those of us mostly of the nations, the ecclesia, the body of Christ, will have already been snatched away and will be ministering in the celestial realm. The Jewish people have never looked forward to being in heaven. They have always looked forward to the kingdom of the heavens on earth in Israel ruled by their Messiah in Jerusalem. They didn't recognize him the first time he was here according to God's will because they've been temporarily blinded until all those chosen out of the nations have been called out. But most of the Jews that did believe have their mission on earth in the future kingdom in which it seems the law will still be operating. Guys like Paul and his buddies, some who are Jews, are in the ecclesia, the body of Christ, with a celestial destiny for the eons. At the consummation, who knows what will happen? We're not told, other than that God will be all in all, which is really all we need to know. But, in the meantime, it seems that some Jewish folks may be living under the law even while believing in Jesus Christ. That is why it's said that there are two evangels. I know some folks think the ecclesia has taken over and are the real Israel now, which makes anybody who is Jewish not real Israel anymore, but I don't see it like that. I think God has simply paused temporarily in the fulfillment of the promised kingdom of the heavens for the Jewish people to allow all those chosen to be called out of the nations. That's how we get to be blessed and one in spirit with the Jewish people, Christ, and God even though we have no right to the earthly blessings of the Jewish people. I think God works differently at different times with different people, just like I think all of scripture is for us but not about us. I think Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians to try to help them understand that you don't have to follow the Hebrew law to worship the God of the Hebrew people. Church people think that you do have to follow the law even if you've never been a Jew because the church has confused the two evangels, which is what Paul was calling a distorted evangel in Galatians and even cursed it. We in the ecclesia, the body of Christ, were never given the 613 commandments given to the Jewish people. We weren't even given the Ten Commandments like most people think we were. This is what we've been told. "For the entire law is fulfilled in one word, in this: 'You shall love your associate as yourself.'" (Galatians 5:14) That's what Jesus preached because "God is love," and God was in Christ conciliating the world to himself. We're "ambassadors...beseeching for Christ's sake, 'Be conciliated to God!'" Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and God is the savior of all mankind. But different people come to God differently even though we all come through Jesus Christ. Even the unjust will come to the Father through Jesus Christ when they are judged before the great white throne, condemned to the second death-the lake of fire, and then vivified at the consummation of the eons so that God may be all in all. I don't believe God has forsaken the Jewish people for the ecclesia just because they rejected Jesus and had him crucified because that was all according to God's will just as it is according to God's will that there will be a future kingdom of the heavens in Israel as was promised to the Jewish people, and all the nations on earth will come to God through Israel when that happens. So I think folks should try to calm down about the idea of two evangels. It ain't worth fightin about anymore than the figurative/literal interpretation of all or some of Revelation. I think Jewish people like our own dear sister, Cardinal, are in the body of Christ and will get snatched away with Paul and all the rest of us for our work in the celestial realm during the remaining eonian time, but God has plans for other Jewish people on earth during eonian time that remains when Christ comes back. At the consummation of the eons, all of creation will be reconciled to God through Christ's blood on the cross, and God will be all in all.
QuoteOf course the evangel of God, the evangel of Jesus Christ, is the same basic message that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, was entombed, and roused from the dead through the glory of the Father, and it's shared by both the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision.
But that's not the whole of the message. It's also that both Jews and Gentiles received the same Spirit which makes us one people together, and both Peter and Paul stressed how that this Spirit can save us from "this wicked generation" as Peter put it. Paul preached the same message about sin and the means of salvation. Side by side, while they have different words to express it, the messages are the same.
QuoteYou can make yourself crazy arguing about the evangel being the same or different, but both points of view are right in a sense. So I don't get worked up about it or care to debate it any more than a lot of other stuff that folks want to argue about, like literal vs. figurative or whatever, because I can see how folks see both sides of that too. I agree that Christ fulfilled the law, but some Jewish folks back then still wanted to do their thing. The important thing is that those of us of nations aren't subject to the Hebrew law because we've never been Hebrews.
But the real question is whether or not the apostles other than Paul were TEACHING that the Jews were still subject to the letter of Moses. I do not believe they were. I believe all apostles, including Paul, taught that the Spirit brings us into conformity with the Law which is hung upon love, so that things the Law says to do, the Spirit filled believer (Jew or Gentile) can do by nature, such as loving thy neighbor.
QuoteThe Jews were given the law to show the futility of mankind trying to save themselves, but the Jews are still God's chosen people who will minister to the nations on earth when Christ returns and rules Israel while those of us mostly of the nations, the ecclesia, the body of Christ, will have already been snatched away and will be ministering in the celestial realm. The Jewish people have never looked forward to being in heaven. They have always looked forward to the kingdom of the heavens on earth in Israel ruled by their Messiah in Jerusalem.
But, in the meantime, it seems that some Jewish folks may be living under the law even while believing in Jesus Christ.
The question is whether or not Jewish folks are/were MANDATED BY GOD to be living under the Law after faith comes, and I don't see that they were. I don't believe that there is any difference between Jew or Gentile believers, because Jesus has torn down that wall of separation. We are all one in Christ, a whole new man.
Quote from: eaglesway on May 21, 2015, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: Shev on May 21, 2015, 08:11:07 AM
It is worth remembering that it was Peter that first preached to the Gentiles, to Cornelius. Does this mean he switched gospels for the day? On the contrary, he testified of the Gentiles that they received the Holy Spirit "just as we (the circumcision) have".
Paul also preached many times to the Jews, including the last chapter of Acts. Does this mean he kept changing gospel for the day? On the contrary, he testified that he was going to the Gentiles with "this salvation of God" which the Jews had rejected, and that the Gentiles would hear that which the Jews would not. Same gospel, different response.
Amen.
Jesus brought the gospel of the kingdom. Like a measure of leaven in three bushels of meal, till all is leavened- it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Christ in you the hope of glory.
Jesus is the good news, but men keep trying to incorporate their doctrinal systems into "the gospel" in order to lend more weight to their additions to the truth.
The gospel Jesus gave to the apostles is the only good news, and it is for all people, and it is the good news of a savior, Jesus the son of God.
"Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news(euagellion-evangel, glad tidings) of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."
It is the Gladdest Tidings of all, the most precious honey from the most sacred honeycomb - for all of humanity, all people on this planet.
True hope and true glory in the most wonderful and unthinkable Divine Message - Jesus, the Christ of GOD, living in humanity and amongst humanity.
"He saith to them, 'And you — who do you say me to be?'
And Simon Peter answering said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
And Jesus answering said to him, 'Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in the heavens"
Matthew 16:15-17
Flesh and blood can only speak and hear words. Flesh and blood cannot reveal to another the Divine Essence and spiritual reality that JESUS, the CHRIST of GOD, is the SON of the LIVING GOD.
This spiritual reality is given by GOD through revelation, that He is in His Christ who is manifested as Jesus.
Too simple and not enough for some, until the mind casts out its thoughts and permits the Spirit to manifest its thoughts.
Happy is the person to whom GOD has revealed Himself in Christ.
I agree we're one in spirit, but what was the council at Jerusalem about? Obviously Paul was a Jew who didn't think he was still bound by the law, but most of the Jews did.
"in spirit the nations are to be joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body, and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel of which I became the dispenser, in accord with the gratuity of the grace of God, which is granted to me in accord with His powerful operation." (Ephesians 3:5-7)
I also agree that there's no difference between all of us in Christ.
"For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:27,28)
But it seems that most of the Jewish folks chose to stick with works through faith while we are saved in grace through faith. And, when Paul was commissioned to go to the nations, he couldn't tell them they had to go along with the Jews who were trying to proselytize them even if they were fellow believers in Jesus Christ.
QuoteI agree we're one in spirit, but what was the council at Jerusalem about? Obviously Paul was a Jew who didn't think he was still bound by the law, but most of the Jews did.
That doesn't mean they were right. The first council of Jerusalem was not to validate that the Jewish believers were bound under the Law. It was to agree that the hearts of the Gentiles were purified already through faith.
Quote"For whoever are baptized into Christ, put on Christ, in Whom there is no Jew nor yet Greek, there is no slave nor yet free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:27,28)
But it seems that some Jewish folks chose to stick with works through faith while we are saved in grace through faith. And, when Paul was commissioned to go to the nations, he couldn't tell them they had to go along with the Jews who were trying to proselytize them even if they were fellow believers in Jesus Christ.
Those Jews were proselytizing falsely, not correctly according to a different evangel. It took a while for everyone to understand the point of the Gospel.
When you say "works" I think it helps to be clear. Paul preached the importance of "works through faith" to the Gentiles too. He preached the requirement for obedience and the negative consequences of disobedience alike to them. He just preached that obedience to the Spirit, rather than following the letter WITHOUT the Spirit which is what makes law following "our own righteousness." To my knowledge, James teaches the same thing in James 1, when he talks about us being born of God and the kind of attitude that should result in that.
Good works that come by the Spirit of God within us are Christ's righteousness through us and that applies to Jew and Gentile believers alike. Paul was clear that God will judge evil doers impartially, not taking into account the flesh.
This is Peter's response to the idea of SOME Jewish believers that circumcsion must be practiced by Gentile believers:
Acts 15
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
I don't know how you read two separate evangels from that. I see in Peter's statement that:
1) Peter was told to preach to the Gentiles by his lips THE Gospel and for them to believe it
2) God did not discriminate between Jew and Gentile and purified all their hearts by faith (not sure why anybody would need to add Moses if everyone's hearts are already pure through faith)
3) Neither the Jews or Gentiles are able to handle the weight of the Law
4) Peter says WE (the Jews) believe that WE (the Jews) are saved through GRACE, just as THEY (the Gentiles)
This would have been a great time for ANYONE to mention the existence of distinct gospels and methods for salvation. If any time would have been appropriate, it would have been this one. But I don't see two separate gospels being explained and clarified here. I just see that Peter is lumping the Jews together with the Gentiles and saying grace takes care of everything for both parties without appeal to the Law of Moses.
I think the difference is that our works are the fruits of our salvation not the means seen to it.
I think we have the same situation today with the church who thinks it's Israel teaching salvation through works. The Roman Catholics tell you to say a bunch of Hail Marys to be forgiven, and the Protestants tell you that you have to say the sinner's prayer to be forgiven because it's up to you to decide if you want to save yourself. It's the same stuff, but the ecclesia should know that we're saved in grace through faith, not by anything we do.
"For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of you; it is God's approach present, not of works, lest anyone should be boasting." (Ephesians 2:8,9)
I think those who are trapped by the systematized deception of the church who haven't received the revelation of universal reconciliation can still be true believers even if they don't understand the full scope of the evangel.
QuoteI think the difference is that our works are the fruits of our salvation not the means seen to it.
Depends on what salvation you are talking about. Paul described an inner war of carnality which can be helped by the Spirit. No works. And our works then become a fruit of that salvation. But there is also a salvation of our outer selves. After all, Paul also said
"Don't you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey?"So, if you choose to obey sin (a work), you become a slave to it. Therefore, you must change your works to become saved from that slavery by choosing not to obey it.
QuoteI think we have the same situation today with the church who thinks it's Israel teaching salvation through works. The Roman Catholics tell you to say a bunch of Hail Marys to be forgiven, and the Protestants tell you you have to say the sinner's prayer to be forgiven because it's up to you to decide it you want to save yourself. It's the same stuff, but the ecclesia should know that we're saved in grace through faith, not by anything we do.
But we are saved from SIN by grace. More from Paul:
Titus 2
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
That is the manner in which Grace saves us, through the modification of our works from within, a thing the Law could not do. The idea that we can be saved from ungodliness requires no modification of works doesn't even make common sense to me.
Acts 15
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion
I find it interesting that they had to have much discussion
about keeping the Laws of Moses,and circumcision .
This is the church that Peter had been the head of for twenty years.
It sounds like they had not fully embraced the Grace of God.
Because members of the Pharisee party were involved in the discussion.
I'm not saying they were right, bro. I agree with Paul. I don't even think James should have taken leadership of the Jerusalem ecclesia. He only got away with it because of tradition, and he was the brother of Jesus. What I'm saying is they're still believers even though they don't understand the full scope of the evangel just like church people today.
Quote from: Seth on May 21, 2015, 10:55:56 PM
Because members of the Pharisee party were involved in the discussion.
The
apostles and
elders met to consider this question
Quote from: dajomaco on May 21, 2015, 11:04:21 PM
Quote from: Seth on May 21, 2015, 10:55:56 PM
Because members of the Pharisee party were involved in the discussion.
The apostles and elders met to consider this question
As in not JUST the apostles.
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said,
Quote from: dajomaco on May 22, 2015, 10:20:57 PM
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said,
Why are you highlighting "believers" without comment? I don't see the point. The fact that they were from the Pharisee party probably informed their desire to incorporate the Law of Moses into Christian salvation doctrine more than your average Joe.
The book of Romans and Hebrews are examples of what an apostle might say in a lengthy discussion.
I find it odd that, after twenty years in the same church.
The apostles and the elders needed to get together.
To discuss and debate, the laws of Moses and circumcision.
Quote from: dajomaco on May 23, 2015, 02:53:20 AM
I find it odd that, after twenty years in the same church.
The apostles and the elders needed to get together.
To discuss and debate, the laws of Moses and circumcision.
I guess I find it less odd than you, especially with my own journey with doctrine over the past 10 years. We don't know much about the issues each person brought to bear and the history of the covenant they covered. I don't see much of an oddity in having a lengthy discussion with people I am close with, especially about complex matters, especially without cell phones, internet or ability to read in many cases. Besides Paul and Barnabbus had travelled to Jerusalem for this, so it's not like they all attended the same neighborhood church.
Couple points here. Regarding evangels, I'm not sure the definition of evangel is strictly the account of Christ's work. There are a few places in scripture that tell of an evangel. One is Rev 14:6. I don't think anyone that believes in UR will disagree that the Good News if for all, however when Paul explained that there was one evangel that we should listen to, he was speaking to the nations, which have as of yet only received one.
I also don't think there is any indication that anyone's salvation is riding on these other tidings, rather that it is an issue of the allotment/inheritance. Christ spoke often to the unbelievers with compassion. What he spoke of (I believe), at times, was the kingdom of heaven. I'd encourage you all to look over Ezekiel. You can skip to ch37 and read on. It would appear that Israel in the future still sins and still has the law and is still on earth, even if it is a reformed one with the greatest King. I do think the 12 and 11 and others could have had different tidings suited to their audience, yes.
As to this information being injected, new or contrived, you could just as easily say that the world is still reeling from the dominion of Catholicism, that it is old and buried.
I'm sure this is less thorough than I'd like, but I'm running on fumes! I hope to hear your thoughts.
One other quick point, keep in mind the kingdom of God is in our hearts.
I actually believe that Ezekiel 37 began its fulfillment at Pentecost and that God does not make a difference between Jew and Gentile in Israel. I believe that wall of separation was torn down and that God does not make discriminations of allotment based on flesh.
Essentially what you are talking about isn't really two evangels. It's dispensationalism.
The law was a schoolmaster, and Christ fulfilled the law, and the shadow of things must give way to the substance....so I can't see how Israel after the flesh are still going to be keeping the law, which pointed to Christ in the first place.
To me, the crux of this issue of two gospels, as with any truth, is Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is the only good news, and the reality of being One in Spirit with Him cannot be divided, categorized into two drawers, or made into two "new men".
Everyone ,
:thumbsup:
They have roused Me to jealousy with a no-god idols; they have provoked Me with their vanities; and I will rouse them to jealousy with a no-people; I will provoke them with a vile/foolish nation.
Christ became a stumbling block to the Israel nation at the first visitation after being told one last time , for me, this is God holding back the Holy Spirit to move upon them , till the fulness of the Gentile nations comes in first , making them come in last and allowing them to be humbled for this time , understanding what it is like to be moved to Jealousy , I know you can tell anyone How you feel in words , but it is the experience itself that causes a change of mind and heart .
Because the Israelites seek signs and the Gentiles knowledge /wisdom , and signs and knowledge cease to be [sign is Jonas and the knowledge/wisdom is foolishness to God ] , only for a time , but it has always been about LOVE , and for me God has never stopped loving any of His creation , But sometimes pure Love is correction , because you do love them so much .
Learning what righteousness in the earth is all about , and that is suffering and go sit in the corner and think about what you did wrong .
We all have to come before Him in that place as little children and apologize for disobedience .
When you don't know any better your told , this was the warnings of all the prophets [Jonas] sent and finally the Son
After they were told and the last warning given, the punishment is severe .
They will also realize , as all do,,,, with Gods help , that faith and trusting in His House rules , was always the best for all the family and IS what it takes to please Him
Taking two trees [olive]wild and tame , making two as one Cross and One new creation , A new SPIRITUAL family of God Being the TREE OF LIFE
From the ROOT system , proof of the root is in the fruit . We can do nothing of ourselves /helpless .
Being rooted and grounded in the Love of God though Christ, who is the love of God manifested to us ALL.
Open display or show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate: ALL POWER known and given and expressed to us and in us and for us in all things from HIM.
Apologies for the very late reply. This is a really interesting topic for me (the next age).
Quote from: Seth on May 23, 2015, 04:40:44 AM
I actually believe that Ezekiel 37 began its fulfillment at Pentecost and that God does not make a difference between Jew and Gentile in Israel. I believe that wall of separation was torn down and that God does not make discriminations of allotment based on flesh.
I agree about when it started, though I don't see how it can be fully realized until after the return of the King.
What precisely do you think the wall of separation is, though? I agree that it will be torn down, but to what end? I believe that God will be here for all, but that doesn't mean Israel won't be in a unique position.
Quote from: Seth on May 23, 2015, 04:40:44 AM
Essentially what you are talking about isn't really two evangels. It's dispensationalism.
I suppose I believe that dispensationalism
is two evangels, though i wasn't previously acquainted with the word :p
Quote from: Shev on May 23, 2015, 08:09:52 AM
The law was a schoolmaster, and Christ fulfilled the law, and the shadow of things must give way to the substance....so I can't see how Israel after the flesh are still going to be keeping the law, which pointed to Christ in the first place.
To me, the crux of this issue of two gospels, as with any truth, is Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is the only good news, and the reality of being One in Spirit with Him cannot be divided, categorized into two drawers, or made into two "new men".
I agree (with maybe the exception of those denied before the Father), though I don't see that all remaining on the earth will be made whole. My interpretation is that those on the earth will act in righteousness as they at last have the Messiah. Peace will come of His leadership and perhaps additionally, from the incarceration of the adversary. I hope to spend some time on this over the weekend, but it seems to me in Hebrews it is explained that the sacrifice of Christ, for sins, was temporary (until He returns). After that, it would seem, He continues the 'unintentional sin offering' at the temple, among the others. But I do need to look over all of this again, certainly. I have a load of reading to do, but has anyone seen anything like this?
Quote from: ianI agree about when it started, though I don't see how it can be fully realized until after the return of the King.
I don't think it is realized the same way that you might see it realized. I believe Ezekiel is referring to the new Israel that he would create in Christ. So, when he returns, it will be glorify himself from within the sons of God, and then all the REST of creation will join them. So, I believe the sons of God include both Jews and Gentiles, men and women, etc who are of one new man Jesus Christ, the Jewish man who makes us all Jews by inclusion within his body. I do not believe there will be two separate kingdoms for two separate people on account of the differences in the flesh.
Quote from: ianWhat precisely do you think the wall of separation is, though? I agree that it will be torn down, but to what end? I believe that God will be here for all, but that doesn't mean Israel won't be in a unique position.
It already has been torn down. The wall of separation is the division between Jew and Gentile as separate people according to the flesh. God has already made one out of the two as one man in Christ. There is no division of the kingdom between two parties on account of the flesh, because that dividing wall is down and God considers the two to be one, there is no Jew or Gentile in the body. All are one in Christ.
Quote from: ianI suppose I believe that dispensationalism is two evangels, though i wasn't previously acquainted with the word :p
Not really. I would say the bulk of the Protestant Christian church, especially the prominent ones on TV believe in dispensationalism though they would not agree with the two evangels theory.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: ianI agree about when it started, though I don't see how it can be fully realized until after the return of the King.
I don't think it is realized the same way that you might see it realized. I believe Ezekiel is referring to the new Israel that he would create in Christ. So, when he returns, it will be glorify himself from within the sons of God, and then all the REST of creation will join them. So, I believe the sons of God include both Jews and Gentiles, men and women, etc who are of one new man Jesus Christ, the Jewish man who makes us all Jews by inclusion within his body. I do not believe there will be two separate kingdoms for two separate people on account of the differences in the flesh.
Quote from: ianWhat precisely do you think the wall of separation is, though? I agree that it will be torn down, but to what end? I believe that God will be here for all, but that doesn't mean Israel won't be in a unique position.
It already has been torn down. The wall of separation is the division between Jew and Gentile as separate people according to the flesh. God has already made one out of the two as one man in Christ. There is no division of the kingdom between two parties on account of the flesh, because that dividing wall is down and God considers the two to be one, there is no Jew or Gentile in the body. All are one in Christ.
Quote from: ianI suppose I believe that dispensationalism is two evangels, though i wasn't previously acquainted with the word :p
Not really. I would say the bulk of the Protestant Christian church, especially the prominent ones on TV believe in dispensationalism though they would not agree with the two evangels theory.
Excellent repelies I totally agree with.
I occasionally use the word dispensationalism in a negative sense, but usually when I do I call it hyper-dispensationalism. Rather than rightly divide the word and how the one evangel applies to different groups, some people create additional dispensations besides the ones most Protestants believe in and which I agree with, which ar this age, beginning with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ(or for some, His birth) and the second advent- which is the end of this age completeing this dispensation.
There is an excellent article on the seven dispensations recognized by most Protestand theologians. Most of us would add between one and three more. Some believing that there is a dispensation of judgement afte the millenial age, and then a dispensation where God becomes all in all- the ages of ages. I really have no opinion on it, but I do recognize the seven Protestant dispensations and then the age of the ages is(imo) a bit hazy, seen through a glass darkly.
Quote
I don't think it is realized the same way that you might see it realized.
Guaranteed
Quote
I believe Ezekiel is referring to the new Israel that he would create in Christ. So, when he returns, it will be glorify himself from within the sons of God, and then all the REST of creation will join them. So, I believe the sons of God include both Jews and Gentiles, men and women, etc who are of one new man Jesus Christ, the Jewish man who makes us all Jews by inclusion within his body.
Again, I'm pretty sure I agree, only I think that Israel will still be here, on this planet, among other nations. The world is going to take a mighty beating, but some life will live on, a new earth, a clean slate, one under the rule of a King, and I assume other kings beneath. God willing I'll put together some scripture this weekend to support my perspective appropriately. Likewise, do you have any I can look at for yours? I've heard this before, but not stated clearly.
Quote
I do not believe there will be two separate kingdoms for two separate people on account of the differences in the flesh.
I don't think believers will be flesh in the next age. I believe that the sons of God are the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven is distinct and possibly comprised of more than just Israel, meaning multiple political states, all subservient to the King. Kingdom of God being celestial, kingdom of heaven, as terrestrial. The sons of Israel are always distinct in scripture, it seems to me, I realize we're grafted in, but why not refer to them as the sons of God otherwise, at least in Revelation? I bring up Ezekiel because it is so clearly defined, unless it's a very strange, unusually familiar allegory, from the dimensions of the temple to the partitioning of Israel. It's all extremely precise.
Does this make sense at least?
Quote
Again, I'm pretty sure I agree, only I think that Israel will still be here, on this planet, among other nations. Quote
Which means that they would necessarily have to be separated, the only criteria for that separation being the flesh.
QuoteThe world is going to take a mighty beating, but some life will live on, a new earth, a clean slate, one under the rule of a King, and I assume other kings beneath. God willing I'll put together some scripture this weekend to support my perspective appropriately. Likewise, do you have any I can look at for yours? I've heard this before, but not stated clearly.
Sure, here you go: http://mercifultruth.com/links-promisedland.html
QuoteI don't think believers will be flesh in the next age. I believe that the sons of God are the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven is distinct and possibly comprised of more than just Israel, meaning multiple political states, all subservient to the King. Kingdom of God being celestial, kingdom of heaven, as terrestrial. The sons of Israel are always distinct in scripture, it seems to me, I realize we're grafted in, but why not refer to them as the sons of God otherwise, at least in Revelation?
1 John 1:2
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
This means that we are all one and therefore Jews have a right to be sons of God along with Gentiles.
QuoteI bring up Ezekiel because it is so clearly defined, unless it's a very strange, unusually familiar allegory, from the dimensions of the temple to the partitioning of Israel. It's all extremely precise.
Consider, maybe, that it is veiled language and that is the reason when Christ appeared to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, they didn't know what that meant because their scriptures seemed to make sense to them the way they saw it.
Sorry about that last post. Not sure why it is quoting the whole thing.
Ah, technological transgression...
Thanks, ever does my reading increase. From what I've read so far, there is the finest of lines between our views. This ought to be interesting
Here is some more information from the Unsearchable Riches magazine that has been published for over a hundred years. This link provides access to the URsearch program http://concordant.org/ur/index.html along with some more recent issues in PDF files.
V36P1 p123
THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF GOD'S GRACE
THE DIFFERENT EVANGELS
SALVATION, as seen in God's dealings with the Circumcision, differs radically from that which graces us who believe in the present secret administration. What is needed is an intelligent grasp of the underlying purpose of each, so that we cannot help keeping them distinct. This alone will enable us to enjoy the transcendent grace which is ours in Christ Jesus. Then we will never adulterate it with the greatly inferior ingredients which characterize the evangel of the Circumcision, as is almost universally done in Christendom today. We have already set forth the evangel for today at some length, in The Mystery of the Gospel and other works. Now we will explore still deeper, and also consider the evangel of the Circumcision in order to form a foil, to create a contrast, so that our hearts may grasp the transcendently transcendent grace which we enjoy in Christ Jesus. At the same time we will seek to understand why there are two evangels, and why one is concerned with faith and grace and the other with works and reward.
Let him be anathema (Gal.1:8,9)! How solemn are these words! We usually ignore them with the thought that they cannot possibly apply to us. Yet the appalling fact is that, with few exceptions, the beloved saints of God both believe and preach a different evangel, which is not another, and do not even realize it. Unlike the Galatians, they have not been transferred swiftly, but very slowly, away from the grace of Christ. Indeed, the most of them have not changed, for they have never known it. Alas! A
p124
Let him be Anathema!
few who once seemed to enjoy His grace have suddenly turned from it, as did the Galatians. May God make His grace abound in their behalf!
How terrible it seems, when we look about us, and see great and good men, zealous in the work of the Lord, eager to spread the "gospel," or make known God's truth, that we are compelled to acknowledge that they come under this anathema! We dare not tell them that they are included, lest we give offence, and, figuratively, cut off their ears, and they will not even listen to the truth that alone is able to set them free.
This is probably our last effort to differentiate between these two evangels, so we solicit the prayers of all God's saints, that we may be empowered to reach the hearts of those who are under this solemn adjuration, but have never considered the possibility that it applies to them. We especially pray for those who, like the Galatians, have fallen out of grace (Gal.5:4), after having had a glimpse of the evangel which is ours in Christ Jesus.
Israel's salvation is a great national demonstration, in which that people as a unit are segregated to show what is in humanity. God deals with them in the flesh, and under law, and under a covenant, with a gradually increasing admixture of grace and faith. The prime object of this prolonged and varied demonstration is not their salvation, but to show beyond question that mankind, even under the most favorable conditions is utterly lost without God. Their testings prove conclusively that there is nothing good in the flesh. Their trial shows that men cannot observe a law. The tryout makes it clear that they are incapable of keeping a covenant. Works are of no avail in salvation. Man's failure in this great demonstration is of the greatest value to the race and the universe. Until we see this, we are inclined to question its worth, and charge God with failure, and to repeat the experiment in our own experience, only to involve our-
p125
Israel's End is Our Beginning
selves in defeat, and in the disillusionment which is bound to follow.
The salvation we have today begins where Israel's leaves off. The Adamic race is discarded and there is a new humanity. We have no confidence in the flesh; we are dead to the law; we keep no covenant; we are crucified and buried with Christ, and, by faith, are roused and seated with Him in a totally new environment, among the celestials. We profit by the failures of the Circumcision, and need not and should not imitate the distressing experiments which demonstrate, for all who can see, man's inability to save himself or to contribute anything towards his own deliverance. If we persist in repeating these tests, it will only further confirm our inability to our own confusion and discomfiture. The admixture of Circumcision truth, the mingling of Peter's evangel with Paul's, has made a medley which lacks the essential features of both. It is this mixture which has caused most of the confusion among the saints, and has well-nigh eclipsed the evangel of the Uncircumcision.
WORKS AND FAITH
There are really only two means of salvation in the eons, works and faith. Israel is the chosen example to expose the futility of works, even when flavored with faith. Not knowing God, or acknowledging His deity, Christendom is inevitably drawn away by self-confidence into the sphere of works, and seeks to justify this course by appealing to that part of the Bible which belongs to Israel, where works have a place. The continual confusion and conflict on this subject will never be settled until it is seen that both sides have support "in the Bible," when all of it is applied indiscriminately to all, when it is not correctly cut. But when we realize that God uses works in Israel in order to demonstrate their futility, then we are more than ever satisfied to leave salvation to the Saviour, and to repudiate the false foundation of our own deeds.
p126
Life and Works Reversed
DO AND LIVE vs. LIVE AND DO
The contrast between the gospel of the Circumcision and that of the Uncircumcision may be expressed in the same words if we only change their order. Do and live is the order for the Circumcision and all other religionists. Life as the result of human effort is one of the most illogical and preposterous propositions that can well be expressed. Nowhere, in the course of human history, has a man ever evolved life by his acts. He has succeeded infamously in doing his fellows to death. Why, then, should he be so insufferably conceited as to imagine that he can defeat death or bring about life by his puny and powerless practices? On the other hand, no one can do anything without the loan of life from God. This is evident everywhere, not only in the sphere of the evangel. Nothing but the salvation that gives life can enable us to work. The only salvation worthy of the name begins with the gift of life. With us it is live and do. We work because we are saved, not because we want to save ourselves.
The same kind of impermanent, transitory salvation will be found throughout the Circumcision writings. In my early life of faith I was troubled by these scriptures and sought a solution. I was deeply impressed by what we called the assurance of salvation, but could never find a satisfactory explanation of the sixth of Hebrews and other texts of like tenor until I began to see the difference between the truth for the nation of Israel and that for the other nations in this administration. Even the great stress laid on "safety, certainty and enjoyment" by my friends failed to explain how some who had actually tasted of the powers of the future eon fell aside and were disqualified for the kingdom (Heb.6:4-8). This clearly refers to those who listened to Peter on the day of Pentecost, who were saved from that crooked generation and added to the rest by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:40,47). The record in Acts runs along the same lines
p127
Works Cannot Save
as the exodus. Many who were saved from Egypt fell in the wilderness, and many who were saved from that crooked generation fell away when the kingdom did not come, in the period of the book of Acts.
The unbeliever's favorite form of salvation is undiluted works, independent of God. The believer's favorite form of salvation is works with the help of the Lord. Few, indeed, dare to trust Him unreservedly as their Saviour. This sad state is largely due to the use of scriptures which do not apply to us today, but concern the Circumcision and their temporary testings, which are intended to show the uselessness of works as a means of salvation. Even those of us who are profoundly convinced that grace is the prime spring of God's dealings with His saints in this administration are inclined to leave it out of our dealings with one another. We prefer justice because we each feel that we have been just and, in case of a clash, the other has been unjust. We would like to display the justice of our cause before the saints and the world, when we ought rather to consider our fellow saint and hide his injustice, if it is that. Let us not seek to get our rights, to square up accounts now, but rather suffer wrong. The bema of Christ will set all right. It cannot be done before that day.
THE GREAT ENIGMA
"Enigma" is the divine description of God's earlier revelation to the Circumcision, to whom first were confided the oracles of God (1 Cor.13:12). Our venerable Authorized Version speaks of it as being seen "through a glass, darkly," which is itself difficult to understand in these days of almost invisible glass. Rather, God spoke to them indirectly, and they perceived it as by means of ancient mirrors, or as we see things reflected in an imperfectly polished, uneven surface. Now, however, that we have the later revelation through Paul, all this can be rectified. We can by-pass the mirror and see things as
p128
The Enigma is Past
they actually are, face to face (1 Cor.13:12). In order to look beyond the puzzling revelations before Paul came, we should always consider what he has to say, first, in order to get to the bottom, the solid sub-stratum of actuality.
PAUL'S BASIC REVELATIONS
In these studies, before we search for the truth in the Circumcision writings on any point we will first see what Paul has to say, for he gives us the result of the experiments which were tried with Israel, and shows that, beneath the superficial and apparent object, there was a different and deeper aim. The surface failure is deceptive because, in reality, it is a success, seeing that the demonstration was intended to expose the inability of man in all his efforts. Nevertheless, when we examine the earlier records more minutely in this light, we will discover, as a rule, that it contains intimations of the truth which can hardly be seen without the later revelations. God knew very well how His experiments would turn out. He does not try them in order to learn the truth for Himself, but in order to demonstrate them to His creatures, and so prepare them for the consummation, when they will not look for aught in themselves, but find their All in Him.
SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE
One cause of confusion is the fact that Paul uses the same terms as the Circumcision evangel to denote the reality which has displaced the riddle. He goes so far as to flatly contradict himself in the most important difference of all. Although he draws a sharp line between the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Ephesians, he actually insists that the Uncircumcision are the Circumcision in Philippians (3:3)! As we have the reality, of which circumcision is only the outward sign, he boldly dubs them the Maimcision, who mutilate the flesh, while we are the true and genuine Circumcision, who cut off the
p129
Circumcision and Baptism
flesh entirely. The figurative use of literal terms concerned with God's dealings with Israel, such as kingdom, pardon, etc., leads many to miss the force of God's latest unfoldings, and to mix it all into one incoherent mess.
BAPTISM
This highly figurative language has caused much confusion in connection with baptism. Although we are no more baptized than we are circumcised, the mere fact that our baptism is spoken of (Rom.6:4; Eph.4:5; Col.2:12), has led to great confusion of thought between the shadow and the substance. The circumcision evangel demands the shadow, ceremonial cleansing in water, whether the heart is purified, or not. But the evangel of the Uncircumcision insists only on the reality, our cleansing in Christ. An infant may be sprinkled with all the waters of the Jordan river, yet it will not be cleansed from sin. A man may be dipped under all the water in the seven seas, yet his heart will not be pure in God's sight. Baptism in Christ's death, that alone clears us completely from everything that defiles.
WHY THESE TWO EVANGELS
Why are there two evangels? Were the object of both merely to rescue the sinner from a terrible doom, then one should suffice. But when we see that one evangel is part of God's great demonstration of the futility and failure of the flesh, hence must be based on flesh, and the other acknowledges the result of this demonstration, hence is based on spirit, then we see that they are nearly as wide apart as the poles. With such totally divergent objects in view they cannot help but differ radically, and any mixture is bound to be confusing and contradictory.
The confusion in Christendom comes from mixing and muddling two evangels with entirely different objects, and the result is a bewildering chaos in which neither one survives in anything like its scriptural form.
p130
Why there are Two Evangels
Our religious leaders draw most of their doctrines from Peter, and have little patience with Paul, who alone has the truth for today, and who is the only one who can clear up the enigma of Peter's evangel as well. A great deal has been done by pointing out the differences which lie on the surface of the Scriptures. These definite statements should be enough. But there is such a tremendous weight of tradition to overcome that few are able to see what is so plainly written. For their sakes, and to establish those who see the truth, we will try to dig deeper, and examine more minutely those passages which deal with the matter. As Abraham's justification by faith is the seed plot of the uncircumcision evangel, his experiences will be considered at length.
It will be of great interest and profit if we note carefully the striking contrast between Jehovah's dealings with Abram, His friend, before and after his circumcision, the differences between the fifteenth and seventeenth chapters of Genesis. In the former we have faith and righteousness and the star seed. In the latter we have walk and a covenant and the sand seed. These should never be confused, even when they seem to merge in the spiritual members of Abram's physical offspring.
A. E. K.
Here is some more good information from Unsearchable Riches magazine that has to be broken into two post because it exceeds the character limit. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V44P1 p271
THE VARIOUS ECCLESIAS
THE TWO EVANGELS
BOTH OF THE EVANGELS, that for the Circumcision and that for the Uncircumcision, reached some Jews and some "Gentiles." Proselytes, such as Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch, were given a subordinate place in the kingdom heralding, to pre-shadow the day when all nations, the sons of Japhet and of Ham as well as the sons of Shem, all the descendants of Noah, will be blessed through Christ, when He reigns over the whole earth. But these proselytes, like the nations in the millennium, will be blessed through Israel and subordinate to the chosen nation. In contrast to this, Paul's later evangel goes to both without distinction, and the believers are all on the same level. Neither Jews nor others are subordinate. All were joined into one body. In order to express this fact it was called a joint body after Israel was cast aside (Eph.3:6).
THE ACTS RECORD
What Paul did and said, as revealed in the Acts record, is all conformed to the theme of the book, which is the rejection of the kingdom by Israel, by both the nation and the ecclesia. But what Paul wrote in his epistles during that era predicts and presupposes this rejection, for his written instructions go beyond it. The quotation which closes the book of Acts (28:26,27) was anticipated long before in Paul's Roman epistle. In them he reveals several secrets, including the hidden evangel, which could not be fully revealed until the kingdom ecclesia had finally failed. It was covered, so the unbelievers could not apprehend it (2 Cor.4:3).
p272
Grace Commences this Ecclesia
Saul was not competent to be one of the apostles of the kingdom. They were called because of their qualifications. Even a disciple, as Nathanael, was chosen because he was an Israelite in whom there was no guile (John 1:47). Not only was the office limited to those who were morally suited to the honor, but they had to have a long training first. Matthias was later included because he had been a disciple of Jesus from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up, that is during Christ's whole ministry. Judas, indeed, was an exception, but our Lord knew from the beginning that he was an adversary (John 6:70,71). Before Saul was called he was far worse than Judas, so that he should have been barred from the office rather than called to it. Personally, he was not fit for the lowest place in the kingdom. How, then, could he be one of its apostles?
Saul was made an apostle long before he was qualified for it. Indeed, he actually was active as an adversary, persecuting Jesus, at the time he was appointed to the apostleship. Yet Saul also needed much training before he exercised his office, so he spent three years in Arabia before be began his active career, but it was not a time of probation, but of development of the grace that he already possessed. All of these facts should help us to see, not only that he was absolutely unfit for a place among the twelve, and that the sphere he entered was an entirely new departure, dependent on grace rather than works, but that it was entirely an act of God, predetermined and independent of Saul's conduct or deserts.
Spiritually, Saul's eyes were opened gradually indeed, because he had a mission to his own people among the nations, as well as one to the other nations. The latter could not be fully revealed until stubbornness, in part, came on Israel. Yet his ministry to his own nation was not primarily to save them, but to provoke them to jealousy (Rom.11:11,25). During this period he had to
p273
Judgment Precedes the Kingdom
herald the kingdom to them, and proclaimed repentance and pardon and forgiveness to the Jews among the nations, outside the land. Not the twelve only were commissioned to go to all the nations, for these are called disciples. Saul was called to be the apostle to the nations after thay had failed to carry out the commission.
The kingdom will be introduced with judgments, not with grace. Then Messiah will send His messengers to pull out of it the lawless, to cast them into a furnace of fire (Matt.13:41). Indeed, for seven years before Christ comes, He will deal in dire judgment with the earth, in order to sweep up the sinners and prepare it for His reign of righteousness. Saul was, indeed, stricken with blindness, but this was soon healed. Was it not given to him as a token of his spiritual condition? He was blind to the light to which he had been called. Many of the saints never do have their eyes fully opened, in this life, to the glory and the grace which is theirs in Christ Jesus.
It is hard for us to realize how blind Saul really was spiritually. The very light that was in him was darkness. He knew, as few others, the facts of God's revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures. He must have known much about the Nazarene whom he persecuted. But of the fundamental truths of the present secret administration he knew even less when he was called than the ignorant religionist of today. They have at least heard of a heavenly destiny, although they cover up the grace which came to Saul by means of the rites of Christendom. Therefore the Lord said to him that he was to be a witness, not only of what he had perceived, but of that which he would see later (Acts 26:16). In all his ignorance, however, he, like those to whom he was sent, received an allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith in Christ alone. Of this he did not learn till later.
p274
Acts Records the Failure of the Earthly Kingdom
For some years, soon after I first believed, I was among a company of saints whose chief aim was to conform to the practice and doctrine of the book of Acts. They reasoned that, what the disciples did, they should do likewise. But we cannot even reason thus from the example of Saul-Paul. I followed their method and was baptized in a pool in the Los Angeles river bed. Yet Paul later, after the truth of today was revealed, protested that he was not sent to baptize (1 Cor.1:17), and later limited us to one baptism into a spiritual unity (Eph.4:5). He circumcised Timothy, yet later denounced it as maimcision (Phil.3:2). He himself carried the decrees of the heavenly kingdom of the one body to those reached by his ministry (Acts 16:4), and he continued them in his later letters (Eph.2:15; Col.2:14).
So we will now consider His teaching in the book of Acts, not to adopt it or put it into practice, but to note its departures from that of the twelve, and its gradual change toward the truth for today.
Saul's first heralding in the synagogues of Damascus, was that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Here we have a distinct advance over the words of Peter at Pentecost, who heralded Him as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). Peter uses the first three accounts of our Lord's life for the background of his declamation, especially Matthew, who sets forth the Messiah or Christ. But Saul had seen the Saviour in His heavenly glory, so speaks of Him, not as the terrestrial Son of Adam, Abraham or David, but as the celestial Son of God, as He is set forth in John's evangel. Thus he gives us the keynote of his ministry. He begins where the others end. His lowest is their highest (Acts 9:20). Then He goes on and deduces that this One (the Son of God) is the Christ, the Anointed, and for a while he never takes over Israel's priestly but acts as in (Rom.15.16), ministering the evangel of God, in order to provoke His people to jealousy (Rom.11:11).
p275
Acts Records the Failure of the Earthly Kingdom
When he first went to Jerusalem after his call, he could not even speak to the disciples, for they feared him. Barnabas, however, led him to the apostles. Then he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:29). As he had come from Tarsus, a foreign city, he specialized in discussing with those who were Hellenists. This angered them so much that they sought to assassinate him, and he was sent back to his native city. Instead of being given the highest place, above the twelve apostles, and being protected and promoted for preaching the highest truth that had come to Israel and the nations up to that time, he was chased out of the holy city in disgrace.
Israel, from the days of Jacob to their rejection of Christ, presented a sad spectacle of recurrent and repeated defection. One whole generation was strewn along the wilderness before they even entered the promised land. When the kingdom failed, the ten tribes were driven out. Later Judah and Benjamin were deported for seventy years. Later they were again dispersed, after rejecting the apostolic witness in the book of Acts (8:1; 11:19 etc.). According to the eleventh of Hebrews only those of faith looked forward to something better, and will have a part in the former resurrection (Rev.20:4-6). The great mass of the nation will not live again until the thousand years are finished. Only those who had faith will enjoy the promises.
When Barnabas was sent to Antioch, he remembered Saul, and brought him from Tarsus to help in teaching the ecclesia there. As we have no record of anything he said at this time, it is not likely that he introduced any new doctrine, such as would help us in our present investigation.
Paul's announcement of justification by faith to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:39) laid the cornerstone for the first ecclesia of the nations and, at the same
p276
The Book of Acts sets forth the Kingdom Evangel
time, provided a foundation for his further teaching to the nations, as elaborated in his epistle to the Romans (Rom.4). But it also stirred up much opposition on the part of Pharisaic Jews. At the special convention called to consider this question (Acts 15:2), although Paul spoke at this gathering, there is no record in the book of Acts of what he said (Acts 15:12). But in his later epistle to the Galatians we learn what his attitude was toward circumcision and law keeping for the nations. He calls it a different evangel, which is not another, and pronounces an anathema on those who promulgate it (Gal.1:6-9).
Among the Circumcision believers, especially the Pharisees, (Acts 15:5), there was a strong tendency to corrupt their own evangel by adding circumcision and law keeping. The true evangel originated with John the Baptist and Christ, and promised an entry into the coming kingdom dependent on repentance and baptism. The Jews of that time already had circumcision and the law. These came from Moses, although circumcision originated with Abraham, after he had been justified by faith. The law was no evangel, rather, it brought a curse. Yet the Pharisees sought to make its observance a condition of salvation for the nations (Acts 15:5). This was the different evangel which was not another (Gal.1:6). It called down Paul's anathema. Yet there are sects even today clinging to some phases of it. This was not one of the two evangels.
Here we have the beginning of the great controversy as to the place of the law in the salvation of the nations, which occupies such a prominent place in the remainder of this account and in the writings of Paul, especially Galatians and Romans. The first great convention was called to settle it, and justified Paul even from the standpoint of the kingdom ecclesia, though the matter was really outside their jurisdiction.
p277
The Book of Acts sets forth the Kingdom Evangel
Saul himself was baptized, and bathed off his sins (Acts 9:18; 22:16). He seems to have baptized the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15) and of the Philippian warden (Acts 16:33), and Crispus, chief of the synagogue, and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, in Corinth. And he did this, notwithstanding his own assertion that Christ did not send him to baptize (1 Cor.1:14-17). We should note that this was not done in the present administration or in conformity to present truth, but as a concession, at a time when there was an evangel which called for baptism in water. There were two baptisms at that time, in water and in spirit. It was not till later, when the present administration was inaugurated, that one of these dropped out, and there was only one baptism (Eph.4:5), that in spirit.
THE PHILIPPIAN JAILOR
How often does the Philippian warden's question, "What must I be doing that I may be saved?" receive the biblical reply, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved...!" But how seldom is the sentence completed, "you and your household!" Not he alone was baptized, but all his household. I have great sympathy with the few who "believe in" household salvation and baptism, and who base it on this passage. It is not only "in the Bible," but it is one of the acts of the apostle Paul, who would have us imitate him. But there are echoes of this in his later epistle to the Corinthians. There he acknowledges that he baptized three in Corinth, yet protests that Christ does not commission him to baptize (1 Cor.1:14-17). Such apparent contradictions should help us to see, that the scene was continually changing from the material and tangible to the spiritual and supersensible, and that the example for us does not lie in Paul's intermediate ministry, but in his perfection epistles,
(continued in the next post due to character limit)
p278
The Thessalonians are Graced
Paul's earliest epistles were probably written to Thessalonica, so his words there, even those recorded in the Acts, which primarily concern the kingdom, are of special interest. In view of the fact that these epistles begin the revelation of the secrets, in this case the "mystery" of the resurrection, it is notable that he starts by "opening up and placing before them that the Christ must suffer and rise from among the dead..." (Acts 17:3). But these secrets of which he later wrote could never be announced in a treatise on the kingdom, such as the book of Acts.
It is characteristic of the grace which is ours in Christ Jesus, that the less noble Thessalonians received the revelations concerning the prior resurrection, rather than the "more noble" Bereans. They examined the Scriptures given to Israel to see if these records have it so. If they had checked Paul's epistles to Thessalonica, they would not have found any confirmation of the secret of the resurrection. And so with all the "mysteries." These are unsolved secrets to all who depend upon the Hebrew revelation to confirm Paul's later unfoldings. The noble action of the Bereans avails much in the kingdom evangel, but not in Paul's. The more ignoble Corinthians were given special consideration, and received the first unfoldings of the conciliation.
It is instructive to note that Paul begins his addresses to so-called "heathen," who had no divine revelation, with the book of nature, in which they may see displayed God's invisible attributes, His imperceptible power and divinity (Rom.1:20). The remarkable point in Athens was the fact that they had already gone so far as to recognize their own ignorance, by erecting an altar to an unknown God. Paul most aptly begins where they left off, and gives them the most masterly and eloquent oration on the God of nature that the Athenians, or anyone else, has ever heard.
p279
The Bereans are Rewarded
Had Paul been a little farther along in his metamorphosis, beyond the crisis noted in Acts 19:21, he would have brought in the conciliation at this point, for he wrote of it only a short time afterward (2 Cor.5:16-21). Instead he approaches it by saying that God condones the times of ignorance. This word is literally OVER-PERCEIVED, which comes close to our overlook. Of course God is far more lenient where there is ignorance than where He has given light. The Jews were much more culpable than the "gentiles." But condoning goes beyond lenience due to extenuating circumstances. Like conciliation, it is in the realm of feeling. It treats an offense as if it had not been committed, but it does not hold out the hand of friendship, or lead to reconciliation.
Another conciliatory note is struck when Paul, after speaking of righteous judgment by the Man Whom He specifies, adds the phrase, "tendering faith to all." He was not allowed to elaborate this further, for lack of faith was immediately apparent when he spoke of the resurrection, which was altogether outside the realm of the people's limited knowledge. But the mere mention of faith being tendered to all, is most suggestive of the opening chapters of Romans, the letter which anticipates the setting aside of Israel long before it is chronicled at the end of Acts (Acts 28:26; Rom.11:25). At this time it was still a secret, yet the apostle probably knew of it, and could hardly help being influenced by it in his contact with the nations.
PAUL AND REPENTANCE
Paul preached repentance in Damascus and Jerusalem and Judea at the very beginning of his ministry (Acts 26:20). Although it has no place in the evangel for today, Paul, in his marvelous message to the Athenians, distinctly stated that "God is now charging mankind that all everywhere are to repent..." (Acts 17:30). In
p280
The Place of Repentance
Ephesus, also, he certified to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). When he sums up his career before King Agrippa he said, "first to those in Damascus, besides in Jerusalem also, besides to the whole province of Judea, and to the nations, I reported that they are to be repenting and turning back to God, engaging in acts worthy of repentance" (Acts 26:20). From this it is evident that he preached repentance throughout his whole pre-prison ministry, from the very beginning to the end, while the kingdom ecclesia was still in existence.
Repentance still has a function to fulfill in the saints as is evident from Paul's latest epistles. By gentleness, proper teaching, bearing with evil and meekly training those who are antagonizing, the slave of the Lord may be leading them to repentance, and a realization of the truth to a sobering up out of the trap of the adversary (2 Tim.2:24-26). If we make it a condition of salvation of the sinner, it is apt to dilute the purity of grace, and tends to become penitence, an act meritorious, in place of faith, which has no merit whatever.
Repentance also has its place in our daily experience. The sorrow of the world produces death, but sorrow according to God produces repentance (2 Cor.7:10). Those in Corinth who did not repent of their grievous sins could expect nothing but severe measures on Paul's part (2 Cor.12:21).
I was convinced that I should be baptized by the statement that "the Corinthians, hearing, believed and baptized" (Acts 18:8). I had heard and believed, consequently I reasoned that I also must be baptized. No one told me that Paul had later written to this very ecclesia that, "Christ does not commission me to be baptizing..." (1 Cor.1:17). I was not informed that there is "one baptism," or the difference between "once" (in the Acts era) and "now" (Eph.2:11,13; 4:5). But I
p281
The Door of Faith
am sure that it will not be reckoned against me, for I did it ignorantly in unbelief!" (1 Tim.1:13). But this taught me to be sympathetic and forbearing with those who honestly think they are doing God's will when they obey one set of Scripture and ignore others which are withheld from them by the false teachers that abound. More and more I would warn the saints not to follow even Paul in everything in his pre-prison ministry. His example may be most misleading unless checked by his latest revelations.
The first so-called "council" or convention of the ecclesia of God, in Jerusalem, marked a "decided" step in the downward path of the circumcision, as well as a "decided" severance of the uncircumcision from them, although this was the exact opposite of its aim. The decrees were intended to make it possible for the Jews to have fellowship with the nations. Long before this, Paul had been severed from his mother's womb (Gal.1:15), and for God's evangel (Rom.1:1), and by the holy spirit for a special work (Acts 13:2). Yet, following this, he severs the disciples from the synagogue (Acts 19:9). In stark contrast to this Peter severed himself from the nations. When men seek to unite on unscriptural grounds it generally leads to another split.
The next occasion, when Paul turned away from Israelites to the nations, was in Corinth. But it will help us to grasp its significance better if we consider some of the intermediate events. The Jews drove Paul out of Pisidian Antioch, pelted him with stones in Iconium, left him for dead in Lystra. When they return to Syrian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas summed up their mission by reporting that God...opens to the nations a door of faith (Acts 14:27). This act of God explains why they turned to the nations. Before this the testimony of Christ had been confined to the Jews, the Hellenists, and the proselytes.
p282
The Severance between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision
The Jews in Judea, probably realizing that the kingdom had not come, and that the scriptures quoted referred only to the day of the Lord, would not recognize any national blessing at that time, and demanded that they be treated as proselytes, and not as proselytes of the gate merely, who were not obliged to Judaize, but proselytes of righteousness, who were compelled to circumcise and keep the law. This is important here, because it would entirely neutralize Paul's ministry, and, in effect would make them Jews in time. So Paul would be turning from the Jews to turn the nations into Jews! To settle this question the convention was called in Jerusalem.
At this convention the severance between the circumcision and uncircumcision was confirmed. The kingdom ecclesia would not admit a man of the nations into its fellowship. Hence there were two distinct companies, or "bodies," similar to the situation in the kingdom, when the saints in the nations will be separate and subordinate to the chosen people. As the stem gu of the Hebrew word "nation" gui means BODY (Gen.47:18), both Israel and the other nations may be called "bodies," but the believing Jews and the believing aliens formed distinct bodies within them. It was not yet true that they were united into a joint body (Eph.3:6). The decrees were made to enable them to have fellowship. So far as we know, Paul's party observed them, but not even Peter himself could do so for fear of the Jacobites (Gal.2:12). Believers in Christ were split into two bodies, on the basis of the flesh, because they did not properly cut the word of truth, and tried to put Paul and his converts into the kingdom which is still future.
Now that there came to be a state of truce between the two sides, it is most interesting to note developments. During the next interval Paul won many converts among the nations and wrote epistles to them, gradually devel-
p283
The Severance between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision
oping the spiritual aspect of truth and rejecting the physical side (2 Cor.5:16). At that time, and in his earlier epistles, matters were in a state of flux, which should be considered carefully in any interpretation. Paul went to many places, including Derbe, Lystra (where Timothy joined him), Iconium, Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth. There it was that the Jews would not have Paul, and he decided, "From now on I will go to the nations" (Acts 18:6).
When he came to Ephesus, after arguing in the synagogue three months, the Jews were so stubborn that he withdrew and severed the disciples (Acts 19:9). This cleavage led to another great crisis in Paul's ministry and in the Acts account. Then we read that these things were fulfilled, and Paul ponders in spirit to go to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21). This leads to a veiled intimation of the present grace by means of the two "ecclesias," illegal and legal, in Ephesus, and later to his full exposition of present truth in his Ephesian epistle, written after the Acts era was closed. Then, in harmony with the spiritual nature of the truth about to be revealed, his flesh is removed from contact with the ecclesias where he had heralded the kingdom (Acts 20:25).
Before this the relationship of believers of the uncircumcision to the circumcision spiritually were very vague, depending on the spirituality of each Jew. Most of them would not even have eaten with Cornelius, but Peter did (Acts 11:3), and he defended his action. But those dispersed from the affliction of Stephen spoke to orthodox Jews only, not even Hellenists, at first (Acts 11:19,20). Paul was called from Tarsus by Barnabas to speak to these at first (Acts 11:25). It was not until he was severed by the holy spirit for a special work and called by Sergius Paul that he actually spoke to a man
p284
Circumcision Not for Nations
of the nations, in spite of the opposition of Elymas (Acts 13:8), followed by the departure of John Mark, and it was not until he came to Pisidian Antioch that Paul turned to the nations (Acts 13:46). Then Paul reached many of these, and this led to the first church convention in Jerusalem.
Corinth is important in this meditation because Paul practically repeated the phrase he had used in Pisidian Antioch, where the first ecclesia of the nations was formed, by saying to the Corinthian Jews, "Your blood be on your own head! Clear am I, from now on I will go to the nations." Thenceforth he separated his disciples. He went to the house of Titus Justus, next to the synagogue, and founded the large ecclesia in Corinth (Acts 18:6). In Ephesus, withdrawing, he severs the disciples, arguing in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), and finally in Rome, he repeats the curse from Isaiah, which our Lord had used to doom Israel, adding the words which close the history of the pentecostal ecclesia: "Let it be known to you, then, that to the nations was dispatched this salvation of God, and they will hear" (Matt.13:14; Rom.11:25; Acts 28:28).
Once the circumcision apostles had definitely agreed not to go to the nations, the doom of the kingdom ecclesia was sealed. But, even though they would not herald the evangel to them, they insisted on ruling over them. So believing Israel eagerly grasped at the kingly aspect of millennial rule, but left the priestly ministry to Paul. They failed to fulfill their foremost function, but Paul did fulfill it. He wrote to the Roman saints, of "the grace being given to me from God, for me to be the minister of Christ Jesus for the nations, acting as a priest of the evangel of God" (Rom.15:16).
Further facts concerning his turning to the nations will be presented when we come to consider more closely the teaching of Paul's pre-prison epistles.
A. E. K.
Here is more good information from the Unsearchable Riches magazine. I'm sharing all this information because I think it will clear up the confusion about the two evangels. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V47P1 p159
The Knowledge of Paul's Evangel
PAUL'S EVANGEL
In the Scriptures there is an evangel mentioned which is set apart from the others by the attachment of Paul's name to it. Paul calls it "my evangel." This was Paul's evangel because it was the one which was entrusted to him to be dispensed. Paul does not put his name upon it so as to set himself up, for that was contrary to the truth which he was bringing, but rather to set it apart from the evangel dispensed by others in the Scriptures. He speaks of it as "my evangel." for it was revealed to him and needed to be distinguished from the revelations made known in the circumcision writings. Paul's name is associated with a certain truth in the Scriptures, set apart from the rest, and to help us to recognize this he has set his name at the beginning of each of his epistles.
The reason why this knowledge is so important to us is that this evangel, which Paul terms "my evangel," contains the truth which applies to us. Paul was designated as the apostle of the nations.
The twelve apostles were commissioned to bring an evangel to the circumcision. This was essential, for in God's purpose the circumcision was to be a light to all the people of the earth: therefore, it was essential that they be saved so that they themselves could fill this role and so that the knowledge of the Lord should fill the earth as the waters cover the sea (Isa.11:9). When we come to the apostle Paul though, we find that God has another work in view. His plan for those He called through the ministry of Paul was not that they might be saved and thereupon "save the world," but rather that they might be used by God in completing the universe and bringing it to God—the complement by which all in all is completed.
With these thoughts in mind, we want to consider what the distinction is, between the two evangels. Though they concern the same Saviour—the same "light"—their relationship to that light is different (2 Cor.5:16). When we think of Paul's evangel we notice that Paul speaks not of Jesus dying as the Lamb for the sins of the people, but rather of Him "crucified." This is a vital point to note. It is thus that we are united with Him. It is through Paul's evangel that we learn the truth that "with Christ have I been crucified, yet I am living; no longer I, but living in me is Christ" (Gal.2:20). In Corinthians he sets it forth as the "cross of Christ." Through this "we die together with Him" and are roused as members of a new creation—members of the body of Christ. Because of this fact we find Paul bringing the truth of justif-
p160
Paul Preaches to the Nations
ication, for only thus could it be. How can a man be justified before God? The children of Israel through the circumcision evangel could obtain a pardon but they never could be justified. Only one who dies is justified from sin. They could not be justified, but we who have believed through Paul's evangel have been justified, for we have died together with Christ so that we are now no longer living as members of the creation descended from Adam, but of the creation of which Christ is the Head.
This truth could not be preached to the children of Israel for if they died together with Christ they would lose all their national distinctions, upon which all of God's promises to them rested. They would no longer be Jews, but members of the body of Christ. Paul alone was entrusted with this truth which is for us and is in accord with the work which God is doing today.
Paul deals not with one nation or people, but rather brings all mankind before God, and declares all to be subject to the just verdict of God. All are wanting of the glory of God (Rom.3:23).
The twelve apostles were concerned with the nation of Israel and later with the nations. Peter says in Acts 15:7, God had chosen that through "my mouth the nations are to hear." Yet what the nations were to hear through Peter's mouth is not the same as what they were to hear through Paul's mouth. To Paul, God gave a special revelation of the evangel he was to dispense. If he was to herald what the twelve apostles had already made known, this would not have been necessary. He had a special revelation, for he was appointed for a special work. He says, "I received it not from a man." He did not get it from Peter or the other apostles. He did not even get his evangel from Jesus when He was on the earth, for he was to proclaim Him not as the "seed of David," but as the Son of God (Rom.1:4). His evangel came from the ascended Christ. This is the vital distinction between the two evangels.
There is another point of great importance, which is that there is another evangel proclaimed which is "neither" of these two. It is a different evangel but it is not another (Gal.1:6). Only these two mentioned previously were given by God and could be proclaimed with His authority. But each of them were separate evangels. However, there is a different evangel being proclaimed today, which is not genuine, and it is the one which mixes these two evangels together. Paul says in Galatians that this is the evangel which distorts the evangel of Christ. This is very serious. Paul says, "Let him be anathema who is proclaiming another besides what I bring." The circumcision evangel will be proclaimed again and there will be no anathema on that, nor is there any anathema on Paul's evangel. That is the evangel for today—the evangel by which people may be saved.
G.H.
Here is more good information from Unsearchable Riches magazine. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V69P2 p245
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
LAW AND GRACE
Are believers in Christ Jesus today supposed to keep the laws in the Old Testament?
There is a good deal said about the law in Paul's epistles, especially in Romans and Galatians. The attitude we should take toward the law is clearly set forth in these epistles and, of course, in some others also, showing that there is a tremendous difference between the evangels of the Circumcision and of the Uncircumcision (Gal.2:7) with regard to the law. Very few seem to grasp the great difference between the two evangels.
Let us consider the main points of distinction: In the evangel of the Circumcision we have law. It is not abrogated. As a matter of fact, the law continues throughout the millennium. Then Israel will still be under law. There will be a great difference in contrast to what was before, but nevertheless, the main object that God has in view continues right through that whole eon, with regard to the Circumcision. As far as God's actual purpose was concerned, the law was not given to be observed. It was not given that men should obey it and get a recognition from God, but to show them their inability to keep it (Rom.3:19-20; 5:20). That is why we have the long list of failures in Israel. The law given at Sinai was a great success from the viewpoint of God's intention. It showed that man is not capable of conforming to its standards. Jehovah's people had all sorts of special advantages. They are
p246
Truth for today is based on the Failure of the Law
given this law, and they excel only in making a failure of keeping it. That was God's intention, although it was contrary to His expressed will. This continues in the millennium, even though the law is written on their hearts. Perfection is not reached, even in that blessed era.
There are a few very simple things that most of us do not fully grasp in connection with the law. When I mention them, you will see what I mean. I want particularly to lay upon your hearts that law is not God's way of dealing with humanity. Yet that is the idea you get in Christendom and its publications. They insist that God has given us His law and that we must try to obey it.
To begin with, God left humanity without law for over two thousand years. He did not even give the law to Israel until they came to Mt. Sinai. Not only that, but He did not give it to humanity at all. The law is a very limited thing. God is using only a very small portion of humanity in this demonstration of the weakness and inability of the flesh. It is not for all mankind. God never intended it for the whole race. In time and scope it was limited. Not only that, but it is a national thing. It was given only to one nation, as such, not merely to individuals in that nation.
Christendom recognizes to some extent the impossibility of keeping it all, for they divide the law into the moral and the ceremonial, to evade some parts that they know they cannot or will not fulfill, such as going to Jerusalem every once in awhile. There are parts of the law which can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel, and if you are not in the land, you cannot fulfill the law.
Now I want particularly to point out to you that, when the truth for today is presented to us by Paul in
p247
Truth for today is based on the Failure of the Law
Romans, it is not based on law, but on the failure of law. The point here is that we have come to an end of the law. God has demonstrated that there is nothing in the law by which one may attain salvation or blessing. This is not so with the Circumcision. God still keeps on with the law in the kingdom eon in order to make His demonstration complete. God limited His law to only a small group of people. Later on He actually writes the law upon the hearts of His people, yet even that does not bring in perfection. When we come to the end of the dispensation of law—to the time when Paul begins to write—we have a divine righteousness entirely apart from law.
The law, instead of doing what a good many theologians think it does (that is, break the ground for the evangel) makes people's hearts callous. God never intended it to do anything else. God did not have to give the law in order to prepare people for salvation, but rather to demonstrate what was in the human heart—to put man in his place so that He, Himself, might be given His exalted position as the Saviour and Justifier of all.
Does not Romans 2:13 contradict your teaching that Christians are not required to observe the Old Testament commands?
In order to press the point that each passage must be kept in its context, let us consider the following statement in Romans 2:13: "The doers of the law shall be justified." Let us not read the context. In this demonstration we do not want the context. We simply read that the doer of the law will be justified. "But," one could say, "that is altogether different. In Romans 3:20 we have: `...because by works of law no flesh at
p248
No Exceptions to our Need of Christ
all shall be justified in His sight.' Now you see how the Bible contradicts itself!" However, between these two passages, we read: "Not one is just—not even one." Instead of being a contradiction, it is simply a logical result. If there are no doers of the law, then it is very plain no one will be justified—no flesh shall be justified before God.
That is only one example. Another passage I want to bring before you is like it. In Romans 1:18 to 2:16 we read about those who are not under law. God will be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those, indeed, who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption, life eonian (2:6,7). Here we have a great statement of fact. All will acknowledge that it is true and we dare not contradict it. God must do the right thing to all His creatures. He must reward those who fulfill the conditions. But who is going to get this reward? Some claim that there are such people. We might imagine that such a character exists, even if we have never found one. But God has made it plain that not one is even just, let alone good (Rom.3:10). That should settle the matter.
I have made it clear now that there is no contradiction whatever, but that the argument requires first of all that God will be righteous and treat everybody according to this standard of righteousness. If we will go a little further in Romans, we will see that God does not reckon on anyone justifying himself. In the fifth of Romans we read: "Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation...." Thank God, there are no exceptions! It would nullify the work of Christ if a single soul should be able to work his way into salvation or justification or anything of that kind, either through law or apart from law.
p249
Law transforms Sin into Offense
What is the place of the Law in each of the two evangels?
As the law is not of faith, but of works, it is only a limited, local and national demonstration, for one nation and one land and one religion, not for all men in every land and every nation. The evangel of the Circumcision retains it; that of the Uncircumcision acknowledges the lesson it has to teach, but never seeks to repeat the demonstration. The law was not given until Israel came to Sinai. Even they did not have it before. It was never given to the nations. Not even Israel can fulfill it, in their dispersion. They must be in the land. It cannot be kept anywhere else, or by any other nation. How absurd it is for Christianity to leave faith, which is for them, and purloin the law, which is not theirs!
Law is not the foundation of God's dealings with the race. It only came in by the way (Rom.5:20). Its object was not to give men a standard of conduct by which they may walk to please God, but to transform sin into offense. It is only a temporary expedient in God's great demonstration, showing that man not only falls short of the glory of God, but is at enmity with Him. He not only fails, but rebels. The light of the law does not keep him from sin, but leads him on to offense.
The Circumcision evangel provides power to fulfill the law, but in the evangel of the Uncircumcision God's righteousness is manifested apart from the law (Rom.3:21). The early chapters of Romans review and restate the whole question of man's relation to God in order to clear the ground for a new foundation on which to rest a fresh revelation, quite distinct and different from the Circumcision evangel. It is not confined to the Circumcision and proselytes, but includes all mankind. It is not limited to the land. It does
p250
Just Requirements of the Law
not appeal to God's written revelation, but to the light of nature and conscience, which takes the place of law among the nations.
Strikingly different is the relation of the believer to the law today from that of the Circumcision. Their evangel is contained in the new covenant. Jehovah will not loose them from the law. Rather He will impart His laws to their comprehension and inscribe them on their hearts. They will be given an inward impulse and a divine power to carry out God's precepts during the thousand years. They will fulfill it in the strength which He provides. It will no longer be a ministration of death.
The very opposite is our portion, as well as of those of the Jews who, like Paul, received the evangel of the Uncircumcision. To them it does deal out death. They are caused to die to the law through the body of Christ. They are exempted from the law. They serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom.7:1-6). Not the literal precepts, but the just requirements of the law are fulfilled in those who do not walk in accord with flesh, but in harmony with spirit (Rom.8:1-4).
Justification can never come through law-keeping. It came to Abraham long before the law was given. It comes to us who never received it. It comes to those under it only by means of death to it. Yet its righteous requirements are fulfilled only in those who, by having God's righteousness, not their own, are led by His Spirit. Let us praise and glorify our God Who finds in Himself and in His Christ all that is needed to make us just, so that He can reconcile us to Himself and glorify us in His Beloved Son!
A.E.K.
Here is more good information from Unsearchable Riches magazine. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V79P1 p31
NO LONGER MINORS
CHRIST'S LORDSHIP
AND OUR MATURITY IN CHRIST
SOME thirty-six years ago God led me into a class of "Truth Seekers" whose sole purpose was to study the Sacred Scriptures and try to glean from them an appreciation of God's real plan of salvation for mankind. Most of us had been brought up in Christian homes rooted in many of the popular denominations, and in many instances we had to lay aside some of the teachings and interpretations of the Bible that had been passed on to us from previous generations.
The matter that troubled me most was the apparent conflict in the teaching of Peter and the rest of the Twelve versus that of the converted Saul of Tarsus who never even saw Jesus in the flesh. Not until we had studied together for over two years did it occur to me that there were two distinctive evangels: that concerning the Kingdom heralded by Jesus Himself and His Jewish followers, and the Pauline Evangel. The former evangel was based upon salvation through a combination of faith and conformity to law; the latter was channeled through the grace of God alone. This distinction, finally dawning upon me, did then, and does still, represent one of God's greatest gifts to me, and I have endeavored in my small way to pass this realization along to as many others as possible.
One of the facets of this "new" concept which has particularly kindled my interest was its relationship to the Lordship of Christ. The prevailing concept of
p32
Lordship Not Based on Threats but on Christ's Finished Work
Christ's Lordship differs surprisingly from that presented in Paul's epistles. It is this matter that I would like to discuss in this article.
It is common knowledge that the Scriptures often speak of God's indignation (wrath) and of divine vengeance. It would seem that this emphasis was carried over into the early Christian religion as a critical factor in its organization. This has continued to the present day.
Thus the distinctive evangel that Paul announced during his lifetime both to Jew and Gentile (salvation by grace from a kind and loving God) was obscured. In Romans 1:18ff Paul had spoken of God's indignation as a matter exhibiting the great need of the evangel of grace. Yet the church hierarchy related it to the Lordship of Christ and made it a motivating principle for Christian service. Similarly, Paul referred to God's vengeance as evidence that believers should not seek to avenge themselves on their enemies (Rom.12:19), while church tradition has generally presented it as a threat to the believer in order to keep him in line.
Under the distorted (cf Gal.1:7) evangel of salvation based on fear and works, to become a Christian one had to conform to a ritual, the first step of which was to acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, confessing sins, repenting and being baptized. The second step, to assure one's ultimate deliverance from wrath was to follow in the footsteps of the Saviour, accepting His Lordship in everyday life. For while past sins were washed away at baptism, it was inevitable that a believer would commit more sins during his lifetime, and even though he confessed and repented frequently, there would undoubtedly be some unforgiven sins on the Book of Life which God could use on Judgment Day to condemn him to an eternity in Hell. No one was
p33
Lordship Not Based on Threats but on Christ's Finished Work
ever sure whether he was saved or not until that final day, so everyone lived a life of uncertainty regarding his ultimate destination.
The Pauline Evangel, however, teaches us to acknowledge Christ as our Saviour, the only begotten Son of God, He Who emptied Himself and took on the form of a human and dwelt among us for thirty-three years, Who was humiliated and suffered an unmerciful death on the cross for all of our sins, Who arose on the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time when He will appear in the air and call "the elect" to meet and be with Him always. Our salvation is based solely on this conviction, not by any works that we do or any laws that we conform to.
These provisions, centered in the accomplished work of Christ, annul the Lordship-precepts prescribed by traditional Christianity. Christ's Lordship is not imposed to enhance one's chances for salvation, but rather it is based on a salvation already graciously gained on our behalf.
Nevertheless, those who have mixed the two evangels claim that the salvation-by-grace concept encourages believers to accept the philosophy of "eat, drink and be merry" because all is forgiven by the grace of God anyway. This is the conclusion that many might reasonably come to, but I would implore them to read on.
Paul's letter to the Romans was written to bring the believers of that day as well as us from an immature to a more mature concept of God's plan of salvation. The whole book is priceless in this regard. I had a Jewish convert once say to me, "How could one remain a Jew after having read Romans?"
There is one section in Romans that has a direct
p34
We Died to Sin
bearing on a mature recognition of Christ's Lordship. It begins with chapter 6, verse 1, where Paul asks, "What, then, shall we declare? That we may be persisting in sin that grace should be increasing?" In other words, we who have finally accepted Christ as our Lord and Saviour, after having lived a life of sin and knowing now that we have been justified in God's sight, should we now persist in our sins knowing that God's grace is unlimited, and knowing that through Christ's sacrifice, we are all justified in the acts we have done or will do in the future? If that is our attitude, we are far from maturity, as Paul explains in Romans 6:2-14. "May it not be coming to that! We, who died to sin, how shall we still be living in it? Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into His death? We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should be walking in newness of life. For if we have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of Sin may be nullified, for us by no means to be still slaving for Sin, for one who dies has been justified from Sin.
"Now if we died together with Christ, we believe that we shall be living together with Him also, having perceived that Christ, being roused from among the dead, is no longer dying. Death is lording over Him no longer, for in that He died, He died to Sin once for all time, yet in that He is living, He is living to God. Thus you also, be reckoning yourselves to be dead, indeed, to Sin, yet living to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
"Let not Sin, then, be reigning in your mortal body,
p35
Living Unto God
for you to be obeying its lusts. Nor yet be presenting your members, as implements of injustice, to Sin, but present yourselves to God as if alive from among the dead, and your members as implements of righteousness to God. For Sin shall not be lording it over you, for you are not under law but under grace."
Finding that Christ is our Lord and Saviour means that we desire to walk "worthily of the Lord for all pleasing, bearing fruit in every good work, and growing in the realization of God" (Col.1:10). This is an attitude we most willingly accept because of all the wonderful blessings He has endowed us with. This acceptance of Christ's Lordship does not rise out of fear of His indignation, or of being sentenced to an eternity in Hell. It is the mature attitude that rises from an appreciation of the evangel of grace.
At the same time, we recognize that we are still subject to human frailties. And even though we are strongly motivated out of our love, affection and appreciation for God's grace, we fail and even yield from time to time to sinful influences. This is the human condition and is true of everyone, no matter what our views may be of the evangel. The question is, What is the mature concept of Christ's Lordship that God has provided for us in dealing with our everyday weakness and sins? Is it a Lordship established by a gracious, accomplished salvation, and is such a concept of His Lordship an effective force in our lives for making progress in dealing with our weaknesses?
Again, Paul, who says, "Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor.11:1), leads us in the path of maturity. He writes, "Not that I already obtained, or am already perfected. Yet I am pursuing, if I may be grasping also that for which was grasped also by Christ Jesus. Brethren, not as yet am I reckon-
p36
Imitators of Paul as he was of Christ
ing myself to have grasped, yet one thing—forgetting, indeed, those things which are behind, yet stretching out to those in front—toward the goal am I pursuing for the prize of God's calling above in Christ Jesus. Whoever, then, are mature, may be disposed to this, and if in anything you are differently disposed, this also shall God reveal to you. Moreover, in what we outstrip others, there is to be a mutual disposition to be observing the elements by the same rule.
"Become imitators together of me, brethren, and be noting those who are walking thus, according as you have us for a model, for many are walking, of whom I often told you, yet now am lamenting also as I tell it, who are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose consummation is destruction, whose god is their bowels, and whose glory is in their shame, who to the terrestrial are disposed. For our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself" (Phil.3:12-21).
Another helpful passage from Paul on this matter is as follows: "We should all attain to the unity of the faith and of the realization of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the complement of the Christ, that we may by no means still be minors, surging hither and thither and being carried about by every wind of teaching, by human caprice, by craftiness with a view to the systematizing of the deception" (Eph.4:13,14).
As we continue to "grasp" for maturity in Christ, we should not become discouraged by our human weaknesses and assume a guilt complex. Our course in the Lord should be to acknowledge our mistakes, and
p37
Imitators of Paul as he was of Christ
truly regret them, while continuing to praise God all the more for His grace and goodness. The recognition that we serve the Lord Who has dealt with our mistakes on the cross is truly an effective force in dealing with present weaknesses. Our aim comes to be one of glorifying God in everything we think, do or say because we know that in His eyes we are spotless, totally justified, and our destiny is with Him. This is maturity in Christ.
W. W. Bentley, Jr.
No one anywhere is under law. Paul called this, the attempt to bring believers(any believers) under the law, another gospel.
Here is more good information from Unsearchable Riches magazine. http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V79P1 p91The Apostle of the Nations
PAUL
SINCE FIRST I was introduced to the truths of God's Word, more than half a century ago, there has been one concern that has continued to trouble me. That concerns the matter in which the apostle Paul has been and still is treated. It almost seems that he is accorded the position of a second-class apostle. Why is there so little appreciation of his unique and important place as the apostle of the nations?
In the CV of Romans 11:13, we read that Paul is "the apostle of the nations," but many other translations speak of him here as "an apostle." To be sure, the definite article "the" does not appear in the original Greek of this passage (as is indicated by the use of lightface type in the CV). But the English sublinear in the CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT of this passage brings out a definite stress on this commission given to Paul. Literally, he writes, "...as much as indeed, then, I am, I, of the nations commissioner...." The "I" appears both as part of the verb "am" and as a separate pronoun. There is something truly unique about this apostleship.
My idea in this article is to gather from the Scriptures themselves an account of Paul's testimony concerning the distinctive features of his call and apostleship.
Let us begin with Paul's defense given as he stood on the steps of the citadel in Jerusalem:
"I am a man, a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, yet
p92
Saul's Disqualification
reared in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, trained according to the strictness of the hereditary law, being inherently zealous for God according as all of you are today, I, who persecute this way to death, binding and giving over both men and women to jail, as the chief priest also was testifying to me, and to the entire eldership, from whom, receiving letters also to the brethren, I went into Damascus, to be leading also those being there, bound, to Jerusalem, that they may be punished" (Acts 22:3-5).
We probably all will agree that this man did not seem to be very well qualified to be an apostle of Christ. Also he did not seem to be very well prepared to bring a message of grace to the nations:
"If any other one is presuming to have confidence in flesh, I rather: in circumcision the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in relation to law a Pharisee, in relation to zeal, persecuting the ecclesia, in relation to the righteousness which is in law, becoming blameless" (Phil.3:4-6).
And yet he was called: "Now it occurred, at my going and drawing near to Damascus, about midday, suddenly out of heaven a considerable light flashes about me. Besides, I fall flat, and I hear a voice saying to me, `Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting Me?' Yet I answered and said, `Who art Thou, Lord?' Besides, He said to me, `I am Jesus, the Nazarene, Whom you are persecuting.' Now those who are with me gaze, indeed, at the light, yet they hear not the voice of Him Who is speaking to me. Now I said, `What shall I be doing, Lord?' Now the Lord said to me, `Rise. Go into Damascus, and there you will be spoken to concerning all which has been set before you to do'" (Acts 22:6-10).
Of this surprising call, Paul later said, "Grateful am
p93
Paul's Surprising Call
I to Him Who invigorates me, Christ Jesus our Lord, for He deems me faithful, assigning me a service, I, who formerly was a calumniator and a persecutor and an outrager: but I was shown mercy, seeing that I do it being ignorant, in unbelief. Yet the grace of our Lord overwhelms with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, foremost of whom am I. But therefore was I shown mercy, that in me, the foremost, Jesus Christ should be displaying all His patience, for a pattern of those who are about to be believing on Him for life eonian" (1 Tim.1:12-16).
After Paul's call, a considerable time elapses before we come to his meeting with the other apostles in Jerusalem: "For I am making known to you, brethren, as to the evangel which is being brought by me, that it is not in accord with man. For neither did I accept it from a man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you hear of my behavior once, in Judaism, that I inordinately persecuted the ecclesia of God and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism above many contemporaries in my race, being inherently exceedingly more zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
"Now when it delights God, Who severs me from my mother's womb and calls me through His grace, to unveil His Son in me that I may be evangelizing Him among the nations, I did not immediately submit it to flesh and blood, neither came I up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I came away into Arabia, and I return again to Damascus" (Gal.1:11-17)
As we see here, Paul went into Arabia and then to Damascus again.
"Thereupon, after three years, I came up to Jerusa-
p94
Paul and the Twelve
lem to relate my story to Cephas, and I stay with him fifteen days" (Gal.1:18).
After this visit there is again a lengthy separation of Paul from those who were commissioned before him.
"Thereupon I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Yet I was unknown by face to the ecclesias of Judea which are in Christ. Yet only they were hearing that `He who once was persecuting us, now is evangelizing the faith which once he ravaged.' And they glorified God in me.
"Thereupon, after the lapse of fourteen years, I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. Now I went up in accord with a revelation and submitted to them the evangel which I am heralding among the nations, yet privately to those of repute, lest somehow I should be racing or ran for naught" (Gal.1:21-2:2).
Surely, if this had been the same evangel that the Twelve proclaimed, there would have been no need for Paul to make it known to them. At all times he acted in conscious independence of the Twelve. He was in no way inferior to them, as he writes in 2 Corinthians, "For I am reckoning to be deficient in nothing pertaining to the paramount apostles. Yet even if I am plain in expression, nevertheless I am not in knowledge, but in everything being made manifest in all for you" (2 Cor.11:5,6).
Again he wrote, "...for I am not deficient in anything pertaining to the paramount apostles, even if I am nothing" (2 Cor.12:11).
He does not defend himself or boast in his achievements of learning, but he fearlessly defends his apostleship and the message he was given to proclaim:
"Now from those reputed to be somewhat—what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is
p95
The Two Evangels
not taking up the human aspect)—for to me those of repute submitted nothing. But on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations)...[they] give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship..." (Gal.2:6-9).
Nevertheless, this recognition of Paul's distinctive apostleship and its unique emphasis on grace was not always observed: "Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured. For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also play the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, `If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing?'" (Gal.2:11-14).
Paul had mentioned two evangels, the evangel of the Circumcision, which had been assigned to Peter, and the evangel of the Uncircumcision (Gal.2:7). It is important that these expressions be correctly understood. They do not designate the same evangel or gospel being heralded to the Circumcision and to the Uncircumcision, as is most generally believed. The "of" shows us that Paul is speaking of a divergent nature of these messages and a distinct sphere of application.
To me, these passages (and others as well) show that Paul was and is truly the apostle of the nations. He
p96
Paul as a Pattern
should thus be recognized among all believers. May we, like Timothy, be fully following him in his teaching, motive, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions and sufferings (2 Tim.3:10) and be holding fast to the pattern of sound words which he proclaimed (2 Tim.2:11-13).
Julius S. Shaw
Quote from: eaglesway on June 13, 2015, 06:37:30 PM
No one anywhere is under law. Paul called this, the attempt to bring believers(any believers) under the law, another gospel.
Yes,
They
all will come to Christ , the one and only Jesus Christ ....HIS NAME ..this same Jesus who brought " the gracious good news ", the gift of God .
the Lord of the dead and living making Him the ruler over death and the true good news , the 1 covenant of death was annulled by the Cross of Jesus Christ
Hebrews 8
The New Covenant
...12"FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." 13When He said
, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Isaiah 28 your covenant of death annulled
A Cornerstone in ZionWe build on Jesus Christ good news and truth in bringing us into the new covenant of heavens and earth because of HIS Life
...17"I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level;
Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place.
18"Your covenant with death will be canceled, And your pact with Sheol will not stand;
When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place. 19"
As often as it passes through, it will seize you; For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night, And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means."...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+11+&version=EXB
Quote from: eaglesway on June 13, 2015, 06:37:30 PM
No one anywhere is under law. Paul called this, the attempt to bring believers(any believers) under the law, another gospel.
:iagree:
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3
QuoteWhy are there two evangels? Were the object of both merely to rescue the sinner from a terrible doom, then one should suffice. But when we see that one evangel is part of God's great demonstration of the futility and failure of the flesh, hence must be based on flesh, and the other acknowledges the result of this demonstration, hence is based on spirit, then we see that they are nearly as wide apart as the poles. With such totally divergent objects in view they cannot help but differ radically, and any mixture is bound to be confusing and contradictory.
So, is this essentially saying that Jewish people who were told to put their trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, were given the Holy Spirt and brotherhood with Gentiles, were also given an evangel of failure, instructed to do things they instructors knew they couldn't do, so that the Gentile believers could be shown to have a better evangel?
I think we're all playing our assigned parts in the drama of the universe to demonstrate the futility of man trying to save himself by works contrasted by the true salvation in grace through faith. And the climax of the story will be when all on earth and in the heavens are reconciled to God, and God is all in all.
So the Jewish Christians are getting screwed.
I think atheists think that about all Christians, but I also think the Jewish people will eventually get their promised kingdom of the heavens and the believers will be running the show.
I don't know where I'll end up because my bio dad`s family name is of Hebrew origin....( my maiden name ) but I was raised a gentile. Then became a believer in Jesus Christ.
Whatdayathink, Tom? :)
I think you're in the body of Christ, sis, and will get snatched away with the rest of us for our ministry in the celestial realm during the coming eon. Scripture doesn't say where we'll all be after the consummation of the eons when God is all in all, but I trust God that it will be an amazing experience.
How can anyone know where they will be if they don't know what their genes are? and what about half Jewish people? Why doesn't the New Testament address the issue of the destiny of mixed races?
Overcomers of all the ages will be in the first ressurection at the unveiling at the end of the age. The dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive andvremain will meet them in the air..... First resurection. One new man. Revelation of the children of God. :2c:
The long article above is full of assumptions and bizarre interpretations. It says that Paul's gospel was an immediate improvement on Peter's because Paul's recognized Jesus as the Son of God, whereas Peter's had Him as Lord. But this makes no sense...it was Peter who first confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God, and it was indeed Peter who first preached to the 'Uncircumcision', at the house of Cornelius. I can only imagine what embarrassment Peter had if he came across a Jewish servant of Cornelius and had to take him to one side to explain the other evangel! :winkgrin:
It also says Paul was not qualified as an apostle of the circumcision because he did not have the moral excellence of someone like Nataniel. What? Has the writer not heard that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise? Christ did not need to search for those with moral excellence, rather He chose those He would fill with His own moral excellence at Pentecost!
Also, if one of the 'evangels' - remembering that evangel means good message or good news, is about the failure of the Jews, how is that message good news? How does it qualify as an 'evangel'? I suppose one might say that as God is sovereign, even failure and darkness eventually is good news as all will ultimately be summed up in Christ etc, but then there becomes no need to label any news as anything other than 'good', as all things work together for good. So we might as well tell someone that their beloved dying is good news, or that their dog getting run over is good news, because it is all planned to work out in the end.
One sure sign of the 'two evangels' being a faulty premise is the way it takes the focus of the good news away from Jesus Christ, and onto the believer or people group. The reason there is only one evangel, is that there is only One Jesus Christ. There is no good news other than Him, and no good message other than Him. To divide up the news of Christ is to separate His body, and show partiality to the flesh. The gospel is not about people groups - it is about Jesus Christ, and it IS Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2015, 02:22:28 AM
How can anyone know where they will be if they don't know what their genes are? and what about half Jewish people? Why doesn't the New Testament address the issue of the destiny of mixed races?
I think Paul was pure Jewish, even though he's in the body of Christ, and he and his Jewish brothers who are also in the body of Christ will be snatched away with those of us who aren't Jewish simply because we've all been chosen to believe in salvation in grace through faith. I also believe lots of people who lived before there even were any Jews won't be snatched away to meet Christ in the air, but they'll be subject to the kingdom of the heavens.
Quote from: Shev on June 14, 2015, 02:58:11 AM
The long article above is full of assumptions and bizarre interpretations. It says that Paul's gospel was an immediate improvement on Peter's because Paul's recognized Jesus as the Son of God, whereas Peter's had Him as Lord. But this makes no sense...it was Peter who first confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God, and it was indeed Peter who first preached to the 'Uncircumcision', at the house of Cornelius. I can only imagine what embarrassment Peter had if he came across a Jewish servant of Cornelius and had to take him to one side to explain the other evangel! :winkgrin:
It also says Paul was not qualified as an apostle of the circumcision because he did not have the moral excellence of someone like Nataniel. What? Has the writer not heard that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise? Christ did not need to search for those with moral excellence, rather He chose those He would fill with His own moral excellence at Pentecost!
Also, if one of the 'evangels' - remembering that evangel means good message or good news, is about the failure of the Jews, how is that message good news? How does it qualify as an 'evangel'? I suppose one might say that as God is sovereign, even failure and darkness eventually is good news as all will ultimately be summed up in Christ etc, but then there becomes no need to label any news as anything other than 'good', as all things work together for good. So we might as well tell someone that their beloved dying is good news, or that their dog getting run over is good news, because it is all planned to work out in the end.
One sure sign of the 'two evangels' being a faulty premise is the way it takes the focus of the good news away from Jesus Christ, and onto the believer or people group. The reason there is only one evangel, is that there is only One Jesus Christ. There is no good news other than Him, and no good message other than Him. To divide up the news of Christ is to separate His body, and show partiality to the flesh. The gospel is not about people groups - it is about Jesus Christ, and it IS Jesus Christ.
I think we all make "assumptions," as you say, because that's what faith is.
"Faith is an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed." (Hebrews 11:1)
And I think the articles only may have seemed to have "bizarre interpretations," as you say, because they don't conform to orthodox theology. I used to be unaware that the evangel of the uncircumcision Paul preached was different, but now I understand.
It was Paul, James, Cephas, and John who made the distinction, and Paul warned about mixing the evangels in Galatians to produce a distorted evangel that he even cursed. I think it is this distorted evangel that is orthodox theology.
"I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ. But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:6-8)
"But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision." (Galatians 2:7-9)
Peter had to be given a vision to convince him to go to Cornelius, and his brothers gave him a hard time about it afterwards.
I think the author of the article you spoke of was referring to Paul killing believers before seeing the light, but that was why he was the perfect person to show the power of grace to change somebody's life.
The two evangels does not take the focus away from Christ, as you say, because the whole purpose is to put the spotlight on Christ instead of the law.
The Jews looked forward to their promised kingdom of the heavens on earth in Israel ruled by Messiah in Jerusalem, right? But Paul was preaching that the body of Christ would have an eonian celestial destiny.
I think the fulfillment of the promised kingdom of the heavens is now paused until all those chosen are called out of the nations, and then this era of grace will come to a close when the Unveiling of Jesus Christ will happen.
I think it's just all about the Jews being God's chosen people to minster to the nations on earth in the coming eon while those chosen to be in the body of Christ minister in the celestial realm.
Scripture doesn't say what happens after the consummation of the eons except that God will be all in all, and I think that's sufficient.
Quote from: Tom on June 14, 2015, 03:05:12 AM
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2015, 02:22:28 AM
How can anyone know where they will be if they don't know what their genes are? and what about half Jewish people? Why doesn't the New Testament address the issue of the destiny of mixed races?
I think Paul was pure Jewish, even though he's in the body of Christ, and he and his Jewish brothers who are also in the body of Christ will be snatched away with those of us who aren't Jewish simply because we've all been chosen to believe in salvation in grace through faith. I also believe lots of people who lived before there even were any Jews won't be snatched away to meet Christ in the air, but they'll be subject to the kingdom of the heavens.
If that's the case, then it means that some Jewish people were selected to be Christians and recieve liberty, while other Jewish Christians were selected for slavery to an evangel of failure only to exposed as having been instructed by Apostles to do things they were never able to do. So SOME Jewish Christians got a great evangel, while others were given a gospel that preached freedom but could not and would not deliver on it.
Basically those unfortunate Jewish believers were sold a bill of goods by those Apostles.
Quote from: Tom on June 14, 2015, 04:19:51 AM
Quote from: Shev on June 14, 2015, 02:58:11 AM
The long article above is full of assumptions and bizarre interpretations. It says that Paul's gospel was an immediate improvement on Peter's because Paul's recognized Jesus as the Son of God, whereas Peter's had Him as Lord. But this makes no sense...it was Peter who first confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God, and it was indeed Peter who first preached to the 'Uncircumcision', at the house of Cornelius. I can only imagine what embarrassment Peter had if he came across a Jewish servant of Cornelius and had to take him to one side to explain the other evangel! :winkgrin:
It also says Paul was not qualified as an apostle of the circumcision because he did not have the moral excellence of someone like Nataniel. What? Has the writer not heard that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise? Christ did not need to search for those with moral excellence, rather He chose those He would fill with His own moral excellence at Pentecost!
Also, if one of the 'evangels' - remembering that evangel means good message or good news, is about the failure of the Jews, how is that message good news? How does it qualify as an 'evangel'? I suppose one might say that as God is sovereign, even failure and darkness eventually is good news as all will ultimately be summed up in Christ etc, but then there becomes no need to label any news as anything other than 'good', as all things work together for good. So we might as well tell someone that their beloved dying is good news, or that their dog getting run over is good news, because it is all planned to work out in the end.
One sure sign of the 'two evangels' being a faulty premise is the way it takes the focus of the good news away from Jesus Christ, and onto the believer or people group. The reason there is only one evangel, is that there is only One Jesus Christ. There is no good news other than Him, and no good message other than Him. To divide up the news of Christ is to separate His body, and show partiality to the flesh. The gospel is not about people groups - it is about Jesus Christ, and it IS Jesus Christ.
I think we all make "assumptions," as you say, because that's what faith is.
"Faith is an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed." (Hebrews 11:1)
And I think the articles only may have seemed to have "bizarre interpretations," as you say, because they don't conform to orthodox theology. I used to be unaware that the evangel of the uncircumcision Paul preached was different, but now I understand.
It was Paul, James, Cephas, and John who made the distinction, and Paul warned about mixing the evangels in Galatians to produce a distorted evangel that he even cursed. I think it is this distorted evangel that is orthodox theology.
"I am marveling that thus, swiftly, you are transferred from that which calls you in the grace of Christ, to a different evangel, which is not another, except it be that some who are disturbing you want also to distort the evangel of Christ. But if ever we also, or a messenger out of heaven, should be bringing an evangel to you beside that which we bring to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:6-8)
"But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision." (Galatians 2:7-9)
Peter had to be given a vision to convince him to go to Cornelius, and his brothers gave him a hard time about it afterwards.
I think the author of the article you spoke of was referring to Paul killing believers before seeing the light, but that was why he was the perfect person to show the power of grace to change somebody's life.
The two evangels does not take the focus away from Christ, as you say, because the whole purpose is to put the spotlight on Christ instead of the law.
The Jews looked forward to their promised kingdom of the heavens on earth in Israel ruled by Messiah in Jerusalem, right? But Paul was preaching that the body of Christ would have an eonian celestial destiny.
I think the fulfillment of the promised kingdom of the heavens is now paused until all those chosen are called out of the nations, and then this era of grace will come to a close when the Unveiling of Jesus Christ will happen.
I think it's just all about the Jews being God's chosen people to minster to the nations on earth in the coming eon while those chosen to be in the body of Christ minister in the celestial realm.
Scripture doesn't say what happens after the consummation of the eons except that God will be all in all, and I think that's sufficient.
I don't see anything in υπoστασις of 'assumption', but either way, I was not making the assertion in a vacuum, but giving examples of what I considered to be bizarre assumption, such as Paul's gospel being the first to see Christ as the Son of God, and Nathaniel being chosen for his character, etc etc. I apologize if it came across as randomly insulting the writer!
Believe, me 'orthodox theology' is not anything I am remotely concerned with, nor do I think anyone on here is! :dsunny:
I see your argument about the spotlight being on Christ, but I feel as though in the two evangel theory, one spotlight is on the law, on the failure of man, and on the Jewish race. The reason I more specifically say this is that in the writings I have perused on the subject, there always seems to be a great amount of attention given to these things, whether it is differentiating between Jews and Gentiles, or explaining why certain Jews need to have a message of failure. I simply don't see how all of this is putting a spotlight on Christ.
"But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision." (Galatians 2:7-9)
With regards to the above quote, I agree that Paul was sent to the nations, and Peter to the Jews (by and large), but this by no means definitively states that there are two gospels, any more than someone being sent to Angola as a missionary means that they have a different gospel for the Angolans. Indeed, Paul - at least twice - preached to Jews and then asserted to them that he was moving on to the Gentiles
because the Jews were rejecting the gospel, and not accounting themselves worthy of the life of the ages. They were rejecting the one gospel which he spoke, not receiving their own evangel.
I think everybody experiences the futility of trying to save themselves, not just the Jewish people, even those who follow orthodox theology, and even those who are unbelievers. The Jewish people will be blessed with their promised kingdom of the heavens in Israel with Messiah that is the hope of all the Jewish people, and all the nations on earth will come to God through Israel. So it's not just the law that demonstrates the futility of man trying to save himself, but the pride of all men. The Jewish believers kept their law, but Paul preached an evangel apart from law to the nations. We're not subject to the law, never have been, and never will be because we weren't given the law even though orthodox theology teaches that. I think some people have come to believe in the salvation of all mankind, but are still deceived by other beliefs of orthodox theology. There are variations of doctrine in Christendom. That's why there are so many denominations. I think the church thinking its spiritual Israel is a prime example. I think God has simply chosen one group of people to do his will on earth in the coming eon while another group is doing his will in the celestial realm, and eventually God will be all in all. So I don't think the Jewish people got a bad deal, as has been said, because God blesses everybody according to his will.
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V65P2 p251
Have a Pattern of Sound Words
SPURIOUS SPIRITUALITY
The word "spiritual" has often served to conceal the lack of a real, scriptural basis for a teaching. The church is said to be "spiritual Israel," and the prophesies concerning that nation are "spiritually applied" to the present in the chapter headings of the Authorized Version. The millennium is explained away by making it "spiritual." We even hear of "spiritual death," although all death must, of necessity, be utterly lacking in spirituality. It is evident that, in many cases, our western minds have been bewildered by figures of speech, and we have tried to cover our confusion by calling things "spiritual" to escape unbelief. Judging from the past we should be very careful in the use of this term in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Let us test it carefully lest it lead us astray by its elusiveness.
"SPIRITUAL ISRAEL"
This innocent-looking phrase practically repudiates God's whole prophetic program. All that He promised to His people is filched from them and "applied" to others on the plea that it must be understood "spiritually." Just as if there will be nothing spiritual in the coming Kingdom! In that day Jehovah will put a new spirit within them (Ezek.36:26). He will pour out His spirit upon the house of Israel (Ezek.39:29). Indeed, He will pour out His spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). The only spiritual Israel known to God's Word is that which will be found in that Kingdom. Yet this phrase is used to do away with it! They will be far more spiritual than is the church which seeks to displace them by means of this subterfuge.
p252
Spiritual or Figurative?
On all sides today this idea is distorting the testimony of the church, and engaging it with that which is on the earth, not that which is above. It would seem that nothing could more effectively keep it from entertaining its real spiritual blessings among the celestials (Eph.1:3) than this notion that Israel has utterly failed, so that God's promises will not be fulfilled, except in a "spiritual" way to the church which takes over what they have forfeited. The worst effect is that it prevents the saints from entering into the truth for today. The church is not literal Israel, nor figurative Israel, and, least of all "spiritual" Israel. It is the literal Israel of the future that will be spiritual. Let us not get the idea that "spiritual" denotes figurative. What is really meant is that the church is figurative Israel. But "spiritual" is a much more subtle term, implying, as it does, that Israel was carnal and we are spiritual, which contains enough truth to confuse and mislead the saints.
SPIRITUAL MILLENNIUM
Not only is a literal kingdom looked upon as "carnal," but the millennium is decried as a most unspiritual idea which can find only a "spiritual" fulfillment in the history of the church. What is really meant, of course, is a figurative fulfillment, but the word spiritual is usually preferred, for it stamps believers in a literal millennium as lacking in spiritual discernment, if they are not downright carnal. It is this implication in the word "spiritual" which makes it such a favorite weapon to destroy faith in the promises of God.
I am reminded of my own experience at the very beginning of my new life. The head of a school of theology wished to have a pamphlet printed showing
p253
Death is Never Spiritual
how unspiritual and carnal the theory of a future literal kingdom is, according to the Scriptures. He had given the references, but feared that few of his readers would take the trouble to turn them up. So I was asked to put in the full text in each case. As I was very eager to settle this point for myself, I not only supplied the texts, but studied them carefully to see if they proved his position. As a result I became fully convinced that he was mistaken, judging alone from his own evidence. As I now recall, he misused this word "spiritual" in a most unspiritual way.
"SPIRITUAL DEATH"
In my earliest efforts to solve the problem of the death which overtook Adam when he sinned, I fell back on a phrase then common among Bible expositors, that is, "spiritual death," in contrast to "physical death." Later, when I sought to avoid unsound, unscriptural expressions, I was forced to drop these non-scriptural phrases. Then I saw how misleading they were. The effect of Adam's sin was not confined to his spirit, and his relationship to God. It vitally affected his physical frame. He became mortal, in the active sense of dying, and this he has transmitted to the race, which accounts for all disease and sin as well as alienation from God. Adam and his posterity have been physically dying ever since. It is true that he became figuratively dead to God, yet the figure is not founded on his spirit alone, but upon his future literal death, which included spirit, soul and body.
How confusing this manner of speaking may be, may be seen in the death of our Lord. He died physically when He commended His spirit into the hands of His Father (Luke 23:46). So it is with all flesh, for it has no life apart from the spirit. Literal
p254
Death is the Lack of Spirit
death always includes both flesh and spirit, for the flesh returns to the soil when the spirit returns to God. The converse is true also. Death limited to one of man's components is impossible, or figurative. The fact that unbelievers are figuratively dead to God is based upon their literal death. They are not dead to men, spiritually or otherwise. They are simply so oblivious of the Deity as if they were literally in the grave.
The complement terms "spiritual life" and "physical life" are also non-scriptural and unsound, for they imply that there is life apart from spirit. It is not easy for us to avoid them because we are not accustomed to the language of figures which is so freely used in the Scriptures. It is necessary for us to break with these misleading expressions, however, for it is practically impossible to grasp the truth as to death and life so long as we harbor them.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:17 AV). In my early studies in the Scriptures this passage caused me much concern, for it was very plain that Adam did not die that day. I was forced to accept the only explanation offered me at the time, that the death was "spiritual." So, I was told, all of Adam's descendants are also "spiritually" dead until they pass out of death into life (John 5:24). They are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1 AV). At that time I knew so little of the function of spirit, that the manifest absurdity of "spiritual" death was not apparent to me. But when I learned that life is the product of spirit, and death is due to the lack of spirit, it dawned upon me that there can be no such thing as "spiritual" death, for death is the most unspiritual thing in the universe. The Scriptures never use such an expression. Neither should we confuse life with
p255
Life comes from Spirit
consciousness. An unconscious tree has life.
We cannot insist that only the spirit of Adam died, for in humanity it is the spirit that imparts and sustains life. The body has no life apart from it. Withdraw the spirit, and the whole man is dead. Adam did not die that day. The Hebrew is quite clear, if taken literally. "In the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying" (CV). Adam became mortal that very day, just as all who descend from him undergo the dying process.
It does not cease when one believes. Faith does not stop dying, it does not clothe with immortality. So the death that came to Adam, and that which characterizes the unbeliever as distinct from the believer, cannot be the same, and should not be called by the same name. Neither is spiritual. Adam's was literal. The sinner's is figurative. Just as he comes out of darkness into light, so he proceeds out of death into life. The process is a spiritual one because it is wrought by God's Spirit. Both certainly should not be called "spiritual" when one is due to the absence of spirit.
"SPIRITUAL LIFE"
There is not nearly so much objection to the phrase "spiritual life," because life must come from spirit. Yet it is worthy of notice that the Scriptures never use this expression. To the Eastern mind it is tautological like wet rain, for there can be no life, even that possessed by the unbeliever, without spirit. We are so unaccustomed to the bold figures of the inspired records that we hesitate to use them. The figure, "into life," is all that is needed to convey the thought, just as "into light" does not need to be explained as "spiritual light." When we believe it is like coming out of darkness into light. It is not coming from one kind of
p256
Vivification, Past, Present and Future
light into another. And it is like proceeding out of death into life. It is not proceeding out of literal life into spiritual life.
OUR SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION BODY
The use of the word "spiritual" in place of figurative has given rise to the idea that nothing corporeal can be spiritual. That this is not the case is evident from the Scriptures concerning the resurrection body. It is called a spiritual body (1 Cor.15:44). If we should say that we were roused and vivified spiritually in Christ, this may suggest that the spirit alone was involved. But rousing cannot take place without both body and spirit, for it comes only as a combination of the two.
Vivification is always a "spiritual" act, because it is altogether the result of spirit, which alone gives life. We cannot say that we were vivified "spiritually" in Christ (Eph.2:5), or that our bodies are now vivified "spiritually" by God's Spirit which makes its home in us (Rom.8:11), in contrast to our future vivification, whenever that may be, for that must of necessity be even more spiritual, for our very bodies will then become spiritual. What confusion is created by this word!
The difference between our vivification in the past and in the future is not that the former is spiritual and the latter unspiritual, but that the one in the past was figurative and the one in the future will be literal. The past is a matter of faith in the operation of God. The future will not require faith, for it will be a blessed and glorious experience, which will thrill our very being with life so abundant and exultant that our hearts will overflow with thanksgiving and praise to God. Moreover, the life will no longer be hid, as it is at pres-
p257
Spiritual Power in the Written Word
ent, but manifest in us to all the world. Now this is not the case. We wait for Christ. Whenever He, Who is our Life, should be manifested, then, and not before, shall we be manifested with Him in glory.
A.E.K.
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V18P1 p69
THE DIVINE MYSTERIES
WHAT IS "THE MYSTERY?"
TO get at the very heart of the secret unfolded in Ephesians is a great spiritual achievement, far beyond the soulish man (1 Cor.2:14) and impossible to the fleshy saint (1 Cor.3:1-4). Perhaps the greatest hindrance is sectarianism. If we prefer to be partisans we cannot expect to enter into the deep things of God. So it has worked out in practice. The many divisions of Christendom vary in their apprehension of God's mind, but all of them utterly fail to grasp this secret, which, above all else, they ought to understand. It has become so mysterious that it is well called a "mystery," for such it is to all who do not keep the unity of the spirit.
Even among those well advanced in truth, who have not shaken themselves entirely free of the shackles which once bound them, there is much misapprehension on this matter. Well do we remember the notable series of articles on this subject by Dr. Bullinger, full of much recently recovered truth. But even he made the mystery the body of Christ, as many spiritual divines, especially among the Puritans, had done before him. That position is well crystallized in the phrase "the mystical body of Christ." My own suspicions were aroused by the fact that no such phrase is found in Scripture. This led me to inquire what "the mystery" really is.
After much study, I found the answer to my quest in the categorical statement of Ephesians 3:6. There it is defined for us so clearly and concisely that we need never be at a loss as to its precise provisions. There we are told that, in spirit, the nations are to be
p70
The Thrice Repeated Joint is the Key to the Mystery
joint enjoyers of an allotment, and a joint body,
and joint partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus, through
the evangel of which Paul became the dispenser.
The Authorized Version rendering is "that the gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:" This loose paraphrase is most lamentable, for it is more calculated to hide the secret than to reveal it. The revisers of 1611 certainly did not apprehend the mystery or they would not have made such a lame translation. In the original the word TOGETHER sun is thrice repeated. They render it well once by fellow. Yet it certainly does not mean same, as they have it before "body." They omit its third occurrence entirely. The late revision has remedied this by uniformly rendering TOGETHER by fellow each time, thus: "that the gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
That the nations were to be heirs or allottees was no secret. Long before this Paul had written to the Roman saints: "For you did not get slavery's spirit again to fear, but you got the spirit of sonship, in which we are crying, `Abba, Father!' The same spirit joins its witness with our spirit that we are children of God. Yet if children, enjoyers also of an allotment, enjoyers indeed, of God's allotment..." (Rom.8:15-17). Similarly he expostulates with the Galatians: "Now, seeing that you are sons, God delegates the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying `Abba, Father!' So that you are no longer a slave, but a son. Now if a son, an enjoyer also of God's allotment, through Christ" (Gal.4:6-8).
That the saints among the nations were members of the body of Christ was no secret, for it was written: "For even as, in one body, we have many members, yet all the members have not the same function, thus we, who are many, are one body in Christ, yet severally
p71
The Thrice Repeated Joint is the Key to the Mystery
members of one another" (Rom.12:4,5). And again, to the Corinthians, Paul repeats: "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, thus is the Christ also. For in one spirit we all are baptized into one body..." (1 Cor.12:12,13). At the time of Paul's Roman imprisonment the "one body" was well known.
That the nations were partakers of His promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel was made known early in Paul's ministry. It is the burden of the latter half of the book of Acts. Writing to the Roman saints, speaking of the contribution about to be taken for the Jerusalem saints, Paul declares: "If the nations participate in their spiritual things, they ought to minister to them in fleshly things..." (Rom.15:27).
Since the mystery evidently did not consist in being an "heir" or allottee, or in membership in the body of Christ, or in participation in the promise, wherein does it lie? Its whole point and force is found in that thrice-repeated word TOGETHER, fellow, or, as we have rendered it, joint. It lies in the fact that the nations no longer enjoyed these three blessings subordinate to the Circumcision. It puts them on the same footing, in the same rank, with the favored nation. It makes them the peers of that privileged people.
The nations could not be joint alottees before because the allotment was on the earth and Israel must have the supreme position here. They must always be aliens from the earthly commonwealth (Eph.2:12). Hitherto they could not be members of a joint body because, as constituted before this, the members were of various rank, corresponding to our physical body. The head was much more exalted than the feet (1 Cor.12:21). So long as the nations were to be blessed with Israel on the earth, they could not be joint-participants. They could only be guests (Eph.2:12). The Jew was first (Rom.1:16;
p72
Joint Allottees, Joint Partakers
2:9). The nations were Israel's debtors (Rom.15:27).
The secret reveals that the nations have been accorded an allotment, a membership in a body, and a partnership in the promise which Paul had preached, all in equal measure, in as high degree, and in every way the same as that given to the remnant of Israelites to whom they are united. This is the message of the small but emphatic prefix joint.
These three distinct items of the mystery are each elaborated in the first two chapters of the Ephesian epistle. Ephesians 1:3-14 deals with the allotment or "inheritance," and concludes by giving the nations the same seal, the same spirit, hence the same allotment, as Paul and his fellow Israelites. Ephesians 1:20-2:10 deals with the one body, and shows that the nations are blessed in it equally with the Jews. Ephesians 2:11-22 shows that the physical inferiority of the nations no longer bars them from the fullest participation in the promise of Paul's evangel.
Each of the three unfoldings of the mystery is concerned with a different relationship. The Godward side is seen in connection with the celestial allotment. It is concerned with our place in His predestination and plans and purpose. The Christward side comes before us in dealing with the joint body, of which He is the Head. The manward side of the mystery is developed in dealing with our joint participation with the saints.
JOINT-ALLOTTEES
The Godward aspect of the mystery comes before us first (Eph.1:3-14). It is divided into two sections. In the first (1:3-12) the allotment of Paul and the Israelites associated with him is transferred from earth to heaven. Their blessedness is among the celestials. They reign, not on earth, but in the wider sphere of the universe. In the second section (1:13,14) the nations—"you also"—are
p73
Joint Allotment, Joint Partakers
accorded the same allotment because they have received the same spirit, and have the same pledge. Hence they are joint enjoyers of these celestial honors.
THE JOINT BODY
The Christward side of the secret is developed next (Eph.1:20-2:10). First He, as the Head of the whole universe, is given His place above all. Then His body is introduced as the universal complement. Hitherto redemption had provided only for earth's lost blessings. Heaven, where sin started, was not, it seemed, to be reached by the work of the cross. The greater part of the universe was still unprovided for. Israel will be His instrument in earth's redemption. The ecclesia which is His body will supply what is needed in the heavens. Thus it is "the complement which is completing the entire universe." Christ, including the members of His body, will administer the government of the empyrean.
What place will the nations have in this? On earth they must be the subjects of Israel. In the heavens, however, the celestials are the subjects. The body was made up of both Jew and gentile. In this new sphere, are the Jews to keep their superior place? They are not. First, the apostle addresses the nations—"And you" (2:1). In the third verse he turns to the Israelites—"among whom we." But both are included when He
makes us alive together (2:5),
rouses us together (2:6) and
seats us together
among the celestials, in Christ Jesus. Hence the members are all of equal rank. It is a joint body.
JOINT PARTAKERS
The manward mood of the mystery is the last to be elaborated (Eph.2:11-22). The distinction between Israel and the nations was a matter of flesh, summarized
p74
All is in Spirit, Nothing is in Flesh
in the rite of circumcision. This left them, even after they believed the evangel, ineligible to the citizenship of Israel, mere guests of the covenants, with no expectation or God of their own, as far as flesh is concerned. But now that they are joint allottees and members of a joint body, and all their blessings are spiritual, the fleshly disabilities vanish. As a result they are fellow citizens, and members of God's family and built together for God's dwelling place in spirit (Eph.2:19-22).
It is of prime importance that we note the channel through which this grace flows. It is not that we are made "partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:" (AV), but "joint partakers of His promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel of which I [Paul] became the dispenser" (CV). The apostle is not so absurd as to inform the Ephesians, or any other saints to whom this epistle was sent, that he was a minister of the gospel! He is not telling that they are joint partakers through the evangel of the Circumcision, which was proclaimed by the twelve, for they never can be blessed on equal terms with Israel in her earthly kingdom. He is telling them that this grace comes to them through that evangel which he had been preaching to them, which he called "my evangel" (Rom.16:25), including the great truths of justification, conciliation, and glorification (Rom.3—8), which they had received, but which gave them a place subordinate to Israel in the flesh.
Hitherto they had a standing "in flesh," or on the physical plane. They were the Uncircumcision, and as such must take a lower place than the Circumcision. They were bidden to remember that time (Eph.2:11,12). This does not refer (as the translators evidently thought, judging by their rendering) to that time when they were unbelievers or "unsaved." It refers to the time when they were partakers, but not joint partakers.
(continued in next post due to character limit)
p75
All is in Spirit, Nothing is in Flesh
Then they were guests of (not strangers to) the covenants of promise. This they could not be before they believed. From the physical standpoint (not from the spiritual) they had no expectation, for Israel monopolized that. They even had to acknowledge the Deity as the God of Israel. If they should be physically present in Jerusalem, all of this would be painfully apparent to them. No matter how great their spiritual attainments, they dared not enter the temple precincts beyond the court allotted to them. They were emphatically not joint partakers.
But now that the secret is revealed the Jew is not shut out of the holy places nor is the gentile kept at a distance, but both, in spirit, enter into the holiest of all. The fact that a Jew is not of the seed of Aaron cannot keep him out. Though the gentile is not of the seed of Israel, that does not bar his approach. Physical disabilities vanish before spiritual graces.
IN SPIRIT
We must not fail to emphasize the fact that every one of the three items of the mystery is modified by the introductory phrase, in spirit. All other translations I have ever seen join this with the preceding verb "revealed." They tell us that it was revealed "by the Spirit." There is little point to this, as that is the ordinary mode of revelation. Standing, as the word does, between two statements, either ending one or beginning another, it must be emphatic. Once we see how important it is as applied to the secret, we cannot but connect it with the mystery.
The nations are not joint-allottees in flesh; they are not members of a joint body in flesh; they are not joint participants in flesh. It is only in spirit that all this is true. Physical preeminence belongs to Israel. Physically the nations can claim no equality. Carnal blessings
p76
Paul's Previous Evangel
have no place in Ephesians. They are not involved in the secret. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings among the celestials, hence the threefold divisions of the secret are all dominated by the opening phrase: in spirit.
The nations are joint-enjoyers of the allotment because they were sealed with the holy spirit of promise, which was its earnest. They had a spiritual pledge of a spiritual portion (Eph.1:13). They are in the joint body because of the purely spiritual grace of being vivified and roused and seated together with a faithful remnant of Israel (Eph.2:5,6). The nations, once the Uncircumcision as to flesh, kept at a distance from the material temple at Jerusalem, now have access, together with them, in one spirit, to the Father (Eph.2:18).
PAUL'S EVANGEL
Now that we have seen that the secret consists in a change from a subordinate place to a position of equality we will be able to judge its effect on previous revelation. As the allotment to Israel in the land will not brook any equality with the nations, an entirely new allotment is revealed, among the celestials. As the body of Christ was already in existence, a new body was unnecessary, but it was modified into a joint body. As the evangel Paul had preached was almost exclusively spiritual in its blessings it merely needed to drop a few physical phases to be the channel of the mystery.
As we are distinctly told that joint participation comes through the evangel Paul had been preaching, it is of the utmost importance that we give it a place in the administration of the mystery. It continues in force. The promise it brought is not set aside, but is definitely incorporated into this secret economy. There are only such minor modification as the secret itself demands, due to the new destiny and the changed relations of the Jews and gentiles who come into its embrace.
p77
Justification Continues
In his itinerant ministry Paul deemed it necessary to speak to the Jews first (Acts 13:46). The priority of the Jew is recognized, even in his previous writings. It is necessary to insist that this is no longer true, for it is contrary to the very essence of the secret now revealed. His previous teaching is modified by the addition of a celestial allotment and the withdrawal of all physical distinctions and blessing, for this is essential to the administration of the mystery.
Paul's previous proclamations, as presented in his Preparatory and Promise epistles, may be summed up in three words, Justification, Conciliation and Glory. All three are the subjects of Romans, and its companion epistles, Corinthians and Galatians. The Thessalonian, epistles also bring in the future glory in connection with the coming of our Lord. The revelation of the mystery does not involve a reconsideration of these great doctrines, but assumes them, amplifies them, glorifies them. As they were all given to Paul after his separation from the rest, and in preparation for the secret economy about to be revealed, they are incorporated in it.
JUSTIFICATION
The grand doctrine of justification is not repeated in Ephesians, rather it is recognized. In the panoply, provided for us in our conflict with the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials is the cuirass of righteousness. True, this is composed of our actual conduct. But apart from the enjoyment of justification such conduct is impossible.
Philippians, the companion epistle of Ephesians, written to correct the conduct of those who come into the light of the mystery, clearly sets forth our connection with justification. There Paul eagerly grasps this grace. He had striven to attain to righteousness under the law. But now, "What things were gain to me, these I have deemed a forfeit because of Christ. But, to be sure, I am
p78
Jew and Gentile Reconciled
deeming all to be a forfeit because of the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of Whom I forfeited all, and am deeming it to be refuse, that I may be gaining Christ, and may be found in Him, not having my righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is from God for faith..." Here we find the aged apostle, who doubtless apprehended the mystery as no one else ever did or could, resting on the firm foundation of justification by faith. It not only fails to conflict with the latest revelation, but is in fullest accord with it. It supplies the only basis on which it can be built.
THE CONCILIATION
Romans records the great truth that God's attitude toward the nations has changed since Israel refuses to convey His blessing to them. God is conciliated to all mankind. Those who receive this are reconciled (Rom.5). Second Corinthians deals with the ministry of the conciliation (2 Cor.5:18-20). It is our point of contact with the world, for our feet are to be sandaled with the readiness of the evangel of peace (Eph.6:15). It also is a secret, "the Mystery of the Gospel" (Rom.16:25). The Colossians had accepted it and were reconciled (Col.1:21). Eventually it will be enjoyed by the whole universe (Col.1:20).
In Ephesians this truth is amplified to accord with the mystery. Those near (the Jews) and those far off (the gentiles) are reconciled with God in one body (2:16). To both He preaches "the evangel of peace." Even the Israelite was shut out of the inner courts of the sanctuary and could not enter the temple building. Only the chief priest could enter the holiest of all. So that this evangel of peace, this conciliation, now has a message for them as well as for the nations. Both are brought nigh, in spirit, into the very Presence of the Father.
p79
The Future Glory
FUTURE GLORY
The rendering "who first trusted in Christ" (Eph.1:12, AV). has practically eliminated all reference to the Lord's coming from the Ephesian epistle. Change "trust" to "expect" or even "hope," as the Revisers have it, and we have an important link which connects the mystery with the advent of our Lord as revealed in the Thessalonian epistles. It was the Circumcision who first trusted in Christ not the nations. And of these Paul was among the last, not the first. But he and the nations expected the return of Christ before His coming to the earth. They had a prior expectancy. This is revealed in Thessalonians.
Peter and James and John show conclusively, by their epistles, that they never received the truth contained in Paul's writings. The advent of our Lord for them was just the same as the prophets had foretold, and our Lord had predicted, and as they themselves had proclaimed in the Acts. It was to be a glorious manifestation to His people Israel, resulting in the millennial kingdom. Such an expectation leaves no place for a celestial destiny such as Ephesians unfolds.
But those to whom Paul had gone with his evangel did not expect to wait until Messiah should come in glory to the Mount of Olives. Paul had said to them by the word of the Lord, that they would be gathered together unto Him (2 Thess.2:1) when He shall be present in the air before His wrath is visited upon the earth (1 Thess.4:15-18; 5:9). That it was "by the word of the Lord" shows that it was one of those truths which enabled him to speak of "my evangel," and so is included in the third item of the mystery. This surely was a "promise in Christ Jesus, through the evangel" of which he became the dispenser (Eph.3:6,7).
The nations are now joint partakers of this promise (Eph.3:6). But, were they not joint partakers when
p80
From Glory to Glory
Thessalonians was written? The key lies in the title used. It is the coming of the Lord (not Christ). Peter makes this distinction when speaking to Cornelius. "Of the word He dispatches to the sons of Israel, preaching the evangel of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all), you are aware." Here we find the nations connected with Him as Lord, just as in the prophets they are connected with Adonai, and not Jehovah. So we find that Messiah, or Christ, is connected with Israel. At that time, the nations, in flesh, were "apart from Christ," (Eph.2:12)
In keeping with this lower plane of blessing, the Thessalonians were told of the coming of the Lord to the air (not heaven). The fifteenth of first Corinthians adds to our knowledge of this event. It initiates us into the secret of the resurrection. In it we are told that our bodies will not only be raised, but changed—changed to a celestial body. Why is this? Philippians supplies the answer: "Our citizenship belongs to the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to His body glorious..." Resurrection, change, ascension, transfiguration, glory.
In describing his ministry the apostle compares himself with Moses. Moses put a veil on his face that the sons of Israel should not see the consummation of that which is vanishing. He did not hide the glory from them, but the fact that it was a fading glory. It changed from glory to gloom. Paul's ministry does not do this. It leads in the opposite direction. It is continually gathering new glory. "Now we all, with uncovered face, viewing the Lord's glory as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the spirit" (2 Cor.3:18).
So it was with our precious expectation. It began in grace. All were to be snatched away, whether watching
p81
The Secret was Concealed
or drowsing (1 Thess.5:10). It will change our bodies from soilish to celestial at the sound of His trump. But even celestial bodies vary in glory. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for star excels star in glory (1 Cor.15:41). Not content with mere celestial glory, we are to excel the very sun itself, even as the glorified Christ outshone its Syrian noonday brilliance when Paul first met Him on the Damascus road. We are to be transfigured into the body of His glory.
Some of the saints do not believe there is any secret in this epistle at all because Paul assured the Ephesians, on his last visit to them, that he did not shrink from informing them of anything which is expedient (Acts 20:20). The last word is usually rendered "profitable" in this passage, though the Authorized Version itself often translates it "expedient" (John 11:50; 16:7; 18:14; 1 Cor.6:12; 10:23; 2 Cor.8:10; 12:1). This word is the key to the fact that the secret was withheld until after Paul's imprisonment and the setting aside of Israel. So long as God was still dealing with the nation of His choice, he could reveal much of His grace to the nations in preparation for the transcendent revelations which were to follow. But it would have been most confusing and unwise, as well as unfair to Israel, to announce the new administration while the hope of the kingdom was still held out to them. Paul could not reveal this secret when passing by Ephesus, and it is for this reason that he qualifies his statement by this expression. He did not inform them of everything, but everything which is expedient.
A little later, in the same discourse, he almost repeats himself. He did not shrink from informing them of the entire counsel of God (Acts 20:27). God's counsel is always distinctly limited to His public revelation. When the lawyers repudiated the counsel of God for themselves (Luke 7:30), they were concerned only with what
p82
Full Equality
was open to all. They could not reject a divine secret which had not been revealed. So Paul fully expounded so much as was due of God's counsel. The secret was not yet due. It was not yet true. In Acts Paul takes the saints up to it. In Ephesians he takes them through it.
This question resolves itself into a simple matter of faith. Shall we believe both Acts and Ephesians, or shall we pit one against the other and thus destroy both? Ephesians refers to a later time. Paul says it is a secret. Faith immediately concludes that he did not make it known before. Faith then examines his words in Acts and finds that he did not claim to divulge the secret then, but was speaking of the truth which was applicable to that era.
In order to prepare the saints among the nations for the secret it was expedient that they be fully informed of God's dealings with Israel and the nations up to the time when the mystery itself could be made known. While Israel was apostatizing they lost their hold on God's counsel. They were being prepared for dismissal. But the believers among the gentiles were taken into God's confidence as far as possible under the circumstances. This is what Paul speaks of on his last journey past Ephesus.
To sum up: The "mystery," or secret, of the present administration is not the revelation of "the one body," sometimes called "the mystical body" of Christ. It is concerned with this in one of its three aspects. It changes it from a body with members of various rank to a joint body, the members all of equal rank. After the revelation of the celestial allotment for those associated with Paul's ministry, the status of the nations, or gentiles, is changed from subordination to the Circumcision to full equality. Together, both are raised to the highest place in the universe. "To Him be glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!"
A. E. K.
Quote from: Tom on June 14, 2015, 03:48:05 PM
I think everybody experiences the futility of trying to save themselves, not just the Jewish people, even those who follow orthodox theology, and even those who are unbelievers. The Jewish people will be blessed with their promised kingdom of the heavens in Israel with Messiah that is the hope of all the Jewish people, and all the nations on earth will come to God through Israel. So it's not just the law that demonstrates the futility of man trying to save himself, but the pride of all men. The Jewish believers kept their law, but Paul preached an evangel apart from law to the nations. We're not subject to the law, never have been, and never will be because we weren't given the law even though orthodox theology teaches that. I think some people have come to believe in the salvation of all mankind, but are still deceived by other beliefs of orthodox theology. There are variations of doctrine in Christendom. That's why there are so many denominations. I think the church thinking its spiritual Israel is a prime example. I think God has simply chosen one group of people to do his will on earth in the coming eon while another group is doing his will in the celestial realm, and eventually God will be all in all. So I don't think the Jewish people got a bad deal, as has been said, because God blesses everybody according to his will.
So do you actually believe the Jews have kept the law?
After three days [m]Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our [n]fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 And when they had examined me, they were willing to release me because there was no ground
- for putting me to death. 19 But when the Jews [p]objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar, not that I had any accusation against my nation. 20 For this reason, therefore, I [q]requested to see you and to speak with you, for I am wearing this chain for the sake of the hope of Israel." 21 They said to him, "We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren come here and reported or spoken anything bad about you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what [r]your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere."
23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. 24 Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. 25 And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying,
'Go to this people and say,
"You will keep on hearing, [t]but will not understand;
And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
For the heart of this people has become dull,
And with their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes;
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them."'
28 Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen." 29 [[v]When he had -spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.] (Acts 28:17-29)
In this passage in Acts, Paul says that he is in chains for the sake of the hope of Israel. If he had the 'evangel of the uncircumcision' this statement would not be true, but it would be rather Peter who was laboring for the hope of Israel. Paul goes on to show that the same salvation of God that the Jews are deaf to, is being sent to the Gentiles, who will listen.
I think Jesus was the only Jew able to keep the law.
I think it's God's plan that most of the Jewish people be blind to the truth until all those chosen are called out of the nations.
"God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day." (Romans 11:8)
"For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering." (Romans 11:25)
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V19P2 p275
STUDIES IN ACTS
THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM
IN the first part of the eleventh division of the Structure of the Acts we have an interlude preparatory to Paul's ministry in association with the twelve. This may be further structurized as follows:
186[1]: 14:28. Paul and Barnabas tarry in Antioch.
187[1]: 15:1-2-. Antioch. Paul's and Barnabas' ministry opposed
by some from Judas.
188[1]: 15:-2-4. Paul, Barnabas, and others commissioned to
appeal to Jerusalem.
189[1]: 15:5-11. Jerusalem Council. Peter defends Paul's
and Barnabas' ministry.
190: 15:12. Paul and Baranbas tell of their ministry
among the nations.
189[2]: 15:13-21. Jerusalem Council. James enjoins a com-
promise upon the ministry of Paul and
Barnabas.
188[2]:15:22-31. Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas bring
answer from Jerusalem.
187[2]: 15:32-34. Antioch. Paul's and Barnabas' ministry upheld
by two from Jerusalem.
186[2]: 15:35. Paul and Barnabas tarry in Antioch.
After Paul and Barnabas' return to Antioch from their first missionary journey, they tarried there among the disciples. "Now they tarried no short time with the disciples" (Acts 14:28). While we are not told so here, undoubtedly, they occupied their time as in the corresponding Section 186[2] (15:35) in "teaching and preaching the evangel of the word of the Lord."
Next we read, "And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, `If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses you cannot be saved.'
p276
The Conflict of Faith and Grace versus Law and Works
Now as Paul and Barnabas come to have no slight commotion and questioning with them..." (15:1-2-). The door of faith had just been unlocked to the nations. The disciples at Antioch had scarcely been informed of this fact, when Judaisers came down from Judea intent upon locking the door of faith again. Whereas Paul and Barnabas had reported to the ecclesia of Antioch that, as the result of their ministry, it was no longer necessary for the gentiles to become even proselytes of the gate in order to obtain salvation, these Judaisers not only contradicted this teaching but maintained that even proselytes of the gate (like Cornelius) could not be saved unless they should be circumcised, and thereby become proselytes of righteousness, obligated to fulfill all the requirements of the law of Moses. In this ever-recurring conflict between faith and grace versus law and works, Paul and Barnabas zealously championed the cause of faith and grace. Paul's epistle to the Galatians indicates the argument and reasoning used in refuting the false teachings of these Judaising opponents.
As a result of this contention, Paul, Barnabas, and some others were commissioned to appeal the case to higher authorities. "They prescribe that Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them are to go up into Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. They, indeed, then, being sent forward by the ecclesia, passed through Phoenicia as well as Samaria, detailing the turning about of the nations. And they caused great joy to all the brethren. Now, coming along into Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the ecclesia and the apostles and the elders, and they inform them of whatever God does with them" (15:-2-4).
At Babel, in the plains of Shinar, the nations had rebelled against God. There they sought to make a name for themselves. There they definitely turned away from God. So God had set them aside, and selected Abraham to be the father of a new nation, through whom alone
p277
The Conflict of Faith and Grace versus Law and Works
He had dealings thereafter. The nations were hence-forth far off, but now they were "turning about," and were returning to God and a life of obedience to Him. This is the story that brought "great joy to all the brethren."
We are not told that there was any opposition from Judaisers during this journey to Jerusalem, yet neither are we told that anything was said about the opening of the door of faith to the nations. The latter was the cause of all the opposition of the Judaisers. "The turning about of the nations" (to a Judaiser) would suggest the taking up of the yoke of Judaism. Upon arriving in Jerusalem, the delegates from the ecclesia of Antioch were cordially received by the ecclesia and the apostles and the elders. Now Paul and Barnabas make known "whatever God does with them." That would include the information that the door of faith had been opened to the nations. Immediately opposition develops!
We have the recital of this opposition in the next section of this narrative (15:5-11): "Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees, who have believed, rise up, saying that "They must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses. Now the apostles and elders were assembled to see about this matter. Now, there coming to be much questioning, Peter, standing up, said to them, Men! Brethren! You are versed in the fact that from early days God chooses among you, that through my mouth the nations are to hear the word of the evangel and believe. And God, the Knower of hearts, testifies to them, giving the holy spirit even as to us, and does not discriminate at all between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Why, then, are you now trying God, by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have the strength to bear? But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are believing, to be saved in a manner even as they!"
The contention of the believing Pharisees of Jeru-
p278
The Menace of the Present is Apostasy from Paul
salem that believers from among the nations must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses shows that the opposition of the Judaisers, at Antioch, was not an isolated event. Paul speaks of them as "false brethren who were smuggled in, who crept in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus that they shall be enslaving us" (Gal.2:4). Evidently this opposition to Paul's evangel was very widespread among Jewish believers. Apparently there was great danger that Paul's ministry and evangel might be overthrown, not only at Antioch, but everywhere, through the pernicious work of these Judaisers. Hence, not only was Paul delegated by the ecclesia of Antioch to go to Jerusalem about this matter, but God interfered on behalf of the evangel of the Uncircumcision, for Paul states, of this journey to Jerusalem, "Now I went up in accord with a revelation, and submitted to them the evangel which I am proclaiming to the nations" (Gal.2:2).
The Judaisers did not comprehend that Paul's evangel, the evangel of the Uncircumcision, was a distinct revelation from God, and was vitally different from the evangel of the twelve, the evangel of the Circumcision. How strenuously Paul insisted upon these distinctions! Yet the church of the present day is in large part almost as Judaistic in its evangel and doctrines as were these opponents of Paul. True, the rite of circumcision is not decreed, but, with this exception, the evangel and doctrines of Paul for the nations have been displaced by the evangel and doctrines of the twelve for the earthly kingdom. Faith has fallen before law or legalism; grace has withdrawn before the teaching of works; the doctrine of "eternal security," of this economy, is discarded for the "holding out to the end" doctrine of the Pentecostal economy and the earthly kingdom era; celestial position and spiritual blessings are ignored, while we seek to rob Israel of its terrestrial position and physical blessings, heedless of Paul's inspired statement, "even if we or a
p279
The Menace of the Present is Apostasy from Paul
messenger out of heaven should be preaching an evangel to you beside that which we preach to you, let him be anathema! As we have declared before and at present, I say again, if anyone is preaching to you an evangel beside that which you accepted, let him be anathema" (Gal.1:8,9)!
Oh, the need of a clarion voice to recall the saints of this secret economy from the teachings of the four gospels and the writings of the twelve apostles and their Circumcision brethren! I say this advisedly, for these Scriptures, which are absolutely true when applied to the kingdom believers and the eras to which they belong, become perniciously false and misleading when applied to the nations and to this present secret economy! Truth misplaced is the most subtle form of error, and Satan has used these kingdom truths to propagate his false teachings among the saints. And has he been successful? Let us answer this question with another: How many of the saints see that present truth is found in the Pauline epistles only? Yes, Satan has been successful in deceiving the church! The great apostasy is rampant everywhere. The truth for the nations, committed to Paul, is rejected and replaced by kingdom truth. So widespread is this apostasy, that a trumpet is needed even to recall the so-called fundamentalists from the kingdom truth to the Pauline doctrines!
A council of apostles and elders had convened in Jerusalem to listen to the appeal of the Antiochian ecclesia concerning the question of the open door of faith to the nations, and the place of circumcision among gentile believers. But, before this council convened, Paul privately made known his evangel to James, Cephas, and John, and thus gained their recognition of his apostleship to the Uncircumcision (See Gal.2:6-10). If he had not first made known the essential points of his evangel to these pillars of the Jerusalem ecclesia, it is doubtful whether the Jerusalem council would have upheld Paul
p280
"Faith" based on Miracles
in his contention that circumcision should not be enjoined upon the gentiles who received his evangel. After considerable debate and questioning among those present at this council, Peter arose in defense of Paul's attitude toward circumcision as applied to the nations. Peter reminds the assembled brethren that from among them (the kingdom believers) God had chosen him to bring the evangel to the nations. He has reference to his call to proclaim the evangel to Cornelius, the gentile proselyte of the gate. He reminds them that God is the Knower of hearts, and that, therefore, He knows whether there is faith in the heart or not. Thus God had given the holy spirit to Cornelius and his gentile household and friends, and had cleansed their hearts in response to the faith that He discerned within them. God had not discriminated between the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. Why should they discriminate? Such was Peter's argument. Then he assures them that they are trying God by placing a yoke upon the nations which none of the Circumcision had ever been able to bear; for the law of Moses only condemns. It cannot save because of the weakness of the flesh; and circumcision would make the nations "a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal.5:3).
Finally, Peter boldly tells his brethren of the Circumcision that even they were not saved by law-keeping or by circumcision, but by grace, through faith, even as these gentile believers of Paul's evangel. These brave words of Peter, which were probably scorned and rejected by many in that council, and only comprehended or obeyed by a few, are his last recorded words in the Acts of the Apostles. Peter's contention is that God's dealings with Cornelius through grace and faith was an intimation of that ministry to which Paul and Barnabas had been separated on behalf of the nations.
Then Paul and Barnabas tell of their ministry among the nations. "Now the entire multitude hushes, and they heard Barnabas and Paul unfolding whatever signs and
p281
James Usurps Authority
miracles God does among the nations through them."
The faith of the Circumcisionists, as Paul and Barnabas were well aware, was not the same kind of faith as that which brought salvation to the gentile believers of Paul's evangel. Their faith was the same kind of faith that we read of in John 2:23-25, "Many believe into His name, beholding the signs which He did. Yet Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knows all, and He had no need that anyone should be testifying concerning mankind, for He knew what was in mankind." Their faith was based on signs and miracles. When these ceased, their faith failed. Hence Paul and Barnabas, in their recital of God's work through them on behalf of the nations, dwell on the "signs and miracles God does among the nations through them." This was the only language these Circumcisionists understood; true faith, such as saved and cleansed the gentiles, was beyond their comprehension. And so it was necessary, in order to win the approval of this assembly of Judaisers, to speak of the signs and miracles, rather than the evidences of saving and cleansing faith among the nations.
Now James, the brother of our Lord, reveals that, though not an apostle, he has the paramount influence among the believers in Jerusalem simply because of his fleshly relationship to our Lord. "Now after they hush James answered, saying, `Men! Brethren! Hear me!' Simeon unfolds how God first visits the nations, to obtain out of them a people for His name." And with this the words of the prophets are agreeing, according as it is written,
"`After this I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And its overturned structure will I rebuild,
And I will re-erect it,
So that those left of mankind should be seeking the Lord,
And all the nations over whom My name has been invoked,
The Lord is saying, Who is doing these things."
(continued in next post due to character limit)
p282
God Visits the Nations to Get a People for His Name
Known to the Lord is His work from the eon. Wherefore I decide not to be harassing those from the nations who are turning back to God, but to dispatch an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and that which is strangled, and blood. For Moses, from ancient generations, as suits a city, has those who are proclaiming him, being read every sabbath in the synagogues.'"
Peter was the chief apostle of the Circumcision, and had been commissioned by the Lord to feed and shepherd His flock, yet his spiritual advice is ignored by the Jerusalem council. Now James, the Lord's brother, who holds his place of ascendancy simply because of fleshly relationship, speaks to these fleshly, legalistic, apostatizing believers, and calls upon them to hear him. He reminds them that Peter had told them how God first visited "the nations, to obtain out of them a people for His name," citing the prophecy of Amos 9:11,12 as in harmony therewith. This prophecy speaks of the time when the kingdom is to be set up on this earth. At that time, when David's tabernacle is restored, those left of mankind, after the terrific judgments which precede that day, shall seek the Lord. Among the nations at that time will be those who, like Cornelius, had invoked the name of the Lord. These will be blessed with Israel in that kingdom. The fleshly James does not perceive that the gentile ecclesias, gathered together by the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, were not to be a part of this earthly kingdom. He assumes that they will be, but God does not permit him to say that this is a fulfillment of the prophets, but constrains him to say "with this the words of the prophets are agreeing." It was in harmony with the prophets, but it was not a fulfillment of them.
That these gentile assemblies were destined for a celestial destiny was hidden until Israel had rejected the kingdom and was judicially blinded, at the close of the Acts.
p283
God Visits the Nations to Get a People for His Name
Attention is called to the fact that the Lord Who fulfills all His word knows all His works from the inception of the eon. Nothing ever takes Him by surprise. Then James renders his decision, "Wherefore, I decide." He does not consult Peter or the rest of the apostles. He gives his decision as final, and as such it is accepted by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, for even Peter was afraid of him (Gal.2:11-21). James' decision was a compromise which catered to the fleshly leading of Israel. He reminds his hearers that Moses now, as always, is taught in the synagogues of every city on the sabbath day, so that any gentile that desires to do so can be circumcised and become a proselyte of righteousness. But he decides that those who had received the ministry of Paul and Barnabas are not to be harassed and compelled to be circumcised, but that an epistle is to be dispatched "to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and that which is strangled, and blood." These decrees (see Acts 16:4) were evidently intended to make possible social intercourse between Jewish and gentile believers. Though not against the law of Moses, it was forbidden by their tradition, which carried more weight with the average Jew than their divinely given law. A Jewish believer could not eat with a gentile believer if an idol sacrifice, strangled meat, or blood was served at the meal. And so James' decision left the Jewish believers under the bondage of the divine law, greatly intensified in its severity by their traditions, and put the gentile believers of Paul's evangel under a human law, "the law of precepts in the decrees" (Eph.2:15). When the full truth for this secret economy was revealed these decrees were nullified and erased and taken away, the cross being proclaimed as the ground of this liberation. But, as long as they remained in force, they were a sign of Israel's political supremacy, and proclaimed the nations as a subject people (Eph.2:15; Col.2:14).
p284
The Decrees for the Nations
In the next section of the structure we have Jerusalem's answer to the ecclesia at Antioch. "Then it seems good to the apostles and the elders, together with the whole ecclesia, choosing men from among them, to send to Antioch together with Paul and Barnabas, Judas, who is called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, writing through their hand: `The apostles and elders and brethren to the brethren out of the nations at Antioch, and Syria and Cilicia: Rejoice! Since, in fact, we hear that some coming out from us disturb you by words, dismantling your souls, whom we do not commission, it seems good to us, coming to be of one accord, choosing men, to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have, then, commissioned Judas and Silas, and they are reporting the same by word. For it seems good to the holy spirit and to us not to be placing one more burden on you more than these essentials: to be abstaining from idol sacrifice, and blood, and what is strangled, and prostitution; from which, carefully keeping yourselves, you will be well engaged. Farewell!' They indeed, then, being dismissed, came down to Antioch, and, assembling the multitude, hand them the epistle. Now on reading it, they rejoiced at the consolation" (Acts 15:22-31).
After James had announced his decision to the Jerusalem council we read of the choosing of Judas and Silas, as Jerusalem's representatives, to go back to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, as the bearers of the epistle and the decrees from Jerusalem. The record reads that the action taken seemed "good to the apostles and the elders, together with the whole ecclesia." That is to say, James, whose acknowledged claim to the Lord was according to the flesh, prevailed over Peter and the rest of the twelve, whose claim to the Lord was according to spirit. And "the elders" and "the whole ecclesia" agreed with James. The flesh was gaining an irre-
p285
The Ascendancy of the Flesh
sistible ascendancy over the spirit in the Jerusalem ecclesia, which was the center of the kingdom hope. Thus we have here another indication of the hopelessness of that hope. Another indication of the ascendancy of the flesh in the Jerusalem ecclesia is seen in the relative position given throughout the fifteenth chapter to Paul and Barnabas.
Let us remember that Barnabas was a Levite (4:36,37). This would give him a higher standing, according to flesh, than Paul. But in the ecclesia of Antioch, where the spirit prevailed, Paul is given first place (Acts 15:2, twice). Before the Jerusalem council, where the flesh prevailed, Barnabas is given first place. In the divine record of what was done in the council's epistle, Barnabas is given first place, again indicating the ascendancy of the flesh over spirit in Jerusalem (verse 26). In Antioch we again find the spirit's order; Paul is given first place (verse 35). In verses 36-39, Paul evidently is the leader. In verse 40 we read that Paul and Silas are commended to God's grace by the ecclesia of Antioch. There is divine silence as to their attitude toward Barnabas and Mark. Thus consistently the relative positions of these two apostles are reversed. Antioch and God's spirit give Paul first place; Jerusalem, under the ascendancy of the flesh, gives Barnabas, the Levite, the place of prominence.
The council's epistle is addressed to the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (verse 23). Thus, technically, these decrees applied only to these saints, although their influence probably extended to all the saints among the nations. They were legalistic and did not harmonize with Paul's evangel of grace. They put the nations, who were under grace, not under law, under human decrees. At the close of the Acts period, after Israel was judicially set aside, Paul writes to the Colossians, "If, then, you died together with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as living in the world, are you subject to the
p286
The Decrees are no longer Binding
decree: `You should not be touching, nor tasting, nor having the slightest contact' (which is all for corruption by use) in accord with the directions and teachings of men, which are, indeed, an expression having its wisdom in a willful ritual and a humble disposition and asceticism not of any value against the surfeiting of the flesh" (Col.2:20,23). While this does not refer to these Jerusalem decrees, it does reveal how incompatible are any man-made decrees and prohibitions with this economy of grace. We are to refrain from sin and all that is unworthy, not because man prohibits, but because grace constrains.
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul sets forth the spirit's directions concerning the eating of meats offered to idols. The Jerusalem decrees prohibit; the spirit leaves it a question of individual conscience. After Israel forfeits its political and religious supremacy over the nations, at the close of the Acts period, Paul reveals the full truth for this economy. The cross nullifies and repeals the Jerusalem "law of precepts in decrees," for the distinctions between Jew and gentile, upon which they were based, no longer exist. All are one in Christ Jesus, therefore, the Jew no longer exercises political or religious supremacy over the gentile (Eph.2:15; Col.2:14).
In verse 24 the Jerusalem council acknowledges that the Judaisers in Antioch, with their Judaistic teachings, dismantled the souls of the saints, for these legalistic teachings stripped their souls of the peace, rest and quietness with which the grace of the Pauline evangel had clothed them. Furthermore, this epistle says of these Judaisers, "whom we do not commission," thus settling the question that circumcision is not essential to salvation. Titus, whom Paul had taken along as a test case, returns with Paul to Antioch, uncircumcised (Gal.2:1-3). But the Judaisers were not so easily defeated. Henceforth they change their teaching to the more subtle doctrine that circumcision, while not essential to salva-
p287
Legalism, the Galatian Heresy
tion, is necessary in order to obtain a higher standing before God, and a closer, more vital relationship to Him. This legalism, that aught that man can do through or upon the flesh, can add to his perfection before God, is still very widespread among the saints, and is answered fully in the Galatian epistle.
This Jerusalem epistle speaks of "Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (verse 26). This sounds strange to many because of the common misconception that the soul is the spiritual entity of man, practically synonymous with life. The soul is sensation. Through it we sense things pleasant and unpleasant as ease, peace, joy, sorrow, pain, and deprivations of all kinds. When the apostles gave up their souls for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ they did not give up their spiritual entity, but they laid their souls or sensations upon the altar, forfeiting all their rights to the pleasant sensations of a life of ease, and enduring all manner of deprivations and sufferings for His name's sake.
After calling attention to their commissioners, Judas and Silas, this epistle concludes by enjoining the decrees which the nations are to observe (verses 27-29). It is to be noted that this epistle claims that this "burden" was placed upon the nations because "it seems good to the holy spirit and to us." It would have been more honorable for this flesh-controlled council to assume responsibility for their fleshly decision, instead of trying to place the responsibility upon the holy spirit which they had wholly ignored. How often has history repeated itself, in this respect, in the history of Christendom! Man-made burdens and precepts are ascribed to the holy spirit, and the saints are robbed of their freedom in Christ; they are "again enthralled with the yoke of slavery" (Gal.5:1).
This section closes with the dismissal of Paul, Barnabas, and the Jerusalem commissioners, Judas and
p288
Israel's Political Supremacy
Silas; the return to Antioch; the assembling of the ecclesia; the reading of the epistle to the ecclesia, and the consequent rejoicing because of the information that circumcision is not essential to salvation (verses 30,31).
Then we see how these two commissions from Jerusalem uphold Paul and Barnabas' ministry (verses 32-34). "Both Judas and Silas, being also prophets themselves, entreated and established the brethren by many a word. Now, the time being spent, they were dismissed with peace from the brethren to those who commission them." In the corresponding section (15:1-2-), self-constituted representatives from Judas oppose Paul and Barnabas' ministry. Now Judas and Silas, prophets and authorized commissioners from Jerusalem, entreated and established the brethren along the lines of Paul and Barnabas' ministry. Thereafter they are dismissed, with peace, to those who commission them. Some manuscripts then insert verse 34, "But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there." Even if this verse is not a part of the Scriptures, it is evident from the context, that Silas did remain in Antioch.
This, the first part of the eleventh division of the structure of the Acts, closes with verse 35. "Yet Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the evangel of the word of the Lord, with many others also." It is the preparatory interlude to Paul and Barnabas' ministry in association with the twelve apostles.
Henceforth, the political supremacy of Israel is acknowledged by the believers from among the nations. So in the earlier Pauline epistles everything is to the Jew first (Rom.1:16; 2:9,10). The Jew had an advantage over the gentiles (Rom.3:1,2). From Acts 14:28 to 28:29 Paul, association with the twelve, proclaims the evangel of the kingdom to the Jews of the dispersion, and the evangel of God to the gentiles and Jews who would receive it, while the twelve proclaimed the evangel
p289
Notes on Translation
of the kingdom to the Circumcision in the land of Israel.
While in Macedonia and Greece (20:2-3-) Paul revealed the conciliation in his writing of the epistles of Romans and 2 Corinthians. This ended Israel's religious supremacy. But their political supremacy continued until judicial blindness is pronounced upon Israel at the close of the Acts period (Acts 28:24-29). Then their political supremacy also ceases, and the nations are informed, in Paul's prison epistles, of their celestial sphere of blessing, and the absolute equality of Jewish and gentile believers in this economy, while Israel is apostate.
H. W. MARTIN
Quote from: Tom on June 14, 2015, 03:05:12 AM
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2015, 02:22:28 AM
How can anyone know where they will be if they don't know what their genes are? and what about half Jewish people? Why doesn't the New Testament address the issue of the destiny of mixed races?
I think Paul was pure Jewish, even though he's in the body of Christ, and he and his Jewish brothers who are also in the body of Christ will be snatched away with those of us who aren't Jewish simply because we've all been chosen to believe in salvation in grace through faith. I also believe lots of people who lived before there even were any Jews won't be snatched away to meet Christ in the air, but they'll be subject to the kingdom of the heavens.
...27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27 - 29
"I am entreating you, then, I, the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie of peace: one body and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:1-6)
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V87P2 p181
STUDIES IN GALATIANS
THE EVANGEL OF
THE UNCIRCUMCISION
(Galatians 2:6-14)
IN Galatians 2:3, Paul refers to the time when "not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised." This was during the period of Paul's second visit to the holy city, after the lapse of fourteen years, when he again went up to Jerusalem together with Barnabas, taking Titus along with him (2:1). Yet while not even Titus, who was with Paul, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, Paul adds that nonetheless, "it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us—" (2:4). That is—and the sense is so evident that Paul breaks off his words without actually expressing his thought—it was because of the claims (cp Acts 15:1,2,5) of certain "false brethren" that Titus was then pressed by some to be circumcised, even though even these could not well compel him to undergo the rite, contrary to the counsel of the pillars of the Jerusalem ecclesia.
Now from those reputed to be somewhat—what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is not taking up the human aspect)—for to me those of repute submitted nothing. But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the
p182
Paul's Evangel Needs no Addition
right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision—only that we may be remembering the poor, which same thing I endeavor also to do (2:6-10).
In speaking of the twelve as "those reputed to be somewhat," Paul should not be understood as disparaging them. Paul does not refer to any exalted claims which the twelve made for themselves, but to those advanced in favor of the twelve by the circumcisionists, in the interests of their own legalistic devisings.
Those who were apostles before Paul "submitted nothing" to him. The twelve acknowledged the message and ministry of Paul as sufficient unto itself. Paul's evangel needed no addition—and received none—from the twelve. But, on the contrary, since God was operating in Paul for the apostleship of the nations, as well as in Peter for that of the Circumcision, the twelve perceived that Paul had been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision. Hence, James, Cephas, and John "knew" the grace which was being given to Paul. As a result, they gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, acknowledging that Paul and Barnabas were to be for the nations, yet they themselves for the Circumcision. The only word they wished to add was a request that Paul and his fellow workers may be remembering the poor among the Jews, which same thing, as Paul assures us, he endeavored also to do.
Considered in itself, it is possible to understand the phrase "the evangel of the Uncircumcision" as a metonymy for "the evangelization of the Uncircumcision." But it is not translation but interpretation to render this phrase, as in most modern Bibles, "the gospel to the Uncircumcision." Such a rendering supports the popular claim that in all respects Paul's gospel is the same as that of the twelve. It gives credence as well to the related common assertion
p183
God Operates in the Apostles
that by the words "the gospel of Christ," we are to understand a singular message of good news which, in all particulars, applies to all who are in Christ.
Both "Uncircumcision" and "Circumcision" are in the genitive case. As will be explained later in this article, the sign of the genitive in English is OF- not TO-. Ideally, objective translation requires the former and precludes the latter. There may be a few cases where, due to the idiosyncracies of English, good diction may be strained if the genitive should be represented by OF. Nearly always, however, and certainly in this case at hand, it makes perfectly good English to say "the evangel of the Uncircumcision," as much so as to say, "the epistles of the apostle Paul." They are not the epistles to the apostle Paul, but the apostle Paul's epistles. Similarly, Paul does not speak of the evangel to the Uncircumcision, but of the Uncircumcision's evangel.
No one claims that the phrase "the apostleship of the Circumcision" (2:8), ought to be translated "the apostleship to the Circumcision." Further, it should be noted that by the words which follow in verse 9, "we, indeed, are to be for [lit., "into"] the nations, yet they for [i.e., "into"] the Circumcision," any general thought of evangelization directed, respectively, to both the nations and the Circumcision is thereby adequately expressed. Hence it becomes all the more untenable to render verse 7 as "the evangel to the Uncircumcision."
We are plainly told that the One Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision, is the One Who operates in Paul also for (the apostleship of) the nations. And, the word to us also is, that Paul has been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter (with the evangel) of the Circumcision. Let us accept the Scripture for what it says, while adjusting our faith accordingly.
Paul speaks explicitly of "the evangel which I am heralding among the nations" (2:2); "the evangel which is being
p184
The Apostle of the Nations
brought by me" (1:11); which he neither accepted from man nor was taught by man, that instead came to him "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:12). The apostle himself will inform us as to its particulars. If we believe and understand both the revelations of Paul's evangel, according to Christ Himself, as well as the teachings of the twelve according as the Lord instructed them, we will soon know whether Paul's evangel "of the Uncircumcision" is a fresh revelation, distinct in various respects from the teaching of the twelve, or is, however expressed, essentially merely a restatement of their teaching.
It is not that the evangel of the Uncircumcision is the exclusive province of those of the nations; nor is it that the evangel of the Circumcision debars all but those who are Israelites by nature. It is rather that the evangel of the Uncircumcision is the evangel which is primarily for those of the nations, as brought to the nations through the ministry of the apostle Paul, who is the apostle of the nations (Rom.11:13; cp 1 Tim.2:7; 2 Tim.1:11; Eph.3:8).
Certain Israelites (such as Paul himself) are also called and blessed according to that evangel which, characteristically, is the evangel of the Uncircumcision. Similarly, certain non-Israelites were themselves called and blessed according to that evangel which, characteristically, is the evangel of the Circumcision.
In the former case, any such descendants of Jacob lose their standing as Israelites and forfeit the advantages of the law—while concomitantly gaining the even greater benefits of the evangel of the Uncircumcision. If they are faithful, like Paul, they gladly forfeit all such benefits of flesh, while deeming them mere refuse (cf Phil.3:4-8).
In the latter case, like those of old who sojourned in Israel, any such non-Israelite believers who were nonetheless called and blessed according to the evangel of the Circumcision, were required to heed the law of Yahweh, which
p185
"Out of Faith" and "Through Faith"
attended that evangel. Any such ones must become proselytes (cf Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43); that is, they must "come toward" Israel and observe the "one law," which applied not only to the native-born, but to the naturalized citizen as well (Ex.12:49). Initially, such ones had to undergo the rite of circumcision; subsequently, they would make a passover to Yahweh. They would then be deemed "natives of the land [of Israel]" (Ex.12:48,49). As naturalized Israelites, they would also be required to keep from violating the sabbaths, as well as to keep their hand from any evil, according to the law of Moses. Only thus could they hold fast to Yahweh's covenant (Isa.56:1-7; cp Acts 15:21) and be worthy of the resurrection of the just (cf Luke 14:14; 20:35; cp Matt.5:17-20; 7:21-23).
Thus it is fitting for Paul to declare that God will be justifying the Circumcision "out of faith" and the Uncircumcision "through the faith" (Rom.3:30). In each case, the faith which justifies is "Jesus Christ's faith" (Rom.3:22); "the faith of Jesus" (Rom.3:26). As in Romans 11:36, where it is revealed that all is not only out of God, but through God as well, here too in Romans 3:30, it is certainly likewise true that, under God, both the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision owe not only the origin but the agency of their justification as well to the faith of Christ.
Yet in the case of the Circumcision believers, who must center much of their attention upon their own observance of the law, it is not so obvious that, even so, their justification is solely out of Jesus Christ's faith. After all, this truth, as such, is not even a part of the evangel of the Circumcision, even though it is certainly true concerning them, even as Paul declares.
However, in the case of the believers of the Uncircumcision, who are not under law at all (Rom.6:14), for whom Grace reigns even where sin increases (Rom.5:20,21), whose very evangel brings to the forefront the fact that
p186
Incorrect in their Attitude to the Truth of the Evangel
their justification is not only out of (the faith of) Christ, but is through (the faith of) Christ as well, it becomes fitting for Paul to emphasize that God will be justifying them "through the faith [of Christ]."
FEAR AND HYPOCRISY
Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured. For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also play the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy (2:11-13).
Cephas was "self-censured" concerning his hypocrisy; he knew he was wrong and experienced guilt. Before the coming of "some from James," he had eaten together with those of the nations. "Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself, fearing those of the Circumcision." Then the rest of the Jews joined in, and they too played the hypocrite, together with him. They were all aware that even though the believers of the Uncircumcision did not observe the law, this was no reason to decline their fellowship, much less to sever themselves from them. It was those who came "from James" who were in the wrong, not Paul or the believers of the Uncircumcision. In supposing that those of the Uncircumcision must be circumcised and keep the law if they would be saved (cf Acts 15:1,2,5), or at this juncture, at least in imposing their own opinions as to practical holiness and perfection upon others, these unnamed men behaved most improperly. Yet to have such a profound influence not only upon Cephas but upon the rest of the Jews and even Barnabas besides, they must have been highly esteemed men of renown. Yet even so, they were in fact but self-appointed authoritarians engaging in shameful (albeit highly effective) fear tactics.
(continued in next post due to character limit)
p187
Incorrect in their Attitude to the Truth of the Evangel
But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, "If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing" (2:14)?
It was not that they were wholly ignorant of the evangel heralded by Paul, but that they were incorrect in their attitude concerning it. They failed to give it sufficient honor and recognition. Thus under the duress of circumstance, their remarkable fear of these Circumcision authoritarians, became the decisive influence in determining their behavior.
Cephas was "inherently" (i.e., originally, by right) a Jew; it was not that he had become a naturalized citizen, but that he was a Jew "by nature" (cp 2:15). Even so, in acknowledgement of Paul's evangel, Cephas properly had been living "as [those of the] nations" live, and "not as Jews," who commonly had little or no association with non-Jews. This is simply to say that in respect of free intercourse with those of the nations, Cephas, hitherto, had behaved as if he himself were one of the nations. Yet when some formidable ones from James came, due to his fear of these men of the Circumcision, he shrank back and even went so far as to sever himself from those of the nations.
How is it, then, Paul asks, that you, Cephas, are compelling the nations to be judaizing? It was by no means Peter's teaching, in word, that judaizing was compulsory for those of the nations; in fact, earlier, he had spoken against any such claim (cf Acts 15:7-11). Even though Cephas did not verbally affirm that it was compulsory for the nations to be judaizing, nevertheless, by his actions, he effectually did this very thing. That is, in light of Cephas' own behavior, the non-Jewish believers might well conclude that the only way for them to be accepted as faithful at least by their Jewish fellow believers if not by God Himself as well, would be by their taking up with Judaism. How inconsis-
p188
The Genitive Case is the Specifying Case
tent it was of Cephas to behave as he did, in light of the strong, negative influence that this would bring to bear upon the believers of the nations.
THROUGH FAITH OF CHRIST,
OR FAITH IN CHRIST?
In the next article in this series, we intend to consider Galatians 2:16, which is centered in the revelation that "we may be justified through the faith of Christ and not by works of law." But in preparation for that study, we first need to consider the translation itself, "faith of Christ." This becomes a special need since most modern translations, even as they render "the evangel of the Uncircumcision" (2:7) as "the gospel to the uncircumcised" (e.g., the NASB), translate "faith of Christ" similarly, as "faith in Christ."
This question as to the sense of the phrase, "the faith x Christ," is by no means solely a question of grammar; yet it is indeed a question in which grammatical issues are an important consideration. Grammatically, the question as to what is to be understood by pistis Iesou Christou (i.e., "faith x Jesus Christ"), is a question of the usage of the genitive case. Grammatical case is the syntactical relationship of a noun, pronoun, or adjective to other words in a sentence, generally indicated by declensional endings in inflected languages (such as Greek), or by prepositions and word order in non-inflected languages (such as English).
The Greek genitive case includes the English possessive case. The genitive's presence is indicated in the CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT'S sublinear by OF- (when no connective is present; e.g., "son of David," Matt.1:20). OF is intended as a neutral means by which to indicate the genitive (that is, to indicate that, in some respect, "this is of that").
Though the Concordant Version sometimes renders the genitive as an adjective (e.g., "His messengers OF-POWER" as "His powerful messengers," 2 Thess.1:7), otherwise,
p189
The Genitive Case is the Specifying Case
the CV nearly always represents the genitive case by the English "of." (1)
The genitive case is the case of genus or kind. It is the specifying case; the case of appurtenance. The function of the genitive is largely adjectival (e.g., "the day of preparation," was the preparation day; Luke 23:54). (2) Indeed, the Concordant Version renders "[after] the exile OF-BABYLON," as "[after] the Babylonian exile" (Matt.1:12). Similarly, "the blasphemy of the spirit" (Matt.12:31), in the Greek syntax, is "THE...OF THE spirit blasphemy."
The usual claim, however, is that the genitive "OF-Christ faith" is nonetheless translated true to sense as "faith in Christ," since, we are told, this phrase is an "objective genitive." It is said that as the phrase "faith of God" in Mark 11:22) (3) concerns man's faith God-ward, the Pauline phrase "faith of Christ" concerns man's faith Christ-ward.
The answer to this, of course, is that it does not follow that if, in the nature of the case, "faith of God" in the preceding text involves man's faith God-ward, "faith of Christ,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An exception is the genitive "faith OF-TRUTH" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which the 1976 edition renders "faith in the truth." Perhaps the idiom is along the lines of the thought that the Thessalonians' faith partook of the nature of truth. Thus it was "of-truth faith." Truth indeed fosters confidence in itself. Like ourselves, the Thessalonians found faith growing in them as they received truth; hence, "faith OF-TRUTH."
2. cp A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, In the Light of Historical Research, p.493; Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1934.
3. "And answering, Jesus is saying to them, `if you have faith of God, verily, I am saying to you that whosoever may be saying to this mountain, `Be picked up and cast into the sea,' and may not be doubting in his heart, but should be believing that what he is speaking is occurring, it shall be his, whatsoever he may be saying." It should be noted that genuine "OF-GOD faith" (as opposed to mere fleshly credulity in its name), necessarily incorporates the ablative sense of faith which is from God, according as He has spoken. Only then, in turn, does it become faith that is also God-ward.
p190
The Grace of Christ is the Faith of Christ
as Paul uses this expression, refers to man's faith Christward. By such faulty logic as this, nearly anything can be "proved." Yet beyond such fallacious arguments, there is little to commend the claim that "faith of Christ" means man's faith in Christ.
In fact, the main reason for the acceptance of this interpretation (which is made a part of the translation itself in most modern Bibles) is the age-old tradition that affirms that one is saved by his own believing. Such a notion is then read into the text. In turn, it is further claimed that through such very passages, Paul himself sets forth the self-same teaching. Thus, through such circular reasoning, the rendering "faith in Christ" is justified by its advocates.
All that the Greek says is: OF-Christ faith; that is, faith that, in some respect, has reference, or relates to Christ. The translation "faith in Christ," then, is not really a translation at all, but an interpretation. And, as popularly understood, it is certainly a mistaken interpretation as well.
Even on grammatical grounds the case here for an "objective" genitive (i.e., for a faith that is directed Christward) is very weak. Yet if one insists on such an interpretation, it would then become necessary to refer this "faith in Christ" to God, not to man, in order for this expression to accord with the evangel itself, the revelation that justification is gratuitous and in grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus.
In the Pauline epistles, apart from the disputed cases in which the genitive is "Christ" or its equivalent, in every case (approximately twenty-four instances) in which "faith" is followed by a proper noun or pronoun in the genitive case, the genitive is unmistakably subjective. Twenty instances refer to the faith of believers; one to the faith of anyone who believes; two to the faith of Abraham; and one to the faithfulness of God.
When Paul wishes to speak of the believer's faith in (i.e.,
p191
The Grace of Christ is the Faith of Christ
"into") Christ, he does so not by means of a genitive noun apart from a preposition, but by means of an accusative (i.e., objective) noun together with an accusative preposition: "...rejoicing and observing your order and the stability of your faith in (i.e., "into") Christ" (Col.2:5).
A parallel expression to the faith of Christ, is that of the grace of Christ: "grace which is of the One Man, Jesus Christ" (Rom.5:15). It would never occur to anyone to translate this text as "grace in Christ," much less to claim that it speaks of the believer's grace! Yet the only real difference between the genitive "of Christ" here and those which we have considered elsewhere, is that here the phrase is appended as a modifier of grace, while in the others (as in Galatians 2:20) the same phrase functions as a modifier of faith.
Similarly, just as Romans 3:3 speaks of "the faith(fulness) of God," Romans 3:22,26 speaks of the "faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ," the "faith(fulness) of Jesus." Further, the phrase "the faith of Abraham" in Romans 4:16 forms a precise formal parallel to the phrase "the faith of Jesus" in Romans 3:26. Thus, as these parallels between the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christ make clear, "the faith of Christ" refers to His faithful obedience unto death; our Lord's trust in God concerning the cross.
The very notion that those texts which say "faith of Christ" nonetheless have in view faith in Christ—namely the believer's own faith in Christ—is but the stepchild of the long-standing tradition that affirms that "justification by faith" means man's justification not by his performing works of law, but by his acceptance of Christ and assenting to faith in Him. The idea is that man saves himself, or if it is preferred, qualifies for God to save him, not by a former method, that of performing righteous deeds, but by a new method, that of acquiescing in faith.
Traditional theology is not merely saying that salvation comes upon believing in Christ, and not apart from or
p192
The Essence of the Evangel
prior to. What it is also saying (even if more implicitly than explicitly) is that salvation is of the nature of an exchange, a reward, requital, or compensation. When preachers say that salvation is "by faith [i.e., man's faith]," they are using "by" in a transactional sense, according to the meeting of a requirement (as in, "by doing your work, you are entitled to your wages").
The phrase faith OF-Christ, however, is parallel to and must agree with the essence of the evangel itself, the revelation that we are "being justified gratuitously in [God's] grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:24). The deliverance is not said to be through our faith in Christ Jesus, but through Christ Jesus Himself. Similarly, it is not revealed that we were conciliated to God through our faith in the death of His Son, but that we were conciliated to God through the death of His Son (Rom.5:10). Further, it will not do to attempt to avoid this truth by artfully claiming that while this is so, it is only so on the "condition" (i.e., based upon a requirement) that we accept and believe on Christ. Any such claim is spurious; for we are not justified on a "conditional" basis that we meet some sort of requirement. Instead, we are justified apart from law, on a gratuitous and gracious basis, which precludes any and all requirements.
Therefore, all passages which declaim "the faith of Jesus Christ," out of which we are justified, must be understood to be referring to a faith which is His own: Christ's own perfect faith—not man's faulty faith in Him.
Of course we ourselves can only speak of our justification by means of our own faith, since it is by faith that we apprehend what God has achieved through the work of the cross, even as what He will yet achieve in the eons ahead, when His promises are fulfilled. Still, the saint's own faith only gains for him a recognition of the justification which God has already established for him—through the faith of Christ (cf Rom.4:25-5:1; 5:9).
J.R.C.
What had taken place was that Peter had allowed himself to be swayed from the truth of the freedom ond oneness in the new ecclesia of God by a faction of legalists.
Notice, his attitude was wrong to THE EVANGEL.
There have always been factionalist among the ecclesia, Paul described them as brothers who were eak in the faith, and he appealed to the free, mature believers to make allowances for their weakness, but he also exhorted the believers not to be taken capitve by that weakness of faith.
Peter was supposed to be establishing THE EVANGEL among the Jews as Paul was establishing THE EVANGEL among the Gentiles-
But Paul, being like a hammer for God, perceived that Peter had been moved of the foundation and corrected him about it.
Peter repented and returned to THE EVANGEL.
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V87P2 p226
STUDIES IN GALATIANS
"THROUGH THE FAITH OF CHRIST"
(Galatians 2:15-21)
We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified (2:15,16).
As Paul herein explains to the Galatians, those who are truly enlightened believers in Christ—even if "by nature" they are Jews (and so inherently zealous for the law; cp Acts 21:20)—recognize that a man is not being justified by works of law, but through the faith of Christ Jesus.
Those who know the truth, even if they, like Paul, should be Jews from birth, and from their youth fully mindful of all that the law has to say as to the central place of seeking justification by works (cp Rom.2:13; 10:3), realize that, nonetheless, a man is not being justified by works of law—no matter how zealous he may be in his quest for attaining such a goal.
Yet as those who have been enlightened to perceive the evangel, Paul explains that "we" not only become aware of how justification does not occur, but of how it does occur as well. We perceive, says Paul, that it is through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus (Rom.3:24), which is to say that it is through the faith of Christ Jesus.
Such ones, then, may "also" believe "into Christ Jesus"—thus to restate the case more positively and boldly—that (1)
p227
All have Need of a Saviour
they may be justified by the faith of Christ; and (2) not by works of law, seeing that, according as it is written, "no living one at all can be righteous before [God]" (cit. Psa.143:2; cp Rom.3:20).
Of course, this declaration that no living one at all can be righteous before God, is a relative statement, made in relation to law. That is, no living one at all can be righteous before God by works of law. But, by the faith of Christ, we may be justified! This is the evangel; and this, Paul would have us know.
That justification is by the faith of Christ, is the answer to the age-old question, "...how can a mortal be righteous before El" (Job 9:2)? It is one thing to be righteous before men, but quite another to be righteous before God. It is one thing to be classed as "just," comparatively speaking, in contrast to those who are abjectly defiled; but it is quite another to be just before God, and thus to be declared righteous by God Himself.
In this respect, the words of Job's friend, Eliphaz the Temanite, are true enough: "What is a mortal that he should be cleared, or that one born of a woman should be justified? If even on His holy ones, He puts no reliance, and the heavens are not purged in His eyes, how much less man, who is abhorrent and spoiled, who is drinking iniquity like water" (Job 15:14-16).
Noble men often have sought righteousness before God on a basis of their own deeds; and, since compared to their fellows, at least they have approached more closely to the ideal, it is the custom among men to term such ones "righteous." But even such exceptional personages have fallen far short of the ideal. They too must be included among the "all" who not only have sinned but who have also been found wanting of the glory of God (Rom.3:23), which alone is the standard of true righteousness.
Though God has indeed graced such commendable ones
p228
Variations in Translation
with an uncommon measure of virtue, still, it is a virtue that is neither comprehensive nor constant. Even the noble, then, are themselves extensively corrupted; and, even as the rest, hopelessly lost apart from a Saviour. They too, on a basis of "works of law," can never be just "before God."
"NOT BY WORKS OF LAW"
The 1976 edition of the Concordant Version, in Galatians 2:16, renders the phrase which in the paragraph above I present as "but (through the faith of Christ Jesus)," as "except alone (through the faith of Christ Jesus)" (2:16). This was an attempt to clarify the 1930 edition of the CV which read, "except it be through..." even as the 1966 CV which was translated, "if it should not be through...."
The problem here is that if the phrase in question, which follows the words "a man is not being justified by works of law," is taken as an exception under the circumstance of which a man is being justified by works of law, the truth is lost and the context itself is contradicted.
An attempt was made to circumvent this by the addition of the lightface "alone." Yet the undiscerning reader, upon noting that "alone" was added by the translator, may declare that he is not obliged to accept any such "additions." Such a one may then conclude—albeit contrary to the entire tenor of the passage—that Paul's thought is that while ordinarily a man is not being justified by works of law, when these, however, are coupled with faith in Christ, a man is being justified by works of law!
Since the Greek is IF-EVER NO ean mee, our translators endeavored to reflect this fact in the English, while still providing a readable translation. Yet their renderings remained obscure, at least to the ordinary reader. We have noted that "but" (as in, "but for the grace of God, there go I") can serve well for this Greek phrase; in fact the Authorized Version renders ei mee (IF-NO) thus 53 times, includ-
p229
God is our Justifier
ing in this passage. We now propose to do the same, with a superior prefix "ex" (for "except") preceding in small type. Thus, in a future edition, the verse would simply read: "a man is not being justified by works of law but through the faith of Christ Jesus."
Though because of the idiosyncrasies of idiom, the sense of this text may be difficult to convey when rendered more strictly, in principle, the thought here accords with that of 1 Corinthians 12:3, where we read, "No one is able to say, `Lord is Jesus' except by holy spirit." That is, "No one is able to say `Lord is Jesus.' Except by holy spirit, (this cannot be done)." Similarly, then, "A man is not being justified by works of law. Except through the faith of Christ Jesus, (this cannot be done)."
JUSTIFYING THE IRREVERENT
To be "justified," is to be declared righteous; and, it is God Himself Who is our Justifier (Rom.8:33). Through the benefits afforded to us through the faith of Christ, even now, God declares us righteous.
We are justified both in a vindicatory sense, as well as in an anticipatory sense. In the vindicatory sense, through the work of Christ, God is able to "justify" us in the sense of "show sufficient reason why" such sinners even as ourselves not only should exist, but should also be saved. It is because it is only through sin, and, the deliverance therefrom, that God's love and grace through the blood of Christ, may be made known. God has need of irreverent sinners, to glorify His own name in their salvation (Rom.4:5).
In the anticipatory sense, God justifies us through Christ, thus, even now, calling what is not as if it were, because, in that day, the day of Christ's glorious advent, we will then actually be constituted just. Then, we will be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom.8:29). In the day of our vivification, we will enjoy immortality and incorruption, even
p230
Righteousness from God
as great power and glory (1 Cor.15:42,43). We are awaiting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory (Phil.3:20,21). Surely, then, in an anticipatory sense as well, it should not surprise that, even today, God already declares us righteous.
Yet this is only so, "through the faith of Christ Jesus" (Gal.2:16). In Christ, "we have boldness and access, with confidence, through His faith" (Eph.3:12). Accordingly, like Paul, we wish "to be found in Him, not having [our] righteousness, which is of law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is from God for faith" (Phil.3:9).
Paul intimately associates "the faith of Christ Jesus," with "the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:24). He uses both of these phrases in identifying the means through which our justification is effected. It is through Christ's own faith, then, which became His faithfulness, that our justification is achieved. Our Lord's trust in God concerning the cross, which led to His faithful obedience unto death, is the sole instrumentality of our justification.
LIVING UNTO GOD
Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ, consequently, a dispenser of sin? May it not be coming to that! For if I am building again these things which I demolish, I am commending myself as a transgressor (2:17,18).
Though a trivial act in itself, Cephas' refusal to eat with those of the nations (2:12), was fraught with serious consequences. Thus he affirmed that the uncircumcised believers were "common and unclean" (cp Acts 10:28; 11:3), and set up again the barrier of law. If we should put ourselves under law, by claiming that this is what Christ would have us do, we imply that, effectually, He is the dispenser of sin.
p231
The Saving Grace of God
This is because, if He indeed would now have us take up the very agency through which Sin revives, gets an incentive, and produces in us all manner of coveting (cf Rom.7:8-10), it is impossible to disassociate Him from our failures. Such, through works of law, was the nature of the old covenant under which God displayed man's failure in all its horror. Such is not the nature of the Pauline evangel, which is, so to say, "a new covenant" indeed (cp 2 Cor.3:6).
If Paul were to once again establish a policy of law-righteousness, which he had previously discarded (cp Phil.3:7), in so doing he would be "commending" himself as a transgressor. That is, thus he would be providing himself with the very means by which he would now have the "standing" of a transgressor. Where no law is, there is no transgression (Rom.4:15). Yet under law, sinners become transgressors. Paul refused to put himself in any such jeopardy ever again.
Submitting to public pressures (as Cephas did, and as the Galatians were doing) in a way that suggests we think the law has some force in justification is a sin and may give the impression that justification in Christ encourages such sinful hypocrisy. Yet the Galatians were making law-justification (Rom.2:13) an acceptable thing, at least in relation to circumcision, and so were rebuilding what they had demolished. Were they actually "under law" (in relation to Paul's evangel), their taking up with the law would have been a transgression! (There is perhaps some irony here).
Under grace we have a "right" to do anything: "All is allowed me" (1 Cor.8:9; 10:23). But Paul was very jealous of the evangel and was sensitive to the effects our behavior will have on others. The saving grace of God trains us to act in accord with what we believe, that is out of love and with the glory of God always in view.
This can only be done by the saving power of the evangel itself. This is the message of Galatians 5:25, how it is that "living in spirit, in spirit, we may be observing the ele-
p232
A Compendium of the Faith
ments [of the law] also." The essential meaning of the law (love for God and then for our fellow humans) is observed by those who are "living in spirit" (which means living in accord with the evangel; cf Gal.3:5).
For I, through law, died to law, that I should be living to God. With Christ have I been crucified, yet I am living; no longer I, but living in me is Christ. Now that which I am now living in flesh, I am living in faith that is of the Son of God, Who loves me, and gives Himself up for me (2:19,20).
"We have endeavored to transcribe this marvelous compendium of the faith as nearly as possible as it is in the Original, for even the order of the words is exquisite. The sentence opens and closes with Christ, and a negative I occupies its center. It may be shown graphically thus:
`WITH CHRIST
HAVE I BEEN CRUCIFIED,
YET I AM LIVING--
NO LONGER I,
BUT LIVING IN ME IS
CHRIST.'" (1)
FAITH'S LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
God has ordained a law for us! It is not a law of works; it is instead, "faith's law; for we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law" (Rom.3:28). This law states that: "through Jesus Christ's faith....[we are] being justified gratuitously in [God's] grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:22,24). It is through this law of faith that we have died to all law concerned with sin and death. Christ died for our sins! Our sins have been died for, "that we should be living to God." Our living to God depends upon our having died to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A. E. Knoch, CONCORDANT COMMENTARY, p.281.
p233
The Power of Christ's Spirit
condemnatory law. Hence, as Paul declares, "With Christ have I been crucified." Yet the wonder of it is that though it is true that in this respect we have "died," it is as a result of this very death, together with Christ, that in our spirits we now are living! So in saying "I" am living, Paul must add that it is "no longer I, but living in me is Christ."
It was not the power of the flesh, which is weakness, which was vitalizing Paul, but the power of Christ's spirit in him. As he said, "that [life] which I am now living in flesh, I am living in faith that is of the Son of God, Who loves me, and gives Himself up for me" (2:20b).
I am not repudiating the grace of God.... (2:21a)
To "repudiate" something is to reject its validity, or to refuse to acknowledge it. It is to have "no place" for it, which is the meaning of the elements of the Greek word we translate "repudiate" (atheteoo, UN-PLACE).
The apostle Paul, decidedly, was not repudiating the grace of God; he was rather exalting it, and giving it its rightful place.
...for if righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously (2:21b).
The Galatians, however, in seeking justification through law instead of through the faith of Christ, were repudiating the grace of God. "For if," as they fondly imagined, "righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously" (2:21). A gratuitous act is an uncalled for or unwarranted act, such as that of the hatred of the Jews for Jesus, whereby, in hating Him, since He had done nothing but good, they necessarily hated Him gratuitously (John 15:25).
The Galatians' repudiation of the grace of God was their main mistake; indeed, it was the essence of their apostasy. Their error did not simply consist, since they were not called to be proselytes of Judaism, in attempting to put themselves under law (Gal.4:21). The believers of the Circumcision, though under law, were in the true grace of
p234
Righteousness through Grace
God (cp 1 Peter 1:10; 5:10,12), which all who were faithful to that calling freely acknowledged. The presence of law need not entail the repudiation of grace. Under the Circumcision evangel, while those who are chosen (i.e., "the elect") must qualify for entrance into the terrestrial kingdom by the performance of lawful deeds (cp Matt.7:21-23), it is to the grace of God alone that they may ascribe the faithfulness of their service (cp Rom.11:5,6; Isa.26:12).
Let us note well that the Galatians' chief wrong was just one thing: their repudiation of the grace of God. They had been transferred from the evangel of the grace of Christ, to a different "evangel" (Gal.1:6), which, according to truth, was no evangel at all.
Everywhere in Scripture, especially within the Pauline epistles, "grace" is of the nature of a favor, or gracious gift. It is not granted "out of works," or in return for "services rendered" (cp Rom.4:4; 11:6). It is the very antithesis of a reward or compensation. We cannot qualify ourselves for it, nor disqualify ourselves from it. It not only knows nothing of "requirements," but precludes that very notion.
Having presented one's understanding of the nature of the evangel, it will hardly suffice merely to use the word "grace," as a summary term thereof, if one's understanding of the nature of the evangel itself, is not of the nature of grace. To do so would be as illegitimate as to describe a thorn and yet call it a rose.
If righteousness were through law, there would have been "no just cause" for Christ to have died. Then His death would have been both uncalled for and unwarranted. But since His death was not a gratuitous event, it follows that righteousness is not through law and that the Galatians and all their imitators are not correct in seeking it on that basis.
May it be our privilege and portion, not to be imitators of the "foolish Galatians" (3:1), but of the apostle Paul, the apostle of the nations (Rom.11:13).
J.R.C.
Quote from: eaglesway on June 14, 2015, 11:21:33 PM
What had taken place was that Peter had allowed himself to be swayed from the truth of the freedom ond oneness in the new ecclesia of God by a faction of legalists.
Notice, his attitude was wrong to THE EVANGEL.
There have always been factionalist among the ecclesia, Paul described them as brothers who were eak in the faith, and he appealed to the free, mature believers to make allowances for their weakness, but he also exhorted the believers not to be taken capitve by that weakness of faith.
Peter was supposed to be establishing THE EVANGEL among the Jews as Paul was establishing THE EVANGEL among the Gentiles-
But Paul, being like a hammer for God, perceived that Peter had been moved of the foundation and corrected him about it.
Peter repented and returned to THE EVANGEL.
Exactly!
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V37P1 p7
THE CIRCUMCISION EVANGEL
Galatians 2:7.
WHAT is the subject matter of this evangel? Does it differ from the evangel of the UNcircumcision? Why do the differing titles arise? Have the two evangels the same objective? Our discussion will seek to answer these queries.
Both evangels have the purpose of bringing salvation, yet we must distinguish between two aspects of salvation, for, in relation to each evangel, salvation differs radically. We may understand why it does so when we learn that the underlying purpose of each of the two evangels is also a different one. One evangel saves for the kingdom of the prophets on the earth; the other for the ecclesia which is Christ's body among the celestials. One evangel is but a stage on the way to God's ultimate; the other brings God's ultimate, for its inherent spiritual value is such that it will consummate the eons. With these introductory thoughts we will turn to the detail of the Circumcision evangel, merely mentioning, when necessary, matter related to the evangel of the UNcircumcision.
Let us note the "of" and "to" of Gal.2:7 and 2:9:
(1) OF--the divergent nature.
(2) TO--the distinct sphere.
The "of" implies an evangel related to a particular privilege. The "to" indicates an evangel for a particular people.
These titles arise and take their point because the privilege of circumcision has been cited as of the greatest
p8
The Covenant with David
value. As to privilege, the Circumcision evangel is based upon God's covenant with Abraham (Gen.17:10). Circumcision was the sign of a perpetual covenant. It is for a particular nation, whom God invested with supremacy amongst the nations of the world, and through whom God channels blessings to all the others.
But Israel had failed to enjoy the promised blessings of circumcision. History had merely unfolded and made Israel's delinquency apparent. Yet God had promised them the inward spiritual reality signified by circumcision (Deut.30:5,6). The evangel of the Circumcision is one more of God's means to bring such blessings to Israel.
The evangel of the Circumcision is vitally related to the circumcised people who are its chief beneficiaries. This evangel takes account of Israel's privileges and prerogatives, and is founded on the fact that they are to become the channel of blessings to the other nations if they themselves accept its blessings, as intimated by the Hebrew Scriptures.
Though the Circumcision evangel is addressed to the physical seed of Abraham, through Sarah, yet its special emphasis (i.e., in the so-called gospels and the Acts) was around God's covenant with David (see Acts 2:30). Though the title of this evangel "arises in relation to Peter (Gal.2), yet as a matter of fact it had been initiated by John the Baptist. His ministry was followed by that of the Lord Jesus, and later by that of Peter at Pentecost (Acts 13:24-28). Thus these preachings were "a word of salvation" for the nation.
With the coming of Pentecost, the priestly feature was added to this evangel, the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This had to be dealt with. It was in its first analysis only another crime committed against God's prophets by the Circumcision.
Though the Twelve proclaim the historic facts concerning the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus
p9
An Evangel for God's People
as witnesses, yet they do not develop doctrine from these facts. The Circumcision evangel does not deal with the deeper and ultimate meaning and value of the death and resurrection, nor of the cross of Christ. It is quite true that it tells of the sufferings and the blood of Christ shed for the pardoning of sin, but it says nothing of such matters as death with Christ and deliverance from law; nor is the "word of the cross" to be found in it. The Circumcision evangel does not mention the snare of the cross. And the reason is plain. They go against the particular position of Israel.
To help us to understand this evangel, we should realize that it is proclaimed to those who are in touch with God (John 1:11). He came to His own. He came to a people related to God by a covenant and by a form of knowledge and truth in the law (Rom.2:20). Thus, the ministry of the Lord asserted that He came not to demolish the law (Matt.5:17). Nor were others to teach the annulling of law (Matt.5:19). In fact, many of the points of the sermon on the mount were but a development of the spiritual contents of the precepts of the law. It was into minds instructed by the law that our Master launched His evangel. It was not to people left to themselves during many centuries. The Circumcision evangel did not take away the law. From this fact we can understand why many tens of thousands who had believed were inherently zealous of the law (Acts 21:20). The blessedness of keeping the law will be seen in the millennial kingdom. Then God's law shall be written on new hearts, and, consequently, life will be greatly prolonged. Israel's circumcision is a pledge that the law of God will find no antagonism in their redeemed and cleansed flesh.
Note also that our Lord proclaimed His evangel before His crucifixion, and, at first, without reference to His sufferings. And when He did begin to speak of these, His words were not understood.
p10
Repentance, Baptism, Pardon
Even in the past, circumcision should not have been merely an external rite, but should have been of the heart (Deut.10:16). Let us look more closely into the features and announcements of this Circumcision evangel. Take Peter as the exponent. He called Israel to repentance, told them to be baptized, and so their sins would be pardoned (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:30-32). Primarily repentance was a change of mind and attitude to their Messiah. It calls for the production of worthy fruits (Matt.3:8). Baptism was the outward sign of repentance. This was so in John's pre-proclamation ministry, also the Lord's, and then in that of the twelve (Acts 2:38). Pardon is ruggedly expressed by to let off (Acts 2:38). Repentance and pardon call for faith in the declarations which lead to them. Hence we read:
all that believe ( Acts 2:24),
those who hear the word believe ( Acts 4:4).
In all this, that is, in the evangel of the Circumcision, there is nothing to occasion the arguments which arose against the evangel of the UNcircumcision. The Jew had no reason to forsake circumcision or the law, in order to follow Christ and the twelve. But the Jew must break with both circumcision and the law, as Paul did, if he would be justified by faith, which is the initial item of the UNcircumcision evangel.
The evangel proclaimed by Paul removes the law, but Peter's evangel does not. The features of repentance, pardon and baptism take their point in the fact of law, but justification is apart from law. Saul was not saved by Peter's evangel. Under the terms of Peter's evangel, Saul ought to have been exterminated (Acts 3:23). Saul was not for hearing that Prophet, nor was he at all repentant.
Deliverance from law was entirely absent from the Circumcision evangel. Later, mere legalists joined issues with Paul on this question, yet their objections
p11
Good Works Must Follow
could not be made against the evangel defined by the term Circumcision. For the nations to adopt law would mean nothing less than separation from Christ (Gal.5:1-6). Why is this? The salvation to which Israel is being called is not the salvation to which the nations are introduced.
Let us turn back to examine pardon and faith in the evangel of the Circumcision. Pardon means to let off. It does not put its recipients beyond condemnation. It does not preclude falling aside. Nor does it intimate reconciliation, just as law and ritual do not intimate reconciliation. Pardon requires God to pass over the penalties of sins. It requires the continuance of God's forbearance, yet does not begin to display His righteousness, or the fact that God can be and is also a Justifier. Pardon presumes that good works will ensue. See the illustration regarding land which does not bring forth good herbage (Heb.6:7,8). Pardon requires "things which have to do with salvation" (Heb.6:9), and "diligence....until the consummation" (Heb.3:6,14; 6:11; 1 Peter 2:4; 2 Peter 1:5-11). There is great reward for endurance (Heb.10: 35,36; 11:6). Here we see the force of "enduring" as counselled in (Matt.10:22; 24:13). Even those of the nations, who were previously in contact with God's revelation and, under the Circumcision evangel, came into touch with Israel, were expected to be "acting righteously" (Acts 10:35).
The difference between the faith of those who believe the evangel of the Circumcision and those who believe the evangel of the Uncircumcision lies in the message which each believe. The faculty to believe is the same in each case, but the character of the faith is related to the contents of the word addressed to them.
Note how a particular faith arises and what its accompaniments are. The faith of the Uncircumcision was sealed by holy spirit; but that of the Circumcision was corroborated by signs, miracles and various powerful
p12
The Epistle to the Hebrews
deeds (Heb.2:4). Indeed, the powers of the impending eon, to which the evangel directed them, were present along with the confirmation of the Lord's message by those who hear Him (Heb.6:5). Their faith was called forth by these factors. Thus, around this faith we find such aspects as, "believe the works" (John 10:38). Again, in response to the question as to how men may work the work of God: "this is the work of God that you may be believing into the One Whom He commissions" (John 6:29). "And, when it is occurring, you shall be believing" (John 14:29).
Faith, then, varies in its value and stability according to its basic message. It may require works to perfect it (James 2:22), or endurance to prevent shrinking back (Heb.10:38). And so, with the delay in the coming of the kingdom, the position arises as to whether the faith of the saints will continue, and so confirm the reality of the repentance, the baptism and pardon. If the kingdom was to be postponed indefinitely, to what purpose was their change of attitude toward Him Whom Israel had slain and gibbeted? In the epistles of Peter, and in that to the Hebrews, the saints are urged to maintain the faith which had accompanied their repentance and pardon. And so we may turn to these epistles to extract a brief view of them and their relation to the evangel of the Circumcision.
The Hebrew epistle. Many are the details to which we could turn. Briefly: that which the Lord began, which those who heard Him confirmed, and God corroborated (2:3,4). This ministry to Israel had emphasized that the slain One was their King. But now they are shown that their avowal was related to the Apostle and Chief Priest, Jesus, over the house of God (3:1). They are urged to hold to this avowal (4:14). This Chief Priest, unlike those of the Levitical Priesthood, had sat down in the holiest (10:12). Here is the intimation why He had not returned as announced by Peter. Their avowal
p13
The Epistles of Peter
was a foundation (6:1) for maturity; the maturity is that which comes under the new covenant (10:14).
The law perfected nothing, yet the law is being transferred, as also the priesthood. They are pointed to the glories of the Melchizedek Priesthood, related to a more perfect tabernacle. Now that they have such a Priest they are introduced to a better covenant and better promises. They have now a Priest according to the power of an indissoluble life. The law is to be imparted to their comprehension and inscribed in their hearts. Like the worthies of old, whose faith was not requited, they were to hold to their avowal.
Now they have a living way into the holy places and may approach with a true heart, in assurance of faith, and hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience. Jesus, by His own blood, has hallowed them. And, like the sin offering burned without the camp, so He suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem. They are to carry His reproach. He, though He sat down, will yet appear the second time, apart from sin, for salvation through faith.
Peter's epistles: The standpoint is that of one who heard the Lord when on earth. It is addressed to expatriates dispersed by the persecution in Acts (8 and 10). It seeks to encourage their faith amidst further persecution. They are reminded that they are chosen to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (1:2, Heb.12:24). These matters speak to them of the covenant and the mercy seat (Ex.24:8; Lev.16:14). They are regenerated to a living expectation (1:3), of incorruptible seed (1:23). The allotment in the land may have faded, but they have a living expectation of an incorruptible and unfading allotment (1:4). This expectation will become a salvation to be revealed in the last era (1:5). Though sorrowed by present trials, yet glory and honor awaits them at the unveiling of Jesus Christ (1:7). Endurance gives grace with God
p14
The Circumcision Fulfill the Prophets
salvation is related to the seeking and searching of the prophets, who told of the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow (1:10-12; Matt.13:10). The sufferings they were enduring were the outcome of the sufferings Christ endured, for they were Christians.
Peter reminds them that they are living stones of the spiritual house. They were a holy priesthood (2:5). The Stone, a corner capstone, has been rejected by Israel's builders (2:7), yet these believers are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a procured people (2:9). In making known the power and presence of the Lord Jesus, Peter had not followed wisely made myths (2 Pet.1:16), but had declared that of which they were spectators (1:16). And this is further confirmed by the prophetic word, which is a lamp appearing in a dingy place. They were to confirm their calling and choice; under no circumstances to trip—as had the nation of Israel (Rom.11). A rich entrance will be supplied into the eonian kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10,11).
These considerations, though largely confined to one side of the matter, stress that one immediate objective of the evangel of the Circumcision is to lead forward to the glory of the Hebrew prophets. Later Israel will come to the cross of Christ, but that is in the New Creation. Then there will be no Circumcision nor Uncircumcision
E. H. C.
Tom, are you going to post the entire concordant website on this thread?
I wasn't planning on it. Do you think I should?
http://concordant.org/ur/index.html
V37P1p15
THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF GOD'S GRACE
THE WALK OF ABRAHAM
WALK is the keynote of the salvation of the Circumcision (Gen.17:2). This is in crass contrast to the salvation of the Uncircumcision, which had been revealed to Abram at first (Gen.15:6). There it was FAITH. But Abram had failed to believe as fully as he should have done. He still had confidence in the flesh. This must be destroyed. Therefore it is that Jehovah said to him, "Walk before Me, and become flawless}. To me this now seems an impossible, a dreadful load. But to Abraham and to most of the saints, it is just such a task as they like, and for which they feel quite competent. The whole evangel of the Circumcision is based upon their fearful ignorance of themselves and their overweening confidence in their ability to please God to perfection. Even in my spiritual infancy I could not see why God should demand perfection of Abram. No one could fulfill that! Certainly Abraham did not! Why, then, demand the impossible? I did not see then that God did not intend that Abraham should succeed. He intended that he should fail, and thus lose the confidence he still had in his flesh, and place it in the Deity.
This is the essential distinction between the two evangels. God wants us to trust Him unreservedly and implicitly. He does not want us to trust in ourselves. He does not expect perfection in the keeping of a covenant, or a law, for that would lead to the very reverse of His intention. Only their failure will teach them their utter lack and His all-sufficiency. Of course He could not reveal this intention of His to them, or the demonstra-
16
Abram was Saved by Faith
tion would have been fruitless. This not only explains the failures of Abraham and the patriarchs, but the threefold apostasy of the nation, as seen in the Hebrew Scriptures (Isa.6), in the "gospels," and in the book of Acts. They walked before Him very imperfectly indeed! Yet, in so doing, they have manifested to the world that the creature is impotent and sinful and offensive apart from the Creator. Man needs God, not only to create him, but to save him and to keep him. When this has been learned by bitter experience, men will be ready to recognize God as their All, and thus attain the goal of the eons.
The friend of God had a taste of both of these salvations, for he was justified by faith (Gen.15:5; Rom.4; Gal.3) and also by works (Gen.17:1; James 2:21-24). One was before he was circumcised, and apart from it. The other was sealed by circumcision. In the first, Abram did nothing but believe God, and righteousness was reckoned to him unconditionally, apart from works. In the second he is exhorted to walk before God, and be flawless, so that there should be a covenant between him and God, to make him a father of many nations. Let us not confuse the latter phrase with his faith fatherhood of many believers among the nations. Here he is not the father of the nations as such, but only of a few individuals who have faith chosen out of the nations.
ABRAM AND ABRAHAM
The name Abram (Abrm) comes from the Hebrew stems, ab (FATHER) and rm (HIGH). Abraham (with the h) is just the same except that an e is inserted Abrem. This implies the addition of another stem, making Ab (FATHER), r(m) (HIGH), and em (CLAMOR or throng). One of the m's is dropped in combining. Others derive it from Ab (FATHER), rb (GREAT), and em (throng). The difference is not much or vital, for (GREAT) and (HIGH), are both used as a faded figure merely to magnify the idea. Abram is the personal name, while Abraham unites
p17
Abraham is Concerned with Walk
him with descendants by including the stem THRONG. This corresponds to the two salvations. One is individual, the other national. Contrary to the usual idea, we are associated with Abram, not Abraham. The earlier part of his life, before his circumcision, is associated with the nations. The later enlargement was given in order to connect him with his physical seed.
I well remember listening with rapt attention to a brother who sought to show the difference between Abram and Abraham. His thought was that the letter h was inserted in Abrm in order to indicate the addition of the holy spirit! Of course this would not be known to Abraham himself, or Paul, because neither the Hebrew nor the Greek has a letter h. The Greek simply doubles the a, Abraam. The Hebrew inserts an e, which is commonly mistaken for an h. As we have seen, it adds the element THRONG to the name. Besides, the name Abram is connected with faith and righteousness. It is the spiritual name, rather than Abraham, which is not used until walk, with physical and national blessing, is in view. In Uncircumcision it is Abram. Since this distinction is not observed in the Greek Scriptures, it is very difficult to carry it out, so we use Abraham, as a rule, to denote the man, apart from these distinctions. But in these studies we will try to keep the names separate.
THE ORIGIN OF CIRCUMCISION
It is in this light that we must view the rite of circumcision. It is the sign of the covenant which characterizes the salvation of the Circumcision. After promising the land to Abraham and his seed, God goes on to confirm it by the covenant of circumcision (Gen.17:9-14).
The significance of this sign is almost totally overlooked. In it God gives a foreview of the result of the demonstration He is giving. It signifies the futility of the flesh. As this small sample of the flesh is snipped off, so would God have us deal with the flesh in its
p18
Faith Leads to Righteousness
entirety. This sign ought to have opened their eyes to the failure of the flesh, which has been fully demonstrated since Abraham's day by no other group of the race as thoroughly as by the Circumcision. Let us note in passing that it is not intended for all mankind, but only the throng of nations who have descended from Abraham.
THE FAILURE OF FAITH
Just as Abram's experience from his call to his justification by faith is the key to the evangel of the uncircumcision and righteousness by faith; so his further experience up to the time he received the rite of circumcision prepares us to understand the evangel of the Circumcision and righteousness by works. It is based on the failure of the faith and the activity of the flesh. Instead of waiting for Isaac, the promised son by the freewoman Sarai, he generates Ishmael by Hagar, the slave. This brings bondage, in which we find walk, and a covenant, and the sign of circumcision without in place of faith within (Gen.16,17).
The actual acts of Abram which preceded his justification by faith were all righteous when reviewed in the light of God's rights and purpose. His faith in God's declarations had kept him from all wrong. But his, walk which led up to his circumcision was wrong, because it was not founded on faith, but on the flesh. And, indeed, circumcision is a sign of this, for why should the flesh be cut off if it is righteous? Sarai acknowledges that she has done wrong, (Gen.16:5), and that this wrong comes upon Abram. He was wrong in that he hearkened to her advice. The wrong of it is much clearer when we consider how much evil it brought upon Abraham and his descendants. It brought immediate suffering on Sarai and Hagar.
THE REAL CIRCUMCISION
We are the real, the genuine Circumcision, because we offer divine service to God in spirit, and glory in Christ
p19
The Flesh Foredooms to Failure
Jesus and have no confidence in flesh. The so-called Circumcision are only a Maimcision, for they merely mutilate the flesh, and lack the faith of which circumcision is simply the sign (Phil.3:2-5). They worship God in flesh, and glory in their flesh in direct contradiction to the import of this sign, which consists in the removal, the cutting away of a part of the flesh as a token of the stripping off of the whole. Let us be clear concerning this. We are not the literal Circumcision. We are the figurative Circumcision, the literal Uncircumcision. The fact is that literal circumcision is itself only a sign, an indication, a token, an earnest, a label, in which a small part of the flesh is literally removed to signalize its utter failure and bankruptcy in its entirety. We realize and enjoy that which it merely indicates. We are the real, the genuine Circumcision, even though our flesh is not mutilated as theirs is.
This is the actual, ultimate truth as to circumcision, and should form the basis of our study. We must remember, however, that all revelation previous to this is not written from this standpoint, but in an enigma, and is seen distorted, as in a mirror. Yet even in that earlier unfolding we will find hints and intimations which would have led a spiritually minded saint into the truth. This is clearly suggested before it was given to Abraham, for he was ninety-nine years old and his flesh was dead, so far as fulfilling the promise of God as to the seed was concerned. Abraham knew this, and said as much to God. He wanted to substitute other flesh, as his heir, but God wished to show that all was dependent on Him, and not on flesh at all. So He vivified, invigorated Abraham, gave him life after death, and then insisted on a sign of this, to keep it in continual remembrance, by cutting off a part of the flesh.
If a descendant of Abraham were spiritually minded, he would have deduced thus: I am supposed to be the literal seed of Abraham, but, in reality, I am not, for
p20
God's Reckoning is Immanent
Abram had no issue, except Ishmael, until he was physically incapable of propagation. At ninety-nine years he could not have further descendants, and he knew it and acknowledged it. His flesh was beyond hope. I am really a descendant of his faith and of God's vivifying power. This is what my circumcision signifies. Otherwise I would be an Ishmaelite, a product of Abram's unbelieving flesh and a slave girl, doomed to servitude and humiliation...But, alas, few in Israel were humble enough to feel the futility of the flesh.
All that we have that is of any value is in Christ, not in ourselves. Our circumcision also is in Him. Was His circumcision on the eighth day reckoned to us? By no means. That was made by hands, and consisted in cutting off a very small portion of the flesh. His real circumcision came at the cross, when He was cut off from the land of the living, and His flesh as a whole was stripped off and laid in the tomb. In Him, at that time, we stripped off the body of flesh (Col.2:11). This brings us into the place denoted by circumcision. We possess the spiritual reality of which the physical rite was merely the symbol. Having the thing itself we do not need the label. The label on an empty bottle is of no value. The contents are just as valuable without the label as with it, especially when its qualities are evident by their virtue and potency.
THE SIGN AND SEAL
It is of great help to impress upon our hearts, that circumcision is a sign and a seal (Rom.4:9-12). Then we will look beyond for that which it signifies and that which it secures. When we come to consider the case of Abraham, let us note that he had God's righteousness, by faith, long before he was circumcised, the rite did not add to either his faith or his own righteousness. It merely labeled him as one who possessed these things. Abram was secretly reckoned righteous in uncircumcision; but he was openly recognized as righteous by the
p21
Man's Recognition is Superficial
sign and seal of circumcision. The reckoning was by God and was immanent. The recognition was for men and was superficial.
Our Lord acknowledged that the Jews were Abraham's seed in a physical sense, so also were the Ishmaelites and Esau's descendants. But they claimed Abraham as their father in a much deeper sense than that. He would not acknowledge that they were Abraham's children. That was presumption on their part. God, said He, could rouse such children out of the very stones, which they resembled, for they were hard hearted and lifeless clods of earth (Matt.3:9; Luke 3:8). They were so unlike Abraham in their conduct that they had no right to claim him as their ancestor. They were seeking to kill their own Messiah. Imagine Abram doing this! By their works they proved themselves to be descendants of the Adversary, not of Abram. So our Lord said to them, "If you are children of Abraham, did you ever do the works of Abraham" (John 8:31-47)? They had the circumcision on the eighth day, but they not only lacked the faith of which it was the sign and seal, but also the works which perfected it (James 2:22). Abraham offered Isaac by faith; they crucified Christ by unbelief.
I often think of this in connection with a story told by Dr. Weizmann, the Zionist leader, at a Jewish rally that I attended in Los Angeles. It concerned a Russian Jew who sought to escape from that country, who had a false passport. His name was Abraham, but his passport was in some other name, which was thoroughly drilled into him, as he could not read. But when he came to the border he was too excited to remember anything. They asked him his name, and he answered in great agitation: "I don't know! I forget! But I do know that it is not Abraham!" How true that was of all the Jews even Dr. Weizmann did not know. Whatever their name may be, they are not the children of the friend of God, who trusted Him, and not their own
p22
Abram is Father of those Who Have Faith Abraham, of those who Walk in Faith
arm. The Jews present (I was the only Gentile, so far as I know) were like that poor fellow. They collected money to buy Palestine, the land that was given to Abram and his seed! They were not even Jacob. He would not pay out good money to buy his own land!
As a result, Abraham became the father of two distinct classes, one of which the apostle associates with the reckoning of faith righteousness in uncircumcision (to which the saints of the nations today belong) and the father of the Circumcision, but not those who merely have the outward sign and seal, but to those who observe the fundamentals of the faith in the footprints of Abram before he was circumcised. This distinction is vital, if we wish to understand the difference between the evangel of the Circumcision and that of the Uncircumcision. As the apostle explains fully elsewhere, Abram was not the father of those of the Circumcision who did not follow in his steps (Rom.2:25-3:1). This we will consider more fully later. The Uncircumcision know him as their father on the ground of faith alone. The Circumcision may claim him only when they have the faith, the sign, and the walk.
When I first went to Denmark, the saints there were much disturbed by some teaching that had reached them, that Romans was "Jewish" because it brought in Abraham. As soon as I pointed out that it referred to His faith before he was circumcised the whole matter was clear, and they no longer repudiated Romans and other epistles of Paul on such dubious grounds. Abraham before he was circumcised was certainly not one of the Circumcision. The faith that he then had was the ground of blessing which made him the father of the Uncircumcision who believe, apart from works. He was certainly not a Jew, a descendant of his great grandson, Judah, or of his grandson Jacob, who, later, were all called "Jews," when they associated with the descendants of Judah as worshipers of Jehovah.
p23
Abram is Father of those Who Have Faith Abraham, of those who Walk in Faith
As circumcision is only an outward sign, its benefits are limited to those who have the corresponding inward reality. Those who walk flawlessly before God will be benefitted, but those who do not keep His law are practically uncircumcised. They are like an empty jar with a label. The label only misleads if the contents are gone. Another jar containing that which the label indicates, even if it has no label, is the real thing. Not only are the Uncircumcision who believe the real Circumcision (Phil.3:2,3), but the Jew who is circumcised in heart, in spirit not literally in the flesh is the genuine Circumcision. Nevertheless the outward sign entitled them to benefits not to be despised, the chief of which was that they became the repositories of God's revelation (Rom.2).
THE OBLIGATION OF CIRCUMCISION
Circumcision lays an obligation on all who have it far beyond their capacity to pay. It is like a label guaranteeing that the whole law has been observed. Anyone who uses it thereby advertises his ability to get along without Christ and His sacrifice. Circumcision is the real falling "from" grace. It is a fearful load to take upon ourselves, when God has not laid it upon us. No one can live up to this label. It must inevitably lead to the curse that rests upon all who fail to fulfill the least item of God's law. So blind were the Jewish "believers" in Paul's day that they insisted that circumcision was necessary for the nations for their salvation! Rather it clinched their condemnation.
The needlessness of circumcision for the nations is repeatedly emphasized by Paul in his epistles. It is so unimportant that it is not even worth the trouble to get rid of it. Each one is to remain as he was when God called him, either circumcised or uncircumcised. We ignore external nonessential labels and recognize only internal essential realities! For the Circumcision it is a precept of God to be kept. For us circumcision is nothing (1 Cor.7:17-20). In Christ Jesus neither cir-
p24
God's Righteousness, not Man's
cumcision is availing anything nor uncircumcision, but faith, operating through love (Gal.5:6). In Him there is a new creation (Gal.6:15). It was the self righteous Pharisees who opposed Paul and insisted on circumcision and law keeping (Acts 15:5; 21:21). Not having God's righteousness, they sought to make one of their own, and managed to make the opposite.
The question of circumcision for the Uncircumcision was the cause of much grief and conflict during the early ministry of the apostle Paul due to the fact that circumcision was the hall-mark of Jehovah's people. When Paul returned to Antioch after his first missionary journey, the Jews, especially some from Judea, opposed him violently because he had not made proselytes nor had them circumcised nor put them under the law. The commotion became so severe that the matter was referred to the apostles in Jerusalem. Peter seems to have been the only one among the Circumcision who had any sympathy with Paul's position. Even he would not have understood if he had not been prepared by means of the vision which he saw at Joppa, and had not seen God's hand in dealing with Cornelius (Acts 10).
Paul in his epistles, tells us far more about circumcision than any other inspired writer, even though he is the apostle of the Uncircumcision. This is due to the fact that the true intent of the rite was not understood, and that religious unbelievers still clung to their own flesh and its works. Once we see the great contrast between Abram and Abraham, between faith and works, between God's righteousness and man's, between Paul's evangel and Peter's, our hearts will be filled with exultation that we did not receive a probationary pardon which depends upon our deeds, but were justified by grace apart from works dependent entirely upon faith in God. We are weak and wanting. He is the All-Sufficient!
A. E. K.
Quote from: Tom on June 15, 2015, 12:45:41 AM
I wasn't planning on it. Do you think I should?
I think posting whole article after whole article is not in the spirit of a discussion forum myself.
Well, I thought I was just showing an alternative to what seems to be the accepted theology of the forum, but, since I've offended you, I'll quit posting.
Not offended, I just don't personally think posting long articles in a thread, over and over and over encourages discussion. I think it actually drowns out discussion. I've never been a part of a forum where that practice is encouraged.
BTW, its not my forum so by all means, if you wish to keep doing it, go for it. I have just found that kind of thing to discourage participation. If you desire to do it, go for it, but I will stop participating myself in this particular discussion, because that's just not the kind of thing I want to be part of. I don't even consider it a discussion.
I guess the only official guideline in the area is something similar to "large bodies of teaching [continually] against Gary's beliefs are not allowed". Anything other than that comes down to forum community "acceptance" vs. complaints/argument/dissension/non-participation, etc. - which I guess we're somewhere into that. Sounds like Tom's sensitive to your concerns Seth, i.e., wanting more discussion and less "blog"-type posting? Let's just see if we can be sensitive to each others' needs and make it work? If not, (anyone) give us another heads-up and we'll work it out. Thanks, James.
I am in agreement with you Seth. For one thing, I think most of these articles are not in accorance with the primary purpose of the site, and we may have to think about restricting the discussions of peripheral theology again anyway, because it takes away from the primary focus of the site.
I enjoy discussing anything. I really dont enjoy debating, and when our discussions begin to take on the tone of a debate, I begin to get disheartened- not to say I am any less responsible than anyone else. But as you indicated Seth, I just dont want to sift through long articles presenting a particuar theology in details and then feel like I have to respond to it in a comprehensive way.
All of us could go to the source material we trust in our positional dscussions and start posting it in volume on the boards when we are in a disagreement. I think posting the links to such articles is fine- anyone who wants to go look at it can. No one else has to and the continuity of the discussion is not interupted.
Well, when I followed the link I got a 404!
Anyhow, this thread seems to be about the Ultra-dispensationalist view that two gospels exist in the New Testament. My general thought on this theology is that the "two gospels" exist on our end, not God's end. I don't think that God made two plans of salvation; despite attempts to draw sharp contrasts between the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT, there is still overlap between Pauline writings and other NT writings on pivotal issues.
However, on our end, due to the limitations of our intellectual capacity and experience, I believe there are multiple ways of understanding salvation that revolve around the same core truths. For instance, here are some different conceptions of salvation that I find in the NT:
Romans: Transformation of human nature
Galatians: Freedom to be led by the Spirit rather than ceremonial laws / breaking down barriers between Jews and Gentiles
Hebrews: Presents salvation as a covenant between God and believers.
James, 1st John: Faith and salvation manifest through works of obedience
There is a way in which all of these work together. But, because of our limited vision, I think each of us gravitates toward a certain conception that fits the way we are wired and our own experience.
What do you think about this?
Samuel
Quote from: Graph1159 on June 15, 2015, 08:21:59 AM
Well, when I followed the link I got a 404!
Anyhow, this thread seems to be about the Ultra-dispensationalist view that two gospels exist in the New Testament. My general thought on this theology is that the "two gospels" exist on our end, not God's end. I don't think that God made two plans of salvation; despite attempts to draw sharp contrasts between the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT, there is still overlap between Pauline writings and other NT writings on pivotal issues.
However, on our end, due to the limitations of our intellectual capacity and experience, I believe there are multiple ways of understanding salvation that revolve around the same core truths. For instance, here are some different conceptions of salvation that I find in the NT:
Romans: Transformation of human nature
Galatians: Freedom to be led by the Spirit rather than ceremonial laws / breaking down barriers between Jews and Gentiles
Hebrews: Presents salvation as a covenant between God and believers.
James, 1st John: Faith and salvation manifest through works of obedience
There is a way in which all of these work together. But, because of our limited vision, I think each of us gravitates toward a certain conception that fits the way we are wired and our own experience.
What do you think about this?
Samuel
A reasonable explanation of the way things are on our end :o)
Sorry about the link error, that was quick.
http://www.graceandtruthnn.org/literature.htm (http://www.graceandtruthnn.org/literature.htm)
In the light of the reconciliation of all, all of Christian thought holds deeper meaning. If a direct and literal link to UR are required for discussion on this site, I have no objection whatsoever to the removal of the post. Likewise for complaints/argument/dissension/non-participation. Otherwise I personally learn the most from looking on from new vantages, and well, not much at all from falling in line with perspectives that align with mine, though I admit freely I had no idea such contention would arise from this topic. Anyway, chin up one and all, love remains constant. You know what they say, if you can love an ultra-dispensationalist, you can love anyone. ;)
What is Gary's theological position?
http://mercifultruth.com/links-promisedland.html --> Is what I'm reading 'covenant theology'? Is there any other scripture that clearly states that the Messiah is strictly Israel, and vise versa?
QuoteIs there any other scripture that clearly states that the Messiah is strictly Israel, and vise versa?
EXCELLENT QUESTION IAN !! :thumbsup:
For me does the grace of God have limitations ? the Cross of Jesus Christ opened heaven for all mankind , and in mankind /Adam
all die
But in Christ the Life giving Spirit
all will be made alive ...
Is there a soul/Adam on the face of the whole earth who does not need Gods love and mercy and grace shown to them ?
No matter how high and lofty one is or how lowly and needy , those High mountains and those lower valleys
GOD promises to make a plain.............. all will be equal in Gods sight and the high will be made low and the low will rise higher
GOD is merciful to all in His own will and timing the whole earth will learn of His righteousness
Isaiah 26 (NLT)
In that day, everyone in the land of Judah will sing this song:
Our city is strong!
We are surrounded by the walls of God's salvation.
Open the gates to all who are righteous; allow the faithful to enter.You will keep in perfect peace
all who trust in you,
all whose thoughts are fixed on you!
Trust in the Lord always,
for the Lord God is the eternal Rock.He humbles the proud and brings down the arrogant city.
He brings it down to the dust.
The poor and oppressed trample it underfoot,
and the needy walk all over it.B
ut for those who are righteous,
the way is not steep and rough.You are a God who does what is right,
and you smooth out the path ahead of them.
Lord, we show our trust in you by obeying your laws;
our heart's desire is to glorify your name.In the night I search for you;
in the morning I earnestly seek you.
For only when you come to judge the earth
will people learn what is right.Your kindness to the wicked
does not make them do good.
Although others do right, the wicked keep doing wrong
and take no notice of the Lord's majesty.O Lord, they pay no attention to your upraised fist.
Show them your eagerness to defend your people.
Then they will be ashamed.
Let your fire consume your enemies.
Lord, you will grant us peace;
all we have accomplished is really from you.O Lord our God, others have ruled us,
but you alone are the one we worship.Those we served before are dead and gone.
Their departed spirits will never return!
You attacked them and destroyed them,
and they are long forgotten.
O Lord, you have made our nation great;
yes, you have made us great.
You have extended our borders,
and we give you the glory!
Lord, in distress we searched for you.
We prayed beneath the burden of your discipline.
Just as a pregnant woman
writhes and cries out in pain as she gives birth,
so were we in your presence, Lord.
We, too, writhe in agony,
but nothing comes of our suffering.
We have not given salvation to the earth,
nor brought life into the world.
But those who die in the Lord will live;
their bodies will rise again!
Those who sleep in the earth
will rise up and sing for joy!
For your life-giving light will fall like dew
on your people in the place of the dead!
Go home, my people,
and lock your doors!
Hide yourselves for a little while
until the Lord's anger has passed.
Look! The Lord is coming from heaven
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will no longer hide those who have been killed.
They will be brought out for all to see. This is a beautiful witness in the old covenant of the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to make right a new creation by the new Covenant
being mercy on all who ask Him
Some kind of bad habit with my keyboarding........every thing is quickly highlighted and then deleted! :eek:
:doh:
Probably saved me from :footmouth:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: ian on June 17, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
Sorry about the link error, that was quick.
http://www.graceandtruthnn.org/literature.htm (http://www.graceandtruthnn.org/literature.htm)
In the light of the reconciliation of all, all of Christian thought holds deeper meaning. If a direct and literal link to UR are required for discussion on this site, I have no objection whatsoever to the removal of the post. Likewise for complaints/argument/dissension/non-participation. Otherwise I personally learn the most from looking on from new vantages, and well, not much at all from falling in line with perspectives that align with mine, though I admit freely I had no idea such contention would arise from this topic. Anyway, chin up one and all, love remains constant. You know what they say, if you can love an ultra-dispensationalist, you can love anyone. ;)
What is Gary's theological position?
http://mercifultruth.com/links-promisedland.html --> Is what I'm reading 'covenant theology'? Is there any other scripture that clearly states that the Messiah is strictly Israel, and vise versa?
Mercifultruth.com is not Gary's site. It belongs to another member of the forum. Several of us have sites, and some of them may not represent the views of the owner of this site in all things.
Quote from: ian on June 17, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
What is Gary's theological position?
He hasn't written much about it, but I have never seen the dual evangel teaching on his site. I'm pretty sure he doesn't teach that.
Quotehttp://mercifultruth.com/links-promisedland.html --> Is what I'm reading 'covenant theology'? Is there any other scripture that clearly states that the Messiah is strictly Israel, and vise versa?
I'm not sure if I understand the second question, but to the first, I'm sure that covenant theology adherents would agree with it, but it is not a presentation of covenant theology in total. It's a paper based on what I think about what the scriptures say and from listening to both sides of the issue of Israel.
Just curious. Wanted to know how best to define yours and his and mine and thus decide what exactly is relevant discussion here.
As for the second question, I was wondering how much evidence there is that Jesus and Israel are one and the same. I read the verses that you said testify to that perspective, and you made a fine case, but they also testify to mine, and I'm sure others as well. I was looking for more specific scripture that didn't necessarily hold relationship to my ideas, if they were available. As I mentioned before, our perspective of scripture is seemingly very close, but only a couple of small tweaks seem to change theology entirely. Anyway, I was in a bible study years back with some people that preached covenant theology, so I can pick the brain of an old friend as well.
Rose, do you have all of that scripture committed to memory? I would count myself fortunate to have relevant scripture at hand. I usually end up reading for 2 or 3 hours just to make a small post lol. I am a stickler for details though...
Ed, I'm well acquainted with the flavor of my feet. Not proud, but theoretically it builds character.
I think it depends on what you mean by Israel. If you are talking about Israel of the Old Testament, the nation, what I am saying is that it represents Christ to come, that it is a type of Christ as well as many other things in the Old Testment. So, when Christ came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, one of the types that he came to fulfill was the nation which finds its oneness in him now through faith. So I see Jesus Christ as the one and only seed of Abraham and that we are sharing in that distinction by virtue of being within him, and without him we are nothing.
Quote from: Seth on June 18, 2015, 07:05:28 AM
I think it depends on what you mean by Israel. If you are talking about Israel of the Old Testament, the nation, what I am saying is that it represents Christ to come, that it is a type of Christ as well as many other things in the Old Testment. So, when Christ came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, one of the types that he came to fulfill was the nation which finds its oneness in him now through faith. So I see Jesus Christ as the one and only seed of Abraham and that we are sharing in that distinction by virtue of being within him, and without him we are nothing.
Ain't it beautiful :o)
QuoteRose, do you have all of that scripture committed to memory? I would count myself fortunate to have relevant scripture at hand. I usually end up reading for 2 or 3 hours just to make a small post lol. I am a stickler for details though...
Hi Ian ,
Yes, somewhat , when reading the posts , the other scriptures come to mind ,and the search is on , and use Bible Gateway or bible hub and even Blueletterbible back in the day , a lot less now .
and a couple of bible definitions sites with Hebrew word meanings , for me they are some of the most awesome ''hidden manna'' of all and they begin to ''connect '' with other scriptures as well in ways you never thought possible .
I agree with you lots of reading for hours and hours ,
and mostly , and this sounds childish , But I just ask Jesus to please help me understand what he is meaning or saying in His Word of Life ...
I have learned there is more than just being ''literal '' that is one way to ''see it ''
but there are ''spiritual meanings '' as well that become powerful in peaceful settling the inner struggle of unrest and not knowing
and that doubting uncertainty .
I know we do change our minds on things often and I believe this is how spiritual growth happens , but on some things they become so solid and settled and become Truth to you to the point of where you cannot change your mind , and you stand firm in them .
I recall the scriptures in Hebrews where I thought ,Wow this is what is happening to us Lord !
I was thrilled to ''discover '' it
and find it amazing how you can read something and never saw it before , NOT LIKE THIS , that quaking or quickening causes us to keep on keeping on .
A true hunger and thirst for His righteousness for the inner man,'' spiritual Christ seed ''
First I already knew we are to hear His Voice and hear what the Spirit is saying and had to understand Jesus Christ is speaking from heaven
so when all that prep work was already there as He preapares.
This become LIGHT or shining from the obscure or hidden places of the WORD , I do believe God must prepare us to receive it in ''our hearts '' or shine upon it .
Hebrews 12 Our Kingdom Cannot Be Shaken
...25
See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking.
For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth,
much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.
26And
His voice shook the earth then,
but now He has promised, saying, "YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN."
27This expression, "Yet once more,"
denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken,
as of created things,
so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.... I loved this in seeing that it was shaking off the dust or the earthly wisdom and our vain imaginations and things that are not truth
Our own earth shook , just as they did to Israel back in the day and they refused to hear for fear ...but by faith are all things possible with God .
But as Jesus taught , If you do not hear Moses and the prophets ,its most likely you will not hear Him either .
Because to me , They are all saying the same things , but with even more revelation and mystery revealed .
All the answers are in the Bible in my opinion , they are just hidden till the right time to receive them .
A lot like building as it is compared to in places and careful how we hear and build .
I appreciate your contributions Ian and hope you will stay .
So many here that have come and gone over the years they are
all loved and missed .
Quote from: eaglesway on June 18, 2015, 08:45:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on June 18, 2015, 07:05:28 AM
I think it depends on what you mean by Israel. If you are talking about Israel of the Old Testament, the nation, what I am saying is that it represents Christ to come, that it is a type of Christ as well as many other things in the Old Testment. So, when Christ came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, one of the types that he came to fulfill was the nation which finds its oneness in him now through faith. So I see Jesus Christ as the one and only seed of Abraham and that we are sharing in that distinction by virtue of being within him, and without him we are nothing.
Ain't it beautiful :o)
Simply beautiful.
For others it is the sword that divides:
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
Quote from: ian on June 18, 2015, 04:30:32 AM
Ed, I'm well acquainted with the flavor of my feet. Not proud, but theoretically it builds character.
:laugh:
Yup.
:cloud9:
Quote from: ian on June 18, 2015, 04:13:20 AM
Anyway, I was in a bible study years back with some people that preached covenant theology, so I can pick the brain of an old friend as well.
Ian, I spent quite a bit of time debating a fellow from 119 ministries. It was all about covenant........I don't think it is the same theology but, my answer was that I am not under any covenant at all other then one that Jesus kept with our Father. He is the only one that ever kept the covenant. Covenants are all about law, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have to be a lawyer to follow Jesus Christ. I'm also not Jewish so I don't have to know Judaism to follow Jesus Christ. The 119 ministries is about Judaism. My answer was that Jesus was Jewish, but he is not anymore. As a gentile believer in Jesus Christ, knowing the King of heaven Jesus Christ, is not all about the Judaic law in any sense, it is all about love in every sense.
:footmouth:
Peace.
Under the new covenant, there is no law, because the lien holder of the first covenant was killed, so the wife is free. She can betroth herself to Jesus Christ. The marriage covenant is a covenant of faithfulness held together by the love between the betrothed, freely received, freely given.
Quote from: eaglesway on June 18, 2015, 05:49:17 PM
Under the new covenant, there is no law, because the lien holder of the first covenant was killed, so the wife is free. She can betroth herself to Jesus Christ. The marriage covenant is a covenant of faithfulness held together by the love between the betrothed, freely received, freely given.
I love that John ,
Jesus Christ being the head , authority , husband over His body ''one flesh'' the true church /assembly
Eph 5
luke And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." Matt27 ...51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom;
and the earth shook and the rocks were split.
52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection
they entered the holy city and appeared to many.... Jerusalem above mother all
Gal4 ...25Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem,
for she is in slavery with her children.
26
But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND."...
awesome seeing the picture unfold .....
Quote from: eaglesway on June 18, 2015, 05:49:17 PM
Under the new covenant, there is no law, because the lien holder of the first covenant was killed, so the wife is free. She can betroth herself to Jesus Christ. The marriage covenant is a covenant of faithfulness held together by the love between the betrothed, freely received, freely given.
:dsunny:
Yes, a marriage is covenant. I see a covenant, not as a law necessarily, but as a commitment.
It seems like all Christian chat forums I've been to spend most of their time debating Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism, and, the way I understand it, the difference is basically about interpreting scripture figuratively vs. literally. Call me crazy or guilty of any theology you want, but I think Israel is the nation of Jewish people who look forward to their coming kingdom of the heavens on earth ruled by Messiah through whom all the nations will be subjected to God. Of course that's after those of us who have been called out of the nations have been snatched away to meet Christ in the air. There are two different things going on there, and I think that's why Paul's evangel was considered to be different.
And this, as well as so many other posts that seem to go on and on, only do so because there is disagreement. I imagine if everyone plainly saw everything the exact same way, message boards would not exist. :laughing7:
I long for the time when we learn to treat each other as we do someone we are madly in love with. Anyone who has experienced that will know exactly what I am talking about.
I see the choice to interpret literally before reading as laying a criteria upon the text that the text itself does not call for. In other words, there is no verse that says "interpret this literally, interpret that figuratively." So, while your pre-determined choice to interpret, in a blanket fashion, everything literally until you see reason not to, is not by any means a foolproof method. I'm sure you realize that, but you say "call me crazy" as though you have the common sense approach and others do not.
If you and I were talking about something, but you chose to see my words as literal, but I didn't MEAN them to be literal, you would have misinterpret what I said.
Quote from: gregoryfl on June 18, 2015, 11:08:51 PM
And this, as well as so many other posts that seem to go on and on, only do so because there is disagreement. I imagine if everyone plainly saw everything the exact same way, message boards would not exist. :laughing7:
I long for the time when we learn to treat each other as we do someone we are madly in love with. Anyone who has experienced that will know exactly what I am talking about.
:iagree:
I think everybody interprets everything they read, scripture and otherwise. I also think language is meant to help people communicate by using commonly understood definitions of words, even though some can express more than one idea especially in English from what I've read, but anybody can also find a figurative interpretation for just about any word in any context it seems. Some people think all of scripture is figurative; some think much of it is; and some think some of it is. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that you should read anything with a literal understanding of what is meant unless the language seems to be figurative, but people tend to disagree about when that should be done. I also don't think it's unreasonable to think verbal conversation should usually be interpreted literally unless something seems figurative, but sometimes there are misunderstandings when something is perceived differently than what it was intended by the speaker. If assuming that people should read anything literally unless something figurative pops up is unreasonable, then how should they read? Should they assume everything is figurative unless it seems literal? How can you understand language if you don't make an assumption of the definition of words? It seems we need to use discernment about what we're reading. In other words, poetry often contains much figurative language, but other things such as technical information usually doesn't. How should we seek to interpret scripture to know the truth? How much of the 613 commandments in the law was figurative language? How much of the language involving any of the miracles in scripture was figurative language? Where do we draw the line, and how do we agree on where that is that anything is figurative or literal? It seems the logical way to decide that is to agree that words have meanings that we understand unless those meaning are changed by context, but that's where people disagree. That's why there is a continuous debate about figurative vs. literal. I personally don't care how anybody interprets scripture because I know we all filter all information through our own life experiences and knowledge that we've gained. I don't put anybody down for different interpretations, but I have my own that I think are just as valid. So I don't think there's much point in debating whether it's six or a half dozen because obviously it's both through different perspectives. It's sad that the Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism debate is a continuous happening on Christian chat forums, and I think it's actually the work of Satan dividing us just like the many denominations of the church. We get so bogged down in all peripheral doctrine when I thought the purpose of this forum was to publish the full scope of the evangel of God by supporting universal reconciliation and the salvation of all mankind. I say to all my brothers and sisters to interpret your scripture however you want, and I'll do the same without expecting anybody to convert to my way of thinking. You wouldn't want to be inside my crazy head anyway. But I'd also say that you shouldn't expect me to convert to your way of thinking either, for whatever reason, even though I try to keep an open mind and change it when it seems like there's a good reason to. I think most of us here experienced that when we came to believe in universal reconciliation except maybe the lucky few who may have been raised with that doctrine. So I guess the bottom line is I don't care about Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism, only trying to understand what scripture is really saying to me, and I hope we all eventually have a clear understanding of that, not because of any theology but in spite of it, because I think theology is just the philosophy of man, but the word of God is truth.
Quote. If assuming that people should read anything literally unless something figurative pops up is unreasonable, then how should they read? Should they assume everything is figurative unless it seems literal? How can you understand language if you don't make an assumption of the definition of words?
I wouldn't say it's unreasonable. But, it's definitely a presupposition. I am not saying that we don't interpret. I just don't think there should be pre-formulated rules about it. I just think comparing scripture to scripture to see what pops out whether literal or figurative is my preferred way rather than pre-assuming the literal. I just see that as my old church's way of having homogenous interpretation of the Bible.
I am honestly perplexed at the idea that this discussion is a tool of Satan to divide. It's just a discussion on a discussion board about things that the Bible does talk about.
Thank you. There have been a few expressions that speak volumes...
Love is so instructive.
Quote from: rosered on June 18, 2015, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on June 18, 2015, 11:08:51 PM
And this, as well as so many other posts that seem to go on and on, only do so because there is disagreement. I imagine if everyone plainly saw everything the exact same way, message boards would not exist. :laughing7:
I long for the time when we learn to treat each other as we do someone we are madly in love with. Anyone who has experienced that will know exactly what I am talking about.
:iagree:
Talking
figuratively and even perhaps literally on this occasion,
if someone has that overpowering love for someone else,
and the family love of a dear and loving sibling,
and the paternal and maternal love for a child, and much more...
then all this love is rolled into one,
then all this love is multiplied a thousand, thousand times,
then we are still not getting anywhere near to understanding the love that GOD has for His child each one
His child,
His child, HIS child,
HIS child!
His Love is the truth.
Only such Love gets crucified daily, not just once - LOVE could be no other Way.
That is getting closer to our GOD, in my opinion.
Peace in Christ
Competing theologies divide us; holy spirit unites us; and holy spirit is love because it's the power of God who is spirit and love.
Competing theologies is how I came to believe UR.
I think all of us here on the forum came to believe in universal reconciliation because it was revealed as the truth to us by holy spirit.
I agree with that. But for me he did it by leading me to a competing, or conflicting theology from my own.
I didn't identify with a theology when it happened to me, and I still don't. But I was on a die hard King James site when I got mysteriously bounced to one about universal reconciliation, and I don't remember even thinking about theology then. I was just amazed that I never heard about it before, and I didn't think it was true until I read a whole bunch more about it without any thought at all about theology. Since it seems evident from this thread that belief in it is common to different theologies, I'd say it transcends theology.
Tom, my point is that those ETers probably think that Satan is using UR proponents to sow dissent. I changed my mind about ET because I saw the arguments being made Gary Amirault etc. If their position was, let's not argue about theology and just love eachother, he might not have worked so hard to get the message out there. Discussing covenant theology and dispensationalism is not the tool of Satan. It's just a discussion.
BTW one of the reasons Christians are discussing it a lot probably has something to do with world events especially concerning the current state of Israel and Palestine. There is good reason to believe that the Balfour Declaration had something to do with a viewpoint of theology. It has an affect on the real world, and even on American policy.
Quote from: gregoryfl on June 18, 2015, 11:08:51 PM
And this, as well as so many other posts that seem to go on and on, only do so because there is disagreement. I imagine if everyone plainly saw everything the exact same way, message boards would not exist. :laughing7:
I long for the time when we learn to treat each other as we do someone we are madly in love with. Anyone who has experienced that will know exactly what I am talking about.
I know what you mean, and I think we all long for that day, but I believe people who are in love
endure contention, for loves sake ;)
Each of us paints a picture and if another doesn't see the picture, then we're stuck making relevance of the bits. This is the frustration.
There have been several covenants between God and man, and only He upholds them, though how I see it is even at the time of Paul, both the old and new covenants existed, the law nullified to those in Christ only. For whenever Israel should return to God (foreshadowing [also, for us no return]) the veil is removed, then He can move on to the nations. Complement of nations entering > Israel reconciled> nations reconciled. Interestingly enough, there are two allotments in prophecy granted the "prince" which He
can give to His "sons."
I see only temporary corrections for Israel, and an inevitable outcome.
The realization is sinking in though, that making this into a complete thought is a life's work. So... yikes.
I am sure Paul loved all, as Jesus did before him, yet, there was a lot of discussion and disagreement in the temple. Paul wrote the things he wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I think. :o)
The questions and issues we discuss are common to those who read our posts. As long as we hover around the gospel of the salvation of all, we will serve well enough. Altho we do not disagree on that, it seems we have the same disagreements otherwise as the rest of churchianity.
This forum allows the discussion of other issues within certain limitations, but exists to carry on the message of ultimate reconciliation and the restoration of all things- the victorious gospel of Jesus Christ.
As long as we dont forget that, and get carried away issues things that for this site are peripheral theologies, we will serve.
Quote from: Tom on June 19, 2015, 03:08:26 AM
I didn't identify with a theology when it happened to me, and I still don't. But I was on a die hard King James site when I got mysteriously bounced to one about universal reconciliation, and I don't remember even thinking about theology then. I was just amazed that I never heard about it before, and I didn't think it was true until I read a whole bunch more about it without any thought at all about theology. Since it seems evident from this thread that belief in it is common to different theologies, I'd say it transcends theology.
Ah, good to agree with you Tom!
:transcendence:
Quote from: eaglesway on June 19, 2015, 08:38:13 AM
I am sure Paul loved all, as Jesus did before him, yet, there was a lot of discussion and disagreement in the temple. Paul wrote the things he wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I think. :o)
The questions and issues we discuss are common to those who read our posts. As long as we hover around the gospel of the salvation of all, we will serve well enough. Altho we do not disagree on that, it seems we have the same disagreements otherwise as the rest of churchianity.
This forum allows the discussion of other issues within certain limitations, but exists to carry on the message of ultimate reconciliation and the restoration of all things- the victorious gospel of Jesus Christ.
As long as we dont forget that, and get carried away issues things that for this site are peripheral theologies, we will serve.
1 Corinthians
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Heresies are a must.
We endure them.
I argue against two evangels on another board hard, I won't do it here.
This thread has been a good representation of heresy(party spirit), and is hard to read at times. It is hard to not get caught up in the argument, because for he most part, the argument does not matter at all concerning universal reconciliation.
Normally I stand alone in my argument on the other board, so I make the most extreme arguments, that tend to be very offensive...............I know that.....
James 2
2 For in many things we offend all.
Some people are ready to be offended, as the Lord has set the time for them. I see the offence that Jesus was talking about in the book of Matthew, concerning those that would not enter His kingdom. That same spirit is still at work in much the same way. I thank God for the day that I listened to that still small voice that said "doctrine is not your Lord".
Colossians 3
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
14
And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. :flamebreath:
Sure is a blessing to struggle in these matters with you all.
:verythankful:
I don't think God cares about any theology. I think God just wants us to love him and each other. I also think defending one particular imagined compartmentalization of theology is comical. I just try to interpret scripture logically to get the truth. I'll leave it to you theologians to argue about who has the best theory about your faith.
Good to see this TRUTH come out in the open .....
I believe God confounded the languages in Gen 11 in His own Wisdom AND POWER that no thief and robber could ever enter His Kingdom by force
OR ANY other way but BY JESUS CHRIST .. HIS SPIRIT & ACTIVE LIVING SEED
and Jesus come to DIVIDE and conquer , you see ,to me this is the very thing Jesus would do by saying this in our very house , walls within us being foundations and satan is divided against himself ..satan meaning an adversary /enemy against an adversary /enemy LUKE 11
A House Divided IN ITS SELF IS FOUND IN ALL OF US
...17But He knew their thoughts and said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. 18"If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19"And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges....
sons being offspring of the seeds of many , but there is only one seed being Christ ...
Matt 10 I did not come to bring peace but a SWORD , mankind has used the SWORD /WORD OF GOD to kill each other with for centuries now
I did not come to bring peace but division Luke 12 Not Peace, But Division!!!
...50"But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!
51"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth?
I tell you, no, but rather division;
52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three....
Our own inner conflict by the law of the old covenant of Moses that is the ministration of death and the new covenant of grace that is the ministration of the Spirit of Christ being LIFE of itself
would cause the divisions and the falling from grace
Our own two natures being of both son of mankind and being son of God have caused great divisions and conflicts
and the inability to grasp the TRUTH , THAT IS TO TAKE AHOLD OF AND HANDLE THE WORD OF LIFE
in the very GRACE OF GOD BY HIS OWN SPIRIT OF TRUTH
we will use this great SWORD / WORD OF GOD to slay one another with it and that brings judgment on our own heads
Whatever WORD /seed is within us DOES JUDGE US , if we do not live by the very thing we judge in others
this is why some are as dead men walking WITH THOSE IDLE WORDS THAT ARE inactive · unused · unoccupied · unemployed · disused FAKE !
the WORD SPOKEN JUDGES YOU MATT 12
A Tree Recognized by its Fruit
...35"The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
JOHN 12 47"If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him;
for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49"For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak....
FAITH WITHOUT LIVING WORKS IS DEAD
... JAMES 2
word seed
Mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
Mat 13:23 But he that receives seed into the good ground is he that hears the word, and understands it; which also bears fruit, and brings forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Jhn 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides/dwells for ever.
sword being the word of God that divides
Hebrews 412For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
live sword die sword /WORD OF GOD
...51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.
52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?...
Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Exodus 21:12
"Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
Revelation 13:10
"If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity they will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword they will be killed." This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God's people.
It really is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God
Hebrews 10
A Call to Persevere
...30For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,...
The simplicity of Christ is we want mercy show mercy , you want peace make peace , you want to be loved show love !!!
MATT 5 BEING LIKE OUR FATHER
So as we judge so shall we be judged :dontknow:
I think it is very healthy to exchange conflicting viewpoints, but for me the balance is that once it becomes circular, with the same points being made with no concessions, it tends to become more of an argument, even as potential frustration seeps in, with both sides wishing the other could just see their viewpoint, and perhaps resorting to more colorful, forceful ways to get the point across.
I think the key is knowing where that tipping point is. For instance, Tom, I disagree with the two evangel idea, but I in no way intend to disrespect you over it, and am interested in seeing how you present your viewpoint. I think we have all experienced enough closed off minds (with regards to responses to UR) to be too quick to dismiss others. I think a respectful debate is invigorating and challenging, until it reaches that tipping point of veering into argument, which we are all capable of.
One thing I strongly believe is that only people who are insecure about what they believe refuse to hear other viewpoints. We can do nothing against the truth, only for it, so if I believe something, why feel threatened by a different viewpoint? I notice this a lot with the attitude of Christians towards Mormons, for an example. I have heard many Christians talking about being rude and hateful towards Mormons, and gloating about it, as if they have stood up for the truth by slamming the door in their face for preaching "another gospel", but why should we fear them? Would it not be better to invite them in and speak the true gospel to them? Would it not be better to show them some love, rather than act as though even letting them set foot in the door will cause us to rush to the altar of Joseph Smith?
God uses different perspectives all the time to help us all. Not just disagreements, but different perspectives on something we agree on too. We are all different lenses that the Spirit shines through, and have different patterns of personality and scriptural revelation. No matter how much we grow, other perspectives will always be useful, not least for getting us out of the little universe contained in our own head. We have no need that any man teach us, owing to the anointing that is in us, but we sure can edify one another!
The ability to disagree in a loving manner is very beneficial, and hopefully a testimony to visitors to these boards!
Quote from: Tom on June 19, 2015, 04:33:14 PM
I don't think God cares about any theology. I think God just wants us to love him and each other. I also think defending one particular imagined compartmentalization of theology is comical. I just try to interpret scripture logically to get the truth. I'll leave it to you theologians to argue about who has the best theory about your faith.
Tom, come on. You are as theological as anyone else on the forum ;o)
Shev that was amazing !!!!!!!!!!!! A HEARTY AMEN!!
:HeartThrob: The fruits of the Holy Spirit seems almost like the tree of Life to me that makes the leaves for the healing of nations
twelve fruits every month being rooted and grounded in Christ which is the Love of God towards us all and the HOLY SPIRIT of truth is witness
Rev22 The River of Life
1Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
2in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life,
bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month;
and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him;...
fruits of the Spirit 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Ephesians 5:9
9 for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
We are the work of His hands and bearing fruit to God
John 15 Jesus the True Vine
...7"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
8"My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9"Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love....
one either side of the river from the east to the west
this also how Jesus comes from the east to the west!
Ezekiel 47:12
Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear fruit, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing."
Zechariah 14:8
On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter.
Revelation 2:7
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
The Return of the Son of Man
26"So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather....
Ezekiel 1:14
The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
So really ,,, the proof of the root is in the fruit and the proof of the fruit is in the root
16
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,
17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
18may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,...
Cross References
John 14:23
Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
Romans 8:9
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Romans 8:10
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 3:6
I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?
Ephesians 2:22
And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Colossians 1:23
if you continue in your faith, established and firm,
and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.
This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
Colossians 2:7
rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
I haven't been online because I'm taking care of family business for a few days, but I think the problem isn't "theology," but the mindset of competing theologies evident by some who identify with one perceived type of theology putting down others from another perceived type of theology even though scripture says there is "one body and one spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism."
"I am entreating you, then, I, the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie of peace: one body and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:1-6)
The original post has been edited with a link that is dead, but it seems the idea was to establish a discussion about the possibility of two evangels in operation back when the apostles were doing their thing, which has been contradicted by the idea from those who seem to identify with Covenant Theology that Dispensationalism is an incorrect interpretation of scripture.
I read scripture for many years before I even became aware of different theologies, and I'm not interested in debating which is best. It's my understanding that the basic difference is figurative vs. literal, but I know there's more to it than that. I don't think the original post was concerned with debating two theologies even though it's been said that's actually what it's all about.
It was Paul who made the distinction in scripture about "the evangel of the Uncircumcision."
"But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision." (Galatians 2:7-9)
The council at Jerusalem decided that Paul would minister to the nations because they seemed to think his evangel was different. It's my understanding that was the reason for the meeting because Paul wasn't requiring the nations to be subject to the law which the believers in Israel still seemed to be practicing.
In Antioch Paul was severed by holy spirit to evangelize the nations.
"Now, at their ministering to the Lord and fasting, the holy spirit said, 'Sever, by all means, to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'" (Acts 13:2)
I think scripture is clear that Israel will get its promised kingdom of the heavens after all those who have been chosen will be called out of the nations. The problem is some people think the church is Israel, but I think scripture is clear that Israel will have its earthly kingdom of the heavens while those of us in the ecclesia, the body of Christ, will have been snatched away to meet Christ in the air to minister in the celestial realm in the coming eon.
Jesus Christ died for our sins, was entombed, and was roused from the dead by the glory of the Father. That's the evangel, but there seemed to be something different going on with Israel and the nations when it was being preached by different people. Yes, Peter was first sent to Cornelius who seems to have become a proselyte of the believers of Israel, but Peter was given a hard time for that by his buddies. And, then when Peter withdrew from associating with the nations for fear of the Jerusalem big shots, Paul gave him a hard time about that. The Jewish believers kept their law, but Paul told the nations we weren't subject to the law because we're saved in grace through faith. So there was obviously something different going on back then, and I don't think the church or the ecclesia, the body of Christ, is Israel now that there is a pause in the fulfillment of the kingdom of the heavens until all the chosen have been called out of the nations just because we're one in spirit with the believers in Israel.
But I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuously debating whether there was one or two evangels going on back then because it seems obvious to me what was happening. I'm not interested in putting anybody down for disagreeing with my interpretation, and I think everybody should respect everybody else's interpretation without dismissing any simply by labeling any as one theology or another. I don't see anything positive coming out of that. So I think it's just better to agree to disagree and concentrate on universal reconciliation and the salvation of all mankind from sin and death at the consummation of the eons, which is what I thought the main purpose of this site was supposed to be all about.
I have "agape" for fellow believers who haven't received the revelation of universal reconciliation, whether they've heard it or not, just the same way I have "agape" for fellow believers who believe there is one evangel or two evangels because I believe anybody who believes Jesus Christ died for our sins, was entombed, and roused from the dead by the glory of the Father is a believer, regardless of how they interpret scripture, regardless of what theology they identify with, and regardless of whether or not they understand creation and reconciliation have the same scope.
That's what I meant about letting you theologians do your thing while I just say peace be with you.
Just thought I would provide the definition of theology from Websters:
Full Definition of THEOLOGY
1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>
3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
-----
The word theology sounds pretty dry and technical, but "a study of God and of God's relation to the world" I think sounds like something we are all involved with on this forum, and without it, I probably would still believe in eternal damnation. It is the Berean way.
By the way Tom, in this forum I have seen you use the term "Protestants" "Methodists" "Calvinist" "arminiesm" and "universalism" and now suddenly you don't like labels.
My feelings are not hurt, and I hope yours are not either.
As far as a theology that I cling to, I pretty much go with my gut, all the differing theologies tend to have something good to add to the table.
The problem that I have with two evangels is really not about Bible interpretation and what they use to do back then.
My problem is the Judaizing of the gentile church by misuse of the Bible. I have no problem with Jewish people being Jewish, or Jewish believers incorporating Judaism into their faith. None of that concerns me.
The problem that I have is the confusion that is infused into the church by attempting to infuse Judaism into the Christian faith.
I get this argument all the time..............Jesus is Jewish, Christianity started from Judaism, Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.
I disagree. I'm in no way attached to Judaism for following Christ. Paul was, Paul was under the law....................I never was under the law.
Tom I fully realize that this is not the argument that you are making. I think that it does need to be addressed when having this discussion though. I think that you make some very good points for two evangels from the book of acts and the one portion in Galatians. I'm a little bummed because my link for an interlinear no longer works, so I can't do an in depth word study on the Galatians passage.
This is the one I was using:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/
Is there a better one to for Srong's concordance, interlinear , and Greek work studying?
Anyhows I spent too much time writing this on the weekend........I get in trouble when I do that.
Peace
In another sense as well, there remains distinction in the body, as well it should be, as each is given a distinct role to play, all in the union that is the Messiah. The same writer who said there was neither Jew nor Aramaean also said there is neither male nor female. And yet, males continue have their distinctive roles in the body, and women do as well. Marriage still exists as the bringing together of those distinctions in the oneness of the marital bond. No one would say that men and women no longer exist. I believe it is the same with the other distinctions as well.
Paul also wrote of the whole body not being an eye, or an ear, etc...One body, distinct parts differing in what they do for that one body.
I believe the context of there being neither Jew nor Aramaean, bond nor free, circumcision nor uncircumcision, male nor female...has to do with inclusion in that body. All the distinct parts have equal right and access to the one body of Messiah. Whereas before such distinctions caused others to be separated (Eph 2:11,12) such is no longer the case.
Ronen
I'm as much against Judaizing Jewish Christians as I am Gentile Christians, personally. And of don't think Peter, James or John was doing that. They were encouraging us to love in deed and in truth. I don't call that Judaizing myself.
I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.
I think the important thing is to realize we are unlikely to change one another's minds about our theological presets, so as we discuss and share our views, it is important we stay in patience and gentleness.
But that is nt why we are here anyway.
The site is devoted to sharing the salvation of all, and we have come into it from different backgrounds and with different theological emphasis.
I personally believe the salvation of all is more fundamental than most of the things we discuss. A deeper foundation is Christ Himself, His birth, life. atoning death and resurrection- and His Lordship. Other than that I do not see a deeper foundation stone than the salvation of all.
Quote from: Shev on June 20, 2015, 06:17:06 AM
One thing I strongly believe is that only people who are insecure about what they believe refuse to hear other viewpoints. We can do nothing against the truth, only for it, so if I believe something, why feel threatened by a different viewpoint? I notice this a lot with the attitude of Christians towards Mormons, for an example. I have heard many Christians talking about being rude and hateful towards Mormons, and gloating about it, as if they have stood up for the truth by slamming the door in their face for preaching "another gospel", but why should we fear them? Would it not be better to invite them in and speak the true gospel to them? Would it not be better to show them some love, rather than act as though even letting them set foot in the door will cause us to rush to the altar of Joseph Smith?
:iagree:
Quote from: bushy on June 21, 2015, 07:45:28 PM
Quote from: Shev on June 20, 2015, 06:17:06 AM
One thing I strongly believe is that only people who are insecure about what they believe refuse to hear other viewpoints. We can do nothing against the truth, only for it, so if I believe something, why feel threatened by a different viewpoint? I notice this a lot with the attitude of Christians towards Mormons, for an example. I have heard many Christians talking about being rude and hateful towards Mormons, and gloating about it, as if they have stood up for the truth by slamming the door in their face for preaching "another gospel", but why should we fear them? Would it not be better to invite them in and speak the true gospel to them? Would it not be better to show them some love, rather than act as though even letting them set foot in the door will cause us to rush to the altar of Joseph Smith?
:iagree:
I find them in the
first of the seven churches and Ephesus , means ''permitted'' in Rev 2
I see the 7 churches as the race that even we are running , as Paul taught in the WORD and said he wrangled with the
beasts of Ephesus , being beastly natured men [carnal babes in Christ ]and your sins are forgiven you for his names sake ..
As spiritually symbolic of the beasts hating the whore [ Babylon ] God has put in in their minds to hate the whore of the earth and queen of heaven , being the lies eating her flesh and burning her with fire
again symbolic of the tongues of fire
speaking against them and devouring one another God permits this but also has the warnings
To the Church in Ephesus
2 "To the
angel of the church in Ephesus write: messenger as'' a star'' in Jesus ''right hand of power '' being a light in the darkness of ignorance that covers the earth in what is the Will , desire of God in His Glory'' LIGHT OF HIM ''
These are the words of him who holds the
seven stars in his right hand and
walks among the seven golden lampstands.
2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and
have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.4
Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.
5
Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent,
I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
I know there is history about this'' time '' and people as examples
but we also must learn to discern the ''times '' and peoples as ''nothing new under the sun '' exactly the same natures and waring as the times of old
Gods Word is perpetual unchanging , meaning occurring repeatedly so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted....
To me more as signs and seasons of the same ''exact things'', that has not changed in human nature from the beginning
But Gods Word has not changed towards this exact dealing with us as repeated over and over again , as they progress individually
The lampstand removal to me means the Holy OIL OR HOLY SPIRIT [5 wise and 5 foolish virgins] in the kingdom , from them being that they have fallen from grace
The grace is the unmerited favor of the Lord by the LORD JESUS CHRIST AS the tree of Life being the LOVE and rooted and grounded in HIM , and I see them as to going back to
LAW as the tree of knowledge of good and evil , which is the ministration of death
He who lives by the Sword dies by the Sword /WORD OF GOD ..
and there is the other 6 churches as progression and the end , last one is warned not to become lukewarm/rejected after all the revelation in JESUS CHRIST
This has been my comfort and only sharing my own personal view , what I consider kingdom ''treasures '' and do believe the Holy Spirit is truly teaching me
If you see this as being deceived and want no part of it , it not my place to judge
anyones faith ,
The WORD judges us all , for real
WE ARE JUST WITNESSES TO HIS GLORY and the work of His hands The rewards are with Him in those seven eyes '' Spirits '' of the 7 churches
also the correction by those whom he loves and chastens and corrects His eyes are on them always :HeartThrob:
Quote from: rosered on June 21, 2015, 09:16:35 PM
I find them in the first of the seven churches and Ephesus , means "permitted" in Rev 2
I see the 7 churches as the race that even we are running , as Paul taught in the WORD and said he wrangled with the beasts of Ephesus , being beastly natured men [carnal babes in Christ ]and your sins are forgiven you for his names sake ..
As spiritually symbolic of the beasts hating the whore [ Babylon ] God has put in in their minds to hate the whore of the earth and queen of heaven , being the lies eating her flesh and burning her with fire
again symbolic of the tongues of fire speaking against them and devouring one another
God permits this but also has the warnings
To the Church in Ephesus
2 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: messenger as" a star" in Jesus "right hand of power " being a light in the darkness of ignorance that covers the earth in what is the Will , desire of God in His Glory" LIGHT OF HIM "
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.
2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.
5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
I know there is history about this" time " and people as examples
but we also must learn to discern the "times " and peoples as "nothing new under the sun " exactly the same natures and waring as the times of old
Gods Word is perpetual unchanging , meaning occurring repeatedly so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted....
