Jerry, were these Roman Saints: Gentiles, Jews, Proselytes, or something else?
ECT glorydaz says that Romans is Written to Unbelievers
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Jerry, were these Roman Saints: Gentiles, Jews, Proselytes, or something else?
heir
TOL Subscriber
I can see that they had a faith, but not a mutual faith of both Paul and them. I can see that Paul writes to them longing to see them that he may impart unto them some spiritual gift, to the end they may be established and what that gift is. I can see they were in need of continuing in the goodness of God and I can also see they were identified as part of the remnant according to the election of grace which God foreknew. With all of that, I can conclude they became members of the one Body of Christ. I've no need to play your game of "let's say...". I'm only interested in what saith the scripture.
I'm not playing a game.
You guys claim there were two kinds of believers "kingdom" and "body" that had two different gospels.
All I'm trying to understand from you is which one of your groups these Roman believers were in before they ended up in your "Body" group.
If they weren't in the "Body" group before they heard "Paul's, my gospel", then wouldn't that mean they were in the "kingdom" group?
If so, then how were the Romans able to go from the "kingdom" group to the "Body" group?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It is not a matter of approach but instead in most instances it is a matter of unbelief. For instance, those in the Neo-MAD camp teach that the Jews who lived under the could not be saved apart from works.
But it is their unbelief about what is said here which leads them to their false teaching:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).
The Jews who lived under the Law cannot be excluded from the category "whosoever" so they too received everlasting life when they believed.
So the differences within the MAD camp is not because of differences in approach but instead is because some believe critical passages from the Bible and others do not1
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
Was he referring to Peter's speech and preaching as well?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at the Scriptures, especially Paul's words here where he describes exactly who he is addressing in 1 Corinthians:
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).
This epistle was not just addressed to those in the church at Corinth but all to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."
The Jewish believers who lived under the law could not be excluded because they too called on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So these words were addressed to them:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).
Those in the Neo-MAD community argue that not all of the Jews living at the time Paul wrote 1 Corintians were members in the Body of Christ.
But Paul's words prove that they are wrong.
"Very telling," that you are not ashamed of your habitual lying, acting:
"The rules of grammar have to be thrown out the window.."- stupid Tet. on TOL in the past spam
Vs.
"I rarely correct or point out someone's grammer and/or spelling"-stupid Tet. on TOL
Vs.
"No matter what you say or do, whether it's spelling, grammer, punctuation, etc. Johnny will try so hard to make you look like you aren't smart.""- stupid Tet. on TOL
Vs.
-stupid Tet. on TOL, to a poster:
"Do you even understand the simple basics of grammer?"-stupid Tet.
Vs.
"Spelling was never one of my strong points...."-Tet.
Vs.
"The Greek...subjunctive..."-Tet.
And the Oscar goes to....
noTetosterone Craigie, again!
And the punk mispells "grammar"-"grammer."
Last edited:
The punk lies so much, and he cannot even see it. He says he is not here to teach. Thus, all his posts are not to teach.
Thanks for the concession speech, fool.
Why are you here, Craigie?
"I am not here to teach, instruct, evangelize, or advise anyone."-Tet.
What's left? Let me guess:to learn.
Then shut up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He is here to discourage anyone and everyone from believing anything dispensational.
But he claims that is not teaching, of course. He's a habitual liar.
"Just one gospel..."-Tet.
According to you, your saint Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV-that is satanic.
You claim that your saint Judas preached this "just one gospel"-1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.
The book never taught you that. You had to have your, and Judas' father, the devil, teach you that.
Are you teaching in the above post?
"I thought you weren't here to teach anyone? "-heir
"I'm not. I'm here to learn."-Tet.
Romans 15:
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
As I've pointed out to you MANY times, you don't read the word verse by verse or chapter by chapter. I gave my response but instead of dealing with ALL I posted you rip out one small part and equivocate about it, which is exactly what you do to scripture.
he is addressing unbelievers in verses 5-13, which is why Paul uses THEY in v14.
Of course not.
It's the context.
Example:
(Phil 1:3 KJV) I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,
(Eph 3:14 KJV) For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
As we see above in Phil 1:3, Paul didn't have his very own God when he said "my God", but Paul was referring to his very own knees when he said "my knees".
You guys think that because Paul used the phrase "my gospel" it is proof positive that it was his very own gospel.
In the KJV, Paul uses the phrase "my Lord" 2 times in his epistles, and the phrase "my God" 7 times.
Paul uses the phrase "my gospel" 3 times.
(1 Cor 1:14 KJV) I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
Now compare with the following:
(2 Tim 2:8 KJV) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Why don't you give the topic of the thread a shot?
Do you agree with heir that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written to Gentile Proselytes who were not yet in the BOC?
If so, were these Roman Saints in your "kingdom" group before they got to go into your "Body" group?
No; you conclude that all who hold to Mid-Acts arrive at that in the way you conclude all who hold to Mid-Acts do.
Your assertion is off, because the conclusion you base it on - your conclusion - is off.
And your conclusion is off because the premise you deduce said conclusion from is also off.
Because the information you arrive at your premise from is off.
You turn what little anyone within Mid-Acts says, into a premise starved of much information [Romans thru Philemon] you then deduce from so little - your off-base conclusion; which you then assert.
And it makes sense to you only in light of all you have failed to consider, other than from your Partial Preterist Perspective; a perspective that, not surprisingly; arose out of this same failing of yours.
Here - The Mid-Acts Perspective as far back as about 300 AD:
Post #1, below:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4356290#post4356290
Last edited: