andyc
New member
Faith plus works is a contradiction.
How can faith be the evidence of something worked for?
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Faith plus works is a contradiction.
How can faith be the evidence of something worked for?
achduke
Active member
Circumcision of the heart was not just NT.
Deu 10:16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.
James 2
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.... 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
What?
No! I don't understand the question. Why would Paul have preached the Kingdom Gospel?
Two Apostleships, Two Gospels! (Gal. 2:9)
But Israel had been cut off when Paul showed up on the scene. The Kingdom Gospel was no longer valid unless you had already come to faith while that Gospel was in effect.
I Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
This is the Gospel of Grace!
The paradigm is getting in the way here. You are interpreting Paul's message as though there was no Jew or Gentile, which was accurate at the time Romans was written but that had not always been the case! Before Paul there WAS a distinction between Jew and Gentile. Before Paul, Gentiles had to become Jews.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
How many times has Gal. 2:9 been quoted on this thread?
By the way, have you ever noticed who the non-Pauline letters are addressed to?
Hebrews - The title of the letter makes this one sort of obvious.
James - "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greeting.
Peter - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
II Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle...
John - To the elect lady [Israel] and her children...
Jude - Brother of James (& Jesus) addressed to the same audience as II Peter as basically half of the epistle is essentially a quotation of Peter's epistle and addresses the same issue.
Revelation - Notice in Revelation 3:9 "Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not,...". Additionally, throughout the book Jesus is referred to as the Lamb, (a reference to Passover) and as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David" and if that wasn't enough Chapter 7 seals it (pun intended) as a book about Israel.
I'm not following you here.
This is the typical response I've heard a thousand times but it doesn't say the souls were added "to the spiritual kingdom", that's your doctrinal addition. And your John 18 reference implies that God never had any intention of giving Israel am earthly kingdom at all. Is this what you believe?
You are mixing dispensations again. Look, you cannot argue the veracity of your doctrine paradigm by making arguments that presuppose the veracity of your doctrinal paradigm. That's called begging the question.
Romans 9 would never ever ever never been preached by a soul prior to Paul!
Further, Paul is talking about those members of the nation of Israel who where believers! Romans 9 is about Israel having been cut off and why. Paul is saying that while Israel had been cut off corporately, God did not cut off those who had believed prior to the nation itself being cut off. In other words, God didn't cut off Peter, James, John or their coverts. He was NOT saying that Gentiles are now spiritual Jews! Paul would never had said such a thing.
Again you suggest that Israel does not have an Earthly kingdom promised to them. Is this really what you believe?
This fulfillment of prophecy was about Israel, Turbosixx! I don't understand how you could not have understood my point. The events of Acts 2 didn't just happen on some random meaningless Thursday afternoon. They happened on Pentecost - a JEWISH feast day - the very next feast day after First Fruits which had also be fulfilled on the exact day of the feast. Acts 2 CANNOT be when God cut off Israel!
This single point alone truly defeats Acts 2 Dispensationalism. If there was any dispensational change at all it MUST have taken place at some point after Acts 2 because the fulfillment of the Feast of Pentecost is proof that Israel's prophesied program was still fully on track at the close of Acts 2.
Resting in Him,
Clete
No, your point was one gospel with TWO audiences. Nick's point is the opposite.
I really do find it truly fascinating that someone can post an argument that they think refutes something that it clearly argues in favor of!
And I have no doubt that LA has done so honestly and cannot see at all how he just made MY point for me.
The power of paradigm is amazing!
I've said it many times before and I say it again here. The hardest and most important task for any student of theology is for that student to objectively evaluate the doctrinal paradigm from which he studies the scripture.
II Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Read James chapter 2 much?
Edit....
Oops!
I just noticed that Nick beat me to the punch on that one!
He knows. He saves it for when he convinces others that everyone said the same thing so then they can just skip Paul.
way 2 go
Well-known member
2nd covenant
Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
bloodshed and covenant confirmed each time the
work of circumcision is done.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
way 2 go
Well-known member
way 2 go
Well-known member
andyc
New member
The works are not to attain to salvation. The new man is a new creation where good works are supposed to flow naturally.
James was talking about providing for those in need. Someone who doesn't care for the needy, especially fellow saints, isn't saved. Whatever faith they claim to have, is not salvation faith. Good works are supposed to be fruit as a result of what God has done within believers.
Besides, your hero Paul taught the same thing.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Shock horror.
Paul explains that if you don't do a specific work in providing for the needs of others, you've denied the faith. Exactly what James was explaining.
James 2:15-16
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
All I can tell you is to re-read the thread. Pay particular attention to Nick's point about BOTH Peter and Paul went to the Jew first then the Gentile. It isn't the same message for two different audiences, its just two different messages.
I really don't know how it can be presented more clearly on a web forum. There have been whole books, several of them in fact, dedicated to this topic and the topic deserves that level of detail. Not because its particularly complex or difficult to understand but because it involves a paradigm shift that requires one of those "light bulb" moments where suddenly you see it and you can't understand how you couldn't have seen it before. Paradigm shift are really tough nuts to crack because human nature is designed to avoid such shifts. If they are approached too quickly they are almost always rejected. To be accepted, each step along the road toward the paradigm shift must be taken one at a time and with full understanding of why that step was taken and where it led from. Then, once the destination has been reached the whole course that led there can be examined objectively and a determination can be made as to whether the new paradigm is superior to the old.
It is a process that not one percent are willing to do. Typically, people are just way too invested in whatever paradigm they already understand the world with and the emotional, relational and perhaps even the financial costs would be more than they are willing to pay. Attempting to convince someone who has been to seminary or who makes their living as a preacher to make any significant theological paradigm shift is nearly hopeless. Not that it can't or hasn't happened, I'm sure it has, but my goodness is it rare. This is why its so important to teach people sound doctrine while they are young. Young people, say in their late teens to early thirties haven't had time to get too terribly entrenched into one set of ideas and are willing to at least question the things they were taught as a child.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Cross Reference
New member
It can never be 2 different messages that were preached but rather 2 different audiences that the same message needed to be adjusted for their respective understanding. That is an absolute! Get understanding, young man.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
LA the Great Judge of All Mankind pronounces another TOLer anathema.
Perhaps you are the one in for a rude awakening as you stand before the LORD and boast of all the good things you have done, while failing to trust Him?