To me more as signs and seasons of the same "exact things", that has not changed in human nature from the beginning
But Gods Word has not changed towards this exact dealing with us as repeated over and over again , as they progress individually
The lampstand removal to me means the Holy OIL OR HOLY SPIRIT [5 wise and 5 foolish virgins] in the kingdom , from them being that they have fallen from grace
The grace is the unmerited favor of the Lord by the LORD JESUS CHRIST AS the tree of Life being the LOVE and rooted and grounded in HIM , and I see them as to going back to LAW as the tree of knowledge of good and evil , which is the ministration of death
He who lives by the Sword dies by the Sword /WORD OF GOD ..
and there is the other 6 churches as progression and the end , last one is warned not to become lukewarm/rejected after all the revelation in JESUS CHRIST
This has been my comfort and only sharing my own personal view , what I consider kingdom "treasures " and do believe the Holy Spirit is truly teaching me
If you see this as being deceived and want no part of it , it not my place to judge anyones faith , The WORD judges us all , for real
WE ARE JUST WITNESSES TO HIS GLORY and the work of His hands The rewards are with Him in those seven eyes " Spirits " of the 7 churches
also the correction by those whom he loves and chastens and corrects His eyes are on them always :HeartThrob:
Lovely rose,
The seven churches is always a good read for the current state of the believer.
You made me hungry to do so.
:friendstu:
Blessings Ed , so glad you can understand '' in this way'', also!!! :dsunny:
Quote from: Tom on June 21, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.
I agree with all that, especially the bolded part. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Seth on June 22, 2015, 12:15:11 AM
Quote from: Tom on June 21, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.
I agree with all that, especially the bolded part. :thumbsup:
:iagree: as well Seth & Tom :thumbsup:
There are many layers of'' seeing '' Gods Word though, History ''eye'' , and the literal ''eye'' and the Spiritual ''eye'' of understanding and many
depths His riches are all poured out for our benefit .... praise the Lord !!
God bless .. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Tom on June 21, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.
Using one school of thought to put down another is just typical religion. Theology in action is the study of God. Theology as a possession is that perspective that each one of us has derived from our study.
I think you present and defend a pretty clear theology- and there is nothing wrong with that. It is your point of view. You and Seth and I post more on general theology than everyone else on the forum combined. Sometimes we discuss, sometimes we debate.
Everyone says, "I am just interested in what the scriptures say"- and I think they are sincere, because none of us arrived at what we believed lightly.
When sincere people disagree with one another there are several obvious possibilities, such as- Some are right about some things and wrong about others and no one is right about everything. Sometimes we do not fully understand one another's positions and terminology. Sometimes we argue two sides of one coin(heads is the truth- no tails is the truth)- but to the extent anyone is in disagreement with what the Spirit is teaching through the scriptures there is one culprit that is
always in the mix- and it is our theologies.
The systems of interelating verses we use to present our points of view are inherently theological....
Unless they are spiritual.....
But they clearly all arent, or else we would all agree ;o)
"Debate" is often circular and fruitless anyway. The benefit is that some others may learn the ins and outs of opposing views and make their own conclusions. Debate, for the debaters, is not a "learning mechanism". It is a method of conducting ideological conflict, a war of words. It can be more or less collegial, depending on the rules of the debate.
"Discussion" implies a mutual journey. Conducting a debate in the tone of a discussion is really just a polite, heavily moderated debate. There is not much discussion about theological issues. It quickly becomes debate- and that is ok because the questions are legitimate...the answers are sometimes complex. There may be a little bit of sifting that gets done in the process, but the pattern I have noticed is someone asks a question and then evryone else beats it to death until they can t stand it anymore because the dead body of the question just stinks too much to endure :laugh:
For that reason we want to try to keep reminding ourselves that these little quarrels are being carried out on every other forum out there. We are here to bring things back to the salvation of all,
upon which we all agree- regardless of our other theology.
I had no idea there we're people who thought there might be two Gospels. Where on Earth did that come from. I thought the Gospel was that Jesus died the death and was raised to life so that when we die the death we can be raised to life. OK, that may require several qualifications but I thought that was basically how it goes.
The best way I can even being to reconcile this concept is to consider the effect of one Gospel in two administrations. Basically the Gospel, being a message of Good News, contains no obligation on the Gentiles to follow the Jewish Torah. At the same time it contains no power to free the Jewish people from the obligations they've already been put under.
A bit like the question of paying tribute to Ceasar. The Jews already have to do so, so must continue to do so as best they can at least until freed from the obligation forcefully in AD 70.
My :2c:
I'm not exactly sure I understand the second part of that. The obligation for the Jews to follow the Torah is due to being blinded by God in order to initiate the Gentile conversion. So it wouldn't be a result of the Good News in a separate administration, but a way of spreading the Good News. It's that Jesus is the Savior of all, and faith brings the gift of the Spirit for anyone who does believe including the Israel remnant. The remnant and the Gentiles were all one under the same Gospel.
But that doesn't make sense. God gave them the law, with the understanding that they should follow it even if He knew that they wouldn't. He didn't mitigate all the punishments He put in then because when they failed it was as He expected and even intended in order to prove a point about human fallibility.
The Gospel means, to me in this context, you don't need to follow the Jewish law to be put right with God, Jesus has achieved that.
But just as the Jewish state (if that's the right term in the context) is run by a Roman administration who they are expected to pay taxes to which Jesus said, 'yes, you should pay' because He wasn't instituting rebellion against Rome. It is also run by a Jewish religious state operated by the Scribes and the Pharisees who, while Jesus disapproves of hasn't yet overthrown and they don't accept Him. In the same sense as Jesus isn't pushing for Jews to rebel against the Roman leadership they're not authorized to actively oppose the Jewish leadership either.
Is that clearer, it's just my feeling about something that seems a very strange idea?
What is it specifically about my post that didn't make sense?
Not sure I can remember, sorry. May have misunderstood may have been in a mindset that read in other things. But I know the idea of there being two Gospels has been pitched apparently on the basis of some scriptural support which must mean something. I was attempting to propose that at the time Paul wrote his epistles and I think most if not all other epistles were written it was pre-AD 70 and the Jews lived mainly in a Jewish administration in Palestine who expected them to follow the law and would punish them accordingly if the didn't. I doubt Jesus would consider it good service to willfully break the law and thus fall under the consequences, often death, that would just mean they couldn't be effective servants, I suspect.
Oh, wait I've remembered the part that didn't make sense about your post. You said that "the obligation for the Jews to follow the Torah is due to being blinded by God in order to initiate the Gentile conversion." How does that work? They were blinded by God for a very long time prior to the Gentile conversion including getting exiled from their state precisely because they didn't keep their obligation. That seems more than a little tricksy to me.
Just to be clear, I am in agreement with you that the two-evangel theory is problematic. I think it's false. My point about attempting to reconcile it had been a response to this, what you said:
"The best way I can even being to reconcile this concept is to consider the effect of one Gospel in two administrations. Basically the Gospel, being a message of Good News, contains no obligation on the Gentiles to follow the Jewish Torah. At the same time it contains no power to free the Jewish people from the obligations they've already been put under.
A bit like the question of paying tribute to Ceasar. The Jews already have to do so, so must continue to do so as best they can at least until freed from the obligation forcefully in AD 70."
We have to distinguish between the Israelites that became believers and those who were not. The two-evangel Gospel theory states that Jewish BELIEVERS are still under the Law (mixed with Grace) to this day. So, my earlier comments are meant to distinguish between them. The wider part of Israel was blinded to Christ to bring the Gentiles into the fold along with a remnant of Jewish believers. THOSE two latter groups are under ONE Gospel and administration of Grace without Law, while the rest of Israel is still under the Law. Even after 70AD they follow the Law as best they can.
In other words the "one Gospel under two administrations" would mean to me, the Gospel to the remnant of Israel and the Gospel to the Gentiles without a difference in content, just a difference in audience.
Oh, I certainly don't believe any Jewish Christians should be considered to be under the law now, that's not even possible to try to keep I don't know why people would argue it should be, they seem to be arguing against themselves even more than people who like to think they keep the law but don't because they must know they don't keep any part of the sacrificial law.
My only point was that have endured reading all Tom's articles that he posted I got them impression that there might be some Biblical support for this principle which we can't just dismiss. I was trying to reconcile that with the fact that that could be considered the case with the fact that I think all such material pertains (but I could be wrong) to the world before AD 70. Even Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, which He did. But it just seemed to me to make sense on the basis of things written in the text that before AD 70 it wouldn't do to advocate (or look like you might be advocating) for Jewish Christians to go around flaunting the law in whole or in part which was likely to just get them punished needlessly.
Not that anyone advocates for people to go around breaking the law anyway, I find the whole presentation of this really weird. I've not given up trying to resolve it but it still seems pointless to just tell someone they're no longer under the law, the breaking of which is sin, and them telling them they still shouldn't sin, while at the same time apparently continuing to keep the same definition of sin: breaking a law or laws they're no longer under. :dontknow:
I definitely appreciate you testing it and seeing if it makes sense. I think that's important for anyone seeking truth. You have to weigh the evidence and see what makes most sense given what you have. So, think it's a good conversation to have.
It's very true that Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law. But, I think that's a good way to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat. After all, in Romans 7, Paul compares the Law to a wedding contract. To get out of the marriage, you can't destroy the contract; that would be dishonest. Fulfilling a wedding contract requires death. So, in Romans 6, he describes that death by way of baptism into Christ's own death and resurrection to a new way of life. Jesus didn't destroy the Law. He fulfilled the contract by killing us.
He killed our old man, and resurrected us into the new man instead. Now, we can all be under a new wedding contract.
That's why I don't believe the Jewish believers needed to wait until 70AD to released from the old contract. They just needed to believe and receive the Spirit. I also think that is why Paul said that Jesus "is the end of the Law for righteousness for anyone that believes." (Romans 10:4). Notice that he didn't say that Jesus is the end of RIGHTEOUSNESS, but the end of the Law FOR righteousness.
Meaning, the Spirit is the new way for righteousness, not the Law. The Jewish believers didn't need to wait for 70AD to have that. All they needed was to believe.
I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.
That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.
Was it Peter who wrote that (brother) Paul wrote some things "hard to understand"? I think that's very true! Even though this isn't a discussion of law vs grace :doh: (did I say that out loud? :eek: I need a smiley here that holds up his fingers in a cross, lol) but I bring it up because they're related.. When seeing the aforementioned 'debates' I hated to mention, i always think 'but they are missing how The Law actually isn't good enough'.. As we know, Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount(ain) "don't commit adultery" or "don't murder" are not the whole thing.. "Don't have it in the heart" by "being angry without cause" for example. The Law, Paul said in Galatians (3?) was/is a tutor for the old man. A babysitter! Now by a new and living way, Jesus in us, our new law is love.. and "love works no ill".
So though we are free from the law - mostly I believe this refers to the ten commandments written with God's own finger on stone - free from the law as to our relationship with Him - our salvation doesn't rest upon our fulfilling the law, perfectly, because that's what perfection is, gulp; to this day i can still get the urge to use the Lord's name in vain! showing me/reminding me of how very imperfect I am, if my salvation were to rest upon my performance of perfection :laughing7: ! And I think that's what Paul meant when he said "O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?!" When we try to follow The Law, for approval, what not, The Law becomes ruler and master over us.. tying us up in knots.
But our new law is love, and I actually think it's ultimately just the one, "love God". If we truly "love God" we are going to draw near to Him. That's what fills us, our hearts overflow with He Who is Love. "Love works no ill" - His love works no ill is surely an understatement! To "Love God" I believe naturally flowers into "loving our neighbor/fellow person". But The Law produces frustration, competition.. pride? Not the law itself, but our imperfect nature (aka, flawed character). But the law itself, surely will always exist? "He will rule the nations with a rod of iron".. An unbreakable rule and measure. We cannot break God's Law, we break our self upon it.
So whereas we are imperfect, it is unlikely many of us who truly, truly believe, are living a life of fraud or oppression, etc.. Except, eek, the 'hell' (or eternal damnation/death) belief can twist the fabric...
Just my :2c: .. :gsmile:
Quote from: Seth on May 16, 2016, 10:09:06 PM
the Gentiles into the fold along with a remnant of Jewish believers.
"I have other sheep" Jesus said, "not of this fold" :smile:
Quote from: Seth on May 16, 2016, 10:09:06 PM
...the "one Gospel under two administrations" would mean to me, the Gospel to the remnant of Israel and the Gospel to the Gentiles without a difference in content, just a difference in audience.
I love how you said that! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: marie glen on May 18, 2016, 04:05:13 PM
Was it Peter who wrote that (brother) Paul wrote some things "hard to understand"? I think that's very true! Even though this isn't a discussion of law vs grace :doh: (did I say that out loud? :eek: I need a smiley here that holds up his fingers in a cross, lol) but I bring it up because they're related.. When seeing the aforementioned 'debates' I hated to mention, i always think 'but they are missing how The Law actually isn't good enough'.. As we know, Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount(ain) "don't commit adultery" or "don't murder" are not the whole thing.. "Don't have it in the heart" by "being angry without cause" for example. The Law, Paul said in Galatians (3?) was/is a tutor for the old man. A babysitter! Now by a new and living way, Jesus in us, our new law is love.. and "love works no ill".
So though we are free from the law - mostly I believe this refers to the ten commandments written with God's own finger on stone - free from the law as to our relationship with Him - our salvation doesn't rest upon our fulfilling the law, perfectly, because that's what perfection is, gulp; to this day i can still get the urge to use the Lord's name in vain! showing me/reminding me of how very imperfect I am, if my salvation were to rest upon my performance of perfection :laughing7: ! And I think that's what Paul meant when he said "O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?!" When we try to follow The Law, for approval, what not, The Law becomes ruler and master over us.. tying us up in knots.
But our new law is love, and I actually think it's ultimately just the one, "love God". If we truly "love God" we are going to draw near to Him. That's what fills us, our hearts overflow with He Who is Love. "Love works no ill" - His love works no ill is surely an understatement! To "Love God" I believe naturally flowers into "loving our neighbor/fellow person". But The Law produces frustration, competition.. pride? Not the law itself, but our imperfect nature (aka, flawed character). But the law itself, surely will always exist? "He will rule the nations with a rod of iron".. An unbreakable rule and measure. We cannot break God's Law, we break our self upon it.
So whereas we are imperfect, it is unlikely many of us who truly, truly believe, are living a life of fraud or oppression, etc.. Except, eek, the 'hell' (or eternal damnation/death) belief can twist the fabric...
Just my :2c: .. :gsmile:
Yeah, but Jesus said some things that were hard to understand they were called 'parables' and were supposedly meant to be confuse to those who weren't actually ready to accept Jesus yet. It's a strange thing for one apostle to write things other apostles don't understand. It can result in they speaking across purposes and confusing everyone they were speaking to. Or could if they weren't being guided by God.
Jesus followed the law perfectly and fulfilled every aspect of it. It was good enough for Him. It's actually us that aren't good enough for the law.
I really don't see Paul making any sort of distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the statues and ordinances is the Torah and in fact Jews don't actually make any such distinction and a correct reading of the text doesn't support it. Although it is true that only the Decalogue were supposedly put in the Ark of the Covenant. My feeling is that the rest of that statues and ordinances are just to avoid confusion about what breaking the ten commandments actually entails.
It's true we shouldn't try to follow the law for approval, I think I've mentioned before that doing that makes the law into an idol which we don't want to do, we are to serve only God.
I'm not sure you really take the Lord's name in vain. I'm sure that the meaning of that commandment has been perverted spectacularly since it was 'taken over' by the church.
Yes, love works no ill and our new law is love. Unfortunately people seem to have the capacity to pervert the word love to justify anything including some abominable things including, of course, the doctrine of eternal torment.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we're all living a life of at least some sort of self-delusion. Sad and unnerving as that is. I fear that just the way it is sadly. The consequence of being consigned to unbelief.
Quote from: CST on May 18, 2016, 02:48:49 PM
I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.
That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.
I'm not aware of where Paul told anyone they were in the wrong for not following the Law. If so, that would further cast doubt on the two-evangel theory that Paul's gospel was grace alone, where the other Gospel is grace plus Law. Why would Paul rebuke anyone under a Grace alone Gospel for not following the Law?
But he was very keen on morality. He summed it up by saying "Love does no harm to a neighbor, so he who loves has fulfilled the whole Law." (Romans 13:10) Along with believing in Christ, that's the guideline to follow, and it should permeates everything we do in life. It doesn't always work that way because we are fallible humans, so when people got out of line, Paul rebuked them as necessary.
The reason it makes sense is because the Law reflected a high level of morality, but humans, according to Paul, are not inherently moral, but carnal. So the Law could stand for morality, but without the Spirit to break the bonds of carnality we are doomed to break it. Having received the Spirit, Christians now can begin a new walk, and if they faltered, Paul would check them. That didn't mean he thought they were under the old covenant.
CST, quick question, besides miracles, what do think is the reason Christians are given the Holy Spirit when they believe? Or better yet, what does the Bible say are the reasons?
Quote from: Seth on May 18, 2016, 09:21:14 PM
Quote from: CST on May 18, 2016, 02:48:49 PM
I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.
That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.
I'm not aware of where Paul told anyone they were in the wrong for not following the Law. If so, that would further cast doubt on the two-evangel theory that Paul's gospel was grace alone, where the other Gospel is grace plus Law. Why would Paul rebuke anyone under a Grace alone Gospel for not following the Law?
But he was very keen on morality. He summed it up by saying "Love does no harm to a neighbor, so he who loves has fulfilled the whole Law." (Romans 13:10) Along with believing in Christ, that's the guideline to follow, and it should permeates everything we do in life. It doesn't always work that way because we are fallible humans, so when people got out of line, Paul rebuked them as necessary.
The reason it makes sense is because the Law reflected a high level of morality, but humans, according to Paul, are not inherently moral, but carnal. So the Law could stand for morality, but without the Spirit to break the bonds of carnality we are doomed to break it. Having received the Spirit, Christians now can begin a new walk, and if they faltered, Paul would check them. That didn't mean he thought they were under the old covenant.
He judges people for breaking the law, you've directed people to this illustration before I think I've seen:
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father's wife." (1 Cor. 5:1)
Paul isn't even present and he condemns this. I'm not offended by this I agree that this is wrong but I have to question his position when I am fully aware that I probably do thing paul would disapprove of. He's condemning immorality and not lawbreaking you seem to be arguing. Here's the law:
"'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father." (Lev. 18.8)
This is a covenant law violation, it's written there. People either are under the law and can be condemned by it or they're not and thus can't. I can't see a logical middle ground here. Telling people they're not under the law seems reckless of course they'll be inclined to think that they can do this sort of thing. They'll also argue that they love each other as would others caught in similar situations.
The Jewish law covers pretty much everything prevalent in its day it was very comprehensive but to say people aren't under the law seems meaningless. Obviously no one think this sort of thing is OK except those doing it but how can they be condemned if the law isn't doing the condemning.
Now, while I don't think it makes any difference to the morality of the act I should point out that I don't know what the content of the report Paul has received is. Here's the rest of the law:
"" 'If a man has sexual relations with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."( Lev. 20:11)
Now in the story in John of the woman supposedly caught in adultery the general understanding seems to be of Jesus simply being merciful for the sake of meaning merciful. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But there is a line of thought, that you may be aware of, that what Jesus actually does here is to point out by writing of the ground the law that states that whenever two parties are caught in adultery both parties shall be stoned to death. They have provided one women to 'test' Jesus. He then proceed to point out that the law also says that anyone bearing false witness shall receive the punishment of those they are accusing. At which point they all clear off and there's no longer any case to answer. That may or may not be a correct understanding but this case here looks similar. Paul only demands the condemnation of the man, the women either gets off or has already been condemned in a very partisan move.
Just an observation.
The point is Paul is a trained Pharisee, he's learned his idea of morality at their lap, I've learned it from reading the Bible which contains the same laws. Other cultures have a completely different sense of morality whatever Paul says and people feel what they said. I prefer to look at the Biblical law for my guide for morality but I'm not sure how to do that and not be somehow following the law, even if I'm not depending on that law for my salvation. But then why not just write that?
Quote from: Seth on May 18, 2016, 09:27:46 PM
CST, quick question, besides miracles, what do think is the reason Christians are given the Holy Spirit when they believe? Or better yet, what does the Bible say are the reasons?
Short answer, because Jesus said He would be here with us until the end of the age. But then He left to be with God preparing the Kingdom and everything. The Spirit is sent so that Jesus can be here with us as He said He would be, Jesus is here in the Person of the Holy Spirit.
There's another reason we are given the Spirit. To break the bond of sin. Do you agree with that?
Also, you said the Spirit was given so Christ could be with us. I agree, and Paul said that Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for those who believe.
Do you think that means he is the end of righteousness itself or the method by which we achieve it?
If we are not under the Law but the Spirit causes us to be moral and obey God, will our actions contradict the Law since the Law is also moral?
Quote from: Seth on May 19, 2016, 05:16:00 PM
There's another reason we are given the Spirit. To break the bond of sin. Do you agree with that?
Well, since the Holy Spirit is God and everything to do with God's purposes involves breaking the bond of sin. But I thought that was primarily achieved when Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified. God breaks the bond of sin entirely through His efforts and giving the spirit is one of those efforts and that is grace. And we don't receive the spirit by our efforts either. So this man appears, under that logic, not to have received the spirit after all or he wouldn't be sinning and the same for this woman. Hmm. I don't think it works like that but then it seems a bit arbitrary to suddenly single out this sin like this man was the only person in the community who was sinning which I doubt.
Quote from: Seth on May 19, 2016, 05:23:50 PM
Also, you said the Spirit was given so Christ could be with us. I agree, and Paul said that Jesus Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for those who believe.
Do you think that means he is the end of righteousness itself or the method by which we achieve it?
If we are not under the Law but the Spirit causes us to be moral and obey God, will our actions contradict the Law since the Law is also moral?
Isn't Jesus both the end and the method since it's by no works of our own?
If the Spirit causes to be moral and obey God? I refer you to the previous point that if we do neither does that mean we haven't really received God, grace or the Spirit? In
which case why is it meaningful to respond to us as if we are? I'm sure it is helpful. But I feel we're on the precipice of a very circular position here.
But ultimately God is moral and only God. Morality, as I mentioned elsewhere is the upholding of God's purposes in the world. Opposing those purposes is immorality and God respond to immorality so that His purposes will be fulfilled and all associated with them. The law keeps those purposes on course and following them keeps us on course to avoid opposing them but those purposes are not the law and not even recorded in the law directly.
:2c:
I'm glad we agree that the Spirit causes our morality. Here's what the Bible says about that.
Galatians 5
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.
Paul is denying that the power by which we attain morality in our actions should be credited to the Law. That's why he says "walk according to the Spirit" not "walk according to the Law." However those moral actions don't contradict the Law's moral directives either.
This is why the man was thrown out of the church. Not because he was under the Law and broke it. Not because he didn't have the Spirit. But because he wasn't walking according to the Spirit.
'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.
And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.
I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?
Quote from: CST on May 19, 2016, 07:24:51 PM
'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.
And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.
I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?
The point of being free is to be free from sin, not to be free TO sin. The idea of being free is defined by the Bible, not our own conception of freedom.
By being restricted from sin, we are free from its bondage.The way I understand how the Spirit in the New Covenant and the Law in the Old Covenant correlate is this:
Supposing I am driving on a dirt road, and I know that there are kids playing around, but there is no sign to say what the speed limit is. So, I decide to slow down out of concern for their safety to 50 miles per hour. Thousands of miles away there is a Pakistani road that has a limit of 50 miles per hour. That's the same speed I was going in America. Does that mean I am under Pakistani law, just because my actions are correlating with their speed law? No.
In a similar way, the Spirit causes us to break the bond of sin so that by walking according to the Spirit our actions will correlate with things the Law says, without us being under it. Just because our actions correlate with the moral requirements of the Law does not mean we are under it, or that we can credit it for our morality.
Freedom is the "perfect law of liberty". For freedom Christ has set you free, why then be subject again to the yoke of bondage.
Bondage.
The law and the flesh are both bondage.
The glorious liberty of the children of God is the law that awaits the whole creation- love perfected in freedom by the Spirit, living water flowing from the innermost being- the true law of God.
But freedom does provide enjoyment as well. I am free to enjoy a glass of wine... a slice of roast pork....lol.
I am not free to indulge in sin, for instance adultery, fornication, drunkenness, gluttony- all these things produce bondage, slavery, ruination.
Or really, I am free to indulge them, but God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows thus shall he also reap. If I sow to the flesh I will reap corruption, if I sow to the Spirit I will reap life, and life more abundantly.
:2c:
Quote from: Seth on May 19, 2016, 07:27:51 PM
Quote from: CST on May 19, 2016, 07:24:51 PM
'Do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh.' Well, what's the point of being free then? The idea of being free is connected with being able to make our own choice if we are restricted in any thing in any way than in the place we are restricted we are not free. I'm not say we should be able to indulge the flesh, willy nilly. I'm just say the position doesn't seem consistent.
And the same as I'm saying since you see or prove that anyone has the spirit. You can't show if there's any special act of defiance by which they're not walking in it.
I still see 'destruction of the flesh' as short hand for execution, Paul doesn't seem to suggest any option of repentance here until afterwards at the judgement. And again, what of the woman?
The point of being free is to be free from sin, not to be free TO sin. The idea of being free is defined by the Bible, not our own conception of freedom. By being restricted from sin, we are free from its bondage.
The way I understand how the Spirit in the New Covenant and the Law in the Old Covenant correlate is this:
Supposing I am driving on a dirt road, and I know that there are kids playing around, but there is no sign to say what the speed limit is. So, I decide to slow down out of concern for their safety to 50 miles per hour. Thousands of miles away there is a Pakistani road that has a limit of 50 miles per hour. That's the same speed I was going in America. Does that mean I am under Pakistani law, just because my actions are correlating with their speed law? No.
In a similar way, the Spirit causes us to break the bond of sin so that by walking according to the Spirit our actions will correlate with things the Law says, without us being under it. Just because our actions correlate with the moral requirements of the Law does not mean we are under it, or that we can credit it for our morality.
Oh, I get this although I don't think your analogy is very good. If there's no speed limit sign on the road you're bound to the national or local speed limit of the area and you have a responsibility to know that law. If you're caught breaking Pakistani law not knowing what the speed limit was will not get you off.
My point isn't right, without the law people suddenly have a very different idea of what actually constitutes sin and, while I think incest and its ilk certainly do, I again expect that this man and his father's wife will probably have their own idea and lots of ways of justifying it to them selves and it isn't helpful when Paul says things like:
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (1 Cor. 6:12)
"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up." (1 Cor. 10:23)
The first of those is the next chapter, the very next chapter. OK, define 'helpful'. Define 'build-up' People have different ideas about the things that build them up and are 'helpful' to them and saying 'All things are lawful' looks at lot like it could be rephrased as 'Nothing is prohibited' and there's nothing in the language its self to say that not what Paul's saying. Jesus said He didn't condemn anyone but His word would condemn on the last day. Which is fine. I'm not sure what part of this equation gives Paul the authority to do now, what Jesus said He wouldn't do till later.
To be honest I have no idea if the Corinthians actually did what Paul said we imagine they did because we don't have any direct reply. We only have letter two which may or may not contain pertinent facts, there seems to be some dispute over whether there is evidence of some sort of resolution here.
QuoteOh, I get this although I don't think your analogy is very good. If there's no speed limit sign on the road you're bound to the national or local speed limit of the area and you have a responsibility to know that law. If you're caught breaking Pakistani law not knowing what the speed limit was will not get you off.
If the local law is 65 mph, and I slow down to 50 mph for the good of a child just near the road who might step into the road, my actions may coincide with Pakistani speed limit of 50 mph, but that does not mean I am under their law.
QuoteMy point isn't right, without the law people suddenly have a very different idea of what actually constitutes sin and, while I think incest and its ilk certainly do, I again expect that this man and his father's wife will probably have their own idea and lots of ways of justifying it to them selves and it isn't helpful when Paul says things like:
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (1 Cor. 6:12)
"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up." (1 Cor. 10:23)
Contextually Paul was talking about "You say, "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both." Food is neutral.
Keep in mind, I didn't say there is NO law for people in the New Covenant. I am saying we are not under the Old Covenant law. Here's what the Bible says is the law under the New Covenant.
1 John 3
22and we receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.
23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24The one who keeps God's commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Paul said the same thing when he said that loving our neighbor fulfills the whole Law. The way we follow those commandments (believe in Jesus and love one another) is by walking according to the Spirit.
If one walks according to the Spirit, he doesn't need an enumerated list of what he can and cannot do. Love will come naturally, and there is no law against love. Paul was not saying that rape and incest is permissible. All things are permissible which are outside the scope of the New Covenant commandments, such as the meat we eat as Eaglesway said.
Except as I keep pointing that man and his apparently undisciplined stepmother would probably claim, yes we love each other we are being loving. The law in its original form of course points out that they are not being very loving to this man's father.
My difficulty here is that I'm finding some of these distinctions very hard to maintain logically in this letter he seems to push very hard towards disciplining this man the punishment looking very final at least until judgement day.
In the letter that follows which may or may not speak to the same thing (2 Cor. 2) he speaks a lot more to the idea of forgiveness. Without the original reports he received it's very hard to draw conclusions about what happening. What size is the Corinthian church, who would initial write and receive these letters who else in Corinth were not in the Church? To what degree was this man not walking in the Spirit, was sleeping with his stepmother his only offense in this matter where he might otherwise seem rather exemplary (I admit I find that hard to believe, I take this sort offense as a big deal), what's the full situation here?
I basically have two issues here given that I have little to no information about this. I know that the end of sin is always death, or, less poetically sorrow and misfortune. That's how it will play whatever if you are pursuing sin and blindly pursuing it. So at what point are we supposed to be discipline someone and to what degree are we supposed to be forgiving them. Now I should make it clear I don't think that mercy and justice are two sides of the same coin like the church seems to think. Mutually exclusive where you have to choose one or the other. They can be implemented together perfectly complementary.
But I fear a law of caution in implementing them and an unclear application can likely be very unhelpful and do more hard than good. It's hard to tell from the cold texts what is what.
QuoteExcept as I keep pointing that man and his apparently undisciplined stepmother would probably claim, yes we love each other we are being loving. The law in its original form of course points out that they are not being very loving to this man's father.
You don't need a law to know that they weren't being loving to the man's father. That's why Paul said that the works of the flesh are "manifest" or obvious. Then he listed them.
Galatians 5
19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit (or "walk by the Spirit"). 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
That's why I say you don't need a law to know that they weren't being loving to the man's father. It's obvious. Self control is part of the fruit of the Spirit. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Those who walk according to the Spirit therefore do not need the Old Covenant Law to dictate their actions, because those traits follow naturally.
And like I said, just because those traits result in actions compliant with the Old Covenant law, does not mean we are under that law.
QuoteSo at what point are we supposed to be discipline someone and to what degree are we supposed to be forgiving them.
I don't see any tension between discipline and forgiveness. I do see tension between revenge or grudge holding and forgiveness. But that is clearly not what Paul did.
Well, no but Paul wasn't present so he certainly had no grudge or bias towards the man in question. That's not my point because he's not the one in a direct relationship with him and actually administering the punishment he's commanding. At the moment there's a sizable, apparently very sizable, demand to restore the death penalty over here in the UK although I get a very strong impression it's entirely for vengeful reason but because we have a 'democracy' there's a possibility it could still pass.
Obviously the what the man and his stepmother are doing is not loving if the father is still married to her but that's adultery and there are clear laws about that. What happens if the father is dead?
If the father is dead, and the contract is void, strictly speaking it can't be adultery. That doesn't mean it isn't icky.
My point, which I was short on time and didn't elucidate to completion, was that we were talking about love. We were arguing that the New Covenant was love and that covers all relevant aspects of the old covenant without actually having to check with any of its rules to see it something is OK. The point here was that the violation of the son taking and sleeping with his stepmother was unloving towards his father. Now there are three possibilities I see here:
1. That the father and stepmother are still married, therefore sleeping with the stepmother would be adultery and falls under this law with all condemnation thereof.
2. That the father has divorced the former, he has thrown her over. She is technically free even if she actually isn't. Taking her could be seen as unloving to his living father but he hasn't been very loving to her.
3. The father is dead, loving or not he knows nothing about the relationship between his son and his widow/former wife. Is it still unloving it he doesn't know about it?
This problem is compounded by the fact that this woman is his stepmother, not his father's first wife but a later model. Quite possibly a younger model closer to his son's generation, because older gentlemen are prone to do that. I'm not sure so 'loving' it is for a father to go and take a wife his sons age. But because as faithful as I am the law always seemed to contain a suspiciously high degree of double standards in it where a man can take as many wives as he wants from as many conditions as he wants while a woman can only take one husband. Now there are also practical reason for this too but it makes me wonder where the buck stops in situations like this when trying to identify who's been more unloving and thus broken the new covenant first.
Basically, the way I read what you are saying, is how do we determine when someone is being unloving? The Law of Moses had a similar problem of generality. There was to be no labor on the Sabbath. What if what I consider labor is different from what you consider labor? Same with the Constitution. It protects freedom of speech. What kind of speech? Not speech that threatens others. I think that is why the Spirit was given, so that we could pray about it and work together as a Body to find the answers to morality issues as they come up. The Spirit guided Paul to find the resolution, not just an external set of facts.
Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.
The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.
In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.
All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.
QuoteYeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.
I'm not exactly sure how all this links back to the two-evangel theory, but that's why we are told not to ignore the Spirit. The moderators of this forum have had to step in and block abusive members because they are able to understand when abuse is occurring. That is similar to what Paul did. They start with the definition of love: gentle, kind etc, and from there they apply those standards specifically to a forum setting by way of fleshed out rules that define what is appropriate or not.
QuoteI've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.
I am not sure I can be of much help at this point. All I can go on is what the scripture says about the Gospel, who is under Mosaic Law, and who is not, and for what reason they are not. Again, I am not really sure how it connects to the two-evangel theory.
Quote from: Seth on May 25, 2016, 07:01:01 PM
QuoteYeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.
I'm not exactly sure how all this links back to the two-evangel theory, but that's why we are told not to ignore the Spirit. The moderators of this forum have had to step in and block abusive members because they are able to understand when abuse is occurring. That is similar to what Paul did. They start with the definition of love: gentle, kind etc, and from there they apply those standards specifically to a forum setting by way of fleshed out rules that define what is appropriate or not.
QuoteI've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.
I am not sure I can be of much help at this point. All I can go on is what the scripture says about the Gospel, who is under Mosaic Law, and who is not, and for what reason they are not. Again, I am not really sure how it connects to the two-evangel theory.
I think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not. This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.
I thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.
I'm certain we all must do this or none of us would ever do any thing wrong.
QuoteI think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not.
This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.
I don't think I said anything about a voice. If I did, I certainly didn't mean it literally. I don't deny that God's leading might come in the form of a voice, but deliverance from sin goes way deeper. I said "walk according to the Spirit." In Romans 2 we see that people who have had their hearts circumcised by the Spirit do things of the Law naturally while not being under the Law. It becomes their nature. And, Paul said that if you have been set free from sin, don't go back to it. Meaning, that the change occurs in the mind by setting the mind free from slavery to carnality. Maybe that is where you might be misunderstanding me.
QuoteI thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.
Yes people can do that, but that's why the Apostles didn't just establish the "law of love." They spend pages and pages defining it too. Paul gives us long lists of examples of what we were to be delivered from.
However, none of that can be followed without the Spirit. Peter calls it the "divine nature" which followers of Christ have been given so that their very nature changes from the inside out. If there is gray area one would pray about it and pursue the definition of love (selflessness, kindness, gentleness). Paul said that we should take inventory of ourselves. Are we really abiding by selfLESSness?
Quote from: CST on May 25, 2016, 02:01:08 PM
Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.
The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.
In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.
All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.
Let me give you a real word example to show you how Jesus kept the law but also broke it. Let's take the SPEED Limit law for example,
At some point, lawmakers noticed there was a lot of death and injury on the roadways. So they said we need to pass a law to redice this so they said we shall pass the following law "Obey Established Speed Limits". Now the real law is what is behind this ordinance which is to "Reduce death and injury on the highways". We shall call that the Spirit of the Law where as the "Obey Established Speed limits" is the LETTER of the law. Lets summarize:
Letter of the law - "Obey Established Speed Limits"
Spirit of the Law - "Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways"
You see by the letter we should be able to realize the motivation contained in the Spirit of the Law.
Now what happens when your in the following situation:
Your driving in your car on the highway and you see a flat bed truck carrying truck tires. It hits a bump and suddenly one of the tires falls of the truck and starts rolling toward your lane. You know that if you hit your breaks the car behind you will smash into yours. However, you know if you SPEED UP and BREAK the speed limit that the tire will pass safely between your car and the one behind you. So you speed up and break the speed limit. At this point you actually broke the LETTER of the Law but you UPHELD the Spirit of the Law.
This is how you should understand the Letter of the Law in the Bible and how it relates to the Spirit of that Law.
If Paul is right that the Law is not for a righteous man but for sinners (1 Tim 1:9), I would conclude that while Jesus may have fulfilled the requirements of it, he was never indebted to it, so he could never really break it. Jesus may have offered a sin offering sheep to avoid offense, but since he didn't have any sin, he didn't really have to do it. What sin of his own would he have been atoning for? The Law assumed that ALL it's followers were sinful. Jesus wasn't like his fellow men. And, I think that is why he joins us to him in faith, so that we can be free like him.
Quote from: Seth on May 25, 2016, 08:07:39 PM
QuoteI think you maybe missing my point, you seem to be suggesting here that identifying the voice of the Spirit is as easy as an image of the traditional God materializing in your mind and telling you what to do. It isn't it's usually not.
This is a UR forum I would say that any voice suggesting ET or ED to people is not of the Spirit and so people who advocate those things are disobeying God. They however would proclaim that in fact we are not listening to the Spirit when He reveals that ET or ED is in fact the end of many people. Saying we're told not to disobey the Spirit seems simple to me but unless we've got a perfect reception which I doubt anyone does than most people often plough on regardless thinking they ae listening to it even when they're not. Although in some cases it's hard not to think that they must really be kidding themselves.
I don't think I said anything about a voice. If I did, I certainly didn't mean it literally. I don't deny that God's leading might come in the form of a voice, but deliverance from sin goes way deeper. I said "walk according to the Spirit." In Romans 2 we see that people who have had their hearts circumcised by the Spirit do things of the Law naturally while not being under the Law. It becomes their nature. And, Paul said that if you have been set free from sin, don't go back to it. Meaning, that the change occurs in the mind by setting the mind free from slavery to carnality. Maybe that is where you might be misunderstanding me.
QuoteI thought question about who is and isn't under the Mosaic Law is very pertinent to a discussion about the two Evangels. As I understand it from what you said earlier the two Evangel theory says Jewish Christians, the one Evangel theory says no one. Although of course we are under the law of love which was what I was stating it can be quite hard to discern what that is because people come up with there own conclusions about what is loving and then support these with their own reasonings which they pretend to themselves are of the Spirit whether they are in fact or not.
Yes people can do that, but that's why the Apostles didn't just establish the "law of love." They spend pages and pages defining it too. Paul gives us long lists of examples of what we were to be delivered from.
However, none of that can be followed without the Spirit. Peter calls it the "divine nature" which followers of Christ have been given so that their very nature changes from the inside out. If there is gray area one would pray about it and pursue the definition of love (selflessness, kindness, gentleness). Paul said that we should take inventory of ourselves. Are we really abiding by selfLESSness?
You're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.
Quote from: trettep on May 25, 2016, 09:04:48 PM
Quote from: CST on May 25, 2016, 02:01:08 PM
Yeah, but presumably we can listen to or ignore the Spirit as and when we choose. Obviously the first results in virtuous behaviour the second in sinful but this doesn't matter until someone else decides to oppose the behaviour which may or may not be for virtuous reasons and then they rally other people to follow them who most probably also may not be responding for virtuous reasons.
The law of the Sabbath is my least favourite of the laws we call the Ten Commandments for exactly the reason you describe, how do we know what constitutes work. I have read little things here and there which lead be to believe there are clues in the text as to what constitutes work, but I don't really speak ancient Hebrew I don't know what many of those clues would be.
In the same way when Jesus makes the case of David going into the temple and eating what is unlawful to eat because him and those he's with are starving I still can't get rid of the immediate reaction: and that makes it OK because..? The law does offer any exception of this kind as it's written and Jesus spent most of His ministry hiding the fact that He had the authority on such matters as far as His main audience were aware He was simply stating an opinion on what happened His interpretation of what is recorded. He didn't specifically explain how you're meant to get this from the law, as written in the text David simply breaks the law but isn't punished for it on this occasion.
All Jesus really says is to quote that God requires mercy not sacrifices, which is fine except I'm not sure how keeping the law by not breaking it is meant to be considered a sacrifice. I've always found this presentation of the law in the New Testament hugely difficult to understand.
Let me give you a real word example to show you how Jesus kept the law but also broke it. Let's take the SPEED Limit law for example,
At some point, lawmakers noticed there was a lot of death and injury on the roadways. So they said we need to pass a law to redice this so they said we shall pass the following law "Obey Established Speed Limits". Now the real law is what is behind this ordinance which is to "Reduce death and injury on the highways". We shall call that the Spirit of the Law where as the "Obey Established Speed limits" is the LETTER of the law. Lets summarize:
Letter of the law - "Obey Established Speed Limits"
Spirit of the Law - "Reduce Injury and Death on the Highways"
You see by the letter we should be able to realize the motivation contained in the Spirit of the Law.
Now what happens when your in the following situation:
Your driving in your car on the highway and you see a flat bed truck carrying truck tires. It hits a bump and suddenly one of the tires falls of the truck and starts rolling toward your lane. You know that if you hit your breaks the car behind you will smash into yours. However, you know if you SPEED UP and BREAK the speed limit that the tire will pass safely between your car and the one behind you. So you speed up and break the speed limit. At this point you actually broke the LETTER of the Law but you UPHELD the Spirit of the Law.
This is how you should understand the Letter of the Law in the Bible and how it relates to the Spirit of that Law.
That's a inference and it's a good one and no doubt correct but if you're caught breaking the speed limit you could still be prosecuted even if you explain why you did it because you have broken the law and often human courts will follow the letter of the law if they feel like it and even when it seems ridiculous and unreasonable especially if it makes them and theirs look powerful.
Oh, and the car behind who isn't maintaining an effective stopping distance is also breaking the law.
I've noticed that what you are suggesting is best done with what we call the Ten Commandments the general understanding is that we're supposed to be able to derive all the other laws from proper understanding of those. After all there are commandments against murder and adultery and stealing. Where's the commandment against rape? There's a law against rape (vaguely) But there's no 'thou shalt not commit rape' in the Ten Commandments. Presumably I have to presume it's covered under the stealing or the covetousness commandment. Or possibly the adultery but technically no adultery as commonly understood may be occurring. It could also be the honouring of the father and mother commandment, I suspect that actually covers an awful lot.
But the problem is with things like that how you honour your parents can change from society to society love is understood differently, how some societies behave even these days would shock some people here.
Quote from: Seth on May 25, 2016, 09:10:37 PM
If Paul is right that the Law is not for a righteous man but for sinners (1 Tim 1:9), I would conclude that while Jesus may have fulfilled the requirements of it, he was never indebted to it, so he could never really break it. Jesus may have offered a sin offering sheep to avoid offense, but since he didn't have any sin, he didn't really have to do it. What sin of his own would he have been atoning for? The Law assumed that ALL it's followers were sinful. Jesus wasn't like his fellow men. And, I think that is why he joins us to him in faith, so that we can be free like him.
He didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.
QuoteYou're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.
We do have objective ways of knowing that. The Apostles provided a new law "believe in Jesus and love each other." Then they provided definitions "Love is patient, love is kind, etc....." This is why Paul said that the works of the flesh are obvious. Some may be less obvious and require more prayer and help through fellowship. However, if someone perverts the definition of love in their own minds so that they think that murder is loving, or rape is loving, or incest is loving, then they will simply have to be shown why they are wrong, either now or later. A written Law cannot do what you are talking about either, because people have to think about what the Law says as well, and if we allow sinful thoughts to lead us, we will find a way to manipulate the general language of the written Law the same as if we didn't have one.
Eventually, the Lord will clear up where we went wrong, if we went wrong. When people really want to sin, they will find a way to justify it whether with a written law or without one.
That's all in God's hands anyway. He is in control of who he sanctifies so that they cannot be deceived.
QuoteHe didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.
My view is that because he was completely sanctified by the Spirit, it was impossible for him to sin.
I don't think it was impossible for Him to sin, if I understand you correctly. Where would the victory be? I think that being as He was tempted in all manner as we are, yet without sin- He simply chose righteousness out of the life that was in Him, "becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. Therefore God has given Him the name above every name".
I believe He overcame by faith and thus became the author of our salvation. :2c:
There are two possible reasons for being tested, that I can see. One, to prove something to one's self. Or, to prove something to another person. If God wanted to prove to man that Jesus was the spotless lamb, predestined to be so, the best way to do it would be to test him and show that he passed the test.
God predestined him to be who he was at that moment. If it were possible for Jesus to sin, then it was possible for the prophecies to fail. He would be the spotless lamb, so the prophecies said, and if God had to keep trying over and over for to make a perfect human being fulfill his will, then we can't trust God to fulfill anything.
Yea, I see your point. I wouldnt want to argue it. :o)
I see things like this as being divine paradoxes.
I see the prophecies of being foresight of what would happen, not absolute proof that it was never possible for Jesus to sin, or maybe better to say- the option was there.
Someone says He could not choose it, and thats ok.
I prefer He did not choose it, and that was His victory, and that was foreknown and foretold, but that is a fine line that makes for an interesting discussion, but perhaps a ridiculous debate ;o)
I think where some confusion comes in is this. The scriptures clearly say that Jesus was tempted. That was not a play act. If there was no option to transgress there was no temptation and the scriptures are broken.
However, some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.
But Jesus did not walk in some kind of impervious bubble. He overcame by His faith and love for us and for the Father. He walked as a man by faith, believing, and he did it perfectly because of the greatness of His love. He had to rise up and pray, and He did. He had to wrestle with the spectre of physical suffering, and He did(Mt 26:36-46).
But in all these things he overcame because of the love that powered His character and nature, which he received from His Father.
During the days of Jesus' earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered,...Heb 5:6-8
We know, absolutely, that Jesus was tempted periodically. We do not know the details of that temptation, and imo we tend to think too often and much about sexual sins when we read such words.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:15
Some of the most evil men who ever lived were tempted by power, money and acclaim- way more than by any perversity in their sexual habits. But we just dont know exactly how or how often Jesus was tempted and we should not speculate.
Suffice it to say tho, that He overcame in all instances and I think it is because he prayed without ceasing and walked in the Spirit at all times, as His Father's son that was His nature.
Quote from: Seth on June 01, 2016, 08:50:19 PM
QuoteYou're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.
We do have objective ways of knowing that. The Apostles provided a new law "believe in Jesus and love each other." Then they provided definitions "Love is patient, love is kind, etc....." This is why Paul said that the works of the flesh are obvious. Some may be less obvious and require more prayer and help through fellowship. However, if someone perverts the definition of love in their own minds so that they think that murder is loving, or rape is loving, or incest is loving, then they will simply have to be shown why they are wrong, either now or later. A written Law cannot do what you are talking about either, because people have to think about what the Law says as well, and if we allow sinful thoughts to lead us, we will find a way to manipulate the general language of the written Law the same as if we didn't have one.
Eventually, the Lord will clear up where we went wrong, if we went wrong. When people really want to sin, they will find a way to justify it whether with a written law or without one.
That's all in God's hands anyway. He is in control of who he sanctifies so that they cannot be deceived.
QuoteHe didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.
My view is that because he was completely sanctified by the Spirit, it was impossible for him to sin.
Gah, this thread has been quiet for so long I've forgotten my own thinking on it. Every so often it comes back to me (or some of it does) but not at present.
Love is patient, love is kind, it also says that love does not insist on its own way, and does not keep a record of wrongs.
OK, really? Well, what's God got in those books He's going to judge us by then why does love bother passing any laws at all, if it makes no demand that we follow them?
I find that passage really odd. It's at the end of that self same letter that begins with this event where Paul insists, insists, that this man be put out of the Church for this wrong he has done and then ends the letter by saying love doesn't remember wrongs and doesn't insist on things.
Now I don't have much of a problem with love not insisting on its own way, the results pof sin are the results of sin whether we're warning off them or not and I agree that eventually we'll have to learn that. Except, of course, that there are numerous times in the Bible, which proclaims God to be Love, where He clearly insists on His own way. Now He's the Lord this seems reasonable, suggesting that being love He wouldn't does not.
It also say He judges wrongdoing and will do so until there is no wrongdoing left to judge. But He quite clearly identifies and records the wrongs people do, again contrary to Paul's definition of Love. Now ETers and EDers are more likely as not right about the fact that God is not only love (although I have some difficulties with that) but Paul's definition of Love seems to make it impotent in a way Paul's behaviour and application of it don't allow. Perhaps that's why the KJV translators choose to translate it as 'charity' at that point. That could see the problems and tried to hide them.
Agrees, but I still think being Baptized was probably part of a process He had to go through so as to uphold that in practise.
Quote from: Seth on June 01, 2016, 11:00:14 PM
There are two possible reasons for being tested, that I can see. One, to prove something to one's self. Or, to prove something to another person. If God wanted to prove to man that Jesus was the spotless lamb, predestined to be so, the best way to do it would be to test him and show that he passed the test.
God predestined him to be who he was at that moment. If it were possible for Jesus to sin, then it was possible for the prophecies to fail. He would be the spotless lamb, so the prophecies said, and if God had to keep trying over and over for to make a perfect human being fulfill his will, then we can't trust God to fulfill anything.
More simply, if it was possible for Jesus to sin, it was possible for Jesus to fail and if it was possible for Jesus to fail it was possible for God to fail and that cannot be or else the concept of UR is undermined.
So I suppose it is relatively true that is was possible for Jesus to sin. But it is absolutely untrue that is was possible for Jesus to sin.
Quote from: eagleswayI think where some confusion comes in is this. The scriptures clearly say that Jesus was tempted. That was not a play act. If there was no option to transgress there was no temptation and the scriptures are broken.
However, some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.
Yes, the nature of Christ is the easiest topic to understand. Just kidding, it's the hardest and most enigmatic, in my opinion. And, I am in no way saying that my view is absolutely right. I might be shown to be wrong.
The thing I ask about Adam 1 vs Adam 2 is what powers the choices. For Christ, it was the Holy Spirit. I believe Adam 1 was tested to demonstrate human failure, where Christ was tested to demonstrate Divine success.
Meaning, as I don't believe it was possible for Christ to have failed, I also don't believe it was possible for Adam to have succeeded. He wasn't even decieved. I think this shows that some kind of power other than human spunk and determination was needed to save us, and with Christ I think his temptation reveals that his power was not of the flesh but the Spirit, which means he was formed as clay to be what he was. Not that God was waiting and hoping for Jesus to make the right choice.
Quote from: eagleswayBut Jesus did not walk in some kind of impervious bubble. He overcame by His faith and love for us and for the Father. He walked as a man by faith, believing, and he did it perfectly because of the greatness of His love. He had to rise up and pray, and He did. He had to wrestle with the spectre of physical suffering, and He did(Mt 26:36-46).
I totally agree. He overcame fear, overcame physical pain, overcame the things that made him weaker as a human being than he was before that. But I believe he didn't overcome just because he had faith (that too) or just because he had love, but because he was formed by the Spirit and protected from the evil one deceiving him. He could not be deceived because he was elected. And his protection was the presence of God within him.
And his temptation, I believe, was to demonstrate the power of the Spirit in overcoming the flesh. Jesus did not do what he did without his Father's intervention, which is why the Spirit was given. Because we cannot do it ourselves. The flesh is too weak. We need empowerment not of ourselves.
I'm not even questioning whether or not Jesus felt temptation to sin. I don't think he felt emotional temptation to molest a little boy, but I don't think that disqualifies him from being the savior of a child molester.
But, that is beside the point to me. The point is whether it was possible for Christ to have sinned, not whether he felt those feelings. Even if he did, I believe the very point of his testing was to show that the Spirit made it impossible for him to sin so that he could be formed by the election of God not of his own self-determination.
Quote from: CSTOK, really? Well, what's God got in those books He's going to judge us by then why does love bother passing any laws at all, if it makes no demand that we follow them?
I think it's to show that what man needs in order to follow God is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL. I think the reason that the tablets were made of stone, rather than giving Moses a pen and paper, is not just to show the immutable nature of love, but also the external stones were hard and cold. They were talking from the outside in, and that is why people fail to do them.
The new way is inside out, so that it becomes natural, rather than needing directives to love each other. We just do it, so we don't need a written law.
An example of my own personal experience is this: I couldn't stop swearing. I mean I had a really bad mouth, really crude. But it was difficult to stop, and making myself remember in the moment wasn't working. When I prayed about it one time, in real earnest, I felt the power of the Spirit, and I simply stopped.
To this day, I don't have a habit of streaming profanity. But, sometimes it slips out if I get angry or something. I don't stress that, but remember that I am human and I go to God with it. However, I didn't stop the streaming profanity because of a voice in my head, or some external Law said so, or even because the Bible says so. It wasn't my own power. I just stopped because God helped me do what I couldn't do before.
Quote from: CSTI find that passage really odd. It's at the end of that self same letter that begins with this event where Paul insists, insists, that this man be put out of the Church for this wrong he has done and then ends the letter by saying love doesn't remember wrongs and doesn't insist on things.
This is a good point, but consider the nuance. I think keeping a record of wrong doing has to do with grudge holding, not a healthy dose of consequences. All through the Bible God uses expulsion as a way of making the expelled remember the good, remember the reason why being part of the fold was better than chasing sin. Why do we send our children to their room? Because we are keeping a record? Or because we want them to learn something? What happens if we NEVER discipline them? And why should we be able to discipline our children out of love but that shouldn't work for God or the church?
Quote from: CSTNow I don't have much of a problem with love not insisting on its own way, the results pof sin are the results of sin whether we're warning off them or not and I agree that eventually we'll have to learn that. Except, of course, that there are numerous times in the Bible, which proclaims God to be Love, where He clearly insists on His own way.
Again, consider nuances. If a man is hanging on a cliff and wanted to be saved but loses all hope and says, "Just let me go, I can't make it" but the other man insists on holding on and dragging him up. Technically he insisted on his own way, and ignored him. Was that loving or unloving? When we listen to a song, we can read the words but we also must hear the music. We must judge the words based on the underlying criticism of
selfishness that the church was demonstrating and then we can know that the definition of love is contrasting with
that. We shouldn't just take out the words in isolation from what Paul has been talking about the whole time, then make them stand alone.
What are the intentions behind the words? Insisting on one's own way in the context of being the opposite of love is like when someone takes the head of the table to glorify himself when everyone else eats scraps. That's what I believe Paul is addressing.
If two children are yelling at each other and a mother comes in and says "don't yell! It's unacceptable." Should that child assume that she cannot yell if she's being kidnapped? Of course not. We don't reason that way in life why should we reason that way in scripture discussion? The mother meant it's unacceptable to yell in the context and manner she was addressing. Same kind of reasoning applies to the definition of Love. Is God insisting on his own way in the manner the carnal church was? Out selfishness and carnal satisfaction, or because his ways are better than ours?
I think Jesus had the power to make and break any law because he is the one who made them. I also don't think Jesus could sin because of who he was. Maybe his fleshly part had the ability to sin but he conquered sin in the flesh. He put to death the sinful flesh. (Rom. 8:3) "God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Jesus created this flesh he knew how it worked, he knew how to avoid all of the temptations that was presented to him. Jesus had the advantage over sin much more than we do, I would think.
Just my thoughts
CHB
I break Pakastani laws all the time :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on June 02, 2016, 08:48:12 PM
Meaning, as I don't believe it was possible for Christ to have failed, I also don't believe it was possible for Adam to have succeeded. He wasn't even decieved. I think this shows that some kind of power other than human spunk and determination was needed to save us, and with Christ I think his temptation reveals that his power was not of the flesh but the Spirit, which means he was formed as clay to be what he was. Not that God was waiting and hoping for Jesus to make the right choice.
Indeed, but that's another part of the scripture that I really struggle with and can't help suspecting that Paul is unintentionally slipping back into the yeast of the Pharisees which he's been taught, imbibed and then not noticed there might be something not quite right with it.
In context in the letter to Timothy what Paul actually says is that Adam was not deceived (by Satan) but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor/sinner. That's what says he's arguing that man should be the boss over woman because women are sinners and stupid with it is what he seems to be suggesting. It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible. It's in the Bible it must be inspired but Paul seems to be making a statement that is so fundamentally untrue, and he must know that really, I have know idea what to do with it. He must be saying something I don't remotely understand but this is the major passage the church continues to use in denying woman today places at the top of its hierarchy nevermind how many female disciples Jesus had or the fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection or that Christ only Earthly parent is a woman. Paul says this so woman aren't allowed to lead in service. And yet it looks incorrect. Obviously I don't believe Adam could have succeeded because then Christ might well have not needed to come, but this passage, what on Earth?
QuoteI totally agree. He overcame fear, overcame physical pain, overcame the things that made him weaker as a human being than he was before that. But I believe he didn't overcome just because he had faith (that too) or just because he had love, but because he was formed by the Spirit and protected from the evil one deceiving him. He could not be deceived because he was elected. And his protection was the presence of God within him.
I'm not sure 'elected' is the right word for Jesus here given that Jesus is God and only God can achieve the end He came to achieve. Elected suggests God had options of beings to choose from. It also suggests that the other elect might be without sin in the way Jesus is and they are clearly not, only Jesus is without sin or else the elect wouldn't need Jesus.
Quote from: Seth on June 02, 2016, 09:14:49 PM
I think it's to show that what man needs in order to follow God is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL. I think the reason that the tablets were made of stone, rather than giving Moses a pen and paper, is not just to show the immutable nature of love, but also the external stones were hard and cold. They were talking from the outside in, and that is why people fail to do them.
The new way is inside out, so that it becomes natural, rather than needing directives to love each other. We just do it, so we don't need a written law.
Personally, I'm pretty sure that tablets were made of stone so that Moses could come down the mountain and shatter them when he saw the Israelites breaking them almost as soon as they'd received them. It's illustrative, not that he was instructed to do it. God than makes new tablets. Of course that doesn't diminished your reading they're not mutually exclusive.
And then there's the new covenant written in the body and blood of Jesus and the Israelites went and broke that too. Of course, God raised that covenant from the dead he didn't simply make a new Jesus. As you say it's internal, in the flesh and somewhat more flexible. It also won't be broken so easily.
QuoteAn example of my own personal experience is this: I couldn't stop swearing. I mean I had a really bad mouth, really crude. But it was difficult to stop, and making myself remember in the moment wasn't working. When I prayed about it one time, in real earnest, I felt the power of the Spirit, and I simply stopped.
To this day, I don't have a habit of streaming profanity. But, sometimes it slips out if I get angry or something. I don't stress that, but remember that I am human and I go to God with it. However, I didn't stop the streaming profanity because of a voice in my head, or some external Law said so, or even because the Bible says so. It wasn't my own power. I just stopped because God helped me do what I couldn't do before.
I'm not so sure how much you should worry about swearing, obviously if it bothers you it's in your interest to stop, which you're attempting to do. But the Bible doesn't seem to have laws against the words in our language only how we use the language we have. It's got a lot of warnings about that and obviously swearing is frequently used to disparage others but a lot of the opposition comes from social traditions and customs designed to dictate to people not what God tells us to do. For all I know there could be swear words in the original language of the Bible but unless you know what a swear word in another language is you won't see them. And a translator would almost certainly never try to put them in. Although I often suspect that in the original the word 'Hebrew' might actually have started as and ethnic slur. The way it's used particularly in the earlier books makes me wonder about that.
In the same way, the church will tell us that using the word 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as an interjection is a violation of the third commandment. Well God knows our heart better than they do and such arguments really miss the meaning of the third commandment which refers to how you use the 'special' name YHWH and thus how you represent the God of Isreal to others. From a UR perspective, churches of ET or ED persuasion are far guiltier of violating the third commandment than people who start to call on God then don't really know how to finish which is what seems, to me, to be happening in a lot of those cases.
[/quote]This is a good point, but consider the nuance. I think keeping a record of wrong doing has to do with grudge holding, not a healthy dose of consequences. All through the Bible God uses expulsion as a way of making the expelled remember the good, remember the reason why being part of the fold was better than chasing sin. Why do we send our children to their room? Because we are keeping a record? Or because we want them to learn something? What happens if we NEVER discipline them? And why should we be able to discipline our children out of love but that shouldn't work for God or the church?[/quote]
Quite possible and I'm sure some translations present it that way, however I'm not sure which is the more literal rendering and which is simply what the translator has put because they can see that interpretation I've made and want to draw people away from it. What does the Greek actually say. The thought sounds plausible but how well can it be supported in the text. Yes, this is absolutely true about discipline but as I said (I think) this doesn't really concern me beyond taken as presented how does God judge anything.
QuoteAgain, consider nuances. If a man is hanging on a cliff and wanted to be saved but loses all hope and says, "Just let me go, I can't make it" but the other man insists on holding on and dragging him up. Technically he insisted on his own way, and ignored him. Was that loving or unloving? When we listen to a song, we can read the words but we also must hear the music. We must judge the words based on the underlying criticism of selfishness that the church was demonstrating and then we can know that the definition of love is contrasting with that. We shouldn't just take out the words in isolation from what Paul has been talking about the whole time, then make them stand alone.
What are the intentions behind the words? Insisting on one's own way in the context of being the opposite of love is like when someone takes the head of the table to glorify himself when everyone else eats scraps. That's what I believe Paul is addressing.
My main point here remains that Paul opens the book insisting that the church in Corinth punish someone that, presumably, their own understanding of love had let off. What's the hierarchy here were does Paul get to insist they do it his way over there's. Presumably that they written to him suggests some sort of deference but we don't know who wrote.
Now, on you main point I have no problem the social commandment remains to love your neighbour as yourself. Now this is often compared to do as you would be done by. It really isn't, do as you would be done by only point to the positives. The man you imagine just gives up. He obviously wants to be saved but lacks strength to persevere. Of course it's loving. So is disciplining the man obviously, but provided you get the circumstances right. No one wants to be discipline in the short term so do as you would be done by falls down at this point. In the long term they may thank you for it but only if you read the situation right or else there's a danger they'll just become resentful.
Love your neighbour... allows this form of discipline in but you really need to be careful how you apply it. I'm not sure how careful Paul can be when he's not there.
Quote from: Seth on June 02, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
If two children are yelling at each other and a mother comes in and says "don't yell! It's unacceptable." Should that child assume that she cannot yell if she's being kidnapped? Of course not. We don't reason that way in life why should we reason that way in scripture discussion? The mother meant it's unacceptable to yell in the context and manner she was addressing. Same kind of reasoning applies to the definition of Love. Is God insisting on his own way in the manner the carnal church was? Out selfishness and carnal satisfaction, or because his ways are better than ours?
That would depend on the mental development of the child at the time whether they would understand properly or not. I suspect understand or not though instinct would overrule in the circumstances you describe.
Quote from: CHB on June 02, 2016, 10:10:58 PM
I think Jesus had the power to make and break any law because he is the one who made them. I also don't think Jesus could sin because of who he was. Maybe his fleshly part had the ability to sin but he conquered sin in the flesh. He put to death the sinful flesh. (Rom. 8:3) "God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Jesus created this flesh he knew how it worked, he knew how to avoid all of the temptations that was presented to him. Jesus had the advantage over sin much more than we do, I would think.
Just my thoughts
CHB
To God, sinning would be to oppose or give up on His own purposes. He won't do it, He can't do it. He must succeed.
Quote from: CSTIndeed, but that's another part of the scripture that I really struggle with and can't help suspecting that Paul is unintentionally slipping back into the yeast of the Pharisees which he's been taught, imbibed and then not noticed there might be something not quite right with it.
In context in the letter to Timothy what Paul actually says is that Adam was not deceived (by Satan) but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor/sinner. That's what says he's arguing that man should be the boss over woman because women are sinners and stupid with it is what he seems to be suggesting. It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible.
He did say that Adam wasn't deceived by the serpent, but that doesn't mean he didn't sin. He confirms that in Romans 5. Adam definitely sinned but not through the deception of the serpent. He sinned by going along with Eve, for whatever reason, because he was tempted or because he wanted to please her, or some reason the text doesn't say.
Quote from: CSTI'm not sure 'elected' is the right word for Jesus here given that Jesus is God and only God can achieve the end He came to achieve. Elected suggests God had options of beings to choose from. It also suggests that the other elect might be without sin in the way Jesus is and they are clearly not, only Jesus is without sin or else the elect wouldn't need Jesus.
Of course, this gets into the nature of Christ and his relationship with the Father, which is very enigmatic. Christ does make a clear distinction between himself and his Father and the rest of the NT writing does so as well. Election just means chosen for a purpose, not that Christ is the same as the other elect. Jesus is the end point of the journey that the elect will go on to perfection. He is the model. Yes, they are imperfect now, but that will not always be so.
QuotePersonally, I'm pretty sure that tablets were made of stone so that Moses could come down the mountain and shatter them when he saw the Israelites breaking them almost as soon as they'd received them. It's illustrative, not that he was instructed to do it. God than makes new tablets. Of course that doesn't diminished your reading they're not mutually exclusive.
Right. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.
Quote from: CSTAnd then there's the new covenant written in the body and blood of Jesus and the Israelites went and broke that too. Of course, God raised that covenant from the dead he didn't simply make a new Jesus. As you say it's internal, in the flesh and somewhat more flexible. It also won't be broken so easily.
Quote from: CSTI'm not so sure how much you should worry about swearing, obviously if it bothers you it's in your interest to stop, which you're attempting to do. But the Bible doesn't seem to have laws against the words in our language only how we use the language we have.
It's not that I worry about it. It's taken care of. I didn't need to try. But a crude mouth reflects a crude mind. That's the journey I believe we go on, to take captive every thought, and we don't do that without help.
Quote from: CSTMy main point here remains that Paul opens the book insisting that the church in Corinth punish someone that, presumably, their own understanding of love had let off. What's the hierarchy here were does Paul get to insist they do it his way over there's. Presumably that they written to him suggests some sort of deference but we don't know who wrote.
I think that has to do with the wisdom Christ instilled in him to establish the NT covenant through his Apostleship. They were not Apostles, but he was. And, again, I think that the "insistence on one's own way" must be read in context with what Paul was criticizing in the church, and should not be drawn out of the text and isolated, otherwise weird things will occur. Like, if a mom walks into the room with screaming children, tells them that it's unacceptable to yell, that doesn't mean they shouldn't yell if they are being kidnapped.
You have to understand the intention of the words based on the context they are meant to be read in.
Quote from: CSTLove your neighbour... allows this form of discipline in but you really need to be careful how you apply it. I'm not sure how careful Paul can be when he's not there.
Paul says he was there in the Spirit, and he had a connection with Christ as a chosen Apostle to establish doctrine. He wasn't just flying by the seat of his pants without Christ to guide him.
Quote from: CSTThat would depend on the mental development of the child at the time whether they would understand properly or not.
Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.
Quote from: eaglesway
some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.
This, to me, is worth highlighting.. as those crafty gnostics taught that it was the body itself - matter/
physis - which mankind has to be saved from, rather than realizing it's the fallen, imperfect nature and
character - a within quality - which we have to be rescued from. To view the physical creation and body as the problem, is to find fault with what God created, blaming God, essentially, rather than the 'blame' being the fallen, imperfect character, heart, and psyche.
And 'blame' actually, i say rather loosely, as it was the Father, creator who endowed our powers of rationalization.. which with thinking ability comes the ability (sooner or later) to make choices - but once we choose anything, in any tiny way, in thought, word or deed which differs from what He chooses, we become imperfect (fallen).
So since He Himself opened this whole Pandora's box, how could we ever possibly imagine that the rescue He built in from the foundation (beginning) won't be sufficient enough to
rescue all..?? [Seeing that the result of sin is death/nonlife/perishing.] ..And from what He put in motion by endowing rationality.. From what
He engineered.. (imo?)
[So just why did He wait and create the universe and man and woman, only after, full blown rebellion had matured in once high angel Lucifer, now called the dragon? It's my opinion He did it in just that way so all would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together at once.. (Instead of one rational creature straying now.. another later.. and another yet later and so on and so on.. taking how long? and being rather disorganized and messy)
Also, I think ultimately, God's law
is Love, the perfect law of liberty, for it sets free from all wrong doing, all dislike, all resentment, etc, etc.. "Love works no ill" .."fulfills - The Law". Love God - be being filled with Him (who iS love) and love works
no ill..
"smile"
In searching the Bible, I found this. Perhaps this will add some more insight.
Hebrews 4:14-10:22
Jesus the Great High Priest
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.[/b]
5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.
5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father."
6 And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."
7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Warning Against Falling Away
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[d] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[e] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[f] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.
The Certainty of God's Promise
13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants."[g] 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.
16 People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Melchizedek the Priest
7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham. 6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.
Jesus Like Melchizedek
11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[h]
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.'"
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24
but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[j] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
The High Priest of a New Covenant
8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.
3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[k] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[l]:
"The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[m]
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
9 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[n] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining
- eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[p] so that we may serve the living God!
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16 In the case of a will,[q] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[r] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.'"
8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 "This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."[t]
17 Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
A Call to Persevere in Faith
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.
Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.
D. :cloud9:
Quote from: Seth on June 03, 2016, 07:19:58 PM
He did say that Adam wasn't deceived by the serpent, but that doesn't mean he didn't sin. He confirms that in Romans 5. Adam definitely sinned but not through the deception of the serpent. He sinned by going along with Eve, for whatever reason, because he was tempted or because he wanted to please her, or some reason the text doesn't say.
But that's my problem. I know it says Adam sinned elsewhere in the Bible, I know Paul says he sinned elsewhere but I don't know in my head how one letter relates to the next necessarily. Here in this letter to Timothy Paul writes "[A]nd Adam was not deceived but the woman
was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:14)
That's what it says being deceived is presented here as the cause of the woman sinning, Adam was not deceived so did not sin. That's how it's written here. Like he ate from the fruit because his wife presented it to him and he ate it trusting her not realizing what it was (which seems to be what he suggests in Genesis but that still feels like a form of deception to me) or else he went, 'bother, she's eaten it now I have eat it, can't have her fall alone, which sounds wrong but may well have been what the Pharisees thought.
The point is the text only writes about Adam in the negative here so it's really the most natural reading to say he wasn't deceived so he didn't sin but the woman was deceived so ended up sinning. If I didn't the other texts I wouldn't be able to show that Paul isn't saying Adam didn't sin. That's my problem.
Paul seems to be arguing that sinning through being deceived, which would have thought of as mitigation, is worse than sinning with your eyes wide open because the 'reward' of sinning with your eyes wide open is that you get to be master of the one who sinned because they were deceived. That's what Paul seems to be saying here, the woman being deceived is more costly to her and her daughters than the man who happened not to be deceived, because obviously men have been deceived since woman have a monopoly on being fooled. Paul's argument here seems empty which is why I'm not at all sure about it.
Obviously, there a many translations of this passage but all the major ones I can see seem to be saying exactly the same thing the woman was deceived and sinned the man wasn't and, at least by implication and sometimes more, didn't.
QuoteOf course, this gets into the nature of Christ and his relationship with the Father, which is very enigmatic. Christ does make a clear distinction between himself and his Father and the rest of the NT writing does so as well. Election just means chosen for a purpose, not that Christ is the same as the other elect. Jesus is the end point of the journey that the elect will go on to perfection. He is the model. Yes, they are imperfect now, but that will not always be so.
My primary point remains the same, the word 'elected' suggests there was a choice of beings or people who God could choose His Messiah from, to me the Bible is pretty clear that there wasn't and isn't.
QuoteRight. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.
Does that include how I read Jesus in parallel, sometimes I think that's an overreach?
QuoteIt's not that I worry about it. It's taken care of. I didn't need to try. But a crude mouth reflects a crude mind. That's the journey I believe we go on, to take captive every thought, and we don't do that without help.
I got the impression it formerly bothered you at least or you wouldn't have even thought to try to reduce or stop. But I certainly recognize your understanding although some people have different ideas of what crude is. Language can be crude and reflect a crude mind but it can also be vicious and reflect a vicious mind. I'm not absolutely sure how important it is to address the crude mind, I'd definitely think about address the vicious one. Assuming it isn't to vicious to recognize the fact.
QuoteI think that has to do with the wisdom Christ instilled in him to establish the NT covenant through his Apostleship. They were not Apostles, but he was. And, again, I think that the "insistence on one's own way" must be read in context with what Paul was criticizing in the church, and should not be drawn out of the text and isolated, otherwise weird things will occur. Like, if a mom walks into the room with screaming children, tells them that it's unacceptable to yell, that doesn't mean they shouldn't yell if they are being kidnapped.
You have to understand the intention of the words based on the context they are meant to be read in.
Yeah, but we're inclined to infer the context as much a we are anything else because we don't have have the reports/letters Paul received and is responding to. Presumably he may think it's as much in the interests of the church of Corinth to execute this piece of discipline as much as it is in the interests of the man in question to receive it. Perhaps more so it's a growing church with many problems. But we don't know. You can't really say it has no Apostles though unless you strain the definition of 'apostle' it had church leaders who were expected to teach, that is be Apostles, to the others in the church, that's why they're executing this act of discipline in the first place. Or else Paul is giving them an instruction none of the is empowered to follow. In this equation Paul is at best a senior apostle, it doesn't mean Corinth doesn't happen.
But on the question of context here's something I wondered about UR and the idea we are often told that most of the earlier church believed in UR. If that's true then why do we have the UR material we use in the Bible. Why did Paul, for example feel the need, to write to the Romans to tell the all Israel will be saved? They're Romans why do they care, wouldn't they rather hear that all Rome will be saved? Why did Paul feel the need to tell them this especially after he'd all ready told them that all who fell, in Adam (IE everyone) would be raised in Christ surely, they could work out for themselves this must include Israel. So what ideas about salvation were doing the rounds in the Church of Rome at the time that Paul felt he needed to tell them that God was going to save everyone like they didn't already know? If that was what the church universally believed at the time, surely, he wouldn't have needed to say it. Of course, he did say it no worry there, but it does suggest that this may be a very old controversy we're involved in.
QuotePaul says he was there in the Spirit, and he had a connection with Christ as a chosen Apostle to establish doctrine. He wasn't just flying by the seat of his pants without Christ to guide him.
That sounds suspiciously like dogma to me. Of course, there comes a point where faith means you have to accept certain things as true and this seems like it may well be one of them. But it doesn't play so well in debates like we're having to just fall back on it, there's probably stronger evidence in the text if we understood it better.
QuoteRight. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.
And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.
QuoteQuote
Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.
And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.
Born again , not of flesh and blood ,
but of the Spirit of Life , being a child of GOD WHOM IS THE LIFE in all living things
children of the day being the truth that sets us free from the flesh and blood and sin and death error in our ways of thinking ..
pure and HOLY THOUGHTS are that promised rest !!!
Being
seated with CHRIST IN HEAVENLY PLACES , This anointing is the smearing of the Holy Spirits oil , the olive !!
the young olive trees planted by the FATHER!! Psalm 52:8
But as for me, I am like a green olive tree
in the house of God; I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.
Judgment begins in the house of God 1 Peter 4 For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household;
and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not
obey the gospel of God?
the LORD CHASTENS WHOM HE LOVES Hebrews 12 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone
he accepts as his son." Our cross to bear is , HIS WORD ABIDING IN US and working in us !
to be lopped the unfruitful branches as painful as that is the TREE OF LIFE THRIVES !
REV 22 The River of Life
1 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal,
flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
2down the middle of the main street of the city.
On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and
yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and
His servants will worship Him.... jOHN 4 ...23But a time is coming and
has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us."
Emmanuel GOD IS WITH US MATT 1 ;23
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Quote from: CST on June 04, 2016, 05:08:57 PM
But that's my problem. I know it says Adam sinned elsewhere in the Bible, I know Paul says he sinned elsewhere but I don't know in my head how one letter relates to the next necessarily. Here in this letter to Timothy Paul writes "[A]nd Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:14)
That's what it says being deceived is presented here as the cause of the woman sinning, Adam was not deceived so did not sin.
That's not what it presents, it's just the way you read it. Another way of reading that is that Adam sinned willfully but Eve was deceived.
Quote from: CSTMy primary point remains the same, the word 'elected' suggests there was a choice of beings or people who God could choose His Messiah from, to me the Bible is pretty clear that there wasn't and isn't.
It may suggest that to you, but I am just saying what the word means. Christ was a chosen vessel from before he was born, chosen to fulfill scripture. He is not the same as his Father, but claims his Father is greater than he. Therefore, he was chosen by a being greater than he.s
Quote from: CSTQuoteRight. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.
Does that include how I read Jesus in parallel, sometimes I think that's an overreach?
Not sure I understand your meaning here.
Quote from: CSTI got the impression it formerly bothered you at least or you wouldn't have even thought to try to reduce or stop. But I certainly recognize your understanding although some people have different ideas of what crude is. Language can be crude and reflect a crude mind but it can also be vicious and reflect a vicious mind. I'm not absolutely sure how important it is to address the crude mind, I'd definitely think about address the vicious one. Assuming it isn't to vicious to recognize the fact.
But the point is, it's not a Law that caused me to stop, or a voice in my head. It happened when I wasn't able to do it myself.
Quote from: CSTThat sounds suspiciously like dogma to me. Of course, there comes a point where faith means you have to accept certain things as true and this seems like it may well be one of them. But it doesn't play so well in debates like we're having to just fall back on it, there's probably stronger evidence in the text if we understood it better.
I don't consider it a debate. I am just explaining where I believe Paul got his wisdom and authority to make a judgement in that case, seeing as he said he was present in Spirit.
Quote from: CSTAnd yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.
It also says,
1 Corinthians 13
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.So again, we have to have a sense of nuance and context. In what ways should we be mature, and in what ways should we be childlike. How about, mature in our capacity to take captive every thought and develop a resistance to the pull of the flesh, and childlike in our willingness to learn and be led by God?
Matthew 18
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.Jesus' point here is not that we should be childish. It's that we should take a lowly, humble position of a child with respect to our opinion of ourselves. They were busy wondering who is great. He's saying to be great is to be humble, and lowly, like how Christ emptied himself and made himself of no reputation.
Quote from: marie glen on June 04, 2016, 12:19:23 AM
Quote from: eaglesway
some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.
This, to me, is worth highlighting.. as those crafty gnostics taught that it was the body itself - matter/physis - which mankind has to be saved from, rather than realizing it's the fallen, imperfect nature and character - a within quality - which we have to be rescued from. To view the physical creation and body as the problem, is to find fault with what God created, blaming God, essentially, rather than the 'blame' being the fallen, imperfect character, heart, and psyche.
And 'blame' actually, i say rather loosely, as it was the Father, creator who endowed our powers of rationalization.. which with thinking ability comes the ability (sooner or later) to make choices - but once we choose anything, in any tiny way, in thought, word or deed which differs from what He chooses, we become imperfect (fallen).
So since He Himself opened this whole Pandora's box, how could we ever possibly imagine that the rescue He built in from the foundation (beginning) won't be sufficient enough to rescue all..?? [Seeing that the result of sin is death/nonlife/perishing.] ..And from what He put in motion by endowing rationality.. From what He engineered.. (imo?)
[So just why did He wait and create the universe and man and woman, only after, full blown rebellion had matured in once high angel Lucifer, now called the dragon? It's my opinion He did it in just that way so all would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together at once.. (Instead of one rational creature straying now.. another later.. and another yet later and so on and so on.. taking how long? and being rather disorganized and messy)
Also, I think ultimately, God's law is Love, the perfect law of liberty, for it sets free from all wrong doing, all dislike, all resentment, etc, etc.. "Love works no ill" .."fulfills - The Law". Love God - be being filled with Him (who iS love) and love works no ill..
"smile"
This is rather the nub of the problem. Obviously the Gnostics were deriving their ideas from Greek philosophy but they did read the Bible into too and they did obviously have a lot of flesh bashing stuff to jump onto, mainly because the term 'spirit' seems to have a much broader use in Biblical language than 'flesh' does. I imagine it does anyway after the earlier discussion.
Quote from: Dandelion on June 04, 2016, 11:31:14 AM
Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.
Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.
D. :cloud9:
Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.
Quote from: rosered on June 04, 2016, 05:31:33 PM
QuoteQuote
Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.
And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.
Born again , not of flesh and blood ,
but of the Spirit of Life , being a child of GOD WHOM IS THE LIFE in all living things
children of the day being the truth that sets us free from the flesh and blood and sin and death error in our ways of thinking ..
pure and HOLY THOUGHTS are that promised rest !!!
Being seated with CHRIST IN HEAVENLY PLACES , This anointing is the smearing of the Holy Spirits oil , the olive !!
the young olive trees planted by the FATHER!! Psalm 52:8
But as for me, I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.
Judgment begins in the house of God 1 Peter 4 For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
the LORD CHASTENS WHOM HE LOVES Hebrews 12 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son."
Our cross to bear is , HIS WORD ABIDING IN US and working in us !
to be lopped the unfruitful branches as painful as that is the TREE OF LIFE THRIVES !
REV 22 The River of Life
1 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal,
flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
2down the middle of the main street of the city.
On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month.
And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him....
jOHN 4 ...23But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us."
Emmanuel GOD IS WITH US MATT 1 ;23
Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)
I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.
Quote from: Seth on June 04, 2016, 05:33:36 PM
That's not what it presents, it's just the way you read it. Another way of reading that is that Adam sinned willfully but Eve was deceived.
That's not an argument that's just you arbitrarily telling me I'm reading it wrong when all I'm reading is what the passage says and the passage says the woman sinned the passage does not say anywhere that Adam sinned and would seem by implication or more in some translation that he did not.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/1ti/2/1/t_bibles_1121014QuoteIt may suggest that to you, but I am just saying what the word means. Christ was a chosen vessel from before he was born, chosen to fulfill scripture. He is not the same as his Father, but claims his Father is greater than he. Therefore, he was chosen by a being greater than he.s
But it's not a democracy, there wasn't a competition. There wasn't an election there was simply a selection from a choice of one. The Father didn't have alternatives here to choose from.
QuoteNot sure I understand your meaning here.
Not sure I do either. In my original post I made a statement paralleling the Sinai Israelites rejecting and breaking the covenant they previously accepted resulting in Moses coming down the mountain and smashing the tablets of the Ten Commandments with the Jerusalem Israelites cheering Jesus when He came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday with them demanding His death by the end of the week resulting in Jesus, who embodies the new covenant, being broken by crucifixion. You did quote it but it was either some sort of mistake or you didn't get round to writing the reply so I'm just checking what you think.
QuoteBut the point is, it's not a Law that caused me to stop, or a voice in my head. It happened when I wasn't able to do it myself.
OK, that sounds like a paradox when written but I understand what you are trying to claim, I think.
QuoteI don't consider it a debate. I am just explaining where I believe Paul got his wisdom and authority to make a judgement in that case, seeing as he said he was present in Spirit.
Right, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm not even sure what being present in Spirit is meant to mean. How does Paul experience that?
QuoteIt also says,
1 Corinthians 13
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
So again, we have to have a sense of nuance and context. In what ways should we be mature, and in what ways should we be childlike. How about, mature in our capacity to take captive every thought and develop a resistance to the pull of the flesh, and childlike in our willingness to learn and be led by God?
Matthew 18
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Jesus' point here is not that we should be childish. It's that we should take a lowly, humble position of a child with respect to our opinion of ourselves. They were busy wondering who is great. He's saying to be great is to be humble, and lowly, like how Christ emptied himself and made himself of no reputation.
You're not arguing my point here you're just reinforcing it. Why would someone assume Jesus means humility when he presents that child, there's no reason to think that the child was being particularly humble we know nothing about what the child was doing you are just making an assumption that the only use for children for Jesus is as illustrations of humility when many children are not at all humble and can be highly unruly, the yelling child you cited in your example isn't at all humble. Jesus used children in a lot of examples often referring to concern as protection. Paul put away childish things but that doesn't mean that works for everyone.
Paul was making an example about change he was talking about how when he became and adult certain things changed. I did used to have some trouble with what Paul said because I do think what Jesus says, if they're in conflict, must always overrule. But Paul isn't talking about specific children and there characteristics he's talking about how thing change an illustration of growing into completion what was formerly incomplete. It's an example it doesn't have to speak to real children and their relationship with Jesus. I don't know whether or not I should point out, I think I need to but as carefully as I can think to. That the first thing Paul did when he became a man was become a Pharisee and start murdering Christians. Paul knows this and keeps mentioning and confessing it, but you have to remembering that it would mean that when he became a man he still hadn't received completion because Jesus had barely started with him at that point.
Hence my issue with things like this and the letter to Timothy. Paul also says in that letter to Timothy "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim. 2:12) Jesus appointed women as apostles so obviously they taught, God appointed women as prophetesses so obviously they had authority over many men. So what happened, why does Paul deny what God already seems to have given?
Quote
"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)
I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.
I am so sorry CST , but to be carnally minded is death and even the little ones [babes in Christ are yet canal / abiding in death still ] but sins are forgen them for His names sake and NOT holding that against them , still in the dark and ignorance of their own minds ,
1John 2 A New Commandment
...11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness.
He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
12I am writing to you,
little children, because your sins have been forgiven through His name. 13I am writing to you,
fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you,
young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.
when I was a child childish things 1 Cor 13 Love
...10but when the
perfect comes, the partial passes away.
11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man,
I set aside childish ways. 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully
, even as I am fully known.... Paul was an excellent example of being a child under the law and ministration of death thinking he was doing God a great service killing all the new born baby christians , this was contrary to the law of moses and this new upstart JESUS CHRIST was considered a blasphemer and a false prophet and put to death and them NOT seeing anything from the natural eyes to prove anything different
TILL THE LORD HIMSELF got a hold of Saul / Paul and changed the whole course of his natural and spiritual life ... Paul was now a slave to Jesus Christ and no longer a slave to sin
we are NOT our own we belong to one or the other , the Lord the Light and life of the world or the world that still abides in death according to the natural eye and not seen with any observation as changed ..
CST spiritual eyes are of God Himself doing the works of Light and life within us
No man knows and no man understands that part and mystery of Gods desire
they remain in the dark age of no hope and no rest ..
Quote from: rosered on June 04, 2016, 06:27:28 PM
Quote
"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)
I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.
I am so sorry CST , but to be carnally minded is death and even the little ones [babes in Christ are yet canal / abiding in death still ] but sins are forgen them for His names sake and NOT holding that against them , still in the dark and ignorance of their own minds ,
1John 2 A New Commandment
...11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness.
He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
12I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven through His name. 13I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.
when I was a child childish things 1 Cor 13 Love
...10but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.
11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known....
Paul was an excellent example of being a child under the law and ministration of death thinking he was doing God a great service killing all the new born baby christians , this was contrary to the law of moses and this new upstart JESUS CHRIST was considered a blasphemer and a false prophet and put to death and them NOT seeing anything from the natural eyes to prove anything different
TILL THE LORD HIMSELF got a hold of Saul / Paul and changed the whole course of his natural and spiritual life ... Paul was now a slave to Jesus Christ and no longer a slave to sin
we are NOT our own we belong to one or the other , the Lord the Light and life of the world or the world that still abides in death according to the natural eye and not seen with any observation as changed ..
CST spiritual eyes are of God Himself doing the works of Light and life within us
No man knows and no man understands that part and mystery of Gods desire
they remain in the dark age of no hope and no rest ..
It seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.
As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.
Quote from: CSTThat's not an argument that's just you arbitrarily telling me I'm reading it wrong when all I'm reading is what the passage says and the passage says the woman sinned the passage does not say anywhere that Adam sinned and would seem by implication or more in some translation that he did not.
You are not JUST reading the passage. You are providing an interpretation. The passage does not say "Adam did not sin at any time." If it did, case closed. It says that he was not deceived by Satan, not that he never sinned. It says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. You are taking that to mean (as you said "seem by implication") that Adam did not sin. Adam was also a transgressor, as it says in other passages, only it wasn't through deception. The fact that it says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, does not mean that AFTER she became a transgressor, Adam did not also transgress at another time through means other than being deceived.
If I say
Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.
That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging.
Quote from: CSTBut it's not a democracy, there wasn't a competition. There wasn't an election there was simply a selection from a choice of one. The Father didn't have alternatives here to choose from.
There doesn't need to be. There are three senses of "elected" that Webster's dictionary provides:
Full Definition of elect
1 : carefully selected : chosen
2 : chosen for salvation through divine mercy
3 a : chosen for office or position but not yet installed <the president-elect>
b : chosen for marriage at some future time <the bride-elect>
Sense number one is how I mean it and it does not depend on anything other than someone carefully selecting someone. There doesn't need to be a democracy.
Quote from: CSTRight, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm not even sure what being present in Spirit is meant to mean. How does Paul experience that?
We are just discussing. A debate suggests that someone is trying to win something and therefore there are rules that will disqualify a winner. I am just providing my interpretation of where Paul derived his authority. What Paul means, or how he experienced being present in the Spirit is mysterious to me as well. But, he did claim to be present in a way other than being physically present.
Quote from: CSTYou're not arguing my point here you're just reinforcing it. Why would someone assume Jesus means humility when he presents that child, there's no reason to think that the child was being particularly humble we know nothing about what the child was doing you are just making an assumption that the only use for children for Jesus is as illustrations of humility when many children are not at all humble and can be highly unruly, the yelling child you cited in your example isn't at all humble. Jesus used children in a lot of examples often referring to concern as protection. Paul put away childish things but that doesn't mean that works for everyone.
Paul was making an example about change he was talking about how when he became and adult certain things changed.
Jesus explains his intention within that scripture. It means to be lowly and of no reputation such as a child. They were asking Jesus what it means to be great. Jesus was saying to be great is to be lowly. He didn't mean that if a mother walks into a room and tells kids to stop yelling, that means they should ignore context and think that ALL yelling at ALL times is unacceptable. That's why God insisting on something doesn't automatically contradict with the definition of love. We need to look what Paul was contrasting his definition with just like we need to recognize what context the mother was forbidding yelling.
Quote from: CSTHence my issue with things like this and the letter to Timothy. Paul also says in that letter to Timothy "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim. 2:12) Jesus appointed women as apostles so obviously they taught, God appointed women as prophetesses so obviously they had authority over many men. So what happened, why does Paul deny what God already seems to have given?
Can you point me to the scripture that shows that women were given authority over men by Jesus?
Quote from: Seth on June 04, 2016, 06:54:25 PM
You are not JUST reading the passage. You are providing an interpretation. The passage does not say "Adam did not sin at any time." If it did, case closed. It says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. You are taking that to mean (as you said "seem by implication") that Adam did not sin. Adam was also a transgressor, as it says in other passages, only it wasn't through deception. The fact that it says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, does not mean that AFTER she became a transgressor, Adam did not also transgress at another time through means other than being deceived.
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (KJV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.' (NKJV)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.' (NLT)
'And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' (NIV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (ESV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.' (HCSB)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [fn]fell into transgression.' (NASB)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.' (NET)
'and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:' (ASV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,' (YLT)
'and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.' (DBY)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (WEB)
'Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;' (HNV)
Thirteen translations there plus the one I've already used. None of them say that Adam sinned all of them say the woman sinned. In normal reading in wouldn't think it fair to read into it the statement that Adam actually did sin just because it doesn't specifically say that he didn't not given some of the very obvious translation up then including Young's Literal translation which says the woman felling into transgression due to being deceived not simply because she lusted after what she saw in the tree which is what Genesis says happened.
QuoteThere doesn't need to be. There are three senses of "elected" that Webster's dictionary provides:
Full Definition of elect
1 : carefully selected : chosen
2 : chosen for salvation through divine mercy
3 a : chosen for office or position but not yet installed <the president-elect>
b : chosen for marriage at some future time <the bride-elect>
Sense number one is how I mean it and it does not depend on anything other than someone carefully selecting someone. There doesn't need to be a democracy.
Yeah, but sense number 1 says 'carefully' which suggests considered and thus some sort of choice. The only choice here seems to be to save or not to save.
QuoteWe are just discussing. A debate suggests that someone is trying to win something and therefore there are rules that will disqualify a winner. I am just providing my interpretation of where Paul derived his authority. What Paul means, or how he experienced being present in the Spirit is mysterious to me as well. But, he did claim to be present in a way other than being physically present.
Ah, yes good. You're right of course. I'm just getting so passionate about this I'm inclined to use stronger terms. I'm not even sure which identified, 'gift of the Spirit' I would imagine Paul is describing here.
QuoteJesus explains his intention within that scripture. It means to be lowly and of no reputation such as a child. They were asking Jesus what it means to be great. Jesus was saying to be great is to be lowly. He didn't mean that if a mother walks into a room and tells kids to stop yelling, that means they should ignore context and think that ALL yelling at ALL times is unacceptable. Jesus didn't mean that we should reason in every way such as a child. He meant that God considers greatness to be lowliness, which was counter-intuitive to them.
That depends how they understood greatness doesn't it, I only understand it in one way: God. Nothing else is meaningful to me on that matter. When I believed in ET Jesus would say that if you want to be first in the in the kingdom of Heaven you should try to be last and many of the first will be last and the last will be first (He's talking about Himself here in case you missed it) and I would think it's Heaven and trying to be last is too hard, why not just shoot for the middle, it's Heaven it's far better than being in Hell?
QuoteCan you point me to the scripture that shows that women were given authority over men by Jesus?
The fact the they are made the first witness to the resurrection is a pretty strong one. The prophets of the Old Testament, as I said, are another since they are all appointed by God to have authority over their area. Why would God reverse His behavior?
Quote from: CST on June 04, 2016, 07:25:46 PM
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (KJV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.' (NKJV)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.' (NLT)
'And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' (NIV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (ESV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.' (HCSB)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [fn]fell into transgression.' (NASB)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.' (NET)
'and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:' (ASV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,' (YLT)
'and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.' (DBY)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (WEB)
'Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;' (HNV)
Thirteen translations there plus the one I've already used. None of them say that Adam sinned all of them say the woman sinned. In normal reading in wouldn't think it fair to read into it the statement that Adam actually did sin just because it doesn't specifically say that he didn't not given some of the very obvious translation up then including Young's Literal translation which says the woman felling into transgression due to being deceived not simply because she lusted after what she saw in the tree which is what Genesis says happened.
Again, if I say
Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.
That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging. The passage does NOT say "Adam did not ever transgress." It says he wasn't deceived. His transgression did not occur through deception of Satan. Do you think Adam was perfect and sinless or something?
This is called the
Argument to the Negative where lack of positive evidence must prove the opposite: "Adam must
not have sinned because the verse doesn't say he did." Just because this particular verse doesn't say Adam sinned is not proof that he didn't
at another point in time. It just doesn't say. It only says he wasn't deceived.
Quote from: CSTYeah, but sense number 1 says 'carefully' which suggests considered and thus some sort of choice.
It doesn't suggest that to me. It just mean with care. Also, Jesus pre-existed. It could be that he was chosen over angels.
Quote from: CSTThat depends how they understood greatness doesn't it, I only understand it in one way: God. Nothing else is meaningful to me on that matter. When I believed in ET Jesus would say that if you want to be first in the in the kingdom of Heaven you should try to be last and many of the first will be last and the last will be first (He's talking about Himself here in case you missed it) and I would think it's Heaven and trying to be last is too hard, why not just shoot for the middle, it's Heaven it's far better than being in Hell?
Well, however anyone understands greatness, the comparison Jesus is making to a child does not imply that we should reason or think as one about the scriptures. In some ways we should be like a child, and in other ways we should be more mature. Jesus provides the way in which we should be like children directly in the passage.
Quote from: CSTThe fact the they are made the first witness to the resurrection is a pretty strong one. The prophets of the Old Testament, as I said, are another since they are all appointed by God to have authority over their area. Why would God reverse His behavior?
Being witness to the resurrection does not mean authority. Also, God required the Jews to avoid pork. Now we don't have to. I am looking for examples where Jesus gave authority to women over men in the church.
QuoteIt seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.
As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.
You have no arguments from me on how to see GODS WORD ,CST ,,,
We are all in different places that is for sure .. :friendstu:
but I should have said before Christ Spirit WITH GODS AS JOINED , come upon Him to teach Him a new and living way He was persecuting the Body of Christ ..Acts 9
I sure can see him doing the works of satan his father the devil as a Pharisee very prideful and ignorantly in darkness without eyes to see or ears to hear or heart to understand the HOLY SPIRIT as it was NOT given to him yet , as a birthing out of due time 1Cor 15 Last of all, as to
one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [ HE WAS BORN AGAIN ] in my opinion as Jesus did come as a thief in the night , his hour of darkness ..
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me
so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and
he could see again. He got up and
was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
I do see the old law of Levi-athan as the serpent of the seas many people's tongues and nations ..[ the King over all the children of PRIDE ] Job 41 . [as the levi priesthood with many sacrifices pride comes before a FALL , falling on your knees to the earth and descent as baptism of death , but to those whom betray , the sin remained because of them saying WE SEE !
all allegorically speaking but GOD provided ONE LAMB , By One would it change that priesthood forever THIS ACT OR WORK OPENLY, to His own HOLY ONE SET
as perfect and never ending .. Only God Himself can teach us His truth , many speak as I am to you today , but it is the Lord whom freely gives us His truth so He is glorified in the earth as it is in heaven as we learn His righteousness & judgments ..
Quote from: Dandelion on June 04, 2016, 11:31:14 AM
Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.
Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.
D. :cloud9:
Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.
Thank you, CST, for noticing I wasn't around too much the last 2 weeks. I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips out to LI, and then paperwork for work, etc. I am very hard to get rid of....I tend to stick to things like glue.....so, if I am not here, there is a reason. I have no intentions of leaving 'the Tent' as I refer to it. Oh, yes, that is what my profile always says...not to worry.
I see the debate continues.............
D.
I think I'm a bit behind in this thread.. and haven't time to carefully read all.. but wanted to mention one or two things.. The apostles after meeting with and listening to Paul, gave his gospel he was preaching to the gentiles (and Israel/synagogues) approval.. Paul called himself an apostle, lastly chosen as one out of time.. Some things Paul wrote about women's place I did not like.. but then again, he also wrote that in Jesus there is neither Jew nor greek, male nor female.. and Priscilla, for one, definitely seemed to be involved with teaching. As far as authority, I don't really trust "authority" figures, etc. but that's just me.. I do trust the apostles and their witness.. Which the scriptures say miracles in their day was a witness and testimony that what was occurring was truthful.
I have often pondered the truth of how Eve was deceived.. (didn't our heavenly Father know that would occur.. Deception, that is, when He created man and woman aFter the rebellion of Satan?) And doesn't the scripture say all are born into sin having been born of Adam's line? Including the "as in Adam all die, even so in Jesus all will live.."
I decided to look up some of the greek in the verse - 1 Timothy 2:12 - to be quiet in church - http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271 (http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271) "teach" - http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321 (http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321) and "authority (over) - http://studybible.info/strongs/G831
(http://studybible.info/strongs/G831) - this one was the most interesting..
And as with all topics, I don't believe it is one verse (or section) but all pertaining verses.. so the "no male nor female in Christ" also applies.. I do feel one place where the women were told to be quiet, is a case where during church some ladies were carrying on conversations!
And also, male or female, I don't think we are supposed to bury talents nor gifts.. (wow, how frustrating that would be.. or only speak to other women? :Chinscratch: does Jesus love me less because I am a woman? I do tend to prefer men to be the leaders.. if available.. And I do submit myself to my own husband.. and am not interested in any sort of authority over any others..
There's an ad I come across selling "women's head coverings for christian women" and I am offended by it whenever I see it.. It reminds me of that other god, alla h, and says to me, you are inferior.. Yes, I know Paul said about being covered, but I think it was a customs thing, and covered today is still decency.. (1 Cor 11)
Wasn't that part of the curse, when God told Eve the man would exercise authority over her.. You know, I hate cooking and all that domestic stuff all take for granted (which I've been doing all my life) if i had to confine myself to that :eek: bake sales.. :laughing7: no offense meant (please, and forgive me if my thoughts on this offend)
:Peace2: :gsmile:
There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.
I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3
For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33
Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.
There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.
"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."
Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.
This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.
It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.
Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.
"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7
One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.
Paul writes...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28
So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a double minded sexist?
If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!
What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"...... :laugh:
Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)
It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".
The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman
The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there
Now, bear with me...
In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"
Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.
Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.
So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.
The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".
And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear. But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.
In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,
4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"
Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.
But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.
As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.
In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.
This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.
Quote from: Dandelion on June 04, 2016, 08:34:40 PM
I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips
My condolences Dandelion.. I know you know you will see your friend again and all being happy.. but it is still difficult and we never really get over missing those who leave us.. bless you dear.. the Lord loves you!! So very much! :HeartThrob: :flowerred:
Quote from: eaglesway on June 04, 2016, 10:25:00 PM
There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.
I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3
For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33
Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.
There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.
"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."
Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.
This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.
It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.
Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.
"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7
One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.
Paul writes...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28
So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a double minded sexist?
If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!
What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"...... :laugh:
Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)
It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".
The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman
The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there
Now, bear with me...
In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"
Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.
Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.
So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.
The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".
And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear. But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.
In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,
4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"
Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.
But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.
As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.
In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.
This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.
I very much agree with your "opinion" Eaglesway and find nothing in it to disagree with :gsmile:
Quote from: eaglesway on June 04, 2016, 10:25:00 PM
There is a seeming paradox in the scriptures pertaining to men and women in ministry. We see in Acts that Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses.
I would like to point out that a prophet or a prophetess in the New Testament church is not a prognosticator. They may at some point receive a word on coming events, but according to Paul, the function or prophets and prophetesses is to speak the word under inspiration- similar to what we have always called preachers.
But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 1 Co 14:3
For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:31-33
Everyone was allowed to prophesy, but their prophecies were judged, it would be a humbling thing for a person just "seeking to be somebody" to speak because the discernment of the elders was strong, and the other prophets were in the Spirit, so I don't believe people just went off "willy nilly" very often. If they did I am sure they were lovingly corrected and taught concerning the will of the flesh.
There were people who were recognized as "prophets" and "prophetesses", having established gifts in inspired, edifying speech.
"Let the prophets speak one by one and let the others judge."
Now as to women being silent in the church- this is what I believe the "Whole Context" of Paul's writing indicates.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
All Paul is saying here is that he doesnt want to hear women questions being asked while teaching is going on. He doesnt want to hear questions asked and answered or squabbling of any kind either. Woman are to be submissive.... NOT SUBSERVIENT... merely submissive.
This has to be read in the light of ALL PAUL WROTE ON MEN AND WOMEN/HUSBANDS AND WIVES.
It is not separate from the whole topical context and AS IN EVERY CASE- it is not meant to stand alone.
Paul speaks clearly about the tenderness and mutual consideration that ought to be tendered between the sexes. He never makes women out to be second class citizens. But it is all about interpretation- and thoroughness with the topical context.
"But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;" 1 Co 7
One could interpret this in myriad ways if they did not regard the rest of what Paul wrote. One could even use it to justify adultery and fornication! It only becomes reasonable IN CONTEXT.
Paul writes...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28
So, was Paul a confused idiot, or a double minded sexist?
If you look at history you find Paul was the most egalitarian man who ever lived, considering that in every culture of the day, to say there is no male nor female in Christ and to accord respect and preisthood to women was outrageously alien!
What(imo) did Paul mean when He said I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO USURP AUTHORITY "OVER A MAN"...... :laugh:
Here goes my honest opinion on that, is there a smiley for ducking? :o)
It is all about interpreting the words "over a man".
The order in creation at present is God, Christ, orders of angelic beings, man, woman
The order of creation after the restoration of all things will be God, Christ- and then no order because all rule power and authority will have been anulled, look at it in 1 Cor 15 23-28, its there
Now, bear with me...
In Jude it says that certain angels "left there proper domain" and were therfore bound in "aidos chains"
Everyone has their proper domain because "rule, power and authority" has not yet been done away.
Everyone is called to serve within their domain, "as unto the Lord", and EVRYONE IS TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS A HUMBLE SERVANT.
So, in the assembly women are not to assert themselves over men in deference to the domains of God.
The key phrase is "teach or usurp authority over a man"- which in any interlinear will prove out that is reads teach to "exercise authority over a man".
And this is proper, in respect of the domains God has established, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO ANY IDEA OF INFERIORITY- which Paul made clear. But God has created an order. Eve was created so the man would not be alone, a help "meet"(fitting in form and in gifts) to assist and live in "SYMBIOSIS AND SYNCHRONICITY" with a man. This is, in the ideal- what God intended and Paul understands that in this order the body will flow most effectively because it is God's design.
In the general assembly, I think women were allowed to prophesy- because Paul says "ALL MAY PROPHESY" and Acts tells us Phillip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Paul said,
4But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, 25and the secrets his of heart be will be revealed. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, "God is truly among you!"
Why? Because the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword dividing asunder soul and spirit.
But Paul also said, "Let everything be done decently and in order" and that includes acknowledging the domains of God, and women were to defer to men in authority, and still ought to in the general assembly.
As unto the Lord, and unto decency and order- not as respecters of persons, not as unto man or men pleasing or subservience.
In Romans 12 Paul says, What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be edified.
This just hits the high points, and it is just an opinion and my personal belief is that there ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, because God is not a God of law, but a God of life.
I think that is a pretty even handed view of it. Paul also recommended that husbands love wives as Christ loves the church. Christ made himself of no reputation, and washed the feet of the disciples. This idea of submission doesn't mean the man gets to be Mr. Bossypants. He should be serving her.
Absolutely!
Not to mention listening to her, respecting her opinions and exhortations. She is equal as the servant of Jesus Christ and disciple of the kingdom.
Yes :thumbsup:. And I really feel that if we are all loving eachother the way we are told to do so, the issue of authority and power really shouldn't be an issue inside or outside marriage. Who cares who has the authority, until some people start craving it? It only becomes an issue when we start thinking about ourselves. If both people are putting the other person above themselves, when is power an issue?
I think one of the reasons these scriptures are so controversial is because we rarely see the love we are meant to demonstrate actually happening in the world, so it's hard to imagine how Paul's recommendation in relationships and the church works without the awesome self-lowering love that supposed to go with it. The best people to have authority, imo, are the ones who don't think they should have it, or worry about it (like Moses "I'm not a good speaker" or Jonah etc), not ones who crave it for their own sakes.
I agree. I also think that people fail to look at the whole context of what is written when discussing topics, so they may attribute to Paul(for instance) or to Christians in general(another instance), or God or Christ, things that simply are not true in a whole context view of the issues - they are simply reactions to the default opinions of fundies and legalists and religionists who have popularized all kinds of garbage in Christ's name.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Seth on June 04, 2016, 07:40:31 PM
Again, if I say
Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.
That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging. The passage does NOT say "Adam did not ever transgress." It says he wasn't deceived. His transgression did not occur through deception of Satan. Do you think Adam was perfect and sinless or something?
This is called the Argument to the Negative where lack of positive evidence must prove the opposite: "Adam must not have sinned because the verse doesn't say he did." Just because this particular verse doesn't say Adam sinned is not proof that he didn't at another point in time. It just doesn't say. It only says he wasn't deceived.
No I do not think that, obviously. I think that's what the text seems to be saying hence my objection because it obviously wouldn't be correct in the context of the rest of the Bible. Several of those translation use the phrase 'the transgression'. Now in English we call the term 'the' the definite article meaning there one specific something and not several of the when we use the term 'a' called the indefinite article because there are many of them and one or 'a' is under discussion. The phrasing says that the woman is 'in the transgression' but the man can't be because there aren't other transgressions here to go round. But this isn't really my point my point is that why does the 'being deceived' part eclipse the sinning without being deceived part? Why is it worse for women because one woman was fooled and better for men when one man sinned very deliberately? Which is what it seems to be saying as soon as I read the guilt of sin into both parties. Oh, and Adam was fooled by Satan even if not directly. Unless Adam willfully choose to obey the Devil over God.
Arguing from the negative is very useful in the Bible, if we didn't have it we'd have an awful lot more contradictions in the text them we do. Particularly in the nativity narratives. It's very clear that Matthew and Luke have very different ideas of the circumstances of Jesus' birth than each other but fortunately they don't say a lot of them directly so the contradictions aren't in the text of the Bible, but if you put any thought into it you can see what they seem to think.
This isn't just a matter of the verse not saying Adam didn't sin. This is a letter to Timothy, not an Epistle to one of the Churches, it's a private correspondence I'm not sure why we have it. Presumably Timothy has a lot of information we lack and knew Adam sinned. But nowhere in the letter does it say this. Now imagine that you didn't have any other books of the Bible. Do you really think it would be reasonable to imagine that this man Adam sinned even though it only says the woman committed 'the transgression'. Or do you think it would be more reasonable to imagine that it's saying that only the woman sinned?
QuoteIt doesn't suggest that to me. It just mean with care. Also, Jesus pre-existed. It could be that he was chosen over angels.
Jesus is God, God is responsible for the World. The World was made through Him it's part of Him. It not an angels job to save it. God purposed the World to fall and for Him to save it Himself there are no alternatives.
QuoteWell, however anyone understands greatness, the comparison Jesus is making to a child does not imply that we should reason or think as one about the scriptures. In some ways we should be like a child, and in other ways we should be more mature. Jesus provides the way in which we should be like children directly in the passage.
What, humility? The thing about that is that Jesus advocates humility an awful lot during His ministry and it usually referred to becoming servile. And that isn't slaving away all our lives it means think about what we can do for others before we think about what we want others to do for us. And this is good, but very hard.
But you can't expect children to think like that, they actually do need to think about what others can do for them because there's so much children haven't learned to do yet. They'll also more creative than most adults, more imaginative than most adults and have a spectacular capacity to see when adults are trying to hoodwink them. So what? Is Jesus simply instructing everyone to remember they're dependency on God the way children are dependent on their own parents. Maybe but given that I don't where this child's parent are meant to be here it seems hard to imagine that as the be all and end all of the illustration.
QuoteBeing witness to the resurrection does not mean authority. Also, God required the Jews to avoid pork. Now we don't have to. I am looking for examples where Jesus gave authority to women over men in the church.
They were instructed to tell the apostles, basically to teach the resurrection. Effectively these women were the first people commissioned to deliver the Gospel. Authority is presupposed in the context because this is a message that can't be ignored.
But I'm going to try and be honest about things like reverse arguments from the negative. The example above is one of the examples where women seem to be give authority by Jesus in the Gospels another peculiar one I couldn't remember where to find at the time and so needed to check. Having done so it's lost a little of it's original weight without actually changing what it says.
In the Gospel of Luke it is written: "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." (Luk 10:1)
There nothing particularly spectacular there, well except that that's flood language most commonly associated in the Bible with animals going into the Ark, two and two, male and female going into the Ark. So it would therefore imply the possibility at least that up to half that number might be females. Well, that's what I wondered when I read it anyway.
Well, perhaps not on looking to find it again I also discovered it in Mark. But in Mark it appears to be much smaller and refer to the apostles so is a lot less likely to mean that is this case, although your point about the Argument to the Negative does somewhat apply here. It doesn't say they're not all twelve of them put with women and sent out, so they could still be.
'And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;' (Mar 6:7)
I have other cases well at least one and some others by parallel but that enough to be going on with for now, I think I my time is getting away from me. Which also means I can't reply to any of my other friends here today. Sorry, to them.
Quote from: CSTNo I do not think that obviously. I think that's what the text seems to be saying hence my objection because it obviously wouldn't be correct in the context of the rest of the Bible. Several of those translation use the phrase 'the transgression'. Now in English we call the term 'the' the definite article meaning there one specific something and not several of the when we use the term 'a' called the indefinite article because there are many of them and one or 'a' is under discussion. The phrasing says that the woman is 'in the transgression' but the man can't be because there aren't other transgressions here to go round.
The reason for the translations that say "fell into transgression" is because the greek says "gynē exapatētheisa en parabasei gonen" or "the woman into transgression has come." So, the meaning would be more like "having been deceived, the woman came into transgression." The major point Paul would be making is that the woman fell into transgression through deception, not that Adam NEVER sinned. I could see why the KJV rendering would cause confusion, but I think the later translations attempt to rectify that.
Also the definite article can refer to a specific transgression they both fell under. "The transgression" = disobedience. So Eve fell into the transgression through deception, while Adam tell into the transgression by other means.
Quote from: CSTBut this isn't really my point my point is that why does the 'being deceived' part eclipse the sinning without being deceived part? Why is it worse for women because one woman was fooled and better for men when one man sinned very deliberately? Which is what it seems to be saying as soon as I read the guilt of sin into both parties. Oh, and Adam was fooled by Satan even if not directly. Unless Adam willfully choose to obey the Devil over God.
Paul was pretty clear that there transgression on both sides in the full scope of his writing. As to the importance of deception, I don't know. We'd have to ask him. Paul does attribute death coming into the world through Adam though, not Eve, so I think Adam doesn't come away very clean in the whole deal though.
Quote from: CSTThis isn't just a matter of the verse not saying Adam didn't sin. This is a letter to Timothy, not an Epistle to one of the Churches, it's a private correspondence I'm not sure why we have it. Presumably Timothy has a lot of information we lack and knew Adam sinned. But nowhere in the letter does it say this. Now imagine that you didn't have any other books of the Bible. Do you really think it would be reasonable to imagine that this man Adam sinned even though it only says the woman committed 'the transgression'. Or do you think it would be more reasonable to imagine that it's saying that only the woman sinned?
Again, it doesn't say that Adam never sinned. It just says that Eve sinned through deception. If there were no other books of the Bible, I would have to say I don't know, rather than just asserting that he never sinned based on lack of information of whether he did or not.
Quote from: CSTJesus is God, God is responsible for the World. The World was made through Him it's part of Him. It not an angels job to save it.
That's because the Father chose the Son, not them.
Quote from: CSTWhat, humility? The thing about that is that Jesus advocates humility an awful lot during His ministry and it usually referred to becoming servile. And that isn't slaving away all our lives it means think about what we can do for others before we think about what we want others to do for us. And this is good, but very hard.
But you can't expect children to think like that, they actually do need to think about what others can do for them because there's so much children haven't learned to do yet. They'll also more creative than most adults, more imaginative than most adults and have a spectacular capacity to see when adults are trying to hoodwink them. So what? Is Jesus simply instructing everyone to remember they're dependency on God the way children are dependent on their own parents. Maybe but given that I don't where this child's parent are meant to be here it seems hard to imagine that as the be all and end all of the illustration.
I think Jesus is providing enough context within his own statement to determine his meaning. The point being, in some ways we should be like children, and in other ways, not.
Quote from: CSTThey were instructed to tell the apostles, basically to teach the resurrection. Effectively these women were the first people commissioned to deliver the Gospel. Authority is presupposed in the context because this is a message that can't be ignored.
I don't see them having authority just because of that. I'm not saying whether or not women should or should not have authority. But you made the positive statement that Jesus gave authority to women over men, and I don't see the evidence for that.
Regarding Eve, it could be that Paul is not saying that women are easily deceived. That would be odd since they can prophecy and be in charge of very important tasks in the church. But, maybe Paul is paying attention to the order of things. Eve sinned first and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned second and was not deceived. Christ is second as well (second Adam) and also was not deceived, though he did not sin.
It could be that Paul wants to preserve the parallels to Christ and Adam as reflected in church culture. This is just a guess. Again, it would be odd to think that women can be more easily deceived since they were given power to prophecy and go give very important news of Christ etc.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Ro 5
Again, i think folks segment the word too much and draw positions from too limited a scope of information.
Paul definitely names sin in Adam. Sin is a broad stroke, as we see in Rom 5, it is not the similarity of the exact trangression that causes the condition. The condition is general, and the result of heritage. Adam sinned, so all his childreen were born into the general condition that fell upon him for his transgression- death. Eve's sin was that she did not rely upon the word spoken to her, and was deceived.
Adms sin was rebellion to a direct command- he knew exactly what he was doing.
Yet it is Paul who says, "Evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Note, he does not refer to women, but men being deceived, as in many other places, like Romans 1, "they worshipped the creation over the creator and were darkened in their understanding.
But Paul definitely says, "god is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man is the head of woman"- this is about created domains, function and purpose. We are all called to abide within our domain in terms of function and respect. In the family, the man is supposed to lay down his life for his bride, as Christ did- so a man is measured by how he fulfills his responsibility within his domain. man did not create that domain, God did.
Women are judged by how they fulfill their responsibilities within their domain, and it is up to each individual man and woman to determine exactly how God has placed them and where the functional responsibility is according to their individual circumstance.
Life is full of exceptions and God is aware of that and His generalities are not laws that He binds Himself by, as we see in the case of Deborah. but the general principle is that the family and the body of Christ function best in respect towards the general policies God has set forth in creation.
Today, in this era of mass confusion and lawless anarchy where love has grown cold because lawlessness abounds.... well, I think I have said all I have to say on this LOL :o)
I am getting the impression, although nothing is stated outright, that there is some critique about, either the authenticity or reliability of the letter to Timothy based on how Paul brings up Eve's sin and seems to say that Adam did not sin.
I am not sure if that is the general idea here, but my whole point is not to get into a debate about women in the ministry. My point is to say that Paul, in the letter to Timothy, is not contradicting his other writings where he confirms that Adam sinned. The letter to Timothy does not say "Adam did not sin."
Again, I am getting lost as to what any of this has to do with the two-evangel theory. :dontknow:
lol point taken. lets get back on point. the verses in romans 5 make it clear that Adam sinned ;o)
Quote from: rosered on June 04, 2016, 08:11:55 PM
QuoteIt seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.
As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.
You have no arguments from me on how to see GODS WORD ,CST ,,,
We are all in different places that is for sure .. :friendstu:
but I should have said before Christ Spirit WITH GODS AS JOINED , come upon Him to teach Him a new and living way He was persecuting the Body of Christ ..Acts 9
I sure can see him doing the works of satan his father the devil as a Pharisee very prideful and ignorantly in darkness without eyes to see or ears to hear or heart to understand the HOLY SPIRIT as it was NOT given to him yet , as a birthing out of due time 1Cor 15 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [ HE WAS BORN AGAIN ] in my opinion as Jesus did come as a thief in the night , his hour of darkness ..
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
I do see the old law of Levi-athan as the serpent of the seas many people's tongues and nations ..[ the King over all the children of PRIDE ] Job 41 . [as the levi priesthood with many sacrifices pride comes before a FALL , falling on your knees to the earth and descent as baptism of death , but to those whom betray , the sin remained because of them saying WE SEE !
all allegorically speaking but GOD provided ONE LAMB , By One would it change that priesthood forever THIS ACT OR WORK OPENLY, to His own HOLY ONE SET
as perfect and never ending .. Only God Himself can teach us His truth , many speak as I am to you today , but it is the Lord whom freely gives us His truth so He is glorified in the earth as it is in heaven as we learn His righteousness & judgments ..
Hello, Rose :)
Glad we're not arguing. I like your word plays to it demonstrates an application of imaginative which I often find constructive. Although I'm aware it's much harder in the Hebrew. I don't know if Levi-athan actually looks like that in the Hebrew although I expect you might. Although why should the Hebrew be all that matters anyway.
Although to be accurate (though not necessarily helpful) since we're discussing the Bible it's "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall, it's a parallelism (I think that's the right term) which is why it edits like that. It's not helpful now but might be worth remembering later.
But indeed only God can teach His truth, just I don't feel able to know how to identify it. I thought I'd identified some when I read the "Two and two" line in Luke, now it seems not so. So what's the point?
Quote from: Dandelion on June 04, 2016, 08:34:40 PM
Quote from: Dandelion on June 04, 2016, 11:31:14 AM
Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.
Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.
D. :cloud9:
Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.
Thank you, CST, for noticing I wasn't around too much the last 2 weeks. I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips out to LI, and then paperwork for work, etc. I am very hard to get rid of....I tend to stick to things like glue.....so, if I am not here, there is a reason. I have no intentions of leaving 'the Tent' as I refer to it. Oh, yes, that is what my profile always says...not to worry.
I see the debate continues.............
D.
Thank, so sorry to hear about your friend. Your profile is really odd, is it a fault or did you (or someone) manage to intentionally set it that way for whatever reason? I really did think that would only happen if an account got deleted.
Quote from: marie glen on June 04, 2016, 10:22:52 PM
I think I'm a bit behind in this thread.. and haven't time to carefully read all.. but wanted to mention one or two things.. The apostles after meeting with and listening to Paul, gave his gospel he was preaching to the gentiles (and Israel/synagogues) approval.. Paul called himself an apostle, lastly chosen as one out of time.. Some things Paul wrote about women's place I did not like.. but then again, he also wrote that in Jesus there is neither Jew nor greek, male nor female.. and Priscilla, for one, definitely seemed to be involved with teaching. As far as authority, I don't really trust "authority" figures, etc. but that's just me.. I do trust the apostles and their witness.. Which the scriptures say miracles in their day was a witness and testimony that what was occurring was truthful.
I have often pondered the truth of how Eve was deceived.. (didn't our heavenly Father know that would occur.. Deception, that is, when He created man and woman aFter the rebellion of Satan?) And doesn't the scripture say all are born into sin having been born of Adam's line? Including the "as in Adam all die, even so in Jesus all will live.."
I decided to look up some of the greek in the verse - 1 Timothy 2:12 - to be quiet in church - http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271 (http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271) "teach" - http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321 (http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321) and "authority (over) - http://studybible.info/strongs/G831
(http://studybible.info/strongs/G831) - this one was the most interesting..
And as with all topics, I don't believe it is one verse (or section) but all pertaining verses.. so the "no male nor female in Christ" also applies.. I do feel one place where the women were told to be quiet, is a case where during church some ladies were carrying on conversations!
And also, male or female, I don't think we are supposed to bury talents nor gifts.. (wow, how frustrating that would be.. or only speak to other women? :Chinscratch: does Jesus love me less because I am a woman? I do tend to prefer men to be the leaders.. if available.. And I do submit myself to my own husband.. and am not interested in any sort of authority over any others..
There's an ad I come across selling "women's head coverings for christian women" and I am offended by it whenever I see it.. It reminds me of that other god, alla h, and says to me, you are inferior.. Yes, I know Paul said about being covered, but I think it was a customs thing, and covered today is still decency.. (1 Cor 11)
Wasn't that part of the curse, when God told Eve the man would exercise authority over her.. You know, I hate cooking and all that domestic stuff all take for granted (which I've been doing all my life) if i had to confine myself to that :eek: bake sales.. :laughing7: no offense meant (please, and forgive me if my thoughts on this offend)
:Peace2: :gsmile:
The Apostles did approve Paul's gospel, which should really be Christ gospel, this thread is about the two Evangels but I still think there's only one and it's Christ's but, I suppose the fact that at one point there were disputes between the Apostles and Paul might be another why this idea snuck into the text of the Bible.
I'm pretty sure that the common understanding of what Paul meant was when he made his announcement about there being no Jew/Greek, Male/Female, Slave/Free in Christ he was making a spiritual statement about how God is Lord of all and Christ is Savior of all and the same faith saves people in one category group as easily as the next. He obviously wasn't making a social equality statement (although he may have been setting up for one) because obviously slaves will remain slaves and no amount of juggling with words will change that and women who are kept in slavery to the traditions of men remain in slavery to the traditions of men and I don't think Paul's making any effort to change that (although God may be setting up for it through him). Of course, I'm not taking the word 'authority' as shorthand for one step away from 'authority figure' one step away from 'autocrat' it simply means that if women don't have authority what they say or think doesn't count for anything because you can't consider anything they say on merit because you simply argue that Paul's told us not to act on women's authority so doing what they suggest however patiently and politely would be disobeying Paul.
It demeans women before God from a passage doesn't even make any sense. It generally understood that when preachers speak it's the Holy Spirit speaking through them anyway so what this discrimination suggests is that if a man gets up to give instruction, God will look down from Heaven and He will see the man and He will fill him with the Holy Spirit and he will speak with much wisdom and passion, while if a women does it God will look down from Heaven and see it is a woman and He won't bother and she'll just drone on for as long as anyone will later. Gifts and talents don't come into it women aren't going to have that one.
This is what Paul's argument here suggests (perhaps not intentionally), there is no rational reason why women will be any better or worse on this than man they can speak and the listener can take or leave what they said. Except in practice Paul has eternally forbidden them from doing that, forbidden men who have authority now, from doing that, on the basis of a sin that Jesus came to overthrow the consequences of. Or maybe that's incorrect as well? He died for Adam sin, Eve's sin there's nothing doing, except that goes against the prophetic aspect of Genesis. "Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (1 Tim. 2:15) What, childbearing? Not faith of Jesus? Maybe the answer to your question is 'Yes'. I find it unbelievable, but statement like that do seem to invite it.
I totally agree about the covering problem too, yes it's good for modesty. But I'm sure there are better ways for women to be modest when the situation demands it.
It was indirectly part of the curse God says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen. 3:16)
Sorrow and conception, that's too distinct things which modern translators tend to edit down to God saying He'll make her labour more painful because that seems to make sense to modern even though the Hebrew has many other words for pain that fit better than the word here translated as 'sorrow'. The word translated as 'conception' appears to mean 'gestation' it's the only one that makes sense 'sorrow' seems to mean a state of emotional guilt because she's bringing her baby into a world she's ruined. That's a hunch but the words here translated really aren't so common in the Bible IIRC.
The point here seems to be that the women feels so bad about what's happened she's basically going to allow the man to 'dominate her' it's not God putting the women into Adam's power because she's misbehaved that's not what happens. Although to be honest that whole passage seems to point towards sex from what I can see. It's like God saying 'pregnancy will be bad but not so bad as to put you off having more children, you'll want more children with your husband.' That I get. Of course, it's the Bible. It can have multiple levels.
Here is a Bible Study I did one time in a Baptist Church. It's just my understanding of women teaching men.
Should Women Teach In Church?
1Tim. 2:11-12 says " let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. which is [A person under the authority or control of another] { (Verse 12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over { the} man, but to be in silence.
Personally, I think this is speaking about a man and wife situation, where a wife shouldn't try to take authority or control away from her husband, not that all the men should be over all the woman when it comes to teaching because in some cases in the Old Testament we have women who are in authority over men. Deborah was a judge of Israel for example, she was also a prophetess. (Judges 4. 4-14). Deborah even went with Barak to war against Sisera. So, it isn't saying a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritual speaking. That's really what it amounts to.
We can see that the New Testament clearly shows that both men and women recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying {basically preaching} exortation, and the word of wisdom and knowledge. Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul instructed older women to teach the younger women.
1Cor11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophecy in the open meeting of the Church, though the woman must do it in a way that she recognizes the role of her husband. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28).
There are certain referrences in the New Testament where women were used in the ministry. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side by side companions of Paul in his ministry and of the two Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They together were the instructors of Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear indication of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection of paul. (1Cor. 16:19
1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.
Now Paul surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If in (1Cor. 11), he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, surely in Corinthians 14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths. We must look at the overall topic of the chapter. We have to ask ourselves "who is being spoken to" then, who, what where, to get the picture. Picture yourself in that time and place. In Corinth the problem was one of conducting the meeting. Tongues were to be controlled, so was prophesying, They were to remember that "God is not the author of disorder but of peace" then he warns against women speaking in Church. It seems from this that Paul was more concerned about women who disrupted the meetings and caused confusion. Paul closes with "let all things be done decently and in order. Then in (1Tim. 3:14-15) These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. If no woman should ever teach a man then Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in teaching Apollos.
Here are some examples of women teachers in the Bible:
(Luke 2:36-38) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, (what is a prophetess?) it's the same as a prophet. The defination is. [One who foretells what is to come; a person inspired, and appointed by God to reveal his will, or make known the truths of the Bible and urge men to obedience.] then you go down to the next verse and it says "she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
(Acts 2:17-18) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
(Verse 18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Acts 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
(Acts 21:9) Speaking of Phillips daughters. "And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophecy."
Rom. 16:1-4 I commend unto you Phebe our sister,, which is a servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea: that you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.
(Phil. 4:3) And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel.
In (2John 1), it seems that John is writing to a female who is leader of the Church. "The elder unto the elect lady and her children, (Verse 4) I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth. (Verse 5) and now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee. (Verse 13) The children of thy elect sister greet thee."
Old Testament examples:
Miriam (Ex. 15:20) And Miriam the prophetess. She was the sister of Aaron.
Huldah (2Kings) 22:12-20) these 5 men "went unto Huldah the prophetess to inquire about the Lord.
CHB
How on earth did this become a thread about women in the ministry? :laughing7:
:offtopic:
Sorry, I was trying to show what Paul meant about women not ruling over the man. Also how women did teach the man on several ocassions.
CHB
One other thing. I believe it was planned by God for the woman to be decieved and sin first. In (1Tim. 2:15) it says, "she shall be saved in childbearing". Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.
Sorry if I caused any confusion. :sigh:
CHB
I mean that it all good humor. Just confused about where this has gone. Don't mind me, carry on... :winkgrin:
Quote from: eaglesway on May 20, 2015, 08:09:09 AM
I see it as one gospel, applied to two distinct groups. Two aspects of one gospel bringing all into one new man. Paul and Peter were definitely the two primary messengers, Peter to the circumscision applying the one gospel and Paul to the uncircumscision applying the one gospel.
:iagree:
Quote from: CST on June 07, 2016, 07:00:39 PM
That I get. Of course, it's the Bible. It can have multiple levels.
:thumbsup:
As far as the gender separation thing, I think that if we were there, we would understand what was going on, and why the statements are made, we just don't have all the clues, so we make a lot of assumptions.
For example, when Paul is writing to Timothy about what seems belittling of women, if we were in the middle of the situation it might make perfect sense. Remember, Paul is writing to Timothy in Ephesus, where the temple of Artemis (Diana) was. Paul's job was to bring the gospel to these people, and to dispel the mythology. I think that since the goddess Artemis was so powerful, not only in the mythology, but also the economy, that there must have been women infiltrating Timothy's church that would try to integrate their customs and traditions regarding Artemis. This kind of thing seems to really upset Paul (just like the Jews trying to make the Galatians get circumcised) and I'm sure it's because it hampers him from doing his job. Remember, Paul even caused a riot of the silversmith's because of what he was doing. I don't think Paul is talking to Timothy about women in general, just like he wasn't talking about Jews in general in Galatians.
We know that God does not prefer one gender over another, one race over another, he is no respecter of people, this is the kind of thinking that ETers use for 'exclusionary salvation' (my own term :laugh:)
Anyway, I think anytime we question the word of truth in these kind of hard to understand things, we should do what a wise man once told me:
Quote from: gregoryfl on February 22, 2016, 02:30:41 PM
I truly believe that as you struggle and pray through this, if you adopt the mindset that embraces the totality of what you see as contradiction, instead of embracing only the one in favor of the other, your journey will be one of discussion, and discovery.
Ronen
Sorry Seth, I already had this written, and besides I think this all still pertains to the original question. :Peace2:
Late for work,
Pat
Quote from: Seth on June 05, 2016, 12:01:24 AM
Yes :thumbsup:. And I really feel that if we are all loving eachother the way we are told to do so, the issue of authority and power really shouldn't be an issue inside or outside marriage. Who cares who has the authority, until some people start craving it? It only becomes an issue when we start thinking about ourselves. If both people are putting the other person above themselves, when is power an issue?
I think one of the reasons these scriptures are so controversial is because we rarely see the love we are meant to demonstrate actually happening in the world, so it's hard to imagine how Paul's recommendation in relationships and the church works without the awesome self-lowering love that supposed to go with it. The best people to have authority, imo, are the ones who don't think they should have it, or worry about it (like Moses "I'm not a good speaker" or Jonah etc), not ones who crave it for their own sakes.
These are wonderful statement of principle and true in that regard. Of course, in regard to practise someone (like Paul) needs to take charge or nothing would ever get done. Hence where the closing point comes in. Obviously love triumphs over authority. Properly understood love will always get people to do right. I guess that means most authorities don't have that much love in them.
Quote from: CHB on June 07, 2016, 07:50:08 PM
Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.
CHB
Awesome insight!!!
Quote from: Seth on June 06, 2016, 08:38:57 PM
The reason for the translations that say "fell into transgression" is because the greek says "gynē exapatētheisa en parabasei gonen" or "the woman into transgression has come." So, the meaning would be more like "having been deceived, the woman came into transgression." The major point Paul would be making is that the woman fell into transgression through deception, not that Adam NEVER sinned. I could see why the KJV rendering would cause confusion, but I think the later translations attempt to rectify that.
Also the definite article can refer to a specific transgression they both fell under. "The transgression" = disobedience. So Eve fell into the transgression through deception, while Adam tell into the transgression by other means.
Yes, and a lot of the translations express it like that some, but not all, adding the word 'fell' because the incident described has poetically named 'the fall of man', even though it is woman here described. It doesn't change anything I'm arguing which is that it seems to read being deceived = sinning and only - it to the woman. I'm also not actually convinced that I can really buy that Adam was not deceived and the woman was and that was how the sin came about. But let's remember how that actually came about. This was the instruction God gave to Adam:
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2:17)
Now what the serpent said, the 'deception':
"But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."" (Gen. 3:4-5)
And what the woman actually did:
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)
And finally the conclusion:
"Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"--" (Gen 3:22)
Now the text tells us the following things that God told Adam (and we can only know for sure He told Adam) that eating the fruit of the tree would bring death and that the woman had some how learned this warning. The serpent tells the woman two things that it would not bring death and it would make her like God. We know from the last passage that the second part was true, it catch seems to be that humans, unlike God are unable to possess this knowledge without being compromised. Thus resulting in death. There are numerous ways the first part of the statement can be argued to diminish the falsehood therein too. But Adam was told specifically that if he ate the fruit of that tree he would die. If Adam believed that and was in no way deceived, it would suggest would, it not that, he ate from the tree expecting his own death to be the consequence? Why would he do that? I can't see why he would if the concept of death was meaningful to him.
It also says that the woman lusted after the 'wisdom' the tree could provide. That seems to be her sin as presented in the text, not actually being 'deceived'.
QuotePaul was pretty clear that there transgression on both sides in the full scope of his writing. As to the importance of deception, I don't know. We'd have to ask him. Paul does attribute death coming into the world through Adam though, not Eve, so I think Adam doesn't come away very clean in the whole deal though.
But he seems to come through somewhat cleaner in this epistle. The fact the death came through Adam and thus presumably could only have come through Adam may well be very important here. I don't understand the importance of the deception either. As illustrated above perhaps understanding exactly what the nature of the deception was would help.
QuoteAgain, it doesn't say that Adam never sinned. It just says that Eve sinned through deception. If there were no other books of the Bible, I would have to say I don't know, rather than just asserting that he never sinned based on lack of information of whether he did or not.
And you're making my point for me. I have other books of the Bible. I know they say that Adam sinned but whenever I read this passage, despite knowing that I still struggle to read it in any other sense than Paul saying he didn't. But of he was writing to Timothy who would already have had a spectacular understanding of the background Paul was speaking to. I just wish I could work out for sure what that background was. Everything would be a guess or sort.
QuoteThat's because the Father chose the Son, not them.
That seems to suggest that the angels are as equal with God as the Son is. We know they are not. Only the Son was fit for this job because of His special position and status. God created the angels while He was creating the world He knew He was planning to save, He didn't create the Son. As far as I understand the Angels are created as much through the Son as we are.
QuoteI think Jesus is providing enough context within his own statement to determine his meaning. The point being, in some ways we should be like children, and in other ways, not.
And you said it was 'humility' I don't think it was that clear. Obviously it was an analogy and can only be pushed so far it clear that in some ways we should not be like children, but I'm not sure you can tell from context all the ways Jesus is saying we should be. The greatest is God and will always be God. In actuality surely the 'greatest' beneath that will be those with qualities closest to God, so we are looking for the qualities in children we would most think that they might share with God, wouldn't we?
QuoteI don't see them having authority just because of that. I'm not saying whether or not women should or should not have authority. But you made the positive statement that Jesus gave authority to women over men, and I don't see the evidence for that.
I see authority as being a necessity because anyone delivering the Gospel message is basically trying to get people to 'repent, turn, change.' There's an intrinsic imperative there. Obviously you ultimately want them to give their attention and hand authority to Jesus. But when you're evangelizing (either Gospel ;)) you asking temporaliy for them to give attention and authority to you so they accept the weight of your message.
So when, for example the woman from Samaria meets Jesus and except Him as the Messiah and then goes and tells the rest of Samaria that too and the act on what she says out of any sort of interest she, at least temporarily, has an authority over all those people, including the men. Then, of course, it goes to Jesus as it should.
A lot of women are involved in the story of Jesus many of whom benefited from His works. I don't think we're expected to believe all they did afterwards was reap the benefits without ever proclaiming what Jesus did that isn't what we're taught.
Quote from: Seth on June 06, 2016, 10:03:31 PM
Regarding Eve, it could be that Paul is not saying that women are easily deceived. That would be odd since they can prophecy and be in charge of very important tasks in the church. But, maybe Paul is paying attention to the order of things. Eve sinned first and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned second and was not deceived. Christ is second as well (second Adam) and also was not deceived, though he did not sin.
It could be that Paul wants to preserve the parallels to Christ and Adam as reflected in church culture. This is just a guess. Again, it would be odd to think that women can be more easily deceived since they were given power to prophecy and go give very important news of Christ etc.
Indeed, again it may well depend on exactly how Woman was deceived and Adam supposedly wasn't, as I said above.
Quote from: Seth on June 07, 2016, 12:21:08 AM
I am getting the impression, although nothing is stated outright, that there is some critique about, either the authenticity or reliability of the letter to Timothy based on how Paul brings up Eve's sin and seems to say that Adam did not sin.
I am not sure if that is the general idea here, but my whole point is not to get into a debate about women in the ministry. My point is to say that Paul, in the letter to Timothy, is not contradicting his other writings where he confirms that Adam sinned. The letter to Timothy does not say "Adam did not sin."
Again, I am getting lost as to what any of this has to do with the two-evangel theory. :dontknow:
Which seems to say that a lot of other, more knowledgeable people than me read this passage the way I do. I don't think it's really a cause to doubt that Paul actually wrote the letter. People try to do that with several of Paul's letters but several factors could explain how he wrote including his audience, the subjects being addressed developments in his writing style over time, his circumstances when he wrote them. My point isn't that Paul didn't write the letter it's that we can no longer be sure of how he's using what he's saying, how God intends for us to understand what He is saying, and is Paul is applying some sort of Pharisaical interpretation of Genesis that he might abandon if he gave it more thought.
Why does this pertain to the two evangels? Perceived discrepancies in how Paul argues things could be used to argue in favour of such a state if not nipped in the bud.
Quote from: CSTIt doesn't change anything I'm arguing which is that it seems to read being deceived = sinning and only - it to the woman.
I'm glad you use the word "seems" because it is an inference. It doesn't SAY being deceived = sinning. Being deceived means being tricked into thinking that something is true when it is not true, where Eve was tricked into thinking that she would not surely die if she did partake of the fruit. Adam could very well know that this is a lie and still partake from a tree, either in order to please her, or because he was curious about the fruit and felt he would cross the punishment bridge when he got to it.
Quote from: CSTBut Adam was told specifically that if he ate the fruit of that tree he would die. If Adam believed that and was in no way deceived, it would suggest would, it not that, he ate from the tree expecting his own death to be the consequence? Why would he do that? I can't see why he would if the concept of death was meaningful to him.
What you have shown is not deception, but immaturity. Adam could very well have understood the warning and simply threw caution to the wind, decided to initiate pleasure now without thinking of the consequences later.
Quote from: CSTIt also says that the woman lusted after the 'wisdom' the tree could provide. That seems to be her sin as presented in the text, not actually being 'deceived'.
I believe her sin was in disobeying God and eating the fruit, the deception LEADING to that sin, not necessarily BEING the sin. God didn't tell them not to be deceived. He told them not to eat the fruit. Obviously, being deceived made it easier for Satan to get her to disobey, but strictly speaking, they only disobeyed by going against what he said not to do.
Quote from: CSTAnd you're making my point for me. I have other books of the Bible. I know they say that Adam sinned but whenever I read this passage, despite knowing that I still struggle to read it in any other sense than Paul saying he didn't. But of he was writing to Timothy who would already have had a spectacular understanding of the background Paul was speaking to. I just wish I could work out for sure what that background was. Everything would be a guess or sort.
When I say that Eve sinned through deception, I don't mean deception WAS the sin. I mean that it was the means in which Satan got her to sin.
Quote from: CST
Quote from: Seth
That's because the Father chose the Son, not them.
That seems to suggest that the angels are as equal with God as the Son is. We know they are not.
There's no need to presuppose that a choice must be between equal options. In fact, the very reason we make choices is by determining which option is greater than another. God was certainly within his ability to choose an angel based on very fact that an angel is less than the Son, and reformulate his plan based around that. He chose the Son BECAUSE the Son is greater.
Quote from: CSTAnd you said it was 'humility' I don't think it was that clear. Obviously it was an analogy and can only be pushed so far it clear that in some ways we should not be like children, but I'm not sure you can tell from context all the ways Jesus is saying we should be. The greatest is God and will always be God. In actuality surely the 'greatest' beneath that will be those with qualities closest to God, so we are looking for the qualities in children we would most think that they might share with God, wouldn't we?
I think we would be looking for the ways Jesus was contrasting the ways the disciples thought about greatness, vs what God considers greatness. Matthew 18:4 says
"whoever will HUMBLE themselves as this child..." That's the context we can determine which way Jesus wants us to be like a child. Humble. Not, whiney like a child, or reasoning like a child, or selfish like a child. Children can be all those things. HUMBLE like a child is what he means. Able to be taught and led.
So, when Paul says that he put away his childish thoughts when he became a man, we can know that he is not contradicting Jesus. He is referring to different ASPECTS of being a child.
Quote from: CSTI see authority as being a necessity because anyone delivering the Gospel message is basically trying to get people to 'repent, turn, change.' There's an intrinsic imperative there. Obviously you ultimately want them to give their attention and hand authority to Jesus. But when you're evangelizing (either Gospel ;)) you asking temporaliy for them to give attention and authority to you so they accept the weight of your message.
When I evangelize to anyone, I simply ask them to give authority to God, not to myself.
Again, this is INTERPRETATION. I interpreted that differently. I can only assume that there are no scriptures that show Jesus handing authority to women over men without required inferences.
Quote from: CSTMy point isn't that Paul didn't write the letter it's that we can no longer be sure of how he's using what he's saying, how God intends for us to understand what He is saying, and is Paul is applying some sort of Pharisaical interpretation of Genesis that he might abandon if he gave it more thought.
If that last part is true, then Paul's Timothy letter is not authentic. Not authentic in the sense that he didn't write them, but in the sense that they are not authentically Christ-authorized. We would need to doubt whether the letter to Timothy is valid teaching based on Paul's reliance on incorrect interpretation rather than being backed by the authority Christ gave him as an Apostle.
Quote from: CSTWhy does this pertain to the two evangels? Perceived discrepancies in how Paul argues things could be used to argue in favour of such a state if not nipped in the bud.
What you have done is brought in an issue that to this point has been a non-issue with regard to how the two-evangel theory is being supported. The two-evangel theory being discussed in this thread is not based on the idea that Paul's message is flawed with Pharisaical reasoning.Quite the opposite. It takes Paul's message to be completely Christ-authorized and free from such errors. That's what's confusing the issue here. Proponents of the two-evangel theory would probably TOTALLY disagree with the idea that there are such discrepancies in his writing. Thus, there are no buds to nip in that respect.
The two-evangel theory is based on the notion that there are apparent conflicting philosophical differences between Paul's writing and James' writing
which are both valid and therefore can be resolved by determining that there were two separate audiences to which those gospels applied.
My belief is that there is ONE Gospel applied to all and the seeming philosophical differences can be resolved by looking closer at the text.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
I'm glad you use the word "seems" because it is an inference. It doesn't SAY being deceived = sinning. Being deceived means being tricked into thinking that something is true when it is not true, where Eve was tricked into thinking that she would not surely die if she did partake of the fruit. Adam could very well know that this is a lie and still partake from a tree, either in order to please her, or because he was curious about the fruit and felt he would cross the punishment bridge when he got to it.
I used seemed but the critiques you mentioned from people who, I would imagine, know the language better than we do say he says exactly that and it can't honestly be read otherwise. My point is that I sympathize with the feeling while disregarding the conclusion.
QuoteWhat you have shown is not deception, but immaturity. Adam could very well have understood the warning and simply threw caution to the wind, decided to initiate pleasure now without thinking of the consequences later.
On, this site there are articles where it argues that God warned Adam of death not eternal torment in Hell as the consequence of eating from the tree. If he really had that much of an understanding it's perfectly possible he knew that's what God meant when He said 'die' even if we struggle to get it from the passage. My point is that on a normal understand Adam would be committing suicide, if he understood what God meant he would have understood that there would be no pleasure and no later because that's what it means to die.
QuoteI believe her sin was in disobeying God and eating the fruit, the deception LEADING to that sin, not necessarily BEING the sin. God didn't tell them not to be deceived. He told them not to eat the fruit. Obviously, being deceived made it easier for Satan to get her to disobey, but strictly speaking, they only disobeyed by going against what he said not to do.
But I can't see how she was deceived not in the normal sense. I struggle to except that the serpent lied in the direct sense, the statement about the consequences that attracted Woman to the fruit was certainly true. It may also have been true for her that she was not in direct danger of death because death appears to be transmitted through Adam. The serpent may also have been willfully playing on the distinction between physical and spiritual death, I suspect that because I suspect the word 'crafty' may actually have the weight usually applied to it and I find it hard to believe one of God's animals, which the serpent is described as being, directly lying prior to the fall. I know I can't really leave it like that but I need to move on. I also hold it as potentially important that the knowledge of how the Woman came to here the warning when it was given before she was made is not told to us.
QuoteWhen I say that Eve sinned through deception, I don't mean deception WAS the sin. I mean that it was the means in which Satan got her to sin.
Not what I mean here. You seemed to concede you didn't know what you'd think if you didn't have the other texts. My point is that I and several Bible Critics have other texts and still are stunned by what Paul says here which seems to contradict what he says elsewhere. I just think it's less of a problem than the critics and try to work around it. But maybe they can see things I can't (I hope not).
QuoteThere's no need to presuppose that a choice must be between equal options. In fact, the very reason we make choices is by determining which option is greater than another. God was certainly within his ability to choose an angel based on very fact that an angel is less than the Son, and reformulate his plan based around that. He chose the Son BECAUSE the Son is greater.
To me the Son is unique and uniquely able to save us. He is not only great than the angels not one angel is great enough to save.
QuoteI think we would be looking for the ways Jesus was contrasting the ways the disciples thought about greatness, vs what God considers greatness. Matthew 18:4 says "whoever will HUMBLE themselves as this child..." That's the context we can determine which way Jesus wants us to be like a child. Humble. Not, whiney like a child, or reasoning like a child, or selfish like a child. Children can be all those things. HUMBLE like a child is what he means. Able to be taught and led.
So, when Paul says that he put away his childish thoughts when he became a man, we can know that he is not contradicting Jesus. He is referring to different ASPECTS of being a child.
Paul did indeed make that claim about putting away childish things and as a trained Pharisee probably did it quite quickly (what am I saying I know nothing about the Pharisees but the child Jesus show carries the implication they were everything the Pharisees were not given how much he criticized the latter.
But I still hold that Paul was making a metaphor. It doesn't need to be taken literally. You don't to think about which part of the child Paul means.
QuoteWhen I evangelize to anyone, I simply ask them to give authority to God, not to myself.
Again, this is INTERPRETATION. I interpreted that differently. I can only assume that there are no scriptures that show Jesus handing authority to women over men without required inferences.
But you want them to give you your attention while you're doing it, you don't intentionally evangelize to an empty room?
But in the main I think you're right. I can't think of any examples directly at present.
QuoteIf that last part is true, then Paul's Timothy letter is not authentic. Not authentic in the sense that he didn't write them, but in the sense that they are not authentically Christ-authorized. We would need to doubt whether the letter to Timothy is valid teaching based on Paul's reliance on incorrect interpretation rather than being backed by the authority Christ gave him as an Apostle.
That makes presumptions about Christ's intention and capability I think. Paul certainly wasn't lying or trying to deceive. He was trying to make a case for something he believed to Timothy. He understood what he meant and he had every reason to think Timothy would understand what he meant and I have every reason to believe he did.
If I'm honest, I may be being a little unfair to the Pharisees. Because Jesus was so hostile to them I'm imagining that everything they taught was wrong and they probably did have some right teachings and so even if Paul did get this from them that would not be a reason for automatically taking it to be incorrect. And if it was Paul doesn't seem to have identified it as such specifically. But right or wrong or part right part wrong I have no doubt that Paul successfully used it to make his point to Timothy.
But there's an inherent difficulty in the concept of the innerancy of the Bible. Just sitting closed on the table the Bible is innerant purely on the basic that it's just black on white. No one is reading it, so it can convey no information and no mistakes. Only when people read it can it contain mistake because then it can transmit information that can potentially mislead them. If God is transmitting His truth through it then it's authorized because it's authorized in that action. If He doesn't it presumably isn't. As long as God can use that letter Paul wrote to communicate to people what He actually wants them to understand there's nothing wrong with it. That's what I feel anyway. Just because I struggle and such critics struggle doesn't mean everyone does. Because clearly they don't. It would just be help for me if it didn't you like it looks to me.
QuoteWhat you have done is brought in an issue that to this point has been a non-issue with regard to how the two-evangel theory is being supported. The two-evangel theory being discussed in this thread is not based on the idea that Paul's message is flawed with Pharisaical reasoning.Quite the opposite. It takes Paul's message to be completely Christ-authorized and free from such errors. That's what's confusing the issue here. Proponents of the two-evangel theory would probably TOTALLY disagree with the idea that there are such discrepancies in his writing. Thus, there are no buds to nip in that respect.
The two-evangel theory is based on the notion that there are apparent conflicting philosophical differences between Paul's writing and James' writing which are both valid and therefore can be resolved by determining that there were two separate audiences to which those gospels applied.
My belief is that there is ONE Gospel applied to all and the seeming philosophical differences can be resolved by looking closer at the text.
Indeed, but I hadn't even heard that there were supposed to be two evangels until I found this thread and because distinctions, and certainly ill defined, spurious ones are at risk of inviting further distinctions to try and justify the first one (see Documentary Hypothesis) it's best to keep pushing away from the danger.
Quote from: CSTI used seemed but the critiques you mentioned from people who, I would imagine, know the language better than we do say he says exactly that and it can't honestly be read otherwise.
If he says "exactly that" then it would say "Adam did not sin." If it does not say that, inference is all we have left. In that case, there is room for multiple inferences, some which do not put Paul's writing in conflict with his other writings.
Quote from: CSTOn, this site there are articles where it argues that God warned Adam of death not eternal torment in Hell as the consequence of eating from the tree. If he really had that much of an understanding it's perfectly possible he knew that's what God meant when He said 'die' even if we struggle to get it from the passage. My point is that on a normal understand Adam would be committing suicide, if he understood what God meant he would have understood that there would be no pleasure and no later because that's what it means to die.
The pleasure would be in ignoring future consequences for present satisfaction. Not wise, sure. But not deception by necessity.
Another way to read the Timothy quote is that it's intended to say that Adam was not deceived specifically by the serpent, that he could have deceived himself willfully, but that he was not specifically deceived by Satan.
Either way, I don't read the Timothy quote as saying only Eve sinned, or that Eve's sin was in being deceived. Her sin was in doing what God said not to do. Sin is lawlessness. The law they were given was to not touch the fruit. So, their sin was in contradicting that law, whether deceived or not.
Quote from: CSTBut I can't see how she was deceived not in the normal sense. I struggle to except that the serpent lied in the direct sense, the statement about the consequences that attracted Woman to the fruit was certainly true. It may also have been true for her that she was not in direct danger of death because death appears to be transmitted through Adam. The serpent may also have been willfully playing on the distinction between physical and spiritual death, I suspect that because I suspect the word 'crafty' may actually have the weight usually applied to it and I find it hard to believe one of God's animals, which the serpent is described as being, directly lying prior to the fall. I know I can't really leave it like that but I need to move on. I also hold it as potentially important that the knowledge of how the Woman came to here the warning when it was given before she was made is not told to us.
However, I think the basic fact is, she was told she would die. She was deceived into thinking she would not. Now - however that death would come to her whether physical or metaphysical - doesn't matter to me. God said she would die. The serpent said she would not. She believed the serpent.
The bottom line for me is that the scripture SAYS she was deceived. However, if we must cast doubt on the reliability of that statement because Paul might have been influenced himself by faulty Pharicitical reasoning throws all his writing into potential error.
If there are inferences that do not result in such conditions, I am way more inclined to consider those, since I believe Paul was appointed to impart truth untainted by such error.
Quote from: CSTNot what I mean here. You seemed to concede you didn't know what you'd think if you didn't have the other texts. My point is that I and several Bible Critics have other texts and still are stunned by what Paul says here which seems to contradict what he says elsewhere.
It may SEEM to contradict, but I don't think it does. The Timothy letter says three things:
1) Eve was deceived
2) Eve sinned
3) Adam was not deceived
The following fourth point is an INFERENCE based on the above facts: 4) That Adam did not sin. But, all it says is that Adam was not deceived NOT that he did not sin.
Quote from: CSTTo me the Son is unique and uniquely able to save us. He is not only great than the angels not one angel is great enough to save.
If God wanted it to be possible for an angel to save us, it would be possible. The reason the Son is able to save us is because he was elected/appointed/chosen by God to do it.
Quote from: CSTBut I still hold that Paul was making a metaphor. It doesn't need to be taken literally. You don't to think about which part of the child Paul means.
I just don't think we need reason the way children reason in order to be humble as a child.
Quote from: CSTThat makes presumptions about Christ's intention and capability I think. Paul certainly wasn't lying or trying to deceive. He was trying to make a case for something he believed to Timothy. He understood what he meant and he had every reason to think Timothy would understand what he meant and I have every reason to believe he did.
But you seem to suggest that he was influenced by Pharisaical notions of men and women and I don't see any basis for that other than it's a psychoanalysis of Paul reached from an inference, and not something he literally said.
Quote from: CSTBut there's an inherent difficulty in the concept of the innerancy of the Bible. Just sitting closed on the table the Bible is innerant purely on the basic that it's just black on white. No one is reading it, so it can convey no information and no mistakes. Only when people read it can it contain mistake because then it can transmit information that can potentially mislead them.
This is baffling to me. A document can contain mistakes regardless of whether someone has read it or not. If I write 2+2=5 on a sheet of paper, it's not inerrant just because nobody has seen the mistake yet.
That something may not be recognized as flawed does not mean it is therefore unflawed by necessity. Mistakes can exist on paper without yet being conveyed to the reader.
Quote from: CSTAs long as God can use that letter Paul wrote to communicate to people what He actually wants them to understand there's nothing wrong with it.
My thought on it is that there's nothing wrong with it because an Apostle chosen by God wrote it. So as a matter of doctrine, it's sound, and not based on a faulty foundation of Pharisaical reasoning. Now what it MEANS can be discussed, surely. Eaglesway has some good points on context etc. But, that doesn't mean Paul's intentions were colored by his former flawed understanding.
In other words, his meaning and foundational reasoning may be perfectly in sync with truth, not colored by faulty reasoning, and yet still be misunderstood.
Quote from: CSTIndeed, but I hadn't even heard that there were supposed to be two evangels until I found this thread and because distinctions, and certainly ill defined, spurious ones are at risk of inviting further distinctions to try and justify the first one (see Documentary Hypothesis) it's best to keep pushing away from the danger.
I'm not sure how a seeming conflict in Paul's own writings could be used to justify the two-evangel doctrine. It would just cast a doubt over Paul's doctrine and bring us into a single-evangel doctrine without Paul's writings involved.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PM
If he says "exactly that" then it would say "Adam did not sin." If it does not say that, inference is all we have left. In that case, there is room for multiple inferences, some which do not put Paul's writing in conflict with his other writings.
But, to me, that's not how language works. If you're with someone looking at a crowd of people and they try to point someone out to you and they say it's 'the man in the red shirt' you know they don't mean 'the girl in the green dress' even though they didn't say 'not the girl in the green dress' that's more than an inference there's a necessity of understanding her that excludes thing without it having to be stated that they're excluded. In this case the way it's expressed excludes Adam from sinning. Now I suspect either a poor translation or Paul either writing carelessly which happens a lot, surely or quite probably more likely not expressing something to Timothy he's sure Timothy already knows. Timothy knows better then to read that out of it even though in a technical understanding it might well say that.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMThe pleasure would be in ignoring future consequences for present satisfaction. Not wise, sure. But not deception by necessity.
Another way to read the Timothy quote is that it's intended to say that Adam was not deceived specifically by the serpent, that he could have deceived himself willfully, but that he was not specifically deceived by Satan.
Either way, I don't read the Timothy quote as saying only Eve sinned, or that Eve's sin was in being deceived. Her sin was in doing what God said not to do. Sin is lawlessness. The law they were given was to not touch the fruit. So, their sin was in contradicting that law, whether deceived or not.
To me if Adam had a proper understanding of what death was he wouldn't be able to hold the notice of 'present satisfaction' because they're mutually exclusive. We all do that hence why the second idea you express seems a lot more likely. So much so that I finally decided I would check the Greek behind the word 'deceived' here and found a word that appear only four times in the New Testament, compared with other words also translated 'deceive'. So knowing what the nuance was meant to be here would probably help but looking at the other appearances, I'd guess it means something like flatter. Except there's already a word for that although it's only translated thus once (I forgot to check if it's translated as something else elsewhere)
It's a strange usage here, usually the term used for Eve being 'deceived' is tricked or beguiled, a nuance I can just about get. Using a different, very uncommon word here is strange.
Also a lot of commentators are quick to jump on Eve about that last point you made. God gave no instruction not to touch the fruit that we know of. God told Adam only that he was not to eat of the fruit. It seems natural to think that 'well if you can't eat the fruit what's the point in touching it?' But commentators say that Eve embellished God's instruction and thus gave the serpent and in because she was really focused on it properly.
But I think this is unfair because according to Genesis Eve wasn't present when God gave Adam the instruction so we don't know how she received it. I can see three possibilities:
1. Eve is considered as being present because she's made from Adam's rib so in that sense was present at the time. The mythology at least allows this as a possible understand.
2. God told Eve but the Bible doesn't record it directly but for should infer it because she uses the words 'God said'. In this case He may have added the 'don't touch' instruction at this point. Surely it's unfair not to give Eve at least the benefit of the doubt on this. Especially as the Word of God as recorded is Eve saying that God said 'don't touch!'.
3. God deferred to Adam to tell his wife the instruction, after all he's meant to be her head, and he added the 'don't touch' instruction. After all he's meant to have authority and it makes perfect sense as mentioned above. If this were true I doubt any commentator would dare say Adam misled his wife by doing that because the Bible (like above) teaches no-one did anything wrong until Eve did something wrong.
This is a difficulty I have and have to consider because I don't know by what mechanism Eve received the instruction that from the book of Genesis I only know for sure God gave to Adam.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMHowever, I think the basic fact is, she was told she would die. She was deceived into thinking she would not. Now - however that death would come to her whether physical or metaphysical - doesn't matter to me. God said she would die. The serpent said she would not. She believed the serpent.
The bottom line for me is that the scripture SAYS she was deceived. However, if we must cast doubt on the reliability of that statement because Paul might have been influenced himself by faulty Pharicitical reasoning throws all his writing into potential error.
If there are inferences that do not result in such conditions, I am way more inclined to consider those, since I believe Paul was appointed to impart truth untainted by such error.
Ah, but would she and did she. Again we don't know how Eve came to receive the instruction that Adam would die if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, which we know he did and death as imputed to all his children through him, not through her even though she ate first that's what Paul teaches, death comes through Adam.
Maybe God didn't tell her, and maybe He didn't tell her because she wasn't in danger of death but she came to believe she was somehow.
Here's my :2c: on what I think (recently) might have happened:
God warns Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for if he does he will die. God then makes Adam's wife. Adam's wife encounters the serpent who persuades her that she will not die if she eats from the tree and not only that but if she does she will receive knowledge to be like God. She is tempted by this and eats from the tree and then, it seems, nothing immediately happened but:
'she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.' (Gen. 3:6)
I think this is important, she gives the fruit to her husband directly and he eats it. He doesn't doubt or question it would seem, he just doesn't think to mistrust his wife, who's now fully convinced the fruit is safe because she's just eaten it without apparent consequence, remember creation appears not to fall until the head of creation falls. And thus the serpent has tricked her into getting her husband to break God's commandment. I'd be tempted to deny her authority on those grounds but it's not very forgiving is it? Particularly when God declared that the time was coming, which I think we believe is now here, where the parents sins are no longer imputed on their children.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMIt may SEEM to contradict, but I don't think it does. The Timothy letter says three things:
1) Eve was deceived
2) Eve sinned
3) Adam was not deceived
The following fourth point is an INFERENCE based on the above facts: 4) That Adam did not sin. But, all it says is that Adam was not deceived NOT that he did not sin.
It seems that people who no better think otherwise, this is why I stating to think things like what the word translated deceived actually mean and the circumstances of the letter are very important.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMIf God wanted it to be possible for an angel to save us, it would be possible. The reason the Son is able to save us is because he was elected/appointed/chosen by God to do it.
Hmm, technically angel just means messenger. Beyond that I'm not sure exactly what an angel is so I can't address your point any more. It must be true unless it's logically inconsistent. But my instinct remain that there's something wrong with the sentiment that our limited understand can't see.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMI just don't think we need reason the way children reason in order to be humble as a child.
Yeah, but when Paul says 'childish things' the first thing I think of it toys anyway if I'm trying to take the sentiment literally, it's hard to extend it to character traits which you tend to just grow out of. And I'm pretty sure there's some sort of childish reasoning being all childish qualities even their humility, they're young humans they're not a separate species.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMBut you seem to suggest that he was influenced by Pharisaical notions of men and women and I don't see any basis for that other than it's a psychoanalysis of Paul reached from an inference, and not something he literally said.
I don't see it as necessarily psychoanalytic, it just makes sense to my logic which may be wrong. Like every other religious position in ancient Israel people have to train for years to go from being an apprentice to becoming a master as it were, Paul wasn't born with an intimate knowledge of the scripture. He'd have learned it from his family who read it with him and Pharisees as he studied with them to become one and he would have discussed interpretation with them and made suggestions which would have met with their approval or disapproval. And eventually he'd become a Pharisee having made mainly decisions on interpretation that met with their approval. That's, to my understanding, how it works and I can't see why Paul would, after stopping being a Pharisee, would go through everything he's learned from them and throw out everything he'd learned. It doesn't seem like something he'd automatically do. Of course, I could well be wrong and God would no doubt help him if he endeavoured to do so.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMThis is baffling to me. A document can contain mistakes regardless of whether someone has read it or not. If I write 2+2=5 on a sheet of paper, it's not inerrant just because nobody has seen the mistake yet.
That something may not be recognized as flawed does not mean it is therefore unflawed by necessity. Mistakes can exist on paper without yet being conveyed to the reader.
But unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say 2 + 2 = 5. Unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say anything. It's just lines of ink on a piece of paper. Language is something that happens in people's heads because they understand by common consensus what the lines and symbols mean it's not something that's out there in the objective world. Unless it's being read the Bible doesn't say anything.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMMy thought on it is that there's nothing wrong with it because an Apostle chosen by God wrote it. So as a matter of doctrine, it's sound, and not based on a faulty foundation of Pharisaical reasoning. Now what it MEANS can be discussed, surely. Eaglesway has some good points on context etc. But, that doesn't mean Paul's intentions were colored by his former flawed understanding.
In other words, his meaning and foundational reasoning may be perfectly in sync with truth, not colored by faulty reasoning, and yet still be misunderstood.
That thinking, to me, elevates human infallibility to a point that I consider to be unreasonable. God exists it's true and can speak to His apostles and guide there hand as the write if they are open to that which I'm sure Paul was but Paul was a human being and he was writing a letter to Timothy, a fellow brother in Christ, who he believed he had some sort of rapport with, quite probably a very good one. He wasn't writing a letter to a Church somewhere which might have to be read to the whole congregation, he was writing a private letter to help Timothy navigate a problem. He certainly wasn't trying to write the 53rd book of the Bible or he'd almost certainly have written it differently. God compiled the Bible later through other people and we need to trust that their authorisation is God's authorisation because if we go on the authorisation of man alone and how he would choose we could have no authorised books at all.
And then we have to believe that he believes these are the books he believes he is best able to communicate his message through. After all if the Revelation really does speak exclusively to things that were going to happen in the lifetime of the audience it was written to than it's useless to any of us. I have to imagine it's not and that somehow it can speak to us through it's strange symbols and languages and even though it's hard to imagine it's saying exactly the same thing. I have to believe for all the books of the Bible that God believes he can best speak to us through them despite the fact the the people who wrote them would have written them differently if they'd known they would be used to establish church doctrine.
After all, if you believe it's possible for God to save us through angels if he wishes you must also believe it's possibly for him to speak to us through any event or book or film or song if he so desires. These are the ones he has chosen to speak to His church through. And speak He can and speak He does.
Quote from: Seth on June 09, 2016, 09:58:46 PMI'm not sure how a seeming conflict in Paul's own writings could be used to justify the two-evangel doctrine. It would just cast a doubt over Paul's doctrine and bring us into a single-evangel doctrine without Paul's writings involved.
Since Paul says in the Bible there is only one Gospel we shouldn't have a two evangel theory in the first place but we do. And all sorts of nonsense seems to follow
Quote from: CHB on June 07, 2016, 07:20:24 PM
Here is a Bible Study I did one time in a Baptist Church. It's just my understanding of women teaching men.
Should Women Teach In Church?
1Tim. 2:11-12 says " let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. which is [A person under the authority or control of another] { (Verse 12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over { the} man, but to be in silence.
Personally, I think this is speaking about a man and wife situation, where a wife shouldn't try to take authority or control away from her husband, not that all the men should be over all the woman when it comes to teaching because in some cases in the Old Testament we have women who are in authority over men. Deborah was a judge of Israel for example, she was also a prophetess. (Judges 4. 4-14). Deborah even went with Barak to war against Sisera. So, it isn't saying a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it's that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritual speaking. That's really what it amounts to.
We can see that the New Testament clearly shows that both men and women recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying {basically preaching} exortation, and the word of wisdom and knowledge. Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul instructed older women to teach the younger women.
1Cor11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophecy in the open meeting of the Church, though the woman must do it in a way that she recognizes the role of her husband. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28).
There are certain referrences in the New Testament where women were used in the ministry. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side by side companions of Paul in his ministry and of the two Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They together were the instructors of Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear indication of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection of paul. (1Cor. 16:19
1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.
Now Paul surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If in (1Cor. 11), he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, surely in Corinthians 14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths. We must look at the overall topic of the chapter. We have to ask ourselves "who is being spoken to" then, who, what where, to get the picture. Picture yourself in that time and place. In Corinth the problem was one of conducting the meeting. Tongues were to be controlled, so was prophesying, They were to remember that "God is not the author of disorder but of peace" then he warns against women speaking in Church. It seems from this that Paul was more concerned about women who disrupted the meetings and caused confusion. Paul closes with "let all things be done decently and in order. Then in (1Tim. 3:14-15) These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. If no woman should ever teach a man then Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in teaching Apollos.
Here are some examples of women teachers in the Bible:
(Luke 2:36-38) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, (what is a prophetess?) it's the same as a prophet. The defination is. [One who foretells what is to come; a person inspired, and appointed by God to reveal his will, or make known the truths of the Bible and urge men to obedience.] then you go down to the next verse and it says "she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
(Acts 2:17-18) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
(Verse 18) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
(Acts 18:26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
(Acts 21:9) Speaking of Phillips daughters. "And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophecy."
Rom. 16:1-4 I commend unto you Phebe our sister,, which is a servant of the Church which is at Cenchrea: that you receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.
(Phil. 4:3) And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel.
In (2John 1), it seems that John is writing to a female who is leader of the Church. "The elder unto the elect lady and her children, (Verse 4) I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth. (Verse 5) and now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee. (Verse 13) The children of thy elect sister greet thee."
Old Testament examples:
Miriam (Ex. 15:20) And Miriam the prophetess. She was the sister of Aaron.
Huldah (2Kings) 22:12-20) these 5 men "went unto Huldah the prophetess to inquire about the Lord.
CHB
Hi, sorry for taking a bit of time in respond to you on this fine post, and it is a fine post, I felt the main discussion was most pressing.
I myself like the idea of what Paul is saying to Timothy being a reference to a husband and his wife. That the husband should always be head of the household I can see that. But I can also see two problems in reading it that way.
First, since in it's original use (as I understand) the word 'church' didn't refer to a building but the community of Christ in a certain place there is certainly no place where a woman can lead worship, a big sticking point for the role of women today, when her husband won't be in that community and thus have to defer to her teaching and authority. And it's the 'teaching part that is the big sticking point here. If Paul is to be taken at his word here women can't teach men they can only teach other women according to Paul's instruction. Of course, men can teach both men and women. Since the language here doesn't specify leading worship, that's just a logical consequence, it could actually disqualify women from a lot of things including teaching more generally.
Second, Paul specifically says , 'I do not permit (suffer not)...' Now if he simply means for a women not to have authority over her husband Paul is over stepping his bounds here. If Paul is trying to protect the authority of the husband then surely it should be up to each individual husband to decide if their wife can teach men, them included, or not. Paul exercises his own authority here so husbands can't do that because Paul has effectively closed the door on female teaching roles if there is even one man in the room. Because he's exercising authority over husbands as well as wives in their relationship.
So yes, the New Testament does seem to suggest that women are given teaching gifts but again, if we follow Paul to his conclusion, unless there's a man present they can only teach other women, like the older women teaching younger women that you mentioned.
Priscilla teaching alongside her husband doesn't change this in anyway and she may be the better teacher because her name is mentioned first but there could also be some convention in the Greek or other reason for that.
Even when I imagined, I now see probably mistakenly, that two and two meant man and woman, I still couldn't get away from the fact there was still a man there.
Quote(1Cor. 16:19
1 Cor. 14:33-35) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. (Verse 34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commended to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (Verse 35) and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a women to speak in the Church.
Looking at your quote (my highlight) which part of the law is this and why's Paul invoking it when he usually makes a point of telling us we're no longer under the law? I certainly can't this of anything in the law of love that would justify this level of inequality. And what happens if she gets home only for her husband to discover he doesn't know? This could cause a lot more confusion that peace to my mind.
Again, on the matter of Priscilla I think the presence of her husband made all the difference.
I often wonder about the apostles wives in general in this conversation. On the evidence of the Bible most don't seem to have any and let given the time the book was set that somehow doesn't seem plausible to me.
Let's see what else Paul says about the role of women:
'But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.' (1 Cor. 11:3)
Pretty much what we expect so far no surprises and no real problems.
'Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.' (1 Cor. 11:4-6)
Wow, that's not at all dramatic. Better a woman be bald then pray without her head covered. Very flattering for women that.
'For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.' (1 Cor. 11:7)
I'm presuming that the glory of God is good and the glory of man is bad otherwise why would you want to cover it up? Bad in the context anyway, it looks suspiciously like he's instructed to protect his 'property' but I may be misunderstanding.
'(For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)' (1 Cor. 11: 8-9)
That's not how it's presented in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 presented them created equal, so does 2 at the beginning I think, it's just not as clear, perhaps.
That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:10)
You think there might be some uncertainty over what this means?
'(Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)' (1 Cor. 11:11-12)
Better, there's hope in that.
'Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?' (1 Cor. 11:13)
This is a rhetoric question Paul proceeds to give the answer.
'Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.' (Cor. 11:14-15)
I'm not sure nature teaches anything, we just see things and then jump to conclusions about them? Is Paul saying there that if a woman keeps her hair long it counts as having her head covered despite not being veiled? Because if he's not it's a pretty poor covering.
Then Paul kind of abruptly leaves the topic. He doesn't return to it unless the part of the letter you quote above. I'm stating to vaguely wonder if some of these letters may have got jumbled up at some point. Before they were made into the Bible. Doubtful, but perhaps not impossible.
The concern I have over how women are presented in the Bible, not that those concerns make what the Bible actually says about the role of women any less true, is that if women appear to be demeaned then people may start to think it's OK to demean women because where they're meant to be. We've seen it all the time. Modern society is living the consequences of inflated sexism. It's not good for anybody I feel. :2c:
Quote from: CHB on June 07, 2016, 07:50:08 PM
Sorry, I was trying to show what Paul meant about women not ruling over the man. Also how women did teach the man on several ocassions.
CHB
One other thing. I believe it was planned by God for the woman to be decieved and sin first. In (1Tim. 2:15) it says, "she shall be saved in childbearing". Of course we are saved through childbearing because Mary took care of that when she gave birth to Jesus. if none of this had happened we wouldn't have a saviour.
Sorry if I caused any confusion. :sigh:
CHB
True, but why mention it here? The child in question has been born. No other women have this blessing to look forward to. This letter seems rather cryptic to the untrained reader. But of course there was only meant to be one reader when Paul wrote it.
Quote from: CSTBut, to me, that's not how language works. If you're with someone looking at a crowd of people and they try to point someone out to you and they say it's 'the man in the red shirt' you know they don't mean 'the girl in the green dress' even though they didn't say 'not the girl in the green dress' that's more than an inference there's a necessity of understanding her that excludes thing without it having to be stated that they're excluded. In this case the way it's expressed excludes Adam from sinning.
The reason it works that way is because the red shirt cancels out the possibility of it being a green dress. The male gender of the person in question cancels out the possibility of it being a woman.
In the case of Timothy we don't have an either/or situation. We have a situation where one person is said to have been sinning but NOT to the exclusion of the other person.
Here's an example, if a family goes camping, and the little boy went to his class on Monday and told his friends, "I went camping" that is true. He did go camping....with other people. The fact that he says he went on a camping trip does not exclude the fact that other people went too.
In a similar way, Paul saying Eve sinned doesn't mean Adam didn't. It only excludes him from having been deceived by the serpent because Paul actually says he wasn't. If the Timothy passage was written similar to your example, one would point to the man and say, "the man in the red shirt (which excludes a green dress) who is the ONLY ONE who sinned (excluding the possibility that she is also a sinner)." The language provides the specific exclusion. When the exclusion is not present, it's inference to say that it's there.
It would be an inference to say that because the boy said "I went on a camping trip" means that nobody else went on the trip, or nobody else in the world went on a camping trip that weekend.
Quote from: CSTTo me if Adam had a proper understanding of what death was he wouldn't be able to hold the notice of 'present satisfaction' because they're mutually exclusive.
I don't believe so. One may be unwise without necessarily being deceived.
Quote from: CSTAh, but would she and did she. Again we don't know how Eve came to receive the instruction that Adam would die if he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good, which we know he did and death as imputed to all his children through him, not through her even though she ate first that's what Paul teaches, death comes through Adam.
Maybe God didn't tell her, and maybe He didn't tell her because she wasn't in danger of death but she came to believe she was somehow.
I am more focused on the text of Timothy, whether or not it excludes Adam from having sinned. I don't think it does. They both fell into transgression according to the Bible. However you think that went down is fine. But, I don't see any inconsistencies in Paul's report.
Quote from: CSTIt seems that people who no better think otherwise, this is why I stating to think things like what the word translated deceived actually mean and the circumstances of the letter are very important.
They can think what they want. I'd rather see proof. I'm done believing things because I am told that other smart people believe them. Like, hell or eternal torment etc....
Quote from: CSTI don't see it as necessarily psychoanalytic, it just makes sense to my logic which may be wrong. Like every other religious position in ancient Israel people have to train for years to go from being an apprentice to becoming a master as it were, Paul wasn't born with an intimate knowledge of the scripture. He'd have learned it from his family who read it with him and Pharisees as he studied with them to become one and he would have discussed interpretation with them and made suggestions which would have met with their approval or disapproval. And eventually he'd become a Pharisee having made mainly decisions on interpretation that met with their approval. That's, to my understanding, how it works and I can't see why Paul would, after stopping being a Pharisee, would go through everything he's learned from them and throw out everything he'd learned. It doesn't seem like something he'd automatically do. Of course, I could well be wrong and God would no doubt help him if he endeavoured to do so.
I think he made his conclusions on the basis of truth and I have no reason to believe his view was tainted by a flawed foundation of reasoning.
Quote from: CSTBut unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say 2 + 2 = 5. Unless someone's reading it, it doesn't say anything. It's just lines of ink on a piece of paper. Language is something that happens in people's heads because they understand by common consensus what the lines and symbols mean it's not something that's out there in the objective world. Unless it's being read the Bible doesn't say anything.
I don't buy this, sorry. I believe it is a False Dilemma to ascribe a positive characteristic to something just because it is inconclusive. For example, just because you don't know if the shirt I bought is white or black doesn't mean it's positively white until determined otherwise any more than an unread text is positively inerrant until determined otherwise.
Its status as errant is inconclusive not positively one or the other. A False Dilemma is when one believes that there are limited options when there are other options. For you, an unread text must either be errant or inerrant, and so you choose inerrant until proved otherwise. The other option is "the status of this text as errant or inerrant is undetermined."
That is why I said that without any other text in the Bible than Timothy, I would say "I don't know" with regard to whether Adam sinned. In that case I wouldn't want to claim he sinned just because I want a positive answer either way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaQuote from: CSTThat thinking, to me, elevates human infallibility to a point that I consider to be unreasonable. God exists it's true and can speak to His apostles and guide there hand as the write if they are open to that which I'm sure Paul was but Paul was a human being and he was writing a letter to Timothy, a fellow brother in Christ, who he believed he had some sort of rapport with, quite probably a very good one. He wasn't writing a letter to a Church somewhere which might have to be read to the whole congregation, he was writing a private letter to help Timothy navigate a problem. He certainly wasn't trying to write the 53rd book of the Bible or he'd almost certainly have written it differently. God compiled the Bible later through other people and we need to trust that their authorisation is God's authorisation because if we go on the authorisation of man alone and how he would choose we could have no authorised books at all.
I believe God inspired the writing of Timothy so I do believe it is innerrant. As far as I know, that is the official position of this forum and its owner.
Quote from: CSTAfter all, if you believe it's possible for God to save us through angels if he wishes you must also believe it's possibly for him to speak to us through any event or book or film or song if he so desires. These are the ones he has chosen to speak to His church through. And speak He can and speak He does.
I don't much have a problem with that, only I do not believe God will contradict himself regardless of who he speaks through.
Quote from: CSTSince Paul says in the Bible there is only one Gospel we shouldn't have a two evangel theory in the first place but we do. And all sorts of nonsense seems to follow
Yeah, but the nonsense to follow isn't really the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether the two-evangel theory is correct or not
based on the reasoning put forth by those who believe it. Again, I don't know that believers in the two-evangel theory believe that Paul's reasoning is flawed based on Pharesiacal reasoning.
If you don't believe in the two-evangel theory, then we agree on that. If you want to discuss Paul's flawed foundation, why not open a new topic, because that was certainly never the intent of the OP, unless I missed it.
I dont see why anyone who has read Paul even a couple times, would think he excluded Adam from sin in first Timothy or anywhere else.
IMO, Paul's whole theology revolves around Romans 5
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Paul re-iterates this cycle in other places in bits and pieces, but no where clearer than here- absolute and without question, Paul attributed sin to Adam.
Through the whole context of the word it is also clear that sin is attributed to Adam, so Paul would have to be in opposition to himself and the word from which he was a "wise master builder" who possessed the gospel as the "whole counsel of God", to be inferring something in opposition to what he had already openly declared in other places, that sin entered the world through Adam(by his seed).
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PM
The reason it works that way is because the red shirt cancels out the possibility of it being a green dress. The male gender of the person in question cancels out the possibility of it being a woman.
In the case of Timothy we don't have an either/or situation. We have a situation where one person is said to have been sinning but NOT to the exclusion of the other person.
Here's an example, if a family goes camping, and the little boy went to his class on Monday and told his friends, "I went camping" that is true. He did go camping....with other people. The fact that he says he went on a camping trip does not exclude the fact that other people went too.
In a similar way, Paul saying Eve sinned doesn't mean Adam didn't. It only excludes him from having been deceived by the serpent because Paul actually says he wasn't. If the Timothy passage was written similar to your example, one would point to the man and say, "the man in the red shirt (which excludes a green dress) who is the ONLY ONE who sinned (excluding the possibility that she is also a sinner)." The language provides the specific exclusion. When the exclusion is not present, it's inference to say that it's there.
It would be an inference to say that because the boy said "I went on a camping trip" means that nobody else went on the trip, or nobody else in the world went on a camping trip that weekend.
I think there'd be some concern over the boy if people thought he'd been on the camping trip on his own not to mention some amazement over how he managed it.
I'm going to use the YLT to make this point, I could use others and should have made it last time but forgot:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'
This is all in the grammar now, the pair of comma's up there around the penultimate clause they are bracketing comma's, I should be able to remove the content of them without changing the meaning of what's being said so it would then read:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman into transgression came,'
That's basically what it says. But now deceived = transgression because the sentence shows that that's where the weight of meaning falls. Transgressions weighs more with 'woman' while 'deceived is all that weight with man and the sentence simply reads man didn't, woman did. Of course, Paul obviously believed that the man transgressed but it's not what he seems to be saying in the grammar or in the spirit of his argument.
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMI don't believe so. One may be unwise without necessarily being deceived.
I can agree with that, although wouldn't that suggest that he didn't know what God's warning that he would die meant. That he had no comprehension of death. Because if he did have an understanding of what God's warning meant he'd have had to disbelieve him exactly the same as Eve did in order to break the commandment and therefore he is, at least in his own mind deceived. Although again the correct meaning of the word paul is using could play here.
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PM
I am more focused on the text of Timothy, whether or not it excludes Adam from having sinned. I don't think it does. They both fell into transgression according to the Bible. However you think that went down is fine. But, I don't see any inconsistencies in Paul's report.
Sure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.
In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.
So both parties committed the same transgression, disobeying God, but one of them, and all their descendants on their half of the species, are penalized by being put under the authority of the other party, and the descendants on their side, the party who's transgression is greater. So for transgressing Eve and all her daughters get punished in a way that means Adam and all his sons get a prize. That's not right is it?
But it's the argument Paul seems to be making. Adam transgressed, I know this, you know this, Paul knows this. But he may as well not have done for all the difference it makes here. Paul seems to be making an argument that does seem to stand up to scrutiny based on the terms involved. That's why I worry it might have a root in his Pharisaical past. More likely though, it's just lost in time and translation.
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMThey can think what they want. I'd rather see proof. I'm done believing things because I am told that other smart people believe them. Like, hell or eternal torment etc....
Obviously I'm not talking purely about Christian critics. They'd except Timothy as a genuine letter of Paul without question and then work backwards. Obviously the critics under discussion here start at each book individually and then try and show it was by who it is attributed to. This isn't about the spurious use of translation we normally take issue with.
That said I also checked the word 'transgression' Paul uses in case the was some nuance in that so it wouldn't apply to Adam at the fall without taking away from the common understanding that he sinned. But know it's the same word he uses in Romans 5 taking about the same situation. Actually apart from one related word at the beginning of Acts the word is exclusive to Paul. Which should be good evidence in favour of Paul writing it really.
Oh, sure but not the truth that even though Adam and Eve committed the same transgression she and her daughters should be punished for that by being putting them into the servitude of Adam and his sons like some sort of reward for them even though he transgressed too. And all as long as the Earth endures. Not that truth, surely?
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMI don't buy this, sorry. I believe it is a False Dilemma to ascribe a positive characteristic to something just because it is inconclusive. For example, just because you don't know if the shirt I bought is white or black doesn't mean it's positively white until determined otherwise any more than an unread text is positively inerrant until determined otherwise.
Its status as errant is inconclusive not positively one or the other. A False Dilemma is when one believes that there are limited options when there are other options. For you, an unread text must either be errant or inerrant, and so you choose inerrant until proved otherwise. The other option is "the status of this text as errant or inerrant is undetermined."
That is why I said that without any other text in the Bible than Timothy, I would say "I don't know" with regard to whether Adam sinned. In that case I wouldn't want to claim he sinned just because I want a positive answer either way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
No, you're missing the point. What happens if your shirt is seen by a colourblind person? My point here is that because the Bible has to be understand the same copy, exactly the same copy can be read by two or more people who know nothing about its content and they can draw mutually exclusive conclusions about what it says. No at least one of them must be wrong but does that make the Bible wrong, all parties read exactly the same information expressed exactly the same way?
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMI believe God inspired the writing of Timothy so I do believe it is innerrant. As far as I know, that is the official position of this forum and its owner.
I believe the Bible is innerant I just seem to have a different understanding of that than you do. And even though the site holds that position there are still articles containing examples of Bible that were clearly in error. As I recall the position of the site also doesn't claim the Bible can be properly understood thoroughly outside revelation by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, there are some Bibles that you could read an find errors that would make them unrecognizable. But at that point you can just stop giving them the name 'Bible.'
I know the Bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God and I his other letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,' (2 Tim. 3:16)
But I know what Paul would have considered scripture when he wrote that isn't likely to include everything we count as scripture now. Should I discount everything we have have in the Bible because I have a line in the Bible where Paul identifies as scripture less than we would identify as scripture? I seriously doubt it.
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMI don't much have a problem with that, only I do not believe God will contradict himself regardless of who he speaks through.
Yeah, but that's because you're associating God contradicting Himself with lying. I agree that God is going to contradict Himself to the point of being dishonest and He will not overturn the main message but I think a lot of contradictions are in human interpretation anyway. And those that are may well serve the needs of the individual involved. God said that any human that sheds blood (kills) by a human their blood will be shed (Gen. 9:6). Following that to it's conclusion God would have had to have a human agent come and kill David for the murder of Uriah the Hittite but David died peacefully in his bed. I don't believe God is contradicting Himself here. Skeptics find loads of contradictions in the Bible. That just means they haven't understood what is really being stated. If all things are possible for God I'm sure He's more than capable of explaining all apparent contradictions including what Paul means by things like this. He just hasn't explained it to me yet. But to be honest there's no reason why He should it's not like I imagine I could do anything with it.
Quote from: Seth on June 10, 2016, 07:26:24 PMYeah, but the nonsense to follow isn't really the topic of this thread. This thread is about whether the two-evangel theory is correct or not based on the reasoning put forth by those who believe it. Again, I don't know that believers in the two-evangel theory believe that Paul's reasoning is flawed based on Pharesiacal reasoning.
If you don't believe in the two-evangel theory, then we agree on that. If you want to discuss Paul's flawed foundation, why not open a new topic, because that was certainly never the intent of the OP, unless I missed it.
No, sorry I've confused you. I'm trying to make an argument that sometimes Paul writes things that can come across as careless in the case of readers who are less educated than him,don't have all the context and details and are reading in translation.
The idea that an interpretation Paul learned from the Pharisees at least in part is do to the fact my understanding of the concept of the inspired text of God, means that everything in the Bible most contain the possibility of it speaking tome personally as a reader in the present. That means to my psychology I have to do something with the fact that Jesus warns every reader against the teachings of the Pharisees (and Sadducees) (Matt 16:12). When am I going to meet a Pharisee? I'm not am I. Coupled with the fact that yeast/leaven seems to be an analogy for easy to receive and hard to get rid of leads be to think that the only place I could receive the teachings of the Pharisees in any form is in the works of the only sort of Pharisee I have any sort of communication with. That is St. Paul, a reformed Pharisee who may not have shaken everything he learned from them.
Just a reading of what Jesus warned about that got into my head once and I now can't quite shake even though I suspect it may be over literal.
That's not the point here though the point is simply what Paul says. So let's go back to the two evangel theory as you think it's best and at this point to do I as the rest of this discussion seems just about exhausted. Paul says this:
'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--
not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.' (Gal. 1:6-7)
Simple 'not another Gospel = only one Gospel surely?
Paul later states:
'I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.' (Gal. 2:2)
Paul comparing notes with the other Apostles to make sure they're on the same page. I'm not quite sure why God would need Paul to get such a confirmation but I'm sure it's not my business to know.
But ten he writes:
'but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised' (Gal 2:7)
What on Earth? What's he doing? I assume this is supposed to mean bringing the Gospel to the uncircumcised/circumcised but he doesn't say bringing. This translation is the RSV, where is says 'to' there are some other translations which are a lot less clear:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/gal/2/1/t_bibles_1093007
And the NRSV which the RSV supposedly evolved into seems to have gone backwards by replacing that 'to' with'for' in both cases. This seems to me to be why the Bible seems to say to some people there are two evangels. Because Paul names two here, but he can't mean that because he's just said there's only one but somehow this hasn't been transmitted very well because we've got and awful lot of translation, especially many modern ones that point to Paul distinguishing two different Gospels, despite the fact that he can't be saying that. That clearer? It's certainly on topic as I understand.
Quote from: CSTI think there'd be some concern over the boy if people thought he'd been on the camping trip on his own not to mention some amazement over how he managed it.
He never said "on my own" in my example. That's an exclusion you are adding. He just said "I went on a camping trip." If you think that means he went on his own, that's the inference you are adding. So in the case of Timothy, Paul saying Eve came into transgression provides no exclusion to whether Adam came into transgression. Paul saying Adam was not deceived is the exclusion to him having been deceived.
Quote from: CSTI'm going to use the YLT to make this point, I could use others and should have made it last time but forgot:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'
This is all in the grammar now, the pair of comma's up there around the penultimate clause they are bracketing comma's, I should be able to remove the content of them without changing the meaning of what's being said so it would then read:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman into transgression came,'
That's basically what it says. But now deceived = transgression because the sentence shows that that's where the weight of meaning falls. Transgressions weighs more with 'woman' while 'deceived is all that weight with man and the sentence simply reads man didn't, woman did. Of course, Paul obviously believed that the man transgressed but it's not what he seems to be saying in the grammar or in the spirit of his argument.
Removing the words does alter Paul's emphasis on deception and sense of progression. The sentence, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman,
having been deceived, into transgression came" creates a sense of progression that being deceived LED to disobedience.
Here is an example to show what I mean:
A friend comes up to me and says, "Frank wasn't tricked, but my brother Jack, having been tricked, disobeyed our mom."
So I say. "Oh no, what did Jack do?"
The friend says, "He ate a cookie out the the jar."
So, I say, "I guess Frank didn't eat a cookie right? After all, you said Jack was the one tricked."
The friend says "I didn't say he didn't eat a cookie, just that Jack disobeyed
having been tricked. Frank ate the cookie because he didn't want Jack to have all the fun."
So when you say, "It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible." there is no need to gawk. Paul may have been vague, but he didn't actually contradict Genesis.
Quote from: CSTSure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.
In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.
Yes, but according to you Timothy already knew this stuff inside and out. He wouldn't have needed to point out that Adam transgressed. Timothy already knew that. Paul was just pointing out who was deceived by the Serpent and how that factored into his comments about women in the ministry.
Quote from: CSTNo, you're missing the point. What happens if you're shirt is seen by a colourblind person?
Your point had to do with how you believe an unread text is inerrant before being examined because it doesn't essentially say anything until it is read. My point is that it doesn't make the text inerrant. It makes it inconclusive as to its errancy until it can be examined. This is similar to how Paul saying that Eve was deceived and transgressed isn't the same as saying she was the ONLY one who transgressed. The information is not given as to whether Adam transgressed, so based ONLY on Timothy, whether or not Adam transgressed would be inconclusive until we read Romans 5.
So a colorblind person who hasn't seen the color of the shirt cannot make a claim of whether it is black or white without seeing the shirt first, even if the conclusion is affected by their ability to see color. The point is that a text cannot be determined as inerrant until it is at least SEEN.
Quote from: CSTBut I know what Paul would have considered scripture when he wrote that isn't likely to include everything we count as scripture now. Should I discount everything we have have in the Bible because I have a line in the Bible where Paul identifies as scripture less than we would identify as scripture? I seriously doubt it.
What I am saying is that we believe that the letter to Timothy is inerrant and counts as scripture and does not contradict another letter Paul wrote.
Quote from: CSTSkeptics find loads of contradictions in the Bible. That just means they haven't understood what is really being stated. If all things are possible for God I'm sure He's more than capable of explaining all apparent contradictions including what Paul means by things like this. He just hasn't explained it to me yet. But to be honest there's no reason why He should it's not like I imagine I could do anything with it.
I don't see any reason for me to believe that there is a contradiction in this case.
Quote from: CSTbut on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised' (Gal 2:7)
What on Earth? What's he doing? I assume this is supposed to mean bringing the Gospel to the uncircumcised/circumcised but he doesn't say bringing. This translation is the RSV, where is says 'to' there are some other translations which are a lot less clear:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/gal/2/1/t_bibles_1093007
And the NRSV which the RSV supposedly evolved into seems to have gone backwards by replacing that 'to' with'for' in both cases. This seems to me to be why the Bible seems to say to some people there are two evangels. Because Paul names two here, but he can't mean that because he's just said there's only one but somehow this hasn't been transmitted very well because we've got and awful lot of translation, especially many modern ones that point to Paul distinguishing two different Gospels, despite the fact that he can't be saying that. That clearer? It's certainly on topic as I understand.
Yes, I agree, that is one of the evidences they present to support the two-evangel theory.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PM
He never said "on my own" in my example. That's an exclusion you are adding. He just said "I went on a camping trip." If you think that means he went on his own, that's the inference you are adding. So in the case of Timothy, Paul saying Eve came into transgression provides no exclusion to whether Adam came into transgression. Paul saying Adam was not deceived is the exclusion to him having been deceived.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are various forms of 'silent' communication, and other forms of context that would lead people to correctly understand he didn't go on his own. The way he said it, the fact no one called the police to report a missing child, the fact he broadcast this with no concern he might get into trouble. All things we have missing from Paul's letter.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMRemoving the words does alter Paul's emphasis on deception and sense of progression. The sentence, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came" creates a sense of progression that being deceived LED to disobedience.
Here is an example to show what I mean:
A friend comes up to me and says, "Frank wasn't tricked, but my brother Jack, having been tricked, disobeyed our mom."
So I say. "Oh no, what did Jack do?"
The friend says, "He ate a cookie out the the jar."
So, I say, "I guess Frank didn't eat a cookie right? After all, you said Jack was the one tricked."
The friend says "I didn't say he didn't eat a cookie, just that Jack disobeyed having been tricked. Frank ate the cookie because he didn't want Jack to have all the fun."
So when you say, "It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible." there is no need to gawk. Paul may have been vague, but he didn't actually contradict Genesis.
'And to Adam he said, "Because you have
listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;' (Gen. 3:17)
"Listened to the voice of your wife..." what exactly did she say, it can't have been anything that was true?
You're example doesn't seem comparable to what happened although it does seem comparable based on the parts of the text we'd so far brought up. But I also can't see the emphasis on deceived as you do because 'transgression' clearly trumps it and as I said it's appearance in the second half of the sentence reads as an aside.
Quote from: CSTSure I can relate, my concern here isn't that I'm going around trying to catch Paul out or find evidence of Pharisaical teaching in his writing. It's that the omission looks rather off.
In context Paul is trying to make an argument for the defense of the subservience of women in the church. He argues from the Bible that the first woman was deceived and transgressed the law while the man wasn't deceived. He omits to mention that he also transgressed the law even though we know he did but to normal understanding transgressing God's command, which they both did, has a greater weight than being deceived, which only happened to the woman and in fact could be seen to mitigate. A mitigation the man can't claim.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMYes, but according to you Timothy already knew this stuff inside and out. He wouldn't have needed to point out that Adam transgressed. Timothy already knew that. Paul was just pointing out who was deceived by the Serpent and how that factored into his comments about women in the ministry.
Why do you need to open that with "according to you" that suggests that you think that this might be new to Timothy and he might not know what Paul is trying to say anymore than I do. That he might also read it and understand it as saying that Adam didn't sin. I think we can both agree that he didn't think that. But not knowing the letter he sent Paul received from him means that this could basically be his argument and Paul is basically confirming it, perhaps repeating some of his own letter back to him we can't know. I don't have use for a letter that causes the sort of controversy this letter causes not when I don't know what it means. Although since I'm not in any position to act on its instruction I probably don't need to. But it would be helpful to know. Considering how much Paul opposed dividing the church this comment sure divides the church a lot. Although I don't think this one has caused any full on schisms yet although I'm not quite sure.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMYour point had to do with how you believe an unread text is inerrant before being examined because it doesn't essentially say anything until it is read. My point is that it doesn't make the text inerrant. It makes it inconclusive as to its errancy until it can be examined. This is similar to how Paul saying that Eve was deceived and transgressed isn't the same as saying she was the ONLY one who transgressed. The information is not given as to whether Adam transgressed, so based ONLY on Timothy, whether or not Adam transgressed would be inconclusive until we read Romans 5.
So a colorblind person who hasn't seen the color of the shirt cannot make a claim of whether it is black or white without seeing the shirt first, even if the conclusion is affected by their ability to see color. The point is that a text cannot be determined as inerrant until it is at least SEEN.
Oh, bother I've written the wrong type of 'you're' (it should be 'your'). I'll have to fix that. Doesn't this discussion prove my point me and you have read the same Bible, (not the same copy necessarily in this case), we've both read Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 and we've come to contrary conclusions about what Paul actually says at 1 Timothy 2.
Of course, all Bibles are before God and He can decide the errancy of them, but how errant or otherwise is a Bible when it turns out the language it's being translated into just doesn't have the nuance to express a certain point or points? By what criteria would God actually judge a Bible to be innerant? How many 'mistakes' would He allow. Because God is perfect and only God, how brooks no competition so how are there perfect Bibles? So how imperfect does a Bible have to be before God will condemn it as a bad Bible that could horribly mislead people.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMWhat I am saying is that we believe that the letter to Timothy is inerrant and counts as scripture and does not contradict another letter Paul wrote.
Paul wrote a lot of letters, we haven't got them all (unfortunately). Has the church really only managed to preserve the innerant ones or does God preserve letters a books for His own reasons not because they are innately innerant but because as I imagine He is best able to communicate His will through them with the minimal difficulty and conclusion.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMI don't see any reason for me to believe that there is a contradiction in this case.
Perhaps not but if you hold to the concept of the innerancy of the Bible, that of it being the 'true and literal word of God' than in fact it is not Paul saying 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.' but God saying it. And that someone could claim that God is contradicting Himself because He has already given some women such authority in the past.
Quote from: Seth on June 12, 2016, 08:04:18 PMYes, I agree, that is one of the evidences they present to support the two-evangel theory.
Indeed, and it seems stronger than it should be given how that theory is so poor, and untrue as shown by the first citation.
But it seems to be a strange way to divide, circumcised and uncircumcised obviously despite some traditions Israel isn't the only circumcised race in history so it's hard to be sure what Paul means even though the NLT (grrr) translates it exactly as I just wrote. What is concerning here is that the phrase is literally, according to translators who bother, 'gospel of the circumcision/uncircumcision' which really does sound like two gospel even though I don't believe there are two gospels, only translations I really don't trust to be fair use the preposition 'to' instead of 'for'. It's strange I don't doubt Paul was not trying to suggest there are two gospels given what he just said but at the same time he's again written something we struggle to translate with it suggesting something he can't mean. I can't help thinking he must have known better Greek than anyone one trying to translate his writing. Which is disappointing for us readers.
Quote from: CSTThe point I'm trying to make is that there are various forms of 'silent' communication, and other forms of context that would lead people to correctly understand he didn't go on his own.
That would be the inference, what you believe is being silently communicated. The point is that you cannot make a definite case with the information provided. The phrase, " I went camping" is vague as to whether anyone else did too. If you wanted to find out more information, you can ask, "did you go alone? Was someone with you?" Since we can't ask Paul, we can read his other letters.
Quote from: CSTOh, bother I've written the wrong type of 'you're' (it should be 'your'). I'll have to fix that. Doesn't this discussion prove my point me and you have read the same Bible, (not the same copy necessarily in this case), we've both read Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2 and we've come to contrary conclusions about what Paul actually says at 1 Timothy 2.
Yeah, there has been a lot of disagreement on what the Bible says throughout history. But not having a written Law, and being led by the Spirit, means that our own personal takes on what love is, doesn't affect the outcome God has created. God follows the Romans 8 process of choosing, and forming his chosen people like clay.
The commandment to love is written by God, then demonstrated by God through his chosen people.
Quote from: CSTOf course, all Bibles are before God and He can decide the errancy of them, but how errant or otherwise is a Bible when it turns out the language it's being translated into just doesn't have the nuance to express a certain point or points? By what criteria would God actually judge a Bible to be innerant? How many 'mistakes' would He allow. Because God is perfect and only God, how brooks no competition so how are there perfect Bibles? So how imperfect does a Bible have to be before God will condemn it as a bad Bible that could horribly mislead people.
I don't believe all Bibles are inerrant. But I do believe the letter to Timothy is. A Bible is a translation. I do believe translations can be errant.
Quote from: CSTPerhaps not but if you hold to the concept of the innerancy of the Bible, that of it being the 'true and literal word of God' than in fact it is not Paul saying 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.' but God saying it. And that someone could claim that God is contradicting Himself because He has already given some women such authority in the past.
It depends on what Paul MEANS, not just what he says. Eaglesway has good points on that. The scripture is inerrant in what it says, but that doesn't mean we are all inerrant in what we say it means. But in terms of following the command to love, the elect cannot be deceived by Satan or they cannot be elect. That's why John said, if they left us, it shows they were not of us. So, God will ultimately perform the Romans 8 process with them.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PM
That would be the inference, what you believe is being silently communicated. The point is that you cannot make a definite case with the information provided. The phrase, " I went camping" is vague as to whether anyone else did too. If you wanted to find out more information, you can ask, "did you go alone? Was someone with you?" Since we can't ask Paul, we can read his other letters.
Or we can read this one, thanks for this discussion it's been informative and enlightening. What I find interesting is that using what is written in Genesis 3, Paul could easily say I do permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, a woman led man wrong before, best it not happen again. Easy, I think it's not very constructive, better for man to learn when they should or shouldn't be led by women so they can recognize the difference. That's better for all parties and the relationship. But at least it would be a clearly founder position, but it doesn't appear to be what he is saying, however maybe it is...
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMYeah, there has been a lot of disagreement on what the Bible says throughout history. But not having a written Law, and being led by the Spirit, means that our own personal takes on what love is, doesn't affect the outcome God has created. God follows the Romans 8 process of choosing, and forming his chosen people like clay.
The commandment to love is written by God, then demonstrated by God through his chosen people.
Not sure if we were talking about the law vs. love in this instance. Although I suppose if it's the Bible we're probably always talking about love.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMI don't believe all Bibles are inerrant. But I do believe the letter to Timothy is. A Bible is a translation. I do believe translations can be errant.
Do you believe all the translations I've so far used in this discussion could be errant? After all, no of them are the actual text of the letter to Timothy, although we have to presume they have all seen an inerrant copy of the letter that they're trying to translate and not just an errant copy of an inerrant original.
I ask because so far I shown 14 translations and all of them appear to gloss over the fact that Adam transgressed, when he's pushed the fact very hard elsewhere, he made a big speech about it in Romans 5. Here's the YLT version again:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,'
Now that's a little awkward and, as I said, I considered those second pair of commas appear to be of the bracketing kind. However I seriously doubt any of those commas are in the Greek so what happens to the meaning of the sentence if I do this:
'and Adam was not deceived but, the woman having been deceived, into transgression came,'?
I'm probably want to change that 'but' into 'yet' if the Greek would allow it, but now, as you see it does actually say what we'd expect it to say which is that Adam transgressed due to the woman being deceived even though it's not as clear as I'd like to imagine it could be. Of course, I've just made that up, I don't know if the Greek will actually allow I can just see that manipulation of the English does.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMIt depends on what Paul MEANS, not just what he says. Eaglesway has good points on that. The scripture is inerrant in what it says, but that doesn't mean we are all inerrant in what we say it means. But in terms of following the command to love, the elect cannot be deceived by Satan or they cannot be elect. That's why John said, if they left us, it shows they were not of us. So, God will ultimately perform the Romans 8 process with them.
Oh, absolutely, and if the above example is actually good, which seems unlikely since I don't know Greek, we've been wrong in what at least part of that letter says for quite a long time. But the phrase 'I permit no woman...' doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room. But again I don't speak Greek. After all the phrase 'of the circumcision/uncircumcision doesn't seem to leave wiggle room either but it obviously can't means there's two evangels because Paul has only just stated there's only one.
The downside of the 'if they left us' bit sounds like it can be turned into an excuse to give up on people, I'm sure it shouldn't be but I'm also sure ETers and EDers use it to justify all sorts of appalling things.
Quote from: CSTOr we can read this one, thanks for this discussion it's been informative and enlightening. What I find interesting is that using what is written in Genesis 3, Paul could easily say I do permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man, a woman led man wrong before, best it not happen again. Easy, I think it's not very constructive, better for man to learn when they should or shouldn't be led by women so they can recognize the difference. That's better for all parties and the relationship. But at least it would be a clearly founder position, but it doesn't appear to be what he is saying, however maybe it is...
Thank you too! :-)
When I look at the Timothy passage, the first thing I see is "For (because) Adam was formed before Eve." Out of all the reasons he could come up with, that was the first one. That gives me a clue as to his underlying reasoning with the passage to follow, about who was deceived first. I suspect Paul's comments about the deception has to do with the order of things, how things unfolded in Genesis and how he wants the church to reflect the patterns. I don't think it's a slight against women.
Quote from: CSTI'm probably want to change that 'but' into 'yet' if the Greek would allow it, but now, as you see it does actually say what we'd expect it to say which is that Adam transgressed due to the woman being deceived even though it's not as clear as I'd like to imagine it could be.
Also what happens if we take this: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, came into transgression,'
and switch the order of the word groups:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman came into trangression having been deceived, '
To me I think it clarifies that, while Paul did not call out Adam's sin specifically, the language does not omit the possibility. It just omits the possibility that Adam came into transgression the same way Eve did.
In other words "Adam was not deceived (and therefore that's not how he transgressed) but the woman came into transgression having been deceived."
Quote from: CSTOh, absolutely, and if the above example is actually good, which seems unlikely since I don't know Greek, we've been wrong in what at least part of that letter says for quite a long time. But the phrase 'I permit no woman...' doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room.
True, and Paul also advocated for people in the church to not marry so they could focus on the ministry. But, he also said this was his personal recommendation, not an order from Christ. Could it be that it's similar here? Notice he does not say, "Christ does not permit." After all, ultimately, Christ is the head of the church. Obviously, I am not saying Paul was in error, but that maybe he left it open with his intentional phrasing of "I do not permit."
Quote from: CSTThe downside of the 'if they left us' bit sounds like it can be turned into an excuse to give up on people, I'm sure it shouldn't be but I'm also sure ETers and EDers use it to justify all sorts of appalling things.
I would hope not. I think it shows that the people who left didn't want to be there. You can't force people to be there.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 07:15:04 PM
Thank you too! :-)
When I look at the Timothy passage, the first thing I see is "For (because) Adam was formed before Eve." Out of all the reasons he could come up with, that was the first one. That gives me a clue as to his underlying reasoning with the passage to follow, about who was deceived first. I suspect Paul's comments about the deception has to do with the order of things, how things unfolded in Genesis and how he wants the church to reflect the patterns. I don't think it's a slight against women.
I've always just seen it as, Adam was formed first so he's more important. In the same way the firstborn is supposed to be more important than all their younger siblings in any family. Although God overruled this an awful lot. I wouldn't expect there to be any 'clues' here, Paul was sending a direct letter to Timothy he wasn't trying to be cryptic, I don't think it should be sure an effort to work out what he means.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMAlso what happens if we take this: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, came into transgression,'
and switch the order of the word groups:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman came into trangression having been deceived, '
To me I think it clarifies that, while Paul did not call out Adam's sin specifically, the language does not omit the possibility. It just omits the possibility that Adam came into transgression the same way Eve did.
In other words "Adam was not deceived (and therefore that's not how he transgressed) but the woman came into transgression having been deceived."
I'm presuming the people translating the letter of Timothy have at least translated the word order as correctly as possible. Just that they've adding the punctuation in their head and put it in the wrong place.
My point is that this transgression word isn't one Paul uses that much (no one else uses it at all) and another significant usage is in the Roman's 5 passage when he describes this scene, talks about the fall of man and pins it on the first man, Adam. It's the omission here when he made such a big piece of theology out of it before that I find jarring.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMTrue, and Paul also advocated for people in the church to not marry so they could focus on the ministry. But, he also said this was his personal recommendation, not an order from Christ. Could it be that it's similar here? Notice he does not say, "Christ does not permit." After all, ultimately, Christ is the head of the church. Obviously, I am not saying Paul was in error, but that maybe he left it open with his intentional phrasing of "I do not permit."
Indeed, but that just leaves us in the position of debating how much authority we give to the man who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else and seems to have done more to establish Christian doctrine than anyone else. As soon as you introduce the 'true and literal Word of God' bit. And this becomes a 'Christ does not permit...' statement because he's talking though the Holy Spirit and is understood as the mouthpiece for Christ.
Quote from: Seth on June 13, 2016, 08:13:49 PMI would hope not. I think it shows that the people who left didn't want to be there. You can't force people to be there.
I'm not talking about people who leave because they didn't want to be there, I'm talking about stubborn people on both sides being difficult. How many times has the church split now? And how many 'official' churches preach a plausible doctrine of Universal Salvation? I don't think there's too many that haven't fallen away.
Quote from: CSTI've always just seen it as, Adam was formed first so he's more important. In the same way the firstborn is supposed to be more important than all their younger siblings in any family. Although God overruled this an awful lot. I wouldn't expect there to be any 'clues' here, Paul was sending a direct letter to Timothy he wasn't trying to be cryptic, I don't think it should be sure an effort to work out what he means.
But, if we isolate the next sentence (about deception) from the context, then bringing back the context brings a clue as to what he means about the deception.
I'd argue that the words we speak are all clues as to what we mean or how we think.
Quote from: CSTI'm presuming the people translating the letter of Timothy have at least translated the word order as correctly as possible. Just that they've adding the punctuation in their head and put it in the wrong place.
I'd presume the same. But if we take Yoda's sentence: "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." If I reverse the word order and say "You will not look as good when you reach 900 years old." that hasn't changed the meaning of the sentence.
Quote from: CSTMy point is that this transgression word isn't one Paul uses that much (no one else uses it at all) and another significant usage is in the Roman's 5 passage when he describes this scene, talks about the fall of man and pins it on the first man, Adam. It's the omission here when he made such a big piece of theology out of it before that I find jarring.
I'd only find it jarring if Paul was attempting to teach something about Adam's sin, and left out any mention of Adam's sin. I don't find this jarring because Paul wasn't making a point about Adam's sin.
Quote from: CSTIndeed, but that just leaves us in the position of debating how much authority we give to the man who wrote more books of the New Testament than anyone else and seems to have done more to establish Christian doctrine than anyone else. As soon as you introduce the 'true and literal Word of God' bit. And this becomes a 'Christ does not permit...' statement because he's talking though the Holy Spirit and is understood as the mouthpiece for Christ.
He was a mouthpiece for Christ, but he also careful to distinguish his own opinion versus Christ's opinion, such as in the case of marriage. So, his phrasing in Timothy opens the possibility for that consideration without doubting Paul's authority.
Quote from: CSTI'm not talking about people who leave because they didn't want to be there, I'm talking about stubborn people on both sides being difficult. How many times has the church split now? And how many 'official' churches preach a plausible doctrine of Universal Salvation? I don't think there's too many that haven't fallen away.
Yes, but him saying that "they were never of us" doesn't mean he is giving up on them. I think it's a statement of God's election (i.e. wolves will enter in).
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 08:51:01 PMBut, if we isolate the next sentence (about deception) from the context, then bringing back the context brings a clue as to what he means about the deception.
I'd argue that the words we speak are all clues as to what we mean or how we think.
Well, obviously the words we use are more than that. They should be a dead giveaway to what we mean or think provided we're not lying. But I still struggle to see what he means and thinks in the same way you do. For to me when Paul says:
'For Adam was formed first, then Eve;' (1 Tim. 2:13)
then he is offering one reason why woman should be subservient to men. And then when he says:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Tim. 2:14)
he is offering a second additional and complimentary reason to the same issue. Hence the 'and' but he doesn't say Eve transgressed first and then Adam which would clearly support your position. Obviously I can't re-edit that translation as I did the more literal one.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 08:51:01 PMI'd presume to same. But if we take Yoda's sentence: "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." If I reverse the word order and say "You will not look as good when you reach 900 years old." that hasn't changed the meaning of the sentence.
But that's because Yoda is fictional. When you here Yoda speak you are meant to be able to understand the grammar he is using and correct accordingly in your head. The grammar Paul uses to write in Greek could read like Yoda's but the translators correct for us according to what they think he was writing. So in practice it's perfect possible, in fact I think likely, that what I'm trying to do doesn't work. But it could work if the sentence does read that way when correctly translated but there really is no clue as to where to punctuate it.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 08:51:01 PMI'd only find it jarring if Paul was attempting to teach something about Adam's sin, and left out any mention of Adam's sin. I don't find this jarring because Paul wasn't making a point about Adam's sin.
But Adam's sin/transgression is the foundation of Paul's theology. Paul never mentions Adam without mentioning his transgression. It's strange for him not to mention it here
when he considers it so important. Jesus never called Himself the 'last Adam' none of the other writers do this is Paul's theological argument so it's odd for him not to mention it when he's referencing the same event.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 08:51:01 PMHe was a mouthpiece for Christ, but he also careful to distinguish his own opinion versus Christ's opinion, such as in the case of marriage. So, his phrasing in Timothy opens the possibility for that consideration without doubting Paul's authority.
That doesn't mean anything, if the Bible is inerrant as we've been claiming it is then Paul's hesitation just means he isn't sure whether what he's saying is right or not. The inerrancy of the Bible means that it must be the inerrant Bible wouldn't transmit to us an error on the part of Paul. Which I'm pretty sure is what you were claiming earlier when I tried to question whether something he'd learned at the knee of the Pharisees had got in. The difference is the I only thought it mattered if the received text was correct, or could be taken as such if the reader had proper understanding given from God, not that Paul can't have been in error in his thinking because reading this letter doesn't mean I can actually read his mind. The Pharisee argument wasn't meant to be a claim the we could simply ignore what he said, it's made the Bible, it was just a suggestion there might be parts of his writing where we should think more carefully about what he's saying and why he's saying it. It was an appeal to caution.
There's no ambiguity here Paul said that he wasn't sure about a certain point but gave his suggestion. But if the Bible is inerrant he's not in error and he's correct in what he says. So the best we've got is either another appeal for caution or possible a need to wait for someone else who might be authorized to give a stronger answer but unfortunately most people who might come follow the Bible, including the authority of Paul, because that's all we've got.
Quote from: Seth on June 14, 2016, 08:51:01 PMYes, but him saying that "they were never of us" doesn't mean he is giving up on them. I think it's a statement of God's election (i.e. wolves will enter in).
Well, obviously God isn't giving up on anyone. But we Universalists are a rather small group, most people in the organizations who take the name 'Church' imagine that God does give up on most people and so take that fact, and lines like that which they would take as confirmation of the thought, as justification to do the same, often rather sooner than they should.
Quote from: CSTWell, obviously the words we use are more than that. They should be a dead giveaway to what we mean or think provided we're not lying.
Language is much more complex than that. Many times we say things on this forum that others misunderstand and have to clarify.
Quote from: CSTBut I still struggle to see what he means and thinks in the same way you do. For to me when Paul says:
'For Adam was formed first, then Eve;' (1 Tim. 2:13)
then he is offering one reason why woman should be subservient to men. And then when he says:
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Tim. 2:14)
he is offering a second additional and complimentary reason to the same issue. Hence the 'and' but he doesn't say Eve transgressed first and then Adam which would clearly support your position. Obviously I can't re-edit that translation as I did the more literal one.
It doesn't say Eve sinned first, but Genesis 3 proves that she did, whatever you think that sin is. Remember, Timothy would have known that already, so Paul probably didn't feel he needed to go over that again.
Quote from: CSTBut that's because Yoda is fictional. When you here Yoda speak you are meant to be able to understand the grammar he is using and correct accordingly in your head.
It doesn't matter that he is fictional. His grammar is awkward, but still legitimate.
If I say, "Having put on his gym clothes, John went to the gym." That is the same as saying, "John went to the gym, having put on his gym clothes."
Quote from: CSTBut Adam's sin/transgression is the foundation of Paul's theology. Paul never mentions Adam without mentioning his transgression. It's strange for him not to mention it here
when he considers it so important.
It's foundational to the gospel, but not foundational to the specific point Paul is making in that verse.
Quote from: CSTThat doesn't mean anything, if the Bible is inerrant as we've been claiming it is then Paul's hesitation just means he isn't sure whether what he's saying is right or not. The inerrancy of the Bible means that it must be the inerrant Bible wouldn't transmit to us an error on the part of Paul. Which I'm pretty sure is what you were claiming earlier when I tried to question whether something he'd learned at the knee of the Pharisees had got in.
He's not hesitating. He says "I do not permit." That's Paul attributing his actions to himself. All I am saying is that it's possible to interpret his words in accordance with his words about whether or not people should get married. There is no error being attributed, and there is no reason to believe that Paul's reasoning is unsound, anymore than to believe his thoughts on marriage are unsound, or influenced by his past as a Pharisee.
Quote from: CSTThe Pharisee argument wasn't meant to be a claim the we could simply ignore what he said, it's made the Bible, it was just a suggestion there might be parts of his writing where we should think more carefully about what he's saying and why he's saying it. It was an appeal to caution.
The Pharisee argument suggests that he was influenced by an error in thinking, being that Christ was opposed to how the Pharisees thought. That's why I think we should be careful about attributing such psychoanalysis of Paul, seeing as how that conclusion is a guess, not a fact.
Quote from: CSTWell, obviously God isn't giving up on anyone. But we Universalists are a rather small group, most people in the organizations who take the name 'Church' imagine that God does give up on most people and so take that fact, and lines like that which they would take as confirmation of the thought, as justification to do the same, often rather sooner than they should.
I can only provide what I think it means. I think it means that God elects who will be made in the image of Christ through the Spirit, not the Law.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PM
Language is much more complex than that. Many times we say things on this forum that others misunderstand and have to clarify.
Oh, yes quite like this conversation. I did say should. But if we're talking about an 'inerrant' text here than it can't be any fault on paul's part if we can't agree on what he's saying, surely? See what follows for more examples.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMIt doesn't say Eve sinned first, but Genesis 3 proves that she did, whatever you think that sin is. Remember, Timothy would have known that already, so Paul probably didn't feel he needed to go over that again.
But now you'd be guessing. Paul doesn't say one thing Timothy would already know so why mention any of it at all? Paul is trying to make and argument and you're trying to claim he's intending for Timothy to read into his argument things he doesn't explain, instead of making the argument he once to make clearly. I'm sure people make arguments like that from time to time but I couldn't blame Timothy if he didn't read into Paul's reasoning something he didn't say so I can't blame anyone else who reads it for not immediately imagining he's making that sort of argument either.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMIt doesn't matter that he is fictional. His grammar is awkward, but still legitimate.
If I say, "Having put on his gym clothes, John went to the gym." That is the same as saying, "John went to the gym, having put on his gym clothes."
But he's speaking English. He's following English Grammar rules that George Lucas then plays with slightly to make his language sound a bit alien even though it's not really.
Paul is writing in Greek it has different rules and people are trying to translate it according to those rules. I don't know how it actually reads in Greek or how I would properly translate it into English I just imagine that the word or is probably more accurate as it is than changing it around for example the word Paul uses for 'transgression' is 'parabasis' it appears in the New Testament four times (John once uses a different word translated 'transgression') three in Paul's epistles and once in the letter to the Hebrews which there's actually some dispute about but this would also go in favour of Pauline authorship. Also in the book of Acts Luke has Peter use the word 'parabaino' which looks similar and may well be similar but which the KJV translates as 'by transgression fell' which is one word for a whole phrase. It doesn't quite seem to work the same, necessarily. Although I don't I have the most reliable sources.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMIt's foundational to the gospel, but not foundational to the specific point Paul is making in that verse.
Only because we have it from Paul that it is or, more accurately we only know that it is foundational to the Gospel because we have it from St. Paul.
'Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.' (Rom. 5;14)
'For as by
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. 5:19)
'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (1 Cor. 15:21-22)
'And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.' (1 Cor. 15:45)
Paul never mentions Adam outside the context of Adam's offense in the garden which he also presents as one for one to make the theology work he says the many were made sinners through one man's disobedience not one man and one woman even though that would be more technically true. But that would work for the parallel as effectively.
In every other occasion Paul mentions Adam he mentions Adam's sin. It would be strange for him not to refer to it here.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMHe's not hesitating. He says "I do not permit." That's Paul attributing his actions to himself. All I am saying is that it's possible to interpret his words in accordance with his words about whether or not people should get married. There is no error being attributed, and there is no reason to believe that Paul's reasoning is unsound, anymore than to believe his thoughts on marriage are unsound, or influenced by his past as a Pharisee.
Sorry, we're talking at crossed purposes. When I said hesitating I meant when he talked about marriage which you are, as I understand, attempting to use to dilute what Paul said here in similar fashion because he tried to downgrade that instruction to opinion and the use of the 'I' in one Timothy might also therefore be read as opinion and not necessarily what Jesus would say Himself. I'm trying to say I'm not sure it works like that if you're trying to uphold the inerrancy of the texts. If you're doing that than there's not really a difference between the two.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMThe Pharisee argument suggests that he was influenced by an error in thinking, being that Christ was opposed to how the Pharisees thought. That's why I think we should be careful about attributing such psychoanalysis of Paul, seeing as how that conclusion is a guess, not a fact.
Oh yeah, it was a guess and I recognize that it's a risky one but I've explained before why I wonder about it and imagine that since all Paul's early indoctrination in the scriptures would could from the Pharisees I at least think there's reason to hold it as an educated guess. And we do know that Jesus was opposed to how the Pharisees both thought and behaved but we also know that Paul was a Pharisee, and by the look of it one of the worst, when Jesus appointed him, we can't get around that.
Quote from: Seth on June 15, 2016, 07:12:44 PMI can only provide what I think it means. I think it means that God elects who will be made in the image of Christ through the Spirit, not the Law.
We're clearly speaking crossed purposes here since that statement doesn't appear to speak to anything I was saying which was to do with people in the Church letting other people just walk away because they have read stuff like that and shaped their God in the unmerciful mode and thus behave unmercifully themselves.
Quote from: CSTPaul is trying to make and argument and you're trying to claim he's intending for Timothy to read into his argument things he doesn't explain, instead of making the argument he once to make clearly.
The manner in which Paul is speaking to Timothy indicates to me that Timothy does know the story already.
Quote from: CSTBut he's speaking English. He's following English Grammar rules that George Lucas then plays with slightly to make his language sound a bit alien even though it's not really.
George Lucas didn't make up the rules of grammar that Yoda was using. He just flipped the clauses a bit which made him sound more awkward, but he didn't make up the rules. Yoda's grammar was awkward but totally in line with established rules.
Quote from: CSTPaul is writing in Greek it has different rules and people are trying to translate it according to those rules. I don't know how it actually reads in Greek or how I would properly translate it into English I just imagine that the word or is probably more accurate as it is than changing it around for example the word Paul uses for 'transgression' is 'parabasis' it appears in the New Testament four times (John once uses a different word translated 'transgression') three in Paul's epistles and once in the letter to the Hebrews which there's actually some dispute about but this would also go in favour of Pauline authorship.
Assuming that the original sentence in the Young's Literal Translation is correctly translated as "the woman having been deceived into transgression came" if that is an accurate translation, then "the woman into transgression came having been deceived" doesn't change the meaning of that translated sentence.
Translators do this all the time. They start with a literal translation, which is usually awkward sounding in English, then they phrase the translated sentence in a way that is more understandable to English speakers without changing the meaning.
If I take this phrase, "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But Sally, having put on gym shorts, when to the gym." that's the same as saying "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But, Sally went to the gym, having put on gym shorts" neither one proves that Billy didn't go to the gym (he may have gone to the gym in regular clothes to meet someone, or because he works there, or because he just likes to work out in regular clothes.) And, the second phrasing doesn't change the meaning of the first.
This is called Linguistic typology. In Greek, they may use a word order called Subject-object-verb: "The man the child loves." Whereas in English it would be "The child loves the man." My point is that flipping the structure doesn't change the meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verbQuote from: CSTPaul never mentions Adam outside the context of Adam's offense in the garden which he also presents as one for one to make the theology work he says the many were made sinners through one man's disobedience not one man and one woman even though that would be more technically true. But that would work for the parallel as effectively.
In every other occasion Paul mentions Adam he mentions Adam's sin. It would be strange for him not to refer to it here.
It's not strange because in all those other cases he was talking about the foundation of the Gospel. In the case of Timothy he is not. He's talking about the role of women in the church. Paul's purpose determines what he spoke about.
Quote from: CSTI'm trying to say I'm not sure it works like that if you're trying to uphold the inerrancy of the texts. If you're doing that than there's not really a difference between the two.
It wouldn't affect the errancy of the text, only how the text is interpreted by the reader. A text can be without error even if people have a different viewpoint of its intended meaning.
Quote from: CSTAnd we do know that Jesus was opposed to how the Pharisees both thought and behaved but we also know that Paul was a Pharisee, and by the look of it one of the worst, when Jesus appointed him, we can't get around that.
And that throws into question whether Paul was acting outside the will of Christ and worthy of Christ's rebuke in what he said. That also throws into question Paul's authority over what he said, whether or not error crept into the scripture.
My interpretation of the text doesn't throw Paul's foundational reasoning into question.
Quote from: CSTWe're clearly speaking crossed purposes here since that statement doesn't appear to speak to anything I was saying which was to do with people in the Church letting other people just walk away because they have read stuff like that and shaped their God in the unmerciful mode and thus behave unmercifully themselves.
I can't really speak to how other people interpret it that way. I can only say how I see what the scripture means. People can interpret the scripture in all manner of ways. I am just explaining how I interpret it.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PM
The manner in which Paul is speaking to Timothy indicates to me that Timothy does know the story already.
I'm not arguing that Timothy doesn't know the story, that would be very strange. But Paul doesn't make the argument your making, the woman transgressed first and then Adam in any specific sense. Therefore Timothy would have to read it in. I don't think assuming the person you're writing to will read the argument you mean but haven't stated into the text is a very powerful way to make an argument.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMGeorge Lucas didn't make up the rules of grammar that Yoda was using. He just flipped the clauses a bit which made him sound more awkward, but he didn't make up the rules. Yoda's grammar was awkward but totally in line with established rules.
Of course he didn't but he has to work within the confines of the rules he's got, i.e. English. Someone watching Star Wars who only has English as a second language might really struggle to understand what Yoda is saying.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMAssuming that the original sentence in the Young's Literal Translation is correctly translated as "the woman having been deceived into transgression came" if that is an accurate translation, then "the woman into transgression came having been deceived" doesn't change the meaning of that translated sentence.
Translators do this all the time. They start with a literal translation, which is usually awkward sounding in English, then they phrase the translated sentence in a way that is more understandable to English speakers without changing the meaning
If I take this phrase, "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But Sally, having put on gym shorts, when to the gym." that's the same as saying "Billy didn't put on gym shorts. But, Sally went to the gym, having put on gym shorts" neither one proves that Billy didn't go to the gym (he may have gone to the gym in regular clothes to meet someone, or because he works there, or because he just likes to work out in regular clothes.) And, the second phrasing doesn't change the meaning of the first.
This is called Linguistic typology. In Greek, they may use a word order called Subject-object-verb: "The man the child loves." Whereas in English it would be "The child loves the man." My point is that flipping the structure doesn't change the meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject–object–verb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object%E2%80%93verb)
Of course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that. I'm just saying that I can put the punctuation marks elsewhere, were that the case, and create a different meaning which I feel better fits Paul's other arguments elsewhere and the information in Genesis 3.
Now you've just gone back to the original argument which was getting us nowhere. But did not mention that Adam sinned so it has to be inferred which makes for a poor argument.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMIt's not strange because in all those other cases he was talking about the foundation of the Gospel. In the case of Timothy he is not. He's talking about the role of women in the church. Paul's purpose determines what he spoke about.
But he doesn't explain it very well. it is argued badly.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMIt wouldn't affect the errancy of the text, only how the text is interpreted by the reader. A text can be without error even if people have a different viewpoint of its intended meaning.
Again we've been there. But knowing that isn't helpful.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMAnd that throws into question whether Paul was acting outside the will of Christ and worthy of Christ's rebuke in what he said. That also throws into question Paul's authority over what he said, whether or not error crept into the scripture.
My interpretation of the text doesn't throw Paul's foundational reasoning into question.
Mine doesn't either because it simply means trusting God to deliver his Word properly.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 06:51:36 PMI can't really speak to how other people interpret it that way. I can only say how I see what the scripture means. People can interpret the scripture in all manner of ways. I am just explaining how I interpret it.
:)
Quote from: CSTI'm not arguing that Timothy doesn't know the story, that would be very strange. But Paul doesn't make the argument your making, the woman transgressed first and then Adam in any specific sense. Therefore Timothy would have to read it in. I don't think assuming the person you're writing to will read the argument you mean but haven't stated into the text is a very powerful way to make an argument.
It's completely unclear as to how Timothy interpreted the passage. That's not the argument I am making. I'm raising a possibility for why Paul did not go into more detail about his reasoning. I'm not saying, "this is exactly what happened."
Quote from: CSTOf course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that.
My original point is that by reversing the sentence structure, we can see the sentence in a new light that does not change the meaning of the sentence. As long as the Subject, Verb and Object are retained, the sentence structure doesn't change the meaning.
If I say "Mary hit the ball," the Subject is Mary, the Verb is hit, and the Object is the ball. So, I can say "Hit the ball, Mary did." and because the Subject-Verb-Object hasn't changed, the meaning hasn't changed. But if I swap "Mary" for "Todd" or "hit" to "rolled" then I have changed the meaning.
If I say "Adam was not deceived. But, the woman came into transgression having been deceived" it doesn't change the meaning because the Subject-Verb-Object is preserved.
Quote from: CSTNow you've just gone back to the original argument which was getting us nowhere. But did not mention that Adam sinned so it has to be inferred which makes for a poor argument.
The Timothy letter
is not attempting to prove that Adam sinned in the first place so yeah it would have to be inferred. It can't be a weak argument for something it's not trying to argue. The point is that Timothy doesn't
deny or contradict that Adam sinned, which is what you said bothered you. That's been my point from the beginning and it hasn't changed.
Just because a piece of text doesn't make a positive claim doesn't mean it is denying that claim.
Quote from: CSTBut he doesn't explain it very well. it is argued badly.
He does leave it vague as to what deception has to do with the order of the church, I agree. But, I am more focused on whether or not Timothy disproves that Adam sinned, and I don't believe it does.
Quote from: CSTMine doesn't either because it simply means trusting God to deliver his Word properly.
If you are saying that Paul was influenced by his time as a Pharisee, it does imply to me that we ought to doubt Paul's alignment with Christ's desire for the church's structure. If that is not your intention, I accept that. But, I doubt I'd be alone in inferring that from your argument, just so you know.
It sounds like you are saying that Paul was off-base in his analysis because he was a former Pharisee and was returning to an error-prone reasoning that we should doubt.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 08:33:16 PM
It's completely unclear as to how Timothy interpreted the passage. That's not the argument I am making. I'm raising a possibility for why Paul did not go into more detail about his reasoning. I'm not saying, "this is exactly what happened."
If I understood you correctly, you were trying to argue that Paul intended his statement arguing from the fact man was created first and woman second as to why man should be first and woman second; and then you're trying to argue that Paul is also arguing that woman sinned first and man second is another reason why man should be first. But that the reader has to read in because he doesn't specifically state it, so Timothy would have to read it in. And to me that seems a strange way to make an argument: not actually making it but hoping the person you're presenting it to will conclude it from the subtext. The way it's normally presented all I can get is that Paul's arguing that woman's susceptibility to deception makes her a liability as any sort of leader as it can lead her into transgression. The new way I'm reading it, her capacity that, having been deceived she could lead others, maybe the whole church into transgression makes her a liability for everyone at least makes some sort of sense to me even if I'm unclear as to the details and if I agree with the fairnes of the thinking.
Quote from: CSTOf course, which is why I'm doubtful I can actually do what I'm trying to do, but I don't know what the grammar cues are in Greek. So far as I know there's no punctuation so if they've simply gone word-for-word and tried to create a sentence that reads well according to standard English (not Yoda speak) then they are making a professional judgement as to what it means and then adding their punctuation marks to convey that.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 08:33:16 PMMy original point is that by reversing the sentence structure, we can see the sentence in a new light that does not change the meaning of the sentence. As long as the Subject, Verb and Object are retained, the sentence structure doesn't change the meaning.
If I say "Mary hit the ball," the Subject is Mary, the Verb is hit, and the Object is the ball. So, I can say "Hit the ball, Mary did." and because the Subject-Verb-Object hasn't changed, the meaning hasn't changed. But if I swap "Mary" for "Todd" or "hit" to "rolled" then I have changed the meaning.
If I say "Adam was not deceived. But, the woman came into transgression having been deceived" it doesn't change the meaning because the Subject-Verb-Object is preserved.
Then I can't see what your purpose is because the sentence we have as usually presented gives that meaning anyway which I'm disputing due to problems I'm having with how it's relayed, what happens in Genesis and, yes, what something so unclear means for the inerrancy of the Bible.
The changes I make, change the meaning and show there is a way, at least to me, that what Paul is saying is a lot clearer and more consistent with both what we have in Genesis and his former theology.
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 08:33:16 PMThe Timothy letter is not attempting to prove that Adam sinned in the first place so yeah it would have to be inferred. It can't be a weak argument for something it's not trying to argue. The point is that Timothy doesn't deny or contradict that Adam sinned, which is what you said bothered you. That's been my point from the beginning and it hasn't changed.
Just because a piece of text doesn't make a positive claim doesn't mean it is denying that claim.
No what bothers me is that it seems to put being deceived
and transgressing above not being deceived but transgressing anyway to the point where the latter is so serious it neutralizes the effect of the former. So Paul not mentioning it looks less like a lapse and more like deliberate omission. Like his transgression, which looks more worse than Eve's because she was deceived while he knew exactly what he was doing, has been blotted out while her's has been retained so that it can punish her further my excluding women from any active roles in the church. The knock of effect being that women are continual held as second class and belittled and abused in most societies to the present day. Adam directly disobeyed God, what sort of example is that for the the type of people you want running a church?
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 08:33:16 PMHe does leave it vague as to what deception has to do with the order of the church, I agree. But, I am more focused on whether or not Timothy disproves that Adam sinned, and I don't believe it does.
But vague seems to contradict the concept of inerrancy. It can't be inerrant if there are numerous incorrect ways it can so easiliy be read, can if?
Quote from: Seth on June 16, 2016, 08:33:16 PMIf you are saying that Paul was influenced by his time as a Pharisee, it does imply to me that we ought to doubt Paul's alignment with Christ's desire for the church's structure. If that is not your intention, I accept that. But, I doubt I'd be alone in inferring that from your argument, just so you know.
It sounds like you are saying that Paul was off-base in his analysis because he was a former Pharisee and was returning to an error-prone reasoning that we should doubt.
Paul died a martyr for Christianity we have every reason to accept his loyalty to Christ and what he wrote clearly is trustworthy as far as his intent and sincerity is concerned and I don't doubt it.
But Jesus elected a man that the Bible makes very clear was a Pharisee quite probably as a lesson in forgiveness, a degree of which the Pharisees would normally never allow, along with all the numerous skills Paul had that he could bring to the job. But he's still also a trained Pharisee.
Remember there apparently (as I understand) aren't too many opposing schools of religious thinking in Israel 1st Century AD so contrary thought on any thing even would probably be quite narrow. Obviously there should only be one but somehow they seem to have ended up with three. The Pharisees who Paul used to be of and seem to be in charge, more or less, the Sadducees who Jesus didn't like much more than the Pharisees and obviously took the warning about the fruit quite literally and were wrong about that and the Essenes who aren't mentioned in the Bible but it's supposed Jesus was a Rabbi of their school because their weren't really any others. This actually sounds implausible given societies propensity to splinter but it's what I've heard.
My point is that while I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or else how do I trust it at all, I worry about how I should undersatnd that concept. After all there's a huge danger of declaring the inerrancy of the Bible to the exclusion of all else, which people do, and then end up elevating it above God which is idolatry and wrong. Exactly the same with the law, if you elevate it above God, which you're doing if you're trusting your salvation to it, you're committing idolatry.
So how inerrant is inerrant, because only God is inerrant and Paul certainly isn't and while he could have purged his thought of all bad Pharisaical thought (and this may not be bad even if the Pharisees taught it, they had to be right about some things, surely?) psychology is complex and I feel it would have taken a miracle. Which, of course, is possible but I'm not sure that effect of Paul's conversion is documented.
Let's look again at what happened in Eden, with different emphasis this time.
'And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and
have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;' (Gen. 3:17)
This is how the transgression is recorded in Genesis, God leaves no doubt before the reader that Adam has transgressed by disobeying his word. Paul knew this and should surely have learned this.
God doesn't address the woman of the serpent by repeating their offense, so that's why it's strange that Paul, supposedly writing under inspiration omits to mention it.
Quote from: CSTIf I understood you correctly, you were trying to argue that Paul intended his statement arguing from the fact man was created first and woman second as to why man should be first and woman second; and then you're trying to argue that Paul is also arguing that woman sinned first and man second is another reason why man should be first. But that the reader has to read in because he doesn't specifically state it, so Timothy would have to read it in.
The issue of why Paul makes the argument he does is not my primary concern. I agree, the text is vague. I see clues as to his reasoning, but that is beside the point. Timothy does not make a case that Adam is a non-sinner. That is my point.
Quote from: CSTNo what bothers me is that it seems to put being deceived and transgressing above not being deceived but transgressing anyway to the point where the latter is so serious it neutralizes the effect of the former. So Paul not mentioning it looks less like a lapse and more like deliberate omission.
As long as we agree that Timothy does not contradict Genesis, I have no problem wondering why Paul makes the argument he does. My only point is that Timothy does not make Adam a non-sinner.
Quote from: CSTBut vague seems to contradict the concept of inerrancy. It can't be inerrant if there are numerous incorrect ways it can so easiliy be read, can if?
Vagueness does not contradict the concept of inerrancy at all. The entire Old Testament was founded on the concept of SHADOWS. Things that the people tried to understand but could not and which were later explained by Jesus and the Apostles. Previous to those explanations those mysterious texts could have been read by errant people who reached errant conclusions about what it said.
Quote from: CSTThis is how the transgression is recorded in Genesis, God leaves no doubt before the reader that Adam has transgressed by disobeying his word. Paul knew this and should surely have learned this.
God doesn't address the woman of the serpent by repeating their offense, so that's why it's strange that Paul, supposedly writing under inspiration omits to mention it.
Again, you say "supposedly writing under inspiration" which casts into doubt whether or not Timothy letter, or parts of it, are inspired or trustworthy. That's a subtle way to denigrate the Timothy letter as unreliable (while in other places seeming to confirm that it is reliable.)
Either the Timothy letter is written under inspiration or it is not. Just because you don't understand Paul's reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean your psychoanalysis of him is correct or that his letter is not written by way of inspiration from God. I refer to the forum guidelines:
——
Tentmaker is a Biblical, Christian, Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Ultimate Reconciliation Site and Discussion Forum. We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures. There is MUCH room given for those things to be explored and discussed. However, our focus is
WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES. Gary Amirault has noted that there needs to be a respect for scripture in the discussion forum. Not any other members' point of view crammed down others' throats, but that the default setting is a respect for scripture. Accurately translated (as much as is currently possible),
(emphasis mine) and the Spirit within the letters having been revealed to us, they are reliable.http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/——
To me saying "supposedly writing under inspiration" is a way of subtly suggesting that Timothy wasn't written under inspiration. Was it or not?
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 06:43:12 PM
The issue of why Paul makes the argument he does is not my primary concern. I agree, the text is vague. I see clues as to his reasoning, but that is beside the point. Timothy does not make a case that Adam is a non-sinner. That is my point.
<sigh>If the text is really vague, how can anyone do anything with it? I doubt it was supposed to be 'vague' when Paul wrote it. Timothy wasn't meant to find it 'vague' most translators and commentators don't seem to find it vague. They just make determinations about what hey think it says then build various theologies or critques around it.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 06:43:12 PMAs long as we agree that Timothy does not contradict Genesis, I have no problem wondering why Paul makes the argument he does. My only point is that Timothy does not make Adam a non-sinner.
That's would be like admitting you're content not to know what the Bible means at that point. Which is fine if you're aware you're admitting that. But I do think it's important you are aware.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 06:43:12 PMVagueness does not contradict the concept of inerrancy at all. The entire Old Testament was founded on the concept of SHADOWS. Things that the people tried to understand but could not and which were later explained by Jesus and the Apostles. Previous to those explanations those mysterious texts could have been read by errant people who reached errant conclusions about what it said.
I'm not sure the Israelites thought it was vague when they received it Leviticus certainly doesn't read as being very vague, in fact a lot of 'Christians' use its presumed 'clarity' to back up their moral choices and attitudes.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 06:43:12 PMAgain, you say "supposedly writing under inspiration" which casts into doubt whether or not Timothy letter, or parts of it, are inspired or trustworthy. That's a subtle way to denigrate the Timothy letter as unreliable (while in other places seeming to confirm that it is reliable.)
Either the Timothy letter is written under inspiration or it is not. Just because you don't understand Paul's reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong and doesn't mean your psychoanalysis of him is correct or that his letter is not written by way of inspiration from God. I refer to the forum guidelines:
——
Tentmaker is a Biblical, Christian, Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, Ultimate Reconciliation Site and Discussion Forum. We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures. There is MUCH room given for those things to be explored and discussed. However, our focus is WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES. Gary Amirault has noted that there needs to be a respect for scripture in the discussion forum. Not any other members' point of view crammed down others' throats, but that the default setting is a respect for scripture. Accurately translated (as much as is currently possible), (emphasis mine) and the Spirit within the letters having been revealed to us, they are reliable.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/ (http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/)
——
To me saying "supposedly writing under inspiration" is a way of subtly suggesting that Timothy wasn't written under inspiration. Was it or not?
I thought I'd already made clear that I believed that the Bible was inerrant as far as I can understand what that means, but you ask an interesting question because the bit you're challenging was a rewrite because I wasn't sure about what I originally intended to write, which I can no longer remember sufficiently.
It was meant to subtly suggest anything except that it creates doubt in me about what God is trying to tell me.
Look I've tried to kill this conversation before to stop it getting to this point this time it's over because I'm clearly not making myself understood it pointless to go on.
Quote from: CST<sigh>If the text is really vague, how can anyone do anything with it? I doubt it was supposed to be 'vague' when Paul wrote it. Timothy wasn't meant to find it 'vague' most translators and commentators don't seem to find it vague. They just make determinations about what hey think it says then build various theologies or critques around it.
"<sigh>" is sarcastic and suggests you are getting exasperated with me.
Again, vagueness does not show that it's either uninspired or contradicting Genesis 3. It just means it's vague. God may put something vague in there to encourage trust: you may not understand what God means, but you can still trust him that he is right and that he will illuminate the meaning to you in due time.
Quote from: CSTThat's would be like admitting you're content not to know what the Bible means at that point. Which is fine if you're aware you're admitting that. But I do think it's important you are aware.
I absolutely have no problem admitting I don't know what something means. That doesn't mean I don't know what "the Bible" means, but there are parts of it I don't understand. I had to face that big time when I found out that most of my deeply held beliefs about hell and eternal torment were wrong. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge.
I think inferences are fine, but I'm not going to make up explanations that I will hold as definite just because I am uncomfortable not knowing something. I do appreciate that you use the word "seems" because it shows you are not doing that. But, then sometimes you say things like "supposedly under inspiration" as though you are making a positive argument that they aren't inspired just because they are vague and you don't understand them. And so it looks like you are deciding that they are uninspired because you are uncomfortable just not knowing. I believe it will all come to the light eventually. There is no shame in saying you don't know something.
Quote from: CSTI'm not sure the Israelites thought it was vague when they received it Leviticus certainly doesn't read as being very vague, in fact a lot of 'Christians' use its presumed 'clarity' to back up their moral choices and attitudes.
There was definitely meaning in it they didn't understand and it caused them to errantly interpret it.
Quote from: CSTI thought I'd already made clear that I believed that the Bible was inerrant as far as I can understand what that means, but you ask an interesting question because the bit you're challenging was a rewrite because I wasn't sure about what I originally intended to write, which I can no longer remember sufficiently.
I thought you had made it clear too. Then you reverted to "supposedly writing under inspiration." That makes it less clear so I had to ask.
Quote from: CSTLook I've tried to kill this conversation before to stop it getting to this point this time it's over because I'm clearly not making myself understood it pointless to go on.
As I recall, the point to which I have been responding has to do with whether or not Timothy seems to say that Adam was not a sinner. I don't think it makes that claim, and I don't think vagueness puts into question errancy.
I guess I'll ask at this point where this thread is going. You've both been civil, but as this isn't a debate forum, could you both take a minute and think about what's the purpose and likely benefit to all (including unbelievers passing through) of how much continuation in the current vein? I.e., what are we trying to accomplish that's beneficial? Thanks :)
I personally don't see how the thread is beneficial anymore to its original topic. But, it's hard for me to just let it go when the errancy or inspiration of scripture be questioned and not say something about it. The letter to Timothy is being questioned as being something that seems to contradict Genesis 3, seems to suggest Adam was not a sinner (contradicting Romans 5) and something that should be questioned on its errancy because of its vagueness. There is also a suggestion that an Apostle's words were affected by faulty reasoning due to his former association with the Pharisees. I do see the value in clarifying these points and if need be defending Timothy's harmony with those books and its inspiration and inerrancy for the benefit of folks who may come here questioning their long held beliefs and experiencing destabilizing anxiety when the inerrancy of scripture goes undefended.
I am not angry or insulting to him whatsoever. I am simply, calmly and rationally explaining why I believe Timothy can be trusted as an inerrant and inspired book of the Bible that does not conflict with other books. While I don't think the thread is on topic anymore, I so see value in addressing whether or not Paul is infected with Pharisee mindedness or whether his words are consistent, even if that means it goes into the weeds a bit on grammar and translation.
I agree that issue is important. And if that remains the only/main point of contention, that's easily settled. The default position of TM is that the scriptures are trustworthy when accurately translated and Spirit-revealed. Further, that repeated attempts to diminish their trustworthiness (taking into account translation) is not allowed on the boards so needs to cease. It appears that has run its course and a new direction needs to be taken now, including the options of either ending the thread or strictly getting back to the OP. Thanks!
:thumbsup: :HeartThrob:
Once a discussion reaches a point where the issue is whether the scriptures are reliable, because reasoning within the scriptures does not bring the conclusion on or more participants is looking for, I think it is time to just call it quits.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 07:35:20 PM
"<sigh>" is sarcastic and suggests you are getting exasperated with me.
Again, vagueness does not show that it's either uninspired or contradicting Genesis 3. It just means it's vague. God may put something vague in there to encourage trust: you may not understand what God means, but you can still trust him that he is right and that he will illuminate the meaning to you in due time.
Yesterday, as I said, I was all ready to end this debate for similar reasons to what the moderators have now said. However, I then made the 'mistake' (possibly) of going back and reading the whole passage in context and it suddenly looked like it might be harder to walk away from unresolved because it suddenly looks a lot more pertinent to a) the main purpose of the forum, b) the matter of inspiration/inerrancy which only seems to be all the more pertinent suddenly and c) the question of how vague things really are. I hope for the sake of politeness to answer your points first and then address the chapter in context and then the moderators can decide if these conclusions of mine are valid or if I'm simply over reading the text.
So, exasperation was there but I wouldn't call the sigh sarcastic as that would contradict the exasperation which was real because I'd started to feel we were going around in circles.
I like your sentiment though it sounds correct although I have some concerns that I plan to come so shortly.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 07:35:20 PMI absolutely have no problem admitting I don't know what something means. That doesn't mean I don't know what "the Bible" means, but there are parts of it I don't understand. I had to face that big time when I found out that most of my deeply held beliefs about hell and eternal torment were wrong. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge.
I think inferences are fine, but I'm not going to make up explanations that I will hold as definite just because I am uncomfortable not knowing something. I do appreciate that you use the word "seems" because it shows you are not doing that. But, then sometimes you say things like "supposedly under inspiration" as though you are making a positive argument that they aren't inspired just because they are vague and you don't understand them. And so it looks like you are deciding that they are uninspired because you are uncomfortable just not knowing. I believe it will all come to the light eventually. There is no shame in saying you don't know something.
I don't mind not understanding things in general either but I am concerned in 'controversial' parts like this when the understanding comes to a degree that results in an understanding that makes the text sound wrong to me. That I get bothered by. Though my alternative arrangement of the text looks somewhat less likely when put in the context of what immediately follows it.
This thread was meant to be about whether or not there are two evangels obviously me and you both hold that there is one and Paul claimed unequivocally there was one so claims there are two must be a misapprehension. Nevertheless the Evangel is meant to be 'Good News' and this part doesn't sound like very good news to women, in keeps them in slavery to men throughout human history because that's how they understand it. Knowing that the Bible is inspired isn't helpful in its self every church in the world claims this so they can call on it as a source of authority even while claiming things completely contrary to all the other churches and using it to do all sorts of appalling this and encourage division when they should be encouraging peace 1 Timothy has plenty to say about that too which I also hope to come to.
To give a particularly powerful example in the Gospel according to John, Jesus declares: 'The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (Jhn. 10:10)
Well that's the Gospel isn't it? 'Life abundantly' But the word 'life' is easier to co-opt than the word 'love' (where's this abundant life you promised?) and according to most churches doesn't benefit most people.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 07:35:20 PMThere was definitely meaning in it they didn't understand and it caused them to errantly interpret it.
Which unfortunately caused them to obey it to the point where they but people to death not in their loving interests but because of their own blood lusts or obeying it for the sake of obeying it. Thinking about the number of executions that occurred under a law we are now told was given purely to embarrass us is an uncomfortable thought.
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 07:35:20 PMI thought you had made it clear too. Then you reverted to "supposedly writing under inspiration." That makes it less clear so I had to ask.
Because the idea of inspiration is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it's necessary to give any Christian claims any authority or the other hands it's dangerously easy to co-opt to give any 'Christian' claims you want authority.
The idea behind inspiration and the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. Is that God's chosen teachers write under the influence of the Holy Spirit and so speak to us exactly what God wants us to hear, and they do so perfectly. The thing is that the speaker then is God and one of the things God says is this:
'"I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."' (Matt. 12:36-37)
Would God demand any less of Himself? People can easily speak things without knowing what the consequences of such things will be (such as me now) however what ever God says to us to record in the book that will become the Bible, He knows how it will be received and understood throughout all human history, so there is a huge burden of responsibility on everything He says, on every word in the Bible.
We know too well the myriad of ways the Bible and it's text have been used over history to control, abuse and oppress. Humanists particularly keep reminding us. God knew what the outcome of all things He said would be so He must have spoken wisely. The inspiration of scripture is a really heavy concept I'm not sure how must justice it does to it to settle on the idea of vagueness
Quote from: Seth on June 17, 2016, 07:35:20 PMAs I recall, the point to which I have been responding has to do with whether or not Timothy seems to say that Adam was not a sinner. I don't think it makes that claim, and I don't think vagueness puts into question errancy.
My concern is Paul, in 1 Timothy, apparently lifting the weight of transgression from Adam and putting it onto Eve in order to explain why women should serve men.
I think this is the time to put the verses back into their context which is rather more pertinent to the aims of UR and Tentmaker to see if I've over read something according to the opinions of the moderators. So 1 Timothy 2:
'First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.' (1-2)
That's how chapter 2 opens, as far as I can tell there's no second, third etc. that isn't the point, unless there's perhaps something else at the start of chapter 4. That sentiment should look familiar, whether is does or not what follows will be very familiar:
'This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.' (3-4)
Hooray, I tend to blend this with John 8:32 - '"and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."' Otherwise there's a danger that people could try to co-opt the meaning of the word 'truth' here and thus undermine what is being said. It's very hard to abuse the meaning of the word 'saved' although some may try if they got desperate enough. So to continue with Timothy:
'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (5-6)
Therefore qualifying verses 3-4.
'For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.' (7)
We always quote from here, we never ask why Paul felt the need to write this to Timothy what he already know, why he felt the need, why the Holy Spirit had him specify that he wasn't lying. Does this suggest that this is a lot earlier letter than it is often credited as being, that Paul is in an environment where maybe fellow apostles still doubt him? Maybe it's what he just said often seems very hard to accept. It's an odd thing to appear in the Bible.
He continues without a beat:
'I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. (8-10)
And now he moves from what to pray for to how to pray for it, or at least that what seems to have happened. Since what he's instructed them to pray for is UR and how to pray for it is presumably to increase the chance of getting it sooner this would seem to be pertinent to the conversation on the board. While I like the passage at 3-4 I sometimes wonder what the purpose of this prayer is. I have to assume it was try try and keep others in our hearts. After all God will only answer the prayer finally in His own good time and no amount of praying on our part will actually accelerate it, or I have no reason to believe it will.
I only have minor issues with the stipulations about women here because to all intents and purposes they seem equal to the men's in this regard. The issue that bothers me about all this is that Paul is instructing Timothy about Gentile believers in Ephesus, the society is quiet different to Israel. Now, it seems to me, when it came to men Paul threw out the circumcision, Gentile men do not have to follow the pattern of men Israel, but what this would suggest is that he, which must be understood as God really, expects Ephesian women to follow the pattern of Jewish women in Israel. Surely, that's what he's doing, which I would think would be his thinking when he says:
'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (11-12)
He seems to have repeated himself on the silent part there, possibly having 'listened to the voice of your wife' on his mind while writing:
'For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (13-14)
Bit we've been discussing, flowing out in very few lines form what started as a verse we essentially discuss in just about every topic. Then the chapter ends on this passage that makes my rearrangement of the above phrasing somewhat harder:
'Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.' (15)
So the opening of the chapter says that God desires all men to be saved, the close of the chapter says women will be saved, if she meets the 'provision' described above. I'd be worried about the Universal Salvation on the side of women if verse 6 didn't specify that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom 'for all' which would no doubt include women.
Because the matter of UR which we discuss is so powerful in this chapter I felt like, having 'discovered' that it would be remiss not to mention it because we may have been discussing UR without realizing we were doing so.
This is a really good letter to Timothy and I would like to close this post, and perhaps this thread, by referencing a couple of other things it says:
'This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae'us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.' 1 Tim. 1:18-20)
This, perhaps, doesn't seem exciting we learn here that there are some prophesies concerning Timothy's coming ministry though we don't learn what they are. We also learn that several Christians (Paul names two) have been led astray recently. It hard not to suspect Paul has these misfortunes on his mind when giving his directions on church leadership.
I'm going to close the post of is the big UR bit. A passage (chapter 4) that seems to confirm everything we believe in UR and all we see in the 'other' churches:
'Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.
Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance.
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things.Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.
Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
:) I don't need to repeat the big bit or the other bits I've highlighted hopefully I've got them to speak for themselves. But there are some other parts that attract me. That I'll just repeat:
'For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; or then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.' (4-5)
:)
'Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.' (13)
That line looks like one of the most inspired lines in Scripture, just reading it I feel it can be Jesus in reference to His second coming saying it as easily as Paul in reference to visiting Timothy in Ephesus.
'Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.' (16)
Is Paul really excluding women from this process? It's hard to imagne this doesn't connect to what he said at that point.
This is a spectacularly good book of the Bible with lots of useful UR content. And it's generally pretty clear. The two passages we've been discussing actually seems rather anomalous in the context of such a strong letter.
Unless the moderators feel this is being misused or misunderstood.
The thread has gone on too long with no resolution in sight. Every possibilty has already been discussed.
Time to take a break ;o